political life, and the results of those efforts were appropriately relegated to the shelves of libraries. This seminar was determined to avoid similar mistakes and re solved to draft concrete proposals. Although the seminar procedures reflected those of the UN more than a seminar, the delegates spoke freely, since it was made clear that no delegate would bind his country and that no remarks would be attributed. Nevertheless, several delegates continued to act as if they were in fact representing their countries advocating nationalist positions. Thus some of the issues which split the OAU interjected themselves into the seminar. There did not appear to be any significant differences of opinion on the composition or mandate of the commission. Although many delegates maintained a healthy skepticism as to what the OAU heads of state would do with the recommendations, this concern did not materially affect the deliberations of the delegates who forged ahead optimis tically. The brief summary of the seminar which follows is designed to relate significant events and trends which I believe were identifiable and impacted the outcome of the seminar, so as to better enable the reader to assess the likelihood that results will follow and to know where efforts supporting this work may best be directed. It is not intended to be a detailed recitation of the debate of the seminar, a complete summary of which is provided in the Annexes, for, as indicated, it is my view that the seminar really only endorsed previously formulated positions and that the significant resolution of differences of opinions occurred within the working groups, whose deliberations were private. A. Previous Efforts to Establish a Regional The seminar resulted from initiatives undertaken by (among others) the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as early as 1968, which requested, as part of its program of advisory services in the field of human rights, that the Secretary General convene regional seminars in those areas where no human rights commissions existed to discuss the advisability of establishing such bodies. The seminar drew on past experiences of similar efforts by the U.N. and NGO's, including the African Congress of Lagos, Nigeria (1961); and conferences held in Cairo (1969); Addis Ababa (1971); Dar es Salaam (1973) which recommended establishing human rights instrumentalities or machinery for Africa of one form or another.* These efforts have continued up to the present time. The seminar also reviewed efforts undertaken in Africa by U.N. specialized agencies, such as the UNHCR, to deal with matters within their areas of competence; see note p. 4 for identification of private efforts. The Human Rights Commission request was endorsed by the General Assembly in 1977 and 1978, and the Secretary General was asked to organize a seminar in Africa during 1979.* Conference arrangements were made through the Liberian government and the office of the Secretary-General. The selection of Liberia as the host country seems to have been fortuitous for reasons referred to above, although Nigeria has most actively supported this initiative. C. OAU Summit Resolution (July 1979) Perhaps the significant impetus for action in Africa came from the 1979 OAU summit whose resolution called upon its Secretary-General "to organize as soon as possible in an African capital, a meeting of highly qualified experts to prepare a preliminary draft of an African Charter of Human Rights Although the Monrovia seminar was planned prior to the OAU summit, this resolution indicated that the African states had reached a political maturity that permitted them to confront the reality of the human rights situation on the continent and signalled a desire to participate more fully in the debate on human rights at the international level.** #G.A. Res. 32/127 (1977) and 33/167 (1978) **Several of the participants apparently believed that they were attending the conference called for by the OAU in its resolution, which added considerable confusion to defining the task of the seminar. It wasn't until the fourth day of the seminar that the exact role of the seminar was clarified by Mr. van Boven. D. Other Events in Africa Affecting the Seminar The seminar coincided with a strong optimism about political events in Africa, especially human rights. Although Also, many the OAU summit debates underscored some very sharp divisions on the continent, the consensus was positive. representatives seemed clearly relieved that the Amin and Macias regimes, real sources of embarrassment to many, had been displaced. Also, the report issued by the commission of inquiry on the massacres in the Central African Empire, which implicated Emperor Bokassa I, was viewed as a truly remarkable event, since it marked the first time that other countries had investigated and criticized events in another African state. I do not recall that the heretofore sacrosanct principles of non-intervention and the sanctity of borders were invoked even once to justify limiting the scope of authority of the commission during the debates on its structure and authority. The majority of delegates were representatives of African governments invited as members of the Economic Commission of Africa. Although many had previously attended various UN-sponsored conferences, the majority had no special expertise on human rights matters nor to my knowledge were any delegates especially selected by their countries to attend this conference. Their familiarity with UN procedures both Although helped and hindered the debate. In a few instances certain inter-state problems manifested themselves, such as an exchange of insults between Somalia and Ethiopia. designated as a seminar, many delegates insisted on exercising formal rights they would have if attending an official U.N. meeting. The absence of several North African and all Portuguese-speaking countries was noted and regretted. It was thought that the non-representation of the Portuguese-speaking countries was particularly regrettable, as none had participated in any prior conferences dealing with human rights in Africa, referred to above, and their positions on key issues were not generally known. Representatives of Regional Organizations B. It was particularly regrettable that no representatives of either the OAS or the Arab League attended, since the purpose of the seminar was to consider models for a commission. Others did review their general experience and methods of operating in the field of human rights, however. It was noted that the OAS took nearly twenty years to establish effective human rights machinery and thus some delegates attached significance to establishing a charter first, which would provide a juridical basis for a commission. This was a minority position, and overlooked the fact that the OAU resolution assigned that task to its committee of experts. |