"Celebrating" 50 Years of the Human Rights Declaration
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:28:42 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: "Celebrating" 50 Years of the Human Rights Declaration
From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
Original sender: Greek Helsinki Monitor <[email protected]>
"Celebrating" 50 Years of the Human Rights Declaration
Celebrating Words That Have Become Meaningless?
1948-1998: 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
Nafsika Papanikolatos
Greek Helsinki Monitor and Minority Rights Group - Greece
(30/10/1998, AIM Athens)
1948-1998: already 50 years have gone by since the signing of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If considerably little progress
has been achieved towards creating the appropriate conditions for the
protection and the enhancement of human rights, a lot has been done to
efface all illusions that we have been freed from the human plagues of
terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, poverty, hunger,
discrimination, racism and xenophobia. On the contrary, these fifty
years that went by only proved tragically humankind�s incapacity to
handle peacefully and justly the human condition of coexistence. Yet,
we must not stop struggling with determination so that, as Rene
Cassen, one of the founders of the Declaration stated, "a constituency
of well informed, vocal and determined people all over the world could
be organized to work 'everyday, everywhere' for the implementation of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in practice." Otherwise, as
he wisely pointed out, "the abuses would go on, the innocent would
die, and governments would do little more than pay lip service to its
principles. The Declaration would be 'just a piece of paper'." After
all as correctly reminds us Ginetta Sagan, a renowned human rights
activist, the Declaration "created a lasting framework for perpetual
vigilance and effective action." It depends however on every
generation to make sure that this framework of vigilance and effective
action exists without any restrictions to human rights activists all
over the world.
Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the "Magna Carta for all
humanity," the year 1998 (whose theme is "All Human Rights for All",
highlighting, as the U.N. documents tell us, the universality, the
indivisibility and the interrelationship of all human rights - civil,
cultural, economic, political and social -) should be a reflection
over the meaning of words. As Hanna Suchochka tells us, "A society
where words have lost their meaning is not a society where human
rights are respected." Our participation to a number of conferences
organized in the European capitals, directly or indirectly related to
the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, left us wondering about the meaning of words.
A multilateral meeting took place in Budapest, Hungary between the 1-3
of October this year, to discuss "The legal status of Non-Governmental
Organizations and their role in a pluralist democracy". The meeting
was organized by the Council of Europe in the framework of the
Royaumont Process on Stability and Good Neighborliness in
South-Eastern Europe, and with the support of the Government of
Luxembourg. Besides the representatives from the Council of Europe and
a number of other Western intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations, most of the participants came from post-communist
Balkan societies or the so-called 'new' democracies. In this meeting,
where the problems of non-governmental organizations from the East
were to be discussed with intergovernmental organizations from the
West, several governmental representatives had come apparently to make
sure that nothing critical be said about their country�s policies by
the respective NGOs. Not surprisingly thus, an attempt to define what
is after all a NGO as opposed to a governmental organization, to
explain the difference between politics as power and politics as
participation in civil society, as an everlasting process of
interrogation, was almost dismissed. That would have required taking
another step, clarifying this very hazy identity of certain NGOs in
the East, no less than in the West, which choose to draw limits on the
criticism of human rights violations.
However, when we want to speak about the legal framework of NGOs,
democracy, transparency, accountability - oh how horrible memories
this must bring to some of our friends from those post-communist
states which buried for years liberty in the name of transparency and
accountability to the Marxist-Leninist party - about funding, about
coordination, and many other very important questions concerning NGOs,
we must decide clearly about the meaning of words. After all whether
in the East or in the West, it is well known that the conditions
available for NGOs that set limits to their interrogation of
governmental policies and practices and those that don�t are entirely
different and in both instances for different reasons. Of course a
Western NGO will not get funding for projects if it poses the wrong
questions, while an Eastern one, in a country where an authoritarian
conception of power still prevails, may even end up in jail in some
instances. Nevertheless, it really comes to the same issue: the
violation of the conditions for the protection and support of human
rights activists who want to work along the framework of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and set no limits to their vigilance and
effective action.
The meeting nevertheless ended up with a resolution by the majority of
the NGOs present which are working in South-East Europe, that calls
upon the Council of Europe to intensify its efforts to induce its
members to stop practices impeding NGO formation and operation, so as
to be considered democratic states. This resolution continues to be
open for new signatures by regional and international NGOs. Also, case
examples of governmental practices that impede NGOs were provided
therein. On the 10th of December, on the exact day of the anniversary
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it will be presented as
an example of how the rights of human rights activists are violated
directly or indirectly not only in �new� but also in 'old'
democracies.
In Vienna, on 9-10 October 1998, a conference was organized by the
European Union(EU), the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Academy of European Law under the theme "The EU and Human Rights:
towards an agenda for the year 2000." It brought together a number of
distinguished speakers to evaluate the state of Human Rights in the
European Union and how it should become a leading example for all of
Europe. Many interesting presentations were put forward which,
precisely because of their contradictory character, revealed clearly
the paternalistic attitude which the European Union cultivates, being
confronted with a large number of 'new' democracies to which it wants
to provide leadership. Its objective is to �lead by example� on
questions of human rights. No one doubts that the 'new' democracies,
as H. Suchkova suggests, require to improve substantially their
standards concerning respect for human rights; nevertheless, she adds
"high standards need to be maintained in the 'old' democracies (in
certain of which major problems have arisen)." Of course democracy,
human rights and the rule of law are not achieved once and for all.
They are principles which to be protected and to evolve according to
the conditions set by human coexistence, require "constant effort from
all of us wherever we are, whatever our responsibilities in society
may be." They require "constant action."
