press BRIEFING by high commissioner for human rights

 

(Issued on 28 October 2004.)

The “Action Two” reform initiative launched today called for the United Nations to adopt a system-wide approach to support the capacity of interested Member States in protecting and strengthening human rights at the country level, Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights, told correspondents today at a Headquarters press briefing.

She said that 21 United Nations departments and agencies had adopted a plan of action under the framework of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Mark Malloch Brown, UNDG Chair and Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Jan Egeland, ECHA Chair and Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs; and Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), also attended the briefing.

Ms. Arbour said the initiative aimed to strengthen national protection systems, encompassing the development and strengthening of constitutional and national law, fundamental legislation, justice, courts, correctional systems, national human rights institutions, ombudsman-type offices, national human rights defenders and civil society participants.

The “Action Two” initiative stemmed from the Secretary-General’s report entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations:  an agenda for further change” (document A/57/387 of September 2002), she said.  The report stated, among other things, that “the promotion and protection of human rights is a bedrock requirement for the realization of the Charter’s vision of a just and peaceful world”.

Responding to questions, she said that a good example of what Action Two could accomplish was the approach of the United Nations country team in Nepal to human rights.  United Nations partners and local actors had been mobilized to strengthen the human rights situation with the objective of building the capacity of the Nepal Human Rights Commission through staffing and assistance to Special Rapporteurs.  The country team was negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Government.

Ms. Bellamy added that the important factor was that United Nations agencies themselves subscribed to rights-based programming, meaning that human rights was the responsibility of the entire United Nations family.

In response to a question about Member States that preferred that the United Nations not meddle in their affairs, Ms. Arbour said that a distinction should be made between States that lacked capacity and those that lacked the will to put adequate human rights structures in place.  There was a lot of work to be done in assisting countries that had the will, but suffered from a serious capacity deficit.  Countries lacking the will should be approached at a different level.

Responding to a question about an incident in Belarus, Mr. Malloch Brown said he had sent a note verbale to that country’s ambassador demanding that an expert with the Soros Foundation who was under contract to the UNDP be released or charged.

He said that at the country level, the UNDP fought to help civil society to get “a little more oxygen” to expand its human rights base.

Mr. Egeland added that as a humanitarian and development “family”, the United Nations had done too little for human rights in the past.  There had been too much concern with feeding people and no rights-based approach.  However, much had changed since the cold war.  Darfur was an example of how the United Nations system, with hundreds of non-governmental organizations and other partners, had rallied to the relief of civilians whose human rights were being trampled.  That action was in the spirit of the “Action Two” initiative, where the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNICEF, and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs had agreed to share the responsibility of monitoring the situation, holding the Government and the rebels accountable, reporting to the Security Council and mobilizing support from the African Union.

Agreeing that the climate had changed, Mr. Malloch Brown said it was now possible to take a holistic view of human rights.  Where people were free, they worked harder and their access to economic, education and health rights improved.  Where people lacked access to health and education, their ability to use the freedom to improve their lives was impaired.  The two went together.  “Human rights are front and centre in all our work”, he added.

Asked about guidelines and enforcement possibilities, Ms. Arbour replied that one had to be agile in developing programmes and initiatives that were contextual.  In occupied territories such as Palestine, human rights needs were contextually different from those found in an armed conflict, in a post-conflict situation or in a country plagued by poverty.

Ms. Bellamy added that the purpose was not to identify violations through guidelines, but to build human rights issues into the tools available to the United Nations at the country level.  When a United Nations country team did a common country assessment, human rights would be taken into account.

Asked if there was a plan to address the issue of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and those in Iraq and GuantanamoBay, Ms. Arbour said there were mechanisms for monitoring incarceration.  Special Rapporteurs had a particular interest in arbitrary detention, conditions of imprisonment and the use of torture.  In virtually all instances of detention, scrutiny by national or international civil society was critical.

Responding to a question about budget implications, Ms. Ardour replied that the initiative was not about expanding the country offices of the High Commissioner, but expanding capacity through existing partners.  It was hoped that the extra costs would be generously funded from extrabudgetary contributions through a fund administered by the UNDP.

* *** *