UN/GENEVA: STATEMENT OF TRP

United Nations - Commission on Human Rights
53rd Session

Geneva, 12 March 1997

Statement on behalf of the Transnational Radical Party

Under item 7

The right to self-determination

by Dr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag


M. Chairman,

This agenda item, on self-determination, is an item of crucial importance in relation to human rights, and the work of this Commission, especially in its potential to prevent armed conflict or help end it.

The statistic is now well known or should be: well over 90 percent of all armed conflicts in the world today are, or originate from, conflict between (indigenous) peoples or minorities and other population groups on the one hand, and state governments that rule over them, on the other. The notion that these are ethnic conflicts, as the media often refers to them, is very misleading. Very few conflicts start as conflicts between the population groups themselves. Mostly, the tensions they originate from are political and result from frustration and anger at decades or even centuries of oppression, forced assimilation policies, population transfer practices and, in some cases, even acts of genocide. The remedy which many peoples turn to is the exercise of self-determination.

Most threatened peoples or minorities seek some form of protection to guarantee that the oppression or discrimination they have been subjected to will stop; or if it occured in the past, that it cannot again begin. Their foremost objective is survival as peoples, with their own distinct cultures, languages, religions, and traditions; but also with some degree of control over their ancestral territory. This desire clashes with the need of rulers for control or their fear of giving up any power over aspects of government or over territory. In many cases, this desire for control is strengthened because of the existence of valuable natural resources in regions inhabited by indigenous peoples. The self-determination most peoples initially seek does not involve separation from the state, but at times independence becomes the only perceived option.

When vulnerable peoples do not obtain the needed recognition and protection or autonomy which they aspire to from the state government, they look to the international community for support. But all too often, the United Nations and its member states look the other way. That is, until the conflict has escalated to open and armed confrontation.

Violence is often a response to the refusal on the part of governments to take the legitimate grievances of a people seriously. We are shocked at the reports of violence in Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), but not surprised. The frustration felt by the Uigurs after decades of oppression aggravated by the massive population transfer of Chinese into that region and by the silence of this and other human rights bodies should surprise no one. We have reason to doubt that Uigurs are responsible for the recent bomb attacks, which could well be calculated to discredit the self-determination movement of this Muslim people. But regardless of the culprits, we are deeply concerned, as we all should be, that the Eastern Turkestan could become the scene of violent uprisings and repression unless the people are given some reason for hope of a better future.

Let us not wait until other self-determination movements that are today non-violent in nature escalate into armed confrontation fore acting. The people of Tibet have been asking this Commission for years to express its concern at the human rights situation, and to urge China`s government to respond to overtures made by H.H. the Dalai Lama for negotiations. But too many of the Members of this body have failed to respond to this, one of the world`s foremost non-violent movements.

The sad truth today is that state governments, international organizations and also media by enlarge take serious notice only when violence breaks out. All kind of reasons are given for this, and some may be quite understandable. But the fact remains: unless and until this pattern is radically changed, deadly conflicts will increase and the stands taken will radicalize. As long as non-violent movements are not given the respect they deserve, they too will turn to violence.

For many governments claims for self-determination are unacceptable, because they are seen as threatening the territorial integrity of the state. But self-determination does not necessarily mean secession from an existing state. A wide range of outcomes are possible from a free exercise of the right to self-determination. No right is absolute, even fundamental rights. Thus, the exercise of the right to self-determination is subject to a weighing process, to take into account other rights and principles, including that of territorial integrity. Neither the right to self-determination, nor the principle of territorial integrity may be unilaterally imposed by force.

People`s struggles for protection of fundamental human rights, including the right to self-determination, are often met by force. The bloody repression of the environmental and human rights movement of MOSOP (Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People) by Nigerian armed forces is a case in point. Rather tha using this costly and painful tool of coercion, states should be encouraged, indeed persuaded to resolve such issues by dialogue and negotiation. In the long run, states do often realize that there is no military solution to such conflicts. But most times, much blood has to flow before such a point is reached.

Why did it have to take such a tragic war and tens of thousands of dead for Russia to sit ate the negotiating table with the elected representatives of the Chechen people to work out a solution to their mutual relations on the basis (as stated in the agreements signed by the two parties in August) of principles of international law including the right of peoples to self-determination?

