Commission adopts
measures on situations in Cuba, Belarus,
Turkmenistan, and Democratic People's Republic
of Korea
Commission
on Human Rights,
15 April 2004.
Approves Special Rapporteurs
for Belarus and Democratic People's Republic
of Korea; Rejects Draft Resolutions on Chechnya,
Zimbabwe and China
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 favor 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 favor 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, extra judicial 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 labor; 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 politicization 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 favor 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 favor 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 favor 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 favor
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
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.13) on the
situation of human rights in Cuba,
adopted by a roll-call vote of 22 in favor
and 21 opposed, with 10 abstentions, the
Commission considered that the Government
of Cuba, like those of all other
sovereign States, irrespective of the current
exceptional international circumstances
which had obliged many States to set up
security measures, 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;
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, notwithstanding the delicate international
environment, with the aim of fostering the
all-round development of democratic institutions
and civil liberties; and urged the Government
of Cuba, within the context of the
full exercise of its sovereignty, to cooperate
with the Personal Representative of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights on the
situation in Cuba by facilitating
the discharge of her mandate.
The vote was as follows:
In favor (22): Armenia, Australia, Austria,
Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic,
France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands,
Peru, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United
Kingdom and United States.
Against (21): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China,
Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, India,
Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone,
South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine
and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (10): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil,
Eritrea, Gabon, Mauritania, Nepal, Paraguay,
Sri Lanka and Uganda.
MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf
of the European Union, said the Union wished
to express its grave concern at the human
rights situation in Cuba. The Union
would support the draft resolution contained
in L. 13. The Union reiterated that its
objective in its relations with Cuba
was to encourage a process of transition
to a pluralistic democracy and respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms as
well as a sustainable recovery and an improvement
in the living standards of the Cuban people.
The Union recognized the efforts of Cuba
to give effect to the social rights of its
population despite the negative consequences
of economic isolation. The Union called
for the liberation of political prisoners
without delay. It also urged the Cuban Government
to restore its moratorium on the death penalty.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said the draft resolution
on Cuba was not unfamiliar. It had
been notorious for many years. This year
it had been introduced by Honduras, but
off the stage it was supported by the United
States, the real boss behind the resolution.
For many years, driven by its domestic political
needs, the United States had insulted and
denigrated Cuba through this resolution,
and the measure was typical of the hegemonic
power politics of the United States. Despite
economic sanctions and military threats,
the Cuban people had made tireless efforts
towards economic and social development.
Cuba had carried out international
human rights efforts with many countries
and had provided developing countries with
medical and educational assistance. The
human rights of the Cuban people
were being violated by none other than the
United States. This draft resolution was
a politicized product that confused the
truth, and the Commission was abused and
tarnished by it. All justice-upholding countries
should vote against it.
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said
a little over a year ago, the Cuban
Government had carried out a brutal crackdown
on independent journalists, economists,
trade unionists and human rights activists.
It had been one of the worst acts of political
repression against advocates of peaceful
change in that country's 45-year dictatorship.
This was a time of decision. Members of
the Commission should rise above artificial
barriers of regional loyalty and narrow
political considerations. Fidel Castro's
regime oppressed the Cuban people, and the
Cuban Government violated the human
rights of its people. The Commission should
support this resolution and send a message
to the brave political prisoners and to
the oppressed Cuban people that they were
not forgotten.
YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said
Russia could not support the draft resolution
on the situation of human rights in Cuba
and would vote against it. Ideal countries,
in terms of human rights standards, simply
did not exist and the situation in Cuba
did not warrant a Commission resolution
of any kind. The path to progress lay in
a constructive dialogue without outside
pressure.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said Zimbabwe
was against country specific resolutions,
and for that reason it opposed the draft
resolution against Cuba. Over the
last 40 years, Cuba had been doing
its best in all aspects of development.
The achievements of the Cuban Government
were of great importance. Cuba should
be left alone to design its own future.
A no-action motion should be used against
this draft.
ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said nobody
was perfect in the promotion and protection
of human rights. Cuba had experienced
incredible recovery and had compiled a positive
record in human rights for its population.
It provided its population with medicine,
education and culture. Many other countries
had benefited from Cuban cooperation in
these matters. Passage of this resolution
would be counter-productive and Congo would
vote against it.
JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba),
speaking as a concerned country, said the
resolution was a new episode in the farce
that the United States Government had been
forcing through the Commission for more
than a decade. Inebriated by the hegemonic
power that was now exercised by the fascist
group that had usurped power fraudulently
in the United States, the United States
thought of neither ways nor measures to
attain its goals. That explained the gross
and disrespectful fashion in which it acted
to bend and break wills. Cuba felt
outrage at the shameful role of the Government
of Honduras in introducing this resolution,
and pity for that country. The heart of
Cuba ached from anger and outrage
in the face of the Empire that had always
shown disrespect for the peoples of Morazan,
Marti, and Bolivar.
But different winds were blowing nowadays
across Latin America. The true story of
the genesis and presentation of resolution
L.13 was well known. There was no reason
or moral explanation that the Government
of Honduras could give to justify any alleged
concern over human rights in Cuba:
Honduras was simply acting under orders
from the United States, and all delegations
knew it very well. A very well articulated
destabilization and subversion plan against
Cuba was under way, against the backdrop
of the most recent belligerent adventures
of the Empire. In the face of such double
standards, hypocrisy, fear and complicity,
one could only feel scorn. Cuba steadfastly
rejected this spurious attempt to condemn
the country, knowing that it was defending
the right of respect of sovereignty and
self-determination for itself and all countries
of the world. Cuba would continue
to fight; would not give up; its voice would
not go silent on any rostrum; and it would
not renounce its sacred duty of giving solidarity
to those who needed it most. Cuba
would always be beside those who did not
resign or flag in the face of difficulties,
those who bet on the value of ideas and
principles, those who did not renounce the
possible dream of a world where all human
rights for all were realized.
ROLAND Y. KPOTSRA (Togo) said Togo had
carefully studied the draft text, and had
noted that it had nothing to do with human
rights. It was incapable of improving the
situation in Cuba. Second, cooperation
with Cuba was a must and should properly
be the concern of the international community.
Third, lifting the blockade was a necessity
to assist the development of the Cuban
people, but there was no window open to
such an opportunity. Togo would vote against
the text.
ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said Sudan had stated
in the past that there was a dangerous tendency
in the Commission to target developing countries
without objectivity. Cuba continued
to provide assistance to developing countries,
particularly in Africa. The economic sanction
against Cuba was a violation of human
rights. Sudan would vote against the text.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the Commission
in 2003 had welcomed the appointment of
the Personal Representative of the High
Commissioner and had urged the Cuban Government
to allow her to perform her functions, but
Cuba had said it did not recognize
her mandate. However, the Personal Representative
had made her report detailing various human
rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests
and executions. She had also noted positive
aspects, including Cuba's performance
in providing education and health services,
and she had cited problems linked to the
embargo against Cuba. The construction
of equality and social justice could only
be achieved through full respect for democracy,
freedom and the rule of law. Chile therefore
would vote in favor of the resolution. The
embargo against Cuba lacked justification
and was an impairment of the rights of the
Cuban people. The situation in Guantanamo
also was of concern and should be remedied.
In a resolution on the situation of human
rights in Turkmenistan (E/CN.4/2004/L.20),
adopted by a roll-call vote of 25 in favor
and 11 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the
Commission 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, and harassment
of their families; restrictions on the freedoms
of information and expression, including
through the suppression of independent media;
discrimination by the Government against
ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other minorities
in the fields of education and employment;
and the poor conditions in prisons in Turkmenistan.
