Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Default title
11 January 2001
Share
New York, 11 January 2001
“Are Human Rights Taking Root Around The World?”
ADDRESS BY MARY ROBINSON
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS OF AMERICA CONFERENCE ON
“RECONNECTING AMERICA AND THE UNITED NATIONS”
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This joint World Affairs Councils of America – Foreign Policy Association conference on “Reconnecting America and the United Nations” is timely and welcome.
As far as my area of responsibility – human rights – is concerned, let me say at once that the United Nations needs America’s full engagement with our programmes and activities. Indeed it would be unthinkable for the United Nations to try to carry out its vital work without the strong involvement of the richest and most powerful country in the world. At the same time, I believe that this country also needs the United Nations.
As the title of this conference suggests, some reconnecting does need to be done between the United States and the United Nations. It is instructive to recall the days leading up to the founding of the United Nations and the circumstances in which it came into being. At that time, Americans from all walks of life looked to the United Nations to prevent another world war like the one that had just cost 50 million lives. Interest in the new organization was so great in the United States that discussions took place in schools and universities on the strengths and weaknesses of the League of Nations; religious leaders sermonized on the United Nations' importance as a means of carrying forward American ideals; and cities from across the nation vied for being selected to host its headquarters. The protection of human rights was at the heart of this quest as the “Four Freedoms” of President Roosevelt rang across the world.
What we ought to do is to recapture the hope of a better future for humankind, rooted in respect for human rights, which characterised that era. In doing so we must be conscious of the UN’s role and record. We must bear in mind its mistakes, but we should also consider the UN’s enduring potential to improve the lot of people everywhere and to ensure peace and security.
Last year’s Millennium Assembly Report set out the challenges facing the world in the period ahead and outlined a series of measures aimed at renewing the United Nations. In presenting the Report, the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, noted that “these are the tasks which affect the everyday lives of our peoples. It is on how we handle them that the utility of the United Nations will be judged.” That is the challenge which those of us who work for the United Nations must keep in our minds at all times. In this, we need the support of the United States and all the other UN members if we are to be effective.
So it is very important that the World Affairs Councils of America continue, not only to educate new generations about the UN’s history and mission which the people of this country contributed so much to developing, but also to play a lead role in helping to inform and shape public opinion about world affairs for the years to come. I pay tribute to you for the valuable work you do in building bridges between civic and community leaders here and around the globe on the role of the United Nations in today’s world and I urge you to carry the torch forward.
Human rights in today’s world
The title of my speech takes the form of a question: “Are human rights taking root around the world?” Let me share with you some of my direct experience. Looking back over the past year, I was privileged to sit and listen to human rights groups in a wide range of countries, including Russia, Brazil, Sweden, France, Mongolia, East Timor, Indonesia, China, Togo, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and the Middle East. There were two key messages that came across: the emphasis these human rights defenders placed on implementing at grass roots level the international human rights norms and standards, and how much the United Nations is looked to for support and sustenance. Yes, human rights are taking root, but they need nurturing, and there must be greater focus on strengthening capacity at national level. Our goal is that every country in the world establish and operate effective national systems for the protection of human rights at the constitutional, legislative, judicial and educational levels.
As we strive to achieve this goal, we are aware of the painful realities of human rights violations which are well documented:
- Torture and arbitrary detention are still widespread;
- racial discrimination and gender inequality remain commonplace;
- more than a billion people live in abject poverty, three-fourths of them illiterate;
- millions of refugees and internally displaced persons cannot return to their homes;
- religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted;
- many who defend human rights are silenced, imprisoned, killed.
Add to this bleak picture new concerns that some of the features of globalization currently aggravate inequalities and impact negatively on the enjoyment of fundamental rights by many people in the world. It is understandable, given all of this, that many would contend that human rights may have been planted but that the roots are shallow at best.
Clearly, a host of significant challenges remain. But I see real evidence that human rights are taking root not only in the hearts and minds of people in every corner of the globe, but also, increasingly, in national systems of government.
