SPEECH BY MR BILL RAMMELL, MP MINISTER, UNITED KINGDOM, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, TO THE FIFTY NINTH SESSION OF THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

19 March 2003



You are very brave, Madame Chairperson, to have taken on your onerous tasks. We wish you well in them.

All of us at the Commission share an important responsibility. Our task is to work together to develop better levels of protection for our citizens. I am pleased to note there has been important progress since the Commission last met. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture has become the newest piece of international human rights law - an example of states working in partnership with non-governmental organisations to improve the UN protection system.

And last week I was honoured to represent my country at the inauguration of the International Criminal Court in the Hague: a historic milestone in the fight against impunity and the struggle for justice.

The UK worked hard to make both of these new instruments a reality. We will continue to work for better protection mechanisms, including - I hope in the not too distant future - an international convention on the rights of disabled people.

[should we mention enforced disappearances as well?]

But, Madame Chairperson, I said you were brave because it is no secret that - despite some important steps forward - the Commission has over recent years fallen on very difficult times. Its credibility is now in question.

The picture last year was one of confrontation and polemics. An increasing degree of politicisation and polarisation which threatened to infect the intergovernmental processes in other Geneva institutions, doing vital work in areas such as the humanitarian field, health and development.

The CHR is the prime UN intergovernmental organ addressing human rights. If it is not working properly, this undermines all the work that the UN does on human rights, not only in Geneva and New York, but in the field.

And if the UN is failing to promote and protect human rights, it is failing in perhaps its most vital task. F [needs some explanation, eg “or without respect for human rights, we can never achieve our collective goals of global security and prosperity.”

So it is high time that all of us took an honest look at what we are doing here. And how we can get things back on course. To work for the shared objectives of the international community, to protect the rights of people and to constrain the abuse of power by governments against their own citizens.

Most governments - if not all - are guilty of some transgressions. My country does not have a perfect human rights record. No country does. That is why we all need the help and support of the UN treaty system.

In Britain, we fully realise that one of the most important ways a state can protect its citizens' rights is by taking on international standards and benchmarks. I am pleased to tell you that the UK is close to completing ratification of both Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In taking on international obligations, we gladly open ourselves up to legitimate international scrutiny of our record. We will always agree to any request by any of the UN special procedures that ask to visit the UK. And we call on all countries represented here today to do the same.

so we believe iIt it is essential that countries open themselves up to the scrutiny of the UN human rights mechanisms. This inevitably means that this body must continue to identify transgressions and where necessary to hold governments to account for them.

The Commission would be failing in its responsibilities to victims of human rights violations around the world if it disbarred discussion of any human rights issue, anywhere in the world. The European Union will set out its concerns in its initiatives and statement under Item 9, and the UK fully shares those concerns which I need not repeat here.

But in cases where transgressions are not irredeemable, it is perhaps true that some of us have been too quick to resort to public condemnation without sufficient sensitivity to local difficulties. We need to give due weight to issues such as poverty as well as governments’ resource and administrative capacity.

In such cases we have perhaps failed sometimes to communicate enough with each other, to discuss difficulties, to suggest solutions, to offer assistance.

Indeed, international assistance and cooperation is essential for the promotion of human rights. That is acknowledged in the Treaties. The international community, including the UN, must play its part. And so should countries that can afford to help others.

We in the United Kingdom are taking a lead. Since 1997, Britain's development assistance programme has increased in real terms by 93 per cent, and we are now the fourth largest bilateral donor in the world. Our assistance programme is set to reach 0.4% of national income by 2005-06. This is more than double the average for G7 countries. We remain committed to meeting the UN target of 0.7%. [Say something about remaining committed to meeting the 0.7% target]And this year for the first time we committed ourselves to a £1billion annual programme for Africa. Britain has also spearheaded the fight for debt relief for the poorest countries. And, with assistance of nearly £8 million in the last two years, we are the second largest donor to the essential work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

This is hard evidence of the UK’s practical commitment to achieving the right to development. We recognise that helping people realise their human rights is an essential part of freeing them from poverty. And the Millennium Development Goals can only be achieved if human rights are respected. Human rights are central to development because they provide a means of empowering all people - including the poorest - to make effective decisions about their own lives.

Respect for human rights remains one of the clearest indicators of a stable society, living in peace with itself and its neighbours.

By contrast, when a regime shows contempt for human rights, abandons any semblance of democratic process at home, and arms itself with weapons of mass destruction, it becomes a threat to world stability, as well as to its own population. That is why it is essential that the international community both disarms Iraq and takes all necessary steps to secure the rule of law in that country.

When we entrench human rights, we entrench democracy and the rule of law. This is not only right in itself. It is also essential for sustainable development: for attracting foreign investment, for protecting local investment; for giving individuals the means to raise themselves from poverty.

Of course, there is no such thing as a "one size fits all" model of democracy. Even in a country the size of the UK, we have developed a number of different systems with regional assemblies and devolved administrations. It is for each society to develop its own system. But the core elements remain the same: participation of people in decision-making, the empowerment of the marginalised, a pluralistic party system which allows for the peaceful advocacy of views, a free media, an independent judiciary, the accountable use of resources and respect for civil society. These elements of a society are essential for all of us as citizens, for justice and for sustainable peace in our world.

On the other hand, where the rule of law falls away and democracy is undermined, human rights are trampled underfoot. And as order breaks down, so terrorism can take a foothold and weapons of mass destruction can proliferate outside of any control. And human rights suffer still further. As we saw with the Taliban, a society which ignores human rights is the best breeding ground for terrorism. As we have seen in Iraq, a regime which holds human rights in contempt will think nothing of developing using weapons of mass destruction against its own population and its neighbours. Promoting better respect for human rights around the world - which is our task here at this Commission - is also the best way of guaranteeing our own prosperity and security.

Too often, the debate about human rights has been presented as a choice between civil and political rights on the one hand; and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. This is a false choice. The two sets of rights are inextricably linked.

How can an individual assert their right to freedom from hunger, or their right to health if they don't have a voice, or if they have no way of making their Government listen to them? What hope does someone have of realising their right to education if they live in a society with no rule of law, no freedom of expression, no freedom of association? How can an individual fully enjoy their civil and political rights if their economic and social rights are not also being realised? Civil and political rights empower individuals and civil society to bring their Governments to account; helping them realise their economic, social and cultural rights

Neither, however, do we subscribe to the view that civil and political rights can only be achieved once a country has achieved a sufficient level of development. On the contrary,cCivil and political rights reinforce and economic and social rights are mutually reinforcing and together provide the foundations for sustainable development. That is at the heart of what we mean by the right to development.

Madame Chairperson, the ideas I have set out here do not belong to any one region or tradition. They reflect simple common sense based on universal values. The UN human rights system gives us all a framework to promote sustainable development by promoting respect for all human rights. That must be our task at this Commission.

In short this is a plea to all members of this body to look afresh at how we can make it work. If we are serious about human rights we must protect this body and its instruments. We must not fail to hold States accountable for the human rights of their citizens. That is a moral imperative. It is essential for economic development. It is essential for stability and international security.

If in any sense we have failed in the past to put across this message with due sensitivity, we are open to any advice on how to improve the way we all communicate with each other on these issues of vital importance. We want to work seriously and purposefully with all those who share our desire to restore this body to its rightful place and authority.

The UK will continue to involve itself fully in these crucial debates here at the Commission. We believe that both our domestic human rights record and over half a century of membership of the Commission stand up to the highest scrutiny. It is on that basis that we hope for re-election to CHR to continue this work over the next three years.



* *** *