Mary Robinson with Elizabeth Wathuti at COP26 in Glasgow. Credit: The Elders

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Mar 7 2022 (IPS)

Women are already leaders on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Sisters Nina and Helena Gualinga of the Kichwa Sarayaku community in Ecuador work tirelessly to protect Indigenous land. Archana Soreng from the indigenous Khadia tribe in Odisha, India is a talented climate researcher and advisor to the United Nations Secretary General. Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate is encouraging a whole generation of young people to fight for their right to a safe future. There are thousands of other women and girls working tirelessly to protect our planet whose names I do not know but who deserve to be acknowledged this International Women’s Day too.

Many women and girls working in the fight against climate change have stepped into leadership not out of choice but out of necessity – the brunt of the climate emergency, which amplifies existent inequalities, is often felt hardest by women and girls.

Women’s vulnerability to climate change is social, economic, and cultural. Women in climate vulnerable nations tend to be highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihoods, particularly in rural areas where they shoulder the responsibility for household supplies. However, women must not be seen as passive victims of climate change but as active and effective agents of change.

Women have long been the custodians of the environment in many traditional societies. It is women who are often the providers of food, the stewards of seed banks, and the decision-makers at household level. It is often women who are the early adopters of new techniques and who are frequently the first responders in disaster situations. Our world is also full of remarkable women leading the way as climate scientists, litigators, community organisers, business owners, policy-makers, inventors and more.

While it is important for us to celebrate the vital contributions of women and girls around the world in tackling the climate emergency, we must in turn recognise the gender inequality at the heart of this crisis. The gendered dimensions of climate change and its responses are still insufficiently addressed in either emerging climate finance architecture or in most countries’ strategies for climate mitigation and adaptation.

As exposed in last month’s IPCC report, the threat of climate change reaches across sectors, regions and populations. Tackling it will require all of humanity’s ideas, efforts, and innovations. Ensuring that diverse populations are represented in key decision-making processes is essential if we are to succeed in this colossal task.

We must start to see scaled-up funding for women’s capacity building as well as strengthened efforts to support women and girls to lead on addressing climate change at community, national, and international level.

According to Oxfam, the latest figures show that only 1.5 percent of overseas climate-related development funds named gender equality as their primary objective. Of this, only 0.2 percent was reaching organisations led by women or for women. Things are slowly improving, but there is still a long way to go.

The Elders – the group of independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights that I chair – are calling for more investment for climate vulnerable nations so that millions more women and girls can build resilience to climate and disaster risks. A crucial element of that must be increased financial support for adaptation as well as mitigation.

At COP26 international leaders signed a statement calling for the role of women to be advanced in addressing climate change. This statement remains open for signatures from nation states until the 66th meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, to be held later this month: an event that will have a focus on women’s empowerment in the context of climate change, the environment and disaster risk reduction.

Pledges made on gender-just climate action, like the ones made at COP26 and earlier in 2021 at the Generation Equality Forum, are important; but we now need to see those promises transformed into action. Equitable and inclusive decision-making means not only ensuring that women and girls are always at decision-making tables but also that women and girls from particularly marginalised groups such as indigenous and rural communities are there too.

At COP26, there was a lack of female representation across the board when it came to climate discussions – it was too male, pale and stale. COP27 must not look like that.

This International Women’s Day should be the last one where we are left discussing a lack of representation in climate decision making. When women and girls are excluded from informing climate negotiations and implementation processes, it undermines efforts to protect our collective future.

A young climate activist I greatly admire, Elizabeth Wathuti from Kenya, recently said: “I believe in our human capacity to care deeply and act collectively.” Like Elizabeth, I believe in humanity enough to still have hope that we can do what is needed to address the climate crisis – but it will take all of us.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Mary Robinson

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Mar 5 2021 (IPS)

International Women’s Day is always an occasion to celebrate strong women and an important day in the global calendar to highlight the gender injustices still lingering in every part of the world.

In 2021, our celebrations will be bittersweet as we reflect on the sacrifices and hardships women have endured amid the pandemic, but I hope it will also spur us forward to ensure women and girls shape a more equal future as the world recovers from COVID-19.

The past 12 months have seen new barriers emerge to gender equality linked to the pandemic, in addition to the pre-existing social and systemic discrimination. Across the world, women are facing increased domestic violence, unpaid care duties, unemployment and poverty.

Women stand at the frontlines of the COVID-19 crisis and the jobs which have been revealed to be essential during the pandemic — from health and social care to low-paid services — are predominantly held by women.

While most of the world has implemented considerable restrictions of movement and emergency powers affecting daily life, authoritarian regimes in particular have exploited the public health crisis as an excuse to continue and even step up patterns of political repression and oppression, with women in the firing line.

One such country is Zimbabwe, where emergency powers prompted by the pandemic have been used to oppress legitimate political gatherings and protests. In 2019, I visited Zimbabwe with my fellow Elder Graça Machel, where we met with extraordinary women from all parts of society who described their pains and struggles, but also their hope of a better society. On this International Women’s Day, I reaffirm my solidarity with their struggle for rights and justice and applaud their determination to build a better future for their children.

Across the world, I have been inspired by young women activists and leaders describing themselves as “intersectional environmentalists”, who work across traditional silos to advance women’s rights and climate justice. I share their view that these goals cannot be separated from wider struggles to end other forms of discrimination, exclusion and injustice including racism, sectarianism and prejudice based on sexuality and gender.

The pandemic has indeed shone an unflattering light on global inequalities and exposed the intersectionality between gender, poverty and age.

I often think back to the impassioned speech in 2019 by the American climate activist Jamie Margolin. Jamie was only 17 years old when she testified at Capitol Hill about the climate crisis and climate injustices. She made headlines by interrupting when she felt her voice was not being listened to with the urgency and seriousness that the situation demanded. Her anger was justified, and sits in the context of decades if not centuries of women’s frustrations at being told to stay quiet when men are speaking.

Women’s voices must be heard in the debates on the global recovery from COVID-19. When women and youth come together, they can renew a country. It is absolutely crucial that they are present in a meaningful way and given a seat at the table at the COP26 climate summit later this year.

It is our responsibility as global leaders to include the crucial voices of women, youth and marginalised groups and countries. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we are inextricably interconnected.

We have seen how countries led by women have often fared better in the pandemic and demonstrated their skills and ability to effectively guide their countries in times of crisis. Yet, women are (elected) heads of state and government in only 20 countries worldwide.

We must follow the example of Finland’s Sanna Marin, New Zealand’s Jacinda Arden and Germany’s Angela Markel and demonstrate impactful feminist leadership, starting at COP26 and across the next decade in order to fully achieve the promise of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

I am also delighted that the World Trade Organization has just elected Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as its new Director-General – the first woman, and the first African, to lead the WTO in its history. I know she will be a powerful voice for equality, justice and inclusion in the critical debates ahead.

Despite the myriad of intertangled injustices that have been building up for centuries, I see many reasons to stay hopeful.

Gender inequality is not an issue that sits on its own and International Women’s Day inspires me to fight for a post-pandemic world free from all injustices, instead of going back to our old ways before COVID-19 struck.

While many of us still cannot see our children and grandchildren amid the virus, I urge you to envision and act powerfully for a safe future for them as well as for those yet to come.

I know that I stand alongside legions of women fighting for justice, be it physically or virtually, and that we all stand alert and ready to build a safe, just future for us all.

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, Chair, The Elders

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Mary Robinson

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Sep 16 2020 (IPS)

The impacts of crises are never gender-neutral and COVID-19 is no exception. The pandemic has resulted in increased rates of violence against women and has exacerbated challenges in accessing justice. Women are losing their livelihoods faster than men.

Millions of women are assuming disproportionate responsibility for caregiving. Many women have found themselves unable to access contraception and other sexual and reproductive health services. UN experts predict that as many as 13 million more child marriages could take place over the next 10 years because of COVID-19 shutdowns of schools and family planning services combined with increasing economic challenges.

Women and girls from marginalised and minority communities are especially at risk – in the United Kingdom for example, black women are over four times more likely than white women to die from COVID-19.

COVID-19 risks damaging much of the progress towards gender equality that myself and other women activists have spent our lives working towards. As the Chair of The Elders, a group of independent global leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela, I have the privilege to work alongside two other women who were, like me, the first women leaders in their countries – Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. I also seek to serve Mandela’s vision of a world of peace, justice and human rights alongside pioneering human rights lawyer, Hina Jilani, who set up the first law firm for women in Pakistan and Graça Machel, a tireless fighter for women’s education and emancipation. We are all deeply concerned that women already seem to be bearing the brunt of the socio-economic fallout from COVID-19, and that this pandemic may deepen the gender inequality rift.

This year we commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, where representatives from all 189 nations committed to “the full and equal participation of women in political, civil, economic, social, and cultural life.” We have made positive strides in the last 25 years: more girls than ever are completing primary school; the proportion of young women married as children has declined globally from 1 in 4 to approximately 1 in 5.

However, as a major report to mark the anniversary notes, we now need a new roadmap for progressing gender equality that draws on the wisdom and experience of leading women from across every sector, as well as new younger voices.

COVID-19 has starkly exposed underlying inequalities and reminded us all that rights on paper are not necessarily rights in practice. I am disappointed at the slow progress on women’s political representation and leadership. Fifteen countries now have women in the highest position of political power – up from 5 in 1980, but down from the peak of 18 in 2018. The number of women in parliaments remains less than 25 percent on average. This under-representation of women in positions of political power and influence appears to be replicated within COVID-19 task forces. However, we have seen that countries led by women seem to have been very effective in managing the pandemic.

Seeing how women and girls are rising to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic is what gives me hope and spurs me on. The examples are many. Dejana Stosic leads a civil society organisation in Serbia, Human Rights Committee Vranje, that provides a free 24-hour online service to support survivors of gender based violence. Jamie Margolin is a young climate activist using her platform to raise awareness about the intersection of COVID-19, the climate crisis and racial injustice. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is working with several women leaders across Africa who are successfully advancing the fight against COVID-19.

Women’s leadership at all levels must be at the core of the response to the pandemic if we are to prevent a roll back on women’s rights. We need to support the collective action of women, particularly grassroots groups, and stand in solidarity with, and encourage, the next generation of leaders.

History has shown us that crises can also produce some of the most seismic changes. One of my great feminist heroines is Rosa Luxemburg, who fought for freedom in Poland and Germany before, during and after the First World War. Just over a century, she declared that “freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently”.

Now, more than ever, we need to think differently about justice and gender equality. As the world charts a course for a post-pandemic future, we need to draw on our collective strength – rethink, reset and build a better world for future generations.

Excerpt:

Exclusive to IPS

By Mary Robinson
DUBLIN, Mar 4 2016 (IPS)

“Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality” – the theme of this year’s International Women’s Day serves as a timely reminder that, despite incremental progress of recent years and the ambition of the new global development agenda, we must redouble efforts to achieve a world underpinned by gender equality. All women must be empowered to realise their full and equal rights. But what does it actually mean to step it up for gender equality?

Mary Robinson

For me, this requires targeted approaches to ensure that all women have a voice in the formulation of decisions that impact upon their lives. This is particularly important when it comes to facilitating the engagement of grassroots women. To realise the “leave no-one behind” approach called for in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the commitment “to reach the furthest behind first”, grassroots women must be recognised as key actors in global sustainable development.

Grassroots women around the world hold a wealth of knowledge which we will need to manage the impacts of climate change and accelerate sustainable development. However, in order to properly value this knowledge and put it to use, women must be allowed to participate meaningfully in the design, planning and implementation of policies and programmes that impact on their lives. Ensuring women’s voices are heard and their needs acted uponis central to advancing climate justice.

The impacts of climate change are different for women and men.

Grassroots women are more likely to bear the greater burden in the face of climate change, particularly in situations of poverty. Climate change exacerbates existing patterns of inequality, including gender inequality. Grassroots women have limited access to productive resources; restricted mobility and little voice in decision makingleave them highly vulnerable to climate change. Climate policy, to be effective, must understand these underlying inequalities in order to address the different ways in which climate effects grassroots women.

Enabling the meaningful participation of women is not just the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do. The global development sector has learned, sometimes the hard way, that programmes designed for vulnerable communities, without engaging with the women of the community, rarely achieve their desired outcomes. This important lesson is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goal 5 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls) which includes a target to: ‘Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life’. This need is particularly acute in the case of grassroots women. Unfortunately, the importance of including women in decision making and promoting women’s leadership is less well understood by the climate regime. Yet the majority of those on the front lines of poverty and climate change are women.

Some progress has made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 2012 the Parties to the Convention adopted the Doha Miracle (Decision 23/CP.18), a decision to enhance the participation of women in climate change negotiations.Parties will review progress against the ambition this decision at COP 22 in November. When they do, however, they will see that only slight gains have been made in terms of equality of representation at negotiations. For instance, the latest UNFCCC Gender Composition Report highlights that only 36% of delegates were women at COP 20, and this figure drops to 26% when considering heads of delegations. In Lima Parties agreed to commence the Lima work programme on gender, a two year exploration of the gender dimensions of climate change and the Paris Agreement on climate change recognises the need for gender equality and women’s empowerment.

These are all signs of progress, but a lot more needs to be done to be done in order for women’s voices to be thoroughly included in the formation of climate action. A key next step is investment in training and capacity building for grassroots women in order to enable full and effective participation. This is captured in SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts) which includes a target which calls on States to promote capacity building mechanisms in small island developing states and least developed countries to assist women, youth and local and marginalised communities to take part in climate change-related planning and management. Operationalising this target will be critical to achieving a harmonised and people centred approach to both the sustainable development agenda and the new climate agreement.

In 2015, the global community laid a foundation upon which we can build a safer world with opportunity for all. In concluding the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change, world leaders signalled a willingness to change course – to leave behind the unequal and unsustainable traditional development models and move towards a future free from poverty and want, with abundant clean energy and a healthy environment.

In 2016 we begin to plan and implement these two ambitious, universal international processes; we must ensure that women’s voices, and human rights, inform our actions. Grassrootswomen must not be seen simply as passive recipients of climate assistance. They are key actors in achieving their right to development. By acknowledging grassroots women as agents of change within their communities, valuing their knowledge and building their capacity to adapt, decision makers can develop sustainable, long term climate solutions at a local level which will strengthen whole communities.

As we “step it up for gender equality”, I call on all those in positions of influence to provide the platforms for grassroots women to speak to for themselves. Listening to, and valuing,theirknowledge and experiencewill help to shape progresstowards 2030 that is good for people, the planet and gender equality.

(End)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson
GLASGOW, Jun 22 2008 (IPS)

Mary Robinson spoke to Nastasya Tay of TerraViva/IPS about human rights today and the new campaign Every Human Has Rights, on the sidelines of the eighth CIVICUS World Assembly (Jun. 18-21).

Mary Robinson marching -- 'the world upside down'. Credit: Per Herbertsson

IPS: Sixty years on, how relevant is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights today? How far have we come, and how far do we have to go?

Mary Robinson: There is a lot more progress to be made. But the Universal Declaration is very relevant, because it is truly universal and is not a “Western document”, if you read it carefully. And sixty years on, the world is in a somewhat similar place to 1948. After two World Wars, after a Holocaust, after the dropping of bombs on Japan, the opening of a Cold War, people were fearful then. People are also fearful now and we are using the wrong approach to make them feel secure. We are using 42-day detention, Guantanamo Bay, torture, and not observing the Geneva Conventions. We need to have people say, “These human rights belong to us”. We want governments, or major corporations, or anyone with power, to respect them. We know of our entitlement and we are stronger because those rights are there for us – the rights of the poor, rights of the marginalised, rights of women, rights of children.

IPS: You say we are in a similar place to where we were in 1948. How will new challenges, such as climate change and the food crisis affect conceptions of human rights?

MR: Next month, the campaigns of the Elders on Every Human Has Rights will focus on freedom from hunger. But we will also have a completely different debate on the right to food. The food crisis, the bio fuel issue, the role of those who are buying futures in food – it is a very complex debate. Food prices that deprive children of enough to eat become a big justice and rights issue.

Climate change itself is an increasingly important justice issue, and approaches to climate change are dependent on how you define it. If you approach it as an environmentally technical issue, you will build sea walls and develop seeds that don’t need water. On the other hand, if you view it as affecting people now, of having an unjust effect on some people because of the activity of other people in other parts of the world – in Europe and the United States and the parts of Asia that are rapidly developing it is impacting upon the poorest villages, destroying island habitats – then it’s a big issue of justice, which is relevant to how we approach adaptation. I believe that we need adaptation to help poor communities to cope, to provide insurance for them and their livelihoods.

IPS: And do you think we’re doing enough to tackle those kinds of challenges? How can we do more?

MR: I think we need to do a lot more. I’m glad that now there is a discussion about it – in fact, next week, I’ll be discussing the humanitarian dimensions of climate change in the Global Humanitarian Forum with Kofi Annan in Geneva. We may be looking at between 100 and 200 million climate refugees in 40 years time, and we have to be really aware of the reality of the situation. On a deeper level, we need to change how people think about human rights. We need to broaden that thinking, so that everybody who feels marginalised, excluded or fearful feels that they have human rights on their side. We haven’t quite gotten there yet. The Every Human Has Rights campaign is a people-power way of re-centring. I will be going to the World Social Forum in the Amazon in January, and I want everyone there to understand that they are all part of a campaign to re-centre human rights as the banner under which we tackle all the inequalities that we deal with.

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Jul 9 2007 (IPS)

Where do we stand on the UN Millennium Development Goals halfway to the 2015 deadline? asks Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and founder and president of Realising Rights: The Ethical Globalisation Initiative. In this article, Robinson writes that a new UN report shows that significant strides have been made in some countries while in other places, like sub-Saharan Africa, no country is on track to meet the goals of halving extreme poverty, ensuring universal primary education, or stemming the AIDS pandemic by 2015. This is tragic and unacceptable because we know what works and what kinds of actions are needed to make faster and more equitable progress. The experience of the past seven years tells us that where political will exists there can be positive results. Even some of the poorest countries, like Rwanda, Mozambique, and Bangladesh, are on track to achieve many of the MDGs, precisely because there is political will and responsible donor support. Developed countries have an obligation to provide timetables for delivering on their promises concerning aid volume, aid effectiveness, and debt cancellation.

The Berne event, ”0.7 percent – Together Against Poverty”, highlighted one critical dimension of the strategy needed to achieve the goals set by world leaders in 2000: rich nations need to do their part by meeting internationally-agreed development assistance targets. It was heartening to see such a large gathering of Swiss civil society organisations and ordinary people urging their government to raise the Swiss level of official development assistance to meet the 0.7 percent target.

The MDGs provided a hopeful indication of how international cooperation could unfold in the early part of the 21st century. World leaders acknowledged a shared responsibility for the fate of our planet and its citizens and committed to working collectively to halve the number of those in extreme poverty and hunger and achieve universal primary education for boys and girls by 2015. In the 2000 UN Millennium Declaration they agreed to promote gender equality and empowerment of women, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, and ensure environmental sustainability.

Where do we stand halfway to 2015? A new stock-taking report by the UN paints a decidedly mixed picture. It shows that significant strides have been made in some countries while in other places, like sub-Saharan Africa, no country is on track to meet the goals of halving extreme poverty, ensuring universal primary education, or stemming the AIDS pandemic by 2015. This is tragic and unacceptable because we know what works and what kinds of actions are needed to make faster and more equitable progress.

The experience of the past seven years tells us that where political will exists there can be positive results. Even some of the poorest countries, like Rwanda, Mozambique, and Bangladesh, are on track to achieve many of the MDGs, precisely because there is political will and responsible donor support.

But we also need to look beyond the numbers. On a recent trip to Ghana, where I had the honour to address government, donor, international agency, and civil society representatives, there was a sense of achievement that MDG 1 concerning poverty reduction would be reached ahead of the 2015 target. But political will to tackle other goals lags behind. Ghana is challenged by increasing inequalities between different areas of the country and is still not moving fast enough to promote women’s equality.

Many other countries are in similar positions. We must assess more than whether the aggregate targets of the MDGs are reached country by country. Development plans are needed which are inclusive and focused on reaching the poorest and other groups who are marginalised in society. We can’t let aggregate numbers obscure the realities of inequality based on gender, ethnic background, or other characteristics which will, in the end, undermine human development.

But as the event in Switzerland stressed, we must acknowledge as well that the lack of significant increases in official development assistance since 2004 makes it virtually impossible, even for many of the best-governed countries, to meet the MDGs. The UN’s new report stresses that unless adequate resources are provided in a predictable way so that developing countries can plan to scale up their investments and make the most effective use of available donor assistance, success is far from assured. Developed countries have an obligation to provide timetables for delivering on their promises concerning aid volume, aid effectiveness, and debt cancellation. In this respect the outcomes of the G8 Summit at Heiligendamm in June were disappointing.

The MDGs – particularly their numerical indicators – should not be viewed as ends in themselves. Rather they should be seen as agreed benchmarks solidly embedded in the broader framework of international human rights obligations. The MDGs were set within the context of commitments governments reaffirmed in the 2000 Millennium Declaration to respect and fully uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to implement the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ensure respect and protection for the rights of migrant workers and their families, and work collectively for a more inclusive political processes, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all countries.

Achieving the MDGs is a critical task. As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration in 2008, we should recommit to taking the additional steps needed to reach the 2015 targets. But we should do more. We should recognise that the MDGs are part of the larger effort needed to realise human rights for all. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Sep 1 2006 (IPS)

Governments are beginning to acknowledge the urgent need for international policies that address the root causes of migration, like poverty and the demand for migrant labour, writes Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and currently President of Realising Rights: The Ethical Globalisation Initiative. In this analysis, Robinson writes that protecting migrants\’ rights is central to any effective migration management. One important way to ensure that human rights issues are firmly on the agenda is to involve civil society and migrants themselves. Robinson observes that migrants with opportunities for decent and legal work contribute more to development than those who are exploited, and that policies which promote human rights like legalisation of status and access to health and housing build the capacity of diaspora communities and help their integration, even while maintaining close ties to their countries of origin.

Governments are beginning to acknowledge the urgent need for international policies that address the root causes of migration, like poverty and the demand for migrant labour.

Following the United Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development in New York, EU Ministers struggled to find common ground last week on how to address the growing number of African migrants arriving on European shores.

Such moves towards greater regional and international dialogue and coordination by states on migration issues are to be welcomed. But what is still missing is attention to protecting the human rights of migrants. Human rights standards and commitments should be the starting point for better policy in a range of areas from border security to labour markets to health systems. Protecting migrants’ rights is central to any effective migration management.

The UN dialogue acknowledged the need to move beyond reliance on restrictive policies as the `default’ tool of migration management to recognition of the benefits of migration to origin and destination countries. The notion of co-development — the importance of improving economic and social conditions at both origin and destination — emphasised by a handful of participants in the UN discussions was also a small but significant step in the right direction. But the aversion of states to engaging seriously on the role of human rights in migration and development policies highlighted the political challenge still to be faced.

Why is a greater focus on human rights so important to the migration and development equation?

First, migrants with opportunities for decent and legal work contribute more to development than those who are exploited. Second, policies which promote human rights like legalisation of status and access to health and housing build the capacity of diaspora communities and help their integration, even while maintaining close ties to their countries of origin. Third, human rights are not a matter of choice but are legal obligations under international law, which bind all governments. The international human rights framework, if taken seriously, can contribute to the harmonisation of States’ attitudes through the acceptance of common basic principles. That recognition was largely absent from the recent UN debates.

This is a reminder that we cannot assume that the way forward will be smooth. The current management of migration policies is still based on decisions made by individual nations acting in isolation. Moving from dialogue and consultation to collective policymaking by States remains a distant goal.

The new forum on migration and development proposed as a follow up to the UN dialogue must lead to specific changes in policies and practice at the local, national, and multilateral levels, particularly to prevent abuse and exploitation of migrants.

One important way to ensure that human rights issues are firmly on the agenda is to involve civil society and migrants themselves. Established as a standing body for governments to exchange ideas and practices, it is imperative that these organisations have a voice in shaping the agenda for the forum’s meeting in 2007 which Belgium has offered to host. The growing number of women migrants, who make up a particularly vulnerable segment of migrant populations, should also have an opportunity to share their experiences and be heard. Making such a forum a success over the long term will require the creation of formal mechanisms for consultation with civil society organisations, as opposed to the current proposal which calls for their input on an ‘as-needed’ basis.

Migration is not just about effective policies and coordinated action between governments. It is a matter of protecting human rights, addressing economic and social factors that force people to uproot their lives in search of opportunity, and making links between trade and economic policy and the choices left to migrants.

