Introductions of Draft ResolutionsThe representative of
Austria, introducing a draft resolution (document A/C.3/58/L.63) on the
effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, said that the situation of minorities in many countries underlined the need for States, national institutions and the United Nations to reinforce and join efforts of persons belonging to minorities.
The representative of
Austria introduced, with oral amendments, a draft resolution on
human rights and the administration of justice (document A/C.3/58/L.64).
The representative of Ireland introduced a draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/58/L.65), noting the draft underlined the need for cooperation of all Governments with the Special Rapporteur to enable him to carry out his mandate. It also underlined the importance of education and a strengthened dialogue among religions to promote greater tolerance, respect and mutual understanding. His delegation hoped the resolution, as in previous years, would again be adopted by consensus.
The representative of the
Netherlands introduced a draft resolution on the
in-depth study on all forms of violence against women (document A/C.3/58/L.66) and said that this draft was based on another draft introduced by the Netherlands (document A/C.3/58/L.22) on violence against women. The draft requested the Secretary-General to conduct an in-depth study on all forms of violence against women as identified in the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcomes of related conferences and meetings. Such a study would shed light and clarity on the violence, and the causes thereof, faced by women.
The representative of
Cuba introduced a draft resolution on
the right to food (document A/C.3/58/L.70), saying the draft noted the alarming situation of
84 million people in the world being condemned to hunger and chronic malnutrition, while more food than needed was being produced. The draft urged the international community to implement regional and national measures to eliminate hunger and States to adopt national plans to combat hunger. On behalf of all co-sponsors of the draft, she encouraged all Member States to support the draft, in order to implement the right to food for all people of the world.
Introducing a draft resolution on the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/58/L.71), the representative of
Mexico said the scourge of terrorism had led to thousands of victims around the world. The best way of combating terrorism was to promote universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. States must ensure that measures undertaken to combat terrorism complied with national and international human rights and humanitarian law.
The representative of
Cuba introduced a draft resolution on
respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/58/L.72). She said the draft highlighted the role of the United Nations in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also encouraged States to comply with the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter, in particular respecting the sovereign equality of all States and refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. She invited all Member States to support the draft, thereby complying with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.
Introducing a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/58/L.69), the representative of Canada said there had been some deterioration in the situation of human rights in Iran, despite isolated positive developments. The draft sought to involve the international community in the promotion of human rights in Iran, and its Government was urged to give full attention to the draft’s recommendations. Further human rights dialogue between the Government of Iran and the human rights community was required.
He stressed that the draft resolution and human rights dialogue were not mutually exclusive, but complementary. In the current human rights environment in Iran, human rights defenders needed to be commended. The draft expressed concern about the denial of freedom of expression and opinion, arbitrary justice, and the treatment of minorities, including religious minorities. He was particularly concerned about the difficulties faced by journalists in Iran. The draft resolution underlined the need for human rights dialogue in order to achieve the full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Action on draft resolutionsBefore the Committee was a resolution on
the incompatibility between democracy and racism (document A/C.3/58/L.33/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly condemn political platforms and organizations, as well as legislation and practices, which were based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination, as incompatible with democracy and transparent and accountable governance. In addition, the General Assembly would condemn the resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-fascism and violent nationalist ideologies, based on racial or national prejudice.
By the draft’s terms, the Assembly would also urge States to reinforce their commitment to promote tolerance and human rights by introducing or reinforcing human rights education in schools and in institutions of higher education. The Inter-Parliamentary Union and other relevant inter-parliamentary organizations would also be invited to encourage debate in and action by, parliaments on various measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
The draft was adopted without a vote, as orally amended.
After the vote, the representative of Liechtenstein, speaking also on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland, reiterated previous calls for the rigorous review of recurring issues. It was time for delegations to rationalize their agenda to make the Committee’s work more focused.
The representative of Brazil said he hoped the same statement would be made after the introduction of all repeated resolutions to preclude the application of double standards regarding this issue.
The representative of Sudan, in response to the statement by the representative of Liechtenstein, said that it remained the prerogative of each and every State to introduce and present whatever initiative they believed was suitable to be looked at by any given committee of the General Assembly.
The representative of New Zealand said that in response to the statement of the representative of Brazil, his delegation could not speak on every resolution that was duplicated. His delegation’s approach was the same for resolutions that it voted for or against. The intention was to draw to the Committee’s attention its agenda that was continuously growing. His delegation would not question the importance of any resolution or the prerogative of any delegation to introduce a resolution.
The representative of Cuba said his delegation was surprised at the statements in connection with the supposed repetition of drafts. Every delegation had the right to introduce any text it feels would contribute to the Committee’s work. The most important thing was support for texts and the merit of those texts, bearing in mind that the texts should be a contribution to dealing with human rights and other issues before the Committee.
The representative of Benin said her delegation believed that any delegation was entitled to introduce resolutions to any issue that it felt needed to be addressed. It was not up to other States to say whether those delegations should do so or not.
The representative of Argentina said he agreed with Brazil and Cuba. His delegation believed that the Committee should use the same criteria in dealing with repeated resolutions. This was a text on democracy and racism that Brazil felt must come before the Committee once again, and his delegation supported Brazil’s introduction of the resolution.
The representative of the United States said his delegation appreciated the efforts of Brazil’s delegation to address anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He noted that in the United States, even offensive speech was protected under the Constitution.
The Committee had before it a resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.31).
The draft would have the General Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those acts have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination. It would have the Assembly call upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in, and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination and maltreatment.
The representative of
Singapore said he had co-sponsored the draft resolution and that his Government believed in the right of peoples to self-determination. The draft did not address any specific situations, and he believed that a case-by-case approach needed to be mentioned in the draft. The representative of Singapore would therefore have to reconsider its co-sponsorship next year.
The representative of
Algeria told the Committee of his country’s experience of colonialism and deep belief in the right of self-determination.
A vote was called for by the representative of
India.
The representative of
Pakistan, in a point of order, appealed to the representative of India to not call for a vote on this resolution that had been adopted year after year by consensus.
The representative of
India, explaining his vote before the vote, said that some of the references made by Pakistan, on behalf of the co-sponsors, challenged and threatened the territorial integrity of India. It was therefore clear that for Pakistan the universal right of people to self-determination was a mere excuse to pursue its own political agenda. The draft was selective and unbalanced and did not deal with the right to self-determination in its entirety. Any attempt aimed at the disruption of the territorial integrity of a nation State went against the purpose and principles of the Charter.
The right to self-determinations implied free elections, democracy, equality, secularism and the rule of law, he said. The Pakistani people had been deprived of those rights for most of their history. The Government of Pakistan must therefore ensure the right to self-determination to its own people, before tabling resolutions on the universal right to self-determination. The representative of India would therefore vote against the draft resolution.
In a general comment, the representative of
Pakistan said that the representative of India had said that the draft resolution was unacceptable to India; however, India had joined the consensus on the text for several years in a row. This represented new thinking in New Delhi, and one must wonder what the causes were for this change. When a territory’s final status was to be determined through the exercise of the right to self-determination through a United Nations plebiscite, it could not be described as an integral part of a State. It was a disputed territory.
Both India and Pakistan had emerged as sovereign States through the right of self-determination, he said. He reserved the right to respond to the gratuitous remarks made about the Government of Pakistan and stressed that a Government made up of fascists and fanatics had no right to criticize any other Government.
The representative of Benin, making a general statement, said that she had not expected things to be so complicated. The concern of the draft was to support the general decolonization process, not issues between India and Pakistan. She therefore withdrew her co-sponsorship, since it seemed the draft was no longer about the universal right to self-determination.
A representative of the Dominican Republic said his delegation was co-sponsoring the draft, since it agreed with the spirit of the universal right to self-determination. However, he did not agree with some of the things said by the main co-sponsor. The Dominican Republic was therefore withdrawing its co-sponsorship too.
The representatives of
Kenya and
Botswana joined others and withdrew their co-sponsorship.
The representative of
Comoros said that he would like to co-sponsor the draft resolution.
A representative of
Malaysia, a traditional co-sponsor of the draft resolution, said she regretted the attempts to muddy the important issue of self-determination.
