Human Rights: Challenges for the 21st Century First Annual Dag Hammarskjöld Lecture by Mary Robinson UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Uppsala, Sweden, 1 October 1998

I had a vivid dream recently, which was clearly related to the honour and also the pressure of delivering this first Dag Hammarskjöld lecture. In this dream I had obviously come here to Uppsala, to a room in the Foundation which I had in fact visited less than two years ago. Seated in a rocking chair was a remarkably young and familiar looking ninety-three year-old. I wanted to ask him about the speech he had made on 10 April 1957 in which he had said:

"We know that the question of peace and the question of human rights are closely related. Without recognition of human rights we shall never have peace, and it is only within the framework of peace that human rights can be fully developed".

He looked sad and reminded me that when he became Secretary-General in 1953 the early euphoria about human rights in the UN system was already fading. The notion of translating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding norms had met resistance and he himself had felt constrained in speaking out as Secretary-General about human rights. Then he leant forward, tipping his chair, and spoke intensely. "Everything has changed now. You have a mandate; you have the full backing of the Secretary-General, all you have to do is to work from the perspective of those who most need their human rights protected and promoted". "But how?" I asked, and then the alarm went off and I woke from my dream.

The dream still haunts me as I join in the many tributes to this great man: economist, lawyer, diplomat and international civil servant; whose career culminated in his appointment as the second United Nations Secretary-General, from 1953 until his death in a plane crash in Ndola on 18 September 1961 while attempting to bring peace to the Congo. He truly was a renaissance man, combining his public life with a strong artistic nature, as is clear from the meditations in Markings, the poems and translations, his aesthetic sensibility shown through his keen interest in music and the visual arts, the quality of his photography and the wide circle of artists and writers who were his friends.

There are many parallels between the issues he addressed and the challenges confronting us today. As Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld interpreted his mandate to be an extraordinary mandate for action. The Charter empowered him to draw to the attention of the Security Council any matter which threatened international peace and security, and during his term he repeatedly demonstrated his belief that the ideals embodied in the Charter must find expression in reality. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to him in 1961 for his work in helping to resolve the crisis in the Congo; now that region of Africa is once more in crisis.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there have been notable achievements. An impressive body of international law has been enacted, including the two Covenants /1 and the Conventions /2 on racism, torture, the rights of the child and the elimination of discrimination against women. Human rights mechanisms such as Special Rapporteurs, experts and working groups have been established. The United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting annually in Geneva has focussed world attention on cases of torture, racism, disappearances, arbitrary detention, the right to development, summary executions, violence against women, and has generated international pressure on governments to improve their respect for human rights. With Sweden's strong support, the protection and promotion of the rights of children has, in recent years, been an increasing priority on the agenda of the organisation.

It is acknowledged that we need to improve the way all this functions. During its session this year the Commission on Human Rights initiated a review of the effectiveness of the international human rights mechanisms which I have warmly welcomed. I also support a parallel academic study of the functioning of the International Treaty Bodies and I have established a task force within my Office to support both exercises and to enable me to present my own recommendations to the Secretary-General in due course.

And yet, and yet... As we mark the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and engage in the stock taking review after five years of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, it is deeply disturbing to recall that every day, hundreds of millions of people experience some serious violations of their human rights. Increasingly, as we watch their suffering on TV, we seem to have a capacity to distance ourselves: to go and make some coffee, take a phone call. There is a worrying correlation between the immediacy of our knowledge and our capacity to distance. Many of those who suffer are children, women, old people, people with disabilities, minorities, migrants and indigenous peoples.

Many human rights defenders live a life of terrible fear. This was brought home to me in a very personal way during the last session of the Commission on Human Rights. A number of the representatives of small NGOs working in difficult circumstances pleaded with me to ensure their protection when they went back to their own country. Violations range from torture and arbitrary detention to hunger and homelessness, from violence against and trafficking in women and children to child labour, from illiteracy to deaths from lack of access to safe water. The rhetoric becomes ever more hollow. Our world needs effective, structured action to implement the international commitments made.

The challenges which confronted Dag Hammarskjöld have multiplied. There are more wars - albeit conflicts frequently within the boundaries of sovereign states and consequently characterized as "internal conflicts"; more refugees - more of whom are technically "displaced persons" within their own country. There are more states - and greater disparity between their resources; there is more poverty - but less agreement about the role of the state in addressing it; in short, more challenges to peace and the realization of human rights.

One important and increasing asset in addressing these challenges is the robust and continued international debate - including vigorous criticism - from civil society concerning human rights abuses by both states and corporate entities. The need for the United Nations to link more effectively with civil society - and to combine resources, so that criticism can be supplemented by constructive engagement at all levels - was highlighted last year by the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan when he presented his report Renewing the United Nations; a Programme for Reform.

This plan, subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly, clearly designated human rights as a theme central to each substantive field of the UN's work. Henceforth, human rights is to become an integral tool for the promotion of peace and security, economic prosperity and social equity.

I propose, therefore, to focus on two immediate challenges: the structured integration of human rights at the international, regional and national levels and the harnessing of one vital component of our global civil society, the corporate sector, in recognizing that human rights is very much their business too.

I see my role in the Secretary-General's strategy to integrate human rights effectively in all aspects of the United Nations work as that of a catalyst: to motivate the entire UN system to be involved in the realization of civil, cultural, economic, social and political rights at all levels, particularly at country level, and within countries, at the grassroots.

Since my appointment, I have been engaging with senior UN colleagues through the participation of my Office on the recently established Executive Committees of the United Nations in New York and also in developing co-operation agreements with different components of the UN, its agencies and programmes. Such agreements are designed to ensure that we introduce an appropriate human rights dynamic and dimension into all UN activities. And I have taken the opportunity for working sessions on this with UN colleagues during official visits to countries, such as my recent visit to China. In discussions with colleagues in a range of countries such as Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Morocco, Cambodia and Iran, we have talked together about how each programme of the UN can help promote human rights in that country. Under the leadership of Kofi Annan we have seen the importance of working together as colleagues to further human rights in a very rounded way.

Clearly, there can be no controversy about the centrality of human rights in the Charter. Nor can there be any doubt that the Universal Declaration captured the spirit and determination of those who framed it. The challenge confronting us fifty years on is how to achieve effective, rigorous and balanced implementation of all human rights for all. That requires greater capacity to both promote and protect human rights at all levels.

International capacity building will require significant further reforms in several of our post-war international institutions, including the UN itself and the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Recent events in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe remind us, vividly and urgently, not only of the universality and indivisibility but also the inter-dependence of economic rights with all other rights; of the imperative to give real meaning to the right to development.

In the past there has been a view in some quarters that sound economic policy is not synonymous with a central focus on human rights. I disagree. I believe very recent events have given us a more mature understanding not only of their interdependence but of the inherent symmetry between the two sets of rights: civil and political, and economic, social and cultural.

This is particularly important at a time when economic orthodoxies are being challenged and the parameters of the debate on how we address abject poverty and enhance global prosperity are changing.

However, in terms of enhancing the UN's capacity to "deliver" - particularly for those groups which are the poorest, the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged - we still have an international system weakened by the degree to which it is compartmentalized. "Mainstreaming" human rights, as it has been referred to, including into the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, will provide a dynamic, breaking down that compartmentalization and more effectively integrating our respective work and endeavours.

This also applies to the regional institutions which have been created and with which my Office is developing working links. Last July I participated at the third conference between the UN and Regional Organizations, the first under the auspices of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General, on the subject of conflict prevention. There was a clear recognition of the need for more co-ordination, better early warning systems, identification of and sharing of responsibilities. Even to hear on both sides the openness to working with the other, the acknowledgement that together we have much greater strength, was to me encouraging.

Capacity building at the national level requires both a coherent framework of benchmarks and objectives and institutional structures to facilitate their achievement. The former can be provided by commitment to a national plan for human rights - an initiative strongly encouraged in every country by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 and one in which my Office is assisting a growing number of governments. Despite this, and disturbingly, some governments do not feel they need a plan of action for human rights.

But even where there are plans, plans without effective strategies for implementation are empty vessels.

During this past year in which I have had the honour to occupy this position I have become increasingly convinced of the necessity to focus on preventive strategies. This has convinced me of the importance of creating strong, independent national human rights institutions to provide accessible remedies, particularly for those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Frequently these institutions are "human rights commissions", but in many countries, drawing on traditions originating here in Sweden, they are related to or identified as a human rights "ombudsman" or "ombudsperson".

