| |
Back to Index
UN
Commission on Human Rights rejects draft resolution on Zimbabwe
UN
Commission on Human Rights
Extract
from UN Press release
April 15, 2004
The Commission on
Human Rights acted on a series of draft resolutions on country-specific
situations this afternoon, approving by roll-call vote measures criticizing
human rights matters in Cuba, Turkmenistan, the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea, and Belarus.
Through the resolutions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and
Belarus, it decided to appoint Special Rapporteurs to investigate human
rights issues in those countries.
Draft measures on situations in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation,
Zimbabwe, and China were defeated, the last two on no-action motions.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a
roll-call vote of 22 in favour and 21 opposed, with 10 abstentions, the
Commission considered that the Government of Cuba should refrain from
adopting measures which could jeopardize the fundamental rights, the freedom
of expression and the right to due process of its citizens, and, in that
regard, deplored the events which occurred last year in Cuba involving
verdicts against certain political dissidents and journalists, as reported
internationally; and expressed the hope that the Government of Cuba would
continue its efforts to boost religious freedom and would initiate measures
designed to facilitate the transition towards the establishment of a fruitful
dialogue with all schools of thought and organized political groups in
Cuban society.
A Representative of Cuba termed the measure a new episode in the farce
that the United States Government had been forcing through the Commission
for more than a decade, and said Cuba steadfastly refused such a spurious
attempt to condemn the country.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan, adopted
by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 11 opposed, with 17 abstentions,
the Commission, among other things, expressed grave concern at the persistence
of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition
activities; the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention,
imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms
of thought, expression, assembly and association; restrictions on the
freedoms of information and expression; and discrimination by the Government
against ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other minorities.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 8 opposed,
with 16 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, expressed deep
concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations
of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including
torture, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention, imposition
of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number
of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour; all-pervasive
and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion,
opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association; and continued
violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women. Through
the measure, the Commission also requested its Chairperson to appoint
a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea.
A Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said the
draft resolution had no value for discussion at all, but its nature should
be highlighted as it was a product of politicisation and selectivity that
had nothing to do with human rights.
In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by
a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 13 opposed, with 17 abstentions,
the Commission expressed deep concern at reports from credible sources
implicating senior officials of the Government of Belarus in the forced
disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of
the incumbent authorities and of a journalist; about the electoral process
and legislative framework in Belarus, which remained fundamentally flawed;
about continued reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions; about persistent
reports of harassment and closure of non-governmental organizations, national
minority organizations, independent media outlets, opposition political
parties, and independent trade unions; and about increased restrictions
on the activities of religious organizations. The Commission decided to
appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.
A Representative of Belarus said the attempt to appoint a Special Rapporteur
was a mere attempt to divert the Commission from the consideration of
true mass violations of human rights such as were occurring in Iraq; and
that the Commission once again found itself being used as the tool of
the political interests of certain Member States.
The Commission rejected, by a roll-call vote of 12 in favour and 23 opposed,
with 18 abstentions, a resolution on the situation of human rights in
the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation.
By a roll-call vote of 27 in favour and 24 opposed, with 2 abstentions,
it passed a no-action motion on a draft resolution on the situation of
human rights in Zimbabwe, thus ending consideration of the matter.
And by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 16 opposed, with 9 abstentions,
the Commission approved a no-action motion on a draft resolution on the
situation of human rights in China, thus ending consideration of the matter.
In a resolution on cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies,
adopted by consensus, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from
all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who cooperated with
Representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who provided
testimony or information to them.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 16 April, to continue
with the general debate under its agenda item on the promotion and protection
of human rights. Later in the morning it is expected to consider draft
resolutions and decisions tabled under its agenda item on economic, social
and cultural rights.
Action on Resolutions and Decisions on the Question of the Violation
of Human Rights in Any Part of the World
The Commission passed
by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour and 24 opposed, with 2 abstentions,
a no-action motion on a draft text on the situation of human rights
in Zimbabwe (E/CN.4/2004/L.33).
The resolution would have expressed deep concern at what it said were
continuing violations of human rights in Zimbabwe, in particular politically
motivated violence, including killings, torture, sexual and other forms
of violence against women, incidents of arbitrary arrest, restrictions
on the independence of the judiciary and restrictions on the freedoms
of opinion, expression, association and assembly; and at the failure to
allow independent civil society in Zimbabwe to operate without fear of
harassment or intimidation; and would have urged the Government of Zimbabwe
to take all necessary measures to ensure that all human rights were promoted
and protected.
