Article
United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Press Release.
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON SITUATION IN OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES
Commission on Human Rights, 59th session 15 April 2003, Morning.
The Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions this morning calling for
Israel to cease repressive measures in the occupied Syrian Golan; end human
rights abuses and withdraw from Palestinian territories occupied since 1967;
and halt the construction of settlements in the occupied Arab territories.
The three measures, adopted by roll-call votes, were tabled under the
Commission's agenda item on the "question of the violation of human rights
in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine".
In a resolution on human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan, adopted by a
roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 1 against, with 21 abstentions, the
Commission called upon Israel to desist from changing the physical
character, demographic composition, institutional structure and legal status
of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasized that the displaced persons of
the population must be allowed to return to their homes and to recover their
properties; and determined that all legislative and administrative measures
and actions taken or to be taken by Israel that purported to alter the
character and legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan were null and
void.
The lone vote against the resolution was cast by the United States.
A Representative of Israel said Israel had come into possession of the Golan
Heights in self-defense against a war initiated by neighbouring Arab
countries, that Israel had been negotiating with Syria to reach a peaceful
solution to outstanding problems, including the issue of the Golan Heights,
and that the resolution was one-sided.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said Syria wanted to negotiate
with Israel, but Israel wanted both peace and the land it had occupied, and
should instead manifest its real need for peace.
In a resolution on the question of the violation of human rights in the
occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, adopted by a roll-call vote
of 33 in favourand 5 against, with 15 abstentions, the Commission among
other things reaffirmed the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to
resist the Israeli occupation in order to free their land and be able to
exercise their right to self-determination; strongly condemned the
violations by the Israeli occupation authorities of human rights in the
territory, including East Jerusalem; the Israeli occupation of the
Palestinian territory; the war launched by the Israeli army against
Palestinian towns and camps which had so far resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children; and the practice of
"liquidation" or "extrajudicial executions" carried out by the Israeli army
against Palestinians.
A Representative of Israel said that if the resolution really aimed to end
violence, it would have included a clear and unequivocal demand for the
Palestinian leadership to cease and desist from all acts of violence and
would have called upon their followers, including their paramilitary militia
groups and security forces, to end the violent armed attacks and suicide
terrorist bombings against Israelis that they had initiated in September
2000.
A Representative of Palestine said the situation in the occupied territories
had deteriorated under increased military action by Israel and that Israel,
through its actions, was practicing what amounted to State terrorism.
In a resolution on Israeli settlements in the occupied Arab territories,
adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour and 1 against, with 2
abstentions, the Commission expressed grave concern at continuing Israeli
settlement activities, including the illegal installation of settlers in the
occupied territories and related activities, such as the expansion of
settlements, the expulsion of Palestinians and the construction of bypass
roads, which changed the physical character and demographic composition of
the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. The resolution said
settlements were a major obstacle to peace and to the creation of an
independent, viable, sovereign and democratic Palestinian State.
The United States cast the dissenting vote.
The Representative of Israel said the issue of settlements was one of those
difficult issues left to be negotiated with all outstanding issues during
permanent status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and the
resolution was not about settlements at all, but rather dealt with political
and non-human-rights matters under the guise of a discussion of settlements.
The Representative of Palestine said settlements were yet another phase of
the Israeli occupation and could not be negotiated as they constituted a war
crime and must be dismantled for the sake of a permanent peace.
The Commission also continued general debate this morning on its remaining
agenda items. These cover the topics of specific groups and individuals; the
report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights; the promotion and protection of human rights; advisory services and
technical cooperation in the field of human rights; and rationalization of
the work of the Commission.
Providing statements were Representatives of Algeria, Pakistan, Syrian Arab
Republic, Sri Lanka, Finland, Paraguay (on behalf of the MERCOSUR
countries), Paraguay (national statement), Uruguay, New Zealand, Cameroon,
Thailand, Armenia, and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
The Commission will reconvene at 3 p.m. to continue its open debate on
remaining agenda items.
