HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL BEGINS GENERAL SEGMENT

The Human Rights Council this afternoon started its general segment, hearing a series of statements from national delegations, United Nations specialized agencies and other bodies.

Speakers welcomed the creation of the Council and stressed that it should distinguish itself from its predecessor in its methods of work and by dealing with human rights violations in transparency, universally, impartially and without double-standard and selectivity.

Other speakers considered the establishment of the Council as a milestone in progress towards the objective of reforming human rights to make them a pillar of the United Nations. The Council was expected to respond to the expectations and aspirations of the world community and to fill gaps left by the Commission on Human Rights.

The Council was urged to be guided by the principle of international dialogue and cooperation. Some speakers commended the modality of universal periodical reviews of the human rights situations of Council Member States.

Taking the floor were the representatives of Mali, Jordan, Peru, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand, Lebanon, United States, Australia, Singapore, Iraq, Bhutan, Slovakia, Egypt, Costa Rica, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Libya as well as the Sovereign Order of Malta.

The representatives of the following bodies also spoke: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Bank, as did the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, African Union, Organisation International de la Francophonie (OIF), Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the League of Arab States. The Independent Expert leading the Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, the Special Advisor of the Secretary-General on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and the Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues also delivered statements.
India and Pakistan exercised the right of reply.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 22 June, to continue its high segment. It will resume its general debate at 3 p.m. on Thursday.

Statements

FATOUMATA DIALL (Mali) said the resolution creating the Council was an important step in the fight for the cause of human rights. The Secretary-General was to be commended for having placed human rights at the heart of the concerns of the international community, in particular the United Nations. The Council appeared at an appropriate juncture, added to the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. History would remember that the present session consecrated the end of a period, with the disappearance of the Commission, which suffered from excessive politicisation of its work and the selective nature of its work, which greatly reduced its credibility.

The Council gave an ideal opportunity to make a new beginning for all Member States of the Organization, and Mali wished for particular accent to be put on human rights education, in order to anchor this firmly in hearts and minds. To this end, technical assistance would be necessary for States who expressed the need, in order to reinforce their capacity in all fields relating to human rights. It was sincerely hoped that all Member States would invest in order for the new body to have the necessary means to fulfil its mandate correctly, and for a culture of human rights and fundamental freedoms to triumph.

MUSA BURAYZAT (Jordan) said that the international community should feel full satisfaction with the achievements and positive developments that the Human Rights Council represented. It was the result of collective efforts to protect the privacy, humanity and human rights of every person. Jordan was pleased that the founding resolution represented a balance between the rights to development, security and human rights. The lack of development and the existence of unemployment and conflict hampered national efforts to promote human rights. In that regard, they had only to look at the continuing conflict in the Middle East and the situation in the occupied Arab lands. The first victim there was the humanity of all people, and the despair of people who suffered from violations of their rights to life, development and self-determination.

While the situation was a clash of communities, religions and civilizations, Jordan had made efforts to bring all parties together for deep dialogue, which had led to various achievements, including the Amman declaration. Jordan realized the danger of slipping into a clash of civilizations and religions, and the threat that posed to human rights. What they had to do was to build on the achievements of the Commission on Human Rights and have a partnership between States, and between States and non-governmental organizations. For its part, Jordan had set up an independent centre to promote and protect human rights in its own country.

CARLOS CHOCANO BURGA (Peru) said the establishment of the Council would give States a chance to renew their commitments in the promotion and protection of human rights. Although the Commission had done a lot of work, lacunae had developed during its later stages. It was hoped that the Council would fill the gaps created by the Commission. Peru had made special commitments towards the promotion and protection of indigenous rights. The succeeding governments of Peru had been endeavouring to uphold the rights of all Peruvians.

