Media Library

Speeches

INAUGURAL AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL LECTURE BY PRESIDENT MARY McALEESE AT QUEENS UNIVERSITY

INAUGURAL AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL LECTURE BY PRESIDENT MARY McALEESE AT QUEENS UNIVERSITY BELFAST

Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chancellor, Distinguished Guests, Ladies andGentlemen,

It is always a great pleasure for me to return to my hometown and my alma mater. I am particularly pleased and proud to have been invited to deliver this Inaugural Amnesty International Annual Lecture. The theme chosen by Amnesty, "Rights and Responsibilities: Fifty Years of the Universal Declaration" could hardly be more appropriate and timely as we approach the 10th of December, the date of the adoption of the Declaration in 1948.

It is also appropriate that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Amnesty International which, since its foundation by Peter Beneson in 1961, has investigated more than 43,500 cases of alleged violations of human rights and has succeeded - to its enormous credit - in closing more than 40,750 of those cases.

During most of its history, Amnesty's campaigning has focused on prisoners, but the movement has responded to the changing patterns of human rights violations in the world, and has taken action on behalf of people who are not prisoners. It has worked tirelessly against hostage taking and arbitrary killings and for asylum-seekers who are at risk of being returned to a country where they might be held as prisoners of conscience or suffer a worse fate.

For all these efforts, Amnesty was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 and the UN Human Rights Prize in 1978 and deserves our eternal gratitude and thanks.

The Amnesty symbol, a candle in barbed wire, was inspired by the

Chinese proverb, "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness". The adoption of this proverb as its motto illustrates the positive and practical approach that Amnesty has taken since its inception towards the vindication of human rights. To mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, Amnesty launched a campaign to compile the world's largest book, made up of pledges by individuals to do their utmost to uphold the rights proclaimed in the Declaration. I was honoured to be the first person in Ireland to make that pledge and since then thousands of Irishmen and women and millions of people throughout the world have added their names to this book. It will be presented to the Secretary General of the United Nations on Human Rights Day, the 10th of December.

In addressing you on this evening’s theme, you will appreciate the deep pride I - and Irish people everywhere - take in the part my predecessor, Mary Robinson, plays in the vital work of human rights advocacy throughout the world as UN Commissioner for Human Rights. I know you will join me in wishing her well in meeting the formidable challenges she faces.

What then of the 50th anniversary? Have we cause for celebration? The first ever proclamation by the international community of the rights and freedoms of every human being surely deserves to be commemorated. As too does its fostering of the promotion and protection of those rights. But as we look at the contemporary world scene, many of us might conclude that there can be no cause for celebration while, everyday, hundreds of millions of people experience some serious violations of their human rights. Many of them are children, women, old people, people with disabilities, minorities, migrants and indigenous peoples. The violations they suffer range from torture and arbitrary detention to hunger and homelessness - from violence against and trafficking in women and children - to child labour.

However, it would also be wrong to neglect to acknowledge that notable achievements have been registered since the adoption of the Universal Declaration. The United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have been ratified by most of its member States. Conventions on racism, torture, the rights of the child and the elimination of discrimination against women are also in place - setting standards for conduct to which individual States can be held accountable by UN monitoring committees.

We could, therefore, conclude that the Universal Declaration has made the world a better place but much remains to be done. We can never be complacent about the progress made in protecting human rights. It is a sad fact that the norms of civilised behaviour are not being respected in many parts of the world.

Against this background, the Universal Declaration stands as a beacon - of inspiration to those who seek to surmount the darker side of the human condition, and of reproach to those who trample on the rights of their fellow men and women in their search for political, economic or personal gain.

Today, there are some hopeful signs that our definition of what it is to be human extends to a growing sense of international community and solidarity. Almost all civilised people regard it as wrong that millions should die in famines, they would see it as unacceptable that tyrants should violate the basic rights of their people. They would also support policies to bridge the gap between abject poverty and deprivation in developing countries and affluence in developed countries. Yet, all these violations of basic human rights continue. Could it be that - for all our horror or outrage over the atrocities and disasters that make up too many of the media headlines - a sense of numbness or impotence has caused us to lose faith in the capacity of human beings for good? How do we muster and sustain the global improvements needed to tackle these issues and make a difference?

