Summary: EU Presidency Statement - Human Rights in Uzbekistan (22 November 2005: New York)
EU Presidency Statement on the SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN UZBEKISTAN, in accordance with rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, against the motion to adjourn the debate, by the UK Mission to the UN on behalf of the European Union, UN General Assembly, Third Committee, New York
Mr Chairman,
I am speaking on behalf of the European Union. Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Turkey align themselves with this statement.
It is an important matter of principle for the EU to vote any motion to adjourn the debate on the item under discussion. This motion is clearly aimed at preventing this Committee from dealing with a country-specific situation, namely the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan. No country - large or small - can be regarded as being beyond or above consideration by international human rights fora. This runs counter to the principles of universality and interdependence of all human rights. The
General Assembly is entitled to make a judgement - who else can? - but no state is above being judged. Does the argument about double standards mean we are never to address even the gravest abuses of human rights?
Mr. Chairman,
The EU believes that the Third Committee of the General Assembly must address the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan this year. This April, for the second year running, the Commission on Human Rights appointed an Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan under the confidential 1503 procedure. The resolution contained in L.51 recognizes the limited positive steps which the Government of Uzbekistan has taken over the last year. But since April we have also seen
serious violations of human rights in Andizhan, as well as a deterioration in other areas, including serious restrictions on freedom of expression and opinion, and harassment and intimidation of independent civil society, including human rights defenders. And we have seen a continued refusal on the part of the Government of Uzbekistan to cooperate with the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, with other UN bodies and other international organisations.
We believe it is important, by means of action on the resolution in L.51, to signal our common concerns about the current situation in Uzbekistan and to urge the Government of Uzbekistan to take all appropriate measures to implement its international commitments. By tabling this resolution we also make clear to civil society in Uzbekistan that the international community recognises its plight.
Mr. Chairman,
This motion to adjourn the debate runs counter to the spirit of dialogue to which we are all attached and it undermines the principles of transparency and freedom of expression that are essential to the work of the Third Committee. It would prevent us from even considering the different elements as mentioned in the resolution. This motion effectively asks the Committee to turn a blind eye to the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and to its people. The proposers of the no-action motion offer
no comfort to those whose human rights are abused, while their Government refuses to take the necessary steps to improve their situation, refuses offers of assistance to improve the implementation of universally accepted rights, and does not cooperate with the UN bodies competent in human rights.
This resolution is about principle, not about pressure. It is about the application of the universally accepted principles of human rights, which are fundamental to the United Nations. I would ask colleagues to consider the perception of our efforts to promote human rights if we are not prepared to address substance but instead resort to a procedural device. We should also consider what signal passing a no-action motion sends to those in Uzbekistan who do not today enjoy the basic rights which
the UN espouses.
The EU therefore strongly urges delegations to vote against this motion to adjourn the debate for reasons of principle, regardless of their voting intentions on the draft resolution itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page