WCAR, 3Rd Prep Com, WG on the Draft Plan of Action
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT AGAINST ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND RACISM (IMADR).
REPORT ON THE THIRD SESSION OF THE PREPARATORY COMITTEE FOR THE WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE.
Working Group on the Draft Plan of Action
29 July – 10 August 2001
Geneva, Switzerland
Prepared by Pia Drzewinski, intern, IMADR-UN Office
NOTE: The reports prepared by IMADR interns during the preparatory committee sessions are unofficial, written in the minutes form, with the aim to provide immediate information on the development during the sessions. Its purpose is to let NGOs and other interested parties know which delegation submitted which proposal, what was accepted, and if any NGO proposals were endorsed by Governments.
Wednesday, 1 August, Morning Session.
NGO statement: The Indian Movement Tupac Amaru.
We speak as indigenous people from the American continent. We are concerned by the proposals made by former and new colonial powers with a view to minimising colonialism as a root cause of racism and discrimination, and to reduce the importance of this issue in the Declaration and Programme of Action.
We still suffer the consequences of colonialism today. It is a historic root cause of racism. To ignore what happened would be to distort history.
We have proposals relating to three paragraphs of the Programme of Action, to reflect our opinion.
First, the first section should begin with paragraph 3 of the Draft Programme of Action, with the following amendments: the word ‘servitude’ should be added before ‘colonialism’.
Second, we propose to separate the paragraph, from ‘and urges States’, and delete the words ‘public and private investments’ because investments in developing countries have destroyed the traditional economy of our people, and led to extreme poverty.
Finally, referring to paragraph 6, we propose to add after ‘xenophobia’ the words ‘especially indigenous people’.
Chairman
To begin with our work, I draw your attention to paragraph 37 (e).
Mexico
We should move faster. We support paragraph 37 (e) as drafted in the document. It is a simple text and we could adopt it quickly.
USA
In the first line, we suggest to insert ‘treat migrants in a dignified and non-discriminatory manner’ after ‘immigration authorities’, as a replacement for ‘respect, among other aspects, the standards regarding dignified and non discriminatory treatment of migrants’.
Belgium (EU)
We should try to shorten this text. We already mentioned the need to treat migrants with dignity somewhere else in the document. The focus of this sub paragraph is that States are called upon to introduce training courses on issues relating to immigration for categories of persons who have contact with migrants in their official duty. I draw the attention of the delegations to paragraphs 169 and 172 that already deal with the administration of justice. We could delete some of the words here to avoid duplication.
India
We need to add ‘inter-alia’ after ‘through’ in the US proposal.
Chairman
We should take the opportunity to adopt the text if there is a consensus now, unless there are some comments on the issue of duplication raised by Belgium.
Pakistan
We tend to agree with the EU, a few paragraphs are similar. Specialised training courses should not only apply in relation with migrants. It would be better to have a comprehensive paragraph relating to all the victims.
Belgium
We could either delete the text and come back to it later, or keep it as it stands now.
Pakistan
The text as it is acceptable to us, but we feel there is there is duplication. Nevertheless, if we have a consensus, we will not stop its adoption.
Cuba
Our delegation regrets the proposal by the USA regarding this paragraph. We do not want words but tangible actions. We want to retain the word ‘standards’ and keep the text unchanged, or adopt the amended text if a reference to standards is included.
Turkey
The text as amended by the USA is acceptable to us. As to the suggestion of Cuba, the expression ‘in a dignified and non-discriminatory manner’ should meet their concerns.
Argentina
We support the proposal made by the USA. We would like to keep this paragraph. Paragraph 172 has a more limited focus on education.
Mexico (GRULAC)
We propose that after ‘non-discriminatory manner’ we include ‘in accordance with international standards’.
USA
The reason for our change in the text was that ‘standards’ was not defined. However, we would accept the proposal of Mexico to have it at that place.
Chairman
We can adopt the paragraph
New 37 (e). To ensure that police and immigration authorities treat migrants in a dignified and non discriminatory manner, in accordance with international standards, through, inter-alia, specialized training courses for administrators, police officers, immigration officials and other interested groups; ADOPTED
We are now considering paragraph 37 (f)
Canada
There is a mistranslation from the Santiago document. We should replace the word ‘work’ by ‘credential’ and use ‘maximizing’ instead of ‘recognizing’.
The Russian Federation
We should replace the word ‘countries’ by ‘States’.
Chairman
We introduce these changes in the text.
Belgium (EU)
We have no particular difficulties with this text, but ask ourselves to what extent does it contribute to the Programme of Action? The concept of positive contribution of migrants has been raised already in paragraph 33. We would be happy if this sub-paragraph was deleted.
Australia
With the clarification introduced by Canada, the text is useful. The recognition of credentials is important to facilitate the integration of migrants and their contribution to their State of residence.
We agree with the Russian Federation.
Pakistan
We thank Canada for the clarifications, but it is not clear what credentials are referred to here. Before ‘professional and technical credentials’ we should also put ‘educational’.
Cuba
We have no problem with the paragraph as it stands now. It is an important for migrants to have recognition of these credentials.
Egypt
The beginning of the text should say ‘to promote the recognition of…’
Mexico
We should move on, there are other paragraphs referring to the subject.
Turkey
The question of recognition is not appropriate to start the paragraph. We support the proposition of Egypt. As regards credentials, could Canada explain the rationale of its proposal?
Philippines
We support the proposition of Egypt to substitute ‘to promote’ to ‘consider the question’. We also support Pakistan to add ‘educational’.
Chairman
The text now reads ‘to promote the recognition of the educational, technical and professional credentials of migrants, with a view to maximizing their contribution in their new States of residence’
India
The amendment introduced by Canada is changing the meaning of the paragraph. It would be better to have recognition of the positive contribution of migrants rather than to maximise their contribution, as Canada proposes. Although it is different, the change proposed by Canada is also acceptable to us.
Canada
Our intent was to focus on the issue of credentials. The idea is not to promote the recognition of credentials, but to consider first the basis on which these credentials were issued in other countries, before promoting them as such.
Chairman
I prefer to start the paragraph with ‘to consider the question, with a view to promoting, the recognition…’ to meet all the views expressed by the delegations.
Mexico
With the explanation of Canada, we prefer to retain the paragraph as was drafted originally. The word credential might be more specific in English, but we can also use ‘qualifications’ or skills’.
Chairman
We should conclude the debate on this paragraph.
Belgium
We agree with the position of Canada.
Guatemala
This paragraph is taken from paragraph 31 of the Santiago Programme of Action. It refers to recognition of credentials in countries receiving migrants.
Chairman
We adopt the paragraph
Pakistan
A few proposals have been made concerning credentials and the use of the words ‘skills’ or ‘qualifications’. Can delegations meet in a smaller group and come up later with a proposal?
Chairman
I am afraid we cannot do that, as the delegations have more or less agreed to the paragraph. If you insist, we shall ask Egypt to find a solution. Consequently, we have NOT adopted paragraph 37 (f).
Chile
We will not insist if most of the delegations have agreed on credentials
Chairman
We should turn to paragraph 37 (g).
Pakistan
If there are no problem, we can adopt paragraph 37 (f).
Canada
Unless some delegations object to the word ‘credentials’, we should adopt paragraph 37 (f).
Chairman
We adopt paragraph 37 (f).
New 37 (f). To consider the question of, with a view to promoting, the recognition of the educational, professional and technical credentials of migrants, with a view to maximizing their contribution in their new States of residence; ADOPTED
We are now considering paragraph 37 (g).
USA
In this paragraph, we would like to refer more broadly to migrants, and replace ‘migrant workers and members of their families’ by ‘migrants’.
Turkey
We understand that the notion of migrant workers and members of their families is not widely used in the USA and Canada, but it is important in the countries of the Council of Europe. We have a number of instruments and declarations on migrant workers and their families. It is important to maintain this wording.
Switzerland
We would like to replace ‘ethnic origin’ by ‘national or ethnic origin’, to be in line with the CERD wording.
Lesotho
We propose not to discuss the list of human rights. We are going too far in the workability of the text if we include the notions of remuneration, pensions and so on. We might not be able to reach these obligations. We state more broadly ‘to enjoy all human rights’.
Canada
We support the USA to replace ‘migrant workers and members of their families’ by ‘migrants’.
Singapore
We support the USA and Canada. Sometimes these members are not in the same country as the migrant, and it would be difficult to ensure the same benefits and protection for them as for the migrant.
Belgium (EU)
We have difficulty with the word ‘particularly’. It tends to distinguish between different human rights. As the world conference on human rights held in Vienna in 1993 recognised, all human rights are indivisible, inalienable and universal. Therefore, we would prefer to use ‘including’ instead of ‘particularly’ if the enumeration is kept. In our view, we should not embark on a whole listing of rights, which is bound to be partial. For example, the rights to food, to housing or other economic and social rights do not appear in the list. Instead, we could write ‘all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights’.
Guatemala
We ask to include ‘health care’ after ‘access to education’.
As to the proposal of the EU to replace the list by a reference to economic, social and cultural rights in general terms, we would not have a problem with doing this, but we do not feel it is a vital change. Indeed, the word ‘including’ makes clear that the list is not exhaustive.
On the question of retaining ‘members of their families’, we would rather live it to a smaller group to decide.
Pakistan
We also want to propose adding ‘health care’. We are not yet ready to accept a deletion of the list.
Egypt
We could make a compromise.
Proposal: To take all possible measure to promote the enjoyment by [migrants, migrant workers and member of their families] of all human rights including those related to fair remuneration, pensions, access to education, health care, social services and protection of culture irrespective of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, gender, religion or political affiliation.
China
The Chinese delegation would accept the modifications made by Egypt. We are of the view that when we talk about human rights, we must include economic, social and cultural rights. At the end of the paragraph, the expression ‘political affiliation’ gives the impression that it is related to the protection of refugees rather than of migrants. We propose to delete it.
Chairman
We should put the sentence ‘irrespective of their race … political affiliation’ between brackets.
Turkey
In Europe, the policies and legislation can differ regarding migrant workers and their families. In the USA and Canada they are all regarded as migrants but it is different in Europe. In Europe, migrant workers are underrepresented. Therefore, we should use the formulation ‘migrants, including migrant workers and members of their families’.
Switzerland
We would prefer to use the term ‘migrants’, but would accept the wording proposed by Turkey.
The danger of having a list of rights is that it could be impartial and unbalanced. We could replace ‘fair remuneration’ with ‘just and favourable remuneration’, as used in article 23 of the UDHR. We could also replace ‘pension’ by ‘social security’ as used in article 22 of the UDHR, and ‘culture’ by ‘respect for their cultural identity’.
USA
Members of the families of migrants are not all migrants. Therefore we should use the expression ‘migrants, including migrant workers’ and delete ‘and members of their families’.
El Salvador
The end of the paragraph, from ‘irrespective’ on, does not seem to add value to the text. We propose to delete it, although we would also accept if some delegations want to keep it.
Chairman
It is a good idea to delete this part.
Pakistan
We propose to use agreed language from the CESCR, and use ‘fair wages and equal remuneration, pensions, social security, access to education …’
Canada
As regards the expression ‘migrants, including migrant workers’ we are expecting an answer from our capital this afternoon. In the meantime, we would like to keep it into brackets.
Belgium (EU)
We can agree to the proposal by Pakistan, but we propose to use ‘social security’ and delete the word ‘pensions’, and to replace ‘culture’ by ‘cultural identity’.
Chairman
Can we agree on deleting ‘pensions’?
Senegal
Pensions and social security are not the same thing. Pension is an important issue when migrants retire to their countries of origin. We want to retain it in the text.
Belgium (EU)
We really have problems with pensions. The right to a pension is not a human right. Social security can be taken to cover pensions. We could put pensions into brackets and find a solution later.
Senegal
The issue of pensions is fundamental.
Chairman
We will put pensions into brackets.
Egypt
We do not have a human right to pensions but a right to equal pensions. We want to add ‘equal’ before ‘pensions’.
Belgium (EU)
We need more time to decide on this issue.
Chairman
We will now turn to sub-paragraph (h).
Belgium (EU)
We believe that paragraph 37 (h) goes far, especially as it gives examples. It contains issues already covered in paragraphs 37 (b) and 38. Therefore, to avoid duplication, we should consider deleting it. Paragraph 38 is long. It is possible to shorten it and only keep the issue of gender, which is the only issue in this paragraph that is not dealt with anywhere else. In paragraph 37 (b), after ‘migrants’, we propose to add ‘with a special emphasis on women and children’ and then delete paragraphs 37 (h) and 38.
Chairman
By doing so, the issue of domestic violence would not be dealt with.
Belgium (EU)
We could include this issue in paragraph 38 and delete 37 (h).
Pakistan
This proposal is interesting, but the issue of domestic violence is not covered in either paragraph 38 or 37 (b).
USA
It is not obvious that the specific issue of abuse of migrant women and children has been dealt with in another paragraph. We should keep it in. We could keep the paragraph as it is until ‘relationships’ and delete the rest.
Lesotho
This is a conference on racism. These issues can be dealt with in other fora. We agree that it is better to end the paragraph with ‘relationships’, but we should replace ‘immigrant women and children’ by ‘immigrant’ only.
ElSalvador
We could replace ‘to consider adopting and implementing immigration policies and programmes’ at the beginning of the paragraph by ‘to take effective measures to enable’. However, we could agree with both wordings.
USA
We could agree with the proposal of El Salvador. Our preferred wording would be to retain ‘immigrant women and children’, but we could accept only ‘immigrant’.
Canada
We would object to replace ‘immigrant women and children’ by ‘immigrant’.
Lesotho
Our approach should be as general as possible. We maintain that reference should be made to ‘immigrants’ only.
Chairman
We will introduce the proposal of El Salvador for the beginning of the paragraph ‘to take effective measures to enable immigrants’.
Iran
We propose ‘to enable immigrant, in particular women and children’
Chairman
Do you agree to delete the part of the paragraph after ‘relationships’? We can now adopt paragraph 37 (h).
New 37 (h). To consider adopting and implementing immigration policies that would enable immigrants, in particular women and children who are victims of spousal or domestic violence, to free themselves from abusive relationships. ADOPTED
We are now considering paragraph 38
USA
At the end of paragraph 38, the reference to undertaking detailed research should not refer to reporting to treaty bodies. The research must be made before reporting. The sentence ‘in particular when reporting to treaty bodies’ should be replaced by ‘and findings should be included in reports to treaty bodies’.
Namibia
We would like to add ‘including gender discrimination’ after ‘special focus on gender issues’.
Pakistan
We suggest putting into bracket the list of grounds ‘gender, socio-economic class, race and ethnicity’.
Iran
Since we talk about women migrants, we would replace ‘contribution that women make’ by ‘contribution they make’.
Canada
We could remove the list of grounds from this paragraph and deal with it somewhere else.
Mexico
We would like the text to be accepted without brackets.
Chairman
We proceed to the deletion proposed by Canada.
Canada
We should add ‘when’ after ‘particularly’ to make sense.
Pakistan
We should replace the words ‘faced by women’ by ‘faced by them’.
Mexico
On the proposal made by Pakistan, we should keep the expression ‘faced by women’, because ‘them’ could be misunderstood as referring to ‘States’.
Pakistan
This is true; we should keep ‘by women’.
Chairman
We can adopt paragraph 38
38. With the increased proportion of women who are migrants, States are urged to place special focus on gender issues, including gender discrimination, particularly when the multiple barriers faced by migrant women intersect; detailed research should be undertaken not only in respect of human rights violations perpetrated against women migrants, but also on the contribution they make to the economies of their countries of origin and destination/host countries, and findings should be included in reports to treaty bodies. ADOPTED