World Affairs
Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct–Dec 1998)

INTERVIEW: Human Rights Today: Fifty Years After The Universal Declaration

 

The broad agenda set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 50 years ago is still relevant vis-à-vis the complexities of the contemporary world, argues Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

World Affairs (WA): What, in your view, is the state of human rights today? Would you agree with President Clinton’s optimistic statement to the United Nations General Assembly (1998) that human rights “are more widely embraced than ever before”?

Mary Robinson (MR): I believe there is more awareness of human rights today than ever before and consequently more people are demanding that their dignity be respected. 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 (on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights) and the Conventions 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 focused 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.

WA: Despite President Clinton’s optimistic statement, are there not major transgressions of human rights that need to be closely watched by your office?

MR: As we mark the 50^th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and engage in a 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 violation of their human rights. 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.

There are today more wars — albeit conflicts frequently within the boundaries of sovereign states and consequently characterised as “internal conflicts”, and more refugees — most 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 realisation 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”.

WA: Many developing countries seem to consider that the Western World tends to focus more on individual rights than on other rights that are equally important. What are your views on this point that is becoming increasingly controversial? Are there other challenges in the human rights sector than just individualism that also need to be considered?

MR: The issues currently confronting our world poses a tremendous challenge. If we are serious about the right to life we must be equally 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 and no abdication of responsibility.

WA: A number of developing countries seem to consider that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed 50 years ago, and the 1966 International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and on Civil and Political Rights need to be re-examined and developed further now that the international system has become more politically independent than ever before. Do you think that there is any need for a global interaction to incorporate the non-western perspectives on human rights in international documents? Should there not be more international debate on the whole issue? And should there not be what Mahatma Gandhi said, “All rights to be deserved and preserved come from a duty well done”?

MR: Today’s world is more complex than it was 50 years ago. There are now many more participating states than there were in 1948 and more strident and concerned voices from civil society. The agenda set by the Declaration is surprisingly apt for these new complexities — whether they are linked to the rights of indigenous peoples, or the right to development, or discrimination on grounds of gender, or on the basis of sexual orientation — but who could have imagined in 1948 that we would use the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration as an opportunity to reposition these fresh concerns and others in our order of priorities?

It is in this context that the search for global, ethical standards, and the work of a number of groups focusing on human responsibilities brings fresh insights into the interpretation of the Preamble and Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a living document. It is right that we should focus more on duties and obligations but, I believe, it would be wiser to avoid the distraction of seeking a new declaration. Instead we need to recognise and recommit ourselves to the extent to which these values are implied in creating through the Universal Declaration “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations” which can be reinforced by greater emphasis on them as valued for individuals and communities in all our civil societies.

It is thanks to the Universal Declaration that human rights have established themselves everywhere as a legitimate political and moral concern, that the world community has pledged itself to promote and protect human rights, that the ordinary citizen has been given a vocabulary of complaint and inspiration, and that a corpus of enforceable human rights law is developing in different regions of the world through effective regional mechanisms.

I would venture to suggest that it has become an elevating force on the events of our world because it can be seen to embody the legal, moral and philosophical beliefs held true by all peoples and because it applies to all. It is precisely this notion of “universality” — in the widest sense — that gives it its force. Its universal vocation to protect the dignity of every human being has captured the imagination of humanity.

I, nonetheless, welcome the lively debate in some parts of the world on the continuing relevance of the Universal Declaration, as it has drawn me to consider some of the practical wisdom and insight into the human condition found in the writings and sayings of the great thinkers and religious leaders of this region.

For that reason, for example, I was very interested in the resolution adopted as the contribution of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to the 50^th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration, in particular the passage reiterating the necessity of taking advantage of the Anniversary to “highlight the lofty human values brought in by Islam, long before any positive covenants”.

It is with the objective of enriching the universality of human rights that I took up a suggestion by Dr Kamal Kharrazi, the minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the last session of the Commission on Human Rights to organise an expert seminar on Islamic perspectives on the Universal Declaration (9-10 November, 1998). The seminar was useful in highlighting that cultural and religious differences can indeed be a source of unity in as far as human dignity is paramount.

