Minister of International Development and Human Rights Hilde F. Johnson

Remarks on ”The Future Human Rights Agenda”

Nordic Symposium, Norwegian Institute of Human Rights, University of Oslo, 16 April 1999

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction

Secretary-General Kofi Annan made a call in Davos earlier this year for “a global compact of shared values and principles, which will give a human face to the global market”. He was speaking to the business community. His remarks received a great deal of attention, and rightly so. He proposed “a genuine compact, because neither side of it can succeed without the other”. This call should be taken to heart far beyond the business community.

When addressing “the future human rights agenda”, which is the title of this symposium, our top three priorities must be: 1) implementation, 2) implementation and 3) implementation or – if you will – compliance , compliance and compliance. This is, of course, what it is all about. How do we achieve improvements on the ground? How do we contribute to changing the situation for the far too many of our fellow human beings whose rights are being denied, whose personal integrity is threatened and whose future does not offer the opportunity to “expand people’s choices” – to quote the United Nations’ definition of “human development”?

Today I would like to approach these questions by exploring a concept that I believe embodies one of the major challenges on the human rights agenda as we are about to embark on a new millennium. The concept that I propose to you is global accountability. I will look at where we are today, and then explore some of the means and measures we have at our disposal or can bring to bear in our efforts to improve implementation of and respect for human rights.

Today’s Agenda

Let me first of all share with you my view of the present state of affairs with regard to human rights. There are several trends that are converging as we prepare to cross the millennium threshold.

Firstly – Universality

Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have begun to understand the true impact of recognising the universality of human rights – “all human rights for all”. There are still exceptions, such as North Korea, which thinks it can withdraw from the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but these exceptions now definitely prove the rule. Human rights are everybody’s business. The concept of internal affairs is more rarely cited. Even when Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji raised the issue during his recent visit to the US, he conceded the need for China to comply more fully with international human rights obligations.

Let me also take this opportunity to say that the attempt of the Global Action Council to draft a “Declaration of Human Responsibilities” is, in my view, yesterday's attempt at watering down human rights. It is not the human rights agenda of tomorrow. The human rights agenda of tomorrow addresses the universality of human rights through a holistic approach. All human rights deserve equal attention. This was obvious to the framers of the Universal Declaration. It should also be obvious to us. Now we have a golden opportunity to act upon this understanding. The old division from the Cold War no longer exists. The confrontations between the North and the South have been reduced. One may speculate as to whether there is any linkage to the Asian crisis in this regard. We have a new opportunity to achieve a universal and global commitment to human rights. By focusing on social and economic rights and political rights alike, we can grasp this opportunity.

Secondly – Conflict

The Universal Declaration was born in the aftermath of World War II. Eleanor Roosevelt, René Cassin and the others knew all too well what terrible blows to human dignity war inevitably inflicts. The world has never been an entirely peaceful planet, but we’ve at least reduced the level of conflict between nations in the last decades of this century. Instead, we are increasingly facing the worrying tendency of conflict within nations. Between 1986 and 1989 only six of the 101 armed conflicts were conflicts between countries. The other 95 were various kinds of civil war. “Lack of respect for fundamental human rights inevitably leads to conflict within human society,” Aung San Suu Kyi once said. This point is well taken. Discrimination of groups in their access to economic and social resources such as land, employment and education gives those with political power room to manoeuvre more freely and to utilise ethnic sentiments to their own benefit. It becomes easy to justify violence against groups other than one’s own. We see it in central Africa, and we see it in Kosovo.

Twenty-five days into NATO’s military action in response to the ethnic cleansing undertaken by the regime in Belgrade, I am still struck by this tragic expression of our lack of effective options when human rights are abused by cynical leaders in situations of conflict and strife.

I am more than ready to comment further on the Kosovo situation, should you so wish, but I would very much like to share with you some of the comments that Secretary-General Kofi Annan offered in his address to the 55th session of the UN Commission of Human Rights, which still has two weeks of work to do in Geneva.

Kofi Annan said on April 8, “The vicious and systematic campaign of 'ethnic cleansing' conducted by the Serbian authorities in Kosovo appears to have one aim: to expel or kill as many ethnic Albanians in Kosovo as possible, thereby denying a people their most basic rights to life, liberty and security. The result is a humanitarian disaster throughout the region. We all regret that the international community, despite months of diplomatic efforts, failed to prevent this disaster. What gives me hope–and should give every future 'ethnic cleanser' and every state-backed architect of mass murder pause–is that a universal sense of outrage has been provoked. Emerging slowly, but I believe surely, is an international norm against the violent repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over concerns of sovereignty. It is a principle that protects minorities – and majorities – from gross violations. And let me therefore be very clear: even though we are an organisation of Member States, the rights and ideals the UN exists to protect are those of peoples…. No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty to violate human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples.”

