Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

are not informed of any decisions taken with respect to their communication unless the Commission on Human Rights makes a recommendation to the Economic and Social Council. They do not have an opportunity to make an oral appearance before any of the organs considering their communication.

The governments referred to in the communications also are not informed of any decisions taken with respect to these communications. Nor do they have an opportunity to make an oral appearance before the organs considering these communications. (Obviously, however, they are in a much better position than the authors of communications to know what is happening in the closed meetings.)

Finally, under the present rules, some observers believe that the Sub-Commission may only consider communications referred to it by the working group. It is possible that the working group, either inadvertently or deliberately, might not refer a situation which warrants consideration.11

Recommendation

14. The Department of State should propose that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights revise the procedures for reviewing communications on human rights to provide for:

(a) Notifying the author of a communication and the government concerned of any decision taken with respect to the communication;

(b) Supplying to the author of the communication a copy of the government's reply;

(c) Permitting the appearance of the author of the communication (or counsel) and the government concerned before the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities or a sub-body thereof; and

(d) Recognizing the right of a member of the Sub-Commission to bring before that organ any communication which has not been referred to it by the working group.

PROPOSALS FOR NEW U.N. MACHINERY AND PROCEDURES

Serious gaps in the U.N. human rights machinery limit the improvement which can be made in existing procedures. The improvements made so far retain the decision making authority in organs composed of either governmental representatives or independent experts (whose independence is often suspect since they are usually nominated and elected by governments). In 1967 the Economic and Social Council, on the recommendation of the Commission on Human Rights, proposed to the General Assembly the creation of an office of High Commissioner for Human Rights. Many of the witnesses before the subcommittee supported the High Commissioner proposal.

The High Commissioner would be authorized to consult with governments concerning their human rights practices. The High Commissioner would not use the instrument of public censure to obtain re

11 For a discussion of these rules and suggestions for strengthening them, see testimony of John Carey, Oct. 16, 1973; also see written statements of Prof. Frank Newman contained in the record of the hearings.

sults. He would consult privately and offer his services to conciliate or mediate the disputes. He would make recommendations at the request of the government concerned.

Under the most recent proposal before the Assembly, the High Commissioner would be nominated by the Secretary General and elected by the Assembly. His election by the Assembly would insure that he was acceptable to all regional blocs.

An international executive is needed who is able to act to prevent human rights violations independently of political considerations. The Division of Human Rights in the U.N. Secretariat does not have that kind of mandate. The Secretary General sometimes does take initiatives when human rights violations occur. The Secretary General however, has many other responsibilities besides human rights. He must weigh the impact of his human rights initiatives (which might displease governments) against his effectiveness in other areas. The High Commissioner would be responsible only for promoting human rights and, therefore, would be unlikely to allow other objectives to interfere with this responsibility.

At the present time the majority of member states do not support the High Commissioner proposal; nevertheless, U.S. support for the proposal should continue in the hope that eventually states will view the proposal not as a threat to their sovereignty but rather as an instrument consistent with their own enlightened self-interest.

The Commission on Human Rights has not been effective in handling urgent situations involving massive violations of human rights. The Commission is presently limited to a 5-week annual session. There is no provision in its rules of procedures to hold special sessions. Consequently, when urgent situations arise, the Commission is very likely not to be in session and therefore denied the opportunity of taking measures which might prevent further violations. Provision should be made, perhaps at the request of a majority of the members of the Commission, to hold special sessions to deal with urgent situations involving massive violations of human rights.

The Commission has frequently been unable to complete its regular program of work. Many agenda items are not considered; some items have not been dealt with for years. Provision should be made in its rules of procedure to hold more than one session a year.

Recommendations

15. The Department of State should continue to support the creation of an Office of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. The High Commissioner would consult with governments on their implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments in the human rights field. The High Commissioner would be nominated by the Secretary General and elected by the General Assembly.

16. The Department of State should propose that the Commission on Human Rights be authorized to hold regular sessions more than once a year, if necessary, and to hold special sessions at any time to deal with urgent situations involving massive violations of human rights.

SPECIAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS DESERVING U.N. ACTION

ELIMINATING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, APARTHEID, AND COLONIALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA, NAMIBIA, THE PORTUGUESE TERRITORIES, AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Racial discrimination, apartheid, and colonial oppression against the black majorities in South Africa, Namibia, the Portuguese territories, and Southern Rhodesia are among the most abhorrent violations of human rights in the world today. The most serious violations in southern Africa include: (1) denial of the right of self-determination; (2) the denial of the right to vote to nonwhites; (3) denial of freedom of movement; (4) the expulsion of blacks from their homes to reserves of fortified resettlement areas; (5) detention and imprisonment without trial; and (6) denial of equal job and educational opportunities. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim has stated that denial of selfdetermination in southern Africa "constitutes a major obstacle to the relaxation of international tensions," and "if it continues, will inevitably have serious consequences far outside the confines of the region itself." Moreover, until progress is made in eliminating racial inequality in southern Africa, Third World states will probably not be responsive to strengthening the U.N.'s general authority to promote human rights.

