|
Texts and Reports - Human
Rights in Developing Countries
- Summary of Discussions
Summary
of Discussions
Human
Rights in Developing Countries
How
can Development Cooperation contribute to furthering
their Advancement
Michael
Krennerich
Political Consultant
Erlangen, Germany
Introduction
How can development
cooperation contribute to promoting human rights in developing countries?
Around seventy participants discussed this issue at a high-level International
Policy Dialogue. The event was organised by the Development Policy Forum
of InWEnt (Capacity Building International, Germany) and the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) in conjunction
with the German Development Institute (DIE), and took place from 29-30
September 2003 in Cologne. The Policy Dialogue took as its starting
point a DIE report compiled for the BMZ, and provided a platform for
an exchange of experience on the prospects of enhancing the human rights
focus in development cooperation.
The thematic sessions of
the conference focussed on the conceptual connection between human rights
policy and development cooperation, the bilateral and multilateral framework
for promoting human rights in development cooperation, the protection
of human rights in developing countries and the responsibility of industrialised
nations to strengthen human rights in developing countries. The presentations
and discussions displayed a broad range of experience in promoting human
rights in development cooperation and revealed much common ground, but
also brought to light different standpoints and open questions. This
document aims to outline the various areas of discussion at the conference,
but will depart from the chronological order of the presentations and
contributions to the debate.
The correlation between
human rights and development
There was broad consensus
at the conference regarding the close correlation between human rights
and development. In his opening speech, Erich Stather, State Secretary
at the BMZ, clearly stated that: "To promote development, you must
also strengthen human rights," and emphasised that human rights
and development are interdependent. The State Secretary explained that
the promotion of human rights is already a central tenet of development
policy in Germany. Human rights are represented, for example, in all
four fundamental aims of German development cooperation (social justice,
economic efficiency, political stability and environmental balance),
as well as in the 2015 Programme of Action on Poverty Reduction. State
Secretary Stather further took the view that the potential created by
human rights for development cooperation is not yet being fully utilised.
Thus, development practice will need to undergo a gradual process of
change.
Arjun Kumar Sengupta, the
Indian economics professor, has already been commissioned as an independent
expert to compile several highly regarded reports on the "right
to development" for the UN Commission on Human Rights. He too left
no room for doubt regarding the close connection between development
and human rights. In his opinion, the right to development includes
a development process in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms
are progressively implemented. Sengupta believes that the right to development
is not merely an "umbrella right", but instead a "composite
right" made up of civil, political, economic, social and cultural
human rights as an integrated whole. He was thus in favour of implementing
human rights not in isolation, but in a joint and integrated manner,
using a gradual, progressive series of steps. Along with other speakers,
he clearly stated that the implementation of human rights requires corresponding
policies and resources. Human rights-oriented economic growth would
thus be of instrumental and substantive importance to the right to development.
Poverty reduction was identified
at the conference as a key area of human rights-oriented development
cooperation. Representatives from inter alia the BMZ, the Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), and various bilateral donors
and international organisations saw a close connection between human
rights and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers (PRSP). However, it also became clear that these development
policy goals and measures are not automatically compatible with the
promotion of human rights. There were thus repeated reminders of the
need to look more closely at the links - and also potential sources
of friction - between development policy aims and human rights.
Selim Jahan (United Nations
Development Programme, UNDP) made a contribution to this issue by underscoring
substantive and procedural links between the MDGs and Millennium Development
Declaration and human rights. He was also among the speakers who emphasised
the need for a human rights based approach to development cooperation
to be both outcome and process oriented. In contrast to traditional
development approaches, which prioritise outcomes and the attainment
of set development goals, a human rights framework places a special
emphasis on the way in which these aims are to be achieved. Selim Jahan
was thus a proponent of human rights-related monitoring of the MDG process.
This type of monitoring should go beyond the usual quantitative evaluations
of successes and deficiencies, and also set down responsibilities and
require accountability.
Luis Moreno Ocampo, the
Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, examined the correlation
between human rights and development from a different perspective. In
his keynote address, Ocampo outlined how the International Criminal
Court functions as an independent global institution, and proved beyond
doubt that human rights cannot be attained through punishment alone.
Further, the clear connection between human rights and development makes
global cooperation essential. Ocampo invited the organisations present
to work together with the International Criminal Court. His speech was
an impressive appeal for cooperation to ensure that global institutions
like the International Criminal Court are fully effective.
Human Rights Based Approaches
The conference clearly demonstrated
that Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBAs) are a tool that donors can
use to strengthen human rights in development cooperation. These approaches
go beyond specific positive and negative measures to protect and promote
human rights (vertical approach), and instead elevate human rights,
depending on perspective and range, to a prominent or even a central
frame of reference in development cooperation (horizontal approach).
Human rights thus constitute a higher aim and a cross-cutting task of
development cooperation. For this reason, international human rights
standards and principles must be consistently applied to development
cooperation. Different contributions to the discussion placed great
weight on the empowerment and participation of those who have suffered
disadvantage and whose rights have been violated. According to many
speakers, a human rights based approach to development cooperation aims
to give people the political, institutional and material means to independently
demand, exercise and monitor their rights, and to actively participate
in decision-making processes. At the same time, duty-bearers (states,
the international community, etc.) will be urged to fulfil their commitments
arising from internationally recognised human rights.
In this sense, an HRBA is
not a moral, but rather a legal approach, as was repeatedly emphasised
at the conference. It is based on the rights of individuals, and lays
down responsibilities and duties to respect, protect and fulfil human
rights. There was consensus among the participants that states are the
main bearers of what has become a widely accepted triad of duties. Furthermore,
the international community has been tasked with performing its duty
to respect and promote human rights. The extent to which human rights
do or should give rise to binding obligations for the World Bank and
commercial enterprises was the source of much, at times heated, discussion.
The presentations and discussions
also clearly showed that there is no uniform concept of an HRBA, especially
as regards the range and specific form of the approach. Moreover, practical
experience in this area is still very thin on the ground. An HRBA to
Development Cooperation is being specifically applied at United Nations
level, