Lecture by Ms. Navanethem Pillay
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Advocacy Through a Wide-Angle Lens 

Moscow State Institute of International Relations

Moscow, 15 February 2011

Distinguished Faculty,
Dear Students,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

          Let me begin by conveying to you and to the Russian people my deepest condolences for the terrorist attack at Moscow's Domodedovo Airport. I condemn this deplorable and unjustifiable act of violence which is an assault against the most fundamental human right of all: the right to life.

          Whether perpetrated with such heinous flagrance, or carried out in less violent ways, or inflicted with subtly debilitating methods, human rights abuses challenge us to remain vigilant, do our utmost to prevent them or, at a minimum, ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

          I am energized by your commitment to human rights and very pleased to be here with you and follow in the footsteps of my predecessor.  I note with great satisfaction that the partnership between the Moscow State Institute of International Relations and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has taken another step forward thanks to our joint master’s degree in human rights, the first in this country.

          Our master’s program aims at creating a new generation of human rights advocates and experts who are specifically trained in human rights law and whose expertise will lend a multiplier effect to their advocacy.   Indeed, human rights education is a complex process which should facilitate not only the learning of human rights principles and the mechanisms for their protection, but also the acquisition of skills to make human rights a daily practice.
         
          My Office’s approach to human rights education actively promotes this discipline as a means of ultimately empowering individuals and institutions to take an active role in the realization of human rights in their communities and countries.

          Today, I have been asked to speak on the topic of human rights and public diplomacy, a pursuit that is an integral part of our daily endeavours and a main feature of our collaboration.  In my address I will seek to clarify that even the sternest defences of human rights and the subtler intricacies of diplomacy are not necessarily at odds with each other as is often portrayed.  Ultimately, I hope that my discussion will inspire many of the students of this distinguished institution to take up human rights advocacy as a fundamental component of their careers in international relations.

          Let me begin with a personal observation.  As both a former judge and a former activist, I have alternated between the deliberate pace of legal proceedings and the passion of public advocacy.  As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I pursue both.  I am also finding my way through a third course of action, which is private diplomacy.  Unlike legal proceedings and public advocacy, diplomacy often takes place behind the scenes.  It is a powerful tool, but often its power is not visible. 

          I posit that from the very birth of their modern formulation, human rights were the result of a magnificent application of diplomatic skills.  The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document that lies at the foundation of human rights jurisprudence and advocacy, was, indeed, the outcome of intense negotiations, hotly debated options and quietly found compromises, sustained by clarity of purpose and, crucially, a willingness to find common ground.  These negotiations produced a document that was not merely congruent with some customs and foreign to other cultures.  Rather, the Universal Declaration drew its universal principles from many diverse traditions, and it made them more robust through a uniform codification.

          Since then, human rights diplomacy has pursued two mutually reinforcing approaches.  Firstly, we have witnessed the development of international law through which States willingly assumed human rights obligations.  This development proceeded hand-in-hand with the creation and continuing expansion of a system of human rights monitoring mechanisms. 

          Secondly, we have seen the growth and impact of the international human rights movement, which through committed advocacy has often been instrumental in pressing recalcitrant Governments to embrace in law, and implement in practice, internationally recognized human rights principles.  

          At times, this advocacy has been conducted behind the scenes by civil society groups, including human rights defenders and international organizations, as well as through the peer pressure of sympathetic Governments.  This quiet diplomacy operates on the principle of engagement, with persuasion and sometimes the implicit prospect of more public advocacy as its primary tools.  

          Sometimes human rights nongovernmental organizations and other champions of the human rights cause have adopted a highly visible strategy of “naming and shaming” those who commit human rights violations.  Some would regard this strategy and diplomacy as antithetical.  But there is no doubt that exposing human rights violations and calling perpetrators to account publicly has produced remarkable results, often engendering positive change both domestically and internationally.  Public advocacy can work independently of, or in tandem with, quiet diplomacy, as well as with judicial and quasi-judicial human rights mechanisms.

          To best put into context just how human rights public advocacy and coalition-building in all their articulations have developed in the last few decades, allow me to briefly discuss the historical background that shaped them.  The end of the Cold War in the early 1990’s had fuelled hopes for a “gentler, kinder” world in international relations.  Yet subsequently, war in the former Yugoslavia, the Rwandan genocide in 1994, as well as smaller-scale yet long drawn-out conflicts, such as those in Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nagorny Karabakh, South Osetia, and Transnistria shattered those hopes. 