I think we recognise that democracy alone is no guarantee that the rights of all persons will be protected, and the history of all democracies bears this out. Nor is the constitutional entrenchment of human rights in itself a guarantee that they will not be violated in practice. It is precisely their capacity to contribute substantially to the realization of individual human rights which makes independent institutions so significant. People can bring to them their complaints against the police, their complaints of discrimination on the basis of gender or race, their cases of harassment. I remember discussing with members of the Ugandan Commission on Human Rights how they were handling complaints against the police. And it seems to me that this is really capacity building: this is, from the ground up, developing a capacity to take on issues of potential violation and transgression of human rights.

From a less traditional human rights perspective, national institutions which can protect the rights of minorities are sometimes an essential prerequisite, not only for the rights of individuals concerned, but for the survival of viable multi-ethnic states.

The consequences of neglecting this imperative can be catastrophic - as we have recently witnessed in both Europe and Africa. And danger signals now flash in some areas of South East Asia.

I recognise that "capacity building" is both a complex and sensitive endeavour, not often talked about as such, and somehow seemingly a little distant from the harsh violations that I began with. And yet, unless we build up the national justice system, we cannot really address human rights in a sustainable way. And capacity building engages the international community - and my Office as part of that community - in constructive dialogue with both governments and civil society. Nor does this approach lessen in any way the responsibility to voice criticism of violations of human rights whenever that is necessary: rather it acknowledges that criticism must be accompanied by constructive engagement precisely because of a recognition of the primary responsibility which governments must play in an era where the nation state still occupies a central role.

Independent national human rights commissions can, by virtue of their accessibility, transform the rhetoric of international instruments into practical reality and provide redress for millions of people. They can do this in a manner which is consistent with the international standards prescribed in international treaties, while accommodating constitutional peculiarities and the extraordinarily disparate challenges posed by local conditions and cultures - thus respecting ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity but not allowing it to compromise the universality of human rights.

They can also contribute to and complement government reports to international treaty bodies, reflecting more fully the reality of human rights. In a number of countries that I visit, I am presented with the government's report to the treaty bodies (such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child or the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) and almost in the same breath I get the NGOs’ alternative report, or -better still- I know that the NGOs and independent human rights commission have not only contributed to the report, but will be in Geneva to express their views when the report is being defended by the Government. Finally, they can provide constructive, well-informed criticism from within, which is important in balancing criticism from "outside". Human rights is a sensitive and extraordinarily complex affair: it cannot be achieved by nice words and consensus. There has to be a facing up to bullies; there has to be an addressing of issues of violations. But if it all comes from the outside it can be seen as being very political and politicised. So, part of our challenge is to build the resources of criticism from within; to develop structures of human rights from within, to create a groundswell of awareness of human rights which links with, and will be in a global alliance with, the international protection and promotion of human rights.

Of course, national human rights commissions or similar bodies can operate most effectively in societies where the domestic infrastructure reflects the state's commitment to democracy and the rule of law - a pluralist and accountable parliament, an executive ultimately subject to the authority of elected representatives and an independent, impartial judiciary. These are necessary but even they are not sufficient prerequisites for the promotion and protection of human rights.

It may seem unrealistic to expect nation states to willingly establish national institutions which have, central to their mandate - at the core of their work - the role of monitoring the behaviour of the state and its employees and of holding government accountable. However, I believe nations now understand better the link between respect for human rights and achieving the security and stability essential for sustainable human development.

I am encouraged in this belief by the agreement on a framework for technical co-operation in human rights achieved earlier this year at a workshop in Tehran, which drew together representatives of 36 Asian and Pacific governments who, after all, represented over half the world's population. There was also NGO participation and participation by national human rights commissions and by the Asia Pacific Forum. The delegates of governments agreed to work together and to be supported by my Office to strengthen their national capacities in four specific areas: national plans for human rights; national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights; human rights education; and strategies for realizing the right to development. And it was agreed to review progress together annually in further workshops carried out under resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights.

We have already moved on to consolidate this approach at the national level, for example by signing with Indonesia a more detailed memorandum that will involve a human rights resource person in Jakarta having full access to East Timor and helping Indonesia to cope with the problems of implementing a human rights plan of action adopted this summer. In discussions this month with South Korea and Thailand concerning the independent human rights commissions they have agreed to establish within the next 12 months, reference was made to this framework. More recently it was cited in a Memorandum of Intent I signed with China which is to lead to projects of technical cooperation there. So, there are openings to engage, and opportunities to ensure that awareness of, and a culture of human rights is built within, as well as being linked to the treaties and standards of the international community.

My Office is also working to support and strengthen national human rights institutions in an increasing number of countries in Africa, Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America. Very often we join with regional organisations or other partners in this work.

To illustrate the potential of this approach: at the Second African Conference for National human rights institutions, hosted by the South African Human Rights Commission in Durban this summer, I learned details of the poverty "speak outs" which had been organized by that Commission, the Gender Commission and the South African Coalition of NGOs. More than 10.000 people had taken part actively in ten public hearings on how to address issues of poverty in a practical way.

Nor is this human rights capacity building confined to developing regions. Countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada have recognized these values, and I was happy to note that one of the requirements of the Anglo-Irish agreement concluded last April was that human rights commissions would be established in Belfast and in Dublin. My Office is currently responding to requests from both Governments for advice in relation to the detailed implementation of their obligations under the Anglo-Irish agreement and in accordance with the Paris Principles.

The second challenge, which I want to address now, recognizes that one of the effects of globalization is the shrinking influence of governments in important areas where they nonetheless retain responsibility: responsibility for conditions in the workplace, responsibility for the way in which the vulnerable sectors of their communities can be exploited. The corporate sector should neither be asked to, nor expected to, assume those government responsibilities. But I believe the corporate sector can be encouraged to make an informed business assessment of the relevance of human rights to the environment in which they do business. Knowing that governments retain the primary responsibility, and that international organisations such as the UN must continue to give effective leadership in standard setting, I would emphasize the importance of encouraging young people of calibre, integrity and commitment to human rights to choose a career in the public service: whether in national government or in international organisations. The effects of globalization will demand principled leadership to address issues of economic and social equity, the rule of law and meaningful participation in decision making.

In this world of transition, with all the pluses and minuses of globalization, we need a more eclectic, imaginative and inclusive approach to co-operation with the corporate sector. It is my intention as High Commissioner to pursue appropriate strategies to ensure that social responsibility is in general, and human rights are in particular, firmly anchored in the corporate agenda. The welcome pressure of the informed consumer and shareholder, the increasing importance of information and knowledge and the rise of transparency, driven by the explosion of information technology, make this development inevitable. In a sense, the debate is business driven. There is a recognition that consumers have become much more informed and correspondingly more demanding, and, because we are then talking about the market, civil society has a powerful role to play here. If there is an awareness of human rights and standards, if there is an insistence by consumers that human rights values are reflected in the products or in the images that they will accept, that is a very powerful way of developing the scope for human rights as part of a climate conducive to the conduct of business.

Corporations are sometimes responsible for abuses of human rights and, if so, are more and more vulnerable to being in the spotlight in that regard. They can be encouraged to accept that the globalization of international human rights standards - the slow, painful result of United Nations efforts - must be reflected increasingly in the globalized market place. Like the Secretary-General, I see significant possibilities for the emergence of a more constructive and productive partnership with the private corporate sector, as we approach the new century. Indeed, given the changing role and capacity of government, I believe this is essential.

The issues currently confronting our world pose a tremendous challenge. If we are serious about the right to life we must equally be serious about the right to food, health care, education and shelter. We must acknowledge the importance of a vigorous international debate - while understanding that the reality of implementation and access for the vast majority of humanity lies at the national level. It is at that level, therefore, that "capacity building" is most important. We must understand the implications of the recent United Nations report indicating that even in the world's wealthiest countries 100 million of our fellow human beings live in poverty. In this climate there can be no "us and them": no preaching: no abdication of responsibility.

We will succeed only if we harness our collective endeavours: if we acknowledge the gross inequity of a world in which the three richest individuals have assets exceeding the financial resources of the forty-eight least developed countries on this planet.

And so, in conclusion, I would counsel and urge that we collectively resolve to honour the memory of Dag Hammarskjöld by striving for a world in which his vision of peace and human rights becomes a reality, a reality which, I am convinced, will only be possible if we achieve a more equitable allocation of resources, a more enlightened and responsive corporate sector and the growth of appropriate institutions, particularly at the national level, to ensure that governments are accountable for the rights of all those within their jurisdiction.

Our generation, and I say particularly to the students present, your generation, have the hardest task: the laws are there, the international mechanisms have been established, and can be improved and that process is in train, but the essential challenge is to implement where it really matters, to make a reality of human rights for all. That requires each of us to be a custodian of human rights, that each of us plays our part.

Notes:
1/ The International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and Political Rights
2/International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women