Consider some of the signs of progress:
- every time people are given a free choice they will choose freedom. This is the strongest evidence that human rights are deeply rooted globally.
- more than half the world's people today live under governments of their own choosing;
- the combined moral voice of a growing global civil society has succeeded not only in spreading the human rights message to all parts of the world, but also in reporting human rights violations as they occur, mobilising support for the victims and in challenging oppressive systems of government;
- international human rights standards are in place which have won near-universal assent from States, and most of which are now enshrined in legally binding instruments;
- UN treaty monitoring bodies and mechanisms established by the UN Commission on Human Rights today help ensure that governments are living up to their commitments and address specific human rights issues;
- And there is increasing cooperation between our UN colleagues and other partners at the regional and national level in bringing countries together to share good practices in the implementation of human rights, to address emerging problems and to develop joint strategies for action.
In an opinion poll carried out for the Millennium Assembly, an overwhelming majority of people from all parts of the world stressed the need for greater protection of human rights as being their top priority for the 21st century.
Why is it that people have put such emphasis on human rights? I believe it is because of the incredible changes taking place in the world and the belief that human rights hold out the best prospect for the future of the human family. People understand that many of today’s challenges -- poverty, disease, and conflict to name only three — recognize no borders and can only be addressed by nations working together with shared resources and common goals. People believe that a world increasingly connected by a web of technology, information, transportation and commerce must also be connected by shared values and norms of behavior - by human rights.
The Full Range of Rights
One thing that is becoming ever clearer is that greater emphasis has to be placed on efforts to ensure implementation of economic, social and cultural rights alongside the more established civil and political rights. To be specific: violations such as torture or arbitrary detention clearly need to be addressed by identifying those responsible and seeking redress through judicial procedure. But so too must the denial of people’s right to food, housing and other basic necessities. Progress is being made in that the UN Commission on Human Rights has in recent years appointed experts to explore what some refer to as “developmental” rights, that is, the right to food, housing and education among others. But securing the implementation of these rights requires a great deal of further work.
One of the great merits of the inclusive approach to human rights is that more people recognise that human rights are truly universal and not a stick to be used by rich countries against poorer ones. In my visits to developing countries I get a sense of increasing recognition these days that human rights are a broad, balanced agenda all feel they can buy into.
The attitude of some towards economic, social and cultural rights has at times been lukewarm or even downright hostile. I think that they should reconsider their approach. Certainly it was the full range of rights which Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind during the drafting of the Universal Declaration. The arguments in favour are even stronger today with the Cold War over and a less politicised agenda.
An increasing amount of work undertaken by my Office and the wider UN human rights programme addresses “capacity-building”. We have learned a great deal about what that term really means in recent years. We now work not only with national governments but also at the regional and community level with our UN partners to train judges and police, to develop and revise national human rights legislation and to assist governments in meeting their reporting obligations under the international human rights treaty system. We continue to strengthen our cooperation with civil society, which plays such an important role in shaping public attitudes about human rights.
We are also reaching out to the private sector to help in the better appreciation of its role in the promotion and protection of human rights. Traditionally corporations have been distant from the human rights debate. But in a world where consumers are increasingly well informed, companies find themselves exposed to unfavorable publicity and boycotts if they have been found to have been involved in labor or environmental abuses or appear to be complicit in or profiting from human rights violations committed by host governments.
That is why many corporations from around the world have responded to the Secretary-General's Global Compact initiative by committing themselves to observing, in their own activities, universal human rights, labor and environmental standards, on which governments have already agreed. By doing so they are not only doing the right thing within their own operations but also helping make those standards more accessible to the societies in which they do business.
Our new approaches are all part of a continuing determination to find the best methods by which to embed a culture of human rights into societies, to entrench human rights norms into national legislation, and to see them implemented in practice. But we should not forget that although human rights are taking root, like any newly planted tree, roots are fragile and need careful nurturing.
The U.S. and human rights
What more can the United States do to foster greater respect for human rights not only at home but around the world?
Firstly I would like to pay tribute to the role this country has played in shaping the international vision of human rights and in helping establish international norms and mechanisms for their protection. After the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. was to the fore in recognizing the importance of international political processes that would establish institutions and norms designed to promote peace and security and development and which would include all countries in resulting obligations. The view here was: “if we take international law and institutions seriously, so will the rest of the world.”
The post-war international system was premised on states’ reciprocal obligations. There can be no denying that the process of developing mechanisms to help ensure state compliance with treaty obligations and resolution of disputes about the nature of those obligations was a long and complicated one. I would be the first to agree that multilateral political processes have not been as efficient as they could have been and that the application of resulting agreements has been uneven.
But today we see the benefits of these efforts in such diverse areas as trade, disarmament and environmental protection which have served this and other nations’ long-term interests. In the field of human rights, States’ reporting requirements under the various treaties have proved to be a very important instrument. The need to prepare for the periodic reviews called for in the treaties provides opportunities for national reflection on key human rights issues and the development of comprehensive goals. And it prompts governments to assess and report regularly on different aspects of rights protection which can even result in new initiatives to improve their performance.
Unfortunately, this UN human rights machinery, which has such an important job to do, receives only very limited funding from the regular budget of the Organization. A key challenge facing us is to ensure that the UN machinery for implementation and monitoring really works as well as it can.
One important step the United States could take in signaling its continuing support for the UN human rights machinery would be to ratify the remaining three of the six core human rights treaties. Let me take first the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women which the U.S. was active in drafting and among the first to sign when it was adopted in 1979. Since then, the Convention has remained in the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee without coming to the floor for a vote.
CEDAW has proved to be a vital tool to challenge discrimination and violence against women around the world. But when an influential country such as the United States declines to ratify, the convention's universality is undermined. In a country where such enormous progress has been made in the struggle for women’s rights, it is unfortunate that the U.S., by not having become a party to the treaty, is ineligible to appoint members of the Committee which oversees its implementation in countries which have adopted it.
The second is the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratification of which, I believe, would be of tangible benefit. The United States has some of the best programs and laws in the world to protect its children but, as UNICEF has pointed out, the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of the industrialized countries for poverty and hunger among children and also for child mortality. A recent story in the Washington Post noted that “despite this time of record prosperity, one in every six American children is poor; one in three children of color. No other developed country has anything approaching U.S. child poverty rates.” The Convention can assist countries by providing a comprehensive set of goals and a framework for developing policy on children.
Many countries have also found ratification of the third core treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of great benefit in focussing all parts of government on ensuring that legislation and programmes at every level are made and carried out with the rights of each individual as their starting point.
I would urge the people of the United States to consider the many advantages that ratification would bring, both nationally, by improving the recognition and protection of all human rights, and internationally, by enabling the United States to continue to play a central role in the championing of human rights around the world.
An essential component of human rights is accountability for grave violations. The international community has responded in a number of ways in such cases with varying degrees of success. One example is the tribunals set up by the UN Security Council to judge those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now, the International Criminal Court offers the hope that individuals who commit the gravest crimes under international law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes will be investigated and prosecuted no matter where they have been committed.
I welcomed the recent signing by President Clinton of the treaty establishing the court as an important sign of this country’s continuing commitment to the cause of justice around the world. It is my hope that, the incoming administration will take this initiative forward towards eventual ratification.
It should be stressed that the ICC will only take action in cases where national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute these crimes. Some experts in the U.S. have raised concerns that the Court would prompt politically motivated investigations and prosecutions which could put innocent Americans at risk. What isn’t always made clear however is that the Court’s Statute has many safeguards in place to ensure that investigations and prosecutions are pursued solely in the interest of justice, not politics.
World Conference against Racism
Preventing human rights violations through every means possible has been a theme on which I have focused great attention as High Commissioner for Human Rights. The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which will take place from 31 August to 7 September this year in Durban, South Africa has the potential to be a powerful mechanism in the prevention of human rights violations and for addressing the root causes of such violations. The World Conference is also an occasion to put human rights at the center of the international agenda and to educate young people about the evils of racism and discrimination and the great benefits which come from tolerance and respect for diversity.
You may ask, “Why is the United Nations convening a World Conference against Racism now?” The simple answer is that in spite of two previous World Conferences on the issue and three International Decades to combat racism; in spite of the work of the Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination, the oldest of the UN treaty monitoring bodies and in spite of efforts at the national level in countries from every region, the problem of racism and discrimination is still very much alive.
The most overt forms of racism may have been outlawed but discrimination persists in multiple forms, often in subtle, systemic ways.
The U.S. is a natural leader for this Conference. It continues to be one of the most diverse countries in the world and has many lessons to teach others about dealing with problems of discrimination and intolerance.
Consider the changing face of America. Statistics show that in little more than 50 years, minorities will become the new majority in the United States. This country is currently in the midst of the largest wave of immigration since the turn of the last century. We can already see this new reality taking shape in California. As one scholar noted: "Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city. It's also the second largest Korean city. The second largest Filipino city. And you can go on and on." Significantly, the differences between ethnic and racial groups are being blurred. In Los Angeles County, one of every nine newborns is the product of an inter-racial couple.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s projections, the combined population of ethnic minority groups will continue to grow more rapidly than that of non-Hispanic whites. By 2025, one-fourth of the total U.S. population will live in states where ethnic “minorities” exceed “non-minorities.” How will these changes impact on American life? How will you as a country handle this transformation? How can your experience serve as an example for others?
It is as well to bear in mind that despite undeniable signs of progress, persistent and systematic discrimination against minorities continues. Problems such as racial profiling, disparities in the imposition of the death penalty, poverty and lack of access to basic social services must still be addressed.
The Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance provides a significant opportunity for a new direction and a new energy to fighting both contemporary and traditional forms of racism.
What I would like to see in the coming months prior to the World Conference is for each nation to examine its record and explore ways and means of how it can improve relations between racial and ethnic groups in its society. I would like each country to face up to its own particular legacy of history, including the consequences of colonial conquest, of slavery, of genocide, of traditional and contemporary forms of racial discrimination. I would also like the World Conference to have a particular focus on gender and racism.
My central message for the upcoming World Conference is that there is but one human family, regardless of race, colour, descent, ethnic or social origin, and that for too long diversity has been treated as a threat rather than a gift. Too often that threat has been expressed in racial contempt, in exclusion and intolerance. Instead of allowing diversity of race and culture to become limiting factors in human exchange and development, we must refocus our understanding and discern in such diversity the potential for mutual enrichment and benefit.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I conclude by returning to my conviction that human rights are taking root in the world. Of course there will continue to be differences and challenges. For instance, strong arguments will continue over the use of the death penalty (and for the record let me say again that I am opposed to its use.) But despite all the challenges, I believe there is reason for hope that we are on the right track - that progress is being made in strengthening respect for human rights throughout the world.
One further step that I believe all of us can work on more together is in strengthening our efforts for human rights education. Even here in the United States, many people still lack basic information about human rights. For example, according to a 1997 poll, only 8 percent of the American public said they had heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even though it is now the most translated document in the world and has been a beacon of hope for millions of people in their quest for freedom. How could all of you do more in your communities to educate new generations about the links between the long struggle for civil rights in this country with the Universal Declaration and international human rights norms and standards and the solidarity needed in struggles for human rights still to be won today?
Of course, U.S. leadership in human rights at the UN is a key factor. If the American people want rights to be implemented universally, today’s leaders must step forward, as the generation before it did after World War II, recognize that protection of human rights around the world is part of U.S. national interest, and play a constructive role in closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
*****
“Are Human Rights Taking Root Around The World?”
