Note: Tibet Bureau for UN Affairs is releasing the transcription of the
recent UN debate on the draft resolution against China so as to inform
Tibetans and their supporters and interested individuals of the details of
what was actually discussed. We hope this document will of be use to all
who are interested in the Tibetan UN Initiative of the Tibetan Government
in Exile.
53rd UN Commission on Human Rights
15 April, 1997
Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Debate on China Resolution
Chairman: Now we shall proceed to the next item which is the draft L. 91,
the situation of human rights in China. The draft is submitted by Denmark
and I should like to ask the distinguished representative of Denmark to
make introduction of this draft.
Denmark: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the sponsors of L.91 concerning the
human rights situation in China I wish to make the following introductory
remarks.
The draft resolution proceeds from the fact that all Members States of the
United Nations have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms as stated in the Charter of the United Nations and
other applicable human rights instruments. This is an essential premise in
so far as all Members States are accountable to international standards of
human rights which they have themselves endorsed.
The resolution further recognises and welcomes the fact that China is a
party to several Human Rights treaties and in particular has succeeded in
enhancing the enjoyment of economic rights in its society. This positive
development has been further highlighted by the announcement some days ago
by the distinguished representative of China that the Chinese Government
will sign the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights before
the end of this year. We certainly welcome that announcement as a first
step towards a binding accession to that treaty.
The draft resolution cannot, Mr. Chairman, however, remain silent at the
continuing reports of violations of basic civil and political rights such
as the freedom of expression, of assembly, of association and of religion
as well as the right to due legal process and to a fair trial. The plight
of Tibetans also gives rise to concern.
The sponsors of L. 91, therefore, believe that time has come for the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has the principal
responsibility for United Nations human rights activities, to be engaged in
a dialogue with the Government of China in accordance with the High
Commissioners mandate - and allow me to quote from that mandate - as
contained in General Assembly resolution 48/141, adopted by consensus in
1993. Operative 4(g) of that mandate in the resolution reads as follows -
and I quote: "Further decides that the High Commissioners responsibilities
shall be to engage in a dialogue with all governments in the implementation
of his/her mandate with a view to securing respect for all human rights" -
unquote. The aim of such a dialogue is to find ways and means to redress
human rights violations in China as reported by various rapporteurs and
working groups of the Commission and by other sources. The High
Commissioner would report to the Commission on progress made in the course
of the dialogue.
Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of L.91 do not in the least see the tabling of a
resolution along these lines as confrontational. To engage in a dialogue
with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as foreseen in
the mandate, which has the approval of the Chinese Government, cannot be
called confrontational. In the draft resolution we have submitted, it is
recognised that bilateral dialogues are important instruments in furthering
co-operation and understanding of human rights issues. However, that does
not in any way exclude a multilateral dialogue under the auspices of the
United Nations. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but
supplement and actually reinforce each other.
The draft resolution should be seen as an extended hand to the people and
government of China, submitted, as it is, in a collective spirit of
co-operation and in accordance with unanimously accepted dictum of the
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action - and allow me once again, Mr.
Chairman to quote from the Vienna Declaration, para 4 which states that
"the promotion and protection of all human rights in a legitimate concern
of the international community" - end of quote. To express that concern in
the United Nations Human Rights Commission is connection with the relevant
agenda item - 10 - is in itself a legitimate act and, therefore, Mr.
Chairman, on behalf of the sponsors of L. 91 I submit this text for
consideration and adoption by the Commission.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much Sir for your statement and for the
introduction of draft L. 91. Others co-sponsors or other delegations are
invited. So now I recognise the distinguished representative of China
asking for the floor.
China: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chinese delegation is resolutely
opposed to the draft resolution L.91. In accordance with Rule 65,
paragraph 2, of the rules of procedure, I would like to propose that the
Commission take no action on the draft resolution L. 91. My reasons are as
follows,
1. It is a gross distortion of China's reality to assert that it has a
deplorable human rights record.
This is the 7th time that certain Western countries table an anti-China
draft resolution in the Commission on Human Rights. They have asserted
time and again that they do so because China's human rights record is
deplorable. This is an outrageous distortion of China's reality. China
did have a deplorable human rights record in the past. Before 1949, under
the oppression of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, the
vast majority of the Chinese people had no human rights to speak of. Why
did the Chinese people rise up in revolution? Since the Opium War of 1840,
the Chinese people had fought, wave upon wave, for more than a century
against foreign aggression and for their own liberation. In the course of
this struggle, they paid a heavy price with tens of millions of lives lost.