Peru hoped that the Council would deal with its work in consensus. It was also hoped that the Council would take action on the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was submitted by the working group on the drafting of the declaration. Peru also supported the adoption of the draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances. After twenty years of violence in the country, Peru had now established new mechanisms of complaints to deal with individual complaints. The Government had also extended an invitation to the special mechanisms to visit the country. The cases of 4,414 enforced disappearances had been reported to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The State was also taking into consideration to elucidate the cases of 69,000 individuals who disappeared by the hands of terrorist groups.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said the establishment of the Council was a milestone in progress towards the objective of reforming human rights to make them a pillar of the United Nations. The international community had clear expectations of the Council, and it should ensure that it was a robust, transparent and effective body, which could make concrete decisions that could be implemented by States and upheld by the United Nations system. It should deal effectively and swiftly with urgent and emerging situations and issues. Members should come to the Council with a new way of thinking and of acting. Efforts should concentrate on real dialogue, and all should demonstrate tolerance, balance and respect.

New ways of thinking would require new tools, and a more sophisticated range of processes should be considered. Quality should be the focus in work, and the Council should always have in mind the objective to enact change and truly improve the situation of human rights. Standard setting would continue to be important. However, consensus in setting these should be an objective. Governments should work in tandem with the High Commissioner and the United Nations system to make a genuine difference in the lives of their citizens. Members and observers alike should ensure that the Council was at the forefront of a new and dynamic era of human rights promotion and protection.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said that the creation of the new Human Rights Council was crucial for the protection of human rights worldwide and it provided a unique opportunity to promote the human rights agenda in new ways. Sweden believed that the Council could break new ground when it came to promoting implementation by taking a firm stance on violations of human rights, through the peer review mechanism, and through support to Governments that sought assistance to improve their human rights record. The increased field presence of the High Commissioner would also play an important role in contributing to better implementation. Improving global implementation of the prohibition of torture was a key area, and they also needed to strengthen the implementation of human rights norms prohibiting discrimination.

In addition, the Council needed to be strong and effective. The greater frequency of Council meetings gave it greater possibilities of acting when the need was greatest. Sweden, like a great number of other States, believed that the death penalty should be abolished worldwide and it would continue to raise that issue in the Human Rights Council, as it did in the Commission. Finally, the Council Member States should seek that which united, rather than shirking their responsibility on that which could divide.

CHAIYONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said that with the fresh beginning of the Council, it was essential to remind the international community that the work of the Council should be guided by the principle of international dialogue and cooperation. To ensure a smooth transition, it was advisable that the first session of the Council should focus principally on developing and adopting a comprehensive work plan so that it could perform its tasks as soon as possible. On the universal periodic review mechanism, Thailand was supportive of that new mechanism and supported the establishment of an inter-sessional working group to work out its modalities and procedures.

The modalities should guarantee that the interactive involvement of the countries under review be carried out universally, impartially, objectively and without selectivity. On the review of the Commission mandates, Thailand was in favour of the retention of the Commission’s special procedures mandates, as it believed that they were instrumental in advancing the cause of human rights. On the participation of observers in the work of the Council, Thailand believed that the participation of non-members should be guaranteed.

GEBRAN SOUFAN (Lebanon), said human rights were indivisible, interrelated, and should be dealt with as a comprehensive package of equal components and with the same importance. In setting the rules of the Council, replicating the Commission was an error. Its positive legacy should inspire the work of the Council, inasmuch as the bickering, politicisation, double standards and selectivity should be avoided. The purpose was not naming and shaming but to address and redress violations of human rights. It was hoped that under a newly-devised vision of the Council, Lebanon would witness the return of all the Lebanese detainees and missing persons who were freedom fighters for the liberation of the South and defenders of a free and sovereign Lebanon.

Lebanon was firmly set on the course of consolidating democracy, liberty, the rule of law, judicial independence, sovereignty and modernisation. There were a number of fundamental freedoms that were guaranteed in Lebanon, including freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and the right to freedom of assembly and association. Lebanon had a National Plan of Human Rights which encompassed all pertinent sectors. It guaranteed the employment and positive living conditions of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Lebanon had declared a moratorium on public executions as a step towards the abolishment of the death penalty in the future. Lebanon had also adhered to the core international human rights instruments.

WARREN W. TICHENOR (United States) said that following the inception of the United Nations in 1945, the United States had been a leader in working towards meaningful engagement on human rights issues throughout the United Nations. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had noted that fulfilling the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and building vibrant democracies worldwide was the work of generations, but it was urgent work that could not be delayed. This week the Human Rights Council began that task anew. They had made a new beginning, but they had only begun this Council’s task of promoting and protecting human rights around the world.

The United States looked forward to the Council having the ability to respond to a broad range of human rights issues as they arose through more robust and flexible mechanisms. In the longer term, that would include passing country-specific resolutions in situations that demanded action, particularly where States refused help from the international community. The Council would be judged by the victims of human rights abuses and by its ability to protect the world’s vulnerable populations. It was the sincere hope of the United States that the new Council would live up to its solemn duty. The United States remained absolutely firm in its commitment to engage fully in that historic endeavour.

CAROLINE MILLAR (Australia) said that the world’s people needed – and deserved – an effective international human rights body that would improve human rights on the ground. Many were watching to see if the Council would do better than its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission, despite some considerable achievements, ultimately proved unable to meet the hopes and expectations of UN Member States and civil society. A new body would provide a fresh start: an opportunity to work inclusively; to adopt an equitable and robust programme of work that would not single out one country for special treatment while ignoring appalling injustices elsewhere; to focus on human rights implementation; and to address human rights emergencies when they occurred, in regular or in special session.
No country could afford to be complacent about human rights. One issue Australia was concerned to address domestically was indigenous disadvantages. Australia had made significant changes to the way in which the Government engaged with indigenous people, in the hope of securing for indigenous Australians the outcomes and opportunities that should be enjoyed by all Australians. Within the UN system, Australia placed high priority on the promotion of indigenous issues. Australia supported the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as the primary UN body working on indigenous issues.

BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore), said there was a tremendous opportunity ahead to create a Council that was truly credible. The General Assembly resolution called for a reduction in politicisation and selectivity, and the review of all mandates and mechanisms of the old Commission was crucial for the success of the new Council. If the new Council was to make a difference, there was a need to engage in greater dialogue and cooperation, to respect each other and recognise diversity, and that there were and would always be differences of views on human rights. There was a need for greater tolerance for the difference and diversity that made up human society, and tolerance required a mindset change.

All needed to recognise that no one nation or group of nations had a monopoly over human rights. The inclination of some to impose their local values and practices as universal norms would provoke resistance and politicise the process. Finding common ground in human rights systems required a deep knowledge of each other's cultures and value systems. Human rights could not be discussed independently from the overall economic development of a society. All eyes were on the new Council, and the world was waiting to see if it truly would live up to expectations. The contribution of the Council would not be measured by the number of resolutions adopted and the number of votes obtained for each. It would be judged by whether it was able to encourage respect for human rights in the practice, and not merely the rhetoric, of all its members.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) said that the Human Rights Council would this session adopt its first set of rules and procedures to promote human rights for all regardless of any distinctions. It was the hope of Iraq that the Council would be able to introduce new mechanisms that were transparent, non-selective, mutually binding and which would reject double standards in serving human rights. Iraq had set up new democratic institutions, freed the press and was now seeking to promote human rights education. In July 2003, it had created a Ministry of Human Rights and had also established a Ministry of Women’s Rights. Human rights had been included in school curricula, and Iraq was contemplating joining new human rights instruments.

The world had witnessed how Iraqis had rushed to vote after suffering under a dictatorial regime that had inflicted suffering on Iraqis through cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Last year saw many positive trends, despite the ongoing violence and terrorism. The referendum on the draft Constitution had been a great success, widely supported by Iraqis. The Constitution gave some idea of Iraq’s future – a country that could now go from strength to strength.

SONAM T. RABGYE (Bhutan) said that with the establishment of the Council, States should demonstrate that they had not merely placed “old wine in new bottles”, but were prepared to cooperate and collaborate in a true spirit of constructiveness and genuine dialogue, averting the old practices of politicisation, selectivity and double standards. Indeed, that was the expectation of the world community, and the common challenge. The year 2006-2007 would be a transitional year for the Council. There remained the need to achieve greater clarity on many of the modalities and mechanisms, the very architecture of the new body that States were constructing. The modalities of the universal periodic review should be established as well as the review of the special procedures.
Bhutan was also in a transitional period during 2006. Decades of gradual but deliberate change in the system of governance in the country spear-headed by the King were entering a critical phase. A draft Constitution was under discussion. Its adoption in the near future would transform the country into a parliamentary democracy.

