African group has a unified position, Asia-Pacific group states will search for partners individually

UN Herald editorial interviewed two permanent representatives of different regional and working groups this weekend. Ms. Tonja Avsenik representing the delegation of Ethiopia, which is a member of African group, and Ms. Katarina Mulec representing the delegation of Australia, who is a part of Asia-Pacific group, answered questions about their standing on Security Council reform topic, improvement made on working papers and their possible cooperation with other countries outside their traditional coalitions.

What is your official position towards increasing of number of permanent seats, increasing of number of non-permanent seats and reforming of veto structure?

Ms. Avsenik: Ethiopia stands behind African common position on Security Council reform, believing, that the reform is urgent to create a more representative, transparent and inclusive Security Council and to overcome the current state of underrepresentation of Africa, Asia and Latin America. African common position advocates that Security Council needs to be enlarged in both permanent and non-permanent category to reflect the changing world realities. In the light of our position we believe that new permanent members should be granted the same privileges as current permanent members, including right of veto. Nevertheless, Ethiopia is of opinion that the use of veto should be reserved.

Ms. Mulec: In this General Assembly, Australia will support "compromise enlargement model". We know that there is many different thoughts on the enlargement of the seats, but some sort of compromise will have to be made if we really want to make a change. Australia will support that compromise (unless it is completely against our believes for SC reform). Of course, we would like our region to be represented more, and in this case, we support India to get a permanent seat. 
As far as veto goes, explanation of veto, when used, should be made. We also encourage the P5 not to use veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of international law.

Does Ethiopia accept any other possible outcome that is different from one expressed in African group statements?

Ms. Avsenik: As regards the Security Council reform, African group has a unified position, which Ethiopia will strongly support and follow. It`s time for Africa!

Are you planning to deepen the cooperation with African group or Asia-Pacific group or any other group before the last session? Are you preparing any meetings or even draft resolutions within these forums?

Ms. Avsenik: As has already been published in The UN Herald, last Tuesday African states and G4 met to establish a common position. The common perspective of African Group and G4 is reflected in the working paper addressing the reform of the Security Council. The working paper is prepared, as all of the provisions have been discussed among several states, which have shared their ideas and suggestions. As it has been stressed in our common statement, African Group and G4 are open for proposals in the light of reaching a broad consensus. Let’s keep the content itself a mystery for now, however we can reveal that the final draft will be ambitious and will include some significant changes.

Ms. Mulec: Asia-Pacific group is constantly connected. However, countries in this GA have very different opinions when it comes to SC reform, this is why you shouldn't expect a WP from our region. If any other news, appropriate for general public emerges, we will, of course, let you know. Australia is currently a non-permanent member of SC. We are content with the fact that we have a chance now for our voice to be heard. We will cooperate with those states, whose WP will resemble the most to our views on SC reform.

Luka Kavčič

Read More

Separate positions - same goals: Asia-Pacific group

Six out of ten most populous countries in the world are located in the region of the Asia-Pacific that boasts a breathtaking ethnic and religious diversity.

 The biggest threat to the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in the world's most populous country, China, is its mix of authoritarian government, Han nationalism and rapid development. Minorities are strictly defined by Beijing, and some groups, especially those from resource rich areas, remain unrecognized. The Indonesian government, dominated by the Javanese and infamous for its corruption during the three decades under General Suharto, has been oppressive towards ethnic and religious minority groups in Indonesia. Ethnic and sectarian tensions have been exploited by the military in order to maintain influence and prevent close examination of past human rights abuses. 8% of the population in Australia consists of Asian and Muslim communities. They have faced harassment and are subject to the recent government emphasis on "Australian-ness". In India, the rights of many minorities have not been secured, despite a certain level of legal protection. Both low-caste Dalits ("Untouchables") and diverse indigenous tribal peoples (Adivasis) suffer pervasive marginalization within the Hindu majority (MRG 2013).

In order to research the issue of the treatment of minorities in this region we asked the delegates to answer a few questions. Cooperation of the states of the Asian-Pacific told us the last time in their joint statement that they believe in diversity and respect of human rights and at the same time thy were of the opinion that minority issues should stay the question of the internal affairs of the each state. This was repeated one more time today. Ms Maša Tiselj, the representative of India stated: "We agree that promotion of diversity and protection of human rights are crucial however we discovered that we have very different ideas on specific approaches and that common position would not be possible, so on Thursday no specific joint efforts of the Asia-Pacific region can be expected". 

The representative of Indonesia Ms Tina Orešnik came to the same conclusion: "The Asian - Pacific group has a large diapazon of mutual interests, and tackling the problems, that stem from the issue of minorities is certainly one of them. Yet, we also agree that we are countries, that are very different -  in terms of developmental, ethnical, cultural, political and even more generally speaking - societal profile. Therefore, it would be highly unreasonable to commit to a variety of declaratory goals, that would then prove to be difficult or even impossible to achieve in terms of the aforementioned differences. So each country will deal with the issues individually. Indonesia is, however, willing to offer any kind of help that is at our disposal should the need for this be expressed by (a) member state(s)."

The point of my interest was also whether the states of the Asia-Pacific agree with the main ideas and strategies of the WP proposed by UK, South Africa and India?

To sum up, you will that some countries have separate positions on the content of the WP as some parts may are not in accordance with their agenda.

China: 

"To be honest, when we got the WP on the issue of minorities, the first thing that surprised us, was a quite diverse group of states which are on the list of sponsors or signatories. Because of that we were sceptical from the very start what this kind of resolution could bring about. People's Republic of China sees this document pretty incoherent and in spots contradictory. Nevertheless, we do not like to comment on this WP more in detail. China is looking forward to the discussion and we are hoping that ambiguities and doubts will be explained and solved there successfully." 

South Korea: 

"Republic of Korea is a big advocate of human rights and believes in protecting in minorities. We support resolution and we are also the signatory of the resolution. We agree with clause “"condemn terrorist and extremist actions that are motivated by religious, ethnic, racial or any other hatred", besides they also asked the Human Rights Council to". As it was mentioned in the interview, Republic of Korea also supports intra-state controlling mechanisms, and even more, we support work of not just UN, but also regional organisations, which can contribute a lot to this topic. Overall, Republic of Korea agrees with preposed resolution and believes it is a very good one."

Indonesia: 

"Indonesia firmly believes in the good and noble intentions of the WP our distinguished fellow delegates have prepaired. Yet, we must be very careful when approaching such a resolution, both in term of understanding it properly, as well as positioning oneself either in a supporting or opposing position. It is crucial, that such a delicate issue as the minorities certainly are, is dealt with very carefully. There are certain points in the WP that should not be a point of dispute for none of the member states, for example the protection of human rights, striving towards a peaceful and inclusive multicultural society, etc. It is also important to appreciate the effort that has been put into it. There are some points though, that are not completely atuned with the general guidelines of our state and foreign policy, but this was to be expected, taking into consideration the differences between the countries as such"

Australia:
"Australia appreciates the effort UK, South Africa and India made when drafting the WP. As a signatory of this WP, we are, of course, very supportive about it."

We also asked the representative if they could point out some approaches their states are using in order to manage the issue of the minorities, and which could be translated all over the world? States are mostly convinced that the same (special) mechanism can not be applied universally, even though it can be said that equality among population is a path to solution.

India: 

"We believe that it is impossible to translate one specific approach all over the world because "the issue of minorities" differs from state to state, however we encourage the exchange of good practices among states. In general any approach that respects human rights, non-discrimination and promotes inter-cultural dialogue is a good approach. In India we are very proud of our multicultural, multi-linguistic and multi-religious heritage most of which is the consequence of many different minorities groups that live in our country which is why we want to ensure their upliftment. What you may find interesting about our country is that we aim to improve socioeconomic conditions of our minorities through inclusive development and even through affirmative action. We are well aware of the fact that there had been a wide disparity in the social and educational status of different sections of a largely caste-based and tradition-bound society in the past. Therefore our Constitution permits positive discrimination in favour of the weak, the disadvantaged and the backward so that they can have the same starting point as other citizens and thus equal opportunities for active participation in the building of our vibrant nation. Our Constitution admits discrimination with reasons but prohibits discrimination without reason.

To ensure that protection of minorities in our constitution is also implemented we have established a Ministry of Minority Affairs as well as a number of other institutions such as National Commission for Minorities, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Backward Classes etc. We believe that we are doing a great job and progress can be seen especially in the areas of education, employment, infrastructural development, and also in the prevention and control of communal disharmony and violence."

South Korea:

"Republic of Korea does a lot of work on this field. Even though we are homogenous state, a significant A significant step towards concentrating on human rights protection was the signing of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Social Charter in 2004. This instrument contains 21 objectives and some of these objectives have direct bearing on protection of minorities. Republic of Korea is also party of all treaties that protect human rights and also minorities. Even though that in past Korea’s attitudes of Koreans toward foreigners were often thought to be ethnocentric, citizens of South Korea are tolerant and open toward foreigners and immigrants living in our state."

China:

"People’s Republic of China does not believe in templates, which could be used all around the world in all cultures, political systems etc. Therefore we do not wish to impose our approach to this issue on any other country. China is a united multi-ethnic state with developed system of regional autonomy and legislation which protects all ethic minorities’ rights on all levels. This system really does work in China and this is the most important thing."

Indonesia:

"Although Indonesia is the largest Islamic state in the world, we try to be as considerate as possible when it comes to othe religions as well. An example of this migh seem not important at a first glance, but sends a rather powerful message about the importance of respecting all religions equally. Namely, despite being the country with the world's largest Muslim population, Protestantism and Catholicism are among the six officially recognized religions - along with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. All these religions' major religious holidays are national public holidays. This systemic approach - treating different minorities equally in all and every aspect of life - is what Indonesia believes is the right way to a sociaty of equality"

Australia:
"Australia has quite a difficult past when it comes to minorities. However, we have dealt with our past and are now very actively involved with our minority groups and making sure their rights are implemented. One way of doing that are centres that offer education, health service etc and are some sort of connection between the government and minorities. They are led either by the members of minority groups of government officials. Also, we are encouraging minority groups and others to be a part of programmes aimed at integration of minority members into society as equal members. We believe that if we are educated about each other’s cultures and habits, we will be able to accept each other better."

Reference:

MRG. 2013. World Directory for Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Overview of Asia and Oceania. Available at: http://www.minorityrights.org/?lid=499 

Read More

Divided Asia-Pacific

As the position on forced migration in the Asia-Pacific joint statement was quite broad, we asked individual states for their opinion and planned policies. We conducted a live interview with H.E. mr. Jordan, representative of Republic of Korea, whereas with others we communicated in written form. 

It was confirmed once more that the Asian Pacific member states differ in their views how the issue of forced migrations should be tackled. While Australia believes that disabling international networks of smugglers of people would be the best way to solve this issue, Indonesia emphasizes that their main goal is to shed light on categories, that might have not been given as much attention as they should - unfortunately they did not specify which are these goals. "We will also work towards achieving a consensus broad enough so that the current draft resolution on FM is adopted," added H.E. ms. Orešnik. Republic of Korea, like Australia, stressed the need to address the issue of human trafficking and smuggling - it is not stated in the video but we received a consequent e-mail from the representative emphasizing this issue.

What is the right approach in their opinion? Australia expressed its support for the policy of burden sharing, and the same goes for Indonesia. "We believe that all countries should recognize the urgent neccessity of (a) mechanism(s), which would ensure a such a policy and potentially alleviate those countries, who cannot tackle the problems only by means own their own resources," stated H.E. ms. Orešnik. Republic of Korea finds the idea of policy of burden sharing very interesting but believes it must be discussed. The delegate also expressed support for the case by case approach. Malaysia on the other hand supports burden sharing, but on a bilateral level. "Malaysia respects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and believes that forced migration issues should remain in the sovereignty of each individual country. Our primary goal is not to sign a legally binding document on forced migrations, because this is a very perplexed question and it should be resolved in terms of bilateral relations," also added H.E. ms. Mrdja, representative of Malaysia.

While Indonesia and Australia are very sceptical of a case-by-case-approach, Republic of Korea and Malaysia seem quite open for it. "Case-by-case approach is useful when situations are very diverse, however, it can lead to more bureaucratic complications," stated H.E. ms. Mulec, representative of Australia. H.E. ms. Orešnik said that individual treatment of each individual case or groups of similar cases would certainly be the right approach, yet it is still neccessary to establish a common ground. While South Korea is more inclined toward the case-by-case approach, it is also open for a discussion and possibility of burden sharing policy. Malaysia on the other hand doesn't leave that option open: "Malaysia completely supports the idea of a case by case approach seeing as the problem of forced migrations is such a complexed issue and needs to be resolved individually."

Unfortuntely we couldn't get a hold of other representatives of Asia Pacific member states, but we will  pay attention today at the session to see what they think.

Video interview with H.E. mr. Jordan, representative of Republic of Korea

 Tamara Kajtazović

____________________________________________

Complete interviews: 

1. We have heard the position of Asian-Pacific region but as it is a very wide region, the standpoint on forced migrations was very broad. Are there any specific goals that your country wishes to achieve tomorrow in the GA?

AUSTRALIA: Australia believes, as we stated on many other occasions, that disabling international networks of smugglers of people would be the best way to solve this issue. However, this is only one of the ways - we also believe in burden sharing, making sure that people do not even have the need to leave their home (this would mean more development aid, fewer conflicts around the world etc).

INDONESIA: The Asian-Pacific region indeed is a very wide region, and it is affected by various forms and consequences of migrations in general. The main goal of the Republic of Indonesia is to shed light on categories, that might have not been given as much attention as they should. We will also work towards achieving a consensus broad enough so that the current draft resolution on FM is adopted.

MALAYSIA: Malaysia is aware that the forced migration and all the infringements of the migrants’ rights are a global problem; however Malaysia respects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries and believes that forced migration issues should remain in the sovereignty of each individual country. Our primary goal is not to sign a legally binding document on forced migrations, because this is a very perplexed question and it should be resolved in terms of bilateral relations.

2. Some states strongly advocate the policy of burden sharing. Do you support this policy and if yes, in what way do you it should be carried out?

AUSTRALIA: Yes, we do support burden sharing. We believe we should continue and expand current system, however, precise calculations would need to be made if we would all agree on more financial aid for this system. Australia, as many other recipient countries, already does a lot of work on its own - development help, internal law etc, but we believe this system should include all members of GA.

INDONESIA: Indonesia strongly believes in the policy of burden sharing. We believe that all countries should recognize the urgent neccessity of (a) mechanism(s), which would ensure a such a policy and potentially alleviate those countries, who cannot tackle the problems only by means own their own resources.

MALAYSIA: Malaysia supports the idea of burden sharing, but as mentioned before, on a more bilateral level.

3. Some have argued that a system which would work through a case-by-case approach is needed. What do you think about this?

AUSTRALIA: Case-by-case approach is useful when situations are very diverse, however, it can lead to more bureaucratic complications which could harm the intention itself. When help is needed, it needs to be granted ASAP (in cases such as natural disasters, etc). We think that there is room for a lot more research, talks and thought needed on the topic of actual granting of the financial aid through burden sharing system.

INDONESIA: Since every state finds itself in a unique set of various circumstances, it is obvious that a completely universal method that would work equally efficent for everyone, is practically impossible. Individual treatment of each individual case or groups of similar cases would certainly be the right approach, yet it is still neccessary to establish a common ground, a broad, general foundation which the country- and case-specific measures can rely upon.

MALAYSIA: Malaysia completely supports the idea of a case by case approach seeing as the problem of forced migrations is such a complexed issue and needs to be resolved individually. We can not treat the case of forced migrants fleeing the country due to war reasons the same as migrants that flee a country due to racial issues. Although both issues deserve global attention, Malaysia takes life-threatening cases more seriously.

Read More

Asia-Pacific meeting report

Last week we have been reporting on forming of Asia-Pacific coalition, which is including: China, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Australia and the Republic of Korea. The purpose of the meeting, which took place on the 18^th April was to discuss this year’s GA agenda. Their positions are stated can deduced from the statement below:

"State representatives of the Asia-Pacific region had a meeting at the Faculty of Social Sciences on Thursday (18^th of April), just before the General Assembly opening session. The meeting was hosted by the Republic of Korea.

The meeting was attended by delegations of China, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Australia and the Republic of Korea. The states of the Asia-Pacific region represent quite a large coalition within the General Assembly.

On the topic of the Security Council reform, we agreed that a 21^st century Security Council must be transparent and effective. We also agreed that the communication between General Assembly and Security Council must be more efficient and the objectives of the latter must be more precise. The states believe in the expansion of membership and a greater representation of Asia.

Regarding minorities, we strongly believe in protection of diversity and respect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We’re certain that the rights of minorities should be respected and protected, however we must avoid intervention in internal affairs and politicisation of this question. But still, we have confidence in dialogue, promotion and brotherhood among diverse people.

In the field of forced migration, the Asia-Pacific states call for a better coordination among institutions which is in their opinion a key to any successful solution of the problem. Sustainable development, that will reduce numbers of forced migrants, is also important. We believe in reintegration of forced migrants into society. Regional cooperation on different topics is also crucial especially on prevention of smuggling and trafficking of people - two important objectives of this region.

Even though the prevailing opinion is that Asia-Pacific region is too big and that states are too different, our intention is to cooperate on topics that are not on the given agenda as well. Due to the size and influence of our coalition, we can pursue great goals for humanity.”

Read More

"Asian-Pacific region on the work" - Australia's formal statement

In previous days The UN Herald have released the information about the Asian- Pacific meeting. 

 Below you have opportunity to read the formal statement of Australian representative, Ms Katarina Mulec, who shared the following statement:

"The age of fast development and even faster information certainly brought it's pros and cons. We celebrate that and welcome the fact, that world became much smaller due to the incredible speed if IT. That gives us the opportunity to be more aware of events, that are happening in the real time all around the world. However, the IT can also be dangerous.

Since bilateral and multilateral arrangements among states are extremely important and not always a subject of public opinion, we strongly encourage the press and other representatives to be cautious and more responsible when handling sensitive informations. Communication is key, and uncoordinated information is not a subject of public opinion. We believe in importance of press, however, we encourage you to work more closely with representatives on the matters such as Asia - Pacific meeting. 

At this point, Australia is happy to confirm that in fact that meeting will take place and it will be closed for the public. Time and place or any other info are not appropriate for general public at this time, however, we will be happy to issue a press release after the actual meeting takes place."

Delegates of states involved in Asian-Pacific group have agreed that they will give media statement on the in next few days.

***

Regarding the comments on the articles we publish, you also have the opportunity to share your opinion bellow the published article in the special field for comments ;)

Aleksandra Đurđević

Read More