WA: China has often been one of the main targets of attack by the western world for its poor performance in human rights. Has your recent visit to China led you to take a more optimistic view regarding developments in this sector?

MR: The aim of my visit to China was to start a process of cooperation to improve the human rights situation in the world’s most populous country. I stress cooperation because it is too easy to stand in the sidelines and criticise. Criticism is sometimes necessary, but it is insufficient by itself. China is undergoing a transition, and the Office of the High Commissioner could add the value of its expertise with respect to supporting a growing human rights awareness and the country’s capacity to promote and protect fundamental freedoms.

WA: Do you think that China’s political and philosophical perspective on human rights can dovetail with what is stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two Covenants? And what is the purpose of the Memorandum of Intent that you concluded with the Chinese Government during your visit to China?

MR: China has now signed the two Covenants, and one of the aims of the Memorandum of Intent signed with the Government during my visit was to assist in moving towards ratification, with all that it entails in changes to domestic law.

There could also be technical cooperation in the field of human rights education. During the visit I discussed with the authorities my coordinating role within this Decade for Human Rights Education. My commitment and that of the United Nations to human rights education comes from an understanding of the importance of citizens knowing and being able to exercise rights.

WA: In a press conference in Beijing, you declared that the Memorandum of Intent “formally envisaged seeking support for its programme from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”. What is this programme and what sort of cooperation will your office be involved in with Beijing?

MR: My Office and the Chinese Government are now working to conclude the term of reference for a “needs-assessment” mission to clearly define the terms of future technical cooperation. The mission would go to China within the next few months and involve areas such as human rights education, capacity building and the strengthening of the judiciary and the rule of law.

WA: Your office is also involved in assisting other countries to improve their broad framework of human rights. Could you give us some examples?

MR: During this 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 they are related to or identified as a human rights “ombudsman” or “ombudsperson”.

Independent national human rights commission can, by virtue of their accessibility, transform the rhetoric of international instruments into practical reality and provide redress for millions of people. They can also contributeto and complement government reports to international treaty bodies, of trafficking and make proposals for implementing this initiative. The OHCHR is considering the modalities of the establishment of a task force aimed at reinforcing cooperation among UN agencies and at raising awareness on trafficking in women and children at the highest political level. The OHCHR is also implementing a special project, in cooperation with the UN’s Division for the Advancement of Women, designed to integrate a gender perspective into all aspects of the OHCHR’s Technical Cooperation Programme.

Furthermore, the OHCHR provides substantive support to the work of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and to the Special Rapporteur on violence against women.

WA: Does your Office also have a mandate to protect and promote the rights of indigenous minorities?

MR: The OHCHR is also very active in the protection of the rights of indigenous people. In fact, I, as High Commissioner, am the coordinator of the current International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1995-2004). One of the main objectives of the Decade, proclaimed by the General Assembly in 1993, is to strengthen international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, development, education and health.

The OHCHR supports the work of the three thematic working groups on indigenous issues set up by the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-commission. These panels are dealing with such issues as a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous issues and the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous peoples within the United Nations.

The launching of the OHCHR’s Indigenous Fellowship Programme in 1997 was a major institutional development, helping indigenous people gain experience of the United Nations system so that they can better defend their rights. The programme is an important component of the Decade.

WA: Has your Office established modalities of intervening in situations where human rights have been seriously compromised? Does it get involved in such situations? If so, can you give us some examples?

MR: The involvement of the OHCHR in field work has significantly increased in the past few years, with the number of OHCHR field presences growing from 1 in 1992 to 22 in 1998. The environment in which OHCHR has been required to operate has varied from post-conflict settings to on-going armed conflicts, from violent internal tensions to peaceful democratic transitions, requiring corresponding adjustments in the mandates and modus operandi of the field presences themselves. This involves in some cases working under a mandate established by the Security Council, as in Sierra Leone or Angola. In the former, which is still reeling under the effects of a brutal internal conflict, the human rights unit, among other duties, monitors the situation of human rights, both directly and by development and support for monitoring networks of local and international NGOs and other aspects of civil society. The unit has carried out close observation and undertaken intervention regarding the post-junta treason trials and courts-martial. It has also been active in the development of projects to contribute to the process of healing of society following the period of junta rule.