The United States has joined with most states in voicing its rejection of the oppressive regimes in southern Africa. Rhetoric alone, however, is not likely to eliminate oppression. Third World states will take greater notice of what we do than of what we say. Consequently, the subcommittee recommends that the United States undertake a series of practical steps to help bring racial equality to southern Africa. U.N. Council for Namibia

In 1971, the International Court of Justice ruled in an advisory opinion (1)—

That, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory;

and (2)—

That States' Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration *

The United States has accepted the Court's ruling, yet it refused to join the Council for Namibia which is responsible for carrying out the Court's decision. Assistant Secretary of State, David Popper stated

(31)

in a letter of November 13, 1973, to Congressman Fraser that the goals of the Council-the withdrawal of South Africa from the territory and the establishment of a constituent assembly-are "unrealistic and impracticable." 1 However, he did not suggest alternative measures for achieving independence for Namibia. Moreover, the United States has contributed to the difficulties facing the Council by refusing to join the Council and by not cooperating in its work. In 1972, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations refused to encourage U.S. firms doing business in Namibia to cooperate with the Council's investigation of labor practices.

U.S. Investment in Southern Africa

U.S. investment in southern Africa serves to strengthen the racist regimes. In testimony before the subcommittee, Mrs. Elizabeth Landis, of the American Committee on Africa, stated that investment in southern Africa, while it may slightly improve the working conditions of Africa, will also strengthen the governments in southern Africa and therefore diminish the likelihood of racial equality. The General Assembly has stated that the activities of foreign economic interests "constitute a major obstacle to political independence." Therefore, recommendation No. 21 constitutes a minimum level of action on our

part.

The subcommittee welcomes the initiatives already taken by the United States to encourage U.S. business in South Africa to improve their labor practices. In his testimony before the subcommittee, John W. Foley, Director, Office of Southern African Affairs, Department of State, stated that:

As part of our effort to contribute to peaceful change in South Africa and to be true to our own principles, the United States encourages American firms in South Africa to improve their labor practices. Thus, this past spring, the Department of State published a brochure entitled "Employment Practices of United States Firms in South Africa." The brochure describes what is being done and what can be done under South African law to upgrade employment practices and employee services. Examples were given of the actions being taken by various U.S. firms in South Africa. The range of actions includes raising wages, equal pay for equal work, pensions, medical care, legal assistance, educational assistance for employees' children, vocational and management training programs, and advancement. Improved labor practices in South Africa can propel change in the South African situation.*

Recommendations

17. The Governments of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and Portugal should fully implement the U.N. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples which states that "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development."

18. The Governments of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and Portugal should fully implement the Universal Declaration of

1 See Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, International Protection of Human Rights: The Work of International Organizations and the Role of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1974. p. 513.

2 Hearing, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Sept. 27, 1973. 3 General Assembly resolution 2979 (XXVII), 1972.

4 Hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Sept. 27, 1973.

Human Rights which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," in particular:

(a) To eliminate the practices of racial discrimination and apartheid;

(b) To insure the right of everyone to take part in the government of his country, including the right to vote;

(c) To insure the right to work, free choice of employment, just and favorable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, and to form and to join trade unions; and

(d) To insure the right to education and provide the opportunity for education at all levels without regard to race, color, sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status.

19. The Department of State should support the efforts of the black majorities in southern Africa to achieve self-determination and independence.

20. The Department of State should seek membership for the United States on the U.N.'s Council for Namibia and give its full support to the Council's objective of ending South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

21. The Department of State and the Department of Commerce should ask U.S. firms doing business in southern Africa to provide their employees with just and favorable remuneration and conditions of work; equal pay for equal work; adequate pensions, medical care, and legal assistance; educational assistance for their employees and their children; and vocational and management training programs.

22. The Congress should repeal the Byrd amendment which contravenes the U.S. legal obligation to uphold the U.N. resolution adopted by the Security Council imposing economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.5

STRENGTHENING THE LAWS OF WAR TO PROTECT THE HUMAN
RIGHTS OF CIVILIANS AND COMBATANTS

In the aftermath of World War II, the international community adopted the four Geneva conventions of 1949. Together with the Hague conventions of 1907, United Nations human rights law and the Nuremberg principles, they constitute the bulk of international humanitarian law for armed conflicts.

The Geneva conventions set the standards for care of armed forces who are sick and wounded, treatment of prisoners of war and protection of civilians in time of war.

In recognition of the urgent need to take into account modern developments in methods of warfare, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)-which oversees the implementation of the conventions-has prepared two additional protocols to the Geneva conventions relating to the protection of victims of international and noninternational armed conflicts.

5 See Hearings, Repeal of the Rhodesian Chrome Amendments, Subcommittees on International Organizations and Movements and on Africa, 93d Cong., 2d sess., Oct. 5 and 17. 1973.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »