19 April, 2000

In this update we forward the UN Press Release on the "No-Action" Motion on the China resolution at the 56th Commission on Human Rights which was adopted yesterday by 22 votes in favour, 18 against, 12 abstention and 1 absent vote (Romania).

UNITED NATIONS Press Release MORNING HR/CN/00/51 18 April 2000

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN SEVEN COUNTRIES Approves No-Action Motion on Human Rights Situation in China

The Commission approved, by a vote of 22 in favour to 18 against and 12 abstentions, a no-action motion forwarded by the delegation of China on a resolution (E/CN.4/2000/L.30) tabled by the United States on the situation of human rights in China. The draft resolution would have welcomed the readiness of the Government of China to exchange information on human rights issues and expressed concern at continuing reports of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country.

The outcome of the vote was as follows:

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 and Zambia.

Against: Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Swaziland, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Liberia, Mauritius, Mexico, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal and Tunisia.

QIAO ZOBGHUAI (China) said his delegation opposed the draft resolution and moved that the Commission take no action on it. It was nothing but an anti-China political farce, directed and played by the United States alone, and a mockery of the Commission on Human Rights and its members. The past year had witnessed political stability, economic development, national unity, and content life and work for the Chinese people. The US representative repeatedly asserted that the human-rights situation in China had seriously deteriorated. It was a blatant lie. In fact, the US had violated the human rights of Chinese by bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and wounding more than 20 embassy staff members.

China's no-action motion was fully justified by the rules of procedure of the Commission. The motion was precisely an effort to prevent a possible deviation in the work of the Commission. In reality, it was the US that was seeking special treatment and practising double standards on the question of human rights; it constantly pointed its finger at developing countries in the name of human rights but was itself notorious for racial discrimination, police brutality, torture in prison, campus shootings, and other serious violations of human rights. It should table a draft resolution on its own human-rights situation.

HAROLD KOH (the United States) said that the no-action motion suggested by China was a compromise of the principle of human rights. No State should enjoy immunity from investigation. Over the years, only one State, China, had remained immune. No one State had the right to remain immune from investigation whilst pointing fingers at other countries. The members of the Commission were called upon to reject the no-action motion introduced to prevent one country's record to be investigated. The motion had to be opposed so that double standards were not condoned. All resolutions should be judged on their merit and no State should hide its human rights record behind procedural regulation. The United States called on all Commission members to vote against the no-action motion.

VLADIMIR PARSHIROV (the Russian Federation) said that in recent years his country had frequently expressed its concern that human-rights matters had been artificially politicized. A prime example was this resolution now before the Commission on China. China had made much progress in protecting human rights; it had had extensive engagement with the international community on human rights and had cooperated with the mechanisms of the Commission. Recently, Russia and other States had held open and fruitful dialogues with China on matters of human rights; that was the only way to proceed. Russia would support the no-action motion.

ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), on behalf of the European Union, expressed regret at the no-action motion proposed by China. It was the principle of the European Union to consistently vote against no-action motions. No country was immune to investigation by the Human Rights Commission. Procedural motions like this put in question the right of the Commission to deal with country situations at all. Despite positive steps in China, little progress had been made on the ground, particularly with regard to civil and political rights. The European Union was concerned by the severe punishments and sentences administered by the Chinese authorities. It was fundamental to discuss human rights issues which should be accompanied by the guaranteeing of all human rights for people under Chinese rule.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINER (Cuba) said the United States had established a high rate of dual standards in the Commission; yet the US delegation had just spoken in sophisms and fallacies in an attempt to achieve conclusions on the basis of facts that were not true. The Commission's rules of procedure had existed long before the case of China was considered. The rules applied to all without discrimination. Furthermore the delegation of the US had forgotten its own actions in international bodies; perhaps it should remember that between the mid-60s and the mid-70s, the US delegation had used constantly in the General Assembly the equivalent of this rule to deprive the People's Republic of China its right to assume a seat in the United Nations. It was odd that now the US charged piously and hypocritically that the rules were being bent. Cuba would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that Canada had consistently opposed the principle of the no-action motion because one of the most fundamental roles of the Commission was to face up to human rights violations wherever they were discussed. The Government and people of China deserved support and encouragement by the international community for the many positive steps made. However there were still concerns that members of the Commission had the responsibility and right to discuss.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said it was always regrettable when the Commission became an arena for political combat rather than the handmaiden of human rights. Each year the draft resolution on China transformed the Commission into a site for political dispute. If the concern was to promote social progress and higher standards of life, China had done very well -- it had done much to alleviate poverty, for example. Human development was human rights in action, and by this yardstick, China was human rights in action. The proposed resolution was politically selective. There was another large country in Asia that was engaged in daily and massive violations on human rights; why was a draft resolution tabled every year on China and not on this second country? In fact, Pakistan had been actively discouraged from raising this matter in the Commission and the General Assembly; it would only incite that country, Pakistan had been told. Yet the exact opposite reasoning was proclaimed in China's case. This was double standards in action.

The political antecedents of this anti-China draft resolution were well-known. The draft resolution was intended to ease passage through the US Congress of open-trade agreements with China; the intent was to help the US enrich itself through greater trade with China. But the internal political concerns of one country were not the concern of the Commission; the no-action motion was designed to prevent just such distortions of the Commission's work.

HEWA PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said no-action motions were not unique to the Commission of Human Rights alone. They were commonly used in other United Nations bodies. The Commission should focus more attention on the consequences of the draft resolution. There were alternative ways to persuade the authorities to follow the objectives everyone desired. It had to be acknowledged that China had taken positive steps in the field of human rights. The international community had to build on this endeavour. The delegation of Sri Lanka would support the no-action motion proposed by China.

MIRGHANI IBRAHIM (Sudan) said his country had studied the draft resolution carefully and appreciated the progress made by China in terms of economic development and poverty alleviation that had done much to improve economic, social and cultural rights in China. China was an ancient civilization that deserved respect. The Chinese Government was providing a decent and peaceful livelihood for a quarter of the world's population; it deserved credit and respect. Sudan would support the no-action motion.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said China presented a model seemingly different in the world, but no one could deny the contributions of China. There could be much benefits from engaging with China in global activities. The motion was well within the rules of procedures and would be supported by Bangladesh.

- end -

Note from Tibet Bureau, Geneva:

Statements of USA which referred to Tibet:

"Furthermore, China continues to commit serious human rights in Tibet. Despite the Government's stated preferencen for dialogue over confrontation, Chinese authorities still refuse to engage the Dalai Lama in dialogue to resolve long-standing differences and have instead chose to engage in a highly critical rhetorical campaign to discredit him. Meanwhile, the political re-education campaign aimed controlling monks and nuns has both broadened and intensified. As our annula human rights report chronicles, the past year was also marked by the exploitation of forced prison labor and continued problems in the human rights of women."

EU Statement Against No-Action Motion:

"We firmly condemn the continuing restrictions upon fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, expression, religion, assembly and association. The EU expresses its concern in particular at the harsh sentences imposed on political dissidents calling for democracy in China, as well at alarming human rights situation in Tibet and Xinjiang."

The EU statement was supported by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Turkey.

[ Homepage ] [ 56th UN Commission on Human Rights ]



This site is maintained and updated by The Office of Tibet, the official agency of His Holiness His Holiness the Dalai Lama in London. This Web page may be linked to any other Web sites. Contents may not be altered.
Last updated: 20-Aopril-2000