Address by the High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms. Louise Arbour at the opening of the thirteenth Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific region Beijing, 30 August 2005

30 August 2005


State Councillor Tang,
Excellencies,
Ministers, distinguished representatives and colleagues,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to open this Annual Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region.

I would like to thank warmly the Government of the People’s Republic of China for hosting this Workshop and for the generous hospitality extended to all of us here today.

While this is your thirteenth workshop, it is my first. And, of course, being new to an established event affords me the privilege, which I hope you will grant me, of raising more questions than I might otherwise be able to get away with in future years.

I hope that this combination of my questions and your experience might help us further advance the purpose of these workshops and strategise, together, on how best we might work towards the establishment of a regional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Indeed, my first, perhaps most important, question is to ask whether enough has been done, through this mechanism that brings us here today, to pursue that overall goal of a regional framework, a goal, as we know, called for by both the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights? And how might we reinforce our efforts and, if needed, recalibrate our strategy in this regard?

I shall return to these questions in more details shortly.

But at this stage, it is worth reminding ourselves why regional mechanisms can be so critically important to ensuring a better respect for human rights. In essence, their importance lies in the fact that they are designed to articulate a common approach to a complex problem, an approach that will assist states, from a position of shared regional values, to address shortcomings in their national frameworks so as to allow individuals the means to enjoy their rights in full, and to obtain effective redress when those rights are denied. This is the target we must have in our sights today.

This is important because no region, no state can claim fully to respect every person’s human rights, in all their scope. No government and no people are alone in the challenges they face. Abuse of the most basic human rights – and the attendant misery that brings – whether in the form of poverty, discrimination, violence or a whole host of other wrongs is a constant feature of the lives of many.

A regional mechanism affords, potentially, an important means of assistance to States who are serious about redressing such injustices and inequalities.

The Asia-Pacific region is no exception for it faces its share, often considerable, of human rights concerns. Many of these are not not unique to any one country. In this regard, it is difficult to think of a more appropriate issue than trafficking, a crime which is often trans-national in scope. It is thus particularly opportune that you have chosen trafficking in human beings to be the thematic focus of your discussions this week.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Trafficking is a horrendous crime. By its very nature, it constitutes an acute violation of human rights.

And reports, today, suggest that more people are being trafficked than ever before.

I thus welcome the number initiatives in place to address human trafficking in the Asia-Pacific region. This marks you as a leader in the fight to stem this gross form of human rights abuse.

But this is a struggle that will only be overcome through ever closer partnerships at the international, regional, and sub-regional levels. In this regard, I note that of the 31 parties to the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families, only six are from the Asia-Pacific region. I would urge all countries in this region to sign up to this landmark treaty.

These normative developments, of course, help us move forward both in analysing the problem and addressing it in a strategic and effective manner. But also of paramount importance, yet often overlooked, is the need to place the human rights of trafficked persons at the centre of all efforts to prevent and combat trafficking and to protect, assist and provide redress to those affected.

The human rights dimensions of trafficking are evident. And yet, trafficking continues to be addressed primarily as a “law and order” problem and dealt with mainly within the crime prevention framework. All too often those who are trafficked are criminalized, for example as illegal migrants or prostitutes, when they should be receiving assistance as victims.

It is therefore essential that this workshop examine the gaps in the protection of those who are trafficked and those who may be vulnerable to being trafficked.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me now turn back to the Asia-Pacific Framework. With respect to the questions I posed a short while earlier, I wish to call on all here today to use this opportunity to take stock of past achievements and reflect on the future direction of the Framework.

While much has been done, much more can be done to take concrete steps towards the construction of a regional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.

There is no doubt that the Framework for regional cooperation for human rights in the Asian-Pacific region has had some positive impact in the four-priority pillars you identified at the 1998 Tehran Annual Workshop. Let me take each of these in turn.

First, national institutions. Building national protection systems in accordance with international human rights standards is one of the fundamental pillars of the Secretary-General’s reform agenda. Effective systems are vital to ensure that individual voices can be heard when rights are violated, and that effective protection and redress can be sought. One of the means to achieve this is through the creation of effective national human rights institutions.

It is thus very encouraging to see that the number of National Human Rights Institutions in the region has continued to increase. Since 1998, seven have been established while two comparable structures have been put in place in Hong Kong and Timor-Leste. There are now at least 15 such institutions in the region, backed up by the impressive Asia Pacific Forum, which met last week in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Secondly, since 1998, eight countries in the Asia-Pacific region have adopted National Human Rights Action Plans. These Plans are not mere bureaucratic exercises; rather they are the mean by which states not only register their commitment to improving the human rights situation within their borders, but also by which they can articulate that commitment in concrete terms and within precise timeframes. As such they are vitally important.

Thirdly, four states in the region have adopted national Human Rights Education Plans

The right to education includes human rights education. It is incumbent upon states to provide adequate resources to ensure that all individuals are aware of their rights.

As we begin our work on the World Programme for Human Rights Education it is critical that we not only support human rights education, but that we ensure that it permeates all sectors of the education establishment – from the primary to the tertiary. Human rights must be incorporated into school curricula and taught at a much earlier stage than is the case today. The product will be a higher general level of consciousness of human rights, bringing with it a genuine and informed will to claim access to the full range of human rights.

With respect to the fourth pillar, I am encouraged to see a growing, worldwide recognition that economic, social and cultural rights are as justiciable as any civil and political rights, though much, much more still needs to be done to make this a reality. In this regard, the region has hosted a number of useful workshops designed to increase the awareness and expertise of judges and lawyers on this very point. Moreover, since 1998, I am equally pleased to note that OHCHR has provided advisory services to Member States through 42 technical cooperation projects in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Framework for regional cooperation has also been instrumental in forging important partnerships with civil society. I am pleased that since 2001 an informal day of consultations with civil society has become regular practice at these workshops.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Effective stock-taking must look not only at the credits, which I have just done, but also at the debits.

Let me therefore return directly to the questions posed at the beginning: has enough been done to pursue the creation of an Asia-Pacific framework for the promotion and protection of human rights and, if not, what more could be done or what could we do differently the better to pursue this goal?

For each of the positives mentioned above, there is a converse. There are 52 countries in this vast region. Yet there are only 15 national institutions or the like; only six national human rights action plans; only four education plans; the right to development remains elusive as does the ability of people in the region to claim their most basic economic and social rights – to water, to health, to housing, and so on.

And only three of the 52 have ratified all seven core human rights treaties; with 12 more having ratified six. Implementation of rights requires that those rights be entrenched in law. The process begins with the ratification of human rights treaties. May I take this opportunity, therefore, to urge all Member States present who have not yet done so, to ratify these core instruments.

I mention these facts simply to highlight the enormity of the challenge before us. I fully appreciate the difficulties in reaching consensus with regard to the establishment of a human rights mechanism to cover a region whose vastness is only matched by its diversity. We have today representatives covering an area of the globe from the Pacific Island States to the Arabian Peninsula. The challenge before us – before you – is not easy.

It was for this reason, and in an effort to facilitate the discussions on the future of the Asia-Pacific Framework, that I asked Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn to prepare an analysis of the Framework, building on his earlier assessment, in order to identify possible future directions. A copy of his observations has been provided to you at the outset of this Workshop.

Most of you will already be familiar with his conclusions and my Office has also taken note of your comments made during consultation meetings held prior to this Workshop with representatives from Member States in Geneva.

I wish to take this opportunity to extend my immense gratitude to Professor Muntarbhorn for his analysis which should serve as an important departure point for discussions here in Beijing.

As has been outlined in Professor Muntarbhorn’s discussion paper, we have recently seen a number of interesting human rights initiatives emerging from the sub-regions under the auspices of the League of Arab States, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum.

I encourage all of these initiatives and at the same time extend my offer of assistance to Member States, national institutions and NGOs alike, in promoting human rights initiatives such as the ones being put in place by these sub-regional organisations.

To that end, here in Beijing, I wish to seek your concurrence that we re-orient our strategy and seek to work more at the sub-regional level in pursuit of our overall goal of a regional framework. In other words, that we reconfigure our approach from one annual, regional workshop, to a number of smaller, sub-regional gatherings.

It is my strong sense that rationalising our collective efforts along these lines might prove more manageable and more productive. Discussions at the sub-regional level, bringing together governments, national institutions and civil society, might allow more opportunity for experiences to be shared, problems analysed and solutions identified. It is this information that needs to be gathered and reflected on if an effective regional framework, designed for the region as a whole is to come into being.

Furthermore, it is important that governments take ownership of this process. It is governments, of course, who bear the primary responsibility to ensure that individual rights are protected. My Office can assist, but only modestly. I believe that this ownership can more easily be achieved in the short-term at the sub-regional level.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is of course fully committed to working with you to facilitate discussions on sub-regional human rights arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region and towards the establishment of a pan-regional framework.

Our presence in the region as a whole is growing. We have experience through our many technical cooperation projects in Asia and the Pacific, together with 10 field presences, including sub-regional presences in Bangkok, Fiji and Beirut.

We are also embarking on an ambitious, and much needed, reform initiative, called for by the Secretary-General in his recent report “In larger freedom”. This initiative is outlined in a document called “The OHCHR Plan of Action” which you have before you and to which I draw your attention.

In essence, this Plan articulates a means by which the Office of the High Commissioner can do more, better, to help states realise the rights of their people. It explicitly urges all countries to move from an era of declaration, concerning their human rights commitments, to one of implementation.

In this regard, the Plan of Action outlines a course for the Office of the High Commissioner that is premised on the self-evident observation that it is states and local partners, whether national institutions, courts, civil society and the like, which are best placed to effect real change to the capacity of people to realise their rights.

It is premised on a course for the Office of the High Commissioner which includes more effective engagement with its Member States – built on a keen understanding of the local challenges being faced in the implementation of rights, and which is sustained.

And it is premised on building closer, richer partnerships with all of you, with civil society, with human rights defenders, with the United Nations system, particularly through the United Nations country teams, on the ground.

In this context, the Plan of Action also builds on the growing recognition of the centrality of human rights within the United Nations system. Strengthening the capacity of United Nations country teams to support the efforts of Member States, at their request, to enhance their national human rights promotion and protection systems is central to our common endeavours. In many ways this is a concrete articulation of our belief that human rights are not only priorities for my Office, or your governments, but for the United Nations system as a whole. I wish to urge my colleagues in the United Nations country teams to strengthen their support for the implementation of activities under the Tehran Framework, at the request of Member States.

Our country teams have a crucial role to play in creating strong national human rights protection systems and my Office stands ready to assist with relevant human rights advice, training and the sharing of methodological tools.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I hope that you will agree that while further reflection is needed, change is necessary. During the next four days, I trust that you will use this opportunity to discuss thoroughly the proposals put forward by both Professor Muntarbhorn and myself. I urge you to consider these proposals carefully and candidly.

I hope that this thirteenth workshop will take the next step and adopt conclusions that will reflect a willingness and boldness to adapt and move forward effectively, intelligently and collegially as we all strive to make tangible improvements for people throughout Asia and the Pacific.

I wish you very fruitful discussions and I look forward to the result of your deliberations. Thank you.