[asia-apec 1478] Cuba on Human Rights

[bayan]

Speech delivered by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba,
Felipe Perez Roque, at the fifty-six session of the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights (Excerpt) Geneva, March 30, 2000 
 
Mr. President: 

Fifty-one years ago the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With the defeat of fascism a horrific
war came to an end, and made way for what should have been an era of peace and
collaboration among fellow human beings. 

On rereading Article 1, in which it is proclaimed that: “All human beings are
born free and equal, in dignity and rights”, we ask ourselves: What has
happened since then? Are the 4.5 billion human beings from underdeveloped
countries, who consume only 14 per cent of the total world produce, really as
free and equal as the 1.5 billion who live in developed countries and consume
the other 86 per cent? The richest 20 per cent of the planet’s population
possess 82 times more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent. Are they really as
free and equal as each other? 

Have the distinguished delegates from developed countries, who are present
here, ever considered what the 4.5 billion inhabitants of the underdeveloped
countries would think about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? of
these
4.5 billion, almost one billion go hungry, three fifths lack adequate
sanitation, a third do not have access to fresh water, a quarter are without
housing, and a fifth have not basic health service provision.  Do you not feel
yourselves blush with shame, your Excellencies, when you read that: “Everyone
is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration
”? Do
you not think about the accusatory look of the parents of the 30 thousand
children under 5 years of age, who die every day from causes that could have
been prevented, as we recall that: Everyone has the right to life
”? 

Is it possible to reconcile the right to freedom of opinion and speech, with
the fact that ownership of the mass media is ever more privatised, absolute,
monopolised and transnational? 

Could anyone in this room explain to the 800 million starving people on this
planet, who own nothing more than their own hunger, what is meant by: 

“Everyone has the right to own property
”? 

When we read that: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of
his country”, or that: “Everyone has the right to equal access, to the public
services in his country”, are we thinking, esteemed colleagues, about those
850
million illiterate adults who cannot even write, let alone read, the word
“right”? 

Five decades ago we declared that: “Everyone has the right to work
” How
can we
then explain to the millions of men and women who roam the streets every day,
searching for a way to provide a decent livelihood for their children, that
they are made prisoners and victims of an irrational and unjust economic
system
which denies them the right to work? 

What would the men and women, who in 1948 declared that: “Everyone has the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself
and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and the
necessary social services” say about the bitter realities of today’s world?
How
would they react when they discovered that there are more than 20 million
people in Africa infected with AIDS virus, awaiting their death, with no hope
of receiving treatment? Will we ever be able to justify the fact that
whilst we
were unable to come up with the 300 billion dollars needed annually in
order to
treat them, 800 billion dollars were invested in military expenditure? Will
our
descendants understand that, whist on the one hand we proclaim that:
“Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and attention”, and
that: “Each individual has the right to be educated”, here in the year 2000,
260 million children of school age, are not receiving an education, 160
million
are undernourished, 600 thousand women die every year in childbirth, and the
infant mortality rate in Third World countries is 64 per thousand live
births? 

These are the realities. Your Excellencies, and they are there, pointing the
finger of blame at us, even though we try to close our eyes, in an attempt to
block them out. That is why, when one contemplates the level of manipulation,
lies, hollow discourse and hypocrisy; when one considers the attempt to
dogmatically impose patterns and models that claim to be universal, one
realises, with deep conviction, that the way in which human rights causes are
dealt with in the world, needs to be salvaged from the selfish interests they
are hostage to. There is no doubt that this Commission on Human Rights is
obliged to undertake a thorough reform of its make-up and its methods; it must
cease to be a tool which is used for the selective and politicised persecution
of poor countries, and genuinely establish itself as a forum where we can join
forces, based on honesty and solidarity, so that one day we can proclaim that
the Declaration which was approved five decades ago really means something for
the entire 6 billion inhabitants of this planet, not just for the privileged
minority. 