Taking the first step to negotiations takes courage and statemanship. Often more that to fight. The Pme Minister of India`s announcement to the Indian Parliament that his government is starting talks with the Naga leadership (NSCN) should be welcomed. It takes vision and true leadership on both sides to turn away from the military option in favor of dialogue. It is not easy to sit face to face at the negotiating table and to tackle the tough issues that have kept the region in a state of war for decades.

In neighboring Bangladesh a third round of negotiations between the new government and the self-determination movement of the indigenous Jumma peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (represented bu the JSS) was to start today. Both the Bangladesh government and the JSS leaders must be commended for theis courage. The peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts have suffered much as a result of the population transfer policy which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Bengali settlers moving into and occupying the land traditionally owned or used by the Jumma peoples. The armed struggle which ensued, the tens of thousands of refugees and displaced persons this caused, and the serious human rights violations which the heavy militarization of the area has provoked have left deep scars on this region and its peoples. On my recent visit to Dhaka I found guarded optimism on both sides of the talks. But some very difficult issues remain to be addressed. Encouragement by the international community, especially those countries which have close ties to Bangladesh for the negotiation process to continue, and assistance by them to make sure that a fair and lasting solution is obtained, is now of great importance.

Government leaders often fear the political consequences of entering into negotiations with self-determination movements which they have labeled rebels, separatists or even terrorists. Yet, when they demonstrate the courage to enter into earnest negotiations in a sincere attempt to end a conflict, international respect for these leaders soars. One only needs to look at the list of Nobel Peace Laureates to understand the prestige and respect which a real willingness to negotiate inspires.

Imagine the good will which a announcement by the China`s leaders, that they are willing to meet with His Holiness t Dalai Lama or his representatives to start a serious process of negotiations and reconciliation to resolve the tragedy of Tibet, would create. If it happened. Leaders of the word`s democracies, including South Africa, which has just entered into diplomatic relations with the PRC, should encourage China's leaders to see the immense benefits of a sincere move of this kind.

Sir Julius Chang, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea (PNG), had shown a willingness to talk with the leaders of Bougainville in the past. In fact, a peace process was successfully launched in 1995. In December of that year the All Bougainville Leaders Peace Talks took place under joint Chairmanship of the UN and the Commonwealth. Despite the very positive outcome of these talks, the PNG armed forces intensified the war on Bougainville in the course of 1996, and today they are using highly paid mercenaries to wipe out the people`s movement on the island. The self-determination struggle cannot be eliminated by force without destroying the people themselves. This Commission should urge the government of Papua New Guinea to abandone its ill advised mercenary adventure, and use the millions of dollars this is costing to finance a proper peace process under the aegis of the United Nations.

The Georgian government also seems to be retreating from earlier committments to negotiate in earnest. Georgia and Abkhazia negotiated in Geneva and Moscow under the aegis of the United Nations and the Secratray Generals able Special Envoy. I assisted in this process and believed that it could lead to a lasting political agreement. But in recent months, the Georgian government, and to a large extent also the Russian Government which played a facilitating role, have turned to pressure rather than dialogue to obtain the result they wa: the integration of Abkhazia (which won the war) into Georgia. That is a departure from the agreement all parties signed (in the presence of the UN Secretary general, Boutros Boutros Ghali) on April 4, 1994, which provided for a political framework of eqity between the two parties and for a union based on a recognition of Abkhazias statehood.

When the British government and SinnFein agreed to talk, the world sighed in relief. But today negotiations between those parties have not even begun and the conflict seems far from resolved. Indonesia does continue its talks with Portugal over East Timor under the aegis of the United Nations Secretary General. But a true willingness to address the legitimate claim of the East Timorese for self-determination by that government is simply absent, and the negotiations at times therefore seem little more than a formality.

Taking the start negotiations, when sincere, deserves admiration and the full support of the international community. Even harder than starting negotiations is the task maintaining a positive momentum and preventing individuals and groups with ulterior motives from disrupting or destroying the process. Sincerity, honesty and perseverance ultimately provide the best chance for success. We urge the Human Rights Commission to take peoples movements for self-determination seriously in the context of its human rights mandate, not waiting for armed conflict to break out, but encouraging efforts for peaceful change and for dialogue.

Thank you Mr.Chairman