Details

Aus Anlaß der Veröffentlichung des „Training Manual for Civil and Political Human Rights for University Students“, wird Herr Holger Haibach MdB, stellvertretender Vorsitzender des Ausschusses für Menschenrechte und humanitäre Hilfe im Deutschen Bundestag, eine Rede zum Thema „Human Rights and International Relations“ in Amman am 15. März 2006 halten. Diese praktische Handreichung für Studenten in arabischer Sprache ist ein Ergebnis der Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und dem National Center for Human Rights in Jordanien.

Speech of Holger Haibach, Member of the German Parliament

Human Rights in today’s International Relations

With the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 the equality of every human being was recognised by all nations for the first time in the history of international relations. Regardless of which nationality, confession, sex or skin colour an individual belongs to. The unalienable right of every human being to life and physical as well as mental intactness was recognised. The authors of this declaration had the aim to promote Human Rights all over the world and to oblige all governments to take part in this effort. The declaration should have opened the door to a brighter future for mankind in which no one would suffer from abuses of the fundamental Human Rights that had been so blatantly ignored in the preceding wars. Unfortunately the aims which the signatories of the declaration had in mind have not yet been reached as of today, sixty years after the event.

To supplement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a vast number of systems to protect human rights as well as additional protocols have been created to advance the world wide implementation of the declaration. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights, just to mention a few. Considering the sheer number of mechanisms, commissions, conventions and declarations with the aim to promote Human Rights I wonder myself sometimes whether it is despite or because there are so many of them that we have achieved so little in promoting Human Rights worldwide.

This must surprise us even more so as there are less geopolitical constrictions on the promotion of Human Rights as there have been in the past. During the Cold War the active promotion of Human Rights on the other side of the Iron Curtain was off limits for most of the time, although the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) process did achieve a lot considering the circumstances. After the collapse of the Soviet bloc the end of history and the ultimate victory of Western values were proclaimed. Though there were still certain quarters of the world where the rule of liberal democracy and market capitalism had not yet taken hold it was thought that these were anachronisms that wouldn’t last very long. A peaceful global community based on the principles of Human Rights seemed only one step away.

For some time now though, we have been witness to stagnation in the promotion of Human Rights and even to a gradual roll-back. With regard to this situation we have to ask ourselves why the promotion of Human Rights is that hard and why there are significant gaps in certain states between the nice words of governments and the actual situation regarding Human Rights. Within the last ten years three main problems have emerged that cause these shortcomings.

Those problems are:

1.the dilemma of finding a balance between the need to combat international terrorism and the safeguarding of individual rights.

2.the collapse of state structures in a number of countries which leads to so called failing or failed states.

3.the scepticism in other parts of the World especially towards Western efforts for the promotion of Human Rights.

Ever since the rise of international terrorism and the efforts to combat it have become central themes in the global arena there has also been a fierce debate over how to balance anti-terrorist measures against individual Human Rights. States have limited Human and Civil Rights to make it easier for their law enforcement agencies to prevent terrorist attacks and thereby to protect the life and security of their citizens. After the initial shock of 9/11 priority was given to the aim of preventing any further attacks. This led to deviations from established norms of Human Rights even in Western countries, as for example the internment of so called “unlawful combatants” at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo. Only after this initial shock had subsided a discussion began in many societies whether it was always justified to give security priority over the rights of the individual. Also in Germany there is a debate over the extension of the competencies of the security agencies as well as over the use of personal and protected data in the hunt for terror suspects. This debate exemplifies the difficulties we encounter when security is weighed against freedom. Without security we can not enjoy our freedom but with too much security and state intrusion we will loose our freedom.

In some non-western states the fight against terrorism is used as a pretext to legitimise a policy that is inimical to any form of Human and Civil Rights. Many autocratic regimes have imprisoned and tortured peaceful dissidents under the guise of combating dangerous terrorists. The brutal quenching of a demonstration in the Uzbek city of Andijan on 13th May 2005 was for example justified by the government with the need to quell an insurrection by radical Islamists.

To safeguard Human Rights in the era of international terrorism we need a clear and binding definition recognised by all states of who is a terrorist and who is not. To prevent that countries further limit Human Rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism we need to make a clear difference between terrorist and dissident, insurrection and civil disobedience, dangerous radicals and legitimate opposition. But even after the 60th General Assembly of the UN in September 2005 we are not any closer to finding a definition that is acceptable to everyone. Nevertheless we have to make it quite clear that in the relationship between Human Rights and the fight against terrorism the protection of Human Rights must be given top priority and that Human Rights must not be sacrificed to give the impression of providing more security.

The second obstacle to the worldwide implementation of Human Rights is the breakdown of state structures in so called failing or failed states. There are a growing number of states without a powerful central government in which the political structure is in a process of dissolution or has already been obliterated. This phenomenon poses a direct threat to international security as the basis for peaceful international cooperation, the modern nation-state, dwindles. In these failed states Warlords, rebel groups and paramilitary units fight each other for power and threaten the stability and security of neighbouring countries. With the absence of state structures that should under normal circumstances guarantee Human and Civil Rights, lawlessness, vigilante justice, torture and murder become the everyday norm in these failed states. To set an end to those grave Human Rights violations the international community can not rely on traditional mechanisms for the protection of Human Rights as they are based on international conventions and require therefore the existence of a functioning state structure to be implemented. Nevertheless the international community has to take action in such cases to prevent the violence in failed states from spreading to other countries and to secure the well being and protection of the population of failed states. To facilitate this it is important to bring the armed groups and factions in these countries to the negotiating table and to make them part in a stabilisation process for the country. As a military intervention in these failed states can only be the last option this diplomatic process has to be our main option for providing peace and security to failed states. But obviously it is necessary to establish criteria to determine which groups and factions may become part in such a process. Those groups that take part in the process should have some degree of organisational coherence, their aims should be political and not economical and they must not be involved in any systematic violations of Human Rights. The process of rebuilding state structures must begin with the strengthening of institutions on the local level. Institutions like religious communities and local initiatives can serve as equivalents for state authorities for a transitional period. This is especially important as such institutions can provide public goods and services which can improve the Human Rights situation. The problem of failed states must be of utmost concern for the international community and it can only be solved by intensive international cooperation and with much pragmatism.

The third difficulty obstructing the promotion of Human Rights is the scepticism present in many non-western countries towards efforts by the West to promote Human Rights in other parts of the World. This lack of trust is caused by the rhetoric about the so called “cultural imperialism” and also by accusations that the West is employing “double standards” in the field of Human Rights. The struggle for Human Rights is often portrayed these days as some kind of Western crusade, Human Rights are considered to be a Western invention that is imposed on other regions of the world. Non-Western states that do not acknowledge Human Rights and even some that do, argue that the West is engaging in an act of cultural imperialism when it tries to promote Human Rights worldwide. They argue that Human Rights conventions and protocols are a product of Western culture. Yet, Human Rights are not dependant on culture or skin colour. Every single human being is endowed with these universal and unalienable rights. This self evident truth has been acknowledged by the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that has also been accepted by a host of non-western nations. Therefore no government can deny all or some Human Rights to its citizens with the argument that they are a western concept. Also the West should not refrain from condemning Human Rights abuses out of a wrong sense of tolerance towards other cultures. Within the last couple of years consent has emerged that it is justifiable for the international community to intervene in the internal matters of another state with the consent of the UN security council to set an end to Human Rights violations. As national borders have lost in importance it has been tried to erect new frontiers based on culture and religious adherence and to denounce any intrusion of so called Western values as imperialism. Also some in the West have raised the alarm about a “Clash of Civilisations”. But we must not fall into the trap of accepting this rhetoric. Eastern and Western cultures are not like the two camps that faced each other during the Cold War, there is no Iron Curtain between cultures. In fact cultures are very adaptive and people from different cultures can learn from each other for the benefit of the whole world. And there can be no doubt that it is a worthwhile effort to learn Human Rights.

The other problem in that context is that of so called “double standards”. The West is accused, sometimes rightly, of looking the other way when Human Rights are abused in western countries or by their allies. Those accusations have often been raised for example in connection with the so called War on Terror. In this conflict the West is seen as becoming untrue to the values that it wants to promote in other countries for the sake of fighting terrorism. To counter such accusations we must speak out against Human Rights abuses in our own ranks at least as ferociously as we do against such abuses in countries not belonging to our own cultural community. The critique that chancellor Merkel raised against the Guantanamo prison camp and Human Rights abuses in Chechnya can only be the beginning in this respect. Only when we give a good example can the West regain its credibility that is its most valuable asset in the effort to promote Human Rights. And only then can we rightfully expect other countries to cooperate with us in the effort to promote Human Rights.

Since I am speaking of cultural differences allow me also to make a short comment on the so-called cartoon controversy: As a member of a Christian-conservative party, freedom of conscience and religion are at the centre of my political convictions. I do also think that the religious feelings of all people should be respected. However no one can be forced to respect the convictions of others. Respect has to be earned. Therefore all violent protests as well as the threats against journalists and cartoonists have to be condemned. They will not lead to more respect for other religions but will have the opposite effect. What we need to solve this conflict is a mutual understanding of our different values and not tougher laws. The West needs to learn more about the taboos of Islam while the Muslim world needs to understand why we value freedom of speech and freedom of opinion and why these values deserve respect too.

As we have seen there are at present many difficulties obstructing the world wide promotion of Human Rights. The most pressing of these are in my opinion the fight against terrorism, the problems caused by failed states and the lacking credibility of those who promote Human Rights. To overcome these difficulties an intercultural dialogue about the meaning of Human Rights will be crucial. As much as we need to respect cultural differences we must not confuse respect with tolerance towards Human Rights abuses and let us not deter by accusations of imperialism. Another important aspect is the strengthening of international institutions for the promotion of Human Rights. For example the proposed Human Rights Council of the United Nations, which will serve as an impartial body to exert public pressure on countries that violate the Human Rights declaration. It will be further necessary to support the so called “civil society”, which is fundamental to build a basis in failed states as well as in autocratic countries on which Human Rights can prosper. Last but not least we must also make sure that the countries that seek to promote Human Rights give themselves a good example and refrain form any action that would make them vulnerable to accusations of double standards.

Human Rights are an issue that touches every aspect of our daily lives and of the world that we live in. The unive rsal acceptance of Human Rights is the key to the remedy for many other ills of the world. Many armed conflicts are for example caused by disrespect for Human Rights, which is also one of the roots of famines and inadequate education. To eradicate these evils we have to work together to promote Human Rights for the benefit of all mankind.