By Irene Khan
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Feb 26 2016 (IPS)

The second part: the relevance of free speech and free media to development. Freedom is the central object of development, says Amartya Sen. He argues that development cannot simply be seen as GNP or industrialization or social modernization.

Irene Khan

That is today increasingly becoming the international definition of development. Unlike the MDGs that dwelt solely on social indicators, the SDGs contained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN in September last year, talk about equality, equity, transparency and accountability.

During the negotiations at the UN on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development one of the most hard-fought battles was on Goal 16 which is essentially about the rule of law and good governance. Media freedom was one of the elements that many western countries wanted to include in Goal 16. After much debate, it was dropped. Nevertheless Goal 16 is a game changer. It includes public access to information, democratic participation, legal identity, access to justice and the rule of law. It is a clear acknowledgement that development and freedom are indeed inseparable.

The International Development Law Organization which I now head is a strong champion of Goal 16 – because we believe that development cannot be sustained nor be sustainable without justice and human rights.

Speech is a fundamental part of being human. Freedom of speech is essential for our spirit and our soul. That is the ultimate message of the Language Movement.

But freedom of speech – and especially freedom of the press – has also instrumental value as well as intrinsic value.

There is much anecdotal and empirical research to show that when poor people have a voice, when they are informed, when they are able to organize, speak out and take part in decisions affecting their lives and livelihoods, they are able to overcome the deprivation, exclusion and insecurity that are the hallmarks of poverty. In that process they regain their dignity and sense of self-worth.

By “voice” I do not mean only the right to speak out. I mean the right to information about the development choices that are available, including how public funds are being spent. Just as you need an investment friendly climate for economic growth, you need a voice-enabling environment for development. Such an environment is created when there is a free and vibrant press that permits the unhindered flow of information and the unencumbered debate of ideas.

Empirical evidence shows that information and participation of people lead to better development outcomes. Real participation occurs only when civil society can work without pressure, the press is not controlled and people are free to express dissident views.

Free media is good not only for people but also for governments. It directly benefits government policies by providing information on what is really happening, so that governments can adjust policies or correct any mistakes. Prof. Amartya Sen’s study of famines has shown that because of censorship Chinese officials were not aware of the full extent of the famines during Mao’s times, or even of how much grain they had. They massively miscalculated the figures – and millions of lives were lost.

For those who admire the Chinese model of economic development, it would be salutary to remember that lack of transparency has compounded China’s policy mistakes on numerous occasions, for instance about the spread of HIV/AIDS, or the use of melamine in baby food, or about control of air and water pollution. Because the government punishes harshly those who criticize its policies and practices, official corruption and corporate malpractices are not often reported until the scandal can no longer be hidden – and usually by then, considerable harm has been done.

Censorship can keep the government as well as citizens in the dark. When people are kept in the dark, there is little incentive on the part of the authorities to take corrective action. As Prof. Sen has pointed out, it is no mere coincidence that famines have rarely occurred in flourishing democracies.

Public discussion and debate is essential not only for making government more responsive but also society more open, changing attitudes and creating new social norms – for instance to fight gender-based violence, to promote pro-poor policies, to be more environmentally conscious. A free press can open the space for public debate, and can help to form public opinion.

Information is a powerful vector of change. That is why the global Right to Information Movement is so important and has dramatically shifted the burden of accountability in many developing countries. I am told by those working on RTI issues that the law is empowering the poor, making them active and empowered citizens. RTI legislation has been a powerful tool for media in developed countries, for instance it forced the UK government to release information on arms sales to Saudi Arabia that revealed large scale corruption. In Bangladesh RTI seems to be more a tool for citizens, rather than the media.

I fear we do not value our media freedom enough. Indeed, most people, especially poor people, do not care much about democracy and freedom when things are going well.

I read in the local papers that a recent survey has shown that most people in Bangladesh value economic growth over democracy and freedom. When things are going well, that is a common finding not just in this country but in many others. It is when the economy falters and unemployment falls that people come out on the streets, as we have seen in recent years in countries like Egypt or Tunisian or even in western countries like the ones that took place on Wall Street. That is when people begin to value free media.

The stability that we are enjoying now is making us complacent about our freedoms, including our media freedom, but there are grey clouds on the economic horizon – the price of oil falling, conflict and instability in the Middle East, China’s growth figures stalling, and many such factors – that could make us soon more aware of the value of transparency and accountability, public debate and a free press.

The digital age has created a greater awareness of the power of communication. It has made journalists and readers out of all us as we tweet, go on Facebook and You-Tube, or blog. We are all tasting the power of the media in our own ways, and with power comes responsibility and accountability.

Media today is more powerful than ever before. Like all forms of power, it must also be held to account. I am sure we can all tell stories of poor reporting, or unfair invasion of privacy, and false attribution. No matter how independent newspapers are rarely seen to be neutral. The private ownership of media can also be a source of concern, especially when much of it is concentrated in the hands of a few.

The answer to the power of the media is not to censor or seek regulation but to expand the media – encourage more papers, broader ownership, more free press, not less. Let us trust the reader to choose his or her paper, just as the voter chooses his or her government.

Freedom of the net and the press thrives on competition and confrontation – let’s accept

In a democracy, free expression allows citizens to challenge political leaders, journalists to uncover information for the public, and the public to ensure the accountability of their government. Without free media and free speech, there can be no development or democracy. That is why in the end, the power of the press always overcomes the power to suppress.

The International Development Law Organization (IDLO) enables governments and empowers people to reform laws and strengthen institutions to promote peace, justice, sustainable development and economic opportunity.

Excerpt:

By Irene Khan
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Feb 25 2016 (IPS)

The greatness of a newspaper is not measured by the size of its readership but by its influence and credibility. That is why the New York Times or the Guardian are better known and more respected than the tabloids in their respective countries with ten times their circulation. Like those broadsheets, The Daily Star too strives for quality over circulation, influence over income and credibility over sensationalism.

Irene Khan

February is the month in which we mark our Language Movement and recall the martyrs and activists who marched to establish Bangla, our mother tongue, as our national language. But their demand was not simply for a language, it was a demand for voice, for free speech, for freedom. They paid for freedom with blood – can we preserve that freedom with courage today?

Of all human rights, freedom of speech is possibly the most complex and controversial right. We all love our own right to free speech, but many of us change our minds about how free speech should be when those with whom we disagree begin to talk.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and so drawing boundaries raise many dilemmas, never more so than right now with religious intolerance on the rise, political dissent under pressure, and greater technological possibilities than ever before to access, process and disseminate information.

I want to focus on two questions:

• how absolute is freedom of expression, in other words what are the limits of free speech?

• how relevant is freedom of expression, in other words what value does it bring to democracy and development?

I will examine both questions from the global as well as local perspectives. There is much for Bangladesh to learn from what is happening elsewhere.

On Friday, Professor. Yunus began his speech by invoking the image of Paris, with millions of activists marching during the recent Climate Conference. I too begin with the image of millions of people marching in Paris – not last December but in January, 2015, days after the violent killings at the office of Charlie Hebdo – a satirical French weekly – in which 8 journalists, including 4 cartoonists and the editor were shot dead by extremists linked to ISIS. Over 3.7 million people, including President Hollande of France and other top European leaders, marched through the center of Paris, vowing to protect the right of people to think what they wish and speak what they think, without fear or favor.

That was a year ago. Since then there have been more attacks and killings in Paris, and other cities in Europe and the U.S., as well as other parts of the world, from Bamako to Jakarta, not excluding the targeted killings in this country of bloggers, foreign aid workers and religious minorities.

Fear is stalking freedom, once again, as it did in the early part of this century. France has introduced a new surveillance law, and extended its state of emergency. Security laws are being tightened in a number of countries in ways that infringe free speech and access to information. Twitter has suspended some 125,000 accounts. The U.S. Presidential hopeful, Donald Trump has threatened to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. Around the world fundamentalist beliefs about blasphemy and secular beliefs about democracy and freedom are clashing head on, creating tensions among communities and countries. Many people are saying: “I believe in freedom of expression but…” Salman Rushdie has called them the “but brigade.”

As we mull over that precious gift of democracy – our right to speak freely – and as each country and each of us considers what is permissible, feasible or advisable, it is worth taking a quick look at what history has to say about free speech.

It is commonly said that free speech is an essential pillar of democracy – but it was not quite so clear in ancient Greece, the cradle of democracy. The Greek epic poet Homer supported free expression, but Solon, the first great lawmaker of Athens, banned what he described as “speaking evil against the living and the dead.” Pericles, the leader of democratic Athens, extolled freedom of speech but after the defeat of Athens by Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars, the Athenian Assembly ordered Socrates to drink poison as punishment for lecturing about unrecognized gods and encouraging young men to question authority.

Censorship was a common practice in Europe for centuries and became even stronger in the sixteenth century after the invention of the printing press which allowed books and papers to be printed challenging the Church and the State. In 1559, the Vatican produced the Congregation of the Index – a long list of banned books that were considered to be heretical. It included Nicolaus Copernicus’ De revolutioni bis orbium coelestium (The revolution of the heavenly spheres, 1543) which challenged the belief of the Catholic Church that the Earth was stationary. The great scientist Galileo Galilei was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Vatican because he confirmed Copernicus’s theories of planetary motion around the Sun. Galileo’s sentence was commuted to house arrest without any visitors only after he knelt before the Pope to recant his belief in Copernican theory. Galileo’s punishment, his recantation and the banning of his books set back scientific research by a hundred years.

During the Reformation, Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I banned all publications that were opposed to the Church of England and invoked the Court of Star Chamber (that bypassed the regular English Courts, rather like our special courts) – the purpose of the Star Chamber was to prosecute “slander.”

After the Star Chamber was abolished in 1637, the British Parliament introduced a censorship law called the Licensing Act. It was against that Act, that John Milton wrote his famous political essay Areopagitica in1644, as a defense of free expression. To paraphrase his essay in one sentence: “Truth is most likely to emerge in a free and open encounter.”

Milton was followed by other thinkers of the Enlightenment like Voltaire who promoted freedom of thought and expression and most importantly, the notion of tolerance through wit and political satire. Voltaire’s beliefs can effectively be summed up as, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Sweden became the first European country to abolish censorship in 1766, followed by Denmark and Norway in 1770. In France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, adopted after the French Revolution, included not only the right to free speech but also the right to own a printing press!

Shortly after that, came American Independence and the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution embodies to this day the strongest guarantee of free speech and secularism in the world:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The struggle for freedom and civil rights, including free speech, continued through the nineteenth century. John Mills’ work, On Liberty, published in 1859, became a classic defense of the right to freedom of expression. Mills argued that without human freedom and free discussion there could be no progress in science, law or politics.

