Paul Kehoe
Question:87 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason his Department agreed to a US amendment to a draft UN resolution, earlier in 2003, that was sponsored by Ireland and related to religious intolerance. [30426/03]
Written Answers. - Human Rights Issues.
For nearly 20 years, Ireland has proposed and been the principal sponsor, at the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights, of a resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance. The resolution aims to address all instances of religious intolerance or discrimination based on religion or belief, irrespective of where they occur or who are the victims.
We have, over the years, received numerous requests to include mention of specific forms of religious intolerance or discrimination. We and the other co-sponsors had consistently maintained that, while the instances in question were indeed matters of great concern to us, to include specific references to them – and not to other instances of the problem – would detract from the universal scope of the resolution and would create a hierarchy of religious intolerance. The resolution has for many years been adopted by consensus in the general assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. It has also succeeded in attracting a large number of states to cosponsor it. These two elements, consensus and a wide level of co-sponsorship, have been important factors in enabling us secure the adoption of a valuable resolution on the sensitive subject of religious freedom.
At a meeting of the Commission on Human Rights earlier this year, the United States delegation asked for the inclusion of a reference to anti-semitism in our resolution. This request was motivated by the refusal of the sponsors of the resolution on racism to include such a reference in that resolution, despite the fact that the question of anti-semitism had been dealt with at the Durban World Conference against Racism.
In the circumstances, we reluctantly agreed to join EU partners in supporting the inclusion of an appropriate reference, provided that such a reference would be capable of commanding consensus within the commission. Following difficult negotiations with the most interested delegations on all sides, we believed we had reached agreement on the insertion of preambular language which would have expressed concern at instances of Islamophobia, anti-semitism and intolerance against other religions. However, shortly before action was due on the draft resolution, we were informed that the additional language would not command consensus. Accordingly, we did not propose its insertion.
At that point, the United States delegation then formally proposed the amendment of the resolution by the insertion of the wording which had been the outcome of the earlier negotiations. This was rejected by the representative of Syria, which called for a vote on the matter. Since Ireland had earlier agreed with the substance of the amendment, and since any action other than support for its inclusion would have been open to misunderstanding, Ireland voted for the amendment, as did all EU members of the commission. The amendment was carried, and the delegation of Syria then called for a vote on the amended resolution as a whole; the resolution was carried by 51 votes in favour, including Ireland and the EU, and two abstentions.
While the resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority, I regret that the traditional consensus on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance was lost. I should add that this is the approach we have adopted in bringing a number of resolutions before this year's session of the general assembly. I am of the view that our long standing policy of approaching the question of religious freedom from a universal perspective is the appropriate one and one which is widely shared among the member states of the United Nations.
Question No. 88 answered with Question No. 13.