COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CONCLUDES GENERAL DISCUSSION ON RIGHT TO EDUCATION

AFTERNOON


HR/ESC/98/44
30 November 1998





Representatives of universities, non-governmental organizations, and United Nations agencies struggled this afternoon to define and focus efforts to advance the right to education as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights completed a day of general discussion on the topic.

The emphasis among Committee members and officials of United Nations agencies was on how to unify and clarify pursuit of the right, which Committee Chairman Philip Alston said was now being advocated in various ways and for different goals by diverse international organizations.

Non-governmental organizations focused on more specific concerns, such as the ramifications of education for women, for cultural minorities, and for countries whose resources were being exploited by transnational corporations.

The right to education is elaborated in articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The 137 States parties to the Covenant are obliged to submit periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to put the treaty's provisions into effect.

Those attending the meeting included Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to education, and Mustapha Mehedi, a member of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed to carry out a study on the subject and on the related importance of education in human rights. Also present were representatives of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); International Bureau of Education; International Organization for the Development of Freedom of Education (OIDEL); People's Decade of Human Rights Education; World University Service; American Association of Jurists; International Federation of University Women; American Association for the Advancement of Science; and faculty representatives of Maastricht University; Fribourg University; Autonomous University o
f Barcelona; University of Hawaii; University of Paris; and University of Montreal.

The Committee will meet at 10.45 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 December to discuss a draft general comment on the domestic application of the Covenant. It will then meet in private.


Discussion

Committee Chairman Philip Alston began by suggesting a "utopian" idea that all United Nations committees and agencies interrupt their various and widely differing examinations of the right to education for five years in order to coordinate their work and to issue one global report on the question, which could then be examined by each committee and agency.

But representatives of other organizations questioned whether that was possible, pointing out that funding and goal-setting and work programmes were well-advanced. Alternatives were proposed, including having the Committee focus on reviewing and drawing together the work other groups did on the right to education, and issuing a comprehensive a report; formation of a working group composed of representatives from relevant agencies; and recommendation to countries submitting reports to the Committee that they consult UNICEF, UNESCO, UNDP and other agencies for advice on fostering the right to education.

During the debate that followed it was pointed out by the World University Service that if it was necessary to respect local cultures in pursuing the right to education -- a theme mentioned several times at the morning meeting -- it also was necessary to recognize that cultural rights could be used to violate the right to education; in India, for example, textbooks and school curricula were being changed to reflect a uniformly Hindu view of history which would be taught to a multicultural society. To some extent, the organization's representative, Miloon Kothari said, it would be useful to identify certain universal themes and standards that could and should be taught everywhere.

A fair reflection of local cultures in education increased the cost of education, a UNESCO official added, and yet in the long term the cost was likely to be repaid, as such efforts helped people link their cultures to economic activities and so helped economies to progress. She said it was termed important that links be forged between educational systems and economies operating in regions and countries; an example was the development of a country's resources by multinational corporations in which few local people had jobs or the knowledge needed to participate in the business and industrial activities carried out.

A representative of the American Association of Jurists characterized such economic globalization as the major challenge facing education. Currently, she said, people fell into four categories: an elite who profited greatly from the international economy; workers, who were paid as little as possible; customers; and the marginalized. Education was a way of reestablishing national solidarity and social cohesion rather than increasing the gaps between these populations.

The significance of women's involvement in education was described by a spokeswoman for the International Federation of University Women, who said education was a way of opening opportunities to women not only in economic terms but in terms of "life skills" that improved self-sufficiency and empowerment; while by contrast, illiteracy exacerbated the social exclusion, poverty, and exploitation suffered by so many women around the world.

As during the morning meeting, the question of establishing standards, "benchmarks", and a "normative framework" for educational matters was discussed at length. George Kent, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii in the United States, said that whatever work was undertaken, it was important to keep in mind what had been learned in other spheres of human rights work -- that it was necessary to set goals and to monitor accountability for meeting them.

The issue of money was raised by Annar Cassam of UNESCO, who said some developing countries spent more on servicing their foreign debts each year than they allocated to education; she wondered if the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and various creditor countries would consider their "duty" towards promoting education and act to reduce the debt burdens of the world's poorer nations.

Also discussed were the relative primacy to be given to primary education over education at higher levels in terms of international advocacy and Government funding; whether fees of any sort -- for tuition, books, or uniforms, for example -- should be charged for primary education; whether rapidly rising costs for university education could be justified; and how to ensure sufficient teacher training and competence.