The challenge ahead is to build on governments’ greater willingness to think collectively about migration. That means seeing migration as a vital component in realising human security, human development, and human rights for all people. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Dec 5 2005 (IPS)

The 10th of December is the International Human Rights Day. Anniversaries should be about celebration. But this Human Rights Day is, tragically, yet another reminder of how far we are from living up to the commitments made by the world\’s governments to ensure a life of dignity for all people, writes Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland (1990-1997) and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002) and current chair of Realising Rights: the Ethical Globalisation Initiative. In this analysis, Robinson writes that despite the increased attention paid this year to combating extreme poverty around the world, the fundamental right to health remains unfulfilled for millions of people today — not only those suffering from diseases like HIV/AIDS but also those without access to clean water, adequate food, or a reliable health system. Health is not a side issue: it is key to the most basic of the rights the world now agrees should be guaranteed. Health underpins the right to life, the right to security, and the right to a sustainable livelihood.

The year 2005 continued a worrying trend, evident since 2001, of a retreat on human rights standards around the world. As threats of terrorism continued, governments justified restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom from torture and freedom of expression. The assessment made by the global governance initiative of the World Economic Forum, just published, notes the decline in human rights in 2005 and gives a depressing score of two out of ten. Meanwhile future generations will surely condemn today’s political leaders for their abject failure to halt the terrible violations of human rights in Darfur — an event which is no longer even a story of interest to the media.

Despite the increased attention paid this year to combating extreme poverty around the world, the fundamental right to health remains unfulfilled for millions of people today — not only those suffering from diseases like HIV/AIDS but also those without access to clean water, adequate food, or a reliable health system.

Health is not a side issue: it is key to the most basic of the rights the world now agrees should be guaranteed. Health underpins the right to life, the right to security, and the right to a sustainable livelihood.

How can we say to an African mother that she has the right to live and the right to freedom when the boundaries of her life are rigidly set by the fact that her children have a one-in-ten chance of dying before reaching five, that she herself has a life expectancy of less than forty years? Similarly, what use is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stating that every child should be protected and enabled to ”develop physically, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy and normal manner”? Explain that to the 37 million children who go without the basic vaccines that could so easily prevent their premature deaths. Why are we so unashamed by the silent tsunami that takes the lives of 10 million children under five each year with sheer hunger or diseases that are preventable?

It is time to bridge the gulf between promises and those realities. My organisation, Realising Rights: the Ethical Globalisation Initiative, has just launched an appeal on the Right to Health. It has been backed already by two former American presidents, a host of ex-Prime Ministers, Nobel Peace Prize winners, and other notables, like Bono of U2. Now we hope to get other important voices signed up — those of ordinary people across the world who care about human rights and about the importance of health. Quite simply, our call says that health is not just a blessing but a right that should be fought for — a right which governments the world over have guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: ”to the highest attainable standard of health”. It is not a ”right to be healthy”, nor does it mean governments must put in place expensive health services beyond available public resources. But it does mean governments must take action. It means better targeting money that is spent on health issues in the developing world, where health delivery systems are broken.

Supporting the right to health comes down to a matter of priorities. We must work to promote access to clean water, health care, adequate nutrition and sanitation with a particular emphasis on reaching women and girls. We must invest in strong health delivery systems and make sure that health care decisions are made accountably. We must support low-income countries in their efforts to bring decent health care to their peoples. This is the primary responsibility of governments to their own people. But the role of rich nations, to increase and better coordinate policies and aid spending, is also vital.

And we must call on all governments to sign and implement the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights which makes the right to health an international legal obligation to be progressively realised at the national level. The Covenant has been ratified by 151 countries. It will be 30 years old next year: it is time its pledges became action. Let’s learn from the approach of courageous health ministers like Charity Kaluki Ngilu of Kenya, who committed to abolishing health service user fees for all Kenyans. Making a commitment to universal health insurance in a country where 56 percent of the population lives below the poverty line may seem unrealistic. But Charity was doing what human rights defenders have done for ages: establishing the fact that a right exists, then demanding that societies take action.

That means governments accepting their responsibilities and following through with legislation, good policies, and adequate resources. It means people demanding equal treatment in access to public services and more transparency in how public funds are spent. It means each of us standing up for our rights and the rights of others.

On this Human Rights Day, let us commit to making the right to health a reality for all people. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Jan 1 2005 (IPS)

Will 2005 be a year of breakthrough which moves us closer to realizing the World Social Forum\’s conviction that another world is possible? Or will it be yet another year in which the divides in our world continue to grow? The answer, of course, depends on the choices we make and the values we uphold, writes Mary Robinson, Executive Director of The Ethical Globalisation Initiative and Honorary President of Oxfam International. In this article, the author writes that commitments that should be front and center during 2005 are those that governments made at the start of the 21st century. Five years after the largest gathering ever of heads of state and government solemnly vowed in the 2000 UN Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, it is clear that many countries in the world are falling desperately short of the progress needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. In our search for a more ethical globalization, the time has come to return to the values and principles reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universality of human rights, their focus on human dignity, and their concern for accountability, make them uniquely appropriate for re-shaping development cooperation, fostering good governance, and combating discrimination, disease, and despair.

Will 2005 be a year of breakthrough which moves us closer to realizing the World Social Forum’s conviction that another world is possible? Or will it be yet another year in which the divides in our world continue to grow? The answer, of course, depends on the choices we make and the values we uphold.

The year ahead certainly provides key opportunities for leaders to make principled policy choices on some of our most pressing global challenges. From the G8 Summit to the WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, government leaders will make decisions on trade rules, on aid, and on the unsustainable debt of developing countries decisions that are critical to the futures of millions of the world s people.

As always, it is up to global civil society to help ensure that these decisions are fair and geared to help those most in need. Civil society organizations have a key role to play in ensuring that governments live up to the commitments they have already made.

Commitments that should be front and center during 2005 are those that governments made at the start of the 21st century. Five years after the largest gathering ever of heads of state and government solemnly vowed in the 2000 UN Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, it is clear that many countries in the world are falling desperately short of the progress needed to reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015.

To date, large parts of civil society have not been actively engaged in promoting the MDGs and in mobilizing to pressure their governments to take effective action. Some have expressed concern that the Millennium Goals sideline more pressing issues or ignore previous commitments such as the women’s rights platform of the 1990s, including violence against women and reproductive rights. Another criticism is that the MDG process is top-down.

