ADDRESS BY MARY ROBINSON UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 'STRENGTHENING HUMAN RIGHTS FIELD OPERATIONS', Bonn, 26-27 May 1998

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY



Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to consider today the profound importance of conducting human rights work in the places where people live. Our presence in the field allows us to understand the true state of human rights in a society: it gives substance to the words of Governments, faces to the victims of rights violations, immediacy to the actions of human rights workers. Daily contacts in the field, in the form of dialogue with officials, information-sharing with NGOs, meetings with individual victims, help us to learn about the unique qualities of different societies. Of course, our hope is that the societies learn too: that the meaning of human rights is appreciated at a deeper level, that human rights violations decrease, that the threat of conflict -- whether internal or external -- is reduced. Human rights field work presents the opportunity for a remarkable synergy, between a society and its international professionals working together with members of that society, for the advancement of human rights. In recent years, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has increasingly devoted its efforts to field work in that broad sense, as we have established presences in Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Togo, Liberia, Angola, Malawi and Georgia, and expanded and developed others in Gaza, Cambodia, Mongolia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. A new presence is being established in South Africa for the subregion. We are also planning for possible new activities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where we may become more active in Kosovo, and are looking at new presences in Afghanistan, and possibly Indonesia, and the Sudan, if those Governments are willing. There is clearly momentum toward more field work by my Office, and this is why the subject of today's conference is so timely. Indeed, much remains to be done, to assure the quality and effectiveness of our field work, and to establish consistent methodologies. This is an area of activity, in fact, that is still quite young and in the process of being shaped. The basic prerequisites for effective human rights field operations in the full sense have been well catalogued by a number of concerned parties, and I trust their conclusions will be given due consideration at this symposium. Among these studies I would pay special tribute to the work of the Aspen Institute in the United States, which benefitted from the contributions of some among us here today. The Institute's findings, which I firmly endorse, include the need for clear methodologies, and more specifically, for careful planning, training, the identification of stable funding sources, recruitment of persons experienced in human rights work, and a practice of recording the "lessons learned" from completed operations, to benefit those of the future. There is a need to strike a balance between monitoring and advisory activities, with a focus on institution-building. It has been suggested that there should be a specialized field-mission unit within my Office, to ensure a consistent approach, and indeed, our new structure now includes a team dedicated to the refinement of field methodologies. We must work for the implementation of all of the fine suggestions, made so far in this area. Today, however, I would like to concentrate on a different, but related topic: the relationship between human rights field work, and peace-keeping operations. There is a profound connection, as I have often emphasized, between a society?s respect for human rights and the security of that society's people. Human rights field work can, in fact, make an important contribution to international peace and security. This is a principle which I believe has not yet been accepted widely. Too often, we look at the question of respect for human rights in isolation: do a country?s laws comport with its international obligations? Are persons imprisoned for their beliefs? Is the right to economic opportunity recognized, the right to be free from discrimination? The implications of the answers to these questions extend beyond the integrity of the particular Government in question -- they touch on that society?s very stability, and the stability of societies in its neighborhood. Human rights violations, I have argued, are frequently the root causes of conflict and humanitarian crises. The deprivation of human rights takes from people an integral part of their lives, their sense of dignity and self-worth - a loss which humans are deeply disposed to resist. And they do resist. They fight. They even take up arms and make war. If we wish to eliminate the root causes of conflict, as we are all committed to do, then we must ensure respect for human rights in the field, in societies around the world, in a real way which affects people?s lives. It is for this reason, I believe, that we must integrate human rights work into peace-keeping, peace-making and post conflict peace-building. Part of the addressing of the root causes of conflict lies in improved respect for human rights. If we understand and accept this principle, then we will greatly enhance the value of human rights operations -- and peace-keeping operations -- in countries around the world. The ways in which human rights concerns intersect with peace-keeping operations will inevitably vary, according to mandates, political realities, practical considerations on the ground. But I should like to propose several principles today, on which I hope we could all agree, to bring human rights and peace-keeping closer together.

1. Human Rights Concerns Should Be Integrated into Early Warning and Preventive Action

My Office, as the institution of the U.N. mandated to ensure human rights protection and promotion, has emphasized the value of early warning and preventive action to deter human rights violations, and defuse situations which may escalate into armed conflict. The information and findings of U.N. human rights experts (rapporteurs, representatives, members of human-rights treaty bodies), together with those of U.N. human rights field offices, can be an important part of the early-warning mechanisms of the U.N. as a whole. As we are in the process of starting a review of the human rights machinery, it is essential to keep in mind two important objectives: that this information from UN human rights experts is readily accessible and that progress, or lack of progress, in human rights can be quantified and measured thus allowing some degree of bench-marking, possibly country by country. My Office recognizes that the wealth of information at its disposal can be useful to DPKO, DPA, and OCHA, as well as to the Executive Committees of the U.N. I would like to ensure that in the context of the already existing mechanisms of coordination we have (IASC, Executive Committees, etc.) we identify, perhaps on a monthly basis, potential crisis situations -- situations which could result in gross violations of human rights, threats to international peace and security, shocks to the international conscience. This information, considered together with that of DPA, DPKO, OCHA, UNHCR and others could: a) strengthen the early warning capacity of the U.N.; b) enhance the substantive exchanges between the U.N. offices mentioned above and other concerned parties, including Governments; and c) integrate human rights concerns before crises arise and thus prepare the ground for effective cooperation both in preparedness and in responses to crises within the UN. Beyond the point of warning, the actual deployment of human rights field monitors or advisors may in some cases be part of a strategy for preventive action (not too different from the concept of preventive deployment in the Agenda for Peace effectively used already in the context of the FRY of Macedonia). This may, for example, be the case in Kosovo, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where the Contact Group has expressed support for an increased presence of my Office. Any such action should normally take place in full cooperation with DPKO, DPA and OCHA, further developing the U.N.'s collegiate capacity in prevention.

2. Human Rights Concerns Should Be an Element of Crisis Response

I would argue that, at the point at which a peace-keeping operation is proposed to the Security Council, the human-rights dimension, including a gender perspective, should automatically be a part of planning, requiring close cooperation between DPKO, DPA and our Office. While the need and opportunity to include human rights officers or advisers within different peace-keeping operations will vary, an explicit human-rights strategy should be part of the planning of any peace-keeping presence. Such a strategy should normally cover advice, training and, together with UNDP, institution-building and, when mandated by the Security Council or determined by the Secretary-General, also monitoring. It is a fact that there has been, and will continue to be, resistance from some member States on the Security Council to the integration of human rights into peace-keeping mandates. It is to be hoped that the proper reflection of the human-rights dimension in reports of the Secretary-General to the Council will win increasing recognition of its integral relationship to peace and security. When States insist that human rights mandates be kept separate from peace-keeping mandates, the responsibility on us is all the greater to ensure that integrated planning within the Secretariat results in a coordinated UN strategy on the ground. UN peace-keeping operations should be held to the highest standards of conduct, and strong adherence to human-rights standards will enhance the operation?s standing - and its credibility - with governmental and other actors,. I would like to see a human rights component included routinely in any peace-keeping operation launched by the United Nations. This has been the subject of some debate, with the view advanced that human rights concerns should, at least in some cases, be divorced from the main focus of activities of peace-keeping operations. Put simply I believe that this view is mistaken. A human rights unit in a peace-keeping operation can provide valuable information to the mission's leadership on progress achieved to improve respect for human rights and, therefore, lessen the possibility of a setback to efforts to achieve peace. In a peace-keeping operation?s later stage, its human rights institution-building activities can be the key to the mission?s ultimate success, ensuring that the gains achieved are safeguarded well into the future by building an effective national human rights infrastructure. It is thus important to integrate human rights concerns from beginning to end: to include human rights experts in preparatory missions prior to peace-keeping operations; to integrate human rights units -- with equal standing to other mission elements -- into ongoing peace-keeping operations; and to emphasize as part of an exit strategy the establishment of solid national institutions, to ensure the long-term success of the operation. This last point should always be addressed in cooperation with UNDP, which is already present in the country and can coordinate UN action there. In the arrangements made to integrate human rights components into peace-keeping operations, several factors should be taken into account:

° the overall authority of the Chief of the Mission, normally an SRSG, should be recognized, and human rights activities should be coordinated, with a close working relationship established between the human rights unit and others with connected mandates, either inside (e.g., CIVPOL) or outside (e.g., UNDP, UNHCR) the peace-keeping operation itself;

° while the use given to human rights information assembled by missions may vary, (with different policies prevailing, for example, on public statements), the integrity of the monitoring and reporting processes should always be protected;

° the human rights unit should receive guidance and support from OHCHR, using the knowledge and experience gained from similar operations elsewhere, and from other mechanisms of the UN human rights system;

° administrative support to the units should be provided efficiently and cost-effectively, with a priority equal to that of other non-military components.

3. There Should Be Human Rights Training for All Participants in Peace-Keeping Operations

In connection with the applicability of humanitarian law in peace-keeping operations, it should be noted that at present the Status of Forces Agreements (SoFAs) include the following procedures: the forces shall observe the principles and spirit of the general international conventions applicable to the conduct of military personnel. The international conventions referred to above include the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their additional protocols and the UNESCO Convention of 14 May 1954 on the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict. The SoFAs should therefore make it a practice to include in their articles also an explicit reference to the International Bill of Human Rights and the importance of women?s rights as human rights. UN peacekeeping operations should provide for the training of all UN personnel in international human rights and gender standards as well as in the respect of basic international human rights law by UN peace-keeping forces themselves. This can be accomplished, for example, by including such training in programmes organized at the national level by countries providing peace-keeping personnel. Training should also be organized routinely immediately upon deployment in the country of operation, as part of the induction programme for newly-appointed peace-keepers. Human rights training is especially important in the context of civilian police contingents of peace-keeping missions who are consistently assigned specific human rights tasks. Indeed, CIVPOL officers are, in every sense, human rights monitors. In El Salvador, with ONUSAL, the responsibilities of CIVPOL included monitoring the human-rights record of police forces; similar responsibilities were assigned to CIVPOL in Cambodia, Mozambique, Croatia, and elsewhere, including in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, where the IPTF is responsible for monitoring the action of local police and investigating alleged human rights violations. Many of these operations, indeed, have had their own Human Rights Offices. My Office has pursued a vigorous program of human rights training for military and civilian personnel for peace-keeping missions. Our first such training was held in 1994 in Mozambique, for civilian police of UNOMOZ. Other training has been conducted for CIVPOL in the former Yugoslavia. Comprehensive training programs for military officials have been or are held at the UN Staff College in Turin, with the fifth such course held in April and the sixth scheduled for October. OHCHR is also developing a human rights manual for trainers of peacekeeping forces, in cooperation with DPKO, which will be made available to Governments and others involved in such training. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that all staff members of the UN, particularly those in the humanitarian sector and engaged in the field, have a much greater knowledge of the human rights standards, mechanisms and procedures. Improved communication on human rights with our Office, and an integrated approach by all of us, is the key to greater effectiveness of the whole UN human rights machinery in its ability to know, assess and respond to human rights needs.

4. Stable Funding for Human Rights Operations Must be Identified

While my Office is optimistic about our ability to obtain the necessary voluntary funds for field activities, our experience with HRFOR in Rwanda has shown that voluntary contributions are probably not an adequate funding basis for large human rights field operations. The integration of human rights components into peace-keeping operations carries the natural advantage that funding is obtained through assessed contributions. As DPA has advocated, there should also be an effort to persuade the General Assembly to provide an adequate funding basis for missions not classified as peace-keeping operations, and therefore not funded from special accounts. A discussion on these objectives, and feasible interim devices, would be welcome.

5. Peace-Keeping Should Always Lead to Post Conflict Peace-Building

The value of technical cooperation programmes aimed at strengthening democratic and human rights institutions, the rule of law, and popular human rights awareness has long been recognized. This value is enhanced when such programmes are implemented in war-torn societies which are on the road toward peace. In this context, technical cooperation becomes reinforcement, strengthening the fragile institutions built by the parties and their international partners in the aftermath of war. Just as one would not use bricks without mortar, we should not invest in peace-keeping operations without adding an element for long-term human rights protection. My Office participated in a very interesting meeting organized by the World Bank in Paris last month on Post Conflict Reconstruction which for the first time brought together the humanitarian, the development and the human rights institutions as well as major bilateral and multilateral donors in order to discuss openly how to develop more effective strategies to deal with the aftermath of conflict as well as to address the root causes of humanitarian crises. An informal network has been created which may pave the way to greater coordination at ground level in reconstruction efforts. With respect to technical cooperation in human rights, I have endeavoured to strengthen our own programmes in advisory services and technical cooperation, including the promotion of democratic institutions, development and human rights, women?s rights and gender issues, human rights support to parliament, constitutional assistance, human rights training, legislative reform assistance, administration of justice, establishing or strengthening national human rights institutions, training of police and prison officials, and assistance on specific human rights issues, the implementation of comprehensive national plans of action for the promotion and protection of human rights; and implementation of projects related to economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. The strategy is to link with partners engaged in similar programmes and indeed not to ?re-invent the wheel?! Priority consideration is being given to requests for cooperation with respect to programmes that strengthen national human rights capacities and national human rights institutions and infrastructures. Close cooperation with DPA (given its lead responsibility for post-conflict peace-building), DPKO, OCHA, and UNDP is essential to ensure the effectiveness of the overall programme. A UN secretariat wide review of technical cooperation in human rights is being finalized by my Office as a result of the reform package of the Secretary-General. Technical cooperation programs will typically need to be sustained beyond the mandates of peace-keeping operations. Cambodia is an example of the human rights work of the peace-keeping operation continuing beyond the mission?s expiration. These programs should eventually be integrated into the developmental work of UNDP under the good governance programme. We have also concluded that, where monitoring is mandated by the competent legislative organ, a dual approach to human rights field work, combining monitoring and reporting on the one hand, and technical cooperation programs on the other, is the best approach for carrying out effective human rights work, whether in the context of peace-keeping operations or not. Ladies and Gentlemen,

It remains to be seen whether the proposal for routine inclusion of human rights components in UN peace-keeping operations will be adopted, but I believe it is essential that a clear decision on this matter is taken soon. In the meantime, we must aspire to the highest standards of achievement and efficiency for the field operations which we currently maintain. Our recent experience has shown us ways to improve our performance in the field, and we are working now, in my Office, to implement these ideas as swiftly as resources allow. It is my hope that this conference will yield conclusions which will help us in our efforts to strengthen human rights field operations. If our work in this field is truly to have the effect of improving respect for human rights in the places where people live, then we must enhance the capacity of the international community -- the capacity to investigate, resolve and prevent, human rights violations at their source.

Thank you.