By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, May 21 2007 (IPS)

A wall is being built in Baghdad, a fence/wall already exists in Israel and the Occupied Territories, another one is coming up in the border between Mexico and the USA, another one is in place between Ceuta and Morocco and between Melilla and Morocco and a barrier on water is being built by Frontex patrol boats. The walls and barriers of the world in 2006 are reminiscent of the divisions that existed at the time of the Cold War. Like in the Cold War times, the agenda is being driven by fear instigated, encouraged and sustained by unprincipled leaders. For this reason, fear is at the centre of the Amnesty International Report 2007, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of A.I. Fear can be a positive imperative for change, as in the case of the environment, where alarm about global warming is forcing politicians belatedly into action. But fear can also be dangerous and divisive when it breeds intolerance, threatens diversity and justifies the erosion of human rights. Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of being swamped by migrants; fear of “the other” and of losing one’s identity; fear of being blown up by terrorists; fear of “rogue states” with weapons of mass destruction. Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict.

Fear can be a positive imperative for change, as in the case of the environment, where alarm about global warming is forcing politicians belatedly into action. But fear can also be dangerous and divisive when it breeds intolerance, threatens diversity and justifies the erosion of human rights.

Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of being swamped by migrants; fear of “the other” and of losing one’s identity; fear of being blown up by terrorists; fear of “rogue states” with weapons of mass destruction.

Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict.

The politics of fear has been made more complex by the emergence of armed groups and big business that commit or condone human rights abuses. Both in different ways challenge the power of governments in an increasingly borderless world. Weak governments and ineffective international institutions are unable to hold them accountable, leaving people vulnerable and afraid. History shows that it is not through fear but through hope and optimism that progress is achieved.

Yet leaders promote fear because it allows them to consolidate their own power, create false certainties and escape accountability.

Protecting the security of states rather than the sustainability of people’s lives and livelihoods appears to be the order of the day. In developed countries, as well as emerging economies, the fear of being invaded by hordes of the poor is being used to justify ever tougher measures against migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, violating international standards of human rights and humane treatment.

Driven by the political and security imperatives of border control, asylum procedures have become a means for exclusion rather than protection. Across Europe, refugee recognition rates have fallen dramatically over the years, although the reasons for seeking asylum violence and persecution remain as high as ever.

Migrant workers fuel the engine of the global economy yet they are turned away with brutal force, exploited, discriminated against, and left unprotected by governments across the world, from the Gulf states and South Korea to the Dominican Republic.

Six thousand Africans drowned or were missing at sea in 2006 in their desperate bid to reach Europe. Another 31,000 six times higher than the number in 2005 reached the Canary islands. Just as the Berlin Wall could not stop those who wanted to escape Communist oppression, tough policing of the borders of Europe is failing to block those seeking to escape abject poverty.

If unregulated migration is the fear of the rich, then unbridled capitalism, driven by unethical globalisation, is the fear of the poor. The rewards of globalisation remain heavily skewed, leaving large swathes humanity marginalized and vulnerable.

As the demands for mining, urban development and tourism put pressure on land, across Africa, Asia and Latin America, entire communities are being forcibly evicted from their homes with no due process, compensation or alternative shelter, and often using excessive force. In Africa alone more than 3 million people have been affected since 2000, making forced evictions one of the most widespread and unrecognized human rights violations on the continent.

Although the rich are getting richer every day, they do not necessarily feel any safer. Rising crime and gun violence are a source of constant fear, leaving many governments to adopt policies that are purportedly tough on crime but in reality criminalize the poor, exposing them to the double jeopardy of gang violence and brutal policing, like in Brazil.

While these sources of insecurity continue to plague the world, the most powerful governments invest their energy and resources in the ‘war on terror’ which itself undermines the very values of human rights that could provide real security to all.

The ‘war on terror’ and the war in Iraq, with their catalogue of human rights abuses, have created deep divisions that cast a shadow on international relations, making it more difficult to resolve conflicts and protect civilians. This was repeatedly demonstrated throughout 2006, with the international community too often impotent or ineffective when confronted by major human rights crises, whether in forgotten conflicts like Chechnya, Colombia and Sri Lanka, or high profile ones in the Middle East.

This collective failure of leadership is playing out on a tragic scale in Darfur, where over 200,000 people have died, more than ten times that number have been displaced and violence is spilling over into Chad and the Central African Republic. The UN Security Council remains hamstrung by distrust and divisions between its most powerful members, and Khartoum runs rings around them.

In an inter-dependent world, global challenges, whether of poverty or security, of migration or marginalization, demand responses based on global values of human rights that bring people together and promote our collective well-being. Human rights provide the basis for a sustainable future.

Civil society is playing its part, from successfully campaigning for a treaty to control the sale of conventional arms to helping end the decade-long conflict in Nepal.

Political leaders must take a leaf from the book of civil society and recognise that only a common commitment based on shared values can lead to a sustainable solution. Things can be different: new leaders and legislatures such as in the USA, France and the UK, have the opportunity to change direction and to replace fear with hope. There are also opportunities to forge alliances with countries like Brazil, India and Mexico. The new UN Secretary-General should take a leadership role in the protection of human rights.

If they are serious they will focus on closing the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, promote a comprehensive approach to Darfur that will focus on protecting civilians and push for a human-rights based solution to the conflict in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Just as global warming requires global action based on international cooperation, the human rights meltdown can only be tackled through global solidarity and respect for international law. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: