Summary: EU Presidency Statement - Human Rights in Sudan (23 November 2005: New York)
EU Presidency Statement on the SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN SUDAN, 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 have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYROM, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine and Moldova align themselves to this statement.
The EU position on No Action Motions is well known. It is based on the principle that the General Assembly must assume its responsibility and consider all issues of human rights that come before it - thematic, standard setting and, logically then, the implementation of those standards. Where there is ample, well-documented evidence of widespread abuse of human rights, these must be addressed. And there can surely be few situations in the world today where people have been denied their
fundamental human rights on such a large scale.
It is true that the situation in Sudan is being considered in other fora. There is sustained action in the Security Council and, following Security Council consideration, action investigations of the International Criminal Court. Surely the General Assembly, as the universal body of the United Nations should also consider the situation in its relevant body - here on the floor of the Third Committee.
The African Group tabled a resolution at the Commission on Human Rights, in cooperation with the EU. The EU would have welcomed the same cooperative
approach here that we had with the African Group in Geneva. And we offered to do so. We have said in previous statements that we welcome dialogue and cooperation on human rights and a collaborative approach. Why should the situation merit consideration at the CHR but not in the GA's universal body?
The draft resolution points to all of the positive developments that have taken place in Sudan - the creation of the Government of National Unity, the continued political processes underway, the admirable leadership of the African Union and work of AU peacekeepers on the ground and the cooperation of the Sudanese Government with the new Special Rapporteur mandated by the CHR.
But it could not also but note the grave violations of human rights that continue to occur on a daily basis. Further action is needed to ensure that more people are not killed, uprooted from their homes or terrorised. To stifle debate on this issue by voting in favour of a no-action motion would be to deny the responsibility of the international community to address human rights and to show a disregard for the human rights of the people of Sudan. Can we really turn our backs on this or any
other similar situation?
Mr Chairman,
Let us not get distracted from the issue at hand. Where a culture of impunity prevails in regard to human rights violations, it is our responsibility and our duty to take notice and to take action. Do not vote for a no-action motion in order to avoid discussion of important issues. Discuss the substance of the issue at hand. The EU urges all states to vote against this no-action motion regardless of their voting intentions on the resolution itself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page