          The 1990s was also the decade that witnessed a radical transformation in the conduct of war, and indeed the “privatization” of conflict.  Rather than confrontations among States, most of the so-called small wars of the decade were marked by violent internal competition between either State forces and well-armed rebels, or conflict between different militia of non-state actors in control of large swaths of territory, natural resources and weapons.  The suppliers of weapons and the beneficiaries of profits from natural resources fuelling some of these wars were private individuals or businesses that were callously unconcerned with the human rights record and the rapacity of their customers.  Tragically, the victims of these conflicts were increasingly also “private” individuals, civilians caught between the contenders or deliberately targeted by belligerents.   Widespread, gross and systematic human rights violations recurred in virtually all of these conflicts.  Crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and even genocide also tragically marked that decade.

          But these were also the years in which large-scale humanitarian and human rights-oriented advocacy campaigns led by like-minded States, international organizations and nongovernmental activists were launched in response to the atrocities.  Such campaigns included the movement to ban landmines and the use of child soldiers, and to control the misuse and proliferation of small arms and light weapons.  At that time, the framework for international justice developed significantly with the creation of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and ultimately with the campaign that led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.  I was privileged to serve in the Rwanda Tribunal and the ICC, in both cases from their first days of infancy. These organizations were thrown into action, trying desperately to meet the great challenges and high expectations surrounding their creation. And it is well-known that these groundbreaking advances in international criminal justice were largely due to the efforts of civil society.

          It is against this background that the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was created in 1993, much as a result of public human rights advocacy at the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights.  Since then the Office of the High Commissioner has progressively expanded its operations.  With regard to outreach strategies, our efforts have unfolded both “internally” and “externally”; both proactively and reactively; both publicly and quietly; and both as a stand-alone outreach strategy and in partnership.   Let me offer a few concrete examples of how we operate.

          I was particularly pleased when the Government of Togo requested OHCHR assistance in the run-up and during the 2010 presidential elections with a view to reducing violence and human rights violations.  Such assistance was part of a comprehensive package that involved training and support for State and local authorities, nongovernmental organizations, the media and the security forces.  This was a full-fledged campaign which required a combination of skill-transfer, advocacy, and monitoring.

          In Colombia, OHCHR had long advocated reparations for victims of human rights abuses regardless of the affiliation of their perpetrators. We support the Government’s draft law on reparations now before Parliament.  My Office in Colombia steered the process of seeking wide political and social consensus over both the spirit and the letter of this piece of legislation, as well as ensured its consistency with international law. 

          In recent years we have developed strategies for transitional justice and carried out training and related activities in numerous locations—from Kathmandu to Bujumbura, from Lomé to Nairobi and elsewhere.

          But in all honesty I must tell you that as High Commissioner for Human Rights, I often find myself in highly politicized contexts that contrast starkly with my experiences as a judge.  I have carried all my judicial instincts over into my diplomatic endeavors.  I do not rank rights, and I use my office as a venue where everyone will be given a fair audience. I have publicly and repeatedly called for a single standard of human rights to which all States should be held equally accountable. In the United Nations system this is sometimes a challenge. I believe that the credibility of my Office depends on impartiality, and I also believe that the credibility of other human rights undertakings similarly depends on impartiality.  What I find is that when you move from human rights experts working in their individual capacity, to bodies such as the Human Rights Council—the intergovernmental mechanism created in 2006 as the successor to the Commission on Human Rights— keeping partisan politics and narrow interests at bay is a great challenge. 

          Yet the HRC represents an invaluable vehicle for the enhancement of States’ cooperation and progress.  The Council is virtually a standing body.  The frequency of its meetings—both in formal and informal gatherings—may create more opportunities to better hone operations and responses to both chronic human rights conditions and sudden crises.

          Crucially, the new Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council, designed to examine the human rights record of all States, has prompted various countries to pledge an improvement in their implementation of human rights standards at the national level, as well as in their cooperation with human rights mechanisms.  Not all States undergoing the UPR have been forthcoming and eager to submit themselves to a peer discussion of their internal challenges.  In this context there is still much room for quiet diplomacy. If used effectively, however, the UPR can help address implementation gaps on the ground.

          And now, five years into its existence, the Council itself is about to be reviewed.  The review process will examine the HRC’s effectiveness in discharging its high mandate of promoting and protecting all human rights for all.  It must be tasked with yielding greater accountability for action on human rights.  The great challenge for the Council is to improve the ways in which it responds to human rights crises as they persist, emerge or unfold.  It should do so in concert with other human rights mechanisms, such as special procedures and human rights treaty bodies. 
          The former are entrusted to examine, investigate, monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations worldwide.  Through their direct contacts with Governments, their public statements, their reports to the Human Right Council and to the General Assembly, as well as informal briefings, the special procedures experts can offer invaluable information for identifying both preventive and corrective measures to address situations of concern and enhance practical implementation strategies on the ground. 

          Through their recommendations, the treaty bodies provide States with guidance for national implementation of their obligations.  Their work, including general comments on various provisions of the treaties, is also used by courts and other judicial bodies in the development of jurisprudence on international human rights law, as well as providing important substantive information for consideration in the UPR process.

          It is easy to get caught up in the world of the United Nations, yet I believe that we must always be guided in our priorities and all our efforts to promote and protect human rights by conditions on the ground, where violent conflict, discrimination, poverty, injustice and repression persist in too many parts of the world.  Indeed, no country can claim a spotless record on human rights.  Moreover, long-standing or emerging global problems, such as climate change, epidemics, shortages of resources including water and food, as well as the current financial crises and economic recession compound situations of entrenched vulnerability and hardship that preclude the full enjoyment of rights. The measure of our success, in my view, is the difference we make in the lives of women and men around the world.

          This is the common purpose of human rights public advocacy and coalition-building which we can refer to as “diplomacy.”  To best service it, we must muster and poll all available resources and draw from different perspectives and ideas.  I insist that such outreach strategies and partnership-creation are no longer the exclusive preserve of States.  They no longer merely define their relations and the defense of their geopolitical objectives.  They no longer rely solely on the skills of foreign affairs specialists.  Rather, today’s “diplomacy” involves a variety of State and nongovernmental actors, and a plurality of interests. This consideration brings me back to my earlier discussion regarding civil society, a realm to which you belong. 

          Last December, we dedicated Human Rights Day to human rights defenders who are at the frontlines of human rights public discourse and action.  Theirs, admittedly, may be diplomacy sui generis. Whereas diplomatic skills imply, at times, the ability to move discretely and off the radar screen in the corridors of power, human rights defenders dare to leap into high visibility and often speak loudly and clearly in the public arena.

          Whether diplomatically tactful or forcefully passionate, human rights defenders insist that discrimination, exclusion and attacks to the dignity and freedom of all human beings be addressed with the proper mix of measures and interventions which, in law and in practice, empower the victims, spur their public participation and foster public education.

          Many countries with long histories of injustice, discrimination and exclusion of particular groups have rewritten or are moving to rewrite the statute books to reflect the universal principles of equality and the human rights values embodied in international law.  My own, South Africa, did just so.

          To be sure, human rights and their advocacy continue to withstand the test of history and win over supporters every day, while dictators keep falling and ideologies fading.  But we must remain vigilant against assaults upon the rights and freedom of human rights defenders.

          In this regard, I am particularly alarmed by the lack of tangible and satisfactory results yielded by investigations into the killings, aggression toward, and harassment of human rights advocates, lawyers and journalists in many parts of the world, including the Russian Federation.  In 2007, a study covering the decade 1996-2006 by the International News Safety Institute, a respected not-for-profit charity, rated Russia second among the ten deadliest countries in the world for reporters.  Iraq ranked first. 

          Clearly, the Government must take all appropriate action to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable and representatives of civil society are protected.  I reiterate the need of exercising utmost vigilance against assaults upon the freedom of expression and assembly.  Attacks on such freedoms represent not only abuses of the rights of the victims, but also on the safety and freedom of whole societies.  Ultimately, they lead to an erosion of democratic space for all and poison not only inter-communal relations within States, but also interaction among States, thus undermining cooperation on human rights, as well as other areas of diplomacy.
         
          We work in challenging times:  the recent financial and economic downturns—together with food shortages, climate-related catastrophes and continuing violence—have shattered our complacency over lasting security, prosperity, safety and the enjoyment of freedoms by all.   These challenges demand responses from the international community that can counter both deeply rooted and chronic human rights violations in many countries.
 
          Let me conclude by observing that much more can and must be done to develop prevention strategies.  A preventive approach includes a focus on the institutional capacity of States to respond when human rights are at risk.  In turn, such objective requires a polity aware of its rights and entitlements, as well as assertive in claiming them or in denouncing abuses when they take place.

          I look forward to greater dialogue and engagement with States, a wide roster of partners in government, international institutions and nongovernmental organizations, and with the young levers of all societies that can bring fresh ideas and energy to the advancement of human rights.

          Thank you.