DPI/NGO CONFERENCE HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON ‘HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN SECURITY’

(Received from a UN Information Officer.)

This afternoon, “Human Rights and Human Security” was the theme of the third round-table discussion held at the sixty-first Department of Public Information (DPI)/Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Conference, convened for three days at United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) headquarters in Paris to discuss the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Joanna Weschler, Director of Research of the Security Council Report, moderated the panel, which included four other human rights experts, who looked at a number of concrete challenges in Africa, the United States and elsewhere, and the role of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations in this area.

Opening the round table, Ms. Weschler said human security was a concept that had its roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the sixtieth anniversary of which they were celebrating with this Conference.  A lot of discussion had been held in the international community on this issue over the last 15 years, starting at the United Nations Development Programme in the 1990s, and then again with the events held during the period between 2004 and 2005 when discussions were held related to the Report of the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (A more Secure World:  Our Shared Responsibility), as well as former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan's report “In Larger Freedom” and the report of the United Nations Millennium Review Summit.

Looking at the origins of this concept, Theo van Boven, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, said that the notion of human security was not set out in the Universal Declaration explicitly, but the roots of human security were included in that document.  In its preamble, the Declaration referred to “freedom from fear and want” as the highest aspiration.  “Freedom from fear” was really identical with human security.  Moreover, Kofi Annan, in his famous report, “In Larger Freedom”, which had based its analysis largely on the idea of freedom from fear and freedom from want, had linked the ideas of peace and security, development and human rights and that linkage was reiterated by the 2005 Millennium Review Outcome Document.

Ms. Weschler said that there was an interesting connection subsequently made when the United Nations Security Council adopted its resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security.  Mr. van Boven agreed, noting that, historically, the Security Council had not been involved in the human rights area.  The work of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and civil society women's groups had changed that.  Resolution 1325 had been a major breakthrough.  Ms. Weschler noted that that involvement of the Security Council had continued to evolve, as they had adopted a number of resolutions since then that touched on the human rights sphere. 

Joanne Mariner, Director, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Programme with Human Rights Watch, said that post-11 September 2001 they had seen an immediate change in Government policies regarding security and immigration.  The assumption was that, when terror threatened, the human rights norms could be superseded.  That had been seen in the aftermath to 11 September with the declaration of war on terror by the United States.  In that situation, normal human rights norms did not apply, nor did international standards.  Thus persons were detained at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants, with no human rights or protections under the Geneva Conventions.  There was also a bending of rights.  Nearly 80 countries had adopted terrorism legislation post-11 September, and Human Rights Watch had found that, in a whole array of areas, those laws infringed on the rights and freedoms of individuals.  They allowed, for example, for imprisonment without public oversight and very little procedural safeguards.

Turning to the issue of the United Nations role in this area, Ms. Mariner believed that the balance of power was very much in the Security Council and in the bodies that it had created to deal with terrorism.  It was important to look at the resolutions passed with Chapter 7 implications, but also resolutions calling on States to take action against terrorism.  Particularly worrying was that the first resolution 1373 made no reference to human rights, only a brief reference to refugee status.  Post-11 September, the United Nations had started out with a willingness to ignore human rights standards, but a lot of progress had been made since then, Ms. Mariner concluded.

Concerning how security measures affected human rights in Africa, Daniel Bekele, Head of Policy Research and Advocacy at Action Aid Ethiopia, said that, while in Africa civil society activism had been growing and expanding over the past few years into the human rights arena, unfortunately, concurrently, a significant number of countries on the continent had been using their muscle to silence civil society organizations, in particular those who worked on human rights issues.  The pretext was the need to protect national, regional or sometimes even international security concerns.  It was true that human security was one of the fundamental human rights, but those security measures were either applied in complete disregard for human rights, or were disproportionately applied, or were applied as a pretext to do something else.  In Ethiopia, following an election dispute, the Government had issued a temporary law banning public assembly.  However, that had not stopped angry protestors from taking to the streets to protest, and the resulting clash between protestors and security forces had claimed the lives of hundreds of people.

Turning to the example of specific draft security legislation in Ethiopia, Netsanet Demissie, Co‑founder of the Organization for Social Justice Ethiopia, said that there was a bill before the Ethiopian Parliament on civil society organizations, ostensibly taken in the interest of preserving security, but intended to be used as a tool to violate human rights.  The law did that by creating a “flabbergasting” distinction between national and civil society organizations.  National ones were classically member-based Ethiopian organizations that raised no more than 10 per cent of their funds from international sources, and were largely funded by Government sources.  The rest were foreign charities or charities with Ethiopian members which raised more than 10 per cent of their funds from abroad.  By definition, those were independent organizations.  That category of organization was clearly and expressly barred from involvement in any human rights activities under the new draft legislation.  The upshot was that organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch could no longer send staff to report on the human rights abuses in Ethiopia.  The draft had been introduced last May and, despite some cosmetic changes, it was probable that that draft bill would be presented to Parliament in September.  The bill also specifically prevented judicial oversight for the decisions rendered by the civil society agencies to be set up to regulate non-governmental organizations under the legislation.

In questions from the floor, concern was raised about the fate of the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in Gaza by Israeli security measures.  Another speaker said it was important to increase prevention, rather than security measures.  The Security Council should not go directly to Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter as the basis of its resolutions, passing by Chapter 6, which set out the path for the peaceful settlement of disputes, including by addressing issues to the International Court of Justice.  A speaker also called for a clear distinction to be preserved between military security and human security.

Responding on the issue of Palestine, a panellist said it was exactly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the recent spate of Security Council resolutions requiring States to adopt terrorism legislation -– in the absence of any concrete definition of terrorism –- was so worrisome.  Human rights and security should never be weighed against each other, but should be seen as mutually reinforcing.  It was well known that denying human rights to individuals often had the negative effect of radicalising them and making them vulnerable to extremist ideologies.  As for the distinction between human and military security, a panellist pointed out that there was no human security for detainees held without due process.

The DPI/NGO Conference will reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., when it will hold two round tables on the topics, “Human Rights Education and Learning as a Way of Life” and “Addressing Gross Human Rights Violations:  Prevention and Accountability”.  A press conference will also be held tomorrow at 11 a.m.  The closing session of the Conference is scheduled at 5 p.m.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record