Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Default title
28 October 1999
Share
Washington Conference
on Atrocities Prevention and Response
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
28 October 1999
Speech by Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like first of all to congratulate Harold Koh, his colleagues and all those involved in preparing this timely conference. It is timely because we continue to see, every day, the catastrophic effects of not preventing atrocities and how vital it is, when they occur, that the response be swift and effective.
The place we are meeting in, the Holocaust Museum, reminds us of the worst manifestation of human tyranny. The word genocide is often misused and has even become debased through overuse. In the case of the Holocaust it is entirely appropriate since it was nothing less than an attempt to obliterate the Jewish people from the earth.
But our being here also reminds us that the people who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did so at a time when the world was still trying to come to grips with the horrors of the Holocaust. The drafters of the Universal Declaration were idealists who sought to learn from the terrible human rights abuses committed during the war by setting out in clear language the rights which all of us have, simply by virtue of being human. We should take heart from their vision - and from their practical single-mindedness. They had a vision but they also had their feet firmly on the ground as is shown by the fact that the Universal Declaration, born out of a determination that the world would never again experience genocide, has stood the test of time and has been the source of an impressive body of human rights law.
Alas, it has not prevented genocide. Earlier this week I had a meeting in Geneva with some of the members of the Eminent Persons Group established by the OAU to see what lessons we could learn from the genocide in Rwanda. One of the lessons must be to resource preventive capacity in regional institutions, such as the Conflict Prevention Unit of the OAU, as well as equipping the UN human rights mechanisms to function at full effectiveness. In large part this is simply a resources issue, because targeted resources could transform existing underfunded mechanisms into an effective early warning system.
Before addressing the aims of the conference, let me say what I feel the conference should not be. It should not be a forum where like-minded countries, NGOs and international organisations all agree around the table that prevention is very important, and then that we go away and nothing happens. It would be difficult to find anybody who would disagree with the proposition that atrocities should be headed off before they happen. But that has not resulted in an end to atrocities and mass killings in many parts of the world.
There is no shortage of examples where failure to take preventive action has resulted in atrocities. This year we have seen what happened in East Timor and Kosovo, not to mention the dozen or so continuing conflicts in Africa. In none of these cases could it be said that the outside world was ignorant of what was happening; on the contrary, with modern communication there are few parts of the world which escape the eye. Even as we meet today, atrocities are being committed or are imminent.
I would draw attention to two cases in particular where the warning signs are unmistakable: the Great Lakes region and the former Yugoslavia. As you are aware, reports coming from the Great Lakes region speak of a dangerously unstable state of affairs. Despite the high expectations raised by the signing of the Lusaka Peace Agreement, fighting continues in the Democratic Republic of Congo with reports of widespread human rights abuses. In Burundi, attacks on the capital and elsewhere have cost the lives of hundreds in the past three months alone, including UN workers whose only aim was to bring humanitarian help to the region. The danger of more widespread conflict flaring up again is clear - yet can we say that international attention is really focussed on the problems of the region?
In the former Yugoslavia the situation remains critical too. Three months after the fighting ended in Kosovo, attacks against the Serb and Roma population are ongoing, houses are burned down or forcibly occupied, people are driven out or killed. The plight of Montenegro draws little attention but it is clear that the potential exists there for another outbreak of conflict. Has nothing been learned from the international community’s experiences in the rest of the former Yugoslavia? Or is it the case, as some allege, that we only take action to address human rights violations after the violations have been perpetrated?
If this conference is to be successful it will have to address the issues that lie at the heart of prevention and devise ways of putting more emphasis on, and more resources into, prevention. Discussion should include the policy and financial implications of really putting prevention into practice, the hard choices which fall to be made and the shortfall between what we say should be done and what has happened in practice.