This international norm includes taking a clearer stand against allowing leaders to act with impunity. The establishment of the ICC will be a very important step in this regard. The effective functioning of the two ad hoc tribunals and the British decision on Pinochet help the international community also to bring to justice those responsible for the most heinous violations of international humanitarian law.

I do not need to remind you of some of the most frightening aspects of internal conflict and strife, such as the increasing use of civilians as weapons of war. While civilians made up 5 per cent of the casualties in World War I, they constitute up to 80 or 90 per cent in today’s wars. Ranging from civilians being used as human shields, via the recruitment of children in fighting, to the systematic rape and abuse of women and girls as a military tactic – these practices form an all too familiar pattern in today’s conflicts. The struggle in Sierra Leone has added the maiming and mutilation of civilians to this list of inhuman and despicable practices.

Violence hits the weakest groups hardest. Children rank high on the list of those killed and injured in armed conflicts and modern warfare. Easy access and widespread use of hand weapons have made it easier to recruit children as soldiers. UNICEF’s report on children affected by armed conflict rightly branded war as a vandalisation of childhood itself. Combating these atrocities is a moral imperative which requires fresh efforts and more vigorous action at the normative, political and operational level. I predict that efforts to promote the rights of the child will gain momentum and increased attention in the international human rights debate.

Let me remind you of yet another aspect of violent internal conflicts. They are often marked by ethnic or religious differences between the warring factions. Religion is perhaps the most misused excuse for conflict. Most of these situations are caused by a struggle for territory or power - or both. This was part of the background for the Conference in Oslo last year on the Freedom of Religion or Belief, and this is the rationale for the establishment of the Oslo Coalition of Religious Communities. What has been used to legitimise conflict can become a powerful force for the prevention or, indeed, the resolution of conflict.

Thirdly – Poverty

Having pointed to the increasing acceptance of human rights as a legitimate issue, a right and a responsibility for everyone, everywhere, and to the need to address the grave threat posed by internal conflict and strife, let me emphasise a third, equally important trend. We are beginning to understand more fully the interplay between poverty and human rights. Poverty in many of its manifestations implies the violation of human rights. Combating poverty is, therefore, a vital human rights issue. We should insist, in a consistent manner, that human rights constitute an integrated whole. We must give economic, social and cultural rights their rightful place in the human rights machinery as well as in practice. Civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are equally important and they are, in fact, mutually reinforcing.

Poverty is by its very nature a disabling condition. It must therefore be met with enabling policies by developed and developing countries alike. It must also be met with an understanding that this is a moral challenge we cannot ignore.

According to the UN, development is the process of expanding people’s choices. Expanding people’s choices means expanding people’s rights. All of them. Every one of them. Although human rights imply states’ obligations in relation to the individual, it is the responsibility of the rich countries of the world to assist the poor ones in their obligation to implement these rights. We need a new partnership based on result-oriented policies in developing countries and a commitment on the part of the developed world to poverty eradication. The implication of a rights-based view of development is bound to have great consequences for the distribution of resources, nationally and internationally.

Human rights policies are inadequate unless structural factors related to the “social and international order”, to quote Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are taken into account. This is why we accept that relieving the debt burden of poor countries can be regarded as a human rights issue. Norway was the first country to launch a comprehensive debt relief strategy. This is why we actively support such initiatives as the 20/20 principle, which calls for a mutual commitment between developed and developing countries to allocate 20 per cent of ODA and 20 per cent of their national budgets, respectively, to basic social programmes fulfilling the basic rights of individuals. This is why we target our development assistance towards the poorest regions, countries and population groups. We in the North must be held accountable for doing everything we can to enable countries in the South to do what they must to eradicate poverty and ensure respect for human rights.

Fourthly – Globalisation and the Globalisation of Accountability

A fourth trend I would like to highlight is globalisation. Ten years ago, I spent a year in a village in Tanzania - not far from my birthplace - doing field work for my thesis in social anthropology. I studied at close range how international prices, debt, government subsidies and the lack of them, and adjustment programmes affected these people and their families. Make no mistake about it: these seemingly abstract, almost academic, phenomena about which we publish books, papers and articles and which we discuss in seminars like these are matters that determine the lives of millions of people.

A development assistance programme is almost meaningless unless it takes these conditions fully into account. This is one of my motivations for working internationally to improve the enabling environment for development, in all arenas where we have influence.

Globalisation is a dominant trend - with its opportunities and problems. It may be seen as an impregnable wall of multinational intrigue, as new-found cultural or economic imperialism, as poverty generation, or as providing new possibilities for everyone . In my opinion it is important to approach the phenomenon with a balanced view of its potential and the dangers it may pose. We need to make an analysis and implement measures designed to prevent the latter while advancing the former. Despite its shortcomings, however, globalisation may, by providing new and frequent meetings between cultures and individuals, in itself contribute to the universalisation of human rights. A case in point is the revolution in communications technologies which has rendered virtually impossible the doctrine of non-interference in internal affairs. It provides human rights activists and organisations with a channel for worldwide transmission of uncensored messages about violations of human rights. The Internet poses a major threat to the world’s dictatorships.

This brings me back to the concept that I flagged at the outset. The lesson we can learn from an analysis of the state of human rights today points unequivocally to the need for a globalisation of accountability.

• Human rights have taken on increasing importance in foreign policy. This is not only a matter of rhetoric. I believe there is a growing understanding not only of the basic nature of respect for human rights, but more importantly of the potential that respect for human rights has as a key to development. I know there is a growing understanding of human rights as one of the keys to reducing conflict.
• No state is exempt from accountability. This is not only a matter of involvement in international efforts – it is even more a matter of one’s own accountability to one’s constituency. I will comment on how we approach this in Norway in a little while.
• Nor is any state exempt from accountability with regard to the duty to contribute to improving international conditions for development and therefore for human rights. The time has come, however, to accept that a globalisation of accountability also applies beyond the state. I am not going to challenge the fact that human rights are state obligations. Although multinationals and businesses can never be formally bound by human rights obligations, they should be held accountable in relation to the universal values reflected in our human rights instruments. This is another facet of the globalisation of accountability. And another trend we now see emerging in the international human rights debate.

In Norway we have also acted in the spirit of Kofi Annan's Davos appeal for “creative partnerships with the private sector”. We established “KOMpakt” last year, which is the short name for the Consultative Body for Human Rights and Norwegian Economic Engagement Abroad. “KOMpakt” brings together five constituencies in focusing on how to promote human rights. The business community, labour unions, human rights organisations, the academic community and government agencies have different roles to play in this regard. Each role is indispensable. Each activity “KOMpakt” undertakes – from working group studies to seminars – involves representatives from all five constituencies. This increases respect for and understanding of the different roles we play in contributing to the promotion of human rights. These discussions also enhance the possibility of finding new avenues for exploring new partnerships in the promotion of human rights, and increase the accountability of our own businesses.

We have already encountered examples of initiatives taken by businesses on their own terms, which may prove to be important measures for implementation in the future. One such example is that of the Norwegian Ship Classification Society “Veritas”, which is accredited to the “Social Accountability 8000” standard. Veritas is busy developing a new line of business as it takes on, for example, the task of certifying Chinese companies under contract to McDonald’s in accordance with this new standard.

Considerable attention has been given to the impact multinational companies have – or can have - on respect for human rights. The current revision of the OECD Guidelines for multinational companies may be important in this regard. This trend has had quite an impact on multinational companies. Would Shell five years ago have boasted in its commercials broadcast to a European audience that “We are proud to be a leading private sector investor in the Nigerian economy. We are also proud of our record in contributing to the social and environmental development of Nigeria”?

In recognition of the fact that these companies are merging and growing into entities which are already larger than a great many developing countries – at least in economic terms – this is an important focus. I believe that we in the Nordic countries, however, have a duty to focus on the role smaller enterprises can play as well.

Strategies and Measures

Actions speak louder than words. This simple truth must be combined with another, i.e., that the world is not simply black and white. We have a whole range of measures at hand. And we have to make use of all them. One of the toughest measures which is seldom used, but frequently discussed, is sanctions. There is an interesting debate coming up questioning the effectiveness of this “weapon”. The debate on so-called “smarter sanctions” and the concern for the effects of sanctions on the civilian population are further evidence of this tendency. Our strategy must take account of new opportunities for action, and our choice of measures must be based on this new global accountability. There are, as I have already indicated, a number of areas in which to apply this strategy.

Firstly – Dialogue

The acceptance of the universality of human rights has opened up new possibilities for direct engagement. This engagement takes many forms. Norway is engaged in a multi-faceted human rights dialogue with several countries. Such dialogues have a political dimension and they focus squarely on human rights. They provide opportunities for those who are accountable to exchange views and experience. They are never just talk and theory, but are followed up by practical involvement in the field. China, Cuba and Turkey are examples of countries where we are currently engaged in meaningful, bilateral human rights dialogues.

We value these dialogues. Because they are active, open and frank. Because they are never one-way communication, but involve discussion, listening, exchanging ideas and constructive criticism. Because they always address real and serious issues, including individual cases. Because they facilitate cooperation between academic institutions, NGOs, the media and other partners in civil society. Dialogues never mean that we condone our partner’s human rights record. There is, however, a risk internationally of “bilateralising” active human rights involvement at the expense of extensive utilisation of the multilateral fora and their human rights instruments.

Engaging in a bilateral human rights dialogue is only one of several ways of addressing human rights concerns. Thus, dialogue should not preclude other avenues. Multilateral fora continue to be indispensable arenas for active human rights policies. There is no inherent contradiction between monitoring and cooperation, between criticism and discussion. One example is our membership of the Human Rights Commission and our intention to make active use of the opportunity to express our views. This means addressing the human rights situation in a number of states, including the recent developments in our three major dialogue countries which have given cause for concern. Our objective remains the same: the fulfilment, safeguarding and defence of human rights for our fellow human beings. In short, we must be accountable.

Secondly – At home and abroad

“Human rights begin at home”. We must be accountable on the home front. Norway’s first annual report is on the table. It was presented and discussed at a seminar arranged by the Norwegian Institute of Human Rights last December. The report gives an account of our efforts last year to improve the implementation of human rights at home and abroad. It shows that we still have a job to do in our own country.

We are currently working on a Plan of Action for human rights which will be submitted to the Norwegian parliament as a White Paper later this year. There are many issues to address. Domestic human rights concerns include the practice of custody, the use of coercion in psychiatric health care, children’s rights, the rights of the disabled and the issue of racial and ethnic discrimination. We need to improve knowledge of human rights in our public administration, in our schools and in society at large. The plan will address these and many other concerns – not least with regard to our efforts to promote human rights abroad. This has proved to be no easy task . It has taught us a lesson: improved implementation requires commitment, political will and resources, among other things.

As we gather experience and expertise in drawing up such plans, we should make use of the opportunity to share our experience. We should exchange our plans with other interested nations. We should advocate discussion of issues of principle related to the process and content of such national plans of action for human rights. Topics for discussion could include the participatory nature of the process of formulating and implementing plans, the holistic approach to human rights that plans should reflect, their inter-disciplinary nature, and the challenge of integrating human rights into other planning and policy processes, to name but a few.

At this stage in the process of the follow-up to the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, we would be supportive of those who are contemplating setting up something similar to the Paris Principles for national plans of action for human rights. I hope you and your colleagues will find this idea interesting.

Thirdly – Mainstreaming

Mainstreaming human rights in the UN system is a term that has not yet been embraced by the majority of the members of the world organisation. But it is a concept that is nevertheless resolutely pursued by the Secretary-General. It is my hope and belief that this process will provide us with new tools for improving implementation.

The accountability that we as representatives of the North must accept is also a collective accountability. This will be manifested in more and more ways in the years to come. We have already seen the UNDP, in close cooperation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, initiate a process on how to incorporate human rights into its activities. The World Bank has also recognised that it has a definite role to play in promoting and protecting human rights. The High Commissioner termed this a watershed in the promotion of human rights. I look forward to seeing the boards of the multilateral financial institutions endorse such ideas and views. I also look forward to seeing a multilateral venue for this increased focus on business and economic levers in the promotion of human rights.

Fourthly - Partners

In addressing means and measures for the future human rights agenda, we must take the globalisation of accountability at face value. This means we must work harder to broaden the quality and capacity of cooperation between new and old partners for the promotion of human rights. I have mentioned the “KOMpakt” as a partnership that can also take us beyond the interaction in the traditional human rights arena.

Civil society must – and will – continue to be the backbone of human rights efforts. This applies both to societies with a weak civil sector and to our own societies. I would like to commend the Nordic Human Rights Institutes for their important role in this regard. I am aware that you already enjoy close contact and cooperation. Yet is it possible that there could be even closer contact at the academic level – for instance between the respective Research Councils – on improving strategies for competence-building in the field of human rights? Could we benefit from cooperation on materials and methods in addressing human rights in our schools?

