Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued):
Review of Papua New Guinea
* The summary record of the second part (closed) of the meeting appears as document CERD/C/SR.1007/Add.1.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)
1. Mr. WOLFRUM, Country Rapporteur, reminded the Committee that it was considering only the situation on the island of Bougainville, part of the territory of Papua New Guinea, where there was a state of virtual civil war, with an ethnic background.
2. Bougainville was geographically and ethnically part of the Solomon Island chain, but had passed to Australian control as part of Papua New Guinea following the First World War. It was one of Papua New Guinea's most resource-rich provinces, with the world's biggest copper mine. While Papua New Guinea had been under Australian administration a series of agreements had been concluded with Bougainville Copper Limited, a subsidiary of Conzine Rio Tinto of Australia, on the exploitation of the deposits. Owners of land adjacent to the mine had been dissatisfied with the amount of compensation and the pace of development. Discontent had grown at an alarming rate, until in April 1988, the leader of the disgruntled landowners had announced that they would revolt unless the Government met their demands for closure of the Panguna Mine, located on their ancestral land. He had also sought compensation of 11.5 million dollars for environmental and social damage and a referendum secession from Papua New Guinea.
3. Following temporary closure of the mine on 15 May 1989 as a result of damage caused by rebel landowners, a state of emergency had been declared on Bougainville on 26 June 1989. The situation had escalated, and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) had been organized to conduct guerrilla resistance against government troops. In March 1990, a cease-fire had been agreed, and the Government had withdrawn all police and troops from Bougainville. The Government had subsequently imposed a partial economic blockade around the province in an attempt to regain control. The BRA had responded on 17 May 1990 by proclaiming the island a republic with a new interim Government, a move formally rejected by the National Government. In 1992, Papua New Guinea troops, supported by Australian personnel, had undertaken a number of operations, during one of which as many as 100 civilians had been massacred in the village of Aita.
4. It was alleged that numerous human rights violations and torture of civilians had been committed by Papua New Guinea law enforcement forces in Bougainville, including indiscriminate killing of civilians, Viet Nam style search and clear operations in villages near the copper mine, and spraying of food gardens and jungle in the Congara area with chemicals. However, members of the BRA were also responsible for human rights violations, including the killing of a provincial government minister, John Beka, in front of his family.
5. The Commission on Human Rights, in a resolution adopted in March 1993, had called on Papua New Guinea to recommence negotiations with the interim Government of Bougainville and permit international fact-finding missions access to the island. So far there had been no sign of that happening.
6. It was clear from evidence in the possession of the Committee and the Commission on Human Rights that a small-scale civil war was in progress, between one ethnic group, the people of Bougainville, and the remainder of Papua New Guinea. It was clearly a matter within the competence of the Committee, which must decide how to proceed.
7. He proposed, first that the Committee should renew its request to the Government of Papua New Guinea to submit information concerning the situation in Bougainville, secondly, that the Committee should decide to bring the matter to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the same time asking the Secretariat to provide all relevant information in its possession, and thirdly, that the Committee should offer its assistance to the Government of Papua New Guinea to help re-establish a dialogue.
8. Mr. ABOUL-NASR said he was in general agreement with the suggestions of the Country Rapporteur. Concerning the second suggestion, he said the Committee should approach the General Assembly itself, through the Secretary-General, drawing attention to incidents of possible racial discrimination. Its letter could be accompanied by information provided by the Secretariat. With regard to the third suggestion, he was willing that the Committee should offer its assistance, but was not sure what it could do in practice beyond offering help and awaiting a response.
9. Mr. de GOUTTES said he wholly concurred with the proposals by the Country Rapporteur and Mr. Aboul-Nasr. In addition, the Government of Papua New Guinea should be requested to provide information on the ethnic composition of Papua New Guinea as a whole, which was not contained in its previous reports, and information on the implementation of article 4 of the Convention, as the Government had as yet enacted no legislation against racial discrimination, claiming that it did not exist, and had entered a reservation to the Convention in respect of article 4.
10. In regard to Bougainville, the latest report of Amnesty International in 1993 had confirmed that BRA sympathizers had been victims of summary execution by Papua New Guinea forces, as well as of torture, and other violations of human rights. Atrocities had also been committed by BRA members.
11. Mr. YUTZIS said he fully supported the proposals of the Country Rapporteur for action by the Committee, and the proposal of Mr. de Gouttes that more information should be sought from the State party.
12. Mr. DIACONU said that when papers were circulated containing information on territories such as Bougainville, it should be made clear to which State party the territory belonged, in order to avoid giving the impression that a separate State was involved.
13. Mr. YUTZIS said that the Committee was obliged to rely on such information, when States parties failed to meet their obligations in that respect.
14. Mr. van BOVEN wished to associate himself fully with the suggestions made by the Country Rapporteur, as revised by Mr. Aboul-Nasr and supplemented by Mr. de Gouttes.
15. In reply to the point made by Mr. Diaconu, he saw no reason for concern about papers which were not official United Nations documents and who merely provided for the information of the Committee.
16. The CHAIRMAN suggested that, in the absence of any objection, the Committee should proceed along the lines proposed by the Country Rapporteur, Mr. Aboul-Nasr and Mr. de Gouttes.
It was so agreed.