The vote was as follows:
In favour
(27): Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
Against (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Chile,
Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala,
Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru,
Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (2): Brazil and Mexico.
ROGER JULIEN MENGA
(Republic of Congo) called for a no-action motion, given that the
situation in Zimbabwe was once more being discussed for reasons completely
unrelated to the situation of human rights in that country. The Government
had been demonized because of its redressing of the uneven distribution
of land that had been perpetuated since colonial days. Moreover, it should
be noticed that the former colonial power, which had promised to fund
land redistribution, had gone back on its promise and had attempted to
coerce the Government to change its policy. The draft resolution would
only spread slander and accusation and the African Group therefore urged
the authors to open real negotiations with Zimbabwe and to avoid this
path of confrontation. It was recognized that Zimbabwe had some problems,
but those issues should be addressed nationally and, possibly, regionally
or at the continental level.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the resolution
on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe was totally unrelated to human
rights. It was related to land and was aimed at undermining the right
of the heroic people of Zimbabwe to land. The text was a deceptive one.
The European Union, among which were former colonial powers, did not realize
the situation on the ground. The resolution was a new ploy brought about
by the European Union. Cuba would vote in favour of the no-action motion.
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States), said the Government of Zimbabwe
continued to conduct a concerted campaign of violence, repression and
intimidation against its citizens, clearly demonstrating the leadership's
gross disregard for the full range of human rights. Within the Commission,
Member States had the responsibility to consider the substance of resolutions
and not to play the procedural game of using "no-action motions". These
motions amounted to approval of the human rights abuses being perpetrated
by nations that disregarded the fundamental principles of the Commission.
The world community should resolutely condemn the repressive policies
of the Mugabe regime that denied the Zimbabwean people their inalienable
human rights, and should publicly express its support for and solidarity
with the Zimbabwean people.
SAIDU BALARABE SAMAILA (Nigeria) said Nigeria had been intensively
engaged in Zimbabwe, and was committed to a peaceful solution for the
country, both at the Commonwealth and African level. Dialogues had been
held between the opposition and the Government, and these should bear
fruit soon. Nigeria appreciated that nation-building was an arduous task.
It was important that the Commission encourage these efforts that were
committed to justice and healing in Zimbabwe, and that it sustain them,
in order to enjoy the confidence of all. There was a need for objectivity
and transparency in the work of the Commission. All should join hands
in the dialogue with Zimbabwe and avoid any action that might continue
the isolationist trend related to the country. In the light of these views
and without prejudice to Nigeria's commitment to human rights and fundamental
freedoms, Nigeria would endorse the position of the African Group on the
no-action motion.
MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union,
said that, as previously indicated, the Union would oppose all no-action
motions and would urge all those upholding the freedom of expression to
join it in this stand. The members of the Commission should not seek to
evade their responsibility to give a fair hearing to all motions.
CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said Brazil expressed
its growing concern over selectivity and country specific resolutions.
Such resolutions intervened in the process of dialogue. Brazil's vote
would reflect its position on resolutions that did not reflect the spirit
of the Commission.
LI BAODONG (China) said China was opposed to the draft resolution
on Zimbabwe. In its history of 24 years of development, Zimbabwe had made
great progress. The people of the country enjoyed the rights to education,
health, and other human rights. However, the relics of colonialism caused
difficulties. The Commission should help Zimbabwe to enjoy stability and
development and should not table a resolution full of distortion and humiliation
which would dampen the enthusiasm of a developing country eager to ensure
human rights. The no-action motion was entirely appropriate, and China
would vote in favour of it. The African countries understood Africa best
and were in the best position to speak for African countries. The resolution
had nothing to do with the promotion and protection of human rights. It
was the product of the politicisation of international standards.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said this was not the first time
a draft resolution had been considered on the human rights situation in
Zimbabwe. Every other time, the Commission had wisely rejected these "dreadful
beasts dressed as cuddly lambs". There was a lingering dispute between
Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom on the issue of land reform, but this
was not the appropriate forum in which to address the matter. Any human
rights problems in the country were not out of the ordinary and allegations
on that front should not take up any more of the Commission's attention.
Therefore, the no-action mission was an appropriate step to take. Moreover,
unlike some of the fancy statements designed to dazzle Commission members,
the step of tabling a no-action motion was a completely permissible action
to take.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