While all this was happening in the West, our part of the world was being colonized by the British Empire, with the law introducing one restriction after another. The titles speak for themselves:

First Censorship Law (1799); Censorship Law Modifications (1813); Regulations for Registration (1823); Metcalfe’s Act of 1835 (Registration of the Press Act); New Regulations on Printing Presses (1857); Indian Penal Code (1860); Press and Registration Act 1867; Vernacular Press Act (1878); Criminal Procedure Code (1898); Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act (1908); Indian Press Act (1910); Official Secrets Act (1923); and Indian Press (Emergency Power) (1931).

It was not until after the Second World War, and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948 that freedom of speech came to be seen as a universally recognized human right. Article 19 of the UDHR proclaims: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Although a universal right, individual countries vary enormously in their interpretation of what constitutes free speech. Every country limits free speech to a greater or lesser extent.

Indeed, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself provides room for restriction, stating in article 19 (3) that the right “may be subject to certain restrictions provided by law and (that) are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”

These restrictions must be narrowly defined and interpreted, according to international law. But does that happen in practice? In actual fact, there are wide variations even among western democracies.

The US remains the strongest champion of freedom of speech. The only restrictions that the First Amendment recognizes are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence, and they too are interpreted very restrictively by the courts.

Let me share with you three leading decisions of the US Supreme Court which have protected and expanded media freedom as an essential element of democracy.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), during the days of the Civil Rights movement, concerned a full-page ad in the New York Times which alleged that the arrest of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King’s efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper and four black ministers who were listed as endorsers of the ad, claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. Because of factual errors in the ad, NYT could not claim truth as a defense and Sullivan won a $500,000 judgment in the first instance. NYT appealed to the US Supreme Court, claiming that the case had been brought to intimidate news organizations and prevent them from reporting illegal actions of public employees.

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth) Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions outstanding against news organizations by various Southern states in the U.S, and caused many publications to exercise great caution when reporting on civil rights breaches by official in the Southern States, for fear that they might be held accountable for libel. After The New York Times prevailed in this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements.

In the famous Pentagon Paper case, New York Times Company v. United States (1971), the government tried to block the New York Times from publishing official documents showing that the Nixon administration had lied about the Vietnam War to Congress and the public.

The Supreme Court set an even higher burden on the government and it could not obstruct the newspaper from publishing.

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people …” said Justice Black.

Going beyond press freedom the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the notion that even unpopular speech enjoys full First Amendment protection. In Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) the US Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, speech can be banned as incitement to violence only when it is intentional, illegal and the violence or harm is imminent, not just likely. If any of the three elements — intention, imminence, or lawlessness — is absent, the speech in question cannot be constitutionally forbidden.

Neither marches of the Ku Klux Clan, nor holocaust denial can be easily stopped in the U.S. Even burning the US flag is considered to be part of one’s freedom of speech! As the late Justice William Brennan put it, in a case involving flag burning, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

It is a far cry from the way in which courts have treated issues that the public in Bangladesh may find offensive on religious or political or ideological grounds.

European countries, while also protective of freedom of expression, do not go as far as the U.S. Most European countries have laws that ban “hate speech”, i.e. speech that incites racial or religious hatred. A number of them have laws that outlaw holocaust denial, and increasingly European countries are adopting laws banning speech or writing that is an “apology for terrorisms”.

Most European countries however do not ban speech that offends religious feelings. They do not recognize blasphemy as a crime. They see the criticism of religion – even in an offensive manner as was done by the Danish magazine and Charlie Hebdo – as part of their secular freedom.

In practice, however, the lines are not easy to draw between what is religious hatred and therefore banned, and what might be considered as blasphemous but nevertheless permissible as free speech in secular democracies. Recent laws banning speech that is considered to be “apology for terrorism” have added further to the confusion.

The state of freedom of expression in other parts of the world is very different. In Africa, Asia and many other parts of the world, blasphemy is on the statute books and enforced vigorously to silence any criticism of religion, whether Islam, Hinduism or Christianity. It is sometimes also used to silence political dissent and gain support from hardline religious.

In fact, look around the world and you see the slippery slope – restrictions on free speech introduced in the name of security or religion or public sensitivities but that become tools of repression favoring political incumbents. For instance, human rights groups say that in Rwanda, any statement that does not follow the official line on genocide is banned –ostensibly to avoid ethnic hatred but in reality to stifle criticism of the government.

In many countries the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, but laws on treason, counter-terrorism, blasphemy, criminal libel, publication of false news, even contempt of court are used to suppress media freedom and political criticism. If the law is not enough to chill free speech, then extremist violence acts as a veto, threatening, attacking and killing the critics, the bloggers or the zealous journalists with impunity.

In the words of the Economist, “When it is too risky even to report on restrictions to free speech, there is little left for the censors to do.”

Freedom of expression is the right to speak, it is also the right to hear. Informed political debate requires that this right be strongly protected, and it is only through free expression that individuals can take action to ensure that our governing institutions are held accountable. Restrictions on free speech must be very limited. Otherwise, if the government is allowed to decide which opinions can be expressed and which cannot, an open, vibrant and diverse society quickly breaks down. Similarly, when our court system is used to silence those with unpopular views, we all lose the opportunity to hear all sides of an issue and come to our own conclusions.

(End Part 1)

Excerpt:

By Neena Bhandari and Irene Khan
SYDNEY, Nov 22 2009 (IPS)

As the number of people living in poverty swell to over two billion, Amnesty International Secretary-General Irene Khan makes a strong argument for human rights to be made central to development and eradication of poverty.

In her book, ‘The Unheard Truth: Poverty and Human Rights’, she reveals through personal reflection and case studies why poverty is the worst form of human rights abuse: One billion people live in slums, one woman dies every minute in childbirth, 2.5 billion people have no access to adequate sanitation services, at least 963 million people go to bed hungry every night, and 20,000 children die a day from hunger.