Action on Resolutions on Question of the Violation of Human Rights in the
Occupied Arab Territories, including Palestine
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.3) on human rights in the occupied Syrian
Golan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favourand 1 against, with 21
abstentions, the Commission called upon Israel, the occupying power, to
comply with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and Security
Council, particularly resolution 497 (1981) in which the Council decided
that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and
administration on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void and without
international legal effect; called upon Israel to desist from changing the
physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure and
legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan, and emphasized that the displaced
persons of the population must be allowed to return to their homes and to
recover their properties; called upon Israel to desist from imposing Israeli
citizenship and Israeli identity cards on the Syrian citizens in the
occupied Golan and to desist from its repressive measures against them;
determined that all legislative and administrative measures and actions
taken or to be taken by Israel that purported to alter the character and
legal status of the occupied Syrian Golan were null and void, constituted a
flagrant violation of international law and of the Geneva Conventions, and
had no legal effect; called upon member States not to recognize any of the
legislative or administrative measures referred to above; and requested the
Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention to all
Governments and other relevant organizations.
The results were as follows:
In favour (31): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Chile, China,
Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland,
Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (21): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan,
Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
and Uruguay.
A Representative of Israel, speaking before the vote, said the Commission
must remember how Israel came into possession of the Golan Heights. It was
in self-defense against a war initiated by neighbouring Arab countries.
Syria lost the war, which she started in 1967, and lost that territory. In
recent years, Israel had been negotiating with Syria, attempting to reach a
peaceful solution to outstanding problems including the issue of the Golan
Heights. An agreement was almost reached several years ago in a famous
meeting between the late President Assad and US President Bill Clinton. This
unique opportunity was lost because of Mr. Assad's negative reply to the
Israeli proposal. Israel was still committed to negotiating a peace
settlement with Syria.
Passing one-sided resolutions that determined the future of one of the
outstanding issues, i.e. the Golan Heights, prejudged the outcome of these
negotiations and created a disincentive for the Syrians to return to the
negotiating table. Israel also called on Syria to close the offices of ten
major terrorist organizations in Damascus and to arrest the leaders of these
organizations. Syria should also provide information on the whereabouts of
three Israeli soldiers who had been missing for 21 years. Israel called on
members of the Commission to vote against draft resolution L.3.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said things seemed to be going
upside-down with Israel accusing its victims of not wanting peace. It would
take courage to say that Israel was the aggressor and wished to come to the
negotiating table. On the basis of United Nations resolutions, Syria wanted
to negotiate with Israel. But Israel wanted both peace and the land it had
occupied. It took courage not to expel people in the Golan from their land;
it took courage not to kill Palestinians in the occupied territories; and it
should be courageous to accept the Arab peace proposal, which aimed at
settling the situation in peaceful manner. Israel should manifest its real
need for peace. It had killed Egyptian prisoners of war; it had shot down
civilian planes; and it continued to kill people in the region. Syria called
on Commission members to vote for the resolution.
A Representative of the United States, explaining the country's vote before
the vote, said the resolution on the Syrian Golan was another completely
one-sided text containing biased and unwarranted criticism aimed at Israel.
Its adoption would in no way move the Commission any closer to resolving the
status of the Syrian Golan or improving the lives of those individuals
resident there. The goal of the United States was a comprehensive peace with
security for all States of the region. The United States had not forgotten
that Israel still faced hostility from two of its neighbors, Syria and
Lebanon. Direct negotiations between the parties were the only viable way to
reach a lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This resolution on
the Syrian Golan again reflected the overriding bias within the Commission
on the question of Israel.
One could not but notice that the Arab- Israeli situation was the only
regional problem to be the sole subject of an entire item on the
Commission's agenda, when it should really fall under item 9. Only a grave
distortion of judgment about the relative gravity of human rights abuses
worldwide would account for such disproportionate attention by the
Commission. The Commission's approach to this matter detracted from its
essential role of addressing serious human rights abuses wherever they might
occur. The United States urged others to join in rejecting the Commission's
biased approach by voting against this resolution.
A Representative of Canada said that while Canada agreed with some elements
contained in the resolution, there were others which it could not support.
Canada recognized that the Golan was occupied territory and did not
recognize permanent Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967.
Canada also supported the concept that the peace process must be based on
Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. However, the resolution provided
neither the full context nor a balanced assessment of the situation of the
region. For this reason, Canada would abstain.