ANTON PINTER (Slovakia) said the principle of the promotion and protection of human rights had always played a dominant role in the United Nations agenda. The position of human rights as one of the three pillars of the United Nations system, alongside development and peace and security, had been unanimously confirmed by the United Nations World Summit. The three pillars were closely inter-connected, and it was hoped that the authority of the newly created Council would elevate it to the status of a principal organ of the United Nations. The foundation of the Council was accompanied by high expectations by the international community. It was a great opportunity and challenge to live up to those expectations.

Although the Council was just beginning, it was not starting from scratch. Despite its shortcomings, the Commission on Human Rights had established strong and effective mechanisms, in particular the system of special procedures, which should be preserved and further strengthened. Independence was the key element in this regard. The standing nature of the Council should be adequately used to respond promptly to situations of violations of human rights. While there was a need to address the structural issues, substance should not be forgotten. Although the first session was of a transitional nature, there was no doubt that it would set the tone for the future, and its primordial task was to promote universal respect for the protection of human rights for all.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that the inspiration of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for contributing to the work of the Council emanated from the tenets of Islam, which emphasized the realization of human rights for all human beings without discrimination. The OIC’s call for cooperation was not meant to create a culture of impunity or acquiescence in the gross and consistent violations of human rights, however. On the contrary, it urged the international community to help address some of its major and longstanding human rights concerns. Violations of human rights, and the consequences and implications of occupation, in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, remained a matter of deep concern for the Islamic world. The Council, through effective and timely consideration of that issue, would make an important contribution towards the alleviation of the suffering of the Palestinian people and towards achieving durable peace in the Middle East.

Muslim countries were seriously concerned over the rise in Islamophobia and stereotyping of Muslims. The publication of caricatures in several European newspapers that targeted the Prophet Muhammad had exposed the explosive dimensions of that issue and highlighted the urgent need for developing an effective approach to combat defamation of religions and promote respect and tolerance. The Human Rights Council should take action to combat defamation of all religions.

MAHY ABDEL LATIF (Egypt) said the creation of the Council reflected the will of the members of the international community to work together for the promotion and protection of human right in all fields and at all levels, national and international. The establishment of the Council would mark a qualitative shift in that domain. That would necessitate drawing on the lessons of the past in order to maximize the benefits that all people could reap from the international human right system, thus guaranteeing the realization of those rights and enhancing the credibility of the system. Egypt had contributed to the international efforts to promote and protect human rights through its active participation in the preparatory work leading to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The international human rights instruments that Egypt had ratified formed an integral part of Egyptian national law. That commitment to international human rights law was grounded in strong political will that sought to guarantee the realization of all fundamental rights and freedoms and promote tolerance and a culture of peace.

Egypt believed that it was imperative to respect different cultures and civilizations on the basis of the principles of tolerance and acceptance of the other, as well as in the right of all peoples to choose their own value systems. Rejection of the other only fuelled racism and discrimination and generated hatred and animosity in hearts and minds. Egypt expressed firm commitment to cooperate with the Council with a view to promoting and protecting human rights, out of a strong conviction that human rights’ issues concerned all. No single power or State could claim monopoly of the virtue of human rights. Human rights issues transcended time limits to protect people’s culture and heritage, to protect the dignity and rights of future generations, and to impinge on current issues of development, democracy, peace and justice at national and international levels.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica) said the history of humankind was made up of efforts by people to create a better life, and one of those moments was witnessed at this time at the first meeting of the Council, which could be seen as the first step of a process that it was hoped would make it one of the main organs of the United Nations. Today was the right time to reflect and act in a constructive way on the work of the Council that would carry out its work in an ever more complicated world. Negotiations, which were transparent and inclusive, were the way forward. It would be no mean feat to determine the programme of work and methods which would help to fulfil the agenda. However, it was believed that if there was cooperation, and not confrontation, then these goals would be reached.

At this first session, the Council should support the extension of the mandates and functions of the special procedures. An early adoption of the Declaration on Indigenous People and the Convention on Enforced Disappearances were vitally important. It was hoped it would take place during the session, as this would give a clear signal to the international community that the Member States had committed themselves to work together for the achievement of the goal of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Policies should be established in human rights that would guide States in the future.

CHOE MYONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said that, even after the creation of the Human Rights Council, spanning a long period of arduous and difficult consultations, there remained huge inadequacies and several outstanding problems. In particular, in General Assembly resolution 60/251, creating the Human Rights Council, no reference had been made to the effective remedy to the political confrontation that had persisted as a chronic malpractice in the work of the Commission. Political confrontation had been a common concern of all developing countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – its direct victim – and its eradication constituted one of the fundamental purposes of creating the Council at the outset. Eradication of politicization was a prime task, to be constantly carried out as a cornerstone and priority – not only in the ground-laying process, but also in the later activities of the Council.

The root causes of politicization, double standards and selectivity that had been aimed at particular countries or situations on the basis of political motivations should be removed once and for all. To that end, priority should be given to resolutely rejecting any attempts to initiate country-specific resolutions against the will of those concerned, purely for political reasons. Politicized country-specific resolutions were a fundamental source of confrontation. To the same end, they should ensure strict observance of respect for the particularities and values of each country and region. If a group of countries continued to attempt to dominate the majority on the pretext of universality and humanitarian intervention in disregard of diversity, confrontation was inevitable.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said a lot of high hopes were being placed on the Human Rights Council as a body to promote human rights as defined by international human rights legislation, and it was hoped that the Council would live up to these hopes and would be able to correct some gaps and shortages that had been created when the Commission of Human Rights had been carrying out its work.

Syria would like to stress that the work of the new Council should be marked by its transparency and far from double standards through an agenda that was clear and balanced and responded to the concerns of all. It was also urgent that the Council take up the situation in the occupied Arab territories, including the Golan Heights. The situation in the southern Lebanon was also of concern, to which the Council’s attention should be drawn. Worse and unimaginable human rights violations were taking place in the territories by Israel daily. The Council should take action as a matter of urgency. It was also necessary for the Human Rights Council to follow-up on the implementation of its resolutions.

RAMADAR IRHIAM (Libya) said that Libya did not wish to dwell on the negative aspects of the Commission on Human Rights, but preferred to look towards the functioning of the Human Rights Council on the basis of neutrality, credibility, dialogue and non-politicization, while taking into account the religious and cultural context of States. It was very important that the Council be a forum for debate. It was also important to carry out investigations of human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories, where people’s rights were being violated, and their homes destroyed. That was part of the Libyan approach, which placed human beings at the centre of its human rights policy.

Libya would not list all it had done to promote and protect human rights. It would like simply to mention the teaching of human rights at all levels and the publication and dissemination of the texts of all the human rights treaties, which were well known. Libya was ahead of many more developed countries in terms of the equal rights of women. In that connection, the Ghaddafi strategic project to serve women and children and young Africans, by combating their exploitation, and the Ghaddafi world prize for human rights were proof of Libya’s commitments in that area.

MARIE-THERESE PICTET-ALTHANN (Sovereign Order of Malta) said many speakers had reaffirmed the indivisibility, universality and interdependence of human rights. This balanced and unbiased approach to human rights worldwide was fully supported. Thanks to its presence in some 120 countries, the Order of Malta strove to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms through its humanitarian action, which enabled it to emphasise in particular the right to public health, medical care and social services among the economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion among civil rights. A further strong component of the Order’s mission was assistance to persons with disabilities.

The Order remained true to its inspiring principles which became reality through its humanitarian assistance and medical and social activities. It thus contributed to achieving some of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, in particular the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, improvement of maternal health, reduction of childhood mortality, and combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases. A great deal had been achieved through the already existing universal human rights instruments, however, many challenges lay ahead, and the new Council would need strong support from members and observers alike if it was to live up to the high expectations placed on it.

RIMA SALAH, of the United National Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said whether it was fear of hunger, fear of losing love ones, fear of being left out, fear of being trafficked or of becoming soldiers or refugees, or fear of violence in their homes or their schools – one knew too well how children felt. All had been children once. But as adults and policy makers, adults were too busy to remember and to act accordingly. It was essential that the debate on the rights of children should be a specific point in the Council’s agenda. States should give special attention to the rights of the child and integrate the human rights of children in the work of the Council. All had a unique opportunity to play a role in the construction of a world that would really protect the rights of children.