ADDRESS BY MARY ROBINSON
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCILS OF AMERICA CONFERENCE ON
“RECONNECTING AMERICA AND THE UNITED NATIONS”
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This joint World Affairs Councils of America – Foreign Policy Association conference on “Reconnecting America and the United Nations” is timely and welcome.
As far as my area of responsibility – human rights – is concerned, let me say at once that the United Nations needs America’s full engagement with our programmes and activities. Indeed it would be unthinkable for the United Nations to try to carry out its vital work without the strong involvement of the richest and most powerful country in the world. At the same time, I believe that this country also needs the United Nations.
As the title of this conference suggests, some reconnecting does need to be done between the United States and the United Nations. It is instructive to recall the days leading up to the founding of the United Nations and the circumstances in which it came into being. At that time, Americans from all walks of life looked to the United Nations to prevent another world war like the one that had just cost 50 million lives. Interest in the new organization was so great in the United States that discussions took place in schools and universities on the strengths and weaknesses of the League of Nations; religious leaders sermonized on the United Nations' importance as a means of carrying forward American ideals; and cities from across the nation vied for being selected to host its headquarters. The protection of human rights was at the heart of this quest as the “Four Freedoms” of President Roosevelt rang across the world.
What we ought to do is to recapture the hope of a better future for humankind, rooted in respect for human rights, which characterised that era. In doing so we must be conscious of the UN’s role and record. We must bear in mind its mistakes, but we should also consider the UN’s enduring potential to improve the lot of people everywhere and to ensure peace and security.
Last year’s Millennium Assembly Report set out the challenges facing the world in the period ahead and outlined a series of measures aimed at renewing the United Nations. In presenting the Report, the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, noted that “these are the tasks which affect the everyday lives of our peoples. It is on how we handle them that the utility of the United Nations will be judged.” That is the challenge which those of us who work for the United Nations must keep in our minds at all times. In this, we need the support of the United States and all the other UN members if we are to be effective.
So it is very important that the World Affairs Councils of America continue, not only to educate new generations about the UN’s history and mission which the people of this country contributed so much to developing, but also to play a lead role in helping to inform and shape public opinion about world affairs for the years to come. I pay tribute to you for the valuable work you do in building bridges between civic and community leaders here and around the globe on the role of the United Nations in today’s world and I urge you to carry the torch forward.
Human rights in today’s world
The title of my speech takes the form of a question: “Are human rights taking root around the world?” Let me share with you some of my direct experience. Looking back over the past year, I was privileged to sit and listen to human rights groups in a wide range of countries, including Russia, Brazil, Sweden, France, Mongolia, East Timor, Indonesia, China, Togo, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico and the Middle East. There were two key messages that came across: the emphasis these human rights defenders placed on implementing at grass roots level the international human rights norms and standards, and how much the United Nations is looked to for support and sustenance. Yes, human rights are taking root, but they need nurturing, and there must be greater focus on strengthening capacity at national level. Our goal is that every country in the world establish and operate effective national systems for the protection of human rights at the constitutional, legislative, judicial and educational levels.
As we strive to achieve this goal, we are aware of the painful realities of human rights violations which are well documented:
- Torture and arbitrary detention are still widespread;
- racial discrimination and gender inequality remain commonplace;
- more than a billion people live in abject poverty, three-fourths of them illiterate;
- millions of refugees and internally displaced persons cannot return to their homes;
- religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted;
- many who defend human rights are silenced, imprisoned, killed.
Add to this bleak picture new concerns that some of the features of globalization currently aggravate inequalities and impact negatively on the enjoyment of fundamental rights by many people in the world. It is understandable, given all of this, that many would contend that human rights may have been planted but that the roots are shallow at best.
Clearly, a host of significant challenges remain. But I see real evidence that human rights are taking root not only in the hearts and minds of people in every corner of the globe, but also, increasingly, in national systems of government.
