Human Rights - The Crisis and the Challenge

Maura Leen

Issue 350, vol.88, Summer 1999

As Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrote that the 50th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is an occasion for commemoration and recommitment rather than for celebration. We are far from ending discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender; we have had two genocides in this decade and are all shamed by the fact that one-fifth of humanity still lives in absolute poverty [2]. The text of the Declaration has never been disputed by so many states while many of the citizens whose human rights it seeks to protect are unaware of its existence. Although the Declaration sets out moral and ethical standards in human rights their application has been selective and partial.

Historical antecedents of Human Rights movement.
Direct historical antecedents of human rights movement include the signing of Magna Carta (13th Century). Centuries later important historical periods covering colonialism, empires, the creation of modern nation states and the industrial revolution saw rights being demanded by a growing range of individuals, groups and nations. Legal milestones include the English Parliament’s Bill of Rights (1689). Nearly a century later the Declaration of Independence of 13 American States stated that All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The terminology under which these rights were granted was not that of “human rights”, a 20th century term, but came from the concept of natural rights or the rights of man and the citizen. Towards the end of the 19th century economic, social and cultural rights began to be asserted with their legal establishment dating to the recognition of some labour and union rights and the development of welfare ideas in the first half of the 20th century. But it was not until after the second world war that both sets of rights were internationally recognised leading to the proclamation by the UN General Assembly in December 1948.

Over time the range of rights covered has expanded. So too has the source of rights. In all cases the effective application of human rights instruments has depended on the ability of citizens to understand and utilise human rights concepts in their own social context.

Human Rights as a “household word”, and as the object of international activism is a relatively new phenomenon that can be said to have begun around the mid-1960s [3]. It was not until Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) became involved in human rights action that rights became more popularly known. Moreover, the communications revolution of 1960s has made the global community more aware of itself and thus of the values which should guide it.

Universal Human Rights - Under Challenge and Under Attack
While the Universal Declaration dates from an earlier generation the Declaration and plan of action dates from the 1993 UN World Conference on Human Rights. At this conference where there was active NGO lobbying “the Universal nature of these rights and freedoms was declared to be beyond question” [4]

At this point it is useful to distinguish between challenges to and attacks on the universality of human rights. Challenges draw attention to the gap between the rhetoric and reality of human rights policy and practice. Attacks seek to erode and deny the concept of universality. Those who are challenging the application of human rights include the women’s movement, indigenous communities and those critiquing the role of the international financial institutions. Non-governmental development organisations have challenged the definition of development espoused by states in the name of economic transformation, e.g., in the Philippines the term development aggression has been coined to identify macro-policies of industrialisation which displace communities, undermine their cultures and deny their right to organise against particular projects.

Clarence Dias notes that such reactions to adverse development are leading to demands to “bring development under a regime of human rights accountability; to democratize the development process and to recapture the essence of democracy as being not just the facade and trappings of REPRESENTATIVE democracy (e.g. multi-party and internationally monitored free and fair elections), but genuine PARTICIPATORY democracy as well (especially at grass roots level through local self-governance)” [5].

Debate About Values
Some have used cultural and religious arguments to challenge the principle of the universality of human rights, often using these to justify corporal punishment and to restrict women’s rights. This view differs from the analysis of human rights defenders as set out by speakers at Trócaire’s 25th anniversary conference on the theme “People, Power and Participation” where they were unanimous in pressing for greater support for the universality and indivisibility of human rights [6]. Francis Deng has pointed out that “it is important to bear in mind that it is never the victims, but the violators of human rights principles and their advocates who invoke the relativist argument against the principle of universality” [7].

A Hierarchy of Rights
The rights written into the Universal Declaration are divided between the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As a result of this the former were seen as having immediate implications while the latter were regarded as limited by resources and thus aspirational. However greater attention is now focused on socio-economic rights and on poverty that reduces the quality and security of life of so many people. The eradication of poverty has become an overriding theme of sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, has identified socio-economic rights as a priority for her tenure. The reasons are clear. It is a shocking paradox that in a world economy of US$25 trillion, poverty is endemic. 1.3 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. One in five people in the developing world still do not have adequate food.

Yet the estimated cost of providing universal access to basic social services and of transfers to alleviate poverty would, with efficient targeting total about $80 billion [8]. This is less than 0.5% of global income and less than the combined net worth of the seven richest men in the world. However, lack of political commitment, not financial resources is the real obstacle to the eradication of poverty. To give an example: latest UN figures put the value of defence expenditure world-wide at nearly 800 billion dollars [9]. Paltry in comparison is the $7.4 billion that the World Bank estimated as the cost of the ‘highly indebted poor country initiative’.

However, signs of hope are evident. In many countries civil society has become stronger and demands new approaches to development that put human beings at the centre and make respect for human rights the basis for policies. Thousands of human rights NGOs are emerging despite continuing attacks on human rights defenders. A tragic case in point is the murder of Archbishop Juan Gerardi in Guatemala City days after the Church Commission which he chaired published a report on the abuses of human rights in Guatamala during the country’s 36 year war.

Debates on Universality and Indivisibility[10]
Some argue that rights cannot be separated from the obligations of the state. All states can ensure respect for civil and political rights, in contrast to economic rights. This is especially so, since respect for civil and political rights can require attention, e.g. abstaining from torture by the state rather than state intervention. On the other hand the implementation of economic and social rights requires active state intervention. This argument appears to suggest that if there is no remedy there is no right. It also emphasises the central position of the state, while ignoring the individual who is the bearer of rights irrespective of the availability of remedies, judicial or other. Another argument is that economic and social rights are vague. However, from the perspective of the holder of the right, the entitlement to free primary education is as clear as the entitlement to be free from torture.

Both sets of rights are mediated by two common elements - security and equality. The security of the person includes socio-economic security, and equality before the law encompasses equality of opportunity. Thus there are no substantive reasons that validate the dichotomy between the two sets of rights.

While the language used in the Universal Declaration “bears the stamp of” Western philosophical and legal thinking” the Declaration does not “reflect any one ideological conception”. There was considerable diversity among the drafters and Third World countries made a significant contribution. Thus the confusion on the Declaration’s relevance to all traditions has more to do with its method of implementation rather than the rights themselves.

Indeed Abdullahi Al Na’im has pointed out that cultural relativism is a tool for respecting diverse customs and rejects the view that there is a danger of condoning repressive practices under the guise of respecting cultures. He argues that cultural relativism does not provide total autonomy to cultures to deny human rights as culturally alien. Rather it aids the formulation of a cross cultural approach to human rights policy and practice. To overcome this dichotomy Abdullahi Al Na´im has identified two approaches commonly used to extend the acceptability of human rights [11]. The first derives universalist concepts from existing international standards. The second places them within globally shared norms and values or develops it from “an understanding of notions such as human nature or dignity”. He argues that while it is important to uphold international standards it is equally important to work within different cultures and try to bridge the gap between international standards and the value system of differing cultures.

Rather than pursuing a debate on the relationship between culture and human rights which uses an all or nothing approach Richard Falk has suggested an approach which appreciates diverse cultural identities while engaging in a dialogue on appropriate international norms. Indeed the pressure for this dialogue is increasing with the massive rise in cultural exchange through travel, media and the information technology revolution.

Falk identifies glaring deficiencies in aspects of international law relating to the rights of indigenous people, as an example of this lack of cultural dialogue. As long as international law comes under the state system it excludes adequate attention to the rights of groups who are not represented. Only a participatory democracy ensures their inclusion and as such is a crucial ingredient and indeed pre-condition for the protection of human rights.

Recently the High Commissioner for Human Rights referring to her role in speaking out on behalf of the victims of violations and in defence of core human rights principles wrote that “there is no point in confrontations that sever contact, and while speaking out, I will always try to keep open and indeed develop a dialogue with governments and with others who may disagree with my statements” [12].

The Challenges for NGOs
Human rights organisations which had earlier focused on civil and political rights have more recently started including economic, social and cultural rights in their concerns, and thus need to gain expertise in the monitoring, defence and promotion of such rights. While the International Labour Organisation is the oldest UN body (founded in 1919), taken as a whole the UN system and other global institutions still have to take major steps in integrating economic and social rights in all their activities and in supporting the efforts of national and regional organisations working in this area.

Differences of theory and practice with respect to the universality and indivisibility of human rights have other origins besides the controversy as to whether a country qualifies for ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ status. The only two countries that have not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are from both ends of the spectrum in terms of wealth and power, namely the United States and Somalia. In respect of Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration which states that “Everyone has the right to seek asylum”, the richest nations are closing their borders to refugees, 90% of whom are in developing countries, among them some of the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The High Commissioner for Human Rights Mrs Mary Robinson highlighted this at the 54th Session of the Commission on Human Rights when she stated that “countries that pride themselves on their welcoming ways are closing their doors on migrants, refugees and asylum seekers” [13].

In Ireland as elsewhere there is a need to use the social and human rights standards that exist and can be promoted through discussion and political participation as sources of adequate guidance for the general direction of development strategies now that the economy is experiencing record economic growth [14]. For example, Ireland has the highest incidence of children living in poverty in the European Union. One child in seven lives in poverty while the average for other industrial countries is about one in ten [15]. This is the case despite rapid growth. A contributing factor is the relatively high level of unemployment, (and within that long-term unemployment) compared to the OECD average. The right to work has crucial significance in tackling child poverty.

Economist Amartya Sen has said that there is a need for public discussion of the priorities and values underlying policy decisions and this includes the values implied in relying exclusively on GNP per head, the subject of much debate in Ireland. That evaluative system puts a zero weight on other concerns such as the quality of life for a given value of GNP per head. In Ireland examples of this are evident. While some reap the benefits of an economic boom, the number of suicides recorded is rising. Also, as the number of asylum seekers has risen there has been an increase in racism directed against them. Much of the emphasis in public discussion about asylum seekers has been on the cost of asylum seekers to the state (despite the State’s never-so-full coffers) rather than on the state’s international obligations to them.

Moreover, elections while important are only a discrete period on the road to democracy. Peace and democracy must be built rather than declared [16]. Only a participatory democracy can produce a State capable of generating the active citizenship necessary for defending and practising human rights.

Transnational Corporations and Financial Institutions
The power of national governments is limited in some respects. Transnational Corporations need to be regulated at a global level.

Universality is not a concept we apply. Of the top 100 economies, 50 are transnational corporations [17]. While government accountability to citizens is often ignored, there does not even exist any internationally binding code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of corporations. This total lack of accountability must be addressed. Not surprisingly the corporations can be found under a variety of abhorrent regimes, Burma and Nigeria being among the worst. Indeed transnational corporations can be termed quasi-governments, particularly in developing countries.

The international community must develop ethics around trade and investment sanctions. Aid sanctions no longer have much impact, particularly as the volume of aid has declined. Indeed, many of the world’s most oppressive regimes are rich in natural resources and rely on foreign investment and associated earnings to fund themselves.

Dictatorships must not be tolerated who so disregard and disrespect human rights and democracy that they choose to sacrifice the lives of their citizens and the country’s resources to remain in power. Neither should the corporations that collude with them.

According to Leedum Mittee of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People “the absence of an effective international machinery and the reluctance to fashion one, for sanctioning TNCs who operate in collusion with and provide the revenues to finance regimes which violently repress their indigenous populations, tests the very basis of our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” [18]. Moreover, while investor power is largely unregulated consumers can seize the opportunities which globalisation provides by choosing not to purchase unfairly traded products and by informing the sellers of their reasons for this. At the same time they can lobby their governments to speak out and push for international action.