A Culture of Prevention
My view of prevention is simple: I see it as the most important task of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The rationale for prevention has been well described by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh. I have quoted her before and make no apologies for doing so again as it seems to me she hit the nail on the head:
“In all cultures and every society, prevention is something normal. Measures are taken to avert crop destruction by flood or rodents. Cattle are protected from predators. Warning signals are placed at rail crossings and air traffic is controlled to avoid accidents. Insurance policies are developed in almost all areas of human activity. All this is the result of preventive thinking, based on the assumption that accidents and disasters can be avoided if you think ahead while preparing for the worst...It is high time to transfer and strengthen the sophisticated preventive habits we know so well at home into the field of international security.”
It is not as if the value of prevention has not been highlighted over the years. Prevention was the central theme of the lengthy study of conflict done by the Carnegie Commission when some of the great thinkers of the day looked at the root causes of conflict. That thought-provoking report came to three central conclusions: that deadly conflict is not inevitable, that the need to prevent deadly conflicts is increasingly urgent and that preventing deadly conflict is possible. What the study tells us is that we should not be put off by the doom-sayers who insist that conflict and violence are the natural lot of the human race and will never be eradicated.
Nor should we be deterred by the risk of failure. If we look at failures of prevention in the past what becomes apparent is that many were put into effect too late, or were half-hearted, the equivalent of bringing a leaky bucket to a fire that is already threatening to blaze out of control. Prevention is by no means a new concept but there are many cases where insufficient attention and resources have been devoted to prevention, only for the cost of repairing the damage afterwards to exceed preventive costs many times over.
Strategies of Prevention
The challenge we face is to put strategies in place which will be effective in preventing atrocities from occurring. I see four essential strategies which are complimentary and interrelated. All are predicated on my belief that strengthening the culture of human rights and respect for others in societies is the bedrock on which the issue of prevention is based.
Firstly, economic and social development programmes which have human development as their chief focus and which are capable of improving the lot of the poorest;
Secondly, accountability;
Thirdly, strengthening capacity: support for participatory systems of government, for democracy, the rule of law, the judiciary, for national human rights institutions; and
Fourthly, human rights education.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
All of these strategies are important but I place economic and social development at the top of the list because I see it as of fundamental significance and because it receives less attention than the others. To be frank, I feel that rich countries are often guilty of double-speak when they talk to the developing countries about rights issues. The rich countries urge that civil and political rights be observed and they are properly critical of abuses where they occur. But when it comes to economic, social and cultural rights of poorer countries and the right to development, they have a good deal less to say. Yet those rights are enshrined just as clearly in the Universal Declaration and in the international covenants and declarations of the United Nations as civil and political rights. Not only that, but the international community has repeatedly affirmed its support for these rights at numerous international conferences - at Cairo, Beijing and Copenhagen, to name only three.
The reality on the ground is that the problems of extreme poverty and economic and social imbalances are getting worse, not better. The human rights so many take for granted - freedom of speech and religion, the right to a fair trial - cannot flourish where people are deprived of access to food, to healthcare, to education. And it is the abuse of these essential rights which leads inexorably to atrocities and gross violations. Atrocities do not suddenly happen; they start with minor discrimination; that leads on to worse forms of discrimination, which turns into exclusion and finally the ultimate exclusion where people are driven from their homes and murdered.
Focussed, human-centred development programmes have a key role to play in preventing atrocities. Yet the readiness of rich countries to abide by their solemn undertakings to assist in development is weakening. It is simply not credible to talk about human rights and prevention and at the same time to cut aid budgets.
The irony is that aid budget cuts are taking place just when it seems that some crucial lessons are being learned by the donor agencies. There is a new focus on the human-centred approach to development which recognises that improving the individual’s lot is a more important objective than simply striving for better GNP growth . Professor Muhammud Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh states in the latest Human Development Report:
“When I was arguing that helping a one-meal family to become a two-meal family, enabling a woman without a change of clothing to afford to buy a second piece of clothing, is a development miracle, I was ridiculed. That is no development, I was reminded sternly. Development is growth of the economy, they said; growth will bring everything. We carried out our work as if we were engaged in some very undesirable activities. When UNDP’s Human Development Report came out we felt vindicated. We were no longer back-street operators, we felt we were in the mainstream.”
I am pleased to see the new awareness of the human dimension of development in the strategies of UNDP, the World Bank and other development agencies and that cooperation between my Office and these agencies has increased markedly.
Accountability
Accountability for atrocities is an indispensable weapon in preventing further human rights violations. I believe that movement towards the establishment of effective machinery to punish those guilty of crimes against humanity is irreversible. The setting up of an International Criminal Court is the logical next step following the work done by the Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia Tribunals. I welcome the adoption of the Rome Statute and I appreciate that the United States is working closely with the growing international consensus. I hope that the United States will throw its support behind the Court and play the lead role on this, just as it has on so many human rights issues over the years. A clear message should go out: nobody who commits atrocities should expect to get away with it. That is true whether the crimes are committed in the Former Yugoslavia, in Cambodia, in Chile or in any part of the world. And it is true of East Timor where the International Commission of Inquiry called for by the Commission on Human Rights, has been formed and has begun its work.
Ratification of the Rome Statute will be a challenging test of the international community’s resolve to put the legal mechanisms on a sound basis. At the same time, we must remain open to the possibilities of different ways of securing justice and accountability, bearing in mind the harsh reality of many political and post-conflict situations. The magnitude of the problems facing countries in post-conflict situations can be so great that the normal processes of justice are simply not feasible. I think, for example, of the present situation in Sierra Leone. The people of Sierra Leone have experienced atrocities on a scale and of a brutality that are scarcely imaginable.
The campaign of terror was purposely aimed at the civilian population. The number of deaths will never be known, nor the number of those deliberately maimed and raped. And the people of Sierra Leone have had to endure the further indignity that the outside world has shown little interest in their awful plight.
The amnesty provision contained in the Lome Peace Agreement of 7 July was not something that the United Nations favoured and a reservation was entered when the agreement was signed, pointing out that there could be no amnesty for the grossest crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. When I visited Sierra Leone last June I called for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the massive human rights violations which have taken place. My Office has maintained contacts at a number of levels with the Sierra Leone authorities to seek ways of ensuring that there is accountability for the atrocities that took place. In particular, I have sent consultants to assist in the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have also sent my adviser on national human rights institutions to explain the principles which make such bodies effective.
Because the issues raised in Sierra Leone are so important, I have commissioned a distinguished African jurist to carry out an examination of the nexus between a possible Commission of Inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is being established. I believe this study may have a broader relevance in addressing conflicts in Africa.
Rwanda is another country trying to come to terms with a very bloody past, the genocide of 1994. Five years on, the problems regarding the administration of justice and gross overcrowding of jails remain acute. Of even more long term importance, both for the country and the region, is the task of embedding a culture of human rights. My Office has been supportive of the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission and we participated in a useful workshop last month in Kigali. Special Representative Michel Moussali, in his current report to the General Assembly, draws attention to an idea raised by the Rwandan Government of resorting to a system of participatory justice , incorporating the ancient traditional system of justice known as Gacaca, to bring to light the full truth about the heinous crimes committed in Rwanda and to administer justice to those responsible. The Special Representative felt that the Government’s initiative was an interesting approach and worth pursuing and a number of donors, including the United States, are supportive. If this initiative respects human rights norms and is effective in addressing the problem of Rwanda’s huge prison population - currently numbering some 130,000 - then it is worth close examination.
What these approaches have in common is the search for effective ways of breaking the cycle of impunity. It is not enough that societies recover from atrocities: lessons must be learned and ways found to ensure that they will not recur. Facing up to the reality of what has happened and rendering justice to the perpetrators are vital components in the process whereby societies can come to terms with atrocities and move on.
Capacity Building
The third strategy I wish to emphasise is capacity building, both in regional organisations and at national level. There are clear linkages between participatory democracies and freedom from atrocities. It cannot be said that there has never been a case in history where two democracies have gone to war but it is certain that the likelihood of conflict and gross human rights abuses is far greater where participatory democracy is absent. Most of the worst atrocities have happened where there are totalitarian regimes which refuse to answer to their citizens. It behoves us, therefore, to put resources into measures that support the establishment and consolidation of democracy, and to resource regional organisations to have preventive strategies in their regions.
Capacity building is a growing area of work for my Office. We now have technical cooperation programmes with 55 countries and field presences in 23. The countries we are assisting range from Nepal to Guatemala, from Bhutan to Azerbaijan . An example of the ways in which we can help is support for national human rights institutions. We have received requests from over 40 countries wishing to establish human rights institutions. I have mentioned our support in this area for Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Another example I would mention is South Korea. A few weeks ago I visited South Korea where I met President Kim Dae-jung who has championed the cause of a national human rights institution. I stressed to the Korean officials I met, as I do to all governments, that there are certain basic requirements for national human rights institutions to be effective, notably that they must be genuinely independent and have powers consistent with a capacity to discharge their functions.
My Office will continue to put emphasis on helping and advising governments about national human rights institutions. I am under no illusions that these are automatic guarantors that human rights will be observed but I believe they can play a valuable role.
Human Rights Education
And finally human rights education. The first step in establishing a human rights culture is to know what your rights are. There is still a great ignorance in many societies of even the basics of human rights. We are half way through the UN Decade of Human Rights Education and my Office is engaged in quite a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the information deficit. I see human rights education as an empowering instrument which enables individuals to understand and fight for their own rights and the rights of others.
Let me signal a major event coming up which I hope will be both educational and preventive: the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which my Office is responsible for organising in two years time. Preparatory meetings will be held in different regions next year. As you all know, racism and xenophobia are two of the clear precursors of atrocities. They are all too common features of societies throughout the world and their latest manifestation takes the form of hate-filled messages on the Internet. I see the World Conference in 2001 as an opportunity to tackle the issues head on and I appeal for your support in making it an innovative, relevant and practical event.
Responding to Atrocities
I am conscious that the title of this conference is Atrocities Prevention and Response, and that I have spent most of my time talking about prevention. That is because I strongly believe that prevention is all-important. Even after atrocities have happened, the need for preventive measures is still great. Coming back to the Report of the Carnegie Commission, the areas of preventive action which they identified included measures after conflict has broken out, namely preventing the further spread of conflict and preventing the re-emergence of conflict in the aftermath of a peace settlement. Both of these are situations which my Office is familiar with.
One concrete measure which could be taken is to respond to the growing international movement for the protection of children in armed conflict. The human rights impacts of armed conflict are particularly horrific when visited upon these most vulnerable members of the civilian population. A whole generation risks being blighted by this terrible phenomenon. I give my wholehearted support to the campaign to end the use of child soldiers. At three regional conferences this year organised by the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, in Mozambique, in Uruguay and, most recently, in Berlin, many governments - and even some national liberation movements - expressed support for raising the age limit for the recruitment of children into armed forces from 15 to 18. It is my sincere hope that governments - including that of the United States - will translate these expressions of support into solid commitment next year through the adoption of an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and so demonstrate that children have no place in armed conflict.
The best response we can make to atrocities is to learn from them, to resolve to address the underlying root causes, and, above all, to prevent them from happening again. Kofi Annan has laid down the challenge to us in calling for an age of prevention. That requires effective strategies and I have outlined the ones I see as being important. But it calls for more - it calls for imagination and a change of mind-set. It can be hard to persuade people of the value of a preventive approach because the results may not be visible or newsworthy - a conflict avoided, an atrocity prevented. But if we could go away from this conference with a firm resolve to devote to preventive measures even a fraction of the attention and resources which are poured in after atrocities occur, we would have made a good start.
on Atrocities Prevention and Response
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
28 October 1999
Speech by Mary Robinson
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like first of all to congratulate Harold Koh, his colleagues and all those involved in preparing this timely conference. It is timely because we continue to see, every day, the catastrophic effects of not preventing atrocities and how vital it is, when they occur, that the response be swift and effective.