A Representative of Guatemala said the delegation was concerned by the
wording of some of the paragraphs in the draft resolution. It was of the
view that the problem of occupation should be dealt with by the Security
Council and not by the Commission. The human rights violations of occupied
people were a subject to be dealt with by the Security Council or other
United Nations bodies. The Commission should devote its attention to human
rights violations in other States. The Guatemalan delegation would abstain
in the vote on draft resolution L.3.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.12) on the question of the violation of human
rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, adopted by a
roll-call vote of 33 in favourand 5 against, with 15 abstentions, the
Commission reaffirmed the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to
resist the Israeli occupation in order to free their land and be able to
exercise their right to self-determination; strongly condemned once more the
violations by the Israeli occupation authorities of human rights in the
territory, including East Jerusalem; the Israeli occupation of the
Palestinian territory; the war launched by the Israeli army against
Palestinian towns and camps which had so far resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children; the practice of
"liquidation" or "extrajudicial executions" carried out by the Israeli army
against Palestinians; the establishment of Israeli settlements and other
related activities in the occupied Palestinian territory; the expropriation
of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem and Hebron, the revocation of identity
cards of the citizens of East Jerusalem, and the imposition of fabricated
and exorbitant taxes with the aim of driving Palestinian citizens of
Jerusalem out of their homes, and called upon the Government of Israel to
put an end immediately to these practices; condemned the use of torture
against Palestinians during interrogation; the offensives of the Israeli
army of occupation on ambulances and paramedical personnel and the practice
of preventing ambulances and vehicles of the International Committee of the
Red Cross from reaching the wounded in order to transport them to hospital;
expressed grave concern at the deterioration of the human rights and
humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, and
particularly at the acts of mass killing perpetrated by the Israeli
occupying authorities against the Palestinian people; at the military siege
imposed on the Palestinian territory and the isolation of Palestinian towns
and villages; at the restriction of movement imposed on Chairman Yasser
Arafat by the Israeli occupation authorities; at the massive arrests
conducted by the Israeli occupying authorities against about 15,000
Palestinians, without trail and without any criminal charges having been
brought against them; affirmed anew that the demolition by the Israeli
occupying forces of at least 30,000 Palestinian houses was a grave violation
of articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that the Fourth
Geneva Convention was applicable to the Palestinian territory occupied by
Israel since 1967, and any change in the geographical, demographic and
institutional status of the city of East Jerusalem from its status prior to
the June 1967 war to be illegal and void; called once again upon Israel to
desist from all forms of violation of human rights in the occupied
Palestinian territory and to withdraw from the territory occupied since
1967; and called upon the relevant United Nations organs urgently to
consider the best ways to provide the necessary international protection for
the Palestinian people until the cessation of the Israeli occupation.
The results were as follows:
In favour (33): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (5): Australia, Canada, Germany, Peru, and United States.
Abstentions (15): Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Croatia, France,
Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom,
and Uruguay.
A Representative of Israel said the wording and implications of the text of
L.12 contributed neither to the advancement of human rights nor to the
cessation of violence in the area; nor would L.12 contribute to peace and
security through a return to the negotiating table. Were this draft text
prepared with the aim of ending violence, it would have included a clear and
unequivocal demand for the Palestinian leadership to cease and desist from
all acts of violence and would have called upon their followers, including
their paramilitary militia groups and security forces, to end the violent
armed attacks and suicide terrorist bombings against Israelis that they had
initiated in September 2000. Were the authors of this draft resolution
committed to ending incitement, hatred and violence, they would call upon
the Palestinian leadership, media, the preachers in the mosques, in Gaza and
the West Bank, to end their anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish campaign and their
rhetoric of hatred. The text before the Commission was completely one-sided
and politicized. It was replete with unsubstantiated accusations against
Israel, and Israel alone, thus rendering the resolution meaningless.
Whatever the item on the agenda, item 8, item 9, development, housing,
whether it related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or not, Israel was
singled out for different treatment and blamed for all the failures of the
Palestinians. Israel suggested to some of the speakers who chose Israel as a
scapegoat for the failures of the Palestinian Authority to protect human
rights and to deliver humanitarian assistance and social services to their
people to pause for a moment of introspection. Funds allocated to the
Palestinian Authority were misappropriated. A conscious decision of certain
Arab States and of the Palestinian leadership was to perpetuate the plight
of those Palestinians who had become refugees in 1948 and their descendent
by keeping them in refugee camps as political pawns and agents of incitement
to be used against Israel in public, such as in the Commission. If the
countries represented in the Commission by such eloquent speakers were
really concerned with the plight of these refugees, would they have kept
them and their descendents in camps for 55 years?
A Representative of Palestine said the Commission was debating the
deterioration of the situation in Palestine while the Israeli delegation was
talking the opposite. The vast majority of the members of the Commission had
adopted a similar resolution last year. The situation in the occupied
territory had deteriorated with the increased military action by Israel; and
the number of martyrs had been increased with many Palestinians being
killed. Many villages had been isolated by Israel measures of blockade.
Israel, through its actions, had practiced what amounted to State terrorism.
The actions taken by Israel had been in violation of all relevant
international norms. The occupation itself, let alone the human rights
violations of the occupied people, was a violation of international law. The
Israel authorities were retreating more and more from peace negotiations.
Palestine once again called on the Commission to adopt draft resolution L.12.
A Representative of the United States said the United States was deeply
concerned about violence and terrorist activities in Israel, the West Bank
and Gaza and about the human rights violations that had accompanied that
violence. However, it was clear that Israel was not responsible for all the
ills plaguing the people in the region. Unfortunately, resolution L.12
failed to recognize that simple fact. This resolution simply ignored the
fact that Israeli actions took place in the context of Palestinian terrorist
attacks against Israeli civilians. Among the most egregious provisions in
all the resolutions considered under this agenda item was the language on
right to resistance, which attempted to justify the use of terrorism by
Palestinians against Israelis.
The United States found any act of terrorism morally unjustifiable.
Palestinian suicide bombers murdered innocent Israeli men, women and
children, and these actions must be condemned in the strongest terms.
Adoption of such a resolution would be contrary to the very concept of human
rights. The actions of this Commission appeared divorced from reality and
furthered reduced the credibility of the Commission and increased the
mistrust and fear that fueled the region's hatred. The United States would
call for a vote and would oppose this resolution.
A Representative of Canada said Canada was deeply concerned about human
rights in the Palestinian territories and had consistently called on Israel
to comply with its obligations under international law. However, this
resolution contributed neither to an improvement of the situation on the
ground not towards a solution of the conflict. It contained unacceptable and
often inflammatory language directed exclusively at one party to the
conflict. The failure of the resolution to condemn all acts of violence,
particularly in the context of suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians,
was a serious oversight which rendered the resolution fundamentally
unacceptable. Suicide bombings, rocket attacks and other actions intended to
harm civilians and sow fear among the civilian population were human rights
violations deeply repugnant to the Commission's core values. No claim could
ever justify these crimes. For these reasons, Canada would vote against
resolution L.12.
A Representative of Guatemala said the delegation was concerned by the
pertinence of a resolution that would address the protection of the human
rights of the people affected by Israeli occupation of Arab territories. The
political character of the occupation should be addressed by other United
Nations bodies rather than by the Commission. The resolution also should
take into consideration the suffering of both peoples affected by the
conflict. Guatemala would abstain from the vote on draft resolution L.12.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.18) on Israeli settlements in the occupied
Arab territories, adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour and 1 against,
with 2 abstentions, the Commission called upon the Israeli Government to
cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967; expressed grave concern at
the continuation, at an escalated level, of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict; at the continuing Israeli settlement activities, including the
illegal installation of settlers in the occupied territories and related
activities, such as the expansion of settlements, the expulsion of
Palestinians and the construction of bypass roads, which changed the
physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories,
including East Jerusalem, as settlements were a major obstacle to peace and
to the creation of an independent, viable, sovereign and democratic
Palestinian State; strongly condemned all acts of violence, including
indiscriminate terrorist attacks killing and injuring civilians,
provocation, incitement and destruction; expressed concern at the closures
of and within the Palestinian territories and the restriction of the freedom
of movement of Palestinians; urged the Government of Israel to comply fully
with previous Commission resolutions on the subject of the settlements; to
reverse its settlement policy; to prevent any new installation of settlers;
to stop the construction of the so-called security fence in the Palestinian
territories; to implement the recommendations regarding the settlements made
by the High Commissioner for Human Rights; to take and implement serious
measures with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli
settlers, and other measures to guarantee the safety and protection of
Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories; and urged the parties to
cooperate in the early and unconditional implementation, without
modifications, of the road map endorsed by the Quartet with the aim of
resuming negotiations on a political settlement.
The results were as follows:
In favour (50): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium,
Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India,
Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden,
Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (2): Australia, and Costa Rica.
A Representative of Israel said the issue of settlements was one of those
difficult issues left to be negotiated with all outstanding issues during
permanent status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. This year,
the resolution L.18 on settlements was not about settlements at all. Rather,
it dealt with political and non-human-rights matters under the guise of a
discussion of settlements.
This resolution criticized the security fence, a defensive measure which
Israel had felt bound to introduce because of the continuous wave of
violence, the infiltration of terrorists into Israel across the pre-1967
borders, in order to place bombs and dynamite charges. In the absence of any
significant counteraction by the Palestinian Authority, Israel had no choice
but to establish a defensive mechanism in the form of a security fence.
Prior to the current wave of violence, there was no need for restrictions on
freedom of movement. What necessitated these defensive measures to protect
the right to life of Israeli civilians was the violence imposed upon Israel
by a conscious decision of the Palestinian Authority.
A Representative of Palestine said settlements were yet another phase of
occupation. It was a military phase since all Israeli settlers in areas
implanted in Palestinian territories were military and armed. Settlements
had been referred to in international law as a crime of war. The first
protocol to the Geneva Conventions reiterated this fact in its article 85.
Israel wanted this issue to be discussed and negotiated. Settlements could
not be negotiated, they constituted a war crime and must be dismantled for
the sake of a permanent peace.
The draft resolution before the Commission included something new compared
to previous sessions. In operative paragraph 3 b, it referred to the
dismantlement of settlements in order to achieve peace. It was a very
important element and a key issue for a long-lasting peace. Operative
paragraph 4 stressed the need to adhere to the road map for peace. The
Commission was suggesting the acceptance of the road map without amendments,
as opposed to the 19 amendments previously suggested by Israel. Palestine
stood behind this draft resolution and wished to be a co-sponsor.
A Representative of the United States said resolution L.18 was inconsistent
with the joint statement of the Quartet and the Road Map. It failed to
recognize that all sides had responsibilities if the peace process was to
move forward. It never once cited the obligations and responsibilities of
the Palestinians themselves or criticized those who harboured Palestinian
terrorist groups and offered support for their activities. Reducing
terrorism and enhancing the security of all parties was something both
parties must do.
A Representative of Canada said Israeli settlement activities undermined the
hopes of Palestinians and prejudiced the prospects for a fair-minded peace.
Canada considered those activities to be contrary to international law and
an obstacle to the establishment of a viable Palestinian State. Israel
should freeze all settlement activities. Canada would vote in favour of
draft resolution L.18.
A Representative of Australia said Australia regarded Israeli settlements as
an obstacle to long-standing peace. However, Australia would abstain in the
vote on draft resolution L.18 since the draft resolution did not condemn in
equal terms all acts of violence.
A Representative of Algeria said Algeria would vote in favour of draft
resolution L.18. It welcomed it as being one of the most positive texts on
the situation in the Middle East. It was clearly stated that the two
international Covenants were being violated by the establishment of
settlements in the occupied territories. Every day members of the Israeli
Government called for the deportation of the Palestinian people and this was
also referred to in the text of the European Union. Algeria noted that
unfortunately it could not cosponsor the resolution since Paragraph 4
mentioned the Road Map initiative, which Algeria was not familiarized with
since it had not read the text of that initiative.
A Representative of Argentina said Argentina would vote in favour of draft
resolution L.18 because of the country's concern about the deteriorating
situation in the region. The fact that Argentina supported the resolution
should not be interpreted as not condemning all terrorist activities.