The Commission's resolution expressed grave
concern at the continuing failure of the
Government to respond to the criticisms
identified in the Rapporteur of the Moscow
Mechanism of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe as regards the
investigation, trial and detention procedures
following the reported assassination attempt
against President Niyazov in November 2002,
as well as the failure of the Turkmen authorities
to allow appropriate independent bodies,
family members and lawyers access to those
convicted, or to provide any kind of evidence
to dispel rumors that some of the latter
had now died in detention; called upon the
Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full
respect for all human rights and fundamental
freedoms, in particular the freedoms of
expression, religion, association and assembly,
the right to a fair trial, and the protection
of the rights of minorities, and to stop
imprisoning conscientious objectors; to
grant immediate access by appropriate independent
bodies to detained persons; to put an end
to forced displacement and guarantee freedom
of movement inside the country; to fulfill
its responsibility to ensure that those
responsible for human rights violations
were brought to justice; to remove the new
restrictions on the activities of public
organizations; to implement fully the recommendations
outlined in the report of the Rapporteur
of the Moscow Mechanism; and to develop
further a constructive dialogue with the
United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights and her Office.
The Commission also urged the Government
to release immediately and unconditionally
all prisoners of conscience; and requested
the Special Rapporteur on the independence
of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur
on the question of torture, the Special
Rapporteur on extra judicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur
on the right to freedom of opinion and expression
and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief, as well as the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Representative
of the Secretary-General on internally displaced
persons and the Special Representative of
the Secretary-General on the situation of
human rights defenders to consider visiting
Turkmenistan during 2004-2005.
The vote was as follows:
In favor (25): Argentina, Australia, Austria,
Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican
Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of
Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom
and United States.
Against (11): Bahrain, China, Cuba,
Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (17): Armenia, Bhutan, Burkina
Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, India,
Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Russian Federation,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo
and Uganda.
LI BAODONG (China) said China, as a developing
country, understood the Turkmenistan Government's
concern with promoting the economic development
and the civil and political rights of its
citizens. The Government had made much progress,
including in terms of ratification of international
human rights instruments. These steps reflected
its full determination to cooperate with
the international community. The President
of Turkmenistan had signed a decree guaranteeing
religious freedom and announcing the Government's
determination to conduct a dialogue on the
subject. The international community should
respond with understanding and tolerance.
It would more helpful to provide helpful
comments than blind criticism. The terms
of the resolution also made references which
fell completely outside the mandate of the
Commission. The Chinese delegation would
therefore vote against the draft.
In a resolution on the situation of human
rights in the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (E/CN.4/2004/L.21), adopted by
a roll-call vote of 29 in favor and 8 opposed,
with 16 abstentions, the Commission 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, extra judicial 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 labor, and lack of respect
for the rights of persons deprived of their
liberty; sanctions on citizens of the country
who had been repatriated from abroad; all-pervasive
and severe restrictions on the freedoms
of thought, conscience, religion, opinion
and expression, peaceful assembly and association
and on access of everyone to information,
and limitations imposed on every person
who wished to move freely within the country
and travel abroad; and continued violation
of the human rights and fundamental freedoms
of women, in particular the trafficking
of women for prostitution or forced marriage,
and ethnically motivated forced abortions
and infanticide by repatriated mothers.
The Commission noted with regret that the
authorities of the country had not created
the necessary conditions to permit the international
community to examine these reports in an
independent manner; called upon the Government
to address these reports and concerns in
an open and constructive manner by providing
all pertinent information concerning the
above-mentioned issues and removing restrictions
on access to the country by the international
community; by ratifying the human rights
instruments to which the country was not
yet a party; by adhering to internationally
recognized labor standards; by implementing
the recommendations of the Committee on
the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights
Committee and the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights; by refraining
from sanctioning citizens who had moved
to other countries; by cooperating with
the United Nations system in the field of
human rights; by developing a constructive
dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and her Office; by resolving
all unresolved questions relating to the
abduction of foreigners; and by cooperating
with neighboring Governments to bring an
end to the trafficking of women.
The Commission urged the authorities of
the country to ensure that humanitarian
organizations had full, free, safe, and
unimpeded access to all parts of the country;
requested the Chairman of the Commission
to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation
of human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea; called upon the Government
of the country to extend its full cooperation
to the Special Rapporteur; requested all
relevant Special Rapporteurs and Special
Representatives to examine the situation
in the country and to report to the Commission
at its sixty-first session; and requested
the High Commissioner for Human Rights to
engage in a comprehensive dialogue with
authorities of the country with a view to
establishing a technical cooperation programme
in the field of human rights.
The vote was as follows :
In favor (29): Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Gabon,
Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay,
Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Ukraine,
United Kingdom and United States.
Against (8): China, Cuba, Egypt,
Indonesia, Nigeria, Russian Federation,
Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (16): Bahrain, Burkina Faso,
Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Mauritania,
Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo
and Uganda.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said
the draft resolution on the situation of
human rights in the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea did not correspond to
true respect for human rights. It would
only create a situation of confrontation.
Cuba would vote against the text.
LI BAODONG (China) said that factors such
as natural disasters, among other things,
had had a negative effect upon the economy
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
but the Government had made great efforts
to mitigate them. It had also made progress
in terms of respect for human rights and
had invited the Special Rapporteur on women
to visit the country. The international
community should encourage such efforts,
not subject the country to condemnation
and pressure. Such a policy would only make
the situation worse. The Chinese delegation
would vote against the text.
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said
the resolution would raise international
awareness of the terrible plight of the
North Korean people and would highlight
the brutality and repressiveness of the
regime, which denied its people basic freedoms.
The resolution expressed the international
community's deep concern over the egregious
violations of human rights committed in
North Korea, where people were arrested
for reading a foreign newspaper, where prisoners
were brutally punished and where other violations
occurred. The Commission should act; it
should shine the light of scrutiny on the
Government's brutal abuses. The resolution
on this topic last year had called upon
the Government of North Korea to cooperate
with the international community, but the
Government had ignored the request. It was
to be hoped that one day the people of North
Korea would live in freedom.
SHOTARO OSHIMA (Japan) said the resolution
passed last year by the Commission with
regard to the human rights situation in
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
had called for a dialogue with international
mechanisms, but the Government of the country
had not reacted to that request, particularly
on the issue of abduction of persons.
JONG SONG IL (Democratic People's Republic
of Korea), speaking as a concerned country,
said although the draft resolution had no
value for discussion at all, its nature
should be highlighted, as it was a product
of politicization and selectivity that had
nothing to do with human rights. First,
it pursued impure political objectives.
Second, there was skepticism as to whether
the European Union deserved the right to
talk about human rights protection -- all
forms of violation of the right to subsistence
and the right to life such as xenophobia
and discrimination were prevalent in many
European Union Member States. The Government
of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
which was guided by human-centred Juche
idea in all its activities, maintained an
invariable policy of assuming responsibility
for and constantly ensuring the full enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms
by all citizens. Politicization, selectivity
and double-standards were prevailing over
the principle of genuine human rights protection
in the Commission. This stark reality was
only increasing suspicions about the need
to remain any further in the Commission:
the European Union had already jeopardized
the credibility of the Commission by submitting
the resolution. Now it was driving the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea to the door of
no return.
HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the
Government of the Republic of Korea had
actively participated in the international
community's activities to promote human
rights and from the same source came its
deep concern over the situation of human
rights in the Democratic People's Republic
of Korea. The Republic of Korea had made
every effort to build an atmosphere of conciliation
and to bring about a reconciliation on the
Korean peninsula. For that reason, the Republic
of Korea would abstain from the vote on
this text. That abstention should not be
taken as signifying indifference to the
issue, but rather as a sign of the Government's
belief that constructive engagement based
on inter-Korean cooperation and dialogue
would provide the way forward. It was also
hoped that the Government of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea would improve
the situation of human rights in the country
and would strengthen its dialogue with the
international community.
In a resolution on the situation of human
rights in Belarus (E/CN.4/2004/L.22), adopted
by a roll-call vote of 23 in favor 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; about
increased restrictions on the activities
of religious organizations; about reports
of harassment of independent and internationally
oriented educational establishments; about
the failure of the Government to cooperate
fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission
on Human Rights, as requested in its resolution
2003/14; and about the criminal prosecution
of a leading opposition figure.
The Commission urged the Government to
dismiss or suspend from their duties law
enforcement officers and public officials
implicated in forced disappearances and/or
summary executions, pending an impartial,
credible and full investigation of those
cases; to ensure that all necessary measures
were taken to investigate fully and impartially
all cases of forced disappearance, summary
execution and torture and that perpetrators
were brought to justice; to bring the electoral
process and legislative framework into line
with international standards; to bring the
actions of its police and security forces
into conformity with its obligations under
the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights; to establish independence
of the judiciary and end impunity for persons
responsible for killing or injuring individuals;
and to release scientists and other individuals
detained for politically motivated reasons.
It urged the Government to cooperate fully
with all the mechanisms of the Commission,
including by extending invitations to the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture,
the Special Rapporteur on extra judicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, the Special
Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion
and expression, and the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General on the situation
of human rights defenders; as well as the
Working Group on Enforced or Arbitrary Disappearances;
and decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur
to establish direct contacts with the Government
and people of Belarus with a view to examining
the situation of human rights in the country.
The vote was as follows:
In favor (23): Australia, Austria, Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic,
France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay,
Peru, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden,
United Kingdom and United States.
Against (13): Armenia, China, Cuba,
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russian
Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Sudan, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (17): Argentina, Bahrain, Bhutan,
Burkina Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Gabon, Honduras, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Togo and
Uganda.
Earlier, a "no-action motion"
tabled by the Russian Federation on resolution
E/CN.4/2004/L.22 was rejected by a roll-call
vote of 22 in favor and 22 opposed, with
9 abstentions.
YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said
Russia considered that the text was politically
motivated. The sponsors were guided not
by human rights concerns but by political
motives. The text had been drafted at a
time when the authorities of Belarus were
undertaking major changes designed to improve
the situation in the country. The content
of the text was absurd. The Russian delegation
called for a no-action motion on the text.
LI BAODONG (China) said the resolution
was firmly opposed by China because it was
entirely contradictory to the facts. The
people of China and Belarus had a close
relationship and China knew the genuine
situation and reality in that country, which
was entirely different from the allegations
in the document. The Government of that
country had made tremendous democratic progress
towards the enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms by all people in Belarus.
The resolution had ulterior motives, mainly
to put economic and political pressure on
Belarus, as it followed an independent political
policy. The resolution aimed to change the
political system, not the situation of human
rights. China would vote against this entirely
political resolution and supported the move
to take no action.
RODOLFO REYES RODRÍGUEZ (Cuba)
said Cuba also would support the
"no-action motion" proposed by
the Russian Federation. It was inappropriate
for the United States to present any draft
on the human rights situation in another
country, given its actions both in respect
of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay
and the situation in Iraq. The draft was
an attempt to exercise power as a precursor
to the use of arms in the search to crush
the independent paths of other peoples.
Cuba knew the people of Belarus and
their commitment to the realization of their
human rights.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said India would
vote against the text if it was put to a
vote. L.22 called for the Special Rapporteur
to have direct contact with the people,
which was not the usual prescription in
the mandate of special mechanisms. India
would vote in favor of the no-action motion.
MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf
of the European Union, said a motion not
to take action was an attempt to deny members
of the Commission their right to express
their views on an issue. It undermined the
principles of transparency and non-selectivity
that were essential for the work of the
Commission. The Union voted against such
motions as a matter of principle, as no
country could be viewed as being above or
beyond human rights consideration by the
Commission. The Union urged all members
of the Commission to vote against the no-action
proposal as a matter of principle, whether
or not they voted for the resolution itself.
SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a
concerned country, said no one present was
likely to be surprised that the United States
had tabled a draft resolution based upon
totally misleading and groundless accusations
against another State. This was nothing
but an attempt to punish a State that had
chose to follow another path. It was obvious
to all that the accusations against Belarus
had been designed in the same manner as
the weapons of mass destruction allegations
against Iraq and that country's alleged
ability to deploy them in 45 minutes. However,
the European Union's position was more surprising.
Was it perhaps a simple attempt to divert
attention from those countries' own human
rights situations? The Union had rejected
all constructive proposals for negotiation
and had attempted to create new dividing
lines in Europe, which ran counter to all
policies of good neighborliness and partnership.
Unlike the United States, Belarus was a
party to all basic international human rights
treaties and cooperated fully with international
human rights treaty bodies. Among the problematic
aspects of the draft, one must ask why Belarus
had been singled out as a problematic country
in terms of enforced disappearances when
such disappearances had been recorded in
more than 79 countries. Moreover, Belarus'
electoral legislation conformed entirely
with international standards and its electoral
practices were entirely democratic and transparent.
Belarus had been recognized by the World
Bank as a model for regional countries in
the fight against poverty. There were 18
political parties in Belarus today, and
opposition parties could not only criticize
the current Government but also benefited
from generous political and financial support
from the West. Nor had any party been dissolved.
Belorussian citizens had established 2,214
public associations and 52 all-nation trade
unions, which also maintained active international
contacts. The press had grown by 20 per
cent in recent years and non-governmental
organizations by 70 per cent. The suggestion
to have a Special Rapporteur for Belarus
did not stand up to criticism or logic.
Special Rapporteurs should only be appointed
as a last resort for those countries in
which mass, gross and continuing violations
of human rights were taking place. The attempt
to appoint a Special Rapporteur for Belarus
was a mere attempt to divert the Commission
from the consideration of true mass violations
of human rights such as were occurring in
Iraq. The Commission again found itself
being used as the tool of the political
interests of certain Member States.
In a resolution on cooperation with United
Nations human rights bodies (E/CN.4/2004/L.28),
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; those
who availed themselves of procedures established
under United Nations auspices for the protection
of human rights and all those who had provided
legal assistance to them for this purpose;
those who submitted communications under
procedures established by human rights instruments;
and those who were relatives of victims
of human rights violations; condemned all
acts of intimidation or reprisal by Governments
against private individuals and groups who
sought to cooperate with the United Nations
and representatives of human rights bodies;
and invited the Secretary-General to submit
to the Commission at its sixty-first session
a report containing a compilation and analysis
of any available information, from all appropriate
sources, on alleged reprisals against the
persons referred to above.
The Commission rejected, by a roll-call
vote of 12 in favor and 23 opposed, with
18 abstentions, a resolution on the situation
of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya
of the Russian Federation (E/CN.4/2004/L.29).
The resolution, among other things, would
have welcomed the efforts by the Government
of the Russian Federation to ensure normal
conditions of life for the civilian population,
as well as the recent trials and subsequent
convictions of military personnel who were
serving in Chechnya for crimes against civilians;
would have strongly condemned all terrorist
attacks in Chechnya and elsewhere in the
Russian Federation; and would have strongly
condemned what it said were ongoing serious
violations of international human rights
law and international humanitarian law in
Chechnya, including forced disappearances,
extra judicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions,
and abductions.
The vote was as follows:
In favor (12): Australia, Austria, Croatia,
France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and
United States.
Against (23): Armenia, Brazil, China, Congo,
Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon,
India, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russian
Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda,
Ukraine and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (18): Argentina, Bahrain, Bhutan,
Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mauritania,
Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar,
Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said China would oppose
the draft resolution. The Russian Federation
had made efforts to maintain peace and to
uphold respect for human rights in Chechnya.
Chechnya was part and parcel of the Russian
Federation, and tabling such a draft resolution
was a sign of interference in the internal
affairs of the country. China urged others
to reject the draft.
RODOLFO REYES RODRÍGUEZ (Cuba)
said the draft resolution, tabled by the
European Union, was yet another example
of political manipulation in the Commission,
with the evident purpose of playing to home
audiences. The European Union had presented
a draft resolution on the Guantanamo Bay
in order to satisfy the same public opinion.
It was a groundless procedure that went
nowhere and did not correspond to reality
in Chechnya or in the rest of the Russian
Federation. Cuba was well aware of
the efforts of the Russian Federation to
find a solution to the issue, including
through elections and the adoption of new
legislative measures. The draft resolution
would in no way contribute to the promotion
of human rights anywhere in the world. Cuba
could not support such a discriminatory,
unfair procedure.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the Russian
Federation's right to defend its territorial
integrity, to defend its population, including
against terrorist attacks, and the improvement
of the human rights situation in Chechnya
had all been recognized in the draft text.
Such concerns should guide any consideration
of the question. It was not clear why the
text was necessary, nor would it help the
situation. India would, therefore, vote
against the draft.
LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation),
speaking as a concerned country, said the
European Union had persisted in drafting
a resolution on the situation in the Chechen
Republic despite the rejection of similar
drafts at two previous sessions of the Commission.
The Russian Federation stood firmly for
constructive international cooperation in
the field of human rights and regretted
that the former High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, had not
been able to carry through with his plans
to visit the country last summer.
The process of normalization had become
irreversible in Chechnya, and a political
solution was being consistently pursued.
The President of the Republic had been elected
in accordance with the provisions of the
Republic's Constitution, and Parliamentary
and municipal elections would be held this
fall. The amnesty law was being implemented
with respect to those who had voluntarily
laid down arms and the social and economic
infrastructure of this constituent entity
of the Russian Federation had been generally
rehabilitated. Numerous public health and
educational institutions were working, the
system of law enforcement was functioning
and internally displaced persons were returning
to the Republic. No one was more interested
in the true well being and prosperity of
Chechnya than the Russian Federation. Initiatives
hindering that process - such as the European
Union sponsored draft - were unacceptable
and constituted an unfriendly act. Such
actions played into the hands of terrorists
and went against the vital interests of
the country. They also undermined the effectiveness
of the international campaign against terror.
It had been recognized internationally that
Chechen extremists had closely established
links with the Taliban in Afghanistan and
that some had fought with the Taliban and
Al-Qaeda. It was time for the European Union
to show solidarity with the Russian Federation
and the people of the Chechen Republic,
instead of tabling politically motivated
texts such as this.
JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile had decided
to abstain in the vote. A referendum had
taken place in Chechnya to decide on the
Constitution of the Republic; and measures
had been taken to prosecute members of the
armed forces who had been involved in human
rights violations, among other things.
RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said
the United States would vote for the resolution
because of deep concerns over continuing
human rights violations in Chechnya. It
urged the Russian Government to resolve
the situation. There was a need for a political
solution to the conflict, but Chechen rebel
leaders also had the responsibility to stop
and prevent human rights violations by their
forces. That was a necessary step for peace.
The resolution strongly condemned all terrorist
acts in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Russian
Federation. The United States did not support
secession from the Russian Federation, and
condemned all terrorist acts and threatened
terrorist acts in the strongest possible
terms.
The Commission passed by a roll-call vote
of 27 in favor 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 favor (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 favor 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 favor
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 politicization 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.
By a roll-call vote of 28 in favor 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
(E/CN.4/2004/L.37).
The draft resolution would have expressed
concern at what it said were continuing
reports of severe restrictions on freedom
of assembly, association, expression, conscience
and religion, legal process that continued
to fall short of international norms of
due process and transparency, and arrests
and other severe sentences for those seeking
to exercise their fundamental rights, including
those in Tibet and Xinjiang; and would have
encouraged China to permit visits by United
Nations mechanisms and to take additional
steps to cooperate with the international
community in the human rights area.
The vote was as follows:
In favor (28): Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil,
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, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.
Against (16): Australia, Austria, Costa
Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala,
Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and
United States.
Abstentions (9): Argentina, Armenia, Chile,
Dominican Republic, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru,
Republic of Korea and Uganda.
SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said this draft
resolution put in jeopardy the United Nations'
objective of cooperation among nations.
In China, people enjoyed all rights, and
the Government had been committed to the
respect of human rights for years. In the
past, China had been subjected to colonial
aggression. At present, China was one of
the leading economies of the world. Its
Gross National Product (GDP) had tremendously
grown; it exceeded even those of some developed
nations. The efforts of China had liberated
its people from the shackles of poverty.
China's development record was a matter
of pride for all.
The representative of (China) said China
categorically rejected the anti-China draft
resolution tabled by the United States.
This was the eleventh time that the United
States had tabled such a resolution, claiming
that it did so on the grounds that the human
rights situation in China had "worsened
sharply". If this logic held any truth,
China would already have slid back into
the primitive stage. The truth was that
China was now under a new generation of
leadership that was inspired by the ideal
of building a people-centred Government.
It was committed to doing all it could in
the interests of its people. The United
States claimed that China lacked basic freedoms.
Such a claim was a pure distortion of the
facts. It was outright lying.
The United States claimed that the resolution
this year was very mildly worded, presuming
that more support would thus be won over.
Regrettably, by overrating its own IQ, it
had underestimated other people's judgments.
To any person who could still use his brain,
it was obvious that the United States resolution
was nothing but a sugar-coated bullet, and
even masquerading as a mild resolution,
its true purpose of obstinately interfering
in the affairs of another country in order
to serve its domestic interests could not
be concealed. Facts had shown that far from
backsliding, the human rights situation
in China had advanced significantly; reacting
from disappointment and jealousy, the United
States had come up with this anti-China
resolution. China's no-action motion on
the draft resolution did not mean that it
wished to avoid discussing China's human
rights situation. On the contrary, China
welcomed well-intentioned criticism and
suggestions, and had moved for a no-action
motion because the resolution was for the
sole purpose of serving the interests of
the presidential election in the United
States rather than based on any genuine
concern for human rights.
ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) Congo wished
to associate itself with the statement by
the delegation of China. Congo was aware
of the difficulties that could be encountered
in the pursuit of human rights. However,
China had experienced tremendous and rapid
development on many fronts and had made
admirable progress to the benefit of its
population. A resolution on China would
only hamper the country's efforts. None
could deny the benefits that accrued from
China's economic development and which had
been brought to other developing countries
as well. Therefore, Congo would vote in
favor of the no-action motion.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said Sino-African
friendship had been based on mutual respect
for human rights and self-determination.
China had been a friend of downtrodden people.
Its actions were based on respect. No one
had the right to judge the Chinese human
rights situation. Practical exercise on
the ground should be the only remedy, which
China was applying. Zimbabwe would support
the no-action motion.
IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba) said the
soap opera of the draft resolution on China
that had been followed for a number of years
was one of low quality. The exercise represented
manipulation and attempts to bring pressure
to bear on China. It sought to interfere
in China's domestic affairs. This was a
major problem of this infantilism -- it
was like big boys who went around picking
fights. All should really learn from China.
There should not be blindness to the situation.
China was not so small. It was a big country
in terms of will, people, and ability to
grow. Cuba would be voting in favor
of the no-action motion.
LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) said
China had set an impressive example across
the board for the entire world, including
in the sphere of the protection of human
rights. Nothing but astonishment could be
expressed at the tabling of this draft resolution.
China had proved its openness to cooperation
and did not need any prompting from anybody.
The Russian Federation categorically objected
to the draft text.
ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said Sudan valued
the progress made in all aspects by China.
The developing countries had had excellent
relationships with China for the last 40
years. China had been helping developing
countries with their development efforts.
The draft was a futile effort by the developed
countries against the development of China.
Sudan would vote in favor of the no-action
motion.
SARALA M. FERNADO (Sri Lanka) said the
international community had recognized that
the Government and people of China had made
great strides in improving the situation
of human rights in that country. In such
a context, there was no need for a resolution,
and Sri Lanka would vote in favor of the
no-action motion. It was time to build on
the achievements of China and not to denigrate
the progress made.
MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania)
said China, throughout its long history,
had developed its own institutions and political
systems, which had constantly evolved and
had experienced profound reforms and changes.
The country had undergone unprecedented
economic and social reforms and had achieved
improvements in the living standards of
the Chinese people. The great people of
China deserved respect for their own economic
and political choices. China was progressing
in its own way, but it was doing so in a
sustained fashion. The draft text did not
contribute to the general effort to promote
human rights and on that basis, it was rejected
by Mauritania.
MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf
of the European Union, said that it was
the principle of the European Union to vote
against any form of no-action motion. The
Union urged all members to vote against
the no-action motion for reasons of principle.
HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) said the Commission
was an important platform for addressing
various human rights issues in the world.
A no-action motion would interfere with
this process, and Japan would oppose it
as a matter of principle.
The representative of (Indonesia) said
Indonesia strongly believed that genuine
efforts to promote and protect human rights
should be based on a spirit of cooperation.
The progress made in China in respect of
economic, social and cultural rights made
clear the country's commitment to human
rights. China did not deserve to be targeted
in such a manner. Indonesia would vote in
favor of the no-action motion.
|