What was all this for? To win the right to live as human beings. The
very first phrase of our national anthem reads, "Arise, ye rebels of
slavery!" Slaves have no human rights to speak of. It was precisely
because the Chinese people wanted to break the shackles of slavery and
become masters of their own destiny that they waged the revolution. Again,
what is China's on-going modernisation for? For human rights, for a better
life. Modernisation is in essence a war against poverty, a war against
backwardness and hunger. In 1978 when China began to implement the policy
of reform and opening up, its population stood at roughly 900 million, with
250 million living in poverty. By the end of 1996, the country's
population reached 1.2 billion, but the number of people in poverty had
shrunk to 58 million. One may ask: throughout the world's history, which
other country had managed to lift nearly 200 million people out of poverty
in such a short span of time? Our aim is to build a country that is
prosperous, democratic and civilised. During the past 20 years, China's
legislative body has adopted more than 300 laws and regulations and local
people's congresses have passed more than 4000 regulations. China has
achieved unprecedented progress in building up democracy and legal system.
=46acts have demonstrated that the Chinese government has made tremendous
efforts for the promotion of the human rights of the Chinese people, not
only in political and civil rights but also in economic, social and
cultural rights. Distortion of China's reality and deception of the
world's public opinion will not last. After all, lies are lies. Dark
clouds cannot shut out the sun.
2. The real purpose of certain Western countries in repeatedly tabling
anti-China draft resolutions is to attempt to dominate China's fate.
Certain Western politicians have a bad habit - they have the propensity to
lecture developing countries and make prescriptions for them. Maybe this
is something they have inherited from the old colonialists. The Chinese is
not an inert, conservative or self-secluded people. Since the initiation
of reform and opening to the outside world, we have thrown wide open our
doors and have sent hundreds of thousands of students abroad for no other
purpose but for the purposes of learning from the advanced experience of
other countries. How "good" is the Western "prescription"? Let us just
look at what happened in those countries following the Western
prescription. Many of them are facing economic collapse, war and internal
strife, which have inflicted untold suffering on their people. One should
not fail to see the stark contrast between the tragedies of those countries
and the steady improvement and prosperity of China.
In the West today, the views of the so-called "China Threat" are very much
in vogue. Actually, if China had really followed the prescription of the
West, it would have been a real threat then! If China sank into turmoil
and 1% of its population fled the country, that alone would mean 12 million
people. If such a scenario becomes a reality, the prosperity of East Asia
would be destroyed overnight. It would be a disaster then not only for the
Chinese people but also for Asia and the entire world.
No mater how nicely the Western co-sponsors may masquerade themselves, no
matter what beautiful tune they may sing and no matter what sanctimonious
posture they may assume over China's human rights, they cannot conceal
their true intention. They don't like the Chinese model of development.
They don't want to see the Chinese going their own way. They want to grasp
China's fate in their own hands. What impudence! The Chinese people have
followed their own way for over 5,000 years. Nothing can turn them away,
not to say a few anti-China draft resolutions. China's rise is a historic
certainty. No force on earth can stop 1.2 billion Chinese people from
advancing.
3. It is sheer demagogue to claim that the no-action motion proposed by
the Chinese delegation is asking for special treatment and non-coperation.
China has always adopted an attitude of co-operation with the UN human
rights bodies. China has ratified or acceded to 17 international human
rights instruments. China reports periodically to the treaty bodies and
accepts their considerations. China has never proposed a no-consideration
motion. The no-action motion proposed by the Chinese delegation in the
past years was aimed at countering those anti-China draft resolutions. The
allegation that the no-action motion seeks to evade consideration at the
Commission and ask for special treatment is totally groundless. Voting on
the draft resolutions in the Commission takes place approximately one week
after the Commission begins consideration of human rights situations in
individual countries. Yet, during this week, China becomes the focus of
attack from certain Western countries. There is no short of accusations
and charges hurled at China by Western countries in the Commission and
through their news media. We have heard some Western countries spreading
the argument that China's no-action motion does not conform with the rules
of the procedure. This is legally groundless and totally untenable. The
no-action motion is clearly provided for in the rules of procedure. It is
not an invention by China. Anyone with common sense knows that in the
meetings of many other UN bodies, the no-action motion is resorted to in
accordance with the rules of procedure. During the past 7 years, no-action
motion was moved on six occasions in the Human Rights Commission. Why
can't China propose a no-action motion in this year's Commission? Why it
becomes a heresy when used by China?
4. I appeal to those countries bent on tabling the anti-China draft
resolution to return to the path of dialogue and co-operation.
