By Louise Arbour and - -
GENEVA, Feb 2 2006 (IPS)

At the conclusion of the World Summit in New York last September, all member states of the United Nations accepted the principle that national governments have the primary responsibility for preventing crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing, writes Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, Arbour writes that the responsibility to protect focuses on preventing abuses as much as, if not more, than on intervening once those abuses are already underway. In today\’s world the greatest threat to the right to life is neither war nor arbitrary killing. Each year, about 530,000 women die in pregnancy or in childbirth, and more than 10 million children die before their fifth birthday. Worldwide, AIDS killed more than 3 million people last year alone. These deaths constitute human rights violations and are as much an affront and a threat to human security, as are arbitrary detention or torture. They represent an equally flagrant abuse of the right to life for those affected, threaten security and stifle human development. And they are equally demanding of an urgent response, at national, regional and international levels.

By committing to take responsibility for protection, the international community has acknowledged for the first time that serious human rights violations in and of themselves require an international response, regardless of whether or not they constitute a threat to international peace and security as classically understood.

It is too early to say whether this step constitutes a real breakthrough in our approach to defending the right to life. Political commitments are meaningful only to the extent that they are acted on in practice. One may question whether the United Nations –by which I mean the Member States– currently has the real capacity and the will to fulfil this obligation to protect in the face of defaulting states.

But in a sense, this is precisely the significance of the undertaking. The concept of the responsibility to protect articulates a basis for intervention in the face of our continued tolerance for violations of the right to life.

The right to life is the corner stone of all other human rights. It constitutes an inherent and ”supreme” right that reflects the most central values of humankind: self-preservation and dignity. Ensuring that this right is realised in full will provide the surest means available to prevent the recurrence of the kinds of mass violations that World Summit was seeking to halt.

For that reason, conceiving of the responsibility to protect only in the context of the four international crimes I mentioned above, as serious and heinous as these are, misses the point and unduly trammels our thinking.

Arguably, poverty, hunger, educational deficits, restricted access to health, inequitable distribution of resources, discrimination, and an absence or erosion of justice and of the rule of law generate more insecurity, lead to more instability and endanger more lives than those ultimate violations on which the responsibility to protect currently focuses.

As long as we continue to remain within the confines of the old, unspoken orthodoxies which view human rights as inherently intrusive and antithetical to state interests; as so long as we continue to view human rights violations as being of concern only when committed on a scale such as to threaten international peace and security; and, in this regard, as long as we remain blind to the fact that the root of our collective security lies in our individual well-being, then the rhetoric of New York will amount to nothing.

Yet there are causes for optimism.

First, there has been real progress in reconciling respect for state sovereignty with the understanding that such a concept does not relieve the international community of its responsibility to protect human rights and punish those guilty of mass human rights violations.

And second, the responsibility to protect focuses on preventing abuses as much as, if not more, than on intervening once those abuses are already underway. In 1998, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that the 21st century ”must be the age of prevention”. I see the responsibility to protect as a declaration of a common preventive policy, one which will address not only manifest violations of the right to life but also their root causes and that this approach is required for reasons of law, morality and efficiency.

In today’s world the greatest threat to the right to life is neither war nor arbitrary killing. Each year, about 530,000 women die in pregnancy or in childbirth, and more than 10 million children die before their fifth birthday. More than one billion people lack access to safe water and 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation. These factors contribute to the spread of diseases, which kill an estimated 3,900 children every day. Twenty-five million people are currently living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, of whom only 4 percent have access to the medicines they need to survive. Worldwide, AIDS killed more than 3 million people last year alone.

These deaths constitute human rights violations and are as much an affront and a threat to human security, as are arbitrary detention or torture. They represent an equally flagrant abuse of the right to life for those affected, threaten security and stifle human development. And they are equally demanding of an urgent response, at national, regional and international levels. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Louise Arbour and - -
GENEVA, Jun 1 2005 (IPS)

In the face of terrorism, the politics of fear call for a total surrender of liberty in favour of security, secrecy, randomness, racial profiling, involuntary renditions, and the use of torture, writes Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, Arbour writes that the international human rights framework stands as a counterweight to the politics of fear. A response to insecurity based on human rights is both more balanced and rational, and presents the singular advantage of dismantling, rather than perpetrating, the root causes of insecurity. Arbour asserts that human rights do not impede the protection of national security but are, at least in democratic societies, at the heart of national identity. Indeed, in my view, a country and the ideals it stands for are as much at risk of destruction from the collapse of its human rights norms and the rule of law that protects them as they are from the explosion of bombs on its territory. The most profound insecurity does not emanate from foreign threats but from internal temptations to allow to erode the foundations upon which national identity is built. To fight insecurity within the framework of human rights is to fight with our strongest weapon: our deepest values. This is the protection of human security in the most profound sense.

As a judge in Canada and as prosecutor for the international tribunals for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), I gained valuable insight into what underpins the most spontaneous acts of humanity, generosity and compassion, and also what lies behind the worst violations of human rights. Fear is often at the source of these actions, which are at both extremes of the spectrum of human interaction.

Globally, insecurity is fuelled by terrorism, the proliferation and relentlessness of armed conflicts, and the persistence of extreme poverty and deprivation in a world of visible comfort and consumerism for the fortunate.

Fear is at once the best and the worst of advisors. It triggers an appropriate sense of alertness but may produce a premature, irrational response.

In the face of terrorism, the politics of fear call for a total surrender of liberty in favour of security, secrecy, randomness, racial profiling, involuntary renditions, and the use of torture. In armed conflict, fear often gives rise to an escalation of militarism, repression, indoctrination, and the use of child soldiers.

In the face of extreme poverty, the politics of fear can have a perverse two-pronged effect: it provides an inappropriate survival tool for the poor, one that leads to radicalism, gangsterism, and religious extremism. It can also provide an inappropriate tool for the self-preservation of the rich, one that leads to exclusion, the “gated” mentality, and escapism through consumerism.

These consequences of the politics of fear globally translate into racism and xenophobia, which are nothing but ‘fear of the other’. The politics of fear feeds upon itself, and leads to more fear.

The international human rights framework stands as a counterweight to the politics of fear. It provides the only reasoned and legitimate alternative to irrational reactions triggered by fear.

A response to insecurity based on human rights is both more balanced and rational, and presents the singular advantage of dismantling, rather than perpetrating, the root causes of insecurity.

Human rights are not a luxury that can be enjoyed after development and security are fully secured. Rather, they are a precondition of both, an antidote to the politics of fear which perpetuates both underdevelopment and insecurity.

Human rights provide a framework for resolving disputes –even those engaging our most fundamental values and beliefs– that relies on rationality, impartiality, and reason rather than force, intransigence, and intolerance.

As the preamble of the Universal Declaration makes clear, only human rights protected by the rule of law prevent individuals from being ”compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression”.

Human rights ensure the surrender of hostility to dignity and liberty. They are fundamentally a recognition of the rights of others. When we are asked to decide how much of our liberty we are willing to abandon for our security, we are asked, in reality, how much of the liberty of others we are willing to sacrifice for our own security: how many of my compatriots am I willing to allow to be transferred to countries where they will likely be tortured in order for me to feel secure? How many foreigners am I willing to allow to be detained indefinitely without charges if that is what it takes for me to feel secure?

Obviously, we never hear the question put this way: am I willing to subject myself to arbitrary detention or to the risk of torture so that my neighbour feels safer?

Human rights do not impede the protection of national security; they are, at least in democratic societies, at the heart of national identity. Indeed, in my view, a country and the ideals it stands for are as much at risk of destruction from the collapse of its human rights norms and the rule of law that protects them as they are from the explosion of bombs on its territory.

The most profound insecurity does not emanate from foreign threats but from internal temptations to allow to erode the foundations upon which national identity is built; it may not be as immediate and palpable as that triggered by a bomb, but it is perhaps deeper. To fight insecurity within the framework of human rights is to fight with our strongest weapon: our deepest values. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Louise Arbour and - -
GENEVA, Jan 1 2005 (IPS)

The challenge before us today is to use the many opportunities globalisation offers to deliver human dignity for all, writes Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, the author writes that the power of human rights lies not just in their expression of an aspiration but in their articulation of a legal framework which binds us all. In this age of rapid globalisation, decisions that directly affect people\’s lives are taken beyond national borders; accordingly, it is crucial that we strengthen the capacity of states to defend human rights and the rule of law and to resist policies that will have negative consequences on human rights of their people. The protection of human rights at the country level is critical if international standards, norms, and laws are to have practical effects on the ground. Only when national laws, institutions and procedures effectively work in this direction can the protection of human rights be ensured. This column is part of the special series on \”Globalisation & Human Rights\”, a joint effort of Dignity International (http://www.dignityinternational.org) and the IPS Columnist Service.

The globalisation process continues at its rapid pace, bringing opportunities for a better life for many but also increasing risks of social exclusion and poverty for others. At the same time, most aspects of our lives are affected for the better by the universal application of human rights, while the overwhelming consequences of the denial of human rights on our existence are negative.

The challenge before us today is to use the many opportunities globalisation offers to deliver human dignity for all.

The power of human rights lies not just in their expression of an aspiration but in their articulation of a legal framework which binds us all. Since the inception of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international community has developed a body of norms and standards that has given effect to the fundamental principles contained in the Declaration.

Every State in the world today has voluntarily accepted binding human rights obligations by being party to one or more of the seven core human rights conventions. Giving primacy to this body of law helps us to place all human beings at the centre of often complex policy debates and laws that uphold dignity, equality, and justice.

In this age of rapid globalisation, decisions that directly affect people’s lives are taken beyond national borders; accordingly, it is crucial that we strengthen the capacity of states to defend human rights and the rule of law and to resist policies that will have negative consequences on human rights of their people.

The protection of human rights at the country level is critical if international standards, norms, and laws are to have practical effects on the ground. Only when national laws, institutions and procedures effectively work in this direction can the protection of human rights be ensured.

Ensuring respect for one particular set of rights is especially challenging. States have affirmed repeatedly the indivisibility of all human rights, yet economic, social and cultural rights have not always enjoyed the same level of legal protection as civil and political rights. The growing jurisprudence from national courts, as well as from regional human rights mechanisms, demonstrates that economic, social, and cultural rights do lend themselves to judicial remedies in cases of clear violation.

In this regard we must make possible the implementation of the rights enshrined by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights subject to an individual communications procedure.

Like civil and political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights may have cost implications. But detailed analysis and jurisprudence from different political, economic, and legal systems show that it is a myth that economic, social, and cultural rights are uniquely and consistently “expensive”.

In fact, all human rights norms require rationality and equity in resource allocation, as well as determined efforts to make progress within existing resource constraints.

There is a growing recognition that human rights and human development share a common purpose: to enhance human capabilities and generate opportunities to live a life of dignity, equality, and well-being. Against this backdrop the right to development highlights how the process of policy formulation and the implementation of development programmes could benefit from human rights principles.

There is no question that States have the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development, and the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasised. At the same time, the international community has the responsibility to create an international environment conducive to the realisation of this right. This is the principle behind the Secretary-General’s recent report recommending that rich countries double their investments in poor countries to reach the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of halving extreme poverty by 2015 and eliminating it by 2025.

I believe the adoption of a human rights-based approach to decision-making on trade, financial flows, information, communications, and migration increases the beneficial impact of international economic integration and minimises its harmful consequences. We need to explore further the specific links between finance, trade, and human rights, but it is clear that human rights ought to be primary and that there should be compatibility and compliance of international financial and trading rules with international human rights law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that every individual and ”every organ of society [shall] strive

-to promote respect for these rights and freedoms, [and]

-to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance”.

As we address the links between human rights and economic and development issues we need to clarify the responsibilities of non-state economic actors.

Here, I have in mind, in particular, the important debate concerning the human rights role and responsibility of business entities — including transnational corporations.

Finally, a word on terrorism. We need to place a high priority on ensuring respect for human rights while we, as a global community, take firm steps to eradicate terrorism. We have all been horrified by the continuing, brutal acts of terrorism that have been committed in recent months and years around the world. Words can scarcely convey the repugnance we feel towards such behaviour.

At the same time, we must confront these acts within the framework of existing rights and the rule of law. Deeply entrenched rights have been rolled back in the name of ”the war on terrorism”. This is neither principled nor effective.

Another year has just begun but we have the same resolve to continue in our efforts to build a better world — a world of human dignity for all.

Human rights are more than just good ideas or distant goals. They provide a moral, ready and a rigorous framework to empower people from around the world to shape a new globalisation that benefits all. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: