>
>from: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Speech delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
>of Cuba, Felipe Pérez Roque, at the fifty-six session of the U.N.
>Commission on Human Rights
>
>Geneva, March 30, 2000
>
>Mr. President:
>
>Fifty-one years ago the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed
>the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With the defeat of
>fascism an horrific war came to an end, and made way for what should
>have been an era of peace and collaboration among fellow human
>beings.
>
>On rereading Article 1, in which it is proclaimed that: "All human
>beings are born free and equal, in dignity and rights", we ask
>ourselves: What has happened since then? Are the 4.5 billion human
>beings from underdeveloped countries, who consume only 14 per cent
>of the total world produce, really as free and equal as the 1.5
>billion who live in developed countries and consume the other 86 per
>cent? The richest 20 per cent of the planet's population possess 82
>times more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent. Are they really as
>free and equal as each other?
>
>Have the distinguished delegates from developed countries, who are
>present here, ever considered what the 4.5 billion inhabitants of
>the underdeveloped countries would think about the Universal
>Declaration of Human Rights? - of these 4.5 billion, almost one
>billion go hungry, three fifths lack adequate sanitation, a third do
>not have access to fresh water, a quarter are without housing, and a
>fifth have no basic health service provision.
>
>Do you not feel yourselves blush with shame, your Excellencies, when
>you read that: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms
>set forth in this Declaration..."? Do you not think about the
>accusatory look of the parents of the 30 thousand children under 5
>years of age, who die every day from causes that could be prevented,
>as we recall that: "Everyone has the right to life..." ?
>
>Is it possible to reconcile the right to freedom of opinion and
>speech, with the fact that ownership of the mass media is ever more
>privatised, absolute, monopolised and transnational?
>
>Could anyone in this room explain to the 800 million starving people
>on this planet, who own nothing more than their own hunger, what is
>meant by: "Everyone has the right to own property..." ?
>
>When we read that: "Everyone has the right to take part in the
>government of his country", or that: "Everyone has the right to
>equal access, to the public services in his country", are we
>thinking, esteemed colleagues, about those 850 million illiterate
>adults who cannot even write, let alone read, the word "right"?
>
>Five decades ago we declared that: "Everyone has the right to
>work..." How can we then explain to the millions of men and women
>who roam the streets every day, searching for a way to provide a
>decent livelihood for their children, that they are made prisoners
>and victims of an irrational and unjust economic system which denies
>them the right to work?
>
>What would the men and women, who in 1948 declared that: "Everyone
>has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
>wellbeing of himself and his family, including food, clothing,
>housing, medical care and the necessary social services" say about
>the bitter realities of today's world? How would they react when
>they discovered that there are more than 20 million people in Africa
>infected with the AIDS virus, awaiting their death, with no hope of
>receiving treatment? Will we ever be able to justify the fact that
>whilst we were unable to come up with the 300 billion dollars needed
>annually in order to treat them, 800 billion dollars were invested in
>military expenditure? Will our descendants understand that, whilst
>on the one hand we proclaim that: "Motherhood and childhood are
>entitled to special care and assistance", and that: "Each individual
>has the right to be educated", here in the year 2000, 260 million
>children of school age, are not receiving an education, 160 million
>are undernourished, 600 thousand women die every year in childbirth,
>and the infant mortality rate in Third World countries is 64 per
>thousand live births?
>
>These are the realities, Your Excellencies, and they are there,
>pointing the finger of blame at us, even though we try to close our
>eyes, in an attempt to block them out. That is why, when one
>contemplates the level of manipulation, lies, hollow discourse and
>hypocrisy; when one considers the attempt to dogmatically impose
>patterns and models that claim to be universal, one realises, with
>deep conviction, that the way in which human rights causes are dealt
>with in the world, needs to be salvaged from the selfish interests
>they are hostage to. There is no doubt that this Commission on Human
>Rights is obliged to undertake a thorough reform of its make-up and
>its methods; it must cease to be a tool which is used for the
>selective and politicised persecution of poor countries, and
>genuinely establish itself as a forum where we can join forces,
>based on honesty and solidarity, so that one day we can proclaim
>that the Declaration which was approved five decades ago really means
>something for the entire 6 billion inhabitants of this planet, not
>just for a privileged minority.
>
>More than five years ago the representatives of 171 States debated
>all these issues in Vienna during the World Conference on Human
>Rights, and we agreed that we should "treat human rights globally in
>a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same
>emphasis" and that "the significance of national and regional
>particularities and various historical, cultural and religious
>backgrounds must be borne in mind". However, in the years since
>then, there has been an increasingly dangerous trend, lead by a
>small group of rich and powerful States, who are attempting to turn
>the Human Rights Commission into private property and a tool which
>can be used to impose their opinions and personal interests on us,
>the underdeveloped countries, who constitute the overwhelming
>majority. The Commission on Human Rights is the heritage of all
>peoples, not just the minority. The attempt to impose a single
>model, which is in the interests of the powerful, must cease! Cuba
>remembers very clearly that the universal nature of human rights was
>affirmed in Vienna, based on the acknowledgement of diversity.
>
>Why does the Commission on Human Rights not channel its efforts, and
>dedicate the necessary resources, into promoting the right to
>development? - a fundamental human right which was acknowledged in
>Vienna, and the only possible way in which we can save the
>dispossessed masses on this Earth from the poverty and hunger that
>they are suffering, as they ask themselves, without understanding,
>what it is we meet for each year in Geneva? Did we not state that:
>"the human person is the central subject of development" ?
>
>Why do we not, for example, appoint, right now, a Special Rapporteur
>of the Commission on Human Rights, to follow up the issue of
>Official Aid for Development and the impact of its dramatic decrease
>on the enjoyment of human rights in underdeveloped countries?
>
>If we stated in Vienna that: "everyone has the right to enjoy the
>benefits of scientific progress and its applications", why is it
>that today, 97 per cent of patents are controlled by the wealthy
>countries? Does anyone in this room dare to dispute my claim that as
>far as a billion people are concerned, we are respecting this right
>less and less?
>
>How can we explain the hunting down of immigrants, the racism and
>xenophobia, and the wall that the United States has raised on its
>border with Mexico, if we have already proclaimed that: "great
>importance must be given to the promotion and protection of the
>human rights of (..) migrant workers, the elimination of all forms
>of discrimination against them, and the strengthening and more
>effective implementation of existing human rights instruments" ?
>
>If in Vienna, we called on the international community to "make all
>efforts to help alleviate the external debt burden of developing
>countries", why do we have to devote 25 per cent of our exports to
>paying for the onerous service of a debt which, far from decreasing,
>is growing day by day? Are they respecting our human rights when
>they suffocate us with a debt of 2.5 trillion dollars?
>
>If we affirmed in Vienna that "the existence of widespread extreme
>poverty inhibits the full and effective enjoyment of human rights",
>how can we explain the devastating reality that there are more poor
>people in the world now than ever before, and that every 24 hours
>almost 70 thousand more destitute people join the hungry and
>famished masses, who while they struggle to survive, watch us
>approving documents and talking about human rights in this
>comfortable room?
>
>These are all reasons, Your Excellencies, that support the demand
>that the Commission on Human Rights be transformed into an
>instrument for all countries, that protects human rights. However,
>that will not be possible unless the developed countries - who
>constitute only 15 per cent of the total number of United Nations
>Member States - put their national and group interests aside, and
>prepare themselves to collaborate with us, in a spirit of altruism
>and justice.
>
>Last year the developed countries accredited 293 delegates for the
>work of the Commission on Human Rights, whilst the underdeveloped
>countries, who represent more than 75 per cent of the world
>population, accredited, with great sacrifice, 284 delegates. The
>United States alone accredited 46, half the number accredited by the
>whole of Africa, or all Asia, or all Latin America. And what were
>the consequences of this unfair imbalance? That the developed
>countries presented 61 per cent of all the resolutions and decisions
>that were adopted, dealing an unmistakable blow to the aspiration we
>have held, that our diversity be respected.
>
>Cuba, therefore, considers that urgent measures should be taken to
>reverse this situation. For example, a proposal should be made to
>the General Assembly, that a fund be established, financed from the
>United Nations regular budget, to pay for the travel and
>participation costs of at least three delegates from each
>underdeveloped country which is a member of the Commission. In
>addition, the Commission could set a limit of 15 accredited
>delegates per each governmental delegation.
>
>The work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
>Human Rights is a decisive factor in the preparation of the
>sessions, and in following-up the decisions made by this Commission.
>However, the reports that are submitted to the Commission and,
>generally speaking, almost all its work, is done by officials who
>come from developed countries and impose their own models, culture,
>ideology and experiences. Western European countries, the United
>States and Canada have more personnel in the Office of the United
>Nations High Commissioner than all the underdeveloped countries
>combined. There is no doubt that human rights are universal, but
>will officials from countries with a per capita GDP of 25 thousand
>dollars have the same concept of them, as officials from countries
>where it is 300 dollars? How can we, the poor countries, confront
>this sad reality, as we helplessly witness the mass exodus of our
>intellectuals and professionals, to wealthy countries, in search of
>better opportunities and impossible dreams?
>
>Cuba considers it essential that the High Commissioner establishes,
>as a matter of urgency, a group which is specifically responsible
>for the recruitment and training of qualified personnel from
>underdeveloped countries, for the Office of the High Commissioner.
>
>All of the resolutions relating to countries, which have been
>adopted since 1990, claim that underdeveloped countries violate
>human rights, and all of them were introduced by developed countries.
>Could anyone here in this room deny the unquestionable fact that a
>minority group of countries impose their principals and points of
>view on internationally adopted decisions regarding human rights?
>What is the truth of the matter, distinguished colleagues? Is it
>that human rights are not violated in developed countries, or is it
>that, within this Commission, it is impossible to analyse those
>violations?
>
>If we agree that all human rights are of equal importance, why is it
>that the Commission approves twice as many resolutions on civil and
>political rights, as on economic, social and cultural rights? Why are
>three times as many pages of official documents devoted to civil and
>political rights, as to economic, social and cultural rights? All of
>us in this room know the answer: because it is in the interest of
>the developed countries that the Commission concerns itself only
>with civil and political rights. Because rights to development, to
>life, to food, to work, education and health; the rights of women
>and children, in short, the rights of all the inhabitants of the
>planet, and not just a privileged group, to a decent existence, and
>to full enjoyment of social justice, which has been so often
>
__________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
___________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe messages
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
