|
Statement by Mr. ALEINIK Ambassador, Permanent
Representative of Belarus to the United Nations Office and Other
International Organizations at Geneva 60th Session of the Commission on
Human Rights
(Geneva, 15 March - 23 April 2004)
on the draft resolution L.22
«Situation of Human Rights in Belarus»
Mr. Chairman,
In connection with the submission for consideration by the
Commission of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in
Belarus, I would like to state the following:
Today, no one is surprised that the United States exercising
the right of power has tabled a draft resolution with totally misleading and
groundless accusations against a new sovereign State. What is it then, if
not an attempt by the United States to punish a country, which has been
consistently pursuing an independent foreign policy?
Having unilaterally assumed the functions of world
arbitrator, the USA grossly violates international law, through microscope
tries to discover motes in the eyes of other countries and obstinately
overlooks beams in its own ones.
It is obvious to everybody that accusations against Belarus
have been designed in the same manner as the well-known allegations about
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 45-minute readiness to deploy them.
The international community has already had the opportunity to ascertain the
mendacity of those allegations.
Such actions became a long time ago the norm for the United
States, however. We are more surprised by the position of the EU countries,
which have co-sponsored that draft resolution. May be, it is just an attempt
to divert attention from the situation of human rights in the EU itself,
which is far from being ideal and where, according to the well known
international organization Amnesty International, only two out of the
fifteen current members deserve to be mentioned in a positive way with
regards human rights respect? The feeling is that the EU has rejected all
constructive proposals by Belarus and tried to use the tribune of the CHR to
create new dividing lines in Europe. Such an approach runs counter to the
strategies on good neighboring and partnership with new neighbors.
Unlike the USA, the Republic of Belarus is a party to all
basic international treaties in the area of human rights and fully
cooperates with international treaty bodies in this sphere. Likewise, we
stand for constructive co-operation with all the special procedures of the
Commission and have proved this in practice. Just one recent example – the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has been invited to visit Belarus
before the end of this year. At the same time, the USA taking the first
position in the world in terms of detainees still refuses to co-operate with
relevant thematic UN procedures.
Let me now draw the attention of the Commission to specific
provisions of the draft resolution to show once more their unfoundedness and
mendacity.
The distinguished ambassador of Ireland speaking at this
session said that in 2003 disappearances of persons had been recorded in 79
countries. In this connection, we have the legitimate right to ask the
question: Why did the co-sponsors of the draft resolution single out Belarus
alone as a problematic country, moreover, on the ground of not proved
five-year-old facts. While, for instance, in Canada, according to the
newspaper “Ottawa Citizen” disappearances of indigenous women have become a
national problem.
In response to the critical statements concerning the
Belarusian electoral system, I would like to note that the electoral
legislation of Belarus entirely corresponds to the international standards
and electoral practices are democratic and transparent. In turn, we would
like to recommend the co-sponsors of the resolution to pay the most serious
attention to the forth-coming presidential elections in the USA in order to
prevent that the so-called exemplary electoral system does not demonstrate
again failures, which occurred four years ago. In this regard, we deem it
justified sending OSCE/ODIHR observers to the USA in order to monitor the
course of the electoral process.
Today, Belarus is a new independent State, which has been
responsibly realizing transition from young democracy to a mature one.
Belarus is an open country striving for a constructive and equitable
co-operation. Human being, his/her rights and freedoms are a supreme goal of
the Belarusian society and State. This is specifically proved by the
findings of the World Bank report (January 2004) according to which, Belarus
is recognized as a model for regional countries to fight against poverty.
What is it then, if not the evidence of a high level of human rights
achievements?
Today, there are 18 political partiers in Belarus. Though
opposition parties not only criticize the current government but also
benefit from generous political and financial support by the West, no party
has been dissolved.
Realizing their right to freedom of association, citizens of
Belarus have set up 2214 public associations and 52 all-nation trade unions,
which maintain active international contacts as well. Over the last years,
the number of press mass media outlets has increased by more than 20% mainly
owing to the increase in non-governmental publications. The share of
non-governmental mass media outlets constitutes about 70%. What harassment
of independent mass media outlets are we talking about?
Particularly, I would like to touch upon the paragraph on the
Special Rapporteur for Belarus, which does not stand up to any criticism. As
it is aware, the Commission appoints special rapporteurs as a last resort
for those countries in which mass, gross and continued violations of human
rights are taking place. In this regard, isn’t the suggestion to appoint a
Special Rapporteur an attempt to divert the Commission from the
consideration of true mass violations of human rights, for instance, those
of the Iraqi population, where according to the British news paper
Independent 13,000.00 civilians were killed in the course of military
intervention?
In conclusion, I would like to note that today we are
witnessing yet another attempt to make use of the Commission on human rights
as a tool to promote political interests of certain Member States. But, may
be, we must say “no” to further politicization of the Commission and
discontinue the practice of adopting politically motivated decisions leading
to confrontation and distrust?
We appeal to Member States to support our country and reject
the submitted draft resolution.
Thank you.
|
