SUMMARY

European Union, etc.
Page 2

Costa Rica, etc.
Page 3

United Kingdom, etc.
Page 4

Uruguay, etc.
Page 5

The following excerpts, devoted to the Human Right to Peace, are provided in the order in which they occurred in the debate.

Luxembourg: On behalf of the European Union, we cannot support the draft declaration on the Human Right to Peace, which is made ineffective by certain aspects and therefore needs more work.

Sweden: There is no doubt about Sweden's commitment to peace and existing human rights conventions that are already adequate. We oppose new legal instruments, and, in any case, it is improper for UNESCO to intrude into this field which is a task for other UN agencies such as the legal committee of the General Assembly. Peace is the result, not the precondition for peace. This discussion is a waste of our time. Pinochet and Stalin had peace but not human rights.

Algeria: supports Human Right to Peace

Austria: agrees with Sweden regarding Human Right to Peace. No one can doubt our commitment to a culture of peace which has given a renaissance to UNESCO thanks to the actions of the Director-General. But the idea of the Human Right to Peace undermines the idea of human rights. It cannot be enforced. Recently we were force by a government to resort to war. Who will enforce the Human Right to Peace? We should not try to make a right out of an aspiration. Rights come from the legal committee of the General Assembly. Our role at UNESCO is ethical, to disseminate existing conventions rather than making new ones. We disagree that peace is a precondition to human rights. Let us abstain from making a new Human Right to Peace which is dangerous.

Germany: Germany prefers to have more time to study the Human Right to Peace.

Denmark: The Declaration confounds human rights and peace which should be addressed separately. It confuses disarmament policy and weakens human rights. This is not a good way to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration. No one can doubt Denmark's support of human rights. But the Human Right to Peace is not in UNESCO's fields of competence.

Russian Federation: supports the Director-General with regard to the Human Right to Peace. However, it is difficult to translate into practice. Must be a legal document, not bureaucratic which makes problems.

Finland: no mention of Human Right to Peace

Philippines: supports Human Right to Peace. However, it must be clearly defined so it can be adhered to. It must reflect the struggle for a just and stable economy as a precondition for peace. The promotion of a culture of peace is the most important step to guarantee this right.

France: The Human Right to Peace indicates that peace is a precondition for human rights, a position that would weaken human rights. UNESCO's mandate is not to enforce peace and security. A new right could create illusions.

China: We should not adopt a new human right which is still controversial. Instead, we need an in-depth re-assessment of human rights taking into consideration the many changes since 1948, including the emergence of new countries.

Argentina: supports Human Right to Peace. We share the spirit of the proposal, but want it developed and studied carefully so that it represents the will of all Member States.

(debate continued on next page)