South Korea: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Korean delegation has carefully
studied the various reports on the human rights situation in China. While
recognising that there is room for further improvement in China's human
rights situation. We are encouraged by the efforts made by the Chinese
government to improve the overall human rights situation, including inter
alia the measures it has taken for the codification of legal practice. We
comment the willingness of the Chinese government to sign the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights before the end of this
year as evidence of its commitment to improving the state of human rights
in China. We also welcome the readiness that China has expressed to
exchange information on human rights issues. In this connection, we wish
to reiterate the importance of dialogue as a means to resolve this issue.
Having given due consideration to the need to uphold the principle of the
universality of human rights on the one hand, and to the latest efforts
made by the Chinese government to improve the human rights situation in
China, on the other. The Korean delegation has decided to abstain on
China's no action motion. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you Ambassador for your statement. The next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Algeria. You have the floor
Ambassador.
Algeria: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Following numerous delegations I should like to endorse the general principles that should guide us in the expansion of human rights and rights of peoples. We heard a lot of very
good arguments which have encouraged us all to be vigilant and if we had to
speak honestly about what is happening throughout the world and the things
that we ought to be discussing, all you have to do is open any newspaper to
see that human rights, wherever, in the world are not in very good shape.
So we share the general concern and would as a state most keenly encouraged
discussion of fundamental freedoms, rights and dignity as recalled here.
And, we also see our activities as part of co-operation and fruitful
dialogue. Progress remains to be made everywhere, thats beyond dispute and
we once again don't think and we have said this already that anyone here
can for the time being give lessons to anyone else, regardless of our
degree of development, economic, social or cultural. Hence I am bothered
that the resolution proposed has not in fact been the subject of extensive
consultations or broad consultations to ensure that we=8ABasically it the
western countries presenting this and we know moreover that the substantive
problem divided them and hence the media which are present in force here
gave us quite a lot of information on this subject. The Algerian
delegation, however, would like to raise the question of procedure. Here
again we have heard a lot of perhaps good arguments to the effect that
motion of no action blocks debate. Well that is true but it is one of the
point provided for in the rules of procedure which has prevailed for years.
These are rules of procedure which we agreed on collectively. Now over the
six years this problem has been in existence. For the time being there has
been no manifestation of collective will here to ensure articles 77 and
78's application which could have made possible the amendment of rules of
procedure or suspension of such articles, these or those articles of the
rules of procedure. Thus it is that under the cover of democratic
practices what we are doing is masking the basic essential debate which I
think needs to be about political will. Our political will here in
ensuring progress in our work, including by the amending our procedures.
It seems to me that the Chinese delegation is fully entitled to call for
the respect of its rights with respect to the rules of procedure and that
we could not object to this. And, as to the principle of the matter, our
delegation will vote in favour of the Chinese proposal. Thank you very
much, Sir.
Chairman: Thank you very much Ambassador for your statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of the Czech
Republic.
Czech Republic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be very brief. The
Czech Republic wishes to join the opinion of those speakers who emphasised
the competence of this Commission to deal with the draft under discussion.
We share the view as explained by, especially the delegation of Ireland and
Austria that a request for a motion of no action is inappropriate. We,
would therefore, prefer a substantial discussion on this issue as is usual
in other cases under item 10 instead of a procedural motion. Thank you
very much.
Chairman: Thank you Sir and the next speaker on the list is the
distinguished representative of the Netherlands.
Netherlands (Holland): Thank you Chairman. I will also be very brief.
There is nothing illegal about a no action motion. It figures in our rules
of procedure and I would therefore not be able to support suggestions made
by the Ambassador of Algeria that we modify our rules of procedure to
delete this no action motion. But what is happening here is a clear abuse
of this no action motion. The no action motion is designed to avoid
dealing with extraneous issues dealing with United Nations organs. One can
hardly argue that the human rights situation in China is extraneous to the
UN Human Rights Commission and I think a large and important country as
China, a permanent member of the Security Council should uphold the
practices and traditions in the United Nations. They have a special
responsibility for that, more perhaps than other countries. And, for this
country to abuse rules of procedures in order to avoid a debate on a
country situation, debates which we had many and not any other country in
this Commission invokes or abuses this no action motion to prevent such a
debate. I think is setting an extremely bad example for this organisation
as a whole and for all those members of the United Nations who do seek a
very serious debate. For all those other members of the United Nations who
seek serious debates not only on human rights but a wide variety of issues,
I would hope that this is the last time that China invokes or abuses this
no action motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Palthe for your statement. The next speaker on
the list is the distinguished representative of Cuba.