More than five years ago the representatives of 171 States debated all these
issues in Vienna during the World Conference on Human Rights, and we agreed
that we should “treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the
same footing and with the same emphasis” and that “the significance of 
national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and 
religious backgrounds must be borne in mind”. However, in the years since
then,
there has been an increasingly dangerous trend, lead by a small group  of rich
and powerful States, who are attempting to turn the Human Rights Commission
into private property and a tool which can be used to impose their opinions
and
personal interests on us, the underdeveloped countries, who constitute the
overwhelming majority. The Commission on Human Rights is the heritage of all
peoples, not just the minority. The attempt to impose a single model, which is
in the interests of the powerful, must cease! Cuba remembers very clearly that
the universal nature of human rights was affirmed in Vienna, based on the
acknowledgement of diversity. 

Why does the Commission on Human Rights not channel its efforts, and dedicate
the necessary resources, into promoting the right to development? a
fundamental
human right which was acknowledged in Vienna, and the only possible way in
which we can save the dispossessed masses on this Earth from the poverty and
hunger that they are suffering, as they ask themselves, without understanding,
what it is we meet for each year in Geneva? Did we not state that: “the human
person is the central subject of development”?  Why do we not, for example,
appoint, right now, a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, to
follow up the issue of Official Aid for Development and the impact of its
dramatic decrease on the enjoyment of human rights in underdeveloped
countries?


If we stated in Vienna that: “everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of
scientific progress and its applications”, why is it that today, 97 per
cent of
patents are controlled by the wealthy countries? Does anyone in this room dare
to dispute my claim that as far as a billion people are concerned, we are
respecting this right less and less? 

How can we explain the hunting down of immigrants, the racism and xenophobia,
and the wall that the United States has raised on its border with Mexico,
if we
have already proclaimed that: “great importance must be given to the promotion
and protection of the human rights of (
) migrant workers, the elimination of
all forms of discrimination against them, and the strengthening and more
effective implementation of existing human rights instruments”? 

If in Vienna, we called on the international community to “make all efforts to
help alleviate the external debt burden of developing countries”, why do we
have to devote 25 per cent of our exports to paying for the onerous service of
a debt which, far from decreasing, is growing day by day? Are they respecting
our human rights whey they suffocate us with a debt of 2.5 trillion dollars? 
If we affirmed in Vienna that “the existence of widespread extreme poverty
inhibits the full and effective enjoyment of human rights”, how can we explain
the devastating reality that there are more people in the world now than ever
before, and that every 24 hours almost 70 thousand more destitute people join
the hungry and famished masses, who while they struggle to survive, watch us
approving documents and talking about human rights in this comfortable room? 

These are the reasons, Your Excellencies, which support the demand that the
Commission on Human Rights be transformed into an instrument for all countries
that protects human rights. However, that will not be possible unless the
developed countries who constitute only 15 per cent of the total number of
United Nations Member States put their national and group interests aside, and
prepare themselves to collaborate with us, in a spirit of altruism and
justice.


Last year the developed countries accredited 293 delegated for the work of the
Commission on Human Rights, whilst the underdeveloped countries, which
represent more than 75 per cent of the world population, accredited, with
great
sacrifice, 284 delegates. The United States alone accredited 4, half the
number
accredited by the whole of Africa, or all Asia, or all Latin America. And what
were the consequences of this unfair imbalance? That the developed countries
presented 61 per cent of all the resolutions and decisions that were adopted,
dealing an unmistakable blow to the aspiration we have held, that our
diversity
be respected. 
Cuba, therefore, considers that urgent measures should be taken to reverse
this
situation. For example, a proposal should be made to the General Assembly,
that
a fund be established, financed from the United Nations regular budget, to pay
for the travel and participation costs of at least three delegates from each
underdeveloped country which is a member of the Commission. In addition, the
Commission could set a limit of 15 accredited delegates per each government
delegation. 

The work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights
is a decisive factor in the preparation of the sessions, and in following-up
the decisions made by this Commission. However, the reports that are submitted
to the Commission and, generally speaking, almost all its work, is done by
officials who come from developed countries and impose their own models,
culture, ideology and experiences. Western European countries, the United
States and Canada have more personnel in the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner than all the underdeveloped countries combined.  There is no
doubt
that human rights are universal, but will officials from countries with a per
capita GDP of 25 thousand dollars have the same concept of them, as officials
from countries where it is 300 dollars? How can we, the poor countries,
confront this sad reality, as we helplessly witness the mass exodus of our
intellectuals and professionals, to wealthy countries, in search of better
opportunities and impossible dreams?  Cuba considers it essential that the
High
Commissioner establishes, as a matter of urgency, a group that is specifically
responsible for the recruitment and training of qualified personnel from
underdeveloped countries, for the Office of the High Commissioner.  All of the
resolutions relating to countries, which have been adopted since 1990, claim
that underdeveloped countries violate human rights, and all of them were
introduced by developed countries. Could anyone here in this room deny the
unquestionable fact that a minority group of countries impose their principals
and points of view on internationally adopted decisions regarding human
rights?
What is the truth of the matter, distinguished colleagues? Is it that human
rights are not violated in developed countries, or is it that, within this
Commission, it is impossible to analyse those violations?  If we agree that
all
human rights are of equal importance, why is it that the Commission approves
twice as many resolutions on civil and political rights, as on economic,
social
and cultural rights? Why are three times as many pages of official documents
devoted to civil and political rights, as to economic, social and cultural
rights? All of us in this room know the answer: because it is in the interest
of the developed countries that the Commission concerns itself only with the
civil and political rights. Because rights to development, to life, to
food, to
work, education and health; the rights of women and children, in short, the
rights of all the inhabitants of the planet, and not just a privileged group,
to a decent existence, and to full enjoyment of social justice, which has been
so often neglected, are not priorities for anybody other than us the poor and
underdeveloped countries.  It requires a high level of altruism to fight for
something which you have, but others do not, and great humility to acknowledge
that you are not the absolute owner of the truth. It requires a spirit of deep
democracy to accept that poor people can also be right. And knowledge of the
history of our peopleswhose countries have been colonised and ransacked for
centuriesis essential, if the poor are not to be condemned for their poverty. 

Mr. President: 

Non-Government Organisations have played a very important role in promoting
and
protecting human rights. Who would question, for example, the considerable
contribution that non-governmental grass-roots organisations have made to the
human rights cause, and to the fight against military dictatorships in Latin
America over the past decades?  However, we must acknowledge, with regret,
that
the non-governmental organisations that work to defend the human rights of the
majority of the inhabitants of this planet, are not adequately represented in
the meetings held by the Commission. 

A few organisations, calling themselves non-governmental, and functioning as
true transnational companies, financed and closely linked to the main power
groups in the developed countries, nowadays impose themselves as leaders.
They
are the ones who have all the money and receive all the coverage provided by
the media transnationals. Where does the money come from, and what is it used
for? 

Why do we not establish a Fund to finance the participation in the Commission
of representatives of non-governmental organisations of the South, and
non-governmental organisations that deal with the protection and promotion of
economic, social and cultural rights, and the right to development? 

Mr. President: 

It is a matter of great concern, that whilst less and less resources are
devoted to promoting development, combating hunger and poverty, and
compensating for centuries of lack of progressthe true causes of the
humanitarian crises in underdeveloped countriesthe theoretical and political
stance of a purported “right to humanitarian intervention”, gathers force
among
the principal western powers, and has already been applied several times in
practice. The blatant tendency to ignore the principles, which for half a
century have been the pillars of international post-war world justice, is
alarming. These principles provided the moral foundation of the United
Nations:
sovereign equality of States, their territorial integrity, non-interference in
their domestic affairs, and non-use of force or threat of use of force in
international relations. 

Cuba fully commits itself to, and emphatically calls on Member States to pay
particular attention to the resolution approved by the Subcommission for the
Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, in which the firm conviction is
expressed, that the alleged “duty” and “right” to carry out humanitarian
interventions, in particular resorting to force or the threat of use of force,
has no legal basis whatsoever and, accordingly, Cuba cannot condone such
violations of the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  We, the
peoples of the South, know from personal experience, the consequences of
doctrines of this sort, drawn up in the North, to legitimize intervention and
the interests of domination. You, our colleagues who here represent the member
countries of NATO, should understand us. You belong to a very powerful
military
alliance and have no reason to fear aggressive action, but we, the Third World
countries, we have good reason to worry. Our countries need to be bombarded,
yes, but not with missiles and smart bombs, but with new technology, long-term
funding for development, access to the increasingly inaccessible markets, and
the cancellation of our foreign debt. That would be the best contribution that
you could make to demonstrating true respect for the human rights of our
peoples! The most important of our human rights that must be respected, is the
right to development and a decent lifeit is the right to bequeath our children
a future with hope!  Who will establish the guidelines that justify the
invasion or ruthless bombing of a country? Will the United Nations Security
Council even be informed? Can you imagine there being a coalition of countries
of the South, which bombed the city of New York, in order to punish the United
States for its continuing violation of the rights of poor people and ethnic
minorities in that country? 

Will this Commission ever be capable of condemning the United States? Would it
dare to approve a resolution condemning them for child prostitution and
pornography there, for widespread violence and the proliferation of fire arms,
for police brutality and the inequalities of its judicial system, for the
unfair and arbitrary application of death penalty, for its practices of
racial,
sexual and religious discrimination, for its lack of care for the growing
masses of poor and dispossessed people living at the heart of the most
affluent
society in the history of the world? Will this Commission be able to condemn
the United States Government for the dirty war that it has wages against the
people of Cuba for forty years, with the single, and self-professed aim of
destroying the political, economic and social system that the Cuban people
have
built through their own free and sovereign will?  It seems very unlikely under
the current circumstances. In Vienna we declared 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.” And we are determined, Your Excellencies, to be a free and
independent people, not a colony of the United States! 

In Vienna, the states were also asked to refrain “from any unilateral measures
not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United
Nations”. How do you explain then, Your Excellencies, the persistence and
toughening of the genocidal North American blockade against Cuba, which has
been going on for forty years? Will anyone ask for the floor, when I have
finished speaking, in order to defend the idea that the blockade and the
economic war waged by the United States against my country promote respect for
human rights in the world?
 
What does the Commission on Human Rights have to say to the 11 million Cubans
who are fully aware that more than five years ago you declared that: “food
should not be used as a tool for political pressure”? How will the Commission
on Human Rights explain to our children, to our pregnant women, to our elderly
and to our disabled, that whilst the United States Government tries to starve
them into defeat, in a flagrant violation of their human rights, not only has
that government not been condemned by this Commission for its actions, but
what
is more, it sets itself up as supreme judge and ruling authority over the
conduct of the other countries on the planet?  The U.S. blockade of Cuba,
vigorously rejected every year in the United Nations General Assembly, is an
act of genocide, clearly established by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 

Your Excellencies: 

Once again the United States attempts, in this Commission, to accuse a country
such as Cuba, which has done so much for the rights of each and every one of
its citizens. I am not going to tire you, esteemed colleagues, with the sordid
story of how they have tried to manipulate the Commission on Human Rights in
the case of Cuba. For several years, reason prevailed over pressure and
maneuvers. Only with the fall of the European Socialist block, and the
subsequent change in the balance of forces at the heart of this Commission,
could the U.S. start to achieve its aims. 

What real reason could the Czech Government have for presenting a resolution
against Cuba, other than to carry out orders given by the United States? 

Everyone in this Commission knows that the price the Czech Republic is paying
for its entrance into NATO, is its political and economic dependency on the
United States. Everyone in this Commission knows that whilst the Czech Deputy
Foreign Minister, Martin Palous, was touring the world, reciting anti-Cuban
script that was dictated to him in Washington, during the first week in March,
the American Deputy Secretary of State, Harold Koh, was announcing in Geneva.
     ---------------------------------------------------------
	 B A Y A N
	 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance
	 No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village
	 Quezon City, PHILIPPINES							      	
	 Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151       Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211
	 Email:   <bayan at iname.com>
	 Bayan webpage URL:                                 
	 http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils 	      	
	 -----------------------------------------------------------