These institutions will play a key role in relating to the continuing crisis in Asia which has implications far beyond that region, and has the potential to be a global or at least a Southern crisis like the crisis that debt provoked in the 1980s. However, we must now work to ensure that its victims are not the poorest and most vulnerable groups in society as they were in the 1980s. Policies that respect their socio-economic rights and protect social expenditures will be required. In a largely authoritarian region where people’s participation in decision-making has been limited this will be a major challenge. However, the growing role of civil society in some Asian countries is a source of hope that this crisis will be an opportunity for positive change.

To defend one’s human rights one must be aware of them. Often the victims of abuse are the last to know of these. Thus human rights education must be prioritised as the 4th R along with Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic. Such education would allow citizens to express their opposition to abuses of economic and social rights in the same way as they show their outrage at violations of civil and political rights.

Conclusion 
Violations of human rights are symptoms of unfair and unequal structures be it at local, national or international level. Focusing on such abuses though helping to draw attention to violations is necessary but not sufficient in ensuring respect for human rights. There is also a need to tackle the root causes of such violations and this requires examining power structures and the processes behind globalisation and democratisation. In his closing address to Trócaire’s 25th anniversary conference, the Director, Justin Kilcullen, pointed out that “the best defence of human rights is self defence which entails empowering local people”. Such an approach, which focuses on building just relationships from community level upwards, would better represent the views of citizens with whom rights rest at for such as the UN Commission on human rights. Empowering local communities to defend and promote human rights would create proactive policies to respect human rights as opposed to reactive policies after violations have occurred. It would lead to sustainable human rights policies as against what are at present largely emergency and ad hoc human rights interventions. In all the debates there is one constant: namely the best cure for human rights abuses remains prevention.

Maura Leen is Policy Analyst with Trócaire, Catholic Agency for World Development.

Notes

[1]     Kofi Annan quoted during the first week of the 54th Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, The Irish Times editorial, 20/3/1998.

[2]     Guest editorial, Mary Robinson, High Commissioner for Human Rights, Go Between, UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service, February-April 1998.

[3]     Jose Zalaquett, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs - The Human Rights Issue and the Human Rights Movement, Background Information 1981/3 has a discussion on the evolution of the human rights question pp.7-12 which forms the base for much of this section.

[4]     Caroline Moorehead, Volatile Cocktails, Index on Censorship 7/1993.

[5]     Clarence J. Dias, Current Understanding and Criticism of the Universality of Human Rights, Idoc Internazionale 4/93, pp. 2-6.

[6]     The 1998 Trócaire Development Review Journal is a special edition based on the papers presented to this conference.

[7]     Ibid. page 1.

[8]     The 1997 Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Programme and Oxford University Press, 1997.

[9]     Ibid.

[10]    Ibid.

[11]    Guest editorial by Mrs Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as in note 3.

[12]    Quoted by Paul Cullen in The Irish Times, 20/3/1998.

[13]    See 1997 Human Development Report published by the United Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press 1997.

[14]    See editorial comment in The Sunday World, 22/3/1998, “The refugee crisis is now undoubtedly posing a serious threat to our economy and may yet silence the roar of the Celtic Tiger”. This statement is not backed up and neither is it stated for whose interests the “Celtic Tiger” roars.

[15]    Frank La Rue - From Declaring Peace to Building Peace - The Case of Guatemala; Alejandro Bendaña - Lessons and Experiences of Human Rights and Democratisation - The Case of Nicaragua, papers presented at Trócaire’s 25th anniversary conference, “People, Power and Participation”, Dublin 26/2/1998.

[16]    1997 Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Programme and Oxford University Press.

[17] Leedum Mittee, Oil, Arms and Terror - the Case of Ogoni, Paper presented to Trócaire’s 25th anniversary conference on “People, Power and Participation”, Dublin, 26/2/1998.   

[18]    See Trócaire 25 Declaration, February 27th 1998.