“World civilization: Barking up the wrong tree?” Lecture by Sergio Vieira de Mello, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Third Annual BP World Civilization Lecture
British Museum
11 November 2002



“World civilization: Barking up the wrong tree?”

Lecture by
Sergio Vieira de Mello
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights


Sue MacGregor, thank you so much for those kind words of introduction and for chairing this event. I understand that there is an audience and a nation out there still getting used to the disappointment of not waking up to hear your voice. I am all the more pleased, therefore, that we have had the opportunity to hear from you tonight;

Thanks also to the British Museum and its Director, another MacGregor – Neil, this time – for hosting this event. Neil and his staff, in particular Katy Giddens, were kind enough to give me a tour earlier this evening of some of the jewels in this museum’s crown: certainly, an interesting precursor to a discussion on “civilization”;

And, finally, a very warm thank-you to Lord Browne and to British Petroleum for organizing this event and for granting me the honour of addressing it. Tonight, and the effort that went into its planning by you and your staff – and let me here mention in particular, Anton Mifsud-Bonnici, Des Violaris and Amanda Abbott – is certainly proof, if proof were needed, of BP’s impressive, and progressive, view of how it sees itself as contributing to a dialogue wider than that of its immediate corporate interests;

Distinguished guests;

I am delighted to be here tonight to give this third lecture on world civilization. I am also terrified. These impressive surroundings, my more than impressive audience which includes, so I understand, another room full of students whose reactions I will not be able to gauge (how terrifying is that?), as well as the humble topic of world civilization, conspire to make this a rather intimidating occasion.

But it is also an occasion that I jumped at the chance to be part of. The subject matter and this forum give me an opportunity to speak with a latitude and a frankness that rarely comes my way. The carefully choreographed world of diplomacy certainly has its place: it provides a structure for engagement and dialogue that is designed (or so the theory goes) to minimize the risk of being misunderstood. Equally, however, that framework can be muzzling in its effect: the room for frank tour d’horizons is very limited. Tonight is different.

Which is not to say, of course, that I am hoping to be misunderstood.

Today’s date and all that it signifies provides a reference point that is both too obvious and too important to ignore. It is fitting that this lecture should take place on Remembrance Day, as we honour those who died in the First World War: the war, I need hardly add, that was supposed to end all wars. If we are to discuss world civilisation, whatever that may mean, it is important that we remember those who have suffered as a result of a breakdown of civilisation. We must also pay tribute to – and think, really think hard of – the women, men and children who continue to suffer the impact of armed conflict.

By conservative estimates, some eight million men, women and children died in The Great War. Countless others were wounded, imprisoned, displaced or disappeared. Millions more were scarred by this horror, a horror that occurred among what are viewed as being some of the pre-eminent civilisations of the time.

The international community resolved, at the end of the War, to never again allow such human devastation. Governments banded together to establish the League of Nations, an organization dedicated to promoting international cooperation and achieving peace and security.

Many consider the League to have been unsuccessful. They consider it so because it failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, which was a conflict – to the extent these comparisons have any meaning – still more terrible than the First.

Yet it remains a fact that its creation did see the emergence of a deeper appreciation and awareness of human dignity and the sanctity of human life, as well as of the world’s growing inter-connectedness. It laid the foundation for the establishment of the United Nations and paved the way for the international protection of human rights. It is a source of pride to me that the Office I arrived at only two months ago is called the Palais Wilson, the original home of the League of Nations. “Wilsonianism” is a concept that is frequently derided as being either naïve or a failure, or both: I disagree entirely with the former and only partially with the latter.

In short, it would be wrong to underestimate the importance of valuing these post-War achievements. It would be difficult to imagine the establishment today of a similar framework for attempting to ensure peace, security and respect for human rights, such as the UN system, if these institutions did not already exist. And that really is a question to ponder on (and one to which I will not attempt an answer): would the world we live in today have the capacity and the vision to create a United Nations as pure in its ideals as the one established in 1945? What would the world look like today had the United Nations not existed? It is fortunate that we do not have to answer these questions for real.

In the post-War years the international community committed to a set of basic universal values: equality, dignity, tolerance and non-discrimination. We recognised, through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that “the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. “Freedom from fear and want” was our common aspiration. And we agreed, in words of truly elemental passion and force, that “we the peoples” would be “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Together, we created a set of international human rights standards rooted firmly in these values and goal.

Yet we have failed in our duties to ensure that these standards are upheld. Too often our world excludes and marginalises those of its citizens who, as a result of violence, inequality, intolerance, discrimination, are incapable of participating in any meaningful way, and worse: who have misery upon misery heaped on them.

I hope you do not think me a coward but civilisation is, I would suggest, a concept that eludes definition. You will not get one from me. I acknowledge that this is a problem in terms of academic rigour for I shall be using the word “civilisation” often in my address, but a definition risks being either pretentious or subjective or incomplete, or a combination of these failings. And I must confess I am even more sceptical of attempting a definition of “world civilisation”, which for me has rather alarming connotations of pan-uniformity. The best I can do is, first, to suggest that we should eschew homogeneity and embrace difference; and, secondly, to suggest that focusing on common perceptions of human dignity may be more fruitful than the pursuit of one world civilisation.

Furthermore, the difficulty of obtaining a satisfactory definition should not be used, or should not be allowed, to obfuscate the picture. For what I can tell you is that I know what is uncivilised: I have seen it. We all know. In my work with the United Nations, most of which I have spent in what we in peaceful and prosperous countries refer to euphemistically as “the field”, I have seen not only the best but also the worst of what we have to offer each other. Such behaviour can be found everywhere. As a UN worker I have had to pause and wonder how different societies can develop such ruthless disregard for human life.

Common perceptions of “civilization” have largely positive connotations. They suggest both a moral milieu as well as the attainment of some sort of cultural summit: they evoke images of arts and culture, of enlightenment, of sophistication (indeed, images of which all the very things contained in this amazing building are an embodiment). They suggest evolution (in a non-biological sense) or progress in social development.

But I would suggest that the term civilization risks (but by no means implicitly carries) worryingly negative notions. And these are notions of cultural superiority, of elitism, of imperialism and – largely speaking – of Western idealism. If one considers oneself civilised, after all, then those who are different are not civilised: they are uncivilised. Indeed, it was only a few years ago that it was suggested that western concepts were so dominant, so incontrovertibly accepted, that what we were witnessing was an “end of history” in the sense that there was no longer the fuel for a clash of civilisations. Who would really dare propound such hubristic notions now?

We must also acknowledge that the word “civilisation” has been used throughout the course of history to justify brutality, expansionist thinking and behaviour, colonialism, even slavery and genocide, as in my continent, the Americas. In carrying out these acts, these civilisations argued that they were, in fact, on “civilising” missions. Our discussion of world civilization must bear these facts in mind.

Some might argue that at the start of this new millennium we have achieved world civilization: that is, an advanced stage of social development at the global level – a contemporary version, so to speak, of Hegel’s Weltgeist, the spirit of the world. It is true that we live in an era of unprecedented wealth and of extraordinary technological, scientific and educational advancement. The world is more democratic today than ever before: 140 countries now hold multiparty elections. The number of inter-state wars, and of the human lives lost as a result of those wars, has dropped considerably. Global markets have opened up as the result of new technology and increased economic integration has helped to create new opportunities. Globalization has created the potential for greater communication and exchanges between different cultures. In so doing it has paved the way for greater human freedom.

But in spite of these many positive developments, the end of the Cold War (now often treated almost with nostalgia by some) and the continuing process of globalisation have also given rise to many uncertainties. New forms of terrorism have emerged, creating untold suffering recently in New York, in Bali, and in Moscow. The human costs of terrorism have been felt equally in the Philippines, the Middle East, Algeria and Sri Lanka, just as they have been felt – in years now thankfully receding – in many countries of Western Europe. Internal armed conflicts continue to ravage countries around the world: who here is not tempted – though we would be wrong to do so – to throw their hands up in despair when the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Colombia are mentioned?

Seemingly intractable global conditions such as poverty, HIV/AIDS, racism and gender inequality continue to cause widespread human misery. These conditions contribute to the growing marginalization of individuals and communities and, where left unaddressed, create tensions, jeopardize human development and threaten security. Allow me to address some of these issues in more detail, for each one of them constitutes the antithesis of civilization.

Although international wars have decreased in number, internal conflicts have killed about 3.6 million people over the last decade. Particularly worrying is the increasing victimization of civilians: more than 90% of those injured or killed in post-cold war conflicts have been civilians, and half of these were children. The number of refugees and internally displaced people has risen sharply, an indication of the increased intensity – by which I mean disregard for the non-combatant – of today’s conflicts.

Extreme poverty marginalises around 1.5 billion people and continues to hamper international efforts towards sustainable human development. Although the world has adequate food resources to feed the entire population, every week thousands of children die from malnutrition-related diseases before their first birthday, and thousands more suffer from stunted growth.