Cuba: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Cuban delegation is taking the floor to
support the motion put forward by the Permanent Representative of PRC in
Geneva not to take any action on draft resolution L.91. We are doing this
because we think this is the most appropriate method to set aside an
initiative with two major defects. First of all, its aggressive content
has nothing to do with the real situation in the PRC of today. And,
secondly it injects a confrontational element, that instead of fostering
international co-operation actually tends to add a fuel to an already
political confrontational situation that is deliberate in this Commission.
Therefore, Cuba will support that motion. But since certain views have
been put forward about the ethics and desirability, suitability of rule 65,
2 of the rules of procedure. We would like to make one or two
philosophical comments on this. First of all, it should be recalled that
there is provision on this in the rules of procedure but was in the rules
of procedure before 1971 when China had restored to it its legitimate
rights. So no one can say that it was specifically created for the service
of one delegation because it seems that it was implied that there a
privilege for this. This provision is there as the distinguished delegate
of Sri Lanka said to be used every time that a situation arises when it
cannot be settled appropriately through a draft resolution or a draft
decision. It has also been said that this rule doesn't have an autonomous
life. It can only have effect when two proposals exists. I don't know
what that strange interpretation is based of rule 65, 2. This rule exists
in order to be applied anytime it is invoked whether theres one or more
motions on a given subject. And, therefore, we would have to know how this
conclusion was reached that this is only pertinent in rule 65, 1 as has
been said. Now it has been said that an attempt is being made to detract
from the authority of this Commission to take a decision about a given
country. This matter doesn't have anything to do with detracting from the
competence of this Commission. Obviously, everyone knows that this
Commission has the possibility of analysing any situation on human rights
in any member state. Thats not what is involved here. What is involved
here is that it is possible that in the majority of members of the
Commission, it is thought that the best solution to a situation is not
through the adoption of resolutions. Abuses to this right has been
referred to. I think that what we should be thinking about is the abuse,
year after year, of having to cope with an initiative that the Commission
has been constantly rejecting quite rightly so for many years. I think
that the abuse we should be bothered about, not about invoking a rule that
as the Netherlands said, it is a rule that is in its rightful place in our
rules of procedure. I think that it has been said that to adopt a
favourable decision of not entering into the consideration of this matter
would attract the credibility of this Commission. I think the reverse
would be true. I think that if we were to adopt a resolution of the type
being suggested in L. 91. I think that would gravely affect the
credibility of this UN body. I think therefore Sir, that there are whole
host of elements which means that from the ethical and philosophical point
of view, not from the practical view, could we consider this rule 65, 2
shouldn't be appropriate. And, I think that this would deflect a wrongful
approach for dealing with this subject. I would like to say that we are
not trying to curb a debate by using this rule. This is the sole rule
practically, in the rules of procedure that doesn't limit speakers in
favour or against a particular subject. There are no limits, at all, put
on the discussion. Therefore, its a motion that permits freedom of
expression, permits debate, argumentation and I think that therefore, in
accordance with the rule of democracy, it needs the majority opinion. Its
a very democratic rule and we need the majority in favour of it for it to
be carried. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank very much Mr. Martinez for your statement and the next
speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Nepal.
Nepal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Nepal considers the work of
this Commission extremely important in the promotion and protection of
human rights in the world. This work should be further encouraged and
strengthened. Mr. Chairman, my delegation's approach on any issue under
discussion in this Commission has been guided by our consistent adherence
to the principles of non-selectivity and universality of human rights. We
share and support the view that the work of this session should also be
guided by the spirit of equality and co-operation leading to dialogue and
co-operation, as well as encouraged introspection and self-criticism. Mr.
Chairman, Nepal had consistently maintained the position that singling out
a particular country or a group of countries for human rights violations
and criticising them, unless of course, such a country is engaged in
persistently.. and blatant violations of human rights, in which the due process of law is consistently denied or flouted is not necessarily a conducive way to improve human rights performance of a state. Mr. Chairman, Nepal is a close witness to the remarkable transformation that China, one of our true close neighbours, is undergoing at the moment. These developments have no doubt far reaching positive effects on whole aspects of Chinese society, including the situation of human rights. The statement of the distinguished Ambassador of China which we heard just now, in our view, amply demonstrated China's willingness to engage in dialogue and co-operation for further improvements. With these considerations, my delegation associates itself with the statement made by distinguished Ambassador of Sri Lanka. Hence, my delegation will support the no action motion proposed by the distinguished Ambassador of China. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much Ambassador for your statement. The next
speaker on the list is the distinguished Representative of the United
Kingdom.