The lamenters and cynics sound and look concerned but accomplish little. It is the doers who make the real difference – and it is the doers like Amnesty members, that we need. Lamentation and cynicism are the easy ways out.

The responsibilities mentioned in the title of this lecture, refer to the obligation on us all to use the 50th anniversary to give new impetus to the promotion and protection of human rights. On a global level, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has been using this benchmark year to examine the progress of the member States of the UN in the field of human rights.

All UN member States and UN agencies were required to submit a report earlier this year - outlining the implementation of human rights standards within their jurisdiction. All were found wanting - some more than others. How could it be otherwise? Human rights are not a comfortable subject for governments. The promotion and protection of human rights requires constant attention and no government or bureaucracy can be counted on to remain consistently vigilant. This is why so much responsibility rests on civil society, non-governmental organisations and other activists to continue to press for respect for human rights whenever or wherever they see the need.

What should be the guiding principles which give meaning to re-dedicating ourselves to the principles of the Universal Declaration? Many of these appear self-evident but they should never be passed over in silence. In trying to put these ideas into practice we should "think global and act local".

The Good Friday Agreement which offers so much hope to everyone on this island, also represents a major advance in the protection of human rights throughout Ireland. It was agreed by all sides on 10th April that any new institutional arrangements, must be complemented and underpinned by the systematic and effective protection of human rights. The issue of human rights is not part of any nationalist or unionist agenda - it is the preserve of all citizens of this island.

The United Kingdom will shortly complete the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into their own domestic legislation. In our jurisdiction, the Government will bring forward measures to strengthen the constitutional protection of human rights - taking account of the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the Report of the Constitution Review Group. The measures brought forward will ensure at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights as will pertain in Northern Ireland.

The two Governments have agreed to the establishment of new Human Rights Commissions in both jurisdictions on this island. This is an exciting new development. The new Human Rights Commissions will be among the first of their kind in Western Europe. However, institutions such as these cannot be expected to address all the human rights issues which are currently occupying governments and the international community. Nor are such bodies intended to replace the human rights organs of the United Nations or NGO’s working in the field.

There are some who see no good reason for establishing special machinery devoted to the promotion and protection of human rights. They may argue that such bodies are not a wise use of scarce resources and that an independent judiciary and democratically elected parliament are sufficient to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur.

Unfortunately, history has taught us differently. An institution which is in some way separated from the responsibilities of executive governance and judicial administration is in a position to take a leading role in the field of human rights. By maintaining a real and perceived distance from Governments of the day, such bodies can make a unique contribution to countries' efforts to protect their citizens and to develop a culture of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In Ireland, there will be a further unique feature in that the Agreement also envisages that there will be a joint committee linking the two new Commissions. This joint committee will act as a forum for considering human rights matters throughout the island of Ireland.

In our justifiable enthusiasm following the ending of violence and the arrival of a new more peaceful era, there is a danger that the victims of violence could be overlooked. However, the Agreement acknowledges that the provision of services that are supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims are a critical element in any process of reconciliation. So often, it can appear that the victims are expected to do all the forgiving. They need our understanding, encouragement and help to come to terms with what happened to them and their loved ones. They, perhaps more than anyone else, are entitled to enjoy the rewards of peace. Here again, our responsibilities and their rights must be invoked.

So here at home, we have some grounds for believing that things will be better - that respect for the human rights of all can soon be taken as a given.

Fifty years on, there is a need for an acknowledgement of the role played by human rights in restoring fully functioning and legitimate democratic systems in Europe. There is a need for a renewed commitment to human rights since the task of honouring the person does not have any logical end-point but must continue. New problems are emerging - problems that require the civilising and humanising influence of human rights. New roles need to be found for rights to meet the kinds of challenges posed by social and economic change over the next fifty years.

