United Nations Working Group on Minorities
Statement by
Asbjorn Eide
Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on Minorities
at the World Conference against Racism
I address you as the Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on Minorities,
in order to explain the relationship between measures to prevent discrimination
on racial or ethnic grounds, and on the other hand the protection of the right
of persons belonging to ethnic minorities to preserve and develop their own
culture. and identity.
In doing so, we need to take into account the particular experience of South
Africa, which until a decade ago was the worst offender of racial discrimination.
One feature of Apartheid is often overlooked. Apartheid - keeping apart - was
a conception that
exploited and permeated the very concept of ethnic and linguistic groups. It
was used in order for one minority to dominate and rule and to facilitate racial
discrimination. A prominent feature was the Bantu Education Act, whose intended
effect was to keep South Africans culturally separate from each other and thereby
to be no threat to the white, hegemonic minority. Another aspect was the ` Homeland'
policy, by which persons were forced to reside in certain areas designed as
their ethnic homeland. Through this policy the Apartheid system perverted the
whole notion f minorities and made it a direct contradiction to the prevention
of racial discrimination. The history of apartheid is a lesson which tells us
what we should not do when we seek to protect minorities.
My purpose today is that a genuine application of minority protection is not
in contrast to, but a support to the elimination of discrimination
Efforts to establish international mechanisms of minority protection were for
a long time resisted by states. It was thought that an international system
might become s a pretext for interference in States' internal affair, and that
preservation of the identity of minorities could be a threat to State unity,and
stability. It has since been recognized, however, that the stability of states
is better safeguarded by recognizing the needs of the different ethnic groups
both to work together in society as a whole and to be able to preserve their
own identity, culture and language. Repression of identity leads to tension
and conflict and thus to a much more serious risk to the unity of the state,
There was also another concern: It was feared that special protection of minorities
could be used to justify reverse discrimination. There has indeed been circumstances
where that has actually happened, but it depends on the way in which the minority
rights are implemented, and with proper regulation it would not be too difficult
to avoid that problem
When finally the United Nations General Assembly in 1992 adopted the Declaration
on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic
Minorities, it sought to combined two purposes: One is to guarantee persons
belonging to such minorities equality in the enjoyment of all human rights through
equal treatment and equal opportunity as described above; the second is to protect
and promote conditions for the group identity of minorities.
Identity requires not only tolerance but a positive attitude towards cultural
pluralism by the state and the larger society. Required is not only acceptance
but also respect for the distinctive characteristics and contribution of minorities
in the life of the national society
as a whole. Protection of the identity means not only that the state shall abstain
from policies which have the purpose or effect of assimilating the minorities
into the dominant culture, but also that it shall protect them against activities
by third parties which have assimilatory effect. Crucial in these regards are
the language policies and the educational policies of the state concerned. Denying
minorities the possibility to learn their own language or instruction in their
own language, or excluding from the education of minorities transmission of
knowledge about their own culture, history, tradition and language, would be
a violation of the obligation to protect their identity.
Promotion of their identity requires measures intended to facilitate the maintenance,
reproduction and further development of the culture of the minorities. Cultures
are not static, but minorities should be given the opportunity to develop their
own culture in the context of an ongoing process.
While on the face of it, the protection of minorities might seem to be at odds
with the prevention of discrimination, it is fully possible to find a harmonious
combination of the two. The ultimate purpose should be to obtain and effectively
maintain equality of treatment of everyone. Prevention of discrimination is
essential in the common domain, where everyone should interact on a basis of
equal treatment. Transitional affirmative
action should be taken, particularly in the economic and social field, in order
to ensure equal opportunity for all. It is essential, however, that such affirmative
action ends when the intended aim of equality has been achieved, and the means
used must not be disproportionate in terms of its impact on the enjoyment by
others of their human rights. Otherwise, affirmative action can lead to group
conflict
The additional concern in the field of minority protection is to have the necessary
safeguards to preserve separate identities voluntarily maintained. While affirmative
action measures are temporary and compensatory and are aimed at correcting conditions
that impair the enjoyment of equal rights, protective measures for minorities
aim at conserving a group's identity and cohesiveness, thereby making it possible
for the group to develop its own culture within the broader, multicultural society
in which they form a part. Properly handled, far from being a threat to the
stability and unity of the state, this will be an enrichment for the society
as whole.
There is one basic caveat, however. Basic human rights, including the principle
of every human being's right to be equal in dignity and rights, must be respected
at all times not only by majorities but also by minorities. Furthermore, nobody
should suffer any disadvantage from choosing not to belong to the minority concerned.
The state cannot impose a particular ethnic identity on a given person by the
use of sanctions against those who do not want to be part of that group (which
is what the apartheid regime in South Africa sought to do); nor can minorities
subject to any disadvantage individuals who on objective criteria may be held
to form part of their group but who subjectively do not want to belong to it.
Prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities are two sides of the
same coin. They are both necessary in order to develop stable and just societies
which can be held to be the common home of everyone living there. For that to
happen, there must be equality for all in the common domain, but also a broad
space of pluralism and diversity. Through the existing international human rights
instruments, supplemented by the Declaration and the Program of Action to be
adopted at that conference, we have adequate guidelines to build in every state
that common house. The task is now to have those standards implemented. It is
to that we should turn when we leave Durban.