The booklet distributed at the conference with the recommendations by
the Comit� des Sages does not hesitate to call upon the need to
reevaluate some of the EU policies and consider the contradiction
between rhetoric and practice. Acknowledging the fundamental principle
that respect for human rights is the only enduring foundation for
building peace and harmony, we are told once again that the EU human
rights policy should be guided by: Recognition of legal obligations
for Member States, universality of the principle of human rights,
indivisibility of all rights, consistency between internal and
external policy, a strong information base and mainstreaming, in order
to make human rights an integral part of all the activities of the EU.
Yet the text did not fail to note that so far the EU has not provided
such effective conditions that will make any discussion about a human
rights policy realistic and consistent. On the contrary, the authors
noted that large scale discrimination persists in various forms,
minority groups in most states are already at the mercy of the new
rising nationalism, which, instead of being confronted effectively, is
rather accommodated by accepting discriminatory policies in the name
of 'efficiency' and 'new' challenges. In the Final Project Report, we
were told that there is a "gap between the political rhetoric of
commitment to human rights and the unwillingness to provide the EU
with the means to make that rhetoric a living reality." This was
confirmed even more firmly as we were reminded that no policy exists
which commits the Union to work actively within Europe in relation to
human rights.
It is quite contradictory if not ambiguous therefore for the EU to
argue that it wants to lead by example societies in transition when it
does not even provide clear and effective solutions to the major human
rights violations taking place in its own home. Another well wishing
document to add in the plethora of documents provided by the EU. As
long as the Union lacks effective protective mechanisms to give
credibility to its human rights rhetoric, it will not be able to
prevent governments from signing Conventions with no intent of
implementing their provisions. How can therefore the EU lead by
example unless the notion of human rights is to become meaningful. A
warning to the Council of Europe (CE) made in an article by Professor
Sudre, in La Semaine Juridique (7/1/1998) is equally a warning to the
EU itself: the CE, he writes, �compos� aujourd�hui de 40 �tats�s�est
transform� de 'club des d�mocraties' en un 'centre d'apprentissage' de
la d�mocratie et il est clair que nombre de nouveaux Etats membres
sont incapables de respecter l'engagement fondamental inscrit dans
l�article 3 du Statut du Conseil. L�abaissement des standards du
Conseil de l�Europe est manifeste et la ratification de la Convention
EDH par les nouveaux Etats semble relever de l'alibi, transformant la
Convention, de 'standard minimum exigeant', en une lointaine ligne
d'horizon."
In Warsaw, on 14-16 October 1998, the "Third International Human
Rights Conference" took place, for the first time in the 'new'
democratic Poland. Unfortunately well wishing intentions did not
produce the expected results and non-democratic procedures were used
to manipulate its outcome. It was a human rights conference where
unanimity was set as the condition for the adoption of resolutions; a
NGO was arbitrarily not allowed by the organizers to address the
plenary session and present its position; the veto by a
parliamentarian delegation was admitted as a legitimate argument
against the decision of all other participants in order to prevent the
adoption of a resolution. A resolution about harassment of NGOs in the
Balkans proposed by the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe and
Greek Helsinki Monitor was only rejected because the text mentioned
Turkey � alongside other states of the region � in a phrase delimiting
the region. The Turkish delegation made up of the parliamentary Human
Rights Commission, objected to the text, arguing that Turkey is a
democratic country and no such problems exist there, except for the
problem of Kurdish separatism and terrorism. It was of no surprise
that the Turkish delegation "had never heard" about the violent
harassment of Turkish NGOs, even about attempts against their members�
lives, for example the Human Rights Foundation or the Human Rights
Association. However, all the other participants had no difficulty
approving the resolution. But, the Chairwoman considered that the
final decision should be made by the plenary session where a debate
would take place. Yet the organizers arbitrarily did not allow such
discussion to take place acting against the knowledge and wish of all
other participants.
Only in non-democratic meetings, the chair can impose the rule of
unanimity as a prerequisite for a resolution to be adopted; can refuse
to give the floor to some participants; or can mislead the assembly
about a pending matter to prevent its discussion. Unfortunately, that
was not the only incident that gave the impression that the Warsaw
meeting was not meant to be a genuine human rights conference, but a
meeting where unprincipled instrumentalization of human rights was
used to further political ambitions. Several participants were
wondering why, in a human rights conference, the organizer, who is the
Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the Polish Senate, invited
six Human Rights Commission members from only one other parliament,
the Turkish one. Turkey is a country known for its widespread
disrespect for human rights: why then invite so many parliamentarians
and not secure the participation of NGO representatives? This
"paradox," along with an arbitrarily imposed congratulatory message to
the Pope, the absence of critical Polish intellectuals from the
conference, the absence of discussion on human rights violations in
Central Europe, including Poland, explains why the Balkan resolution
was handled as it did, and only strengthens the veracity of the rumors
in Warsaw that the meeting was used, among other things, to help
Poland woo Turkey in the former�s bid to join NATO, over which Turkey
has veto power. In this International Conference celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the meaning
of words was tarnished by intentions foreign and contrary to the
principles of human rights. The defense of human rights was limited
to discussions about human rights violations in authoritarian and
totalitarian states.
Yet, real discussion about human rights begins when their enemies
become invisible rather than when they are visible and we can point
them out. The challenges human rights pose begin when we want to
establish a democracy which does not stop to question acquired
liberty, justice and knowledge. Even well intended organizers, who
carry the burden of a legendary movement like 'Solidarnosc', can be
swept by the weight of words, words that allow no room for tolerance
or concessions.
______________________________________
Greek Helsinki Monitor &
Minority Rights Group - Greece
P.O. Box 51393
GR-14510 Kifisia
Greece
Tel. +30-1-620.01.20
Fax +30-1-807.57.67
e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.greekhelsinki.gr
______________________________________
--
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe
Submissions: [email protected]
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected]
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================