While some gains have been made, poverty remains acute and pervasive in many countries. Those affected are among those most vulnerable to deterioration in their living conditions through low nutrition, exclusion from education, justice and housing, lack of adequate health care, and restrictions on their privacy and personal security. In short, the poor are deprived of the basic freedoms that are fundamental for minimal human dignity. This is appalling, not least when we consider the wealth available worldwide. The richest 1% of people in the world receive as much income each year as the poorest 57%. This is not an indictment of the 1% but it is an indictment of the denial of opportunity for the 57%.

Diseases such as HIV/AIDS are crippling many of the same communities that shoulder the burden of poverty. The scale of the AIDS epidemic has far exceeded even the worst scenarios predicted a few years ago and countries of the South continue to bear the brunt: 90% of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS are in developing countries. The epidemic is decimating societies in sub-Saharan Africa where, in countries such as Botswana, 40% of all adults are affected. HIV/AIDS strikes those in the most productive years of their life and, in some areas, is depleting a generation of mothers, of teachers, of law-enforcement officials and of health care providers. It is also producing a generation of orphans who are particularly vulnerable to discrimination, exploitation and abuse. And the virus is spreading with recent reports predicting its imminent explosion in Eurasia.

This is a humanitarian and social disaster of historic proportions, one which exacts a staggering human toll, derails economic opportunities and blocks development prospects. It is, above all, an affront to the human rights of those infected and affected, who are marginalised and excluded. Yet the economic and political response to this crisis has been achingly slow and inadequate, in spite of the fact that HIV/AIDS is now both preventable and treatable.

Racism and intolerance. This blight persists in virtually every corner of the globe. The situation is arguably worsening: the resurgence of anti-Semitism, including in Western Europe, as well as the rise of the new and disturbing phenomenon of vilifying Islam, are particularly worrying and, alone, pose serious questions to any defenders there may be of the concept of a world civilization. Intolerance, as one its many evils, is rarely honest about its motives: it hides behind many pretexts. Protecting human rights is first and foremost the responsibility of States. Yet governments have been too passive in tackling different recent manifestations of intolerance and, in fact, often contribute to them.

Gender: Many of the profound political, social and economic changes that have characterized the past decade or so have impacted negatively on women. The traumatic effects on women of conflict and human displacement are exacerbated by sexual violence. Economic instability and change hamper progress in the achievement of gender equality, notably due to the feminization of poverty. Institutional discrimination against women – in particular occupational discrimination and segregation – along with negative gender stereotypes persist in virtually all societies.

This situation is absurd. Not just because of the denial of fundamental rights it entails for women. But also because of the untapped advantages for us all that we are denied. Women are a force for peace. They are invariably the glue that binds families and communities, and they are the reconcilers. They are economic providers and, in many places, they are in the majority. To have them effectively silenced – to have women not participating fully in the shaping of their societies – makes no sense.

These problems are not necessarily new. Human beings have lived with war, disease and inequality for centuries. What is different today is that we have no excuse to be unaware of the divide between the world's rich and poor, the powerful and powerless, the included and marginalised. We cannot today justify claiming ignorance of the cost that this divide imposes on the poor and dispossessed while at the same time claim we have attained civilisation. In spite of this, too often we appear to surrender in the face of global challenges.

There is, or so it can seem, a palpable lack of empathy towards those affected: a dulling of critical analysis of policies that may impact communities and societies outside and beyond our own. But more than that, I suspect there is a dulling of our ability to appreciate what this impact may mean, in real terms, on those affected. The danger in assuming that we, the so-called international community, are “civilized” is this collective apathy to which we have become accustomed.

This cannot continue. We can no longer act as if only what happens in our immediate communities matters, as if we only owe solidarity to those within our neighbourhood, city or country. We should nurture our sense of self as part of a common humanity. We should appreciate better the ways in which we can all benefit from cooperation and solidarity across lines of nationality, gender, race or economic status. We should seize the potential of globalization to become a unifying and inclusive force: a globalization that places the promotion and protection of human rights at the heart of its objectives and strategies.

For human rights do indeed have a critical role to play today. In short, their indivisibility and universality are perhaps the closest concepts we have to being the foundations of a civilized world (as opposed to a world civilization).

The principles of social, political and economic inclusion are essentially based on rights and responsibilities. Those in positions of power and privilege, however, too often see rights and responsibilities, as a threat to their own interests. As a set of universally accepted values, principles and standards, which apply equally to all people, everywhere, human rights should in fact be seen as a tool to help build stable and prosperous communities.

I have made it clear that helping to foster the rule of law will be the overarching theme of my work as High Commissioner. The rule of law is the lynchpin of human rights protection: without it, respect for our dignity and for the equality and security of all human beings is meaningless.

Human rights work, in other words, is not just about morals or politics, but about responsibilities, legal obligations and accountability. Through the framework of the rule of law, human rights provide individuals with recourse when decisions are made which may adversely affect them: they also provide a means by which to attempt to ensure that those adverse decisions or actions are not taken in the first place. Rights aim to empower individuals by allowing us all to use them as leverage for action. They legitimize our voices, placing emphasis on the participation of individuals in decision-making. They seek to avoid discrimination through their equal application to us all.

Let us take the role of human rights in poverty reduction as an example. Poverty is defined by more than only a lack of income. Its dimensions include gender and racial discrimination, a lack of fundamental human rights such as education, health care, the components of an adequate living standard including nutrition and housing, and access to justice. Few of those living in extreme poverty can benefit from national institutions of accountability through which other citizens can claim their rights. It is unsurprising, then, that the poor often define the key dimension of poverty as being powerlessness.

Human rights principles and norms strengthen poverty reduction through the empowerment of poor people by expanding their freedom of choice and action to structure their own lives. A human rights approach looks behind national averages in order to identify the most destitute and vulnerable, and design initiatives to address their specific situations. It recognizes that all human beings should be entitled, based on principles of equality and dignity, to a set of minimum capabilities. These capabilities must be improved in order to overcome poverty. Human rights further strengthen what is now recognized as central to poverty reduction – the empowerment of the poor – by viewing the poor not as victims who need more resources, but as citizens who possess rights, and who are entitled to take part in decision-making in order to claim and exercise their rights.

I have been emphasising the need to ensure inclusivity and the participation of all members of society, and to ensure that marginalised and excluded groups have a meaningful voice. Effective human development can only be achieved where people are free to participate in the decisions that shape their lives. The free will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems, and their full participation in all aspects of their lives, is something that to me is axiomatic. It is, in short, inherently “civilizing”.

Democratic governance is based on the extension of civil and political rights: in particular the right to participate in political life. It is a basic form of organization or political order whose underlying principle is a recognition of the equal dignity and worth of every human being. Democracy provides the most appropriate framework for the realization of human rights. By allowing a voice in political decisions, it is instrumental in enabling us to realize other rights.

I do not suggest that democracy is the solution to all problems. It is vital to recognise and address democracy’s shortcomings: democratic rule does not automatically correlate with respect for human rights, nor does its presence necessarily lead to economic and social development. The vast majority of democratic countries still limit important civil and political rights, and many often neglect economic and social rights, partly because this neglect is less obvious and does not hurt the electoral outcomes for those in power.

Countries in transition face particular challenges, as the replacement of an authoritarian regime with an electoral system does not solve existing human rights problems – on the contrary, many times the transition to a new order will bring to the surface a complex web of human rights issues. For example, just look at the challenges that were faced by South Africa, and which are currently being faced by East Timor, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan in figuring out how best to acknowledge the abuses that occurred in their recent pasts, break the cycle of impunity, and ensure that violence does not recur.

Democracies potentially face other weaknesses, as well. Democracy has been described as being, at its most crude, nothing more than allowing an individual a choice on one day in every four or so years. It has also been described as amounting to the tyranny of the majority. Majority decision-makers may trample on the rights of minorities by excluding their participation, manipulating the media and political rights, setting aside the rule of law at the expense of minority rights in times of social upheaval, oppressing minority cultural practices, language and religion, and overriding minority economic interests all in pursuit of those interests held by the majority. Such dangerous utilitarianism sneak inside democracies: we should be alert to the risk.

Ironically, however, we should also take note of those majorities who are marginalized in many societies by the minorities. I am thinking here particularly of women and youths, as well as the least privileged.

Now, it is still overly simplistic to assert that full respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law can prevent a meltdown of society. A civic order based on respect for human rights suggests that the authorities will respect individual rights. Governments, as I said, have the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights. But civic order also requires that the members of that polity, the citizens in some senses, will take on board their responsibilities towards each other.

This brings me to reflect on a relatively new concept of citizenship – since this is the BP lecture series – and that is the concept of corporate citizenship. If citizenship is, in effect, defined as the rights and duties of a member of a country, then companies, by extension, share those same rights and duties. It is no surprise, corporations being a collection of individual people, that their citizenship performance varies just as it does for any individual citizen.

