Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee (SOCHUM)

Introduction to the committee:

The General Assembly allocates to the Third Committee, agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs and human rights issues that affect people all over the world.

As in previous sessions, an important part of the work of the Committee will focus on the examination of human rights questions, including reports of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council which was established in 2006. In October and November 2016, the Committee will hear and interact with over 50 special rapporteurs, independent experts, and chairs of working groups as mandated by the Human Rights Council.

The Committee also discusses questions relating to the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right to self- determination. In addition, the Committee addresses important social development questions such as issues related to youth, family, ageing, persons with disabilities, crime prevention, criminal justice, and international drug control.

Committee history:

With its 193 member states, the United Nations General Assembly is the primary deliberative body of the United Nations System. Each member state is afforded equal representation, thereby creating a democratic environment in which multilateral discussions, exchange and debate concerning pressing global issues can unfold.

The General Assembly consists of six main thematic committees, of which the Social, Cultural and Humanitarian Committee (hereafter referred to as SOCHUM) is the third. While it has embraced a broad range of topics, such as gender and indigenous rights and questions of secession and self determination, SOCHUM primary focus typically lies in the arena of human rights and humanitarian issues.

Additionally, SOCHUM strength is located in its ability to suggest recommendations concerning issues of peace and security to member of the General Assembly, the UN Security Council and other bodies and agencies. While recommendations directed at member states are not legally binding, they have historically served to motivate members of the General Assembly to adopt stances, direct global debate to pertinent issues and allow member states to take on topically critical issues. SOCHUM can also commission studies or request reports from special rapporteurs from the Human Rights Council.

Topic A: Fomentation of Religious freedom as a prevention of conflicts:

Issue: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Article 18 of the universal human rights declaration, approved by the United nation General Assembly in 1948.

Historical Background:

An adequate understanding of the contemporary significance of religious freedom requires a grasp of its history and institutionalization over time. While the idea of religious freedom grows out of the Classical and Judeo-Christian traditions, it became a major social and political issue during and after the Reformation. Over the past two centuries, the idea of religious liberty has advanced against fierce opposition, both religious and secular, and has found diverse forms of political expression. Understanding the persistence of discrimination against and persecution of religious communities in the contemporary world—and countering it effectively—requires a deeper understanding of history.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Countries affected by the fomentation of Religious Freedom in the past twenty years:

Pakistan Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Angola Iran China Russia North Korea Canada Central African Republic Hungary Afghanistan

As of 2008, 92 percent of the countries (126) with populations greater than two million have constitutions that provide for religious freedom. Only 11 countries fail to include such assurances. Despite the many formal statements promising freedoms, the chasm between the promise of and practical respect for religious freedom is wide. Indeed, a closer inspection reveals that many constitutions provide assurances of religious freedom in one statement, but allow openings for denying the freedoms in other sections of the same constitution. The new constitution of Afghanistan offers one of many examples. Article 2 promises that non-Islamic “religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law” and Article 3 explains that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” As currently interpreted in Afghanistan, this virtually eliminates the public profession of a faith other than Islam and denies the freedom of converting to a religion other than Islam.

The multiple measures of religious freedom assembled since 2000 all document that religious liberties are frequently violated. Laws denying religious freedoms are routine even when we limit our attention to the countries promising religious freedom in their constitutions. Of the 126 countries with constitutional clauses assuring religious freedom, 55 percent (69 countries) have laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion. Most of these countries (53 of 69) have laws on the books that regulate some religions and not others, and despite their constitutional guarantees of freedom of worship, six of these countries have legal systems that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Of the 11 countries not promising religious freedom, all have legal systems that obstruct religious free exercise for at least some religious groups.

Unlike most other status categories mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, religion is organized into distinctive institutions and holds a myriad of relationships with the state and larger culture. Along with providing religious beliefs, symbols and practices for the local community, religious institutions can also serve as a source of unity at the regional and national levels. Indeed, one of the fears for governing bodies is that religious institutions can provide organizational form to underlying political and cultural pressures. Understanding the varied relationships between religion and state is an important starting point for understanding both religious freedoms and the potential for conflict.

One of the most common patterns of religion-state interaction is that the state forms an alliance with the dominant religion or group of religions. For the state, the alliance offers political stability, visible support for the dominant religion and culture, and often provides a mechanism for controlling the activities of the most powerful religious institutions. For religious institutions these alliances offer opportunities to procure resources from the state and to restrict the activities of competitors. The most obvious competitors are other religions, but cultural and even state institutions (e.g., secular courts, schools, etc.) can be viewed as competing with the dominant religion. The institutional alliances can imbue religious authority to most institutions in the country, such as in Saudi Arabia, or they can be based on past traditions and offer little formal authority, as in many Latin American countries. These alliances typically do increase resources for select religions and reduce the potential for grievances to develop, but for minority religions the alliances result in unequal treatment at best and often lead to suppression and persecution.

Even when countries support a secular state that separates the activities of religious and state institutions, the religious freedoms granted are highly variable and all religions are vulnerable to the actions of the state. Some secular states, especially communist nations, support a secular ideology that views religious organizations as potential threats and requiring heavy regulation. Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1979) or the former Soviet Union offers one extreme, where the state attempts to eliminate religion. Countries such as France and Turkey have a secular state and do not hold a secular ideology, such as the atheism of communist countries, but they are assertive in forcing a public secularism.

Social pressures are especially powerful at the local level where administrative units, such as religious bureaus, are vulnerable to such influences. Given substantial discretion on how to interpret laws for registering, defining or tolerating religions, their discretion often serves to favor the majority. In Russia, for example, groups registered as nontraditional religious groups, such as Pentecostals, Catholics, Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, have bitterly complained that the police fail to protect them from acts of vandalism and are slow to respond when intruders interrupt their worship services or even attack them. Hence, even without formal restrictions on religion, the cultural pressures and informal controls can restrict freedoms and promote conflict between groups.

Positions

Source : uscirf gov, reports annual reports

China: The ruling Chinese Communist Party is officially an atheist organisation. China’s constitution provides for freedom of religious belief, but the government actively restricts any religious expression that could potentially undermine its authority. Only five religious groups — Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants — can register with the government and legally hold services. Adherents of unregistered faiths and folk religions often worship illegally and in secret. Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners have faced particularly severe repression in recent years, including forced conversion, torture and imprisonment.

Iran: Iran’s constitution offers some religious freedom rights for recognized sects of Islam along with Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians. Baha’is, who the government considers apostates and labels a “political sect,” are excluded from these limited protections and are systematically discriminated against through gozinesh provisions, which limit their access to employment, education and housing. Evangelical Christians and other faith groups face prosecution for violating bans on proselytizing. Religious minorities have been charged in recent years and imprisoned in harsh conditions for committing “enmity against God” and spreading “anti-Islamic propaganda.” Government-controlled media regularly attack Baha’is, Jews and other minority faiths to amplify social hostilities against them.

North Korea: North Korea’s constitution guarantees religious freedom, but this right is far from upheld. The state is officially atheist. Author John Sweeney says the country is “seized by a political religion” and that it considers established religious traditions a threat to state unity and control. North Korea allow for government-sponsored Christian and Buddhist religious organizations to operate and build houses of worship, but political analysts suspect this “concession” is for the sake of external propaganda. A Christian group says it dropped 50,000 Bibles over North Korea over the past year. If caught with one, citizens face imprisonment, torture or even death. Given the government’s extreme control over the flow of reliable information, it is difficult to determine the true extent of religious persecution in North Korea.

Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia’s constitution is not a standalone document. It is comprised of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, which do not include religious freedom guarantees as spelled out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to publicly practice any faith other than the state’s official religion Sunni Islam. Members of other faiths can worship privately, but non-Muslim houses of worship may not be built. The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, otherwise known as Saudi’s morality or religious police, enforce Shariah law on the streets. Apostasy and blasphemy against Sunni Islam can be punished by death, as several high-profile Twitter cases have reminded global media in recent years.

Sudan:

Sudan’s interim constitution partially protects religious freedom but restricts apostasy, blasphemy and defamation of Islam. Muslim women are also prevented from marrying non-Muslim men. The country’s vaguely worded apostasy law discourages proselytizing of non-Muslim faiths. Christian South Sudanese living in Sudan are subject to harassment and intimidation by government agents and society at large, but untangling the religious and ethnic motivations for this persecution can be difficult. Muslims generally enjoy social, legal and economic privileges denied to the Christian minority population. Government authorities have reportedly destroyed churches in recent years, and Christian groups have reportedly been subject to disproportionate taxes and delays in building new houses of worship.

Burma: Burma’s population is 90 percent Theravada Buddhist, a faith the government embraces and promotes over Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Minority populations that adhere to these and other faiths are denied building permits, banned from proselytizing and pressured to convert to the majority faith. Religious groups must register with the government, and Burmese citizens must list their faith on official documents. Burma’s constitution provides for limited religious freedom, but individual laws and government officials actively restrict it. Most at risk in Burma are Rohingya Muslims, 240 of whom were killed this year in clashes with Buddhist mobs. Burma has refused to grant citizenship to 800,000 Rohingya, 240,000 of whom have fled their homes in recent clashes.