Last April I asked the representative of that superpower, he is still
sitting there now, I asked him, "After repeated failures, why should you
still keep on pursuing this doomed cause." His reply was that they had
learnt patience from the Chinese. But he forgot. The Chinese patience is
embodied in the unremitting pursuit of a just cause. The Chinese people
have fought for their liberation and advancement with perseverance and
tenacity, not flinching from setbacks or difficulties, whereas the
anti-China draft resolution proposed by the West is a foolish act which
runs against the trend of history. Time is not on their side. Time is on
the Chinese side. I would advise those countries to change course and give
up this doomed cause as quickly as possible. However, if they refuse to
come to their senses and are bent on tabling anti-China draft resolutions,
we will surely keep them company. They are bound to suffer repeated
defeats, nothing else.
Mr. Chairman, China always maintains that it doesn't matter if states have
differences on the issue of human rights. What is important is to reduce
these differences and enhance mutual understanding through dialogue on the
basis of equality. Human rights is a lofty cause. The only correct
approach to protecting and promoting human rights worldwide is through
dialogue and co-operation. The cause of human rights has everything to
lose and nothing to gain from confrontation. The Commission on Human
Rights has already paid a high enough price for confrontation. I therefore
urge once again those Western countries bent on confrontation to abandon
this approach and return to the path of dialogue and co-operation.
Mr. Chairman, based on the above-stated reasons, the Chinese delegation
moves that this Commission take no action on the draft resolution L.91 and
requests a roll-call vote on the Chinese motion. Let me also point out
that this draft resolution is concocted as a tool of power politics. It is
not only directed at China, but at all developing countries and
justice-upholding countries, and I would like to appeal to all the
countries, all justice upholding countries and all those who genuinely care
for human rights, to vote in favour of the Chinese motion, because what
happens to China today may happen to them tomorrow. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Ambassador for your statement and on the
basis of the proposal of China, we start the discussion on the non action
motion and start a general debate. As a first speaker on the list I see
the distinguished representative of Germany.
Germany: Thank you Mr. Chairman. As a matter of principle, Germany holds
that the Human Rights Commission is fully authorised to discuss and
eventually take on the human rights situation in all parts of the world.
The Vienna Human Rights World Conference has firmly established that the
human rights situation in any country is a legitimate concern of the
international community. This principle has been accepted by all
participants of that conference which included all members of the Human
Rights Commission. The members of the Human Rights Commission have
accepted a particular responsibility for the promotion and protection of
human rights. Therefore, we all have an obligation to see to it each issue
covered by the authority of this Commission can be dealt with on its
merits. Thus, Mr. President, as a matter of principle, Germany will again
vote against the procedural motion now under discussion. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Baum for your statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of the United
States.
USA: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The human rights situation in China remains a
subject of considerable concern to the United States as it should be to
every member of the UN Commission on Human Rights. While we do not seek
confrontation with China, we believe the Commission as an entirely
appropriate forum to discuss China's human rights record. The matter
before us is China's proposed no action motion. The United States objects
to this motion. First, because we like others believe that there are
serious human rights concerns in China that should be considered by this
body. And, second because we are distressed by any effort to bypass the
Commission. We are concern that enactment of this motion would undermine
the Commission's integrity and create the appearance that Commission
members are indifferent to the very principles it is charged to defend. A
vote against the no action motion is more than a vote against efforts to
avoid the Commission's scrutiny. It is a vote to keep faith with women and
men around the world who have dared to stand up for human rights, democracy
and freedom and who have suffered as a result. In reaffirming this role
for the Commission, we remain faithful to its fundamental objectives. Mr.
Chairman, the United States calls on all members of this Commission to vote
NO on this no action motion. By voting NO we will be voting to do our duty
to the Commission and the cause of fundamental human rights. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Shattuck for your statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Ireland.
Ireland: Mr. Chairman, as one of the co-sponsors of L. 91, Ireland
associates itself with the statement made by Denmark. I would add a few
comments on our own behalf. Ireland does not seek confrontation with any
member of this Commission, large or small, developed or developing. We are
not anti or hostile to any member. We recognise that every country
represented in this room comes to the table with its own history, its own
economic circumstances, its own individuality. What we would like to think
we all have in common is a readiness to recognise problems where they exist
and to discuss ways of addressing them together. There is no question of
imposing a particular national or regional perspective in such debate. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Programme
of Action and the range of internationally accepted human rights
instruments provide all of us with a shared basis for our discussions. We
are mindful that there are rights and duties that go with membership of
this Commission. We bear a fundamental responsibility towards our fellow
human beings in various parts of the world who suffer serious human rights
violations. We may disagree about the right analysis or the right to
remedy for their situation. But this Commission surely fails them
completely if we allow procedural devices to block discussion on the issues
of substance. My delegation urges defeat of this no action motion and a
wide support for the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much Ambassador for your statement. And, the next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, permit me to say a few
words on the no action motion proposed by the Ambassador of China in
relation to the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in China
contained in document E/CN.4/1997/L.91. My delegation has listened with
great attention to the reasons given by the Ambassador of China for
introducing the no action motion. We have to recognise the fact that no
action motions are not limited to this Commission alone. Other UN bodies,
including the General Assembly from time to time resort to such steps to
demonstrate the fact that there is a view generally shared by the majority
that adopting a resolution may not be the best way to achieve the desired
results. What the Commission should be interested in is the eventual
result of its endeavour. In the opinion of my delegation, the Commission
after several unsuccessful attempts to introduce resolutions on the human
rights in China should have reassessed the situation with a view to finding
alternative means of persuading that country to improve the situation
through process of consultation, dialogue and co-operation. Mr. Chairman,
operative paragraph one of the draft resolution acknowledges some
improvements that are presently underway and other positive steps that are
due to be implemented in China. The Commission should encourage China in
its endeavour to improve the human rights situation by working with that
country rather than relying on resolutions which will not bring the desired
results. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, Sri Lanka supports the no action
motion introduced by China. We sincerely hope that during the next twelve
months there will be attempts by the interested parties to engage China in
a genuine dialogue with the view to further improve the human rights
situation in that country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Ambassador for the statement and the next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Italy.
Italy: Thank you very much sir. Once again this year we have before us an initiative. The presentation of a motion for non action with respect to
members of this Commission being able to give their views on a draft
resolution whose relevance to the mandate and institutional competence of
the Commission is beyond question. In our work it has to do with
fundamental rights and the dignity of all human beings. Consensus is
certainly desirable and must be pursued honestly. Co-operation and not,
confrontation is and must be our primary aim. However, disagreements are
objectively possible and we know that these disagreements will be exercised
in the right of vote which involves respect for the views of others in
their proper proceedings of the =8A. Italy in principle, regardless of the
subject and regardless of the country referred to would like to defend
these rights. That is why, our delegation will vote against the motion of
non action. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much sir and the next speaker on the list is the
distinguished representative of Japan.
Japan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have already stated Japan's position on
the human rights in China. Japan will be placing special emphasis on
dialogue and co-operation this year and did not become a co-sponsor of the
draft resolution L. 91. At the same time, however, we must point out that
the promotion of protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of
the international community and that the Commission on Human Rights has a
important responsibility and important role to play in this respect. For
this reason, we cannot support no action motion as a matter of principle
and shall vote against it. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Ambassador for your statement and the next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of France.
France: Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to go along with the previous speakers in recalling that it is within the competence of the
Human Rights Commission to consider human rights situations in any country.
This is a principle which the members of the Commission are responsible
for ensuring respect to protect this machinery which is essential for the
protection and promotion of human rights throughout the world. It is for
this reason that my delegation will vote against the motion on non action
that has been presented. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Ambassador for your statement and the next
speaker is the distinguished representative of Malaysia.
Malaysia: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Malaysia supports China's
call for no action motion for the following reasons. One, the resolution
on the situation of human rights in China has been rejected by this
Commission for the last six years. This clearly indicate that this very
Commission feels that there is no necessity that this issue should come
before us anymore. Two, Malaysia believes that constructive approach such
as engaging in dialogue with countries with a view to promote and protect
human rights would achieve far better results. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
Malaysia will vote for the no action motion. Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you, Ambassador for the statement. The next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Canada.
Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think I can begin my
stating without fear of contradiction that the draft resolution before and
the motion presented by the distinguished representative of China, presents
for many members of this Commission something of a dilemma. On a purely
procedural level, Canada agrees with those who argue that there is no good
reason that the Commission should not proceed as it has done in any number
of other situations to direct action on the merits of this resolution.
Viewed in this perspective, Mr. Chairman, China is the same as and should
be treated no differently from any other country. Of course, Mr. Chairman,
on another level, if we are completely honest to ourselves and I think that
this is where the real dilemma comes in, we have to admit that China is not
the same as all other countries. China is after all the most populace
nation on the earth, a country with great and proud history, a major
political and economic power, a permanent member of the UN Security
Council. China's people and its government are justifiably proud of the
crucial role they play in today's world and must play in the future. This,
Mr. Chairman is a reality that cannot be disputed. But at the same time,
Mr. Chairman, the Commission is confronted with another reality. That is
the reality documented in a number of reports before us that there exists
and have existed for sometime, serious grounds for concern about the
actions of the government of China in living up to its international human
rights obligations. Canada shares many of these concerns and has expressed
those concerns in earlier statements to this session of the Commission. It
will not have gone without notice, Mr. Chairman that Canada is not among
the co-sponsors of the resolution before us today. We have decided in the
current circumstances that instead of co-sponsoring the resolution, we
would attempt this year to find other ways of working with China. Ways of
working both bilaterally and ideally with others as well to address the
real differences we face and to help narrow those differences and bring
about real positive change towards improved respects for human rights in
China. This decision, Mr. Chairman, was not taken lightly. But the
government believes that it was the right one in the present circumstances
and we will be relying heavily on the goodwill and co-operation of China in
demonstrating that the approach we have chosen is a wise one and one that
will yield concrete results. And, we will be looking particularly to China
to follow through on its expressed undertakings to enhance and broaden its
co-operation on human rights with the United Nations. Having said all of
this, Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by reiterating that this Commission
should not be prevented from taking a decision on the merits of the
resolution before us. That is no way for the Commission on Human Rights or
any of its members to resolve the dilemma that we all face. Canada will
therefore, oppose the motion advanced by the distinguished representative
of China and given an opportunity to address this resolution on its merits,
we will as we have advised our Chinese friends, vote in its favour. Thank
you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hynes for your statement and the next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Angola.
Angola: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me to take the floor
on behalf of the Angolan delegation. Mr. Chairman, this draft resolution
has been put before this Commission for six times in the last six years but
it failed to get enough support and was rejected for also six times by this
same Commission. This explains everything. Among other things, it means
that the human rights situation in China does not need a resolution.
Secondly, after reading the draft resolution tabled by certain countries,
my delegation is of the view that its wording is almost the same as before.
We simply do not understand why some countries table a resolution of this
kind, again and again wasting time and misusing the resources of the United
Nations in this way, year after year in such futile exercise. Based on the
above, my delegation, Mr. Chairman, would second the no action motion
proposed by the Chinese delegation. I thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Ambassador for the statement. The next
speaker is the distinguished representative of El Salvador.
El Salvador: Thank you Chairman. Mr. Chairman, El Salvador is a developing
country. The Commission on Human Rights has a main function of ensuring
the defence and promotion of human rights in any part of the world. The
delegation of El Salvador following matters of principle and the
responsibility incumbent upon us as members of the Commission considers
that regardless of the particular case under scrutiny now, a no action
motion is incompatible with the performance of our duties. It is for this
reason that our delegation and as we have communicated to the Ambassador of
China, is obliged to vote against the motion that he presented. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much Ambassador for the statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Austria.
Austria: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to explain why the motion
not to take action on document L. 91 is unacceptable for the Austrian
delegation as a co-sponsor of this resolution and also for me personally as
a member of your bureau. And that for several reason of principle. First
of all, such a motion presupposes a substantive incompetence of the
Commission. The question of violations of human rights in any part of the
world has been an item on our agenda for many years. The Commission,
therefore, is clearly competent to deal with the situation of human rights
in any country. As this is the case and this brings to my second reason.
A motion not to take action would seem in order only in conjunction with
the first paragraph of the rule under which it is presented, i.e., rule 65.
A rule which deals with situations when two or more proposals on the same
issue are being presented to the Commission. This clearly does not apply
in the present case. So the motion would in effect result in determining
that this specific situation is beyond the purview of the Commission for
some other special reason. And, this we cannot accept either. When
assembled at the World Conference and this has been quoted before all
governments agreed that the promotion and protection of all human rights is
a legitimate concern of the international community. And, the expression
of such a legitimate concern is not, in our view, an expression of the wish
to dominate or to lecture. It is the expression of concern by a friend and
it is made in a co-operative and constructive spirit. For these three
reasons, Mr. Chairman, we consider the position to be taken on this motion
a question of principle. We appeal to all delegations to oppose this
motion. In voting against this motion, you will preserve three
objectives. The credibility of this Commission, the right for all members
of the Commission to take a position on the substance of the proposal in
front of us, that is, in document L. 91. And, thirdly preserve the cause
of human rights. I thank you.
Chairman: Thank you very much Ambassador for your statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of the Republic of
Korea (South Korea).