Argentina supported the proposition that Palestinians and Israelis live in
peace within determined territories as two States.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union,
explained that the EU had not been able to support resolution on L.3 on the
Syrian Golan since a stronger focus was needed on the human rights issue.
Concerning resolution L.12, the European Union was highly disturbed by the
on-going cycle of violence, settlements and collective punishments in the
occupied Palestinian territories. Israel bore the full responsibility for
sanctioning such human rights violations. At the same time, the Palestinian
suicide bombings continued. These acts must be unequivocally condemned and
the Palestinian Authority bore the responsibility for preventing such
violations of human rights. Whilst the resolution condemned terrorism
indirectly, the language of the text was not strong enough. In addition,
parts of the language were not appropriate for the Commission.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said Syria had voted in favour
of resolution L.18 because the text emphasized the illegitimate character of
the Israeli occupation of all Arab territories. Syria noted that operative
paragraph 4 made reference to the Road Map. Syria did not know what the
content of the Road Map was and did not know whether the Road Map was
consistent with the relevant Security Council Resolutions and the Madrid
Conference for peace in the Middle East based on the principle of land for
peace.
A Representative of Brazil said Brazil had supported the resolution on the
Syrian Golan to express Brazil's support for the thrust of the draft, in
particular for the need to resume peace talks for the establishment of a
just and comprehensive peace in the region. However, Brazil wished to stress
the position of the Brazilian Government that the frontiers between Israel
and Syria were a matter of negotiation between both parties, on the basis of
the parameters established by Security Council resolution 242.
General Debate
LAZHAR SOUALEM (Algeria) said the situation of migrants continued to give
rise to a certain amount of concern. The scope of this phenomenon showed the
disfunctioning of international society, and consisted of inequalities
produced as a result of globalization. Globalization was intended to improve
the situation of peoples worldwide, but instead had been one of the leading
causes of migration. The causes of migration could also be found in
situations of war and armed conflict. Unfortunately, migration involved
millions of people around the world. The events of 11 September had brought
about a new surge of xenophobia and fear directed against migrants. Algeria
had participated in a conference in Tunisia on migration. It was a first
step, and had provided the opportunity to discuss harmonized methods of
dealing with all aspects of problems related to migration.
Algeria was also concerned about internally displaced persons. The number of
countries affected by migration and internally displaced persons was
growing. A decade had seen calls for cooperation between the bodies of the
United Nations on issues related to migration. Lack of initiative by
Governments had been made up for by efforts and initiatives through
international organizations to protect the human rights of displaced
persons. Nonetheless, much hard work was still required from all parties
concerned.
IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan) said the Constitution of Pakistan guaranteed the
fundamental rights of minorities, which constituted 3 per cent of Pakistan's
total population of 140 million. Minorities in Pakistan were a valued asset.
Apart from their contribution in all walks of life they were an important
component of the cultural diversity of Pakistan. Last year, in deference to
the minorities' longstanding demand, the separate electorate system had been
abolished in Pakistan. The abuse of the blasphemy law and violence against
minorities were issues of great concern to Pakistan. Appropriate
administrative and legal safeguards were being promulgated to thwart the
abuse of minorities' rights.
Human rights defenders had remained under assault in many societies,
especially in situations of armed conflict and foreign occupation. Impunity,
wrapped in draconian security measures, had been a major impediment to the
noble efforts of the human rights defenders. Freedom of opinion and
expression and eradication of the impunity of State apparatuses were
essential measures for facilitating the promotion of awareness of
fundamental rights in all societies.
AYMAN RAAD (Syrian Arab Republic), speaking under agenda item 15, said the
work accomplished by human rights defenders was essential for pursuing the
efforts of the Commission. Human rights defenders should carry out their
noble mission without any impediment. The work submitted by the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Hina
Jilani, was to be commended.
However, she had made reference to Syria, which she should not do. The
inclusion of Syria in the Special Rapporteur's report would be without any
credibility. The Government of Syria was doing all it could to promote the
work of human rights defenders.
