The focus of discussion was broadly based around essential parts of the working paper, which would be: equality, equal opportunity and non discrimination, rights that would be given to minority groups, act that would refrain states from violence against minorities, strengthening the cooperation between regional organizations and also the role of independent expert. Some delegates proposed some additional acts such as: idea of incorporating the act of terrorism and extremism and duty of minorities to comply with national legislation.
Firstly they agreed on general line of the basic orientation of the working paper - equality, equal opportunity and non discrimination, the rest was the subject of further debate. According Ms Iva Petković, the possibility of incorporating the act of terrorism was very well accepted among delegates. At this point some would claim that there is a thin line states can cross, since there are cases when states abuse the act of war on terror to justify harsh repression of minorities.
Further debate led to article that would require state to refrain from violence against minority groups - at this point states made a progress, since some of the delegations agreed that this act should be stretched on cultural and linguistic minorities as well.
Delegates also agreed on essential parts regarding the rights of minorities - the right to education, the right to access to health services, the right to enjoy their culture, the right to association - but the obstacle at this point was phenomenon of positive discrimination and equality. The representative of UK commented: "Positive discrimination is something that could be good if it leads to equality. We do not want to minorities to have higher or priority status to majority population, but we do want to see some measures implemented to help underprivileged groups become equal and have equal opportunities. This is something that we hope will be universally accepted as the time goes by. "
Moreover the delegates were unified about the statement of one delegation that was of an opinion: "as much as the states have a duty to promote human rights in relation to minorities, minorities should also have a duty to comply with national legislation."
Compared to these very broad areas of agreement, state's differences are much narrower and less profound though they are still extremely important. Majority of delegations are opposed to the idea that the mandate of independent expert on minority issues would allow interference within state's internal affairs and sovereignty. The absence of an universal accepted definition on minorities is an impediment which appears insurmountable. At the meeting it was obvious that states are reluctant to have a definition of minorities.
In final analysis seems like that at some points the delegates must come to grips with what would be acceptable for both, minorities and states.
Aleksandra Đurđević
Ms. Petković comment:
South Africa would like to excuse for not attending the meeting. The representative just read a report and minutes of the meeting and would like to express satisfaction with its outcome. South Africa would also like to command the representative of the UK for great coordination of the meeting. There is a better future for minorities ahead of us.
ReplyDelete