Mission Indonesia

Statement by H.E. Mr. Dian Triansyah Djani, Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Indonesia at the 1st Meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on the Review of the Work and Function

October 29, 2010 Posted under Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues 

 
AGENDA ITEM 5 : Discussion on All Concrete Proposals  
 
Mr President,

On behalf of my delegation, I would like to thank the President and all those working with the Human Rights Council for their commitment to ensuring this week’s review process is carried out in an inclusive, transparent and progressive manner.

My delegation would also like to align itself to the statements made by Pakistan dan Egypt on behalf of the OIC and NAM respectively.

Mr. President,

From the outset, Indonesia wishes to reaffirm the principles on which the review process should be based. First, it is a Member States-driven. Second, it is a consensus-based process that should provide all those involved with an important sense of ownership and comfort. Third, it is a review process and not an outright overhaul. Any attempts to amend the current agenda items, and status and composition of membership is considered an overhaul rather than a fine-tuning of the Council.  We feel efforts in this regard,  will not be useful and lead to unnecessary political debates that will deflect from the main task at hand and will not carry much support.

Mr President,

We believe that this week's Working Group session is tasked to compile and assess all proposals put on the table. This is an important and constructive first step. Let us not quible on the question of compilation of proposals. It is just a reference and at the end of the day it is the substance of the proposals that really matters.

After listening to many interventions and proposals put forward, I wish to reflect my delegation’s preliminary assessment on many issues discussed during this session.

Indonesia is of the view that the merit of the proposal to shorten the duration of UPR cycle is debatable. Taking into account the comprehensive nature of its substance compares to treaty bodies, the UPR mechanism indeed requires a longer cycle to ensure proper implementation of its multi-dimensional recommendations. We noted that there is convergency on limiting the number of recommendations and clustering.

We believe there is a general support to the proposal for more generous time allocations for the interactive dialogues between States under Review and the Council.  We are also of the view that proposals regarding technical assistance to help member countries in formulating their national reports and implementing the subsequent UPR recommendations is worth further considerations and have gained majority supports. We have not heard any outright opposition to our proposal to facilitate the attendance of stakeholders from developing countries. We noted that many delegations underlined the need to redress the system with regard to the list of speakers for UPR and my delegation believes that this is one issue that is doable under the review.

My delegation sees the merit of the proposals to enhance the Council’s role in promoting the effective coordination and the mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system.

Likewise, in addressing human rights situation that require the Council’s attention, Indonesia shares the view on the need to diversify the toolbox. In dealing with such situation,  a country-specific resolution should not be the favoured solution. Instead, we need to broaden options which give emphasis on cooperative approach such as briefing session with voluntary commitment by the country concerned.

On the Special Procedures mandate holders, Indonesia considers the proposal to allocate more time for the interactive dialogue with the special procedures worth further deliberation.

Lastly, Mr. President, as a way forward, my delegation believes that we need to divide all the proposals into clusters and assess them according to their levels of support and acceptability. We need to focus on those ideas and proposals which broad support in order to maintain progress. While at the same time, we need to continue our deliberation on those proposals with potential convergence and with an open mind.

 

Thank you.

 

Geneva, 29 October 2010