PRASAD KARIYAWASAM (Sri Lanka) said momentous developments were now taking
place in Sri Lanka. The 20-year-old armed conflict was no more. The
Government had consciously chosen a path to win peace, and not war. The
process of reconciliation towards establishing a permanent political
settlement in the country was firmly on course. Respect for the rights of
the individual had been a traditional virtue in Sri Lankan society, since
the predominant beliefs of the country enshrined the concept of the dignity
of the individual and the principle that every human being was born equal.
In this context, it was the Government's belief that individual rights and
the collective rights of a group or a society were mutually complementary
and not mutually exclusive and that one type did not take precedence over
the other. Any attempts to trample individual rights for the sake of group
rights would only promote forms of totalitarian or undemocratic practice.
The Government was undertaking action to improve freedom of expression, to
ensure greater media freedom, to introduce new legislation aimed at opening
up the Government more to people, and to achieve gender equality.
HANNU KYROLAINEN (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic and Baltic
countries, said the Nordic and Baltic countries supported the development of
new international human rights instruments where they could further enhance
the enjoyment of human rights or meet a well-founded need. It was of utmost
importance that the efficiency of the work of treaty bodies be ensured
through adequate resources. Their proper functioning should not under any
circumstances be dependent on voluntary contributions. The inadequate
implementation of existing conventions remained a key problem of the UN
human rights system. All States were urged to make widely available their
periodic reports as well as the full texts of concluding observations on
their reports in order to facilitate transparency and effective national
follow-up to concluding observations,
The functioning of the treaty bodies needed to be kept under constant
supervision, and follow-up mechanisms should be systematically developed.
Strong and effective national institutions could contribute substantially to
the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was important
to give these institutions the possibility of commenting on draft
legislation and draft policy papers that concerned human rights issues,
including on the subject of the compatibility of national laws and practices
with international human rights norms.
LETICIA CASATI (Paraguay) said the countries of the MERCOSUR group,
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and the associated countries of Bolivia
and Chile, were giving higher priority to the promotion and protection of
human rights. Since 2000, officials dealing with issue of human rights in
the respective countries had met periodically for consultations and for
coordinating a common policy. The meetings had allowed the countries to
consolidate their policies and to exchange best practices. These countries
affirmed their commitment to the universal implementation of legal
instruments and mechanisms intended to protect human rights. They also found
it essential to design principles to elaborate policies and strategies by
Governments on human rights.
Cooperation among States and international organizations was essential for
the effective implementation of the international humanitarian laws and to
guarantee access by individuals to protective mechanisms. MERCOSUR attached
great importance to the attention given by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights on technical cooperation under the Quito
framework
JULIO DUARTE VAN HUMBECK (Paraguay), speaking in the country's national
capacity, reaffirmed the importance of the establishment, strengthening and
functioning of national human rights institutions. The Government of
Paraguay had recognized the importance of national institutions and their
role in the promotion and protection of human rights. The Commission was
informed that Paraguay had ratified several international human rights
instruments and was engaging in dialogue with human rights defenders and
civil society activists. The Government was working in consultation with
civil society to create a solid basis for a national human rights plan.
It was stressed that cooperation played an important role in strengthening
national bodies. The High Commissioner for Human Rights was therefore
congratulated for giving priority to national institutions and their
strengthening through technical assistance. The High Commissioner was indeed
a good partner, and the Commission was informed that Paraguay had already
signed an agreement on technical cooperation with the Office of the High
Commissioner.
RICARDO GONZALEZ (Uruguay) said Uruguay considered international cooperation
to be fundamental for facilitating the full enjoyment of human rights.
Uruguay supported actions undertaken by the international community to
promote and protect human rights, and cooperated with all mechanisms of the
Commission. At the regional level, Uruguay attached great importance to the
workshops organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
on the preparation of reports on economic and social rights. The next
workshop would be held in Montevideo from 7-9 May and would focus on the
implementation of affirmative action measures to promote the rights of
people of Afro-American descent.
At the sub-regional level, Uruguay stressed the importance of the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights continuing its cooperation with
Mercosur countries and with Chile. At the national level, Uruguay continued
to be open to cooperation in the field of human rights and was harmonizing
national legislation with international standards in the field of human
rights.