Khan, who was in Australia last week and visited the Utopia Homelands in central Australia—a group of aboriginal communities comprising an estimated 45,000 population—drove home the crucial link between poverty and human rights when she called attention to the indigenous people’s dire living conditions in one of the world’s most developed countries.

“For a country which, by human development standards, is the third most developed in the world and one which has emerged from the global financial crisis comparatively unscathed, such a level of poverty is inexcusable, unexpected and unacceptable,” she said.

Khan, who is also the first woman and Asian to head the world’s largest human rights organisation for the past eight years, debunks the idea that freedom of market, economic growth, more aid and investment is the panacea for everything.

A graduate of Harvard Law School and winner of several prestigious awards, including the 2006 Sydney Peace Prize, Khan hopes the debate on poverty will also focus on fighting deprivation, exclusion, insecurity and powerlessness.

IPS: In your view economic solutions alone cannot fully address the problem of poverty. Do we need to change the way we view poverty and formulate policies to tackle poverty? IRENE KHAN: We see that discrimination, insecurity and voicelessness, the powerlessness of the poor as well as deprivation from basic needs play a very big part in keeping people poor. These issues—deprivation, discrimination, insecurity and voicelessness—are human rights problems and therefore you need a human rights strategy to tackle poverty.

IPS: You have provided a critique of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in your book. Worldwide, the number of people living in extreme poverty this year is now estimated to be 55 to 90 million, higher than was forecast before the recession. Will denying human rights pose a significant barrier to achieving MDGs? IK: The Millennium Development Goals have some advantages. They are focused. They allow entire international communities to work together and address some of the key development problems.

However, the weakness of the MDGs is that they don’t recognise that rights play a part in getting people out of poverty. So the MDGs don’t deal with discrimination, gender violence and participation of people in the development process. These are key issues that need to be tackled if we are to address poverty.

If you look at the MDGs, they are failing. Governments are failing; countries are failing to achieve the goals that have been set. One reason, not the only reason, why they are failing is their failure to address the human rights issue. Yes, Amnesty International believes that the MDGs need to be made more effective by incorporating the human rights approach. It’s the how, the Goals tell you what, but it doesn’t tell you how and human rights provide the how.

IPS: In the book you relate various instances of how, when poor people have no voice, they are excluded and unable to demand even the basic rights due to them. Are states failing the poor? IK: What I am saying in the book is that you need to have respect for economic, social and cultural rights, but also need to have respect for civil and political rights if you are going to eradicate poverty. To that extent you do need a government that is ready to be held accountable; you do need a transparent system of governance, and you do need space in which people can participate for an effective poverty eradication strategy.

IPS: What is the goal of your book coming at a juncture when there are many more poor people even in the developed countries following the global financial crisis? IK: The purpose of this book is to change the debate on poverty, to insert a human rights dimension in the poverty debate and to make the point that economics is not the only factor that needs to be taken into account in either defining poverty or resolving it.

IPS: Seventy percent of the world’s poor are women. The United Nations Population Fund report released a few days ago has said poor women bear the climate burden and have been worst hit and overlooked in the climate debate. Coming to another issue very close to your heart is that of maternal mortality. How do you think the world should address this major problem? IK: The tragedy is that the figures of maternal deaths globally have not shifted since the early 1990s. For almost two decades there has been very little progress, and that is the tragedy. Half a million women die in the prime of their life giving birth, and that is not a disease. And when a woman dies, the impact on the family is enormous.

The problem again why it has been so difficult to address maternal mortality is because it is very closely linked to the social status of women, to the secondary status of women in many situations and inability of women to access maternal health care.

Health systems have to take into account the views of women. It has to be culturally sensitive. It has to be where the women are, especially in rural areas you need to provide birth attendants, specialist emergency obstetrics care. And finally, there has to be accountability. Women have to be able to hold decision makers accountable for the provisions of health care.

IPS: You recently visited an Aboriginal town ironically named Utopia in the Northern Territory of Australia. Were you shocked to see people living in Third World conditions in a First World country? What should Australia and other countries be doing for their indigenous populations? IK: Yes, I was shocked because there is no reason for people to be living in those kinds of conditions. It is a rich country with resources and opportunities and therefore people should not have to live like that.

Well, the Australian Government has put forward plans like ‘Bridging the Gap’. There are a lot of resources available there. The Minister (for Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin) has described all the measures that have been taken there, but the key factor on which there needs to be more focus is these people and communities itself have to be involved in designing these projects.

IPS: Do you think today’s media is fair and unbiased in highlighting the cause of the poor or do you think in a way it has compounded their misery? IK: I think the problem with the media is that good news is not news and therefore when there are success stories about how communities managed to improve their situation—that is not reported in the media.

The other issue is that media tends to look for sensational stories, so there is a tendency to sensationalise things, and in some cases some populist media also seem to demonise poor people or minorities and therefore entrench the prejudice that exist, particularly in societies where there is a history of injustice.

IPS: Your book has a compelling title, ‘The Unheard Truth: Poverty and Human Rights’? What does ‘Unheard Truth’ signify? IK: The truth is that empowerment of people, respect for human right, is the way to overcoming poverty. That is the truth, but it is not being heard. Experience shows that when you respect people’s rights, when you empower people and they are able to stand up and claim their rights, that is where the success stories are.

That truth is not being heard and their voices are not being heard.