The place we are meeting in, the Holocaust Museum, reminds us of the worst manifestation of human tyranny. The word genocide is often misused and has even become debased through overuse. In the case of the Holocaust it is entirely appropriate since it was nothing less than an attempt to obliterate the Jewish people from the earth.
But our being here also reminds us that the people who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights did so at a time when the world was still trying to come to grips with the horrors of the Holocaust. The drafters of the Universal Declaration were idealists who sought to learn from the terrible human rights abuses committed during the war by setting out in clear language the rights which all of us have, simply by virtue of being human. We should take heart from their vision - and from their practical single-mindedness. They had a vision but they also had their feet firmly on the ground as is shown by the fact that the Universal Declaration, born out of a determination that the world would never again experience genocide, has stood the test of time and has been the source of an impressive body of human rights law.
Alas, it has not prevented genocide. Earlier this week I had a meeting in Geneva with some of the members of the Eminent Persons Group established by the OAU to see what lessons we could learn from the genocide in Rwanda. One of the lessons must be to resource preventive capacity in regional institutions, such as the Conflict Prevention Unit of the OAU, as well as equipping the UN human rights mechanisms to function at full effectiveness. In large part this is simply a resources issue, because targeted resources could transform existing underfunded mechanisms into an effective early warning system.
Before addressing the aims of the conference, let me say what I feel the conference should not be. It should not be a forum where like-minded countries, NGOs and international organisations all agree around the table that prevention is very important, and then that we go away and nothing happens. It would be difficult to find anybody who would disagree with the proposition that atrocities should be headed off before they happen. But that has not resulted in an end to atrocities and mass killings in many parts of the world.
There is no shortage of examples where failure to take preventive action has resulted in atrocities. This year we have seen what happened in East Timor and Kosovo, not to mention the dozen or so continuing conflicts in Africa. In none of these cases could it be said that the outside world was ignorant of what was happening; on the contrary, with modern communication there are few parts of the world which escape the eye. Even as we meet today, atrocities are being committed or are imminent.
I would draw attention to two cases in particular where the warning signs are unmistakable: the Great Lakes region and the former Yugoslavia. As you are aware, reports coming from the Great Lakes region speak of a dangerously unstable state of affairs. Despite the high expectations raised by the signing of the Lusaka Peace Agreement, fighting continues in the Democratic Republic of Congo with reports of widespread human rights abuses. In Burundi, attacks on the capital and elsewhere have cost the lives of hundreds in the past three months alone, including UN workers whose only aim was to bring humanitarian help to the region. The danger of more widespread conflict flaring up again is clear - yet can we say that international attention is really focussed on the problems of the region?
In the former Yugoslavia the situation remains critical too. Three months after the fighting ended in Kosovo, attacks against the Serb and Roma population are ongoing, houses are burned down or forcibly occupied, people are driven out or killed. The plight of Montenegro draws little attention but it is clear that the potential exists there for another outbreak of conflict. Has nothing been learned from the international community’s experiences in the rest of the former Yugoslavia? Or is it the case, as some allege, that we only take action to address human rights violations after the violations have been perpetrated?
If this conference is to be successful it will have to address the issues that lie at the heart of prevention and devise ways of putting more emphasis on, and more resources into, prevention. Discussion should include the policy and financial implications of really putting prevention into practice, the hard choices which fall to be made and the shortfall between what we say should be done and what has happened in practice.
A Culture of Prevention
My view of prevention is simple: I see it as the most important task of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The rationale for prevention has been well described by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh. I have quoted her before and make no apologies for doing so again as it seems to me she hit the nail on the head:
“In all cultures and every society, prevention is something normal. Measures are taken to avert crop destruction by flood or rodents. Cattle are protected from predators. Warning signals are placed at rail crossings and air traffic is controlled to avoid accidents. Insurance policies are developed in almost all areas of human activity. All this is the result of preventive thinking, based on the assumption that accidents and disasters can be avoided if you think ahead while preparing for the worst...It is high time to transfer and strengthen the sophisticated preventive habits we know so well at home into the field of international security.”
It is not as if the value of prevention has not been highlighted over the years. Prevention was the central theme of the lengthy study of conflict done by the Carnegie Commission when some of the great thinkers of the day looked at the root causes of conflict. That thought-provoking report came to three central conclusions: that deadly conflict is not inevitable, that the need to prevent deadly conflicts is increasingly urgent and that preventing deadly conflict is possible. What the study tells us is that we should not be put off by the doom-sayers who insist that conflict and violence are the natural lot of the human race and will never be eradicated.
Nor should we be deterred by the risk of failure. If we look at failures of prevention in the past what becomes apparent is that many were put into effect too late, or were half-hearted, the equivalent of bringing a leaky bucket to a fire that is already threatening to blaze out of control. Prevention is by no means a new concept but there are many cases where insufficient attention and resources have been devoted to prevention, only for the cost of repairing the damage afterwards to exceed preventive costs many times over.
Strategies of Prevention
The challenge we face is to put strategies in place which will be effective in preventing atrocities from occurring. I see four essential strategies which are complimentary and interrelated. All are predicated on my belief that strengthening the culture of human rights and respect for others in societies is the bedrock on which the issue of prevention is based.
Firstly, economic and social development programmes which have human development as their chief focus and which are capable of improving the lot of the poorest;
Secondly, accountability;
Thirdly, strengthening capacity: support for participatory systems of government, for democracy, the rule of law, the judiciary, for national human rights institutions; and
Fourthly, human rights education.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
All of these strategies are important but I place economic and social development at the top of the list because I see it as of fundamental significance and because it receives less attention than the others. To be frank, I feel that rich countries are often guilty of double-speak when they talk to the developing countries about rights issues. The rich countries urge that civil and political rights be observed and they are properly critical of abuses where they occur. But when it comes to economic, social and cultural rights of poorer countries and the right to development, they have a good deal less to say. Yet those rights are enshrined just as clearly in the Universal Declaration and in the international covenants and declarations of the United Nations as civil and political rights. Not only that, but the international community has repeatedly affirmed its support for these rights at numerous international conferences - at Cairo, Beijing and Copenhagen, to name only three.
The reality on the ground is that the problems of extreme poverty and economic and social imbalances are getting worse, not better. The human rights so many take for granted - freedom of speech and religion, the right to a fair trial - cannot flourish where people are deprived of access to food, to healthcare, to education. And it is the abuse of these essential rights which leads inexorably to atrocities and gross violations. Atrocities do not suddenly happen; they start with minor discrimination; that leads on to worse forms of discrimination, which turns into exclusion and finally the ultimate exclusion where people are driven from their homes and murdered.
Focussed, human-centred development programmes have a key role to play in preventing atrocities. Yet the readiness of rich countries to abide by their solemn undertakings to assist in development is weakening. It is simply not credible to talk about human rights and prevention and at the same time to cut aid budgets.
The irony is that aid budget cuts are taking place just when it seems that some crucial lessons are being learned by the donor agencies. There is a new focus on the human-centred approach to development which recognises that improving the individual’s lot is a more important objective than simply striving for better GNP growth . Professor Muhammud Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh states in the latest Human Development Report:
“When I was arguing that helping a one-meal family to become a two-meal family, enabling a woman without a change of clothing to afford to buy a second piece of clothing, is a development miracle, I was ridiculed. That is no development, I was reminded sternly. Development is growth of the economy, they said; growth will bring everything. We carried out our work as if we were engaged in some very undesirable activities. When UNDP’s Human Development Report came out we felt vindicated. We were no longer back-street operators, we felt we were in the mainstream.”
I am pleased to see the new awareness of the human dimension of development in the strategies of UNDP, the World Bank and other development agencies and that cooperation between my Office and these agencies has increased markedly.
Accountability
Accountability for atrocities is an indispensable weapon in preventing further human rights violations. I believe that movement towards the establishment of effective machinery to punish those guilty of crimes against humanity is irreversible. The setting up of an International Criminal Court is the logical next step following the work done by the Rwanda and Former Yugoslavia Tribunals. I welcome the adoption of the Rome Statute and I appreciate that the United States is working closely with the growing international consensus. I hope that the United States will throw its support behind the Court and play the lead role on this, just as it has on so many human rights issues over the years. A clear message should go out: nobody who commits atrocities should expect to get away with it. That is true whether the crimes are committed in the Former Yugoslavia, in Cambodia, in Chile or in any part of the world. And it is true of East Timor where the International Commission of Inquiry called for by the Commission on Human Rights, has been formed and has begun its work.
Ratification of the Rome Statute will be a challenging test of the international community’s resolve to put the legal mechanisms on a sound basis. At the same time, we must remain open to the possibilities of different ways of securing justice and accountability, bearing in mind the harsh reality of many political and post-conflict situations. The magnitude of the problems facing countries in post-conflict situations can be so great that the normal processes of justice are simply not feasible. I think, for example, of the present situation in Sierra Leone. The people of Sierra Leone have experienced atrocities on a scale and of a brutality that are scarcely imaginable.
The campaign of terror was purposely aimed at the civilian population. The number of deaths will never be known, nor the number of those deliberately maimed and raped. And the people of Sierra Leone have had to endure the further indignity that the outside world has shown little interest in their awful plight.
The amnesty provision contained in the Lome Peace Agreement of 7 July was not something that the United Nations favoured and a reservation was entered when the agreement was signed, pointing out that there could be no amnesty for the grossest crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. When I visited Sierra Leone last June I called for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the massive human rights violations which have taken place. My Office has maintained contacts at a number of levels with the Sierra Leone authorities to seek ways of ensuring that there is accountability for the atrocities that took place. In particular, I have sent consultants to assist in the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I have also sent my adviser on national human rights institutions to explain the principles which make such bodies effective.
Because the issues raised in Sierra Leone are so important, I have commissioned a distinguished African jurist to carry out an examination of the nexus between a possible Commission of Inquiry and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is being established. I believe this study may have a broader relevance in addressing conflicts in Africa.
Rwanda is another country trying to come to terms with a very bloody past, the genocide of 1994. Five years on, the problems regarding the administration of justice and gross overcrowding of jails remain acute. Of even more long term importance, both for the country and the region, is the task of embedding a culture of human rights. My Office has been supportive of the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission and we participated in a useful workshop last month in Kigali. Special Representative Michel Moussali, in his current report to the General Assembly, draws attention to an idea raised by the Rwandan Government of resorting to a system of participatory justice , incorporating the ancient traditional system of justice known as Gacaca, to bring to light the full truth about the heinous crimes committed in Rwanda and to administer justice to those responsible. The Special Representative felt that the Government’s initiative was an interesting approach and worth pursuing and a number of donors, including the United States, are supportive. If this initiative respects human rights norms and is effective in addressing the problem of Rwanda’s huge prison population - currently numbering some 130,000 - then it is worth close examination.
What these approaches have in common is the search for effective ways of breaking the cycle of impunity. It is not enough that societies recover from atrocities: lessons must be learned and ways found to ensure that they will not recur. Facing up to the reality of what has happened and rendering justice to the perpetrators are vital components in the process whereby societies can come to terms with atrocities and move on.
Capacity Building
The third strategy I wish to emphasise is capacity building, both in regional organisations and at national level. There are clear linkages between participatory democracies and freedom from atrocities. It cannot be said that there has never been a case in history where two democracies have gone to war but it is certain that the likelihood of conflict and gross human rights abuses is far greater where participatory democracy is absent. Most of the worst atrocities have happened where there are totalitarian regimes which refuse to answer to their citizens. It behoves us, therefore, to put resources into measures that support the establishment and consolidation of democracy, and to resource regional organisations to have preventive strategies in their regions.
Capacity building is a growing area of work for my Office. We now have technical cooperation programmes with 55 countries and field presences in 23. The countries we are assisting range from Nepal to Guatemala, from Bhutan to Azerbaijan . An example of the ways in which we can help is support for national human rights institutions. We have received requests from over 40 countries wishing to establish human rights institutions. I have mentioned our support in this area for Sierra Leone and Rwanda. Another example I would mention is South Korea. A few weeks ago I visited South Korea where I met President Kim Dae-jung who has championed the cause of a national human rights institution. I stressed to the Korean officials I met, as I do to all governments, that there are certain basic requirements for national human rights institutions to be effective, notably that they must be genuinely independent and have powers consistent with a capacity to discharge their functions.
My Office will continue to put emphasis on helping and advising governments about national human rights institutions. I am under no illusions that these are automatic guarantors that human rights will be observed but I believe they can play a valuable role.
Human Rights Education
And finally human rights education. The first step in establishing a human rights culture is to know what your rights are. There is still a great ignorance in many societies of even the basics of human rights. We are half way through the UN Decade of Human Rights Education and my Office is engaged in quite a number of initiatives aimed at tackling the information deficit. I see human rights education as an empowering instrument which enables individuals to understand and fight for their own rights and the rights of others.
Let me signal a major event coming up which I hope will be both educational and preventive: the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which my Office is responsible for organising in two years time. Preparatory meetings will be held in different regions next year. As you all know, racism and xenophobia are two of the clear precursors of atrocities. They are all too common features of societies throughout the world and their latest manifestation takes the form of hate-filled messages on the Internet. I see the World Conference in 2001 as an opportunity to tackle the issues head on and I appeal for your support in making it an innovative, relevant and practical event.
Responding to Atrocities
I am conscious that the title of this conference is Atrocities Prevention and Response, and that I have spent most of my time talking about prevention. That is because I strongly believe that prevention is all-important. Even after atrocities have happened, the need for preventive measures is still great. Coming back to the Report of the Carnegie Commission, the areas of preventive action which they identified included measures after conflict has broken out, namely preventing the further spread of conflict and preventing the re-emergence of conflict in the aftermath of a peace settlement. Both of these are situations which my Office is familiar with.
One concrete measure which could be taken is to respond to the growing international movement for the protection of children in armed conflict. The human rights impacts of armed conflict are particularly horrific when visited upon these most vulnerable members of the civilian population. A whole generation risks being blighted by this terrible phenomenon. I give my wholehearted support to the campaign to end the use of child soldiers. At three regional conferences this year organised by the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, in Mozambique, in Uruguay and, most recently, in Berlin, many governments - and even some national liberation movements - expressed support for raising the age limit for the recruitment of children into armed forces from 15 to 18. It is my sincere hope that governments - including that of the United States - will translate these expressions of support into solid commitment next year through the adoption of an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and so demonstrate that children have no place in armed conflict.
The best response we can make to atrocities is to learn from them, to resolve to address the underlying root causes, and, above all, to prevent them from happening again. Kofi Annan has laid down the challenge to us in calling for an age of prevention. That requires effective strategies and I have outlined the ones I see as being important. But it calls for more - it calls for imagination and a change of mind-set. It can be hard to persuade people of the value of a preventive approach because the results may not be visible or newsworthy - a conflict avoided, an atrocity prevented. But if we could go away from this conference with a firm resolve to devote to preventive measures even a fraction of the attention and resources which are poured in after atrocities occur, we would have made a good start.