ADDRESS by President Mary Robinson North South Prize Lisbon- “Developing Human Rights, Together”
ADDRESS by President Mary Robinson North South Prize Lisbon- "Developing Human Rights, Together" 15 MAY 1997
I am honoured to accept this prize, together with the former President of Chile,Patricio Aylwin, from President Jorge Sampaio on behalf of the North South Centre. This Centre stands for the promotion of global interdependence and solidarity. The values you represent and the methods you choose to advance them - through education and inclusive dialogue - inspire the theme on which I would like to address you this evening, "Developing Human Rights, Together".
I say "together" in the sense that we need to forge coalitions of concern on human rights issues;
"Together" in the sense that we require effective ways of simultaneously advancing the two fundamental, indivisible and interdependent sets of rights: civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights;
"Together" in the sense that we require greater effort to ensure that our local, national, regional and multilateral approaches to human rights complement and reinforce each other.
These are issues which I have addressed in various ways on other occasions. Indeed, they permeated discussion at the Council of Europe Interregional meeting in Strasbourg at which I was honoured to act as rapporteur in the lead up to the World Conference in Vienna. The intervening four years have not blunted the urgency of the discussion.
And during these past few years I have learned to value, with humility, the leadership on human rights issues which I have witnessed in difficult contexts and at different levels. In March of this year, for example, I returned to Rwanda to take part in a pan African Women's Conference on Peace, Gender and Development. I was deeply impressed by the eloquence, passion and commitment of the women leaders from the nineteen African countries represented, who wasted no time, took The Beijing Programme of Action as a bench-mark and were determined to devise practical measures to implement it on the ground. Between conference sessions I also had a meeting with about thirty representatives of a local women's network "Pro-Femmes"
Each of these women represented a small, underfunded group dealing with the victims of the genocidal killing, the widows, orphans, homeless, rape victims and other wounded and traumatised. As I sat and heard their stories, and admired their commitment to promoting reconciliation while they rebuilt their lives and their communities, I was conscious that although they lacked access to minimal material resources, they had harnessed great energies and empowered themselves to cope with daunting problems.
Their insights have prompted me to look, in this North-South Forum, at the issue of tensions - real or perceived - between the developed and the developing world on issues of human rights protection. The reality is of course more complex, more differentiated, than the broad brush picture often presented. But I believe there is a problem which we need to recognise and jointly address.
We are told about the different agendas of the developing and developed world, the different groupings in which they frequently find themselves in bodies such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. Stepping back from the debates about tactics, procedures and mechanisms, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the objectives of international human rights action. Everything begins and ends with a determination to secure a life of dignity - a truly human quality of life - for all the people in whose names we act. That is the only true measure of the worth of what we are doing. Fundamental to these discussions is the basic question: How best can those being denied their human rights be supported or helped?
I suggest that if we keep reminding ourselves of this basic question, it will help us to steer a path through the difficulties and complexities. Defining those "being denied their human rights" requires rigorous fact-finding, free from any political or cultural bias, using internationally accepted standards as a yardstick. Asking ourselves "how best to support" means taking account of the particularities of each situation, the practical possibilities for action and self help, and assessing the full range of instruments for human rights protection and promotion in order to identify which are most likely to help in each situation.
I believe we should try to move away from the vocabulary and attitudes which shape the stereotyping of developed and developing country approaches to human rights issues. We are collective custodians of universal human rights standards, and any sense that we fall into camps of "accuser" and "accused" is absolutely corrosive of our joint purpose. The reality is that no group of countries has any grounds for complacency about its own human rights performance and no group of countries does itself justice by automatically slipping into the "victim" mode. Moreover, I noted with interest that at the recent Annual Session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, there were several instances where developed and developing countries voted together on issues of contention. The tensions which undoubtedly exist in regard to approaches to human rights internationally cannot, automatically, be characterised as representing a North/South divide. At the same time, it is also clear from the recent Session of the Commission that there is a danger of such a divide emerging on more and more issues.
The two words I would most wish to see characterise the debate are "respect" and "responsibility".
Respect requires a readiness to listen to each other and really hear what is being said; an effort to understand why situations are as they are and a willingness to take advice on the scope for effective preventive or remedial action. It also means a recognition of the contribution that different cultures bring to our collective work. Four years ago in Strasbourg, I emphasised that "more thought and effort must be given to enriching the human rights discourse by explicit reference to non-western religious and cultural traditions. By tracing the linkages between constitutional values on the one hand and the concepts, ideas and institutions which are central to Islam and the Hindu-Buddhist tradition or other traditions, the base of support for fundamental rights can be expanded and the claim to universality vindicated." That broadening and enriching of the discourse has yet to happen; a renewed effort is required of all of us to ensure that it does. Above all, respect calls on our notions of dignity and moral obligation.
"Responsibility" is equally important. North or South, we have to be prepared to recognise problems where they exist, including in our own countries and our own regions. The claims of human solidarity with victims must be weighed alongside the claims of political solidarity with governments. If we are reluctant to take on our own responsibilities in our own regions, we risk creating a vacuum in which those who are more distant from the problem come to feel that they carry the sole burden of analysis and prescription.
I would suggest that the time is ripe for the formation of new coalitions of concern on human rights issues. The Cold War - whose divisions were inevitably projected into international debate on human rights issues - is now some years behind us. We have yet to forge the integrated approaches in the human rights area that might have been expected to emerge in the post Cold War period. New working methods, infused by a renewed dedication to our basic purposes, a strengthened sense of respect as well as a strengthened sense of responsibility, are urgently called for. It goes without saying that NGOs will have an important role to play as partners in such coalitions of concern.
The second sense in which I invoke the word "together" signifies the need to achieve simultaneous and complementary progress in relation to the two sets of rights enshrined respectively in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The source document for all subsequent work, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, represents a very balanced treatment of these two sets of rights. In the intervening years, that balance has not always been respected; indeed, various commentators have pointed to serious neglect in the development of the concept of economic and social rights.
It is imperative that we get that balance right. It is not enough that our statements should proclaim the interdependence and indivisibility of both sets of rights; we have to know and live and feel the truth of what we are proclaiming.
This year marks the 150th anniversary of Ireland's Great Famine, which decimated our population and scarred our country in so many ways. The anniversary has given Irish people world-wide cause to reflect again on that terrible national trauma, and to have an empathy with those who wonder what the "classical" human rights can mean to people dying of hunger on a massive scale.
But experience has taught us that, beyond grief and outrage, beyond emergency responses to emergency situations, the only longer term answer is to advance with the two sets of rights - political and economic - in equilibrium. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, put it in these terms when he spoke in Geneva last month:
"Truly sustainable development is possible only when the political, economic and social rights of all the people are fully respected. They help to create the social equilibrium which is vital if a society is to evolve in peace. The right to development is the measure of the respect of all other human rights. That should be our aim: a situation in which all individuals are enabled to maximise their potential, and to contribute to the evolution of society as a whole."...
An acceptance of the complementary nature of the two sets of rights means looking at how resources are allocated in the international bodies dealing with human rights, how agendas are structured, how outcomes are measured. It means better dialogue - and by this I do not mean conditionality - between the human rights community and the development community. It means that in assessing the human rights situation in a particular country, we use criteria that reflect the importance and the complementarity of both sets of rights.
The third sense in which I use the word "together" is the need for mutually reinforcing mechanisms for human rights protection and promotion at national, regional and international level.
It is perhaps tempting for those who are active in the international arena sometimes to see international action as a first and best response to a problem. In the human rights area, that would represent a serious misordering of priorities. My firm belief remains that human rights are best protected at home subject to the system of outer-protection afforded by international bodies.
A firmly rooted and resilient domestic system of protection and promotion is the best safeguard against human rights abuse. The development of such a system does not happen overnight; it requires time, care and commitment. It requires a variety of actions and a variety of actors. The international community can sometimes make a very effective contribution through the provision of advisory services and technical co-operation programmes; it should stand ready to do so.
The various regional bodies - such as the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the OAU, the OAS - also have a critical role to play. They offer an important intermediate point between national and international approaches, combining the "insiders" approach that flows from the regional relationship with the "outsiders" perspective that establishes a context beyond the domestic one.
We must avoid any sense of exclusivity or competition in trying to identify the respective roles for regional and international bodies. In some circumstances, it may be more effective to allow time for a regional approach to achieve results; in other circumstances, a sensitive interaction between regional and international consideration is likely to achieve greater impact.
At the international level, the United Nations has, of course, a unique role and responsibility in human rights promotion and protection. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a clarion call whose note rings as true today as fifty years ago. Its first three lines provide the rationale for all our actions: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".
How to project the global role and authority of the United Nations is an issue receiving intensive examination, under the leadership of the Secretary General. In the human rights area, there is much to be done. There are major policy challenges, such as how to integrate human rights considerations into the political, humanitarian, and peace-keeping tasks of the United Nations. There are also administrative and organisational challenges: how to ensure adequacy of resources for human rights activities, how to match growing tasks to limited resources, how to ensure that the Centre for Human Rights operates to the highest standards of efficiency and transparency.
In short, we need to look constantly both to the condition of the mechanisms and the quality of their interaction. International systems of human rights protection will be an empty shell without effective national systems; in their turn, national systems need the norms and protections afforded by international action; and regional mechanisms have a vital role in helping to mesh and reinforce action at both levels.
North or South, we inhabit a common territory when we come together on these issues of universal importance. Perhaps, to borrow language from the Irish poet and Nobel Prize Winner, Seamus Heaney, we might entitle that common territory "The Republic of Conscience". It is indeed, as he says, a frugal republic, without privilege for any citizen; its symbols are simple - the eye, the ear, the mouth and the pen. Heaney conjures up a visit to that Republic of Conscience:
"The old man rose and gazed into my face
and said that was official recognition
that I was now a dual citizen.
He therefore desired me when I got home
to consider myself a representative
and to speak on their behalf in my own tongue.
Their embassies, he said, were everywhere
but operated independently
and no ambassador would ever be relieved".
We are all dual citizens; and there are many ambassadors of the Republic of Conscience in this room tonight. I am greatly honoured to receive your award.