Excerpt:

By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, Dec 5 2008 (IPS)

Terrorists go on a rampage of senseless killing in Mumbai. Exhausted and terrified refugees pour into Uganda to escape the fighting in eastern Congo. Ten people are executed in Iran. Three hundred thousand civilians are displaced in northern Sri Lanka. Slowing rates of economic growth cast deep gloom around the world. Not a particularly auspicious moment to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. Anniversaries are a time for reflection and review. It is true that in many respects the human rights situation today is vastly improved from that in 1948. The equality of women, the rights of children, a free press and a fair judicial system are no longer disputed concepts but widely accepted standards that many countries have achieved and others are aspiring to. But it is equally true that injustice, impunity and inequality remain the hallmarks of our time. In 1948, in the face of the enormous challenges, world leaders turned to the Universal Declaration as the affirmation of their common humanity and the blue print for their collective security. Today\’s world leaders must do the same.

Anniversaries are a time for reflection and review. It is true that in many respects the human rights situation today is vastly improved from that in 1948. The equality of women, the rights of children, a free press and a fair judicial system are no longer disputed concepts but widely accepted standards that many countries have achieved and others are aspiring to. But it is equally true that injustice, impunity and inequality remain the hallmarks of our time.

If there is one lesson to be drawn from recent events in Mumbai, it is that our liberties remain precious, under threat, and in need of constant vigilance and protection. Governments have a duty to protect people from terrorism, and they will be under pressure -as happened after 9/11- to tighten security. But in that process they must not repeat the mistakes of the US-led War on Terror. Detaining people indefinitely, holding them in legal limbo in prisons like Guantanamo camp, condoning or conducting torture, weakening due process and the rule of law are not the way forward. Free societies are attacked by terrorists precisely because they are free. To erode our freedoms in the name of security is to hand victory to the terrorists.

It is not enough, though, simply to hold on to our rights. We must expand the benefits of human rights to all who are deprived, discriminated and excluded. The global financial crisis has shown how wrong was the assumption that unrestrained growth would inevitably lead to prosperity, and that the rising tide would lift all boats. The tide has become a tsunami swallowing not only big financial institutions but also the homes and hopes of many poor people around the world. Millions of people are being pushed back into poverty even as billions of dollars are being invested in bailing out those very institutions that have brought us to this state.

Wealthier nations have resources and established safety nets to help those who fall behind in their country. The poor in poor and emerging economies have to fend for themselves. Those with the least margin of survival will pay the most for the greed of the bankers in Wall Street and the City of London. Women working in a garment factory in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, miners hauling minerals from Mano River in West Africa, workers at an industrial estate in the Pearl River Delta in China, telephone operators at an outsourced office in Gurgaon, India will bear the heaviest brunt of the economic decline. If falling remittances and international aid force governments to cut back on social programmes and poverty eradication projects, the consequences could be disastrous.

In economic terms, growth is being wiped out. In human rights terms, the rights to food, education, housing, decent work and health are under attack. We face a dual challenge: fulfilling human rights in order to eradicate poverty and preserving human rights in the face of terrorism.

Human rights are universal ­every person is born free and equal in rights and dignity. Human rights are indivisible ­all rights, whether economic, social, civil, political or cultural- are equally important. There is no hierarchy of rights. Free speech is as essential as the right to education, the right to health as valuable as the right to a fair trial.

The tectonic plates of global power are shifting, and there is now realization among world leaders that they must work together if they are to deal with the economic maelstrom. The invitation extended by the US Administration recently to twenty leading economies of the world ­including China, Saudi Arabia, India, and Brazil- to plan a global response to the economic crisis is a concrete sign of the new drive to be inclusive.

Being inclusive does not only mean fitting more chairs around the existing table. It also means signing up to global values. The Universal Declaration provides those set of values.

In 1948, in the face of the enormous challenges, world leaders turned to the Universal Declaration as the affirmation of their common humanity and the blue print for their collective security. Today’s world leaders must do the same. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, May 28 2008 (IPS)

In the 60th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, world leaders must apologize for six decades of human rights failure, and re-commit to concrete action, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. In 1948 in a move of extraordinary leadership, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Today, it amounts to no more than paper promises for countless millions of people around the world. Amnesty International\’s Report 2008 paints a grim picture of the state of the world’s human rights in 150 countries. Civilians are treated as “fair game” by governments and armed groups in entrenched conflicts. Violence against women is pervasive in every region of the world. The absolute ban against torture and ill-treatment is being eroded. Political dissent is suppressed in many countries, and journalists and activists attacked and silenced. Hundreds of thousands of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are left unprotected. Despite unprecedented global prosperity, millions of people are being left behind. Big business is largely oblivious of its impact on human rights. Add to this dismal picture the human rights flashpoints around the world – in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza and Myanmar. The burning imperative for action is clear – but where is the leadership and political will? 2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle human rights problems

In 1948 in a move of extraordinary leadership, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Today, it amounts to no more than paper promises for countless millions of people around the world. Amnesty International’s Report 2008 paints a grim picture of the state of the world’s human rights in 150 countries. Civilians are treated as “fair game” by governments and armed groups in entrenched conflicts. Violence against women is pervasive in every region of the world. The absolute ban against torture and ill-treatment is being eroded. Political dissent is suppressed in many countries, and journalists and activists attacked and silenced. Hundreds of thousands of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers are left unprotected. Despite unprecedented global prosperity, millions of people are being left behind. Big business is largely oblivious of its impact on human rights. Add to this dismal picture the human rights flashpoints around the world – in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza and Myanmar. The burning imperative for action is clear – but where is the leadership and political will? 2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle human rights problems. Western governments have lost their moral authority as the world’s human rights champions through their own failure to respect the principles they call on others to uphold. The US Administration has flouted the most fundamental principles of human rights in the name of counter-terrorism. Hundreds of prisoners in Guantánamo and Bagram, and thousands in Iraq languish without charge or trial. Last July the US President authorized the CIA to continue secret detention and interrogation, contrary to international law. Over the past year, more evidence came to light of the collusion between some EU member states and the CIA to abduct, secretly detain and illegally transfer prisoners to countries where they were tortured or ill-treated. Despite repeated calls by the Council of Europe, no European government has fully investigated the wrongdoings, come clean and put in place adequate measures to prevent future use of European territory for rendition and secret detention. These actions have done nothing to further the fight against terrorism and a great deal to damage their ability to influence the behaviour of other governments on human rights issues. In Myanmar, when the military junta violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrations led by monks, the USA and the EU condemned their actions in the strongest terms and tightened their trade and arms embargoes, but with little or no effect on the human rights situation on the ground. In Darfur too, Western governments failed to make much of a dent. International outrage and widespread public mobilization etched the name of Darfur on world conscience but brought little change to the suffering of its people. Whether in the context of Darfur or Myanmar, it was to China that the world looked for action. As the largest trading partner of Sudan and the second largest of Myanmar, China had the necessary political and economic clout. Under pressure from the international community, China shifted its stance on Darfur in the UN Security Council and put pressure on the Myanmar junta to open dialogue with the UN. But China has long taken the position that human rights are an internal matter for sovereign states and not an issue of foreign policy – a position that serves China’s political and commercial interests well. Like China, Russia – another major player on the world scene – has not been vocal on human rights. Political dissent has been suppressed as “unpatriotic”, independent media has come under pressure and NGOs have been reined in with legislative control. Impunity prevails in Chechnya, driving some victims to seek justice in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. As the geopolitical order undergoes tectonic shifts, old powers are reneging on human rights. What are the prospects for new leadership? As a well-established liberal democracy with a strong legal tradition of human rights and an independent judiciary, India has the makings of a powerful role model. But it needs to be more forceful in its domestic implementation of rights and more forthright in its international leadership of human rights. Countries such as Brazil and Mexico have been strong on promoting human rights internationally but weak on implementation at home. South Africa’s ability to lead on human rights is being tested by its willingness to tackle Zimbabwe. On the other side, Australia’s new government has shown itself eager to set a new human rights agenda. The road ahead is rocky but not without hope. There is a global movement of people standing up for their rights and holding governments to account. Some of the most striking images of 2007 were of protests by monks in Myanmar, lawyers in Pakistan and women activists in Iran protesting. Worldwide, people who have been left behind because of broken promises are demanding justice, freedom and equality. New leaders are coming to power in key countries of the world. New powers are emerging on the world stage. They have an unprecedented opportunity to set a new paradigm for leadership. The UDHR is as relevant a blueprint for enlightened leadership today as it was in 1948. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, Dec 19 2007 (IPS)

December 10th marked the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which began a period of impressive development of international human rights standards, laws, and institutions that have improved the lives of many millions around the world, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. The year 2007, however, has brought grave human rights violations and the failure to protect the economic, social, and cultural rights of an important part of the global population. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, human rights are being violated, neglected, and eroded with audacity and impunity by governments, big business, and armed groups. Renewed commitment is needed by governments as well as civil society to convert rhetoric into reality, disillusionment and despair into hope and action. A global strategy of counter-terrorism, led by the US has undermined fundamental principles of human rights, while extremists and armed groups have unleashed a downward spiral of violence that has endangered the lives of ordinary people everywhere. Parliaments, courts and civil society must call for respect of human rights and the rule of law as the path to greater security.

The Universal Declaration reflects global values of equality and justice. It inspired the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa, and to promote democracy in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It has led to progress to end the death penalty, to outlaw torture, to promote the equality of women, to protect the rights of children, to turn the tide against impunity. Above all, it has moved a worldwide community of ordinary men and women to join in the fight for justice and equality for all.

But this is not only a moment for celebration and self-congratulation. It is also a time of challenge — the challenge of making rights real.

From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, human rights are being violated, neglected, and eroded with audacity and impunity by governments, big business, and armed groups. Renewed commitment is needed by governments as well as civil society to convert rhetoric into reality, disillusionment and despair into hope and action.

In Darfur, murder, rape, and violence continue unabated. It is not enough for world leaders to wring their hands in horror. We call on them to adequately resource the United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force so that it can protect people effectively.

In Zimbabwe, human rights defenders and political dissidents are being attacked, tortured, and thrown into prison without a fair trial. We call on governments like South Africa that have influence over President Robert Mugabe to exert pressure to bring an end to the violations.

In the Middle East impunity, injustice, and human rights abuses are a major obstacle to peace and justice, yet world leaders in the recent meeting in Annapolis paid scant attention to them. We call on the international community to put human rights at the centre of the political dialogue.

The International Olympics Committee recently met to assess progress towards the 2008 Olympics in China. The Committee must not overlook the repression by the Chinese authorities of activists who are protesting forcible evictions to clear land for the Olympics and other projects, or the restrictions on Chinese journalists and internet users. The Committee must use its influence with the Chinese government to end these practices, which are both contrary to human rights and to the spirit of the Games.

In Myanmar, crimson-robed monks courageously marched to protest the repression and impoverishment of their people but were brutally crushed by the military junta. The neighbouring governments of Myanmar are major trade partners of the military regime. They have power and influence that they must use to pressure the military regime to release opposition leaders and Nobel Peace Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and bring about change.

