European Union, etc.
Page 2
Costa Rica, etc.
Page 3
United Kingdom, etc.
Page 4
Uruguay, etc.
Page 5
(debate continued from previous page)
Costa Rica: Having abolished the military in 1948, we practice peace as a human right. (There follows a long description of peace as a culture, not just the absence of war, ending with the phrase, peace is to the human being as water to a fish and air to birds). It is the nations whose economies depend on weapons that are responsible for war. Culture of peace is the foremost task of UNESCO, as specified in the Director-General's New Year's address concerning the Human Right to Peace.
Haiti: supports the Human Right to Peace.
Colombia: supports the Human Right to Peace. This is very timely. It joins with the right to a clean environment, the right to development. The Human Right to Peace is a synthesis of previous rights, as in the Declaration of Rights of African Peoples. I believe that UNESCO is the competent authority in this matter. How can it be said that it is not in UNESCO's fields of competence? Perhaps there is some disagreement about the duty of a Human Right to Peace. But duties go with rights. I find it strange that that the Third World countries are so divided on this matter from the countries that provide weapons. Let UNESCO investigate the money for armaments and how it steals from us. We should not be afraid of the Human Right to Peace; instead, we should be afraid of not having it. The Human Right to Peace is supported here by 100 countries; it is rolling forward. We need to increase money in education instead of weapons. The weapons trade is a harmful cancer. It is weapons that create conflicts.
Poland: Has some reservations about the Human Right to Peace.
Nigeria: Supports the Human Right to Peace. Peace seems to be eluding us. The developed countries supply the weapons of war. The demand and supply of weapons of war must be stopped, including the secret shipments of weapons. UNESCO should research the causes of conflicts.
Belarus: Co-sponsor of resolution for the Human Right to Peace.
Japan: Agrees with Sweden and Austria concerning reservations on the Human Right to Peace. The upcoming celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should not include the Human Right to Peace. The Human Right to Peace is implicit in all UN declarations. The new proposal must be carefully examined by the Executive Board. It must be considered by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. States have a duty to prevent armed conflict and promote disarmament. Japan deeply supports peace.
Portugal: The Human Right to Peace is well deserved and interesting. It must be very carefully considered, taking all opinions into account.
Kirghistan: Supports the Human Right to Peace.
Indonesia: The right to peace should come from disarmament, renunciation of the use of force. There are questions yet to be addressed: is this individual, collective or states rights? What is the content of the Human Right to Peace? How should it be enforced? Therefore, is this question not too broad for UNESCO. Task of proclaiming new human rights belongs to the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. The Human Right to Peace should follow the same course as the consideration of the right to development.
India: Quotes from Gandhi: "an eye for an eye would leave the world blind." We would like to promote the right to peace.
Mozambique: Supports the Human Right to Peace.
Italy: It is fashionable to support and invent new human rights while existing rights are not being respected. Many countries have still not signed on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for respecting them, look at the critiques by Amnesty International.
Netherlands: My country supports many UNESCO initiatives for peace and cooperation in specific projects, but we agree with Russia and Indonesia that the Human Right to Peace is not a legal proposal. It needs to be judged on its legal merits: 1) right to peace cannot be a cause but a result - one could not deny fundamental rights in the name of the right to peace; 2) there is an ongoing academic discussion about implementing a right to peace at the level of the individual. We need a thorough academic debate which UNESCO can help to sponsor.
(debate continued on next page)
 |
 |
 |