STATEMENT BY H.E. AMBASSADOR H.S. PURI, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIA AT THE 59TH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
AGENDA ITEM 4: REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOLLOW UP TO THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Chairman,
Let me begin by thanking the High Commissioner for Human Rights Mr. Sergio Vieiro de Mello for a thought provoking report to the Commission on Human Rights contained in document No.E/CN.4/2003/14. The issues that he has raised are important and go to the very heart of the human rights debate, the role of this Commission, and his Office. The report focuses on the protection challenges that face this Commission, taking as its starting point the premise that "people must come first, not politics.” There can be no quibbling over that.
A ‘people first’ approach recognizes the multifaceted nature of this challenge. The well-being of its members is undeniably the most important goal of any civilised society. It is a product of many factors, encompassing both the physical and the psychological needs of human beings. Security, dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law – these clearly impact on both these dimensions. They constitute the basic elements of what most of us understand by human rights. Without security – from fear and from want – almost everything else is meaningless for a human being. Dignity is something that civilized man can hardly live without. Freedom and democracy give every person a voice in the choices that society must make, choices that impact on everyone’s physical and psychological well-being. Without the rule of law, modern society would effectively disappear.
Because of the inter-connected nature of the various factors that contribute to the well being of man, it is never easy to define precisely what are, or should, be the boundaries of the human rights debate. Indeed, when talking of human rights we often find ourselves referring to a whole range of issues, whose relevance a strict constructionist might very well question. The report, for example, speaks of upholding international standards in the field of human rights, humanitarian and refugee law. Some would argue that if this is meant to define a broader set of human rights parameters, then it should be recognised that it takes human rights well beyond its traditional boundaries.
Our shared concern for the welfare of the human being - a concern that transcends national boundaries - gives this Commission the moral authority to look into areas of domestic national functioning which, in an earlier age, would have been regarded as over-intrusive and unacceptable. Today, all countries seem to accept such intrusiveness. For the Commission’s moral authority to be respected, however, it cannot be perceived as being driven by anything other than a genuine concern for human welfare.
One of the reasons for scepticism in developing countries about many international institutions and mechanisms today, is the absence of matching obligations on the part of developed countries in fields where they clearly have a responsibility. Why should it be legitimate, many countries ask, to have binding international agreements on human rights, humanitarian and refugee law in the name of defending dignity, freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and none on the international obligations of countries to promote and protect the rights of people everywhere to the physical and material resources needed for the enjoyment of those rights.
No one would deny the direct relationship between development and enjoyment of human rights, any more than they would the relationship between freedom and human rights. Human rights cannot be protected in the absence of freedom, just as dignity and human well-being cannot be protected in the face of grinding poverty. Should claims of universal concern for human rights everywhere not be matched by assumption of legally binding obligations to contribute resources to developing countries so that they can create the economic conditions in which human rights and human dignity would flourish? Can there be authority to intrude, but no responsibility or obligation to help remedy?
Just as the role of national protection systems cannot be divorced from the international reality, so too cannot the issues of poverty, equity and development be divorced from the international situation. Without a favourable and conducive international economic and financial environment, it is not possible for developing countries to achieve their goals of national development and human security. The impact of globalisation on human rights has never been more relevant than it is today. We ignore this reality at our collective peril.
We agree with the High Commissioner’s observations on poverty, equity and non-discrimination. There is a close link between development and human security. Human security consists of several tiers. First, the fulfilment of basic needs such as security from hunger and want; second, the development of human skills and capacities, such as education and health, and with progress on these fronts, achievement in the field of human rights. In India, we have committed ourselves to improving the national well-being by addressing the "life time concerns” of our people which have been identified as health, housing, education and employment.
The High Commissioner asks in the report whether the Commission should develop a code of guidelines for access to membership of the Commission and a code of conduct for members while they serve on the Commission. I commend the High Commissioner for his boldness in raising it though I am not entirely persuaded by the wisdom of his suggestion. I am afraid such codes of membership or conduct would violate a fundamental principle embodied in the UN charter – the principle of sovereign equality of member states.
The fact that over the years, the work of the Commission has become highly politicised, makes it even more difficult to envisage a situation in which member states might agree to such codes. There is, regrettably, widespread use of human rights for advancing narrow foreign policy objectives of countries, rather than for advancing the dignity and well-being of fellow humans. This game of selective "naming and shaming” that many in this Commission are engaged in can only harm the cause of human rights protection and promotion. The proliferation of resolutions desperately needs to be checked, and the misuse of procedures prevented, if the Commission is not to lose its credibility.
The Commission’s focus should be on setting norms and standards, and assistance in national capacity building. It is for this reason that India has traditionally co-sponsored a consensus resolution on Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the field of human rights.
We believe that a low key, corrective approach would be much more effective in gaining the co-operation of countries and improving their human rights conditions. We should not dissipate our energies by pushing for resolutions merely to satisfy domestic constituencies or worse, as tools of foreign policies.
If a country is responsive and has durable and functioning democratic institutions, then a co-operative approach should be the preferred option. An external stimulus may be necessary only in cases where national systems are inherently repressive and which are either unable, or unwilling, to improve human rights standards.
The importance of national protection systems cannot be overemphasised. Democracy is asine qua non for human rights. One cannot exist without the other. There is no reason to quibble over what democracy means. At its core is a constitution adopted by the people, that ensures that they have an inalienable right to freely elect and change their governments, that establishes the rule of law, that safeguards the freedom of information and the press, that provides for an independent judiciary, and that supports a vibrant civil society. There can be no place in a civilised society for periodic military takeovers. A government that 2does the bidding of its military ruler is an insult to democracy. Needless to add, an intermittent democracy is an oxymoron. You cannot be virtuous between orgies of promiscuity.
National protection systems, unfortunately, do not exist in a vacuum. They are institutions of society, and so will inevitably respond to any threats faced by society. This is particularly true if they happen to be vulnerable targets of terrorism, as are the institutions of an open democratic society. A government’s first responsibility, after all, is to provide security to its people. State-sponsored terrorism, seeking as it often does to make territorial gains by destabilisation, is a menace that all civilised countries must join forces to exterminate. Terrorism creates a fear psychosis and threatens the most fundamental of human rights, the right to life.
In India, we continue to bear the brunt of terrorist outrages. International co-operation in the fight against terrorism is no longer an option, it is an imperative for the survival of civilised society. No quarter should be given to those who plan, support or commit terrorist acts, or those who provide safe heavens, sanctuary, and access to funds to carry out such attacks.
While it is unclear what role human rights mechanisms can play in political conflicts, the Commission has a clear responsibility to help bring failed or failing States into the fold of civilised nations. Typically, such States are characterised by the absence of the rule of law, the collapse of institutions, unconstitutional regime changes and exclusionist ideologies. Such states are clearly obstacles to the protection and promotion of human rights not only of its own people, but also of the people of its neighbouring states.
We welcome the High Commissioner’s initiatives in streamlining his Office and strengthening its core functions. We believe that till such time as the resources available to the Office are sufficient and predictable, there should be strict prioritisation of activities. The core mandate of the Office must be preserved before venturing into new areas.