Consider some of the signs of progress:
- every time people are given a free choice they will choose freedom. This is the strongest evidence that human rights are deeply rooted globally.
- more than half the world's people today live under governments of their own choosing;
- the combined moral voice of a growing global civil society has succeeded not only in spreading the human rights message to all parts of the world, but also in reporting human rights violations as they occur, mobilising support for the victims and in challenging oppressive systems of government;
- international human rights standards are in place which have won near-universal assent from States, and most of which are now enshrined in legally binding instruments;
- UN treaty monitoring bodies and mechanisms established by the UN Commission on Human Rights today help ensure that governments are living up to their commitments and address specific human rights issues;
- And there is increasing cooperation between our UN colleagues and other partners at the regional and national level in bringing countries together to share good practices in the implementation of human rights, to address emerging problems and to develop joint strategies for action.
In an opinion poll carried out for the Millennium Assembly, an overwhelming majority of people from all parts of the world stressed the need for greater protection of human rights as being their top priority for the 21st century.
Why is it that people have put such emphasis on human rights? I believe it is because of the incredible changes taking place in the world and the belief that human rights hold out the best prospect for the future of the human family. People understand that many of today’s challenges -- poverty, disease, and conflict to name only three — recognize no borders and can only be addressed by nations working together with shared resources and common goals. People believe that a world increasingly connected by a web of technology, information, transportation and commerce must also be connected by shared values and norms of behavior - by human rights.
The Full Range of Rights
One thing that is becoming ever clearer is that greater emphasis has to be placed on efforts to ensure implementation of economic, social and cultural rights alongside the more established civil and political rights. To be specific: violations such as torture or arbitrary detention clearly need to be addressed by identifying those responsible and seeking redress through judicial procedure. But so too must the denial of people’s right to food, housing and other basic necessities. Progress is being made in that the UN Commission on Human Rights has in recent years appointed experts to explore what some refer to as “developmental” rights, that is, the right to food, housing and education among others. But securing the implementation of these rights requires a great deal of further work.
One of the great merits of the inclusive approach to human rights is that more people recognise that human rights are truly universal and not a stick to be used by rich countries against poorer ones. In my visits to developing countries I get a sense of increasing recognition these days that human rights are a broad, balanced agenda all feel they can buy into.
The attitude of some towards economic, social and cultural rights has at times been lukewarm or even downright hostile. I think that they should reconsider their approach. Certainly it was the full range of rights which Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind during the drafting of the Universal Declaration. The arguments in favour are even stronger today with the Cold War over and a less politicised agenda.
An increasing amount of work undertaken by my Office and the wider UN human rights programme addresses “capacity-building”. We have learned a great deal about what that term really means in recent years. We now work not only with national governments but also at the regional and community level with our UN partners to train judges and police, to develop and revise national human rights legislation and to assist governments in meeting their reporting obligations under the international human rights treaty system. We continue to strengthen our cooperation with civil society, which plays such an important role in shaping public attitudes about human rights.
We are also reaching out to the private sector to help in the better appreciation of its role in the promotion and protection of human rights. Traditionally corporations have been distant from the human rights debate. But in a world where consumers are increasingly well informed, companies find themselves exposed to unfavorable publicity and boycotts if they have been found to have been involved in labor or environmental abuses or appear to be complicit in or profiting from human rights violations committed by host governments.
That is why many corporations from around the world have responded to the Secretary-General's Global Compact initiative by committing themselves to observing, in their own activities, universal human rights, labor and environmental standards, on which governments have already agreed. By doing so they are not only doing the right thing within their own operations but also helping make those standards more accessible to the societies in which they do business.
Our new approaches are all part of a continuing determination to find the best methods by which to embed a culture of human rights into societies, to entrench human rights norms into national legislation, and to see them implemented in practice. But we should not forget that although human rights are taking root, like any newly planted tree, roots are fragile and need careful nurturing.
The U.S. and human rights
What more can the United States do to foster greater respect for human rights not only at home but around the world?
Firstly I would like to pay tribute to the role this country has played in shaping the international vision of human rights and in helping establish international norms and mechanisms for their protection. After the Great Depression and World War II, the U.S. was to the fore in recognizing the importance of international political processes that would establish institutions and norms designed to promote peace and security and development and which would include all countries in resulting obligations. The view here was: “if we take international law and institutions seriously, so will the rest of the world.”
The post-war international system was premised on states’ reciprocal obligations. There can be no denying that the process of developing mechanisms to help ensure state compliance with treaty obligations and resolution of disputes about the nature of those obligations was a long and complicated one. I would be the first to agree that multilateral political processes have not been as efficient as they could have been and that the application of resulting agreements has been uneven.
But today we see the benefits of these efforts in such diverse areas as trade, disarmament and environmental protection which have served this and other nations’ long-term interests. In the field of human rights, States’ reporting requirements under the various treaties have proved to be a very important instrument. The need to prepare for the periodic reviews called for in the treaties provides opportunities for national reflection on key human rights issues and the development of comprehensive goals. And it prompts governments to assess and report regularly on different aspects of rights protection which can even result in new initiatives to improve their performance.
Unfortunately, this UN human rights machinery, which has such an important job to do, receives only very limited funding from the regular budget of the Organization. A key challenge facing us is to ensure that the UN machinery for implementation and monitoring really works as well as it can.
One important step the United States could take in signaling its continuing support for the UN human rights machinery would be to ratify the remaining three of the six core human rights treaties. Let me take first the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women which the U.S. was active in drafting and among the first to sign when it was adopted in 1979. Since then, the Convention has remained in the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee without coming to the floor for a vote.
CEDAW has proved to be a vital tool to challenge discrimination and violence against women around the world. But when an influential country such as the United States declines to ratify, the convention's universality is undermined. In a country where such enormous progress has been made in the struggle for women’s rights, it is unfortunate that the U.S., by not having become a party to the treaty, is ineligible to appoint members of the Committee which oversees its implementation in countries which have adopted it.
The second is the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratification of which, I believe, would be of tangible benefit. The United States has some of the best programs and laws in the world to protect its children but, as UNICEF has pointed out, the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of the industrialized countries for poverty and hunger among children and also for child mortality. A recent story in the Washington Post noted that “despite this time of record prosperity, one in every six American children is poor; one in three children of color. No other developed country has anything approaching U.S. child poverty rates.” The Convention can assist countries by providing a comprehensive set of goals and a framework for developing policy on children.
Many countries have also found ratification of the third core treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of great benefit in focussing all parts of government on ensuring that legislation and programmes at every level are made and carried out with the rights of each individual as their starting point.
I would urge the people of the United States to consider the many advantages that ratification would bring, both nationally, by improving the recognition and protection of all human rights, and internationally, by enabling the United States to continue to play a central role in the championing of human rights around the world.
An essential component of human rights is accountability for grave violations. The international community has responded in a number of ways in such cases with varying degrees of success. One example is the tribunals set up by the UN Security Council to judge those guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Now, the International Criminal Court offers the hope that individuals who commit the gravest crimes under international law, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes will be investigated and prosecuted no matter where they have been committed.
I welcomed the recent signing by President Clinton of the treaty establishing the court as an important sign of this country’s continuing commitment to the cause of justice around the world. It is my hope that, the incoming administration will take this initiative forward towards eventual ratification.
It should be stressed that the ICC will only take action in cases where national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute these crimes. Some experts in the U.S. have raised concerns that the Court would prompt politically motivated investigations and prosecutions which could put innocent Americans at risk. What isn’t always made clear however is that the Court’s Statute has many safeguards in place to ensure that investigations and prosecutions are pursued solely in the interest of justice, not politics.
World Conference against Racism
Preventing human rights violations through every means possible has been a theme on which I have focused great attention as High Commissioner for Human Rights. The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which will take place from 31 August to 7 September this year in Durban, South Africa has the potential to be a powerful mechanism in the prevention of human rights violations and for addressing the root causes of such violations. The World Conference is also an occasion to put human rights at the center of the international agenda and to educate young people about the evils of racism and discrimination and the great benefits which come from tolerance and respect for diversity.
You may ask, “Why is the United Nations convening a World Conference against Racism now?” The simple answer is that in spite of two previous World Conferences on the issue and three International Decades to combat racism; in spite of the work of the Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination, the oldest of the UN treaty monitoring bodies and in spite of efforts at the national level in countries from every region, the problem of racism and discrimination is still very much alive.
The most overt forms of racism may have been outlawed but discrimination persists in multiple forms, often in subtle, systemic ways.
The U.S. is a natural leader for this Conference. It continues to be one of the most diverse countries in the world and has many lessons to teach others about dealing with problems of discrimination and intolerance.
Consider the changing face of America. Statistics show that in little more than 50 years, minorities will become the new majority in the United States. This country is currently in the midst of the largest wave of immigration since the turn of the last century. We can already see this new reality taking shape in California. As one scholar noted: "Los Angeles is the second largest Mexican city. It's also the second largest Korean city. The second largest Filipino city. And you can go on and on." Significantly, the differences between ethnic and racial groups are being blurred. In Los Angeles County, one of every nine newborns is the product of an inter-racial couple.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s projections, the combined population of ethnic minority groups will continue to grow more rapidly than that of non-Hispanic whites. By 2025, one-fourth of the total U.S. population will live in states where ethnic “minorities” exceed “non-minorities.” How will these changes impact on American life? How will you as a country handle this transformation? How can your experience serve as an example for others?
It is as well to bear in mind that despite undeniable signs of progress, persistent and systematic discrimination against minorities continues. Problems such as racial profiling, disparities in the imposition of the death penalty, poverty and lack of access to basic social services must still be addressed.
The Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance provides a significant opportunity for a new direction and a new energy to fighting both contemporary and traditional forms of racism.
What I would like to see in the coming months prior to the World Conference is for each nation to examine its record and explore ways and means of how it can improve relations between racial and ethnic groups in its society. I would like each country to face up to its own particular legacy of history, including the consequences of colonial conquest, of slavery, of genocide, of traditional and contemporary forms of racial discrimination. I would also like the World Conference to have a particular focus on gender and racism.
My central message for the upcoming World Conference is that there is but one human family, regardless of race, colour, descent, ethnic or social origin, and that for too long diversity has been treated as a threat rather than a gift. Too often that threat has been expressed in racial contempt, in exclusion and intolerance. Instead of allowing diversity of race and culture to become limiting factors in human exchange and development, we must refocus our understanding and discern in such diversity the potential for mutual enrichment and benefit.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I conclude by returning to my conviction that human rights are taking root in the world. Of course there will continue to be differences and challenges. For instance, strong arguments will continue over the use of the death penalty (and for the record let me say again that I am opposed to its use.) But despite all the challenges, I believe there is reason for hope that we are on the right track - that progress is being made in strengthening respect for human rights throughout the world.
One further step that I believe all of us can work on more together is in strengthening our efforts for human rights education. Even here in the United States, many people still lack basic information about human rights. For example, according to a 1997 poll, only 8 percent of the American public said they had heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights even though it is now the most translated document in the world and has been a beacon of hope for millions of people in their quest for freedom. How could all of you do more in your communities to educate new generations about the links between the long struggle for civil rights in this country with the Universal Declaration and international human rights norms and standards and the solidarity needed in struggles for human rights still to be won today?
Of course, U.S. leadership in human rights at the UN is a key factor. If the American people want rights to be implemented universally, today’s leaders must step forward, as the generation before it did after World War II, recognize that protection of human rights around the world is part of U.S. national interest, and play a constructive role in closing the gap between rhetoric and reality.
*****