Mr Chairman,

The Minority Rights Group would like to congratulate the Sub-Commission on being able to elect such an able bureau with Asbjorn Eide, a distinguished scholar on minority issues, as Chairman and Justice Ali Khan, a distinguished minority leader, as Vice-Chairman. It is a pleasant coincidence that the first two reports of the new Working Group on Minorities for 1995 and 1996 should come to the Sub-Commission now. This follows significant criticism of the Sub-Commission in 1994 for allocating insufficient time and attention to minority issues, in particular originally failing to allocate sufficient time to consider the major three year report on minorities by Mr Eide. This problem has now been addressed, with the creation the Working Group, though much of the work in only now beginning on this vast and complex area.

In a recent review of the Sub-Commission by the Netherlands Human Rights Advisory Committee, it was noted that the ingredients for a successful working group included:
- members who are expert on a subject;
- mandate based on substantial research;
- participation of key actors including governments and NGOs;
- effective secretariat support;
- expert members who have a continuous commitment to the subject;
- well structured discussions based on substantial research and good chairing;
- participation of key actors, especially vulnerable groups as well as governments and  NGOs

In appraising the new Working Group, we should examine how these criteria have been met.
1.  The Working Group clearly has a distinguished, committed group of experts on  minorities, as can be seen by the quality of the papers written for the Working Group.
2.  The original research by Asbjorn Eide has given the Working Group well structured  discussions, while the meetings are effectively chaired.
3.  At the two meetings, even though the timings restricted numbers, we saw over 50  governments at both meetings, the number of UN bodies growing from 4 to 7, NGO  participants increasing from 32 to 52, many of the participants being from minority  communities and 10 scholars of distinction at the second meeting.
4. The High Commissioner and the Centre for Human Rights have shown their  effectiveness both in the opening statement of the High Commissioner to the Working  Group (E/CN.4/SUB.2/1996/28 para 14) and the competence of the Secretariat, which  attracted 16 substantial thematic papers in advance of the second working group  meeting.

The Working Group now is becoming a mechanism that facilitates dialogue and conciliation between minorities and governments, both through informal discussions and the dissemination of ideas and papers from the meeting. There were a series of high quality debates on Education led by Mr Bengoa, on Domicile and Residence by Justice Khan and Definitions by Mr Chernichenko. We were dubious on whether a discussion on Definitions would be useful, but it was important for the Working Group to debate this issue once.

MRG presented a paper on the ways in which NGOs could play a constructive role in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to minorities and we would be happy to provide additional copies for NGOs working with minorities or to governments that wish to encourage positive dialogue with NGOs including minorities. The paper includes a section on participation within the UN. Here, MRG strongly supports the recommendation of the Working Group that a voluntary fund should be established to enable minorities to join the discussions at the Working Group.

Mr Chairman,

With so many positive aspects of the Working Group, what was negative?

In our view there were some concerns, though the minutes have been so skilfully that these may not be apparent. The first meeting was held at short notice and understandably, it was only decided to make this a completely open meeting until just before the first meeting. The first meeting was under-prepared and the significant discussions were essentially procedural. There were a number of esoteric interventions by some who had little experience in this area and which might have been more appropriate to a 1960s pop festival.

On the other hand, the observers from Bangladesh, China and the Islamic Republic of Iran were, understandably, concerned that although there was an apparent need for concrete information to be presented before the Working Group, it should not become a forum for complaints. This concern was clearly allayed in the conduct of the meetings and this concern was not voiced at the second meeting.

What did become clear to all was that the issues are complex ones, meetings of the Working Group need to gradually, but continuously, explore these issues, through constant, thoughtful planning and without hopes of quick 'solutions'. Indeed, the reference to 'solutions to problems', paragraph 205 of the report of the second meeting might be better expressed as 'constructive responses to issues', since, as members of the Working Group know, inter-community relations are ever changing and rarely have solutions per se. To tackle these complex issues, the Secretariat will need external help, more resources and a continuity of purpose over time.

MRG would like to add its support to the recommendations of the Working Group, while highlighting three points:

1. Literacy
The importance of literacy for both minorities and majorities was emphasised by Experts Khan and Khalil. There is little data collected on levels of illiteracy of minorities. India is a notable exception with good data. Illiteracy is likely to be significantly higher for minorities than for most communities. The Working Group should seek this information from governments. Aid donors should also be asked to explore this concern, which undoubtedly hinders developmental progress.