A/77/246 (b) States that saw the United Nations debates over the rights of minorities as part of the Cold War confrontation, with many Western democracies automatically concerned that the Soviet Union and its allies would try to cast themselves as champions of oppressed minorities and thus instrumentalize the minority rights debates. They therefore opposed any concession to vulnerable groups such as minorities as a response to what was considered the instrumentalization of minority issues by the Soviet Union and the risks of “balkanization” or fragmentation of States because of implicit encouragement of minority secessionist movements; (c) States that ideologically were firmly convinced of the value of assimilation and that the unity and stability of a country also required the unity of one national language and culture, against those States which, on the c ontrary, held the firm ideological conviction, based on their own national experiences, that peace and stability were often best served when a State took into account and reflected the composition of its population (see A/74/160, para. 30). D. Evolution of universal human rights: groups allowed, but some are more equal than others 37. The assumption that there need not be any reference to specific groups permeated initially the universalistic and individua listic orientation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is helpful to understand not only the initial inability to reach an agreement on the inclusion of a minority provision in the Declaration, but also – at least initially – the absence of reference to any other group as somehow deserving of specific attention or mention. Indigenous peoples, people of African descent and persons with disabilities are, like minorities, not mentioned. Women are mentioned, but only in the context of “the equal rights of men and women”, not as having distinct or specific rights as women (though there is a reference to motherhood). 38. This was, however, soon to change significantly, with the recognition that, while all persons are equal and universally entitled to human rights, not everyone is equally denied their rights, and some groups are more vulnerable and marginalized than others and therefore entitled to greater international attention. 39. The struggle against apartheid, racism and racial discrimination in Southern Africa and elsewhere, as well as the decolonization process gathering steam from the late 1950s, contributed to the emergence of the United Nations “special procedures” as a tool for protecting human rights, 10 as well as to the adoption of the first fundamental human rights treaty, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 1965. While formulated on an individualistic basis, the Convention acknowledged that “certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals” could require “special protection” in order to equally enjoy or exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that States parties had to “undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races”. In other words, while everyone had equal rights, some “races” were perhaps more vulnerable and needed specific efforts and attention to their human rights. __________________ 10 22-11516 Marc Limon and Hilary Power, History of the United Nations Special Procedures Mechanism: Origins, Evolution and Reform (Universal Rights Group, 2014). Available at https://www.universal-rights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/URG_HUNSP_28.01.2015_spread.pdf. 11/21