Civil society was not involved in formulating the MDGs, which are seen by some as an attempt at a one-size-fits-all approach.

While I recognize that these are legitimate concerns, we should not forget that the MDGs were placed within the context of commitments that governments reaffirmed in the Millennium Declaration to promote human rights, democracy and good governance. These commitments — to respect and fully uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

– to strengthen the capacity of all countries to implement the practices of democracy and human rights;

– to implement the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW);

– to ensure respect and protection for the rights of migrant workers and their families;

– to work collectively for a more inclusive political process, allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all countries; and

– to ensure the freedom of the media and public access to information —

are all vitally important to achieving the development goals and should be given greater prominence.

One initiative I am currently involved with – The Helsinki Process on Globalisation and Democracy – seeks to bring together stakeholders from the global North and South to shape an alternative vision for globalization that can collectively influence governments and the wider public. An action plan will be launched at the Helsinki Conference which will take place in September 2005. I would encourage participants in The World Social Forum to engage with the Helsinki Process during 2005 and beyond.

Any reform agenda must include not only a huge increase on the part of the richest nations in development aid, but a commitment to greater global equity. The rules of the road for globalization, including the rules of international trade, investment and finance, must be fair and reflect the needs of the poorest countries. At the same time, developing countries must redouble their efforts to build more democratic forms of governance, combat corruption and ensure that development assistance is properly spent.

In our search for a more ethical globalization, the time has come to return to the values and principles reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universality of human rights, their focus on human dignity, and their concern for accountability, make them uniquely appropriate for re-shaping development cooperation, fostering good governance, and combating discrimination, disease, and despair.

Over 50 years ago, the architects of the international system understood the importance of human rights –both civil and political rights, such as freedom of speech, fair trial, and an equal voice in society, and economic and social rights, such as the right to health, food, housing, and education– to achieving a just and peaceful world.

Another world is possible. 2005 should be the year in which the world comes together around the conviction that realizing human rights is our best strategy for ending poverty and ensuring a life of dignity for all. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Oct 1 2004 (IPS)

World Food Day is a painful reminder of the divide between those who are well nourished and those who live in hunger, writes Mary Robinson, Executive Director of Realising Rights: The Ethical Globalisation Initiative, and former President of Ireland and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, Robinson writes that every seven seconds a child under 10 dies directly or indirectly of hunger; more than 2 billion people worldwide suffer from hidden hunger or micronutrient malnutrition. The crisis is compounded by other global challenges which must be fought vigorously, particularly the fight against HIV/AIDS. Infection rates are rising among African women. Almost 60% of those living with AIDS in Africa are women, who make up 80% of Africa\’s small farmers and have traditionally been able to help their families and communities most in times of food crisis, but the toll taken by AIDS makes this task increasingly difficult. At the heart of any new strategy must be a greater commitment to implementing the human right to adequate food.

World Food Day is a painful reminder of one of the many divides in our world today : the divide between those who are well nourished and those who live in hunger. Every seven seconds a child under 10 dies directly or indirectly of hunger somewhere in the world. More than 2 billion people worldwide suffer from hidden hunger or micronutrient malnutrition.

Contrast this with the fact that according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) the world produces more than enough food to feed its population. How is it possible that despite our knowledge and our resources so many still go hungry?

The world must be made vividly aware of the reality of hunger and poverty. They became a reality to me when in Somalia I sat beside women whose children were dying — children whose mothers were dying. As a mother I felt the sheer horror of this situation. But as the Head of State of a country which was once devastated by famine, I also felt the helplessness and terrible irony that this could actually be happening again. And quite frankly I felt then, and I have never ceased feeling, a profound sense of outrage and, indeed, self-accusation that we are all participants in tolerating famine and hunger.

The crisis is compounded by other global challenges which must be fought vigorously if we hope to make progress in achieving food security for all. Perhaps the most difficult is the fight against HIV/AIDS. The interconnections between AIDS and food can be seen most starkly in Africa. Infection rates are rising among African women. Almost 60% of those living with AIDS in Africa are women. Women make up 80% of Africa’s small farmers and have traditionally been able to help their families and communities most in times of food crisis, but the toll taken by AIDS makes this task increasingly difficult.

The connections between food security and HIV/AIDS run even deeper, however. No part of HIV management is more critical to survival than the maintenance of good nutritional status. New studies show that people living with HIV require greater quantities of essential vitamins and minerals to help repair and heal cells. Many patients develop deficiencies, causing the HIV virus to spread more quickly in some cases. Equally important, many of the medications used for AIDS treatment need to be taken with food and there is evidence that the full benefit of anti- retroviral therapy may not be achieved in malnourished individuals, especially pregnant or lactating women.

At the heart of any new strategy to combat hunger must be a greater commitment to implementing the human right to adequate food. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed the right of everyone ”to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food”. Nearly 20 years later, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which has been ratified by the vast majority of the world’s governments, stressed ”the right of everyone to adequate food” and specified ”the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger”.

It is important to stress that the human rights framework doesn’t provide a ”cure-all” solution. But human rights do provide legal standards which protect even the most vulnerable and demand accountability on the part of governments. They also provide useful guidance in making difficult policy decisions about how limited resources are best used.

This World Food Day is particularly significant for human rights activists worldwide. Last month, in Rome, the FAO committee on world food security adopted Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food.

The Guidelines, although a voluntary instrument, are seen by many as a breakthrough that will give new energy to efforts to achieve the UN Millennium Goal of halving the number of world’s hungry by 2015. They address the range of actions governments should take to ensure food security for all at national level. They provide a new international reference for civil society organisations in scrutinising governments’ performance in defeating hunger and malnutrition around the world.

But achieving food security for all won’t be possible without increased resources and investment from the richest nations. That means greater debt relief and a renewed commitment to helping the poorest countries strengthen their systems of governance, by rebuilding the capacity of the state to ensure respect for the rule of law and to provide essential public services. It means more help for small farmers, especially in Africa, including scientific and technical knowledge, and with a special focus on women, who are both the key food providers and the key to fighting AIDS on the continent.

And it means changes to global markets. It is vital that the WTO make progress on agricultural trade negotiations which are consistent with the needs of developing countries.

It is an ambitious list. Yet I am hopeful that by working together in urgent and practical ways we can fulfil the vision of President Lula of Brazil and make a reality of the human right to food. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Jan 1 2004 (IPS)

Since September 11, 2001 shook the world, the commitments which ushered in the new millennium have been overshadowed by the threats of terrorism, fears about the future, and questions about the viability of open societies joined by international norms and values, writes Mary Robinson, executive director of The Ethical Globalisation Initiative, former president of Ireland, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. If we want real human security, instead of putting up walls of fear and resorting only to power politics, we should seek ways to focus on promoting in practice the values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect, and shared responsibility which can unite rather than divide. We should also remember that 9/11 did not, in fact, change much in the lives of most people on the planet for whom human insecurity was and is a daily reality. The world\’s economic system has operated largely in isolation from human rights, both at an institutional level and in intellectual terms. The first step to addressing the apparent conflicts between the values of the market and the values of human rights is to recognise that the objectives of international human rights and international trade in fact have much in common. This column was adapted from a lecture given by the author at the Aspen Institute and approved by her in this form.

Given the suddenness and extent of change in the era of globalisation, it is worth recalling that the 21st century started with a shared sense of hope. At the UN in September 2000, the largest gathering in history of world leaders signed the Millennium Declaration, a renewed international commitment to creating a shared future based upon our common humanity in all its diversity.

But just one year and three days later, the terrible events of September 11, 2001 shook the United States and the world. Since that day, the commitments which ushered in the new millennium have been overshadowed by the threats of terrorism, by fears and uncertainties about the future, and by questions about the viability of open societies joined by international norms and values.

If we want real human security, for all people everywhere, we must implement, not cast aside, these commitments. Instead of putting up walls of fear and resorting only to the strategies of power politics, we should seek ways to focus even more on promoting in practice the values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect, and shared responsibility which can unite rather than divide North and South, rich and poor, left and right, religious and secular, us and them.

We should also remember that 9/11 did not, in fact, change much in the lives of most people on the planet. Human insecurity, sadly, was a daily reality before 9/11 for the hundreds of millions who live in absolute poverty or in zones of conflict — and it remains so.

Globalisation is exacerbating trends towards a two-speed world. The 1990s marked a period of sustained growth in many Western countries, and China and India made significant strides in bringing millions of people out of poverty. But during the same period, 54 countries –many in sub-Saharan Africa– grew poorer. Infant mortality has increased in 14 countries, and life expectancy has fallen in 34.

How secure can we feel in a ”two speed”, ”haves-and-haves-not” world like this?

As the power to effect change continues to shift in significant ways from the public to the private, from national governments to multinational corporations and international organisations, how should global responsibilities be assigned to different actors — international institutions, governments, business, and civil society?

I believe we can begin to answer these questions through dialogue about values and the search for a new and more enduring interconnectedness. That dialogue requires a common language of respect and solidarity. Equally important, that language must be able to carry the moral and legal force of the international community. It must be able to manage competing claims and embrace gender issues and the diversity of human experience.

It is important to note that the world’s economic system has operated largely in isolation from human rights, both at an institutional level and in intellectual terms. Partly as a result, international trade and intellectual property rules have, for example, led directly or indirectly to the exclusion of many people from access to essential medicines, notably to drugs needed by the developing world to inhibit the spread of HIV/AIDS, Malaria and TB.

Similarly, in many countries economic policies that promote privatisation of public services have made it, in some cases, more difficult for people to send their children to school, secure safe drinking water or have access to health care.

The first step to addressing these apparent conflicts between the values of the market and the values of human rights is to recognise that the objectives of international human rights and international trade in fact have much in common. Both seek to improve standards of living in larger freedom, one through recognition of what is necessary for a life of dignity, free from fear and want, including access to health care, education, and an adequate standard of living — and the other through the practice of free trade leading to growth, which can then fund vital social programmes.

Under international law, all World Trade Organisation (WTO) member states are parties not only to international treaties on intellectual property, trade and services, and agriculture, but also to at least one, and usually more, of the six principal human rights treaties. This means they have voluntarily undertaken to enforce trade rules and to respect and fulfil human rights in their countries (including the rights of women, children and vulnerable groups). They have accepted equivalent obligations in relation to labour and environmental standards.

The challenge therefore is not to stop expansion of global markets but to develop institutions and policies that will provide appropriate governance and protect human rights locally, nationally, and at international level. This will in turn strengthen human development and human security.

Of course, effective governance must begin at the national level. But we must also acknowledge that governance in today’s world is about more than decisions made and laws enforced locally or nationally. There is also a growing international dimension of governance and the protection of human rights which we must consider as well. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
GENEVA, Dec 31 2003 (IPS)

My message to both the World Economic Form and the World Social Forum is the same: we won\’t achieve human security for all without taking global commitments to human rights and human development more seriously, writes Mary Robinson, executive director of The Ethical Globalisation Initiative, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this article, Robinson writes that we must first be more rigorous in holding governments accountable for the obligations they have made, most recently in the UN Millennium Declaration, adopted in September 2000. The Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development estimated that an additional USD 50 billion a year in global development spending would be needed to achieve the MDGs. Given the current budgets for military spending in nations around the world, that figure shouldn\’t daunt the international community. The MDGs should not be perceived as ends in themselves but as benchmarks of progress. They can be powerful tools for change because they are recognised by the UN and by the international financial institutions –the World Bank and IMF. Now we need to embed them solidly in the broader framework of human rights.

My message to both of these global meetings –which are known to take quite different viewpoints about the state of the world and how to improve it– is the same: we won’t achieve human security for all without taking global commitments to human rights and human development more seriously.

To do this, we must first be more rigorous in holding governments accountable for the obligations they have made, most recently in the United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted in September 2000. In that Declaration, world leaders agreed to respect and fully uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, strengthen the ability of all countries to act democratically and respect human rights, protect the rights of women and migrants, work collectively for a more inclusive political process, and ensure the freedom of the media and public access to information.

The Millennium Declaration also included a set of specific targets now known as the Millennium Development Goals or MDGs. These eight goals include specific commitments to halve the number of people who are hungry or live in extreme poverty by 2015, provide primary education to every boy and girl by the same date, reduce maternal mortality by three quarters and death rates of children under 5 by two thirds, and achieve a number of specific objectives on gender equality and empowerment of women, HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, housing, and environmental sustainability.

Many activists dismiss these commitments as empty rhetoric. They argue that to halve poverty is not an acceptable ambition. They contend that not one child should die from preventable disease; that no-one should go hungry. Morally, this is an absolutely fair challenge — yet it must be recognised that politically, though the goals are still achievable, reaching them by 2015 is an increasingly difficult challenge. Indeed, without major additional effort, the MDGs will not be met.

Over the past year, an interesting initiative has been assessing the extent to which different global actors –governments, international organisations, business and civil society– are showing the commitment that will be needed to make the progress required. The Global Governance Initiative will report its findings for the first time at this year’s World Economic Forum. It will say that, on all the most important commitments, including human rights, we are falling well short.

Arguments will continue about what must be done most urgently. Human rights activists stress that nation states have the first responsibility to foster economic and social development. Development experts emphasise that rich countries need to give more aid. The Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development estimated that an additional USD 50 billion a year in global development spending would be needed to achieve the MDGs. Given the current budgets for military spending in nations around the world, that figure shouldn’t daunt the international community.

Others rightly call for reform of international policy regimes that govern trade and finance, to ensure these enhance rather than impede the efforts of developing countries.

The report of the Global Governance Initiative makes clear that internationally agreed targets must be considered simultaneously and through coordinated strategies which identify the different responsibilities of all actors in society. For example, under the MDG commitments, governments are expected to submit “Country Reports” detailing the efforts they have made to achieve the targets. Citizens and civil society organisations should use this opportunity to work together and bring pressure on their governments, reminding them of their commitments and demanding full civil society participation in the design, drafting and monitoring of the Reports.

At the same time, donor institutions should be called on to fulfil the commitments they made in the Millennium Declaration and the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development.

The MDGs, particularly the numerical indicators, should not be perceived as ends in themselves but as benchmarks of progress. They can be powerful tools for change because they are recognised by the UN and by the international financial institutions –the World Bank and IMF. Now we need to embed them solidly in the broader framework of human rights.

So, yes, the MDGs don’t go far enough. If implemented, they will not end (but will halve) poverty and hunger; they will not eliminate (but could sharply reduce) death from preventable diseases. But is this a glass half full or half empty? In my view, if the MDGs are achieved by 2015, in the span of less than one generation, we will have taken a formidable step forward.

Success will require genuine international cooperation from many actors. The effort can build a new foundation for further progress towards the real dream of human dignity for all. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By Mary Robinson and - -
NEW YORK, Dec 1 2003 (IPS)

Modern governments acknowledge that they have a responsibility to work actively to end international poverty, protect humanity from dangerous diseases, provide children with education, preserve the environment for our descendants, and ensure that everyone has access to reasonable housing and clean water, writes Mary Robinson, Executive Director of The Ethical Globalisation Initiative and former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Most recently, all 189 United Nations member states signed the UN Millennium Declaration in 2000, which formally commits them to take practical and co-operative action in these and other areas. Robinson writes that there has never been a greater need for simple and convincing arguments that explain, to governments and people alike, why action to end poverty, illiteracy, oppression and disease is right, is in the interests of everyone – richer and poorer – and requires combined and persistent effort from all parties. Political leaders, in their public capacity, and citizens in their private capacity, act to help others because they believe it is right to do so. Ethical commitment is an essential component of any strategy to make the world a safer and better place for all who live in it. Action to end poverty, illiteracy and oppression will not succeed in the absence of such values.

Modern governments acknowledge that they have a responsibility to work actively to end international poverty, protect humanity from dangerous diseases, provide children with education, preserve the environment for our descendants, and ensure that everyone has access to reasonable housing and clean water. Most recently, all 189 United Nations member states signed the UN Millennium Declaration in 2000, which formally commits them to take practical and co-operative action in these and other areas.

What do these responsibilities amount to in practice? When do wealthier societies have a duty to help much poorer ones? What limits can the governments of those societies reasonably impose on such obligations, and to what extent do they take priority over other duties, for example to their own citizens? Are such obligations of a merely ethical nature – matters of choice, or values – or do they include a more formal, even legal dimension?

There has never been a greater need for simple and convincing arguments that explain, to governments and people alike, why action to end poverty, illiteracy, oppression and disease is right, is in the interests of everyone – richer and poorer – and requires combined and persistent effort from all parties.

Political leaders, in their public capacity, and citizens in their private capacity, act to help others because they believe it is right to do so. Ethical commitment is an essential component of any strategy to make the world a safer and better place for all who live in it. Action to end poverty, illiteracy and oppression will not succeed in the absence of such values.

Yet states do not operate on the same terms as individuals. They are subject to national and international law, and governments are obliged to take proper account of national interests. Though the ethical beliefs of individual politicians often influence their decisions, most political leaders consider that their first duty is to their own citizens, then to societies with which they have close ties. Simply asserting that richer countries should show more political determination in acting internationally to end poverty and illiteracy will not serve unless political leaders and officials can demonstrate to one another and their publics that they have a duty to take international action, and that the action they take is lawful and responsible and respects other obligations that they have, notably to their own people.

Arguments for action that draw on human rights are more than moral appeals, because the values of human rights are embedded in a framework of international law that has been negotiated and agreed by states, and that takes account of the character of state obligations. The human rights framework reflects and promotes core moral values that most people in most societies can identify with, but at the same time it is legal in character.

This offers three benefits. First, the framework is precise: it sets out clearly who has obligations and duties and who has not, and what those obligations and duties are. Second, it is practical: it provides states with a formal language they can use to negotiate and co-operate with one another. Third, it can be binding: when governments ratify human rights agreements, they accept a formal duty to implement the commitments they have thereby made.

Reality, of course, is not so simple. Like other forms of human enterprise, human rights are not always as specific as might be wished. Governments may interpret their international commitments differently (or disregard them), and in many instances laws may not be enforced effectively. Nevertheless, albeit imperfectly, human rights legal standards add rigour and precision to moral argument; they have practical application; and they create conditions in which political clarity can be achieved.

A new report by the International Council on Human Rights Policy titled “Duties sans Frontieres: Human rights and global social justice” explores how human rights arguments can strengthen more familiar appeals to ethics and legitimate self-interest. It offers additional tools that citizens and officials can use – in richer countries certainly, but in poorer societies too – to generate the dynamic and effective action that will be required if we are to solve the numerous injustices and inequities that afflict our society, and pass on a more fitting world to future generations. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: