Россия и проблематика обеспечения прав человека в государствах мира

Russian approaches to human rights at the UN

We believe that the UN activities to promote and protect human rights should be based solely on equal cooperation and dialogue. It is the only way to make real progress in the human rights dimension. This principle should become imperative in the work of the entire UN human rights architecture — the UN General Assembly, the UN Human Rights Council, its bodies and mechanisms and the UN Secretariat.

We consider the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) as an important component of the universal system of the promotion and protection of human rights. Unlike Western States, who position the Council as a kind of “rescue team” to promptly respond to human rights violations in conflict and crises situations, we see its role in promoting constructive and most depoliticized intergovernmental dialogue on key issues of the human rights agenda. The Russian Federation has put forward its candidature for re-election to the UN Human Rights Council for the term 2017–2019 and we are looking forward to our partners’ support. If re-elected, we will make every effort to maintain the HRC constructive potential.

No states are perfect in the context of the ensuring of human rights. In our opinion the most objective tool to evaluate human rights situation on the ground is the Universal Periodic Review procedure carried out within the HRC and under which each state takes a sort of an examination in fulfilling its international human rights obligations and has recommendations by other countries on possible ways to address the existing challenges. This mechanism makes the adoption of country-specific resolution by the UN human rights bodies usually aimed at "punishing" undesirable political regimes unnecessary.

We consider it unacceptable to impose a one-sided interpretation of human rights norms, misuse human rights for political purposes and attempt to undermine international law fundamental principles under the pretext of ensuring human rights. We still believe that States have the main responsibility for respecting human rights in their territories. The international community and international organizations could provide them assistance, including technical assistance, and the necessary capacity building. Such assistance should be provided upon the request of states concerned. It is unacceptable to use the rationale of human rights violations to justify interference in internal affairs or application of “the responsibility to protect” concept.

We oppose the politicization of issues related to democracy and human rights and reject the forceful imposition of standards that have not been universally recognized, as international standards. While promoting human rights, traditional values of societies, their level of development, as well as economic, social and cultural backgrounds should be taken into account. We believe that human rights could be promoted through a better understanding of traditional ethical, moral and religious human values that underlie human rights norms and standards.

We strongly condemn any forms and manifestations of discrimination on whatever ground. We believe that the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in international human rights instruments is of a general nature and applies to all persons, including representatives of sexual minorities. In international law there are no any specific norms related to the protection of persons on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, we cannot accept the attempts to artificially create a separate group of sexual minorities’ representatives that is allegedly needed special protection of their rights and interests. We consider it unacceptable that certain behaviour and values alien to a major part of society are aggressively imposed under the pretext of protecting sexual minorities.

On the UN General Assembly resolution "Combating Glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and Other Practices that Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance"

The issues of preserving historical memory and countering history falsification are crucial for the Russian Federation. Russia therefore annually submits to the UN General Assembly a draft resolution "Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance". It was most recently adopted in New York on December 17, 2015, at the 70^th session of the General Assembly.

Alongside Russia, 51 UN Member States representing all the regions of the world co-sponsored the document. 133 States voted in favor of the resolution, four delegations voted against it and 49 countries abstained during the voting.

The adoption of resolution 70/139, traditionally on Russia's initiative, is of particular importance in the year which marks the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Second World War, the creation of the UN and the establishment of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

In particular, the document condemns the glorification of the Nazi movement and former Waffen SS members in a number of countries, including by erecting monuments and memorials, as well as holding public demonstrations in the name of glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism. It is emphasized that erecting monuments in honour of Waffen SS members, holding their processions and other similar activities desecrate the memory of numerous victims of fascism, have a negative impact on the younger generation and are absolutely incompatible with the obligations of the UN Member States.

It notes that in some countries there are persistent attempts to present those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition or collaborated with the Nazis as national heroes and heroes of national liberation movements, which is a blatant cynicism with respect to those who freed the world from the horrors of National Socialism.

Concern was expressed over the growing number of seats occupied by members of extremist parties of a racist or xenophobic nature in a number of national and local parliaments, as well as with manifestations of racism at sports events.

The continued wide support provided to this initiative by delegations of States from all over the world and the annually growing number of its co-sponsors clearly demonstrate that the memory of the tragic events of that War and the horrors Nazism brought upon humanity are still alive. But unfortunately, there are those who do not share this approach. This document was once again opposed by Canada, Palau, the US and Ukraine, and the delegations of EU Member States abstained during voting, even though the resolution is thematic and focuses on cooperation and dialogue.

Russian approaches towards the OSCE human dimension issues

We have to admit that unbalance between the three OSCE dimensions as well as thematic and geographic distortions in the work of the third basket have persisted in the OSCE activity for a long time.

The OSCE humanitarian structures senior officials ignore human rights violations in the Baltic States, where the major part of population is denied basic rights and freedoms.

Moreover, the problems of people of African descent in the US and cases of illegitimate and disproportionate use of force by US police officers go unnoticed. Neither are they concerned about the increase in manifestations of nationalism and neo-Nazism in Western Europe, as well as human rights aspects of the current migrant crisis in the European Union and its root causes. Widespread violations of human rights, persecution of dissidents, assassinations of public figures, politicians and journalists, and oppression of ethnic minorities in Ukraine are not adequately responded by the OSCE executive structures either.

However, even the most insignificant cases occurring in the states east of Vienna are highlighted.

The OSCE remains oblivious of such major human rights issues as protecting the rights of children, social and economic rights, protecting the rights of ethnic minorities with focus on the problems of statelessness, countering the dissemination nationalism and neo-Nazism ideas, freedom of movement, ensuring the right to privacy, countering trafficking with emphasis on trafficking in human organs and tissues, harmonizing common principles of election observation and the rule of law. Instead, some participating States demonstrate perseverance worthy of a better cause and keep pushing the same issues for discussion within the framework of the human dimension, which is clearly demonstrated at the annual Implementation Review Meeting in Warsaw. The pursuance of this policy will undoubtedly lead to negative consequences for the authority of the Organization.

We do believe that the erosion of the intergovernmental format of the Organization and of the principle of consensus in the OSCE unacceptable. It is essential to develop a mechanism for NGO participation in humanitarian activities (in fact, there are currently no rules relating to the participation of NGOs in the OSCE human rights forums). With all respect to the work of civil society within the framework of the Organization, it cannot and should not replace the participating States.

We think that all of the above indicates the acute need to reform the modalities of the OSCE humanitarian activities. Our approaches to changing the modalities of meetings in the OSCE human dimension are part of our vision of profound reform of the Organization aimed at balancing all the three baskets.

On the situation with ensuring the rights of ethnic minorities in the Baltic States

We are very concerned about the problem of mass statelessness in Latvia and Estonia, unprecedented in modern Europe, about the so-called non-citizens being denied fundamental political and socio-economic rights, and about the slow pace of naturalization.

The infringement of the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the fields of education and language is a matter of concern. The authorities of the mentioned countries are consistently implementing the policy of reducing the use of ethnic minorities' languages through education system reforms ignoring the high percentage of Russian-speaking population in some areas.

We note the increased instances of political persecution in the Baltic countries of human rights activists defending fundamental rights and freedoms of their Russian compatriots.

We draw attention to the fact that the dire human rights situation in the Baltic States is confirmed by numerous recommendations of relevant international organizations, including the Council of Europe. However, the authorities of these countries persistently continue to ignore them.