|
|
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
From: Jack Churchward <trinley@churchward.com>
PRC pressure
Here is the official summary of what happened when the
PRC's human rights abuses were brought up for discussion at the United Nations
last year. Please write a letter to your parliamentarians to stand up against
PRC pressure and let the motion be discussed this year. UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Council 2 May 2000
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifty-sixth session SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 55th
MEETING Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Tuesday, 18 April 2000, at 10
a.m. Chairman: Mr. SIMKHADA (Nepal) CONTENTS QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING: (a)
QUESTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CYPRUS (continued) Draft resolution on the situation
of human rights in China (E/CN.4/2000/L.30) 79. Mr. KOH
(United States of America) introducing the draft resolution drew attention to
the fact that paragraph 2 (d) had been separated into two parts: 2 (d) and
2 (e), which would
read:
"(d) At the severe measures taken to restrict the
peaceful activities of Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and others who sought to
exercise their internationally recognized rights of freedom of religion and
peaceful
assembly;
(e) At the severe measure taken against adherents of
spiritual movements
such as Falun Gong who, in pursuing non-violent spiritual
activities, sought to exercise their internationally recognized rights of
freedom of conscience and of peaceful assembly;"
80.
His delegation was submitting the resolution to the Commission without
malice towards the Government of China or its people. Since the late
1970s, the United States and China had worked together on many regional and
international problems. There had been commercial ties between the two
nations for very many years.
81. China had recently had great
success in liberalizing its economy and
dramatically improving the standard of living of many of its citizens. To
encourage that trend, his Government was currently making every effort to
ensure that China would have Permanent Normal Trade Relations status if it
entered the World Trade Organization (WTO). If China should enter the WTO,
it would be required to tailor its domestic conduct to international standards
and undergo scrutiny by that body without hiding behind no-action motions.
The same should apply to its human rights record. However, the situation
of human rights in China remained very poor and China’s human rights
practices fell far short of international standards and its human rights record
had not only failed to improve, but had deteriorated in the
past year.
82.
In 1999, the Chinese authorities had intensified the suppression of
organized dissent and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. China
continued to commit serious human rights abuses in Tibet and refused to
engage the Dalai Lama in dialogue to resolve long-standing differences,
having, instead, chosen to engage in a campaign to discredit him. That
year had also been marked by the exploitation of forced prison labour and
continuing problems with regard to the human rights of women. In the
circumstances, his delegation believed that the Commission had an
obligation to its own mandate and the entire international community to
examine China’s human rights record on its merits.
83. Mr. QIAO Zonghuai (China)
said that his delegation resolutely opposed
the draft resolution, introduced by the delegation of the United States of
America. In accordance with rule 65, paragraph 2, of the rules of
procedure of the functional commissions of the Economic and Social Council,
he wished to move that the Commission should take no action on the draft
resolution which was nothing more than a political farce directed against
China by the United States and a mockery of the Commission and its members.
84. During the past year, the
Chinese people had enjoyed political
stability, economic development, national unity and comfortable living and
working conditions. China was making unprecedented strides towards
democracy, prosperity and the rule of law. The human rights situation in
the country was at an all-time high.
85. The representative of the
United States had asserted that the human rights situation in China had
seriously deteriorated. That was a blatant lie. It was the United
States that had violated the human rights of the Chinese people when, on 8 May
1999, it had bombed the Chinese Embassy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
killing three Chinese journalists and wounding more than 20 embassy staff
members in a gross violation of Chinese sovereignty and the human rights of the
Chinese people. One year after that incident, the United States, which had
yet to give satisfactory explanations of it to the Chinese Government and
people, made unwarranted attacks on China at the Commission, in an attempt to
confuse right and wrong.
86.
The human rights situation in China had been improving steadily, and the real
reason the United States had tabled such a slanderous resolution was its desire
to serve the interests of its own domestic party politics. That country
had itself dealt ruthlessly with problematic cults, yet was giving unreserved
support to an equally problematical cult in China. China had
successfully used the humane approach of education to save an extremely large
percentage of Falun Gong practitioners, and that should be regarded as a
contribution to the international protection of human rights. The fact
that the draft resolution made a groundless accusation against China in that
regard was a typical example of double standards. The draft
resolution could only provoke confrontation among the member States and obstruct
the work of the Commission.
87.
The assertion by the representative of the United States that the no-action
motion proposed by China was against the rules of procedure of
the Commission was absolute nonsense. The rules of procedure had been
established by the Economic and Social Council and had been in use for many
years. Rule 65, paragraph 2, had been invoked and applied on numerous
occasions. Such motions had also often been used in other United Nations
bodies. The United States itself had, on many occasions, used such motions
in the General Assembly and other forums in order to block the adoption of
resolutions and decisions that were not to its liking. The United States
attack against China’s move was a typical act of hegemony. The United
States representative must remember that the Commission was not the United
States Congress, and that the Commission followed the rules of procedure of the
United Nations, not the will of the United States.
88. The United States alleged
that China’s no-action motion was aimed at
seeking special treatment and obstructing discussion of China’s human
rights situation by the Commission. However, during the current session of
the Commission, many delegations had made various comments on the human
rights situation in China, and his delegation had provided information
under the relevant agenda items on the measures its Government had adopted
to promote and protect human rights. Throughout the session, the United
States delegation had made constant reference to alleged human rights
problems in China, and had exercised its right of reply to statements by
the Chinese delegation. It could hardly complain that it was not able to
discuss the question of human rights in China.
89. It was the United States
that was seeking special treatment and using
double standards on the question of human rights. It was constantly
levelling accusations at developing countries, including China, in the name
of human rights. However, the United States itself was notorious for
racial discrimination, police brutality, prison torture, campus shootings
and other serious violations of human rights. It constantly urged other
countries to sign and ratify human rights conventions, whereas it refused
to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. If, as the United
States delegation appeared to believe, the only way to discuss and improve
a country’s human rights situation was to introduce country-specific
resolutions, its own scandalous human rights record could only be improved
by the tabling of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in
the United States of America.
90. He therefore urged the Commission, in order to
safeguard its
credibility, to resist the political pressure of the United States and vote
in favour of China’s motion to take no action and against the United States
draft resolution. He asked that the no-action motion be decided by a
roll-call vote.
91. Ms. RUBIN (United States of
America) said that the no-action motion
presented a critical issue of principle for all members of the Commission.
No nation’s human rights record was above international scrutiny, yet, for
years the Commission had allowed China to enjoy immunity. By signing
international human rights instruments, China had acknowledged that its
human rights record was a legitimate topic for discussion by the
international community and the Commission on Human Rights. Asking China
to conform to the international standards that it had acknowledged did not
amount to interference in its internal affairs.
92. Her delegation believed that
the Commission had a duty to reject
no-action motions that were introduced for the sole purpose of preventing
it from examining a country’s record. Members of the Commission should
be
free to debate any issue pertaining to human rights, and should not condone
double standards. All resolutions should be judged on their merits, and no
Commission member should be allowed to hide its human rights record behind
procedural manoeuvring. Her delegation therefore called on all Commission
members to reject China’s no-action motion.
93. Mr. PARSHIKOV (Russian
Federation) said that human rights questions were increasingly being
artificially politicized. The draft resolution in question was
counter-productive. China had made significant progress with
regard to human rights and the observation of international human rights
standards, had signed several international conventions, overhauled its penal
legislation and received a visit from the High Commissioner for Human
Rights.
94. For a number of years, his
Government had been engaged in a fruitful human rights dialogue with the
Government of China. Recently, a number of other Governments had engaged
in similar dialogues. That was the appropriate approach to such a great
country. His delegation would
therefore support the no-action motion.
95. Mr. MENDONاA E
MOURA (Portugal), explaining the position of the European Union and the
associated countries of Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and
Turkey, expressed his regret at the introduction of a no-action motion by
the delegation of China. It was a matter of principle for the Union to
vote against no-action motions which were clearly aimed at preventing the
Commission from dealing with specific country situations. No country
should use procedural tools to evade criticism or judgement by the
international community. For the Commission to discuss and decide to take
action on a human rights situation in any country of the world did not
constitute interference in the internal affairs of a country. A no-action
motion ran counter to the principles of transparency and non-selectivity
that were essential to the work of the Commission and brought into question
the right of the Commission to deal with any country situation.
96. The Union was following the human rights
situation in China with great attention, and was deeply concerned that,
notwithstanding some improvement in the legal system and social and economic
rights, little progress had been achieved with regard to civil and political
rights. It strongly
condemned the continuing restrictions upon fundamental freedoms, including
freedom of thought, expression, religion, assembly and association, and
expressed its concern at the harsh sentences imposed on political
dissidents calling for democracy and at the alarming human rights situation in
Tibet and Xinjiang.
97. It was equally
dismayed by the severe sentences passed upon members of the Falun Gong movement,
the use of administrative detention and the
continued imposition of the death penalty. It attached great importance to
the European Union-China human rights dialogue, which was kept constantly
under review, but emphasized that the willingness of the Chinese
authorities to discuss human rights issues of common concern must be
translated into tangible action towards the full realization of the human
rights of all persons under Chinese jurisdiction.
98. Mr. ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba)
said that the United States delegation employed double standards in dealing with
issues relating to other
countries. Its representative’s statement had been full of sophisms and
fallacies. It had clearly forgotten that the rules of procedure had
existed long before the case of China had been introduced and that those
rules applied equally to all countries without discrimination. The United
States delegation appeared also to have forgotten what action it had itself
taken in international forums. From the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, the
United States delegation had consistently used the equivalent of a
no-action motion, namely, Article 18, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the
United Nations, to deny China its rightful seat in the General Assembly.
It was therefore in no position to make hypocritical statements about the
misuse of rules of procedure. His delegation would vote in favour of the
no-action motion.
99. Mr. HYNES (Canada) said that
his delegation consistently opposed
no-action motions, believing that it was the Commission’s fundamental
responsibility to deal with human rights concerns. While it was true that
the rules did allow for such motions, the current motion amounted to a
denial of the Commission’s mandate. His delegation would oppose the
no-action motion and, if draft resolution E/CN.4/2000/L.30 was put to a
vote, it would support it.
100. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan) said that
the Commission should not be an arena
for political conflict, yet became one every year when a draft resolution
was introduced on the situation of human rights in China. No case could be
made for censuring China on human rights. If the purpose of States and
Governments was to ensure social progress, China had done well in that
regard. A recent report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
emphasized that China had had remarkable success in reducing abject
poverty. By the yardstick of human development, China’s achievements
were outstanding, and human conditions in the country had never been better.
101. The draft resolution was
politically selective. Year after year, a
draft resolution was introduced on human rights in China, whereas his own
delegation was severely discouraged from introducing a draft resolution
concerning another large country in Asia. It was argued that the
introduction of a resolution on that country would incense it and lead it
to terminate cooperation with human rights bodies. In the case of China,
however, the opposite argument was used, namely, that the human rights
situation would be improved if China was put under the spotlight. He
wondered whether China was being put under the spotlight precisely because
it was the most successful developing country, and whether it was not being
contained rather than engaged.
102. The political antecedents of the
current draft resolution were no
secret. The International Herald Tribune had stated that the anti-China
draft resolution was being tabled in order to satisfy the anti-China lobby
and ease Congressional passage of the Permanent Normal Trade Relations
status. The Commission was thus being asked to take up positions against
China in order to permit the sponsor of the draft resolution to enjoy the
trade benefits accruing from China’s opening markets.
103. According to Article 1, paragraph
4, of the Charter of the United Nations, one of the purposes of the United
Nations was to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
Consideration of the draft resolution
in question was, however, likely to generate political confrontation
between the two largest countries in the world. The rules of procedure
provided for the possibility of no-action motions in order to prevent
confrontation, and that provision appeared to be tailor-made for the
current case.
104. Mr. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said
that no-action motions were not unique to the Commission. China had
adopted positive measures with regard to human rights and cooperation with
international bodies, and the
international community should build on those measures, rather than rely on
resolutions that failed to engage the cooperation of the country. His
delegation would support the no-action motion.
105. Mr. IBRAHIM (Sudan) said that
economic and social rights had been
improved for many citizens in China, and China had cooperated with the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Such
improvements in the situation should be appreciated. His delegation would
support the no-action motion.
106. Mr. CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said
that China should be encouraged and engaged in as broad a spectrum of activities
as possible. His delegation would support the no-action motion.
107. At the request of the
representative of China, a vote was taken by roll-call on the motion that no
action should be taken on draft resolution E/CN.4/2000/L.30.
108. Rwanda, having been drawn by lot
by the Chairman, was called upon to
vote first.
In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi,
China, Congo, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Morocco, Nepal, Niger,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Venezuela,
Zambia.
Against: Canada, Colombia, Czech
Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany,Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Liberia,
Mauritius,
Mexico, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia.
Absent: Romania
109. The motion that no action should
be taken on the draft resolution, was
adopted by 22 votes to 18, with 12 absentions.
The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m.
