Source: amnesty
http://thereport. amnesty.org/ eng/Freedom- from-fear
IRENE KHAN: FREEDOM FROM FEAR
On 10 December 2006, while the world celebrated
International Human Rights Day, I was in Jayyus on the
West Bank. The small village is now divided by the
Wall - or more accurately a high iron fence. Built in
defiance of international law, and ostensibly to make
Israel more secure, the Wall's main effect has been to
cut off the local Palestinian population from their
citrus groves and olive orchards. A once prosperous
farming community is now impoverished.
"Every day I have to suffer the humiliation of
checkpoints, petty obstructions and new restrictions
that stop me from getting to my orchard on the other
side. If I cannot cultivate my olives, how will I
survive?" cried one angry Palestinian farmer.
As I listened to him, I could see in the distance the
neat red roofs and white walls of a large and
prosperous Israeli settlement. I wondered if those who
lived there believed that a Wall threatening the
future of their neighbours could truly enhance their
security.
Earlier that week, I had visited Sderot, a small town
in the south of Israel, which had been subjected to
rocket attacks from Palestinian groups in Gaza.
"We are frightened," one young woman resident told me.
"But we know that there are women like us on the other
side who are also suffering, who are also afraid, and
who are in a worse situation than us. We feel empathy
for them, we want to live in peace with them, but
instead our leaders promote our differences and create
more distrust. So we live in fear and insecurity."
This brave Israeli woman understood what many world
leaders fail to comprehend: that fear destroys our
shared understanding and our shared humanity. When we
see others as a threat, and are ready to negotiate
their human rights for our security, we are playing a
zero-sum game.
Her message is sobering at a time when our world is as
polarized as it was at the height of the Cold War, and
in many ways far more dangerous. Human rights - those
global values, universal principles and common
standards that are meant to unite us - are being
bartered away in the name of security today as they
were then. Like the Cold War times, the agenda is
being driven by fear - instigated, encouraged and
sustained by unprincipled leaders.
Fear can be a positive imperative for change, as in
the case of the environment, where alarm about global
warming is forcing politicians belatedly into action.
But fear can also be dangerous and divisive when it
breeds intolerance, threatens diversity and justifies
the erosion of human rights.
In 1941, US President Franklin Roosevelt laid out his
vision of a new world order founded on "four
freedoms": freedom of speech and of religion; freedom
from fear and from want. He provided inspirational
leadership that overcame doubt and unified people.
Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and
trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of
being swamped by migrants; fear of "the other" and of
losing one's identity; fear of being blown up by
terrorists; fear of "rogue states" with weapons of
mass destruction.
Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There
are indeed many real causes of fear, but the approach
being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted,
promulgating policies and strategies that erode the
rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities,
feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage
communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more
conflict.
The politics of fear has been made more complex by the
emergence of armed groups and big business that commit
or condone human rights abuses. Both - in different
ways - challenge the power of governments in an
increasingly borderless world. Weak governments and
ineffective international institutions are unable to
hold them accountable, leaving people vulnerable and
afraid.
History shows that it is not through fear but through
hope and optimism that progress is achieved. So, why
do some leaders promote fear? Because it allows them
to consolidate their own power, create false
certainties and escape accountability.
The Howard government portrayed desperate
asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to
Australia's national security and raised a false alarm
of a refugee invasion. This contributed to its
election victory in 2001. After the attacks of 11
September 2001, US President George W Bush invoked the
fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power,
without Congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny.
President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan whipped up fear
among his supporters and in the Arab world that the
deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur would be a
pretext for an Iraq-style, US-led invasion. Meanwhile,
his armed forces and militia allies continued to kill,
rape and plunder with impunity. President Robert
Mugabe of Zimbabwe played on racial fears to push his
own political agenda of grabbing land for his
supporters.
Only a common commitment based on shared values can
lead to a sustainable solution. In an inter-dependent
world, global challenges, whether of poverty or
security, of migration or marginalization, demand
responses based on global values of human rights that
bring people together and promote our collective
well-being. Human rights provide the basis for a
sustainable future. But protecting the security of
states rather than the sustainability of people's
lives and livelihoods appears to be the order of the
day.
FEAR OF MIGRATION AND MARGINALIZATION
In developed countries, as well as emerging economies,
the fear of being invaded by hordes of the poor is
being used to justify ever tougher measures against
migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, violating
international standards of human rights and humane
treatment.
Driven by the political and security imperatives of
border control, asylum procedures have become a means
for exclusion rather than protection. Across Europe,
refugee recognition rates have fallen dramatically
over the years, although the reasons for seeking
asylum - violence and persecution - remain as high as
ever.
The hypocrisy of the politics of fear is such that
governments denounce certain regimes but refuse to
protect those escaping from them. The harsh policies
of the North Korean government have been condemned by
western governments but these same governments are far
less vocal about the fate of some 100,000 North
Koreans reportedly hiding in China, hundreds of whom
are deported forcibly to North Korea every week by the
Chinese authorities.
Migrant workers fuel the engine of the global economy
- yet they are turned away with brutal force,
exploited, discriminated against, and left unprotected
by governments across the world, from the Gulf states
and South Korea to the Dominican Republic.
Six thousand Africans drowned or were missing at sea
in 2006 in their desperate bid to reach Europe.
Another 31,000 - six times higher than the number in
2005 - reached the Canary islands. Just as the Berlin
Wall could not stop those who wanted to escape
Communist oppression, tough policing of the borders of
Europe is failing to block those seeking to escape
abject poverty.
In the long term, the answer lies not in building
walls to keep people out but in promoting systems that
protect the rights of the vulnerable while respecting
the prerogative of states to control migration.
International instruments provide that balance.
Attempts to weaken the UN Refugee Convention or shun
the UN Migrant Workers Convention - which no western
country has ratified - are counter-productive.
If unregulated migration is the fear of the rich, then
unbridled capitalism, driven by globalization, is the
fear of the poor. Booming markets are creating
enormous opportunities for some, but also widening the
gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots". The
rewards of globalization are heavily skewed, both
across the world and within countries. Latin America
is burdened with some of the highest levels of
inequality in the world. In India, there have been
average growth rates of 8 per cent over the past three
years, but more than a quarter of its population still
lives below the poverty line.
These statistics reveal the dark underbelly of
globalization. The marginalization of large swathes of
humanity should not be treated as the inevitable cost
of global prosperity. There is nothing inevitable
about policies and decisions that deny individuals
their economic and social rights.
Amnesty International' s growing programme of work on
economic and social rights is laying bare the reality
of people's fear: that in many parts of the world
people are being tipped into poverty and trapped there
by corrupt governments and greedy businesses.
As the demands for mining, urban development and
tourism put pressure on land, across Africa, Asia and
Latin America, entire communities - millions of people
- are being forcibly evicted from their homes with no
due process, compensation or alternative shelter.
Often, excessive force is used to uproot them.
Development- induced displacement is not a new
problem, yet little appears to have been learnt from
past experience. In Africa alone, more than 3 million
people have been affected since 2000, making forced
evictions one of the most widespread and unrecognized
human rights violations on the continent. Carried out
in the name of economic progress, in reality they
leave the poorest of the poor homeless and often
without access to clean water, health, sanitation,
jobs or education.
Africa has long been the victim of the greed of
western governments and companies. Now, it faces a new
challenge from China. The Chinese government and
Chinese companies have shown little regard for their
"human rights footprint" on the continent. The
deference to national sovereignty, antipathy to human
rights in foreign policy, and readiness to engage with
abusive regimes, are all endearing China to African
governments. But for those same reasons, African civil
society has been less welcoming. The health and safety
standards and treatment of workers by Chinese
companies have fallen short of international
standards. As the biggest consumer of Sudan's oil and
a major supplier of its weapons, China has shielded
the Sudanese government against pressure from the
international community - although there are some
signs that it may be modifying its position.
Weak, deeply impoverished, and often profoundly
corrupt states have created a power vacuum into which
corporations and other economic actors are moving. In
some of the most resource-rich countries with the
poorest populations, big business has used its
unbridled power to gain concessions from governments
that deprive local people of the benefits of the
resources, destroy their livelihoods, displace them
from their homes and expose them to environmental
degradation. Anger at the injustice and denial of
human rights has led to protests that are then
brutally repressed. The oil-rich Niger Delta in
southern Nigeria, torn by violence for the past two
decades, is a case in point.
Corporations have long resisted binding international
standards. The United Nations must confront the
challenge, and develop standards and promote
mechanisms that hold big business accountable for its
impact on human rights.The need for global standards
and effective accountability becomes even more urgent
as multinational corporations from diverse legal and
cultural systems emerge in a global market.
The push for land, timber and mineral resources by big
conglomerates is threatening the cultural identity and
daily survival of many Indigenous communities in Latin
America. Subjected to racial discrimination and driven
into extreme poverty and ill-health, some of the
groups are on the brink of collapse.
Against this background, the failure of the 2006 UN
General Assembly to adopt the Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples was yet another
unfortunate testimony to powerful interests trumping
the very survival of the vulnerable.
Although the rich are getting richer every day, they
do not necessarily feel any safer. Rising crime and
gun violence are a source of constant fear, leading
many governments to adopt policies that are
purportedly tough on crime but in reality criminalize
the poor, exposing them to the double jeopardy of gang
violence and brutal policing. Ever higher levels of
criminal and police violence in Sao Paulo and the
presence of the army on the streets of Rio de Janeiro
in 2006 demonstrated the failure of Brazil's public
security policies. Providing security to one group of
people at the expense of the rights of another does
not work. Experience shows that public security is
best strengthened through a comprehensive approach
that combines better policing alongside provision of
basic services such as health, education and shelter
to the poor communities; so that they feel they too
have a stake in a secure and stable society.
At the end of the day, promoting economic and social
rights for all is the best approach to addressing the
fears of the rich as well as the poor.
FEAR BREEDS DISCRIMINATION
Fear feeds discontent and leads to discrimination,
racism, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities
and xenophobic attacks against foreigners and
foreign-born citizens.
When governments turn a blind eye to racist violence,
it can become endemic. In Russia, hate crimes against
foreigners and minorities are common, but until
recently were rarely prosecuted because they fed into
the nationalist propaganda of the authorities.
As the European Union expands eastwards, the acid test
of its commitment to equality and non-discrimination
will be the ts treatment of its own Roma population.
>From Dublin to Bratislava, anti-Roma attitudes remain
entrenched, with segregation and discrimination in
education, health and housing and exclusion from
public life persistent in some countries.
In many western countries, discrimination has been
generated by fears of uncontrolled migration and,
post-9/11, aggravated by counter-terrorism strategies
targeting Arabs, Asians and Muslims. Fear and
hostility on one side have led to alienation and anger
on the other.
Increasing polarization has strengthened the hands of
extremists at both ends of the spectrum, reducing the
space for tolerance and dissent. Incidents of
Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are increasingly
evident. In many parts of the world, anti-western and
anti-American sentiments are at an all-time high, as
demonstrated by the ease with which some groups
fomented violence following the publication in Denmark
of cartoons that many Muslims found offensive.
The Danish government rightly upheld free speech but
failed to affirm strongly and immediately its
commitment to protect Muslims living in Denmark from
discrimination and social exclusion. The Iranian
President called for a debate to promote the denial of
the historical fact of the Holocaust. The French
parliament passed a bill making it a crime to deny
that the Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of
the Ottomans.
Where should the line be drawn between protecting free
speech and stopping incitement of racial hatred? The
state has an obligation to promote non-discrimination
and prevent racial crimes, but it can do that without
limiting freedom of speech. Freedom of expression
should not be lightly restricted. Yes, it can be used
to propagate lies as well as truth, but without it
there is no way to argue against lies, no way to seek
truth and justice. That is why speech should be
curtailed only where there is clear intent to incite
racial or religious hatred, not where the purpose is
to express opinion, however distasteful.
In Albert-Engelman- Gesellschaft MBH v Austria
(January 2006) the European Court of Human Rights
described freedom of expression as "one of the
essential foundations of a democratic society and one
of the basic conditions for its progress and each
individual's self-fulfilment. .. freedom is applicable
not only to 'information' or 'ideas' [that are deemed
acceptable] but also to those that offend, shock or
disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance
and broadmindedness without which there is no
'democratic society'."
FEAR OF DISSENT
Freedom of expression is fundamental to the right to
dissent. Where there is no dissent, the right to free
speech is endangered. Where there is no dissent,
democracy is stifled. Where there is no dissent,
tyranny raises its head.
Yet, freedom of expression and dissent continue to be
suppressed in a variety of ways, from the prosecution
of writers, journalists and human rights defenders in
Turkey, to political killings of left-wing activists
in the Philippines.
In the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, the only form
of protest arguably left to detainees is hunger
strike. In 2006, some 200 detainees who resorted to it
were force fed by tubes inserted through the nose - a
particularly painful and humiliating method. When
three men were reported to have committed suicide, the
US taskforce commander at Guantánamo described it as
"asymmetrical warfare".
National security has often been used as an excuse by
governments to suppress dissent. In recent years,
heightened fears about terrorism and insecurity have
reinforced repression - or the risk of it - in a
variety of ways.
"Old fashioned" abuses of freedom of expression,
assembly and association have gained a new lease of
life in North Africa and the Middle East. In liberal
democracies, the ever-widening net of
counter-terrorism laws and policies poses a potential
threat to free speech. In 2006, for example, the UK
adopted legislation to create a vaguely defined crime
of "encouraging terrorism", incorporating the even
more baffling notion of "glorifying terrorism".
In the USA, the authorities showed more interest in
hunting down the source of the leak behind the story
in The Washington Post on CIA "black sites", than in
investigating the policies that led to the
establishment of these secret prisons in the first
place in contravention of international and US laws.
The authoritarian drift in Russia has been devastating
for journalists and human rights defenders. Having
intimidated or taken over much of the Russian press,
President Vladimir Putin turned his attention to
Russian and foreign non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) in 2006 with a controversial law to regulate
their funding and activities. In a public relations
exercise just prior to the meeting of the G8, he met
with a group of international NGOs, including Amnesty
International. Informed of the damaging impact of his
NGO law on civil society in Russia and urged to
suspend it pending further consultations on
amendments, he responded: "We did not pass this law to
have it repealed." Three months later the Russian
Chechen Friendship Society, a human rights NGO working
to expose violations in Chechnya, was closed down
under the new law.
Unfortunately, Russia is not the only country seeking
to silence independent voices on human rights. From
Colombia to Cambodia, Cuba to Uzbekistan, governments
have introduced laws to restrict human rights
organizations and the work of activists, branding them
disloyal or subversive, prosecuting those who dare to
expose human rights violations, and launching smear
campaigns with the help of unscrupulous media in an
effort to instil fear and de-legitimize the work of
activists.
In an age of technology, the Internet has become the
new frontier in the struggle for the right to dissent.
With the help of some of the world's biggest IT
companies, governments such as those in Belarus,
China, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia are
monitoring chat rooms, deleting blogs, restricting
search engines and blocking websites. People have been
imprisoned in China, Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan and Viet
Nam for posting and sharing information online.
Everyone has the right to seek and receive information
and to express their peaceful beliefs without fear or
interference. Amnesty International, with the support
of the UK newspaper The Observer (which published
Amnesty International' s first appeal in 1961),
launched a campaign in 2006 to show that human rights
activists will not be silenced, online or offline, by
governments or big business.
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN
The pernicious relationship between discrimination and
dissent is playing out most vividly in the arena of
gender. Women activists have been arrested for
demanding gender equality in Iran, murdered for
promoting education of girls in Afghanistan, and
subjected to sexual violence and vilification around
the world. Women working on issues of sexual
orientation and reproductive rights have been
especially targeted, marginalized and attacked.
Women human rights defenders are doubly endangered: as
activists and as women - for their work as well as for
their identity. They are attacked by both state and
society, not only because they expose human rights
abuses, but also because they challenge patriarchal
power structures and social and cultural conventions
that subjugate women, condone discrimination and
facilitate gender violence. Women's human rights have
suffered in recent years from the twin trends of
backlash and backtrack. The backlash on human rights
in the context of counter-terrorism has affected women
as well as men. And in an environment of fear and
religious fundamentalism, governments have backtracked
on their promise to promote gender equality.
Violence against women - in all societies around the
world - remains one of the gravest and most common
human rights abuses today. It thrives because of
impunity, apathy and inequality.
One of the most blatant examples of impunity is the
conflict in Darfur, where incidents of rape rose in
2006 as armed conflict increased and spread to
neighbouring areas of Chad. One of the most insidious
examples of apathy is Guatemala, where more than 2,200
women and girls have been murdered since 2001, but
very few cases have been investigated and even fewer
prosecuted. There are many examples of the impact of
inequality, but possibly one of the saddest is the
high levels of maternal and infant mortality - for
example in Peru - due to discrimination in health
services.
Billions of dollars are being spent to fight the "war
on terror" - but where is the political will or the
resources to fight sexual terror against women? There
was universal outrage against racial apartheid in
South Africa - where is the outrage against gender
apartheid in some countries today?
Whether the perpetrator is a soldier or a community
leader, whether the violence is officially sanctioned
by the authorities or condoned by culture and custom,
the state cannot shirk its responsibility to protect
women.
The state has the obligation to safeguard a woman's
freedom of choice, not restrict it. To take an
example, the veil and headscarf of Muslim women have
become a bone of contention between different
cultures, the visible symbol of oppression according
to one side, and an essential attribute of religious
freedom according to the other. It is wrong for women
in Saudi Arabia or Iran to be compelled to put on the
veil. It is equally wrong for women or girls in Turkey
or France to be forbidden by law to wear the
headscarf. And it is foolish of western leaders to
claim that a piece of clothing is a major barrier to
social harmony.
In the exercise of her right to freedom of expression
and religion, a woman should be free to choose what
she wants to wear. Governments and religious leaders
have a duty to create a safe environment in which
every woman can make that choice without the threat of
violence or coercion. The universality of human rights
means that they apply equally to women as well as to
men. This universality of rights - universality both
in understanding and in application - is the most
powerful tool against gender violence, intolerance,
racism, xenophobia and terrorism.
FEAR OF TERRORISM
It is in the sphere of terrorism and counter-terrorism
that fear's most harmful manifestations flourish.
Whether in Mumbai or Manhattan, people have the right
to be secure and governments have the duty to provide
that security. However, ill-conceived
counter-terrorism strategies have done little to
reduce the threat of violence or to ensure justice for
victims of attacks, and much to damage human rights
and the rule of law.
Thwarted in 2004 by the courts from pursuing its
policy of detaining people indefinitely without charge
or trial, the UK government has resorted increasingly
to deportation, or to "control orders" that allow the
Home Secretary effectively to place people under house
arrest without criminal prosecution. Suspects are thus
condemned without ever being convicted. The essence of
the rule of law is subverted while its form is
preserved.
Japan introduced a law in 2006 to fast-track
deportation of anyone deemed by the Minister of
Justice to be a "possible terrorist". People's fate
will no longer be determined on the basis of what they
have done but on the omniscient ability of governments
to predict what they might do!
Unfettered discretionary executive power is being
pursued relentlessly by the US administration, which
treats the world as one big battlefield for its "war
on terror": kidnapping, arresting, detaining or
torturing suspects either directly or with the help of
countries as far apart as Pakistan and Gambia,
Afghanistan and Jordan. In September 2006, President
Bush finally admitted what Amnesty International has
long known - that the CIA had been running secret
detention centres in circumstances that amount to
international crimes.
Nothing so aptly portrays the globalization of human
rights violations as the US government's programme of
"extraordinary renditions". Investigations by the
Council of Europe, the European Parliament and a
Public Enquiry in Canada, have provided compelling
evidence confirming Amnesty International' s earlier
findings of the complicity, collusion or acquiescence
of a number of European and other governments -
whether democratic like Canada or autocratic like
Pakistan. Over the past few years, hundreds of people
have been unlawfully transferred by the USA and its
allies to countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
In this shadowy system they risk enforced
disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment. Some
have ended up in Guantánamo, US-run prisons in
Afghanistan or CIA "black sites".
Lawyers cannot petition the authorities, seek judicial
review or demand fair trial for those held in secret
detention for the simple reason that no one knows
where and by whom they are being held. International
monitoring is impossible for the same reasons.
The US administration' s double speak has been
breathtakingly shameless. It has condemned Syria as
part of the "axis of evil", yet it has transferred a
Canadian national, Maher Arar, to the Syrian security
forces to be interrogated, knowing full well that he
risked being tortured. Pakistan is another country
that the US administration has courted and counted as
an ally in its war on terror - notwithstanding
concerns about its human rights record.
Thankfully, there appears to be a growing realization
in many countries that security at all costs is a
dangerous and damaging strategy. European institutions
are becoming more rigorous in their demand for
accountability and courts less willing to give in to
governments' claims. The Public Enquiry in Canada
called for an apology and compensation by the Canadian
authorities for Maher Arar and for investigation into
other similar cases. Reports by the Council of Europe
and the European Parliament are leading to calls for
greater scrutiny of security services. Arrest warrants
have been issued in Italy and Germany against CIA
agents.
A clear momentum has been created in favour of
transparency, accountability and an end to impunity.
But the USA has yet to embrace this momentum.
President Bush persuaded a Congress in pre-election
fever to adopt the Military Commissions Act, negating
the impact of the 2006 Supreme Court judgement in
Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and making lawful that which world
opinion found immoral. The New York Times described it
as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low
points in American democracy".
The US administration remains deaf to the worldwide
calls for closing down Guantánamo. It is unrepentant
about the global web of abuse it has spun in the name
of counter- terrorism. It is oblivious to the distress
of thousands of detainees and their families, the
damage to the rule of international law and human
rights, and the destruction of its own moral
authority, which has plummeted to an all-time low
around the world - while the levels of insecurity
remain as high as ever.
US Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote in 1987: "After
each perceived security crisis ended, the United
States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation
of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven
unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when
the next crisis came along."
A new US Congress raises hopes that things may yet
take a different turn, and that Democrats and
Republicans will come to see a bipartisan interest in
restoring respect for human rights at home and abroad,
demanding accountability, setting up a commission of
inquiry and either repealing or changing the Military
Commissions Act substantially in line with
international law.
FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE
When global values of human rights are swept aside
with impunity, parochial interests raise their head,
often driven by sectarian, ethnic and religious
groups, sometimes using violence. Although their
practices are often contrary to human rights, in a
number of countries they are gaining support with
ordinary people because they are seen to be addressing
the injustices that governments and the international
community are ignoring.
Meanwhile governments are failing to provide the
leadership to bring these groups to account for their
abuses, and instead appear to be feeding the very
factors that foster them.
In Afghanistan, the government and the international
community have squandered the opportunity to build an
effective, functioning state based on human rights and
the rule of law. Rampant insecurity, impunity and
corrupt and ineffective government institutions,
combined with high unemployment and poverty, have
sapped public confidence, while thousands of civilian
deaths resulting from US-led military operations have
fuelled resentment. The Taleban has capitalized on the
political, economic and security vacuum to gain
control over large parts of the south and east of the
country.
A misguided military adventure in Iraq has taken a
heavy toll on human rights and humanitarian law,
leaving the population embittered, armed groups
empowered and the world a much less secure place. The
insurgency has morphed into a brutal and bloody
sectarian conflict. The government has shown little
commitment to protect the human rights of all Iraqis.
The Iraqi police forces, heavily infiltrated by
sectarian militia, are feeding violations rather than
restraining them. The Iraqi justice system is woefully
inadequate, as former President Saddam Hussain's
flawed trial and grotesque execution confirmed.
If there is to be any hope of a shift in the
apocalyptic prognosis for Iraq, the Iraqi government
and those who support it militarily must set some
clear human rights benchmarks - to disarm the militia,
reform the police, review the justice system, stop
sectarian discrimination and ensure the equal rights
of women.
In the Palestinian Occupied Territories, the
cumulative impact of measures by the Israeli
authorities, including increasingly severe
restrictions on freedom of movement, expansion of
settlements and the building of the Wall inside the
West Bank, has strangled the local economy. Ordinary
Palestinians are caught between interfactional
fighting of Hamas and Fatah, and the reckless shelling
of the Israeli army. With no justice and no end to
occupation in sight, a predominantly young Palestinian
population is being radicalized. No truce will survive
and no political process will succeed in the Middle
East if impunity is not addressed, and human rights
and security of people are not prioritized.
In Lebanon, sectarian divisions have further deepened
in the aftermath of the war between Israel and
Hizbullah. The lack of accountability for current and
past abuses - including during this recent war, and
political assassinations and enforced disappearances
during the civil war (1975-1990) - is a source of
grievance that is being exploited by all sides. The
government is under pressure to concede more space to
Hizbullah. There is a real risk that the country could
plunge into sectarian violence once again.
One commentator predicts a nightmare scenario of
failing states from the Hindu Kush to the Horn of
Africa, with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia as
bookends, and Iraq, the Occupied Territories and
Lebanon at the core of this band of instability.
Others speak of the revival of a Cold War mindset of
"them and us" in which powerful states seek to fight
their enemies through proxy wars in someone else's
backyard. The prognosis for human rights is dire.
A FUTURE FREE OF FEAR
One can get sucked into the fear syndrome or one can
take a radically different approach: an approach based
on sustainability rather than security.
The term sustainability may be more familiar to
development economists and environmentalists, but it
is crucial too for human rights activists. A
sustainable strategy promotes hope, human rights and
democracy, while a security strategy addresses fears
and dangers. Just as energy security is best provided
through sustainable development, human security is
best pursued through institutions that promote respect
for human rights.
Sustainability requires rejecting the Cold War
tradition of each super power sponsoring its own pool
of dictatorships and abusive regimes. It means
promoting principled leadership and enlightened
policies. Sustainability requires strengthening the
rule of law and human rights - nationally and
internationally. Elections have drawn a lot of
international attention, from Bolivia to Bangladesh,
Chile to Liberia. But as the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and Iraq have shown, creating the conditions
in which people can cast their ballots is not enough.
A bigger challenge is to promote good governance,
including an effective legal and judicial structure,
the rule of law based on human rights, a free press
and a vibrant civil society.
A properly functioning system of rule of law at the
national level is the ultimate safeguard for human
rights. But such a system of law, if it is to be truly
just, must embrace women and the poor. The majority of
poor people today live outside the protection of the
law. Including them in a meaningful way requires
giving effect to economic and social rights in public
policy and programmes. In too many countries, women
continue to be denied equality before the law. Equal
access of women to all human rights is not only a
precondition for sustaining human rights, but also for
economic prosperity and social stability.
Sustainability requires revitalizing UN human rights
reform. Humiliated and sidelined by its most powerful
members and ignored by governments such as Sudan and
Iran, the credibility of the UN Security Council has
suffered badly. Yet when the UN fails, the authority
of its powerful member states is also eroded. It is in
the USA's own interest to discard the "pick and
choose" approach to the UN and recognize the value of
multilateralism as a crucial means of promoting
greater stability and security through human rights.
The UN Human Rights Council appears to be displaying
some worrying signs of factionalism reminiscent of its
predecessor institution. But it is not too late to
change. Member countries can play a constructive role
- and some, including India and Mexico, are indeed
doing so - to make the Council more willing to tackle
human rights crises and less open to political
selectivity and manipulation.
The new UN Secretary General too must assert himself
to show leadership as a champion of human rights. The
UN's responsibility for human rights is a unique one
that no other entity can usurp. All organs and
officials of the UN must live up to it.
Sustainability in human rights terms means nurturing
hope. From the many examples in 2006, we can draw
lessons for the future.
The ending of the decade-long conflict in Nepal, with
its attendant human rights abuses, was a clear example
of what can be achieved through collective effort. The
UN and interested governments, working with national
political leaders and human rights activists in the
country and abroad, responded to the powerful call
from the people of Nepal.
International justice is critical for sustaining
respect for human rights, and in 2006 Nigeria finally
handed over former Liberian President Charles Taylor
to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to be tried for
war crimes and crimes against humanity.The
International Criminal Court (ICC) began its first
prosecution against a warlord from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo for recruiting child solders.
The Lord's Resistance Army, a Ugandan rebel group, is
next on the ICC's list, as are perpetrators of the
atrocities in Darfur. In pressing for accountability
of armed groups as well as government actors, the ICC
is setting an important precedent at a time when armed
groups are flexing their muscles with brutal
consequences for human rights.
A massive campaign by civil society organizations
moved the UN General Assembly in 2006 to adopt a
resolution to start work on an Arms Trade Treaty.
Proliferation of arms is a major threat to human
rights and the willingness of governments to bring it
under control is an important step towards achieving
"freedom from fear".
These positive developments - and many more - have
happened because of the courage and commitment of
civil society. Indeed, the single most significant
sign of hope for transforming the human rights
landscape is the human rights movement itself -
millions of defenders, activists and ordinary people,
including members of Amnesty International, who are
demanding change.
Marches, petitions, virals, blogs, t-shirts and
armbands may not seem much by themselves, but by
bringing people together they unleash an energy for
change that should not be underestimated. Darfur has
become a household word for international solidarity
thanks to the efforts of civil society. The killings
unfortunately have not stopped, but civil society will
not allow world leaders to forget Darfur as long as
its people are unsafe. Gender justice has a long
journey still to make, but the campaign by Iranian
human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner
Shirin Ebadi for equality of women in Iran is lighting
a flame that will not die down until the battle has
been won. The campaign for the abolition of the death
penalty goes from strength to strength thanks to civil
society.
People power will change the face of human rights in
the 21st century. Hope is very much alive.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