JILLIAN DEMPSTER (New Zealand), also speaking on behalf of Australia and
Canada, said the human rights treaty body system was an important means of
holding States accountable for their obligations under the six core human
rights treaties. But more than that, it enabled States to engage in
constructive dialogues with the treaty committees about best practices,
acknowledging that there was always room for improvement in the
implementation of their human rights obligations. The reporting process
could be a useful means of informing and complementing the development of
States' national human rights protection systems. There were, however, a
number of issues that threatened to undermine the effectiveness of the human
rights treaty system. That included the extent of non-reporting and overdue
reports and the capacity of the committees to consider States' reports promptly.
Addressing the challenges facing the human rights treaty body system
required a cooperative approach by States, the six treaty bodies, the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, non-governmental organizations
and national human rights institutions. All of those actors had a stake in
the human rights treaty body system. The improvement of that system was
something many had advocated, and New Zealand and others intended to
contribute positively. Many States struggled with the onerous
responsibilities of treaty body reporting. That was a particular concern for
small developing States.
JEAN SIMPLICE NDJEMBA ENDEZOUMOU (Cameroon) expressed gratitude to the
United Nations and the Commission for its promotion and protection of,
without discrimination, the human rights and fundamental freedoms of people
with disabilities. A future international convention on the human rights of
people with disabilities would be an important step in the right direction.
It would be a decisive, determined and fundamental step forwards. It would
affect the manner in which people viewed each other, and surmount and break
existing psychological barriers, whether they were that of indifference,
fear, or hatred. In Cameroon, there were 1.5 million people with
disabilities, constituting almost 10 per cent of the population. The
Government of Cameroon would therefore participate actively in the drawing
up of a draft convention on the human rights of people with disabilities.
Cameroon believed education was an indispensable facet to the full enjoyment
of all human rights. In Africa education remained the best weapon in the
fight for progress. In this context, the Commission was informed that the
Government of Cameroon had signed the Vienna Plan of Action and fully
supported the United Nations Decade on human rights education.
LAXANACHANTORN LAOHAPHAN (Thailand) said Thailand had consistently upheld
the rule of law and would continue to do so. It also attached great
importance to the work of human rights defenders both at the national and
international levels. Since January, Thailand had become a party to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. While
Thailand strove to strengthen its human rights mechanisms, it felt that
regional and cross-regional cooperation on human rights must be enhanced to
allow the sharing of experiences and best practices.
Thailand strongly supported the advisory services and technical cooperation
programmes offered by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Thailand also wished to stress that the work of the Commission would be much
more beneficial to people worldwide if members of the Commission focused
their attention on the issue of standard setting and sharing of experiences
and if work was depoliticized.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said a State Department for Migration and
Refugees had been established in 1999 to address migration and refugee
issues and to elaborate legislative initiatives in that respect. In November
2000, the Government had adopted a concept for State regulation of
population migrations for the country. It outlined policy principles for the
regulation of migration. It contained priorities, mechanisms and directives
for its management. It also outlined recommendations for introducing
specific legislative initiatives to reflect priorities of the State policy
on migration.
In 1999, the National Assembly of Armenia had adopted a Law on Refugees
which had been followed by a Government policy paper on the integration of
refugees. The primary objective of these steps was to facilitate
comprehensive integration of refugees in Armenia and their subsequent
naturalization.
WIDAD KHALIFA SARRAH (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that based on the
teachings of Islam calling for equality between all peoples and for
assisting all those in need, as well as based on the Declaration of Human
Rights, Libya felt responsible vis-à-vis all people with disabilities around
the world. Their human rights must be respected and the Government had
therefore called for an international year for the disabled as well as the
adoption of special provisions for the fulfillment of the human rights of
people with disabilities.
Libya had focused on the necessity of providing health care and preventing
future disabilities. Special programmes in schools had been undertaken,
aiming to integrate people with disabilities into the educational system. In
this context, one could not refrain from mentioning disabilities occurring
as a result of anti-personnel land mines. Libya had suffered greatly from
anti-personnel mines left in the country since the Second World War. The
international community must cooperate to rid the world of anti-personnel
land mines.