The role that Human Rights Defenders can and must play in the promotion of human rights is a special case. The declaration that was adopted on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration is an important document. The task ahead is to make it more than a piece of paper. We hope to be able to secure a mandate for a Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Defenders as soon as possible, in order to assist governments that want to improve conditions for Defenders in their own country, as well as to focus on cases where they are threatened.

Other important factors in the efforts to improve implementation are national institutions and regional mechanisms. There is a very healthy increase in the interest in establishing such national institutions. The motives may not always be the best, but the opportunities provided by the establishment of independent national institutions with at least some degree of competence and impartiality are promising. The Norwegian Government has contributed specifically to the capabilities of the OHCHR to support national institution-building. We will continue to focus on regional mechanisms. I have hopes that the next decade will see progress in Asia in this regard.

Future topics

So what are the topics that will preoccupy us most in the coming years? The list is long, and the work will be hard. I have already mentioned some trends in connection with our present agenda. These will also be important in the future.

• On the international scene, I have pointed out that we will continue to give top priority to development, which we view as an integral part of the promotion of human rights.
• I have mentioned the prospects of building more effective coalitions between religious communities to address conflict, promote tolerance and build bridges.
• The struggle against racism will continue to be one of the most important arenas for human rights work in the coming years. It will also be the subject of another World Conference, to be held in the year 2001.
• The issue of conflict will continue to be urgent, as we employ new tools to prevent leaders from acting with impunity, address issues related to non-state actors, deal with internally displaced persons, expand our capacity for human rights monitoring through NORDEM, further explore the concept of human security and gain a greater understanding of the fundamental standards of humanity.
• We face new human rights challenges as we employ new technologies. The use – and abuse – of the Internet is one of these.
• Finally, the bioethical issues are also gradually moving up the human rights agenda. A convention on the subject has been negotiated under the auspices of the Council of Europe, but much remains to be done.

Let me close by mentioning some issues I believe will be particularly relevant in a Nordic context.

• We will gain experience in addressing our own societies from a human rights perspective. Norway is in the process of incorporating the basic human rights conventions into Norwegian law. Our parliament acted this week on the European Convention as well as the two Covenants. The Government is also committed to including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• I referred earlier to some elements of our national agenda. Issues such as coercive measures in psychiatric care, detention practices and, not least, practices regarding the right to asylum will be with us in the years ahead, and may also affect our neighbours. This will be a challenge, particularly with regard to social and economic rights.
• The situation of our indigenous peoples may not pose such great challenges for Denmark, considering the unique position of Greenland. For us, however, issues such as land and water rights in relation to the Sami population will continue to move up the agenda.
• And we must not forget the Roma people. Their situation constitutes perhaps the most serious human rights challenge in Europe, if we disregard the conflict in the Balkans for a moment.
• The last topic I want to mention is by no means uniquely Nordic, but I hope and believe we will continue to give Nordic priority to the rights of the child. We must continue to pursue this as a cross-cutting issue. It is urgent that we continue to address cases of children in conflict, and of children in danger of sexual exploitation or child labour which endangers their future. We must continue to address these issues in the field and through standard-setting. We must continue to cooperate in order to pool our resources and to influence the international agenda. Children are, after all, quite literally the Future Human Rights Agenda.

Conclusion

In this day and age, it is striking how little knowledge we really have of the means and measures that will help to achieve improvements in countries and situations where human rights are being consistently and seriously violated. As our ability to act grows, so too must our efforts to acquire more empirical evidence of what actually works on the ground. Herein lies perhaps the greatest challenge to the academic community, just as the greatest challenge we as governments face in promoting human rights is to select the best means and measures.

I have chosen to take this opportunity today to explore the concept of global accountability without making any analysis of country situations. I have done so not only out of respect for your combined knowledge of human rights abuses, but also in order to make the best of this opportunity to explore the policies and practices that must be applied, and to address the issue of global accountability for the promotion of human rights.

Let me end where I began, by repeating the three main priorities on the human rights agenda for the future: 1) implementation, 2) implementation and 3) implementation. When the values at stake concern human life, human dignity, and freedom from hunger, oppression and injustice, the only meaningful response is action. Human rights apply to all of us. Human rights concern all of us. When an individual's rights are violated, it is our duty to come to his or her aid.

I believe we have a fair knowledge of where the human rights agenda must be applied most urgently. I believe we are also only just beginning to understand how valuable this agenda is to each and every society. I believe that we in Norway are ready to play our part in making the next century what Kofi Annan has termed the human rights century. We look forward to cooperating with all of you to that end.

Thank you.

This page was last updated April 23 1999 by the editors