In Pakistan, lawyers who took to the streets to demand the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary fared no better than the Burmese monks – because like the Pakistani General too has powerful allies. The allies must prioritise human rights over political expediency and misguided security strategies.

A global strategy of counter-terrorism, led by the world’s most powerful government, has undermined fundamental principles of human rights, while extremists and armed groups have unleashed a downward spiral of violence that has endangered the lives of ordinary people everywhere. Parliaments, courts and civil society must call for respect of human rights and the rule of law as the path to greater security.

More attention and resources must be allocated to tackle the hidden or forgotten human rights scandals that destroy millions of lives and livelihoods. While the atrocities of wars make the newspaper pages, very few people are aware that violence against women causes more casualties than armed conflicts.

While world leaders remind us daily of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the sale and transfer of small arms and conventional weapons, which kill a thousand people a day continue unchecked.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights began as an initiative of governments but today it is the common endeavour of people everywhere. Every human has rights. That is the essence of our humanity. It places on each of us the duty to stand up, not just for our own rights but also for those of others. That is the spirit of international solidarity. That is the true meaning of universal, indivisible human rights. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

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:

By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, Jun 6 2005 (IPS)

A hooded prisoner balanced on a box with wires dangling from his outstretched arms. A naked man cowering in terror as soldiers threatened him with snarling dogs. A Quran being desecrated. \’\’Offensive.\’\’ \’\’Irresponsible.\’\’ \’\’Reprehensible.\’\’ \’\’Unfortunate and sad.\’\’ \’\’Absurd.\’\’ It would be natural to assume that these words were used to describe the horrific images detailed above — but they were not. In fact, they are the words used over recent weeks by senior US officials in response to Amnesty International\’s Report 2005, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. This defensive reaction was the latest in a long series of attempts by the US administration to deflect and divert attention from allegations of serious human rights abuses committed against detainees held in US custody in Guant namo, Bagram, and other undisclosed locations around the world. The outrage expressed by senior US officials including the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense at AI\’s condemnation of US policies and practices is not merely hypocritical but also a diversionary tactic to deflect attention from some hard truths. The Bush administration must stop attacking the messenger and begin dealing with the message, which is simple: close Guant namo detention camp and charge the detainees under US law in US courts or release them. Disclose the rest and carry out a full, independent investigation into US policies and practices on detention and interrogation including torture and ill-treatment.

”Offensive.” ”Irresponsible.” ”Reprehensible.” ”Unfortunate and sad.” ”Absurd.”

It would be natural to assume that these words were used to describe the horrific images detailed above — but they were not. In fact, they are the words used over recent weeks by senior US officials in response to Amnesty International’s Report 2005. This defensive reaction was the latest in a long series of attempts by the US administration to deflect and divert attention from allegations of serious human rights abuses committed against detainees held in US custody in Guant namo, Bagram, and other undisclosed locations around the world.

The might of the US administration has been turned on Amnesty International’s use of one word: ”gulag”. Amnesty International has never claimed that the degree of abuse at Guant namo equalled that of the Soviet gulags. By speaking of Guant namo ”as the gulag of our times” our point was that to many people in the world the detention centre at Guant namo Bay has become a symbol of human rights abuse of our age — just as the gulag had been of human rights abuses during the Stalinist era.

Over the past three and a half years, Amnesty International has produced several detailed reports on US policies and practices on human rights in the context of the ”War on Terror”. The most recent, containing 164 pages of evidence and analysis, was published just weeks before the launch of the 2005 AI Report. Another published in October 2004, ran to over 200 pages.

The Bush administration failed to respond to either of these reports. The outrage expressed by senior US officials –including the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense– to AI’s condemnation of US policies and practices is therefore not merely hypocritical but also a diversionary tactic to deflect attention from some hard truths.

Let’s get down to the substance. In President Bush’s statement of 31 May 2005, he accused AI of basing its information of the views of ”people who were held in detention, people who hate America”. If he had read our reports, he would have found that the mounting evidence of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guant namo, and secret locations elsewhere, comes not only from the detainees but from US official investigations and statements by US military personnel, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. This extensive body of evidence cannot be dismissed as the product of ”anti-Americanism”.

As the US administration knows full well, Guant namo is just the tip of an iceberg. Around the world, there are believed to be thousands of detainees held in secret, incommunicado, or indefinite detention without trial. Some have died in circumstances suggesting they were tortured to death while in US custody.

Others are said to be held by other governments with poor human rights records at the behest of the US, or with its knowledge. ”Extraordinary rendition” is the legal term used to gloss over the sub-contracting of torture. What it means in practice is that terrorist suspects are handed over for interrogation to countries known to practise torture. Not only is this wrong in itself, it also sends the message that the US condones torture and ill-treatment, and is prepared to turn a blind eye to repressive practices when convenient.

It is not correct to say that allegations of abuses by US personnel are fully investigated in a transparent way, as President Bush did. For while there have been reviews by some US government agencies of detention and interrogation policies and practices since the Abu Ghraib torture scandal came to light, none of the investigations to date has been fully independent, none has had the scope to review actions by all government actors, and most of the findings have been kept classified. Certain practices still remain shrouded in secrecy, including the alleged involvement of the CIA in secret detentions and transfers of detainees to countries with records of torture.

Not a single senior official of the US administration has been held to account, and not a single US agent has been charged under the Anti-Torture Act or War Crimes Act — despite numerous deaths of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bush administration must stop attacking the messenger and begin dealing with the message, which is simple: Close Guant namo detention camp and charge the detainees under US law in US courts or release them. Disclose the rest and carry out a full, independent investigation into US policies and practices on detention and interrogation including torture and ill-treatment.

The United States can be a powerful force for ensuring respect for human rights worldwide. However, the US government will be drained of moral power to criticise others until it begins to uphold human rights and the rule of international law itself. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Irene Khan and - -
LONDON, Jan 24 2005 (IPS)

To mark the twentieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, Amnesty International published a report that documented the continuing plight of people who continue to suffer chronic and debilitating illnesses for which treatment is largely ineffective, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. In this article, Khan writes that the Bhopal disaster is a prime case of the failure of international and national law to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses. Notwithstanding the far-reaching impact of companies on human rights, most companies oppose any move towards binding regulations. Instead, following several high-profile cases and public pressure, some business sectors have drawn up voluntary codes of conduct, but these have failed to reduce the negative consequences of corporate behaviour on human rights. Under the current state of law, national systems are effectively unwilling or unable to hold companies operating in their countries accountable. Governments are afraid that, in a globalised economy, if they exercise strict control over businesses, foreign investors will go elsewhere. Companies must be brought within the framework of international human rights law. Yet global rules governing trade and investment are being drawn up without regard to their human rights impact. Amnesty International believes that the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (UN Norms) are the logical next step in a strategy to develop corporate legal accountability This column is part of the series on Globalisation and Human Rights, a joint project of Dignity International and IPS Columnist Service (http://www.dignityinternational.org).

Efforts by survivors organizations to seek justice in US and Indian courts and gain adequate redress have so far been unsuccessful. The transnational corporations involved Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and Dow Chemicals (which took over UCC in 2001) have publicly stated that they have no responsibility for the leak and its consequences or for the pollution from the plant. UCC continues to refuse to appear before the court in Bhopal to face trial. The final settlement negotiated by the government of India was clearly inadequate and has left most survivors without compensation or redress.

The Bhopal disaster is a prime case of the failure of international and national law to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses. When financial interests are at stake, many companies prefer to live with the risk of accidents and pay fines or damages if things go wrong, rather than invest in protecting the human rights of their staff and the community in which they operate. For victims, litigation is expensive and time-consuming. Large corporations have far greater resources than individual litigants who are often from poor and vulnerable groups, like the Bhopal victims.

For better or worse, companies are in a position to dramatically influence the lives and human rights of millions of people. As the process of economic globalization has significantly expanded, so has the reach of corporate power. Many businesses operate across boundaries in ways that exceed the regulatory capacities of any one national system. On the positive side business activities provide employment for countless millions; on the negative side companies may abuse human rights through their employment practices or their production processes, harming workers, communities, and the environment, or through their association with repressive authorities and security forces.

Notwithstanding the far-reaching impact of companies on human rights, most companies oppose any move towards binding regulations. Instead, following several high-profile cases and public pressure, some business sectors have drawn up voluntary codes of conduct, to guide their performance in their own operations and within their sphere of influence. Voluntary codes of conduct carry no legal authority or accountability mechanism.

While existing initiatives, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Global Compact, and the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, are useful in raising awareness of corporate social responsibility and promoting good practice, they have failed to reduce the negative consequences of corporate behaviour on human rights.

Under the current state of law, national systems are effectively unwilling or unable to hold companies operating in their countries accountable. Governments are afraid that, in a globalised economy, if they exercise strict control over businesses, foreign investors will go elsewhere. The complex structure of multinationals headquarters in one country, subsidiaries and operations in others creates real obstacles for local courts in exercising jurisdiction over the entire corporation. Many individuals fear reprisal and if they are employed by the company they fear losing their jobs.

In the Niger Delta; and Sudan, recent reports by Amnesty show that holding companies (in particular transnational corporations) accountable at national level is difficult and very often ineffective. The debate on business and human rights has not given enough attention to the rule of law and international human rights law.

Companies must be brought within the framework of international human rights law. Yet global rules governing trade and investment are being drawn up without regard to their human rights impact. Consider agreements reached between consortia developing large projects and states receiving foreign investment, like the one signed between the consortium developing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and the Turkish government. A report from Amnesty International showed that the legal agreements effectively create a ‘rights-free corridor’ for the pipeline. The agreement risked lowering existing standards: it blatantly disregarded human rights obligations requiring the Turkish state to intervene at an early stage when there is a danger that could threaten life, and substituted the softer stipulation that Turkey may only intervene when there is “an imminent material threat” to safety or security. Business and governments reach such agreements because of the increased negotiating power of corporate actors, and because they cannot be held legally accountable for human rights.

Amnesty International believes that the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (UN Norms) are the logical next step in a strategy to develop corporate legal accountability.

The Norms are not legally-binding but they are important because they are the first authoritative and comprehensive document that sets out the human rights responsibilities of companies, based on existing international law and standards. They offer a statement of principles, not a detailed regulatory framework, allowing national governments and other bodies to build on them.

While some companies have set out to test the feasibility of the Norms, unfortunately some others, including corporate actors and governments, have reacted negatively, attacking and undermining the Norms as yet another constraint on business. If the Norms are to survive this onslaught, human rights defenders, trade unions and other advocates must stand up in their defence.

Let us not kid ourselves. Building agreement on the Norms will not be easy in this difficult period of economic and political uncertainty. But companies cannot escape responsibility or be silent witnesses to widespread human rights violations. Human rights are not a luxury for good times they must be respected and upheld at all times under all circumstances, by all actors, state or corporate. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: