グランサコネ通信２０１０－２２
２０１０年８月７日
＊
＊
１）８月６日
＊
諮問委員会は４つの決議を採択して閉会しました。決議は、食糧の権利、人民の平和への権利、ハンセン氏病、人権の国際協力の４つで、いずれもコンセンサスで（全員一致）採択されました。１週間はあっという間です。以前の小委員会は、２０００年までは４週間、その後３週間でした。もっとも、１週間集中して、次は１年後ではなく２０１１年１月ということで、委員はそのほうがやりやすいのかもしれません。鄭委員から、「なぜ１月会期にこなかったの」と聞かれましたが、学期末で多忙のため１月会期には参加できません。一方、ハンセン氏病患者とその家族の権利の原則とガイドラインを作成した坂元茂樹委員は、大変だったようです。今会期で一番仕事をした委員です。他の委員は次々と気楽に修正意見を出しますが、坂元委員は、受け入れるか、一部受け入れるか、表現を変えて採用するなど、その場で判断してまとめなくてはなりません。夜中まで仕事をしていたそうです。
＊
２）今会期の一言
＊
諮問委員会で一番おもしろかった発言は、アルフレド・ントンドグル・カロコラ委員（ウガンダ）の発言でした。
＊
「今回諮問委員会委員に選ばれてジュネーヴに来るに当たって、ハンセン氏病が議題になっているので、医師に話を聞いてきた。世界保健機関と３０年以上協力しているベテラン医師に聞いたところ、いまごろハンセン氏病か？ と言われた。彼の話では、ハンセン氏病は治療法が確立していて、いまさら大きく取り上げるほどのものではない、ウガンダでは過去の話だ、という。ところが、ジュネーヴに来てみたら、日本ではハンセン氏病が重大深刻な問題だというので、大変驚いた。」
＊
これには笑えました。笑ってはいけないのですが。ウガンダ人もびっくりのトンデモ後進国・日本。ついこの間まで人権無視の隔離政策。是正するふりをして民族差別のおまけつき。もちろん、一部は誤解があって、日本政府がハンセン氏病にとりくんでいるのは世界中のハンセン氏病をなくすためなのですが、半分は当たっているので、なんとも。
＊
YVORN,La Thibaude,2009 と、Val d'Arve, Le Babichon. レマン湖の噴水が描かれた地元の安チーズ。
＊
３）国連プレスリリース
＊
８月５日付の国連プレスリリースに、人民の平和への権利の審議の様子が出ています。そこに謀議した５つのＮＧＯの発言が紹介されています。
＊
5 August 2010
DAVID FERNANDEZ, of Federación de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, said that the Human Rights Council had stressed that peace and freedom were pillars of human rights and constituted the foundations of security and well-being. Attempts to codify the right to peace had occurred in the past but this draft declaration would be an important step in that regard. Resolution 14/3 had brought the issue of the right to peace to the table and explicitly recognized the hard work of civil society organizations in the promotion of the right to peace. The Advisory Committee had to ensure that this process continued to take place in a spirit of transparency and inclusion. The organization would have liked the Human Rights Council to broaden its mandate to include the right to peace in the context of the right to self-determination. And lastly, he added that all work on this issue should include a gender perspective.
ALFRED DE ZAYAS, of International Society for Human Rights, said that it was not difficult to affirm the right to peace on the basis of existing norms of hard law and soft law. There was a tendency to perceive the right to peace primarily from the perspective of collective rights. And yet, the right to peace was very much a personal right, for instance when a person exercised his or her right to conscientious objection to military service. He added that the right to peace was a holistic right, which had been recognized by UNESCO and by many other experts from civil society throughout the world. This was also reflected in the Declarations of Luarca, Bilbao and Barcelona. In conclusion, as the right to peace was a condition for the full enjoyment of all other rights, the exercise of one’s human rights by all human beings removed with it the threat of armed conflict, whether internal or international.
MICHEL MONOD, of International Fellowship for Reconciliation, commended the work of the Advisory Committee Experts. Peace was not just an absence of war, it was access for all the population to well-being. Peace was the fruition of all fundamental human rights, whereas war was the denial of all those rights to all parties to the conflict. There would always be conflict, but the resolution of a conflict could not be achieved through war, which was a succession of acts of violence. Peace must not only be guaranteed in international relations, but within countries, because civilian populations often suffered violence inflicted upon them by their own Governments and the armed forces. Terrorism was a clumsy, unfortunate reaction to institutionalised armed violence, a call to war for States. Governments must avoid falling into the cycle of violence, and ensure that justice, peace and security existed without recourse to violence. The Advisory Committee should invite the Human Rights Council to extend the mandate in order to develop a declaration on the rights of individuals and peoples to peace.
AKIRA MAEDA, of Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights, welcomed resolution 14/3 by the Human Rights Council on the right of peoples to peace in June 2010. As a major part of the Global Article 9 Campaign to Abolish War, a large-scale conference was held in Japan from 4 to 6 May 2008. The three-day event attracted over 33,000 participants, who came from 40 different countries, and resulted in a final declaration on the right to peace. The Japanese Workers Committee for Human Rights invited the Advisory Committee to consider the conclusions and recommendations of the workshop of experts on the right of peoples to peace and also to request from the Human Rights Council that it extend its mandate to the right of individuals and peoples to peace
CHRISTOPHE BARBEY, of Conscience and Peace Tax International, said the symbolic impact of the right to peace was fantastic. But peace was not peace among nations - this could be left to the Security Council - it meant peace between all people, at all levels of society and so forth between all social groups. For such a peace to become a reality, there was a need for tools, peace tools, including a human or a people's right to peace, but also education to peace and peace methods. A human right to peace would be an excellent instrument to promote mediation, arbitration, soft conflict solutions, and all modern or traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution. Countries and people should give out reports on how they progressed towards peace, for themselves as well as for all populations, theirs and others. The Advisory Committee should see that there were enough resources, legal resources as a human right to peace would be, and economic resources to build peace not only between nations, but among all peoples.