The politico-legal architecture of Europe has, for a variety of historical reasons, segregated two sides of the one coin: the pursuit of common economic development; and the policing of moral limits on State power. This phenomenon has been exemplified in the mandates and roles played up until recently by the then European Communities and the Council of Europe. We are presently witnessing a trend (perhaps historically necessary) whereby these two supranational tasks are beginning to merge. In one sense, the European Union is returning to its roots, which had more to do with political goals than with economic goals. In another sense, we are moving beyond purely economic goals because this is the natural result of the success of the economic venture. The economic dimension to the Union is ultimately a means and not an end. The end, is self evident after two bloody world wars with their epicentres in Europe and their legacies the miles of young graves and the gas chambers of Auschwitz – the end is peace through partnership. Today we are witnessing a return to those humanitarian ends (or a progression forward to new ends) that makes this moment in time so unique, exacting and intriguing.

The development of the human face of the European Union, as is to be expected with a changing institution, will be highly problematic. This will be so on several counts. First, it will have to be seen if the legal base of the EU endows the institution with the competence to act in this field.

Second, the margins defining the sovereign rights of the member States and their relationship to the Union will be called into question. Third, the role of the Council of Europe in this new situation will have to be examined.

There are a number of considerations facing Europe today which cannot be left out of the reckoning in any debate on the new

directions it may take:

Equality:

Equality is fundamental both to human rights and to efficient and rational economic markets. Furthermore, equality contributes to the task of building more inclusive societies which is one of the most pressing concerns of Europe today. Where gender equality pointed the way, other applications of the equality principle must follow (e.g. race, the elderly, people with disabilities, sexual orientation). One cogent idea might be to use human rights to animate the notion of a Europe for All. Equality is a core concern because wrapped up in it is some sense of the inherent worth of each person and - just as important - a sense of the equal inherent worth of all persons. Modern trends already being experienced in Europe are likely to put this concept under incredible pressure. These trends regrettably can often work in the direction of exclusion. The language of human rights must be deployed to keep pathways into public life open to all.

Social Change:

The development and modernisation of the European Social Model (social protection systems, health care systems) is taking place because of demographic trends and fiscal constraints. This process of change has obvious implications for social cohesion. Underpinning changes with the language and normative content of human rights (including, obviously, economic and social rights) – in other words mainstreaming human rights, putting it into every policy area - adds a vital dimension to the process.

The Information Society Revolution:

This revolution carries with it much more than the old familiar concerns about data protection. For one thing, the Information Society will change the nature and organisation of work. The economic base of our lives will be transformed and this will have social implications that cannot be fully predicted. In short, it will offer both opportunities for the advancement of humanity and much cause for concern. What is critically important is that the construction and regulation of the Information Society should be closely tied to human rights and the values that inspire them. This technology is a tool at the service of humanity – Not the reverse. We need to enhance democracy through the advantages bestowed by technology and use it to build a more inclusive society and economy. We must also take care to tackle and regulate effectively the misuse of the Information Society. This is particularly urgent in relation to the protection of children from open, indiscriminate, ‘web flooding’ abuse of freedom of use of the internet, while maintaining a balance with freedom of expression.

Scientific and Technological Change:

Without any doubt, the advances to be made in science (e.g. genetics) and technology over the coming fifty years will be stunning and even frightening. These advances will come whether we like it or not. They are ours to cope with and to be ready to deal with ethically. The problem with such scientific change is that it tends to nurture the viewpoint that people and society are best organised along rational and scientific lines. This has been a danger ever since the Industrial Revolution and will press heavily into the next century. That’s why we need confident voices reminding us that the human person is the heart of the matter, the valued, respected human person. As President John F Kennedy said in his inauguration address ‘ . . the rights of man come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God’.

These are some of the considerations which - in my view - should inform our approach to promoting and protecting human rights in the Europe of 2000 and beyond. We live in exciting times, whether that is our good fortune or misfortune our Eden or Gethsemane I will leave to your own judgement. Of one thing we should be certain - 50 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is now time for us all to try to make a difference – we cannot change the past but we can use today well to write a new script for the future.

Thank you.