As many of you know UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched the Global Compact over two years ago. In the very first principle, he asked companies to “support and respect the protection of international human rights within their sphere of influence”. The citizenship performance of companies in this realm varies but thinking about the meaning of citizenship forces us all to consider the extent of our obligations and how best to meet them.

I come from a country famous for its rich cultural diversity – a country with more than 120 surviving indigenous nations and peoples, speaking even more indigenous languages and dialects. Peoples such as the Kayapo, Makuxi, Parakana, Xavante, Yanomami and many more have retained much of their culture and traditions, have strong attachments to their homelands: harvesting, managing and inter-relating within a space – the rainforests – that is also one of our planet’s most important regions of biodiversity.

Mine is also a country that has pursued policies of development over decades and even centuries that have impinged upon and marginalized its original indigenous inhabitants. And if we look at recent years, we can say with some honesty that corporate Brazil – and I include international companies – has been one of the principal sources of the destruction not only of the forest itself but of the indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and communities. We cannot say that Brazil has not made striking material advances but we must also acknowledge that indigenous peoples have been victims in many instances, rather than beneficiaries.

These observations lead me to a couple of comments. The first is related to what surprisingly is a relatively new phenomenon, at least in my region, namely that States are beginning to recognise that they are pluri-cultural and multiethnic. Our deeper Brazilian identity is rooted in our diverse cultures – our indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants and so on. No development however profitable should be undertaken at the expense of the rich cultural diversity to which I have referred, but rather for the benefit of all its components. Equality must be our goal.

Secondly, human rights are dynamic, not static. They move with the times. They confront new challenges. For indigenous peoples, the corporate sector presents such a new challenge with its technology, its apparently unlimited wealth and its legal expertise.

It is not easy to find the balance that will protect indigenous peoples rights, ensure the legitimate obligations of Governments towards all of their citizens, and not impede entrepreneurship and development. Some requirements are clear, however. Fair rules are important. Benefit-sharing is vital. The prior informed consent of the affected communities is an ideal towards which we should be aiming. You invited me to share some thoughts on the notion of civilization and my concept is one that includes indigenous peoples and their diverse cultures.

Let me turn to another changing conception of citizenship. While corporations are, through the conceptual framework of citizenship, being cast as world actors with specific responsibilities commensurate with their influence, at the same time individuals are increasingly voicing global rather than local concerns. There is recognition that we are part of a global community in which our actions impact life in other regions and that the concerns of others are also our concerns. While these might not always necessitate global solutions, these world-wide connections across frontiers are generating a sense of responsibility: not only within one’s community but within empathetic networks across the world. This kind of interest and participation – what has been called “globalisation from below” – is vital to a healthy world civilization. Some moments ago, I condemned what I feared was something of a pervasive air of apathy in how, in general, looked on troubles experienced by those outside of our immediate frame of reference. This manifestation of globalisation provides some cause for optimism.

Now for the words you have been waiting to hear: In conclusion. What I am suggesting is that we may be overreaching ourselves to talk of world civilisation. We also may be misleading ourselves. More important than striving to attain such a state (or even to define it) is the need to focus on, highlight and better appreciate, the universality of human dignity. That, to me, would be a more productive avenue of investigation.

I have also tried to explain why I believe that human rights provide the best road map for this investigation. The principles of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and the other human rights instruments adopted in the last half-century are the closest we have to a universal code of conduct. These instruments provide the necessary building blocks to ensure that our common humanity is an inclusive one, built on values such as tolerance and dignity. The commitments they embody have been accepted voluntarily. It is the responsibility of all to ensure that they are respected.

Human rights possess a number of additional advantages of which we should be aware. First, they are easy to understand. Yet we have a tendency to engage in lengthy rarefied debates defining this right or that. Indeed, we do too much of this: the results are often, confusion, a degree of acrimony and the failure to implement the right in question. The victims, needless to say, have no problem in understanding what right it is that is being violated and how. Definitions and semantics have their role to play, for sure. Equally, they can provide foils for our failure to move forward.

Secondly, with rights come attendant responsibilities. Here I have offered some views on why it is not just states, primary though they are, but also others who must live up to their responsibilities in ensuring that our rights are respected.

It is also at the core of human rights that they apply to everyone. Inherent in them is a celebration of their universality as well as of diversity. Ensuring that we allow for such diversity and, by so doing, ensuring that we respect human rights, is my main message today. It is, I humbly suggest, a hugely relevant one. Ensuring that we allow for different cultures and people to co-exist and flourish alongside one another, is as current a priority today as it has ever been. Simply put, this is what civilisation may be all about.

Thank you.