UNICEF recognized that significant progress had been made in codifying international norms and standards that promoted and protected the human rights of each and every person. Yet, no one would disagree that human rights were still widely neglected. Among the most vulnerable, children were often the first victims of those violations. Countless children were routinely denied their human rights, even though the Convention on the Rights of the Child was the most widely ratified human rights treaty.

PAULO SERGIO PINHEIRO, Independent Expert leading the Secretary-General’s Study on Violence against Children, said the opportunity to speak was a clear signal of the considerable importance that the Council would give to the special procedures. These mechanisms constituted the frontline troops to protect human rights, and he was certain that the favourable winds which had brought the new body would allow further travel ahead. The Secretary-General’s study on violence against children, which would be presented at the next General Assembly, would call on States to act now to fulfil their obligation to ensure the protection of children from all forms of violence. In every region of the world., violence against children persisted, mostly invisible, in many cases allowed by law and socially approved.

Violence against children had an impact at all states of a child’s development. The report would be action-oriented and propose a set of recommendations aimed at a comprehensive preventive and responsive strategy to deal with violence against children. To effectively prevent violence, action at the national level was of critical importance. Effective policies should also be evidence-based. Child victims of human rights violations around the globe were currently expecting a lot. The Council would have a great opportunity to address this urgent need, and it was hoped that the voices of children would always be heard within the body.

RACHEL N. MAYANJA, Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, said that gender equality was an integral part of the new vision of human rights. Inequality between women and men hampered sound economic development, stability and social harmony. In addition, women and girls were disproportionately affected by violence, conflict, poverty, illiteracy, discrimination and human rights violations, and were thus primary stakeholders in transformation of the United Nations into an effective, action-oriented and gender-sensitive Organization.

Ms. Mayanja said that those synergies between gender equality and human rights were further expanded at the 2005 World Summit, when world leaders reaffirmed that gender equality and the full enjoyment of human rights were essential to advance development and peace and security. They had further reaffirmed that the full and effective implementation of the goals and objectives of the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly was an essential contribution to achieving the internationally agreed goals, and had committed to the full and effective implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security. The Summit had also stressed the importance of gender mainstreaming and pledged to increase the United Nations capacity in that regard. While the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action should remain their ultimate goal, the international community had to be vigilant against attempts to roll back or dilute any of the Beijing and Vienna language and commitments. That was particularly relevant in light of a general backlash that was threatening women’s rights worldwide, which had seen a surge in gender-based violence in general, among other egregious violations of women’s rights.

SAAD ALFARARGI, of the League of Arab States, said that the League had actively participated in 1946 in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was later adopted by the General Assembly in 1948. A number of Arab States had contributed to the strengthening of the United Nations through their participation in the elaboration of several treaties and conventions. Many Arab citizens also served as chairpersons of the Commission on Human Rights and as experts to several treaties bodies. The League was also fully cooperating with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It had signed a memorandum of understanding with the High Commissioner on the promotion and protection of human rights. The League was also instrumental in the creation of norms within the Arab States.

The Council should now be able to face the challenges of human rights promotion and respect. It should be able do what the Commission had failed to do. It should take into consideration, as a priority, the worsening situation in Palestine, which needed urgent action. The Council should make known its position on the issue. The Arab League would do all it could for the success of the Council.

KIRSTEN MLACAK, of the Office for the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said this was a moment of great promise for the United Nations and its Member States, and all those individuals and organizations which were everyday, around the world, striving to uphold human rights and address violations where they occurred. The Council and the OSCE were partners in efforts to develop standards and to support implementation of human rights commitments. Problems affecting human security continued to challenge the OSCE and its participating States, and new ones arose. In many countries refugees, the internally displaced, victims of trafficking, members of religious and ethnic groups, human rights defenders and journalists faced discrimination and denial of their fundamental rights.

In much of what the OSCE did, it was working in partnership, with the Council, Member States, civil society, international organizations and agencies including the United Nations and its agencies, the Council of Europe, and the European Union. In its work, the Office for the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE drew upon standards established by the United Nations human rights bodies, and it valued the work and expertise of those bodies. The OSCE, its institutions and missions were assisting participating States, and continued to be ready to partner with the Council, the United Nations and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the common endeavour of the promotion and effective protection of human rights around the world.

JOSEPH K. INGRAM, of the World Bank, said that the World Bank recognized that the founding of the Human Rights Council signalled a clear commitment on the part of Governments to safeguard and uphold a range of universally accepted human rights standards. The World Bank believed that the provision of such rights contributed to better and more sustainable development results by promoting equal opportunities and social inclusion, a more equitable distribution of incomes, and a more responsible management of resources. Human rights complemented sound economic policies and a good investment climate in a crucial way, since they were fundamental to ensuring equal access to basic services for all, including the poorest and most vulnerable in its partner countries.

The World Bank had learned in recent years, however, that in order to effectively assist Governments in creating the necessary conditions for the realization of basic rights, it had to adopt a more explicit and consistent approach to human rights. The World Bank was seeking closer cooperation with the United Nations system on promoting human rights, and over the last 12 months had intensified its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at an operational staff level to explore ways in which the World Bank could support the implementation of the High Commissioner’s Plan of Action and in which they could collaborate towards achieving the goals of the Millennium Declaration, including the Millennium Development Goals. They were also working closely with the Nordic Governments on operationalizing the World Bank’s wider justice and human rights agenda.

CHRISTINE DESOUCHES, of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), said that the OIF had been supporting the reform of the Commission since 2004. It had been actively involved on the side of 63 States and Governments in the efforts to reform the Commission until the adoption of the resolution that established the Council. In fact, the constant attention of the OIF to the progress of the United Nations started during the Vienna Conference of 1993. For the OIF, the reform of the Commission was fully inscribed in the history of the United Nations. The investment put in the thematic working groups of the Commission should be inherited by the Council, including results such as the draft Convention on Enforced Disappearances. The Council should also take up the work on the right to development and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The future of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights would also be examined.

The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie was committed to the full respect of human rights and the consolidation of the rule of law, free elections and good governance. It had considered carefully the pledges and declarations of the 14 Francophonie States which were elected to the Council. The OIF planned to remain involved in the follow-up and implementation of these pledges, including those connected to the articles of the Bamako Declaration on human rights of 2000.

LEE SWEPSTON, of the International Labour Organization (ILO), said that in his inaugural address to the Council, the Secretary-General had described human rights as one of the three pillars, along with economic and social development and peace and security, on which the work of the United Nations should be based; the ILO shared that vision. Social justice was necessary to universal and lasting peace. The ILO played an important human rights role as the “other” major standard-setting and supervisory body of the United Nations human rights system. The human rights frameworks of the United Nations system were undergoing a re-examination, and in recent years there had been significant changes as well in the ILO’s work on human rights.

The last session of the International Labour Conference had called for the increased use of technical assistance to overcome obstacles to the implementation of human rights in countries requesting international assistance. The ILO worked with the United Nations to promote and protect human rights, and in exchanges with United Nations treaty bodies, the goal was to ensure consistency of understanding and interpretation between international human rights standards arising from the United Nations human rights mandate, and those adopted within the context of the ILO. The time had come for greater coordination between the ILO and the United Nations Charter bodies in addition to its relations with the treaty bodies, and the ILO was prepared to discuss new ways of collaboration.

INGEBORG BREINES, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said that human rights were at the heart of the vision of the United Nations, as Member States had strongly reaffirmed in the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit. While UNESCO strove to promote all human rights by means of education and advocacy, it had special responsibilities for those rights that were directly linked to its fields of competence, including the right to education, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to take part in cultural life, and the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.

UNESCO considered that the right to education was both a right in itself and the key to unlocking many other human rights. Guided by the six “Education for All” goals and the two education-related Millennium Development Goals, UNESCO sought to provide universal access to quality education. That involved, in particular, special measures to overcome the gender gap in education, and to promote the educational rights of girls and women. It also continued to give high priority to human rights education, in close cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. UNESCO believed that, while freedom of expression lay at the core of our common heritage of liberty and democracy, mutual religious and cultural respect was an imperative element for dialogue and peace in today’s globalized and increasingly interdependence world. Freedom and respect were two principles on which they could not compromise.

ERIKA FELLER, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said human rights values and principles were central to the mandate of UNHCR and underpinned all aspects of its international protection work. UNHCR was pleased that a number of the newly elected Council members made explicit commitments to the international asylum regime, or to refugee protection, in their pledges. It was UNHCR’s hope that the Council would now progressively evolve into a forum where violations of human rights were duly recognized as being one of the principal causes of forced displacement, whether it be across borders or within them; which, with that acknowledgment, accepted its reasonability to examine even-handed specific situations which created refugees through denial of rights, but with the aim not only of condemning, but also of addressing the problems in constructive and solutions-oriented ways, among other things.

The United Nations reform process had been the impetus for putting in place the Peacebuilding Commission and a Secretariat to support it. For persons of concern to UNHCR, the work of that entity was of key importance. However, peacebuilding required that priority be given to across the border UN structures. It needed to be squarely on the agendas of the humanitarian assistance agencies, built into the design and implementation of their operations at the earlier stages.

KHADIJA RACHIDA MASRI, of the African Union, said a great tribute was to be paid to a son of Africa, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his clear vision and wisdom in organising the process of reform of the United Nations. The African Union was also grateful to Ms. Louise Arbour for her ceaseless efforts to promote and protect human rights in Africa. This was a new era for action in the field of human rights which showed that the international community had renewed its commitment to the cause of human rights with all its challenges. The Council had led to great hopes with regards to the attainment of human rights for all without restrictions for those who were not privileged. Africa hoped that all would benefit from the right to development as well as the right to live free from poverty.
The promotion and protection of these rights and principles where all could enjoy them was a priority. Equality, peace, justice and development were all linked at the national as well as international levels, for without each, none of the others could be enjoyed. Cultural diversity enriched societies, and deserved respect. The scourge of conflicts in Africa stood as a major stumbling block to development, a cause which the African Union worked towards unswervingly. Moreover, it was determined to involve all components of society in the process of promoting and protecting human rights.

VICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, Chairperson of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, said that human rights were and would continue to be a major priority for indigenous peoples around the world, addressing the core of indigenous peoples’ dignity, and their physical and cultural survival. It was her pleasure to bring to the Council’s attention one of the seven important recommendations of the Permanent Forum at its fifth session last month, which was of direct relevance to the work of the Council. The Forum had expressed its conviction that a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be an instrument of great value to advance the rights and aspirations of the world’s indigenous peoples, and it recommended the adoption, without amendments, of the draft Declaration.

At the dawn of the new century, indigenous peoples had to be viewed as full partners towards a common future of humanity, where cultural diversity and human rights for all would be respected. At the Fifth Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, more than 150 indigenous peoples’ organizations and networks from all over the world had submitted a statement asking the General Assembly to adopt the Declaration. Several observer Governments had also spoken, making the same request. It was in partnership with those indigenous peoples’ organizations and Member States of the United Nations that the Permanent Forum had come up with that recommendation. The Forum therefore reiterated the appeal to the Council to demonstrate its moral leadership and make its mark on history by adopting, at this first session, the Declaration of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Right of Reply

A Representative of India, speaking in a right of reply, said with regards to the reference to the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, India’s democratic quality with a free and independent press and powerful and independent National Human Rights Commission enjoyed full and free enjoyment of all human rights for all Indian citizens, including in that State, which was an inalienable part of India, and Pakistan would be well not to pursue a bilateral agenda in a multilateral forum.

A Representative of Pakistan, speaking in a right of reply, said there was surprise at the Indian reaction, as the statement only dealt with the promotion and protection of human rights in a specific context, and called for an increase of efforts to promote and protect human rights in the disputed State. Pakistan remained disappointed in the lack of progress in the context of the dispute, and hoped it would be solved in order to bring peace to South-East Asia.

A Representative of India, speaking in a second right of reply, said that India and Pakistan were discussing the issue of Jammu and Kashmir as part of a composite dialogue. As part of that understanding, Pakistan agreed not to use any part of its territory for terrorist purposes. India was committed to that process. People on both sides of the divide in Jammu and Kashmir had benefited from it. India was firmly committed to no redrawing of boundaries and also that such bilateral matters should continue to be discussed and resolved bilaterally, and not raised in multilateral forums.