Rohingya Muslim refugees from Burma at a protest in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (Image: Khairil Safwan/Demotix)

Further research Religious freedom was one of the first rights to be recognized under international law. Even today a review of formal international and national documents on religion suggests that governments and the international community recognize the position of religious freedoms in the constellation of human rights. Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights offers the following assurances:

Religious freedoms serve to defuse potential violence and the lack of freedom is associated with increased violence. When governments deny religious freedoms the most obvious consequences are the increased grievances of the religious groups being restricted. Yet, as shown in the global overview, the consequences of these formal state actions ripple far beyond the immediate denial of a specific freedom. The lack of freedoms for one group often emboldens the actions of other groups, especially the majority groups. Social movements and less formal social and cultural pressures frequently enact restrictions that go far beyond the actions of the state. The lack of religious freedoms can also result in social, economic and residential conditions that contribute to higher levels of violence. The social restrictions and pressures denying religious freedoms are closely tied to many of most prominent violent religious conflicts in the world today.

A long list of advocacy groups report on freedoms denied, but the most convincing evidence has been produced by sources that have no ties to the groups being restricted. In 2009, Asma Jahangir, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion, concluded that “discrimination based on religion or belief preventing individuals from fully enjoying all their human rights still occurs worldwide on a daily basis.”

Moving beyond the formal religious institutions, religions also hold a shared cultural relationship with specific regions or the entire nation. Dominant religions can appeal to the history and culture of their country as motives for denying religious freedoms and even justifying violence. Many national and cultural identities are so closely interwoven with or against selected religions that ensuring religious freedoms for all, is perceived as challenging the cultural identity as a whole.

Protecting liberties requires more than constitutional assurances. Unless state institutions provide the authority and support needed to protect liberties, the promises of freedom are never produced.

Guiding questions

What is your country’s position in this matter? What measures / solutions should be taken in this matter? Why do so many restrictions occur in so many nations? How are these restrictions on religion related to social conflict? Why religious freedoms are denied? Which institutions and movements are involved in denying religious freedoms? How both the motivations and mechanisms for restricting religious freedoms can differ from other

human rights? How can a state allows religious freedom but prevent extremism at the same time? Is a country with an official religion biased? Should all states become secular states ? Is religious discrimination promoted by states in any way?

Sources: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper http://www.uscirf.gov/reports-briefs/spotlight/uscirf-2015-annual-report http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/primers-tutorials/religious-freedom-and-conflict-a-review-of-the-evidence-by-roger-finke-and-robert-r-martin/ http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/JudgesAcademy/workshop1/Documents/GRIMM.30-6.pdf

http://www.un.org/es/development/devagenda/racism.shtml

Topic B: Blood Diamond conflict

Issue:

Blood diamond conflict defined by the united nations are “diamonds that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments, and are used to fund military action in opposition to those governments, or in contravention of the decisions of the Security Council .”

Historical background:

The origin of this conflicts that are currently annihilating western Africa date back to more than 20 years back.

It all dates back to the devastating eleven-year armed conflict in Sierra Leone, majority of crimes were carried by the rebels during the civil war , which lasted from 1991 until 2002. The government consistently failed to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Hundreds of civilians suffered from the signature rebel atrocity of limb amputation while thousands of girls and women were subjected to sexual violence. All sides recruited and used child combatants and carried out human right violations from both parties causing tensions and controversy in the international community. More than 50,000 deaths were recorded in 6 million country population count, during this period, the Sierra Leone economy was being cheated out of millions of dollars in the form of illegal diamonds.

Mid western Africa is rich in mineral materials like diamonds, gold, Iron, Titanium and tin. During the Sierra leone civil war insurgent groups funded themselves by acquiring “blood diamond”, by illegal mining this insurgents groups in Sierra leone funded themselves to acquire guns and supplies to carry out war crimes to attack the political stability and government forces. Made up of child soldiers as young as eight who were forcibly recruited and then drugged and even sent to fight with AK 47 assault rifles. For rebel armies, ‘rough diamonds’ hold lucratives advantages: they are difficult to trace, easy to transport, and are accorded great values all over the world perhaps their state.

More recent:

Other western African nations like The Central African Republic also managed to spark a civil war in 2012 due to extreme poverty and religious tensions mostly Muslim controlled insurgent group’s launched an attack on the capital, Bangui. Rebels overthrew the country’s dictator and seized valuable diamond fields. Christian militias counter-attacked, killing thousands of Muslims who had no connections with insurgent groups.

Various militias spread all through central western africa exploiting mines illegally, often using slaves to extract diamonds. They are often forced to used antique, back-breaking methods such as digging into mud or gravel along river banks with their bare hands, The collected material is then separated using hand-held sieves.

Source: CNN edition newspaper

According to Global Witness, rebel fighters and army units have hijacked the trade in mineral ores in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, while forcing upon the local population to massacres, rape, extortion, and forced child labor.

Source: The brilliant Earth, our movement article

Countries affected by ‘blood diamonds’ in the past twenty years.

Sierra Leone Liberia Angola Republic of Congo Côte d’Ivoire Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Zimbabwe

According to the UN 2014 reports, 1400 carats are the total weight of diamonds smuggled out of war torn Central African Republic, where their conflicts still lies to this day.

Meanwhile, In Zimbabwe, the national army has counts for the seized the Marange diamond deposit in eastern Zimbabwe, massacring more than 200 diamond miners and hundreds of civilians , tortures and other human rights violations infringed upon by the government. An estimated $2 billion in diamond wealth disappeared, mostly into the hands of military leaders and allies of President Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s President since 1987.

Presented Solutions:

The Kimberley Process (KP) is a joint governments, industry and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds – rough diamonds used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments.The group - the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme - now represents seventy-five countries, including Zimbabwe, and claims to cover 99% of the global rough-diamond industry. The Kimberley Process started when Southern African diamond-producing states met in Kimberley, South Africa, in May 2000, to discuss ways to stop the trade in ‘conflict diamonds' and ensure that diamond purchases were not financing violence by rebel movements and their allies seeking to undermine legitimate governments. This process imposes extensive requirements on the enablement and certification of rough diamond shipments throughout the globe as ‘conflict free’ preventing any illegal diamonds of entering legitimate trade or market. Unfortunately, this solution presented back in 2003 is insufficient. Unfair labor practices and human-rights abuses don’t disqualify diamonds under the protocol, while the definition of conflict is so narrow as to exclude many instances of what consumers would think of as a conflict diamond.Even in some cases where the Kimberley Process has implemented a ban—as in the Central African Republic (CAR), where diamonds have helped fund a genocidal war that has killed thousands since 2013—conflict diamonds are still leaking out. A U.N. panel of experts estimates that 140,000 carats of diamonds—with a retail value of $24 million—have been smuggled out of the country since it was suspended in May 2013. Diamonds are likely being smuggled through the borders to Congo, where they are still given Kimberley Process certificates before being traded internationally. “The Central African Republic is a classic case of blood diamonds, exactly what the Kimberley Process was intended to address,” says Michael Gibb of Global Witness, a U.K.-based NGO that advocates for the responsible use of natural resources.

Even conflict free zones are still of major concern, area full of underage children workers deprived of their educational rights and forced to work in mines to survive. The given wage is from minimal to none in hazardous conditions. And deaths in this territories are hardly ever reported and often hidden.

Source: The daily pioneer newspaper.

Positions:

Source: TIME magazine article. Many countries, industry leaders and international organizations—including the U.S.-based World Diamond Council, the major industry trade group—have lobbied to expand the Kimberley Process definition of conflict diamonds to include issues of environmental impact, human-rights abuses and fair labor practices. Russia, China and Zimbabwe, have resisted integrating human-rights language that might threaten national interests in Blood Diamond discussions and acts. They are instead taking it upon themselves to ensure the integrity of the diamond supply chain and assuage consumer doubts. This has slowed down the process, United States have not reached any of its goals due to the fact that any changes to the criteria must be made by consensus. Kimberly Process initiative group decided in November 2009 not to suspend Zimbabwe or ban the sale of its stones even though they’re made in a list of humans right violations verified by the humans rights watch, done and produced by government with evidence of corruption. Its reason was a technicality in the Kimberley Process mandate that defines blood diamonds as those mined by abusive rebel groups, not abusive governments. Instead, it certifies these diamonds as conflict free and allows them to be shipped to consumers worldwide. Despite Zimbabwean claims that the army withdrawing, for the most part, the diamond fields remain under firm military control, with smuggling, abuses, and corruption unchecked. Zimbabwe has not taken any steps either to investigate or to hold to account members of the army and police responsible for abuses in the diamond fields.

More than ten years after the end of a brutal diamond-funded civil war, Angola is now a member of the Kimberley Process and the world’s fourth largest diamond exporter. But Angola’s diamond fields are once again the scene of horrific violence. In recent years, diamond miners from the neighboring countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been streaming into northeast Angola to mine. miners cross the border illegally and do not have legal permission to mine. Angolan soldiers, along with security guards for mining companies, have been brutally cracking down on these foreign migrants as well as on local Angolan miners. Soldiers routinely demand bribes, beating and killing miners who do not cooperate.

Angola’s government have refused to acknowledge or comment on the situation instead the Kimberley Process has picked Angola to serve as its leader in 2015.

In other affected countries like Côte d’Ivoire, who received a ban from the Kimberley process and the united nations on its diamonds exportations in the past. For the first time in years, the country has a chance to use its diamond wealth for peaceful economic development. after its ban was removed in 2014.

Further research:

South America Blood diamonds:

Venezuela a major diamond producer, is a KP member but voluntarily removed itself as an active participant in 2008 after being widely accused of ignoring the pact’s mission to regulate diamond production and commercialization. The Kimberly Process, as a result, considered expelling Venezuela: the U.S, which chaired the KP for 2012, delivered an ultimatum to Venezuelan authorities to demonstrate compliance or lose membership altogether.KP Working Group on Statistics visited the country in 2008 as part of a KP review mission, says the country “essentially said they have no ability to control the illegal flow of diamonds and therefore they washed their hands of it.” Requests for Venezuelan diamond output data and interviews with key ministers were refused, he says. The country has since resumed submitting reports, but they’re usually late and “a joke,” according to one PAC official. Illegal diamond mines in southern Venezuela continue to operate. There are thought to be hundreds of them inside the Gran Sabana, given the increasingly nature gangs and trafficking of the country’s diamond trade.

World diamond council:

The origins of the WDC date back to the late 1990s, when civil war was raging in several African countries and rough diamonds were being used to finance rebel forces. With human rights activists and legislators in different countries questioning the impact of diamond sales, the WDC was established in July 2000 by a resolution passed at the World Diamond Congress in Antwerp, Belgium, by the World Federation of Diamond Bourses and the International Diamond Manufacturers Association. Its mission is to ensure diamonds are purchased from legitimate sources not involved in funding conflict and in compliance with United Nations resolutions. Seller’s guarantee that diamonds are conflict free, based on knowledge and guarantees provided

by the supplier of these diamonds.”

Development in countries:

Governments earn revenues from the diamond industry, both through taxation and profit-sharing arrangements. But they fail to re-invest these funds in local communities. In Angola, the government receives about $150 million per year in diamond revenues. But conditions near major diamond mining projects are appalling. Public schools, water supply systems, and health clinics are non-existent. Many roads have not been repaired since Angola first won independence in 1975.

Corruption and weak political systems all help explain why governments fail to invest their diamond revenues productively. For instance, in Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe uses diamond revenues to keep the military loyal and to prop up his authoritarian regime. Although Zimbabwe has some of the richest diamond fields in the world, only a trickle of diamond revenue is available for economic development.

Ecological devastation:

A century of diamond mining has taken a repercussions on Angola’s environment. Irresponsible diamond mining has caused soil erosion, led to deforestation, and forced local populations to relocate. Diamond miners have rerouted rivers and constructed dams to expose riverbeds for mining, with disastrous effects on fish and wildlife.

In extreme cases, diamond mining can cause entire ecosystems to collapse. Diamond miners in the Kono district of eastern Sierra Leone have left behind thousands of abandoned mining pits. Wildlife has vanished, topsoil has eroded, and land once suitable for farming is now a desolate moonscape. The mining pits have created a public health disasters also. When the pits fill with stagnant rainwater, they become infested with mosquitoes, spreading malaria and other water-borne diseases.

Guiding questions:

What is your country’s position in this matter? What measures / solutions should be taken in this matter? How can countries in conflict provide security and abolition of humans rights violations? What measures are in order with human right’s violations from governments? Is an intervention in African civil war territories in order to take measures against insurgent

groups? Are the oppositions to the governments in africa valid? How can the international community eradicate the involvement of child labour in conflict zones

and poor conditioned mines? What solutions can be provided to end illicit diamond trafficking permanently? What would your delegation suggest concerning diamonds that are ‘conflict free’ yet are

manufactured with human rights violations? Your delegation's position regarding the Kimberly Process?

Sources: http://www.saintpeters.edu/guarini-institute/files/2013/01/Social-Cultural-and-Humanitarian-Committee.pdf http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm https://www.brilliantearth.com/conflict-diamond-trade/ https://www.kimberleyprocess.com/en/about http://time.com/blood-diamonds/