United Kingdom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, a number of the
speakers who preceded me not least the distinguished Ambassador of China
himself have given us their views on the state of human rights in China,
the human rights record of China. With great respect to all of them, I am
not going to follow their example because I do not think that is what we
are discussing now. That is something that we will discuss later when we
come to the resolution. What we are discussing now, Mr. Chairman is a
quite different matter in which the human rights record of the country
concerned is not the point. What we are discussing now is the right of
this Commission to consider a motion before it on its merit. Mr. Chairman,
I regret to say and I am sure we all regret that once again this Commission
sees the spectacle of one country, a powerful country, a permanent member
of the Security Council, a country whose record in many ways we all
respect. That country attempting by a mixture of pressure and
blandishments to stifle the legitimate discussion in this Commission of a
topic which is of genuine concern to all of us here and not least to the
world outside. Whether that concern is well founded or ill-founded, Mr.
Chairman is not the point. That is a question which should be discussed
not suppressed. Mr. Chairman, no other country, large or small, seeks in
this way to dictate to the Commission what it should discuss, what motions
it should consider, what decisions it should come to. The United States of
America does not attempts to do so. The Russian Federation which was the
subject of a resolution a couple of years ago did not attempt to do so.
The Soviet Union which was the subject of such resolutions in the past, in
the bad old days, did not attempt to do so. Cuba does not attempt to do
so. Again, Mr. Chairman, in the bad old days, Chile did not attempt to do
so. Colombia does not now attempt to do so. South Africa in the bad old
days did not attempt to do so. Only China, Mr. Chairman, only China. Mr.
Chairman, the Chinese delegation, both in the remarks which the
distinguished Ambassador addressed to us this evening and in the position
paper which they have circulated to all of us which I am sure we all read
it with great care, have used a number of arguments in support of this
motion which they have now proposed. I would venture to suggest, Mr.
Chairman, with great respect that the arguments they rely on are
fallacious, every one of them. Let me take them all, let me take some of
them in their order in which they occur to me. First, they proposed to us
the proposition that the resolution in front of us is not a proper one, is
not within the terms of article 10. As the position paper put it, as is
known to all Item 10 is devoted to the study of situations which appear to
reveal a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights. Well,
that may be known to the distinguished delegate of China but it is not
known to me and I suggest it is not known to all of us or any others of us.
The wording of the Item 10 is the question of violations of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world. The reference to a
consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights is in sub-paragraph
b of Item 10 and that reads study of situations which appear to reveal a
consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights as provided for in
Commission resolution 8 XXIII and Economic and Social Council resolutions
1,2,3,5 and 1503. That is where the reference to a consistent patterns of
gross violations occur. So the objection based on the ambit of Article 10
is simply misconceived. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, we are told that this, the
moving of this resolution, tabling this resolution indicates selectivity.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose any resolution which names a country, selects
that country. So in this sense, there is selectivity. I don't think that
is what the distinguished Ambassador of China had in mind. But if
selectivity is to be the complaint. Let me put this question. What can be
more selective then to say that we can discuss human rights situations in
any part of the world except China? Mr. Chairman, another objection being
put forward to the resolution is that again the mere tabling of this
resolution demonstrates a lack of objectivity. Mr. Chairman, whether the
resolution lacks objectivity or not is something that we can decide when we
come to discuss the resolution. If the distinguished delegation of China
thinks that in one respect or another the resolution is improperly
subjective, fails to show the right objectivity then we shall be pleased to
listen to their arguments. That is the criticism which they can make when
we come to discuss the resolution. But it has no bearing whatever on the
question which is now before us which is whether we should have the chance
to discuss the resolution.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we have been told both in the position paper and
tonight that the resolution demonstrates a lack of impartiality. Again,
Mr. Chairman, I am really puzzled by this. I would have thought that
impartiality requires that there should be no special exception. No
special treatment for any country. But we are being asked to make such a
special provision. Impartiality also requires as I understand it that
views should be formed that opinions should be expressed that if necessary
decision should be taken on the merits of the case. Not on the identity of
the country in concern. Mr. Chairman, I have say that I think the truth of
the matter is that this motion, the no action motion, is based on an
unattainable premise. It purports to be based on rule 65 of our rules of
procedures, specifically rule 65, 2. But as the distinguished delegate of
Austria has said before me that is to misread rule 65. Rule 65 is a rule
which has to be read in its entirety. If I may and I apologise for taking
up a minute or two longer, I will read it in its entirety. If two or more
proposals other than amendments relate to the same question they shall
unless the Commission decides otherwise be voted on in the order in which
they were submitted. Then as the very next sentence the Commission may
after each vote on a proposal decide whether to vote on the next proposal.
Then rule 65, 2 is simply a proposition about priority. It says a motion
requiring no decision be taken on a proposal shall have priority over that
proposal. So the substance, the substance of the rule is in the first
paragraph and essentially it is in the last sentence of the first paragraph
and it is a proposition about the Commission deciding not to proceed on one
motion when it has already taken a decision on another motion in the same
area.
Mr. Chairman, I am not taking this as a technical point. This is not the
debate for technical points. What I am suggesting is that what lies behind
a no action motion in these circumstances is really a concealed invocation
of another rule in our procedures and that is rule 54. If we look at rule
54, Mr. Chairman, we will see that a motion calling for a decision on the
competence of the Commission to adopt a proposal submitted to it shall be
put to the vote etc. That is what we have here. We have a motion
questioning the competence of this Commission to take a decision on the
subject of human rights in China. Now, Mr. Chairman I can only speak for
my own delegation, my delegation denies that the Commission is not
competent to discuss the human rights situation in any country, large or
small. I would suggest that it is vital that this Commission should assert
its competence to discuss the human rights situation in any country and
should then go on to look at the case of human rights situation in that
country on its merits. This is without prejudice entirely to what decision
it may come to on the merits. And that is as true for the case of China as
it is true for any other country in this world. And, I would therefore
invite fellow delegates, other distinguished delegations to vindicate the
competence of the Commission and to assert their own independence by voting
against the no action motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you very much Sir for your statement and the next speaker
on the list is the distinguished representative of Denmark.
Denmark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In reply to the remarks made by the
Ambassador from China, I must state that L.91 is not and cannot be seen as
an attack against China. Everybody who reads the resolution will see that
it calls upon the government of China to engage in a dialogue with the High
Commissioner for Human Rights and it ask the High Commissioner to report on
the progress of that dialogue to this Commission. That cannot be construed
as confrontation. As to the motion for no action, whatever reasons may be
advanced in support of that motion it represents and affects a challenge to
the competence and credibility of the Commission. So its an important
principle which is at stake, irrespective of the substantive issues, each
delegation will take whatever position on the substance. But it
irrespective of that the motion requested by China does indeed introduce an
element of selectivity in the work of the Commission which runs counter to
the letter and spirit of the Vienna Declaration from 1993 which states in
paragraph 32, "the World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the
importance of ensuring the universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of
the consideration of human rights issues." Therefore, Mr. Chairman, a vote
against the motion of no action in the present case will preserve the
competence and credibility of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
and its democratic procedures. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you Sir for the statement. The next speaker on the list is the distinguished representative of Egypt.
Egypt: Thank you very much Sir. This is very late hour I think that we
have listened to various views on the motion presented by the distinguished
representative of China to which that no decision be taken on the draft
resolution, draft resolution L.91 before us. Mr. Chairman, we support the
universality of human rights and we support an objective approach to human
rights just as we also support non-selectivity. On other occasions and
before this occasion the Egyptian delegation had given its views not to
take a double standard or to be selective in the way in which different
human rights questions were treated regardless of where in the world. On
this basis the Egyptian delegation has abstained from voting on a certain
number of draft resolutions presented to the Commission on Human Rights.
And, this in keeping with our observations to the effect of the imposition
of the standards foreign to us and foreign to the Commission. Mr.
Chairman, we are always in favour of dialogue, co-operation, consultation
in order to ensure application of and respect for human rights instruments
and to strengthen them. This is why, Mr. Chairman, we find it most
regrettable that we were not consulted with respect to the draft resolution
before us. However, we were consulted on any number of other draft
resolutions, draft resolutions on which our views were solicited and we
were able to support these draft resolutions because those views were taken
into account as well as of diverse positions of the members of the
Commission and of observers. This was done for any number of other draft
resolutions which were submitted to us. And indeed decisions were adopted,
resolutions were adopted a number of times. And, we were consulted when
these draft resolutions were drawn up. We find a certain politicisation in
the debate. This is something we have noticed, this is something we have
discussed this under agenda Item 3, at the time when we adopted along with
other delegation a draft resolution known as L. 2. Now we felt it
necessary to ensure dialogue and consultation on draft resolutions on human
rights in order to be able to reach consensus in all or on all draft
resolutions in so far as possible so as to have recourse to a vote only if
it was impossible to reach such consensus. The achievement of such a
consensus is possible only within a context of transparency and
consultation with all parties concerned. Mr. Chairman on the basis of
everything I have said we are not depriving any member of the Commission of
its rights to make use of the provisions of the or the rules of procedure.
And, the Egyptian delegation I think is fully entitled one cannot say that
the Egyptian delegation has misused these rights or these rules in rule 65,
2 of the rules of procedure. So we support the proposal along these lines,
I thank you.
Chairman: Thank very much Ambassador. Before giving the floor to the next
speaker I have two more speakers. I should like to signal that we are
under extreme time pressure. We have just few minutes of the meeting not
more. So I should like to ask the speakers to be very brief in order to
finalise the whole procedure in order to avoid to split our work and to
continue tomorrow. So the next speaker on the list is the distinguished
representative of Bangladesh.
