Foreign Minister Perez Roque Speaks at Human Rights Commission in Geneva
We need a Commission at the service of everyone’s interests, and not
of the whims of the mightiest
GENEVA.— Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque urged the
member countries of the UN Human Rights Commission (HRC)
to reorganize that institution before it succumbs as a result of
its increasing disrepute.
(complete text)
STATEMENT DELIVERED BY H. E. MR. FELIPE PÉREZ
ROQUE, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CUBA, AT THE 58th SESSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
GENEVA, 26 MARCH 2002
Mr. Chairman:
I do not think it is necessary here to go over truths that are
no longer questioned by anybody, such as the ever-increasing
lack of credibility and the extreme politicization that today
weigh down the work of the Human Rights Commission.
Disrepute is growing, time is running out. It is essential that
we democratize the methods of this Commission, reestablish
with transparency its purpose and rules; in a word, set it up
anew. We need a Commission at the service of everyone’s
interests, and not hostage to the designs of a minority or, as
becomes more obvioU.S. every day, to the whims of the
mightiest.
It is absolutely necessary to banish double standards from
this Commission. Did those who today question the
legitimacy of the elections in an African country utter a word
when, scarcely a year ago, amid the scandal, we had to wait
almost a month to learn who would be President of the United
States?
It is absolutely necessary to banish selectivity from this
Commission. Last year, the Commission adopted resolutions
and declarations criticizing the human rights situation in 18
countries of the Third World. Some of those, like the one on
Cuba, were imposed by U.S.ing brutal pressure. Nevertheless,
not one decision mentioned any human rights violations in
the developed world. Is it becaU.S.e there are no such
violations or becaU.S.e it is impossible to criticize a rich
country in this Commission?
It is absolutely necessary to banish inequality from this
Commission. A minority of rich, developed countries impose
their interests here. They are the ones who can have large
delegations accredited here; they are the ones who introduce
most of the resolutions and decisions that are passed; they
are the ones who have all the resources to do their job. They
are always the judges and never the accU.S.ed. On the other
hand, here we are, the underdeveloped countries, accounting
for three quarters of the world population. We are always the
accU.S.ed – and the ones who through great sacrifices and
scarce resources try to make our voices heard here.
It is absolutely necessary to banish arbitrariness and the lack
of democratic spirit from this Commission. Is it not shameful
that the United States is pressing to return to the Human
Rights Commission without having to go through a vote? Is it
not almost laughable, if not truly pathetic, the reaction with
which the United States has wanted to take reprisals for its
fair exclU.S.ion from this body?
It is absolutely necessary to banish from this Commission the
attempt to ignore the defense of basic human rights for U.S.,
the poor peoples of the Earth. Why do the rich, developed
countries fail to openly recognize our right to development
and to receive financing to that end? Why is our right to
receive compensation for the centuries of grief and looting
that slavery and colonialism imposed on our countries not
recognized? Why is it not recognized our right to see the
cancellation of the debt strangling our countries? Why is it
not recognized our right to overcome poverty, our right to
food, our right to guarantee healthcare for our peoples, our
right to life? Why is it not recognized our right to education,
our right to enjoy scientific knowledge and our original
cultures? Why is it not recognized our right to sovereignty,
our right to live in a democratic, fair and equitable world?
Mr. Chairman:
Cuba considers that despite the differences in beliefs,
ideologies and political positions among U.S., there is –
nevertheless – a common danger facing U.S. all: the attempt
to impose a world dictatorship that serves the interests of the
mighty superpower and its transnational corporations, clearly
stating that you are either with them or against them.
Why do we not demand that the United States cease
unleashing wars that not only fail to resolve conflicts but in
fact also create new and more dangeroU.S. ones? Why do we
not demand that it abandon its plans to U.S.e nuclear
weapons? Why do we not demand that it not scrap the ABM
Treaty? Why do we not demand that it commit itself to
accepting the principle of verification envisaged in the
Additional Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention?
Why do we not demand that it cease its unconditional support
for and complicity with the genocide of the Palestinian people
perpetrated by the Israeli army? Why do we not demand that
it relinquish its attempts to turn the United Nations
Organization into a tool that serves its interests? Why do we
not demand that it contribute to the establishment of the
fair, democratic and unbiased International Criminal Court
that we need and not to this warped attempt to set up a
court subjected to the will of the powerful? Why do we not
demand that it respect international conventions and the
principles of humanitarian International Law in its treatment
of the prisoners taken in the war against terrorism?
Why do we not demand that it sign the Kyoto Protocol? Why
do we not demand that it recognize the commitment to
allocate 0.7% of Gross Domestic Product as Official
Development Assistance? Why do we not demand that it put
an end to unilateral protectionist practices and stop making
the World Trade Organization subservient to its interests?
Why do we not demand that it cease imposing arbitrary tariffs
– as it jU.S.t did with steel and other products – that destroy
whole branches of the economies of other countries? Why do
we not demand that it stop being the only country opposing
the proclamation of the right to food as a basic and
fundamental human right? Why do we not demand that it
cease thwarting the formulas that would guarantee AIDS
patients access to drugs? Why do we not demand that it
repeal the Helms-Burton Act and the extraterritorial
enforcement of its laws? Why do we not demand that it
respect the international legislation on intellectual property?
Why do we not demand that it give up the idea of turning the
Human Rights Commission into a tool to accU.S.e and judge
poor countries? Why do we not demand that it cease to look
for the mote in its neighbor’s eye when it cannot see the
beam in its own? Why do we not demand that it deal with the
scandaloU.S. Enron case and with corruption right in the U.S.
and stop lecturing about corruption throughout the world?
Why do we not ask it to give up the principle of "do as I say
and not as I do"?
And now, with all due respect, I ask you, as representatives
of the rich and developed countries: Why, if in private you
agree with almost everything I have said, do you remain
silent and not lead the attack on these dangers threatening
U.S. all? Is it perhaps that you have the right to relinquish
your own values?
Is it that perhaps the will and the interests of the
overwhelming majority of the Earth’s inhabitants do not need
to be respected? Do not the countries in the West – which up
until yesterday were allies of the United States in a bipolar
world but today are victims as are we of this dangeroU.S. and
unsU.S.tainable order it is trying to impose – think that the
time has come to defend our rights together? Why not try to
form a new alliance for a future of peace, security and
jU.S.tice for all? Why not try to form a coalition that will once
again proclaim on its flag the aspiration of liberty, equality
and brotherhood for all nations? Why not strive for democracy
not only within countries but also in relations among
countries? Why not believe that a better world is possible?
Mr. Chairman:
I cannot end without saying a few words on Cuba. I do so not
so much for our country – whose generoU.S. and brave people
have defeated aggression and economic warfare for more than
forty years – but rather becaU.S.e we think that the
manipulations concocted and the forceful condemnation
intended against Cuba could tomorrow be sought in this
Commission against any other country represented in this
hall. I am not, I repeat, thinking of Cuba – to which nothing
or nobody can deny a future of jU.S.tice and dignity for its
children – but of the credibility of this Human Rights
Commission and the United Nations System.
The United States has had to face a new situation this year.
On top of its exclU.S.ion from this Commission comes the
Czech Government’s announcement that it will not be
available to introduce the resolution against Cuba this time
around. Our country took note of this announcement and will
wait to see if such decision is final.
However, the U.S. Government, including its highest
authorities, is making frantic efforts in Latin America, U.S.ing
a lot of stick and little carrot, to get one or several countries
in our region to agree to play that infamoU.S. role. We trU.S.t
that no Judas will now appear on the Latin American scene.
I will not take a single minute to defend the generoU.S. and
noble work of the Cuban Revolution in favor of the civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Cuban
people. I will only say that there is no country that has the
moral authority to propose any censure of Cuba.
We will U.S.e all our strength to oppose the attempt to single
Cuba out. We will reject a resolution whatever its text and
will reject any other manipulation. We will not accept
conciliatory appeals or exhortations to cooperate, since they
are not necessary.
Should any government offer itself for the anti-Cuban
maneuver, we are sure that it would not be doing so out of
supposedly democratic convictions or a commitment to the
defense of human rights. It would be doing so out of lack of
courage to stand up to U.S. pressures and that betrayal could
only earn our contempt.
We very well know that our small country embodies – for
billions of men and women in Latin America, Africa, Asia and
Oceania who are currently struggling against despair – the
certainty that it is possible to live in an independent country
with freedom and jU.S.tice. Indeed, many millions of poor and
exploited people in the First World – who are joined by
intellectuals, some middle-class people and others whose
ethics reject the injU.S.tices, immorality and ecological risks
prevailing in the world of today – share this same certainty
and the same hope with the nations of the Third World that a
better world is possible and that they are prepared to
struggle for it. Seattle, Quebec, Davos, Genoa and other
similar events prove that this is so.
Since these times, my fellow delegates, are not for fears,
concessions and weaknesses, I would like to put formalities
aside and implore to be forgiven if I repeat what I said last
year when we were asked subservient gestures for the U.S.
Government, concluding my remarks with the slogan of a
heroic people that does not yield and will not yield to the
mightiest imperialist power that has ever existed in history:
Motherland or Death!
We shall overcome