York, April 13-May 14; and during the debate in the Third Committee of the 31st General Assembly. HUMAN RIGHTS AND DÉTENTE One of the most contentious and time-consuming items at the Commission's 32nd session concerned human rights and détente. The subject was discussed at 10 meetings. Consideration of the subject had begun at the Commission's session in 1974 when the U.S.S.R., along with Bulgaria and the Byelorussian S.S.R., introduced a resolution dealing with détente, peace, and human rights. Although the matter was debated at that session and again in 1975, the Commission took no action. In 1976 the U.S.S.R. circulated a draft resolution that was similar to texts considered at the earlier sessions. Like its predecessors, it placed unbalanced emphasis on détente, economic development, and national liberation at the expense of human rights. Further, it cited the CSCE Final Act in such a way as to lay stress on those aspects that supported the Soviet point of view. The United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Italy introduced amendments to correct some of these defects. At the same time discussions took place among the U.S. and Western delegations looking toward a resolution that would stress the observance of human rights as a foundation for international peace and security rather than, as the U.S.S.R. would have it, that the right to live in conditions of international peace and security was a necessary precondition to the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United States subsequently introduced such a draft resolution, which was also sponsored by France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Canada. Faced with two opposing resolutions, the nonaligned group proposed a "compromise," which was introduced by Senegal and sponsored by eight states. This draft resolution, in the U.S. view, was objectionable because of its subordination of human rights to conditions of international peace and security, its call for application of controversial international economic principles, and finally its emphasis on economic, social, and cultural rights at the expense of civil and political rights. Speaking on February 27, the U.S. Representative, Leonard Garment, saw the draft as no compromise at all. Instead, he pointed out, it embodied the primary objectionable feature of the Soviet draft resolution, i.e., that the right to life, to existence on any terms, is a prerequisite to any other human right. He said: . . Some delegations in this room, of which my own is one, believe that human rights are self-evident and inalienable, and are the property of the human personality independently of whatever recognition is given them by the state. Other delegations here maintain that human rights depend on the state, that they have no existence separate from organized society. "Now there is simply no way to compromise these two ideas. The result of the debate was the adoption by the Commission of the nonaligned draft resolution on February 27 by a rollcall vote of 22 to 7 (U.S.), with 1 abstention. (The seven opposing votes represented all the NATO members of the Commission.) The Commission then decided, on the motion of Yugoslavia, not to consider either the U.S. or the Soviet draft resolution. On April 30, during ECOSOC's consideration of the report of the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Garment called attention to this resolution which, he said, "purports to declare the right of life and peace as the primary human right." He said that it undermined the balanced structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the CSCE Final Act, neither of which accorded a transcendent priority to international peace and security. He added: "The United States will never accept the proposition that the security of the state is of higher value than the protection of the individual from abuse by the state." HUMAN RIGHTS, COLONIALISM, AND RACISM Two resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Commission and two others by the 31st General Assembly serve to demonstrate the preoccupation of UN bodies with the question of human rights in relation to colonialism and racism. The first resolution in the Commission, entitled "The adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, military, economic, and other forms of assistance given to colonial and racist regimes in southern Africa," was sponsored by 13 states (including 6 African). Without citing specific countries, the resolution denounced "the political, military, economic, and other forms of assistance given by certain states to South Africa and to the illegal minority regime of Southern Rhodesia, directly or through national and multinational corporations which they control." also called upon states to take a number of specific actions, including "steps to bring about a total embargo by the Security Council on sales, gifts and transfers of arms and all other kinds of military supplies to South Africa." Since the resolution contained sweeping and imprecise language obviously aimed at the United States and other industrialized Western countries, the United States, joined by France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the United Kingdom, opposed it. It was adopted on March 1 by a rollcall vote of 24 to 4 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions. In explaining his position on the resolution, the U.S. Representative stated that the United States had consistently opposed apartheid, had maintained an arms embargo against South Africa since 1963, and had opposed continued South African control of Namibia. Nevertheless, he said, the resolution contained so much provocative and sweeping language that the United States could not support it, and he cited particularly the operative paragraph calling for a total embargo by the Security Council as justifying a negative vote. The second resolution in the Commission dealt with the Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Southern Africa and endorsed a report it had submitted. This resolution incorporated a draft resolution recommended for adoption by ECOSOC. Because of the use of overbroad language from Chapter VII of the UN Charter labeling apartheid as a "threat to international peace and security" and a call for ratification of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (to which the United States has serious legal objections), the United States voted against the paragraphs incorporating these points and abstained on the resolution as a whole. The resolution was adopted on March 4 by a rollcall vote of 24 to 0, with 7 abstentions (U.S.). The resolution was subsequently adopted by ECOSOC on May 12 by a vote of 34 to 0, with 9 abstentions, the United States abstaining for the same reasons given above. With respect to the question of the adverse consequences of political, military, economic, and 94/ Amjad Ali (India), Annan Arkyin Cato (Ghana), Humberto Díaz Casanueva (Chile), Felix Ermacora (Austria), Branimir Janković (Yugoslavia), and Keba M'Baye (Senegal). other assistance to southern African regimes, the Commission's Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities/ subsequently adopted a resolution on August 31 asking the Secretary General to bring to the attention of the General Assembly an interim version of the report of the Subcommission rapporteur, Ahmed M. Khalifa (Egypt) on this subject. A spirited and contentious debate ensued in the Third Committee of the General Assembly when the Khalifa report was introduced there. The report was highly critical of the investment and trade activities of the United States and other principal trading partners of South Africa. The United States took the position that this was an interim report, was already out of date in important respects, and rather than being an objective analysis of the adverse effects of "political, military, economic, and other assistance" to southern Africa, prejudged the issues involved. The U.S. Representative in the Third Committee, Father Hupp, declared on October 26: "We do not accept the premise behind the study that racial equality and peace in all areas in southern Africa would best be promoted by breaking off all relations with South Africa. Neither do we accept the premise that normal diplomatic and commercial relations constitute 'assistance. Similar objections were made by the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, and Israel. Defenders of the report, including many Arab and communist states, saw it as evidence that trade and economic relations (which they equated with "assistance") conducted by the United States and other major trading nations served to prop up the South African Government and that the trading nations were therefore considered to be "accomplices" in the "crimes" of the South Africans. The outcome of the debate was the introduction of a resolution sponsored by 26 African and Asian states. Principal among its objectionable features were: (1) endorsement of the preliminary report of the rapporteur; (2) criticism of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France for the use of the 95/ The Subcommission is composed of 26 experts, serving in their individual capacities, elected by the Commission on Human Rights for 3-year terms. W. Beverly Carter, Jr., of the United States is a member. The Subcommission held its 29th session in Geneva, Aug. 12-Sept. 1, 1976. veto on southern African questions and a call for ECOSOC and the Human Rights Commission to examine the consequences of this use of the veto; and (3) condemnation of the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Japan for economic, military, and nuclear collaboration with "racist regimes of southern Africa." The resolution was approved by the Third Committee on November 4 by a rollcall vote of 87 to 12 (U.S.), with 31 abstentions. The U.S.S.R., which had strongly backed the Khalifa report in debate, announced that it would abstain on the resolution because of the language calling for a study of the use of the veto. The Soviets were joined by all other Eastern European countries except Romania and Yugoslavia. The resolution was later adopted in plenary on November 30 by a recorded vote of 97 to 11 (U.S.), with 28 abstentions 96/ An equally objectionable draft resolution, entitled "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights," was sponsored in the Third Committee by 39 states, nearly all African. In the U.S. view, the resolution contained a number of unacceptable features, notable among which was a condemnation of the policies of NATO members "whose political, economic, military, or sporting relations with the racist regimes of southern Africa and elsewhere encourage those regimes to persist in their suppression of the aspirations of peoples for self-determination and independence." This language led to the introduction by Belgium, on behalf of the United States and a number of other NATO countries, of an amendment to strike out the reference to NATO. The proposed amendment was defeated in the Third Committee by a rollcall vote of 21 in favor (U.S.) to 72 opposed, with 36 abstentions, and the resolution as a whole was approved on October 25 by a rollcall vote of 102 to 4 (U.S.), with 24 abstentions. Before the vote was taken, the U.S. Representative, Ambassador Myerson, expressed regret at having to vote "no" on a resolution on self-determination and observed that "the United States has, throughout its history, been committed to the right of individuals and peoples freely to determine their own destinies--not least in southern Africa where my government has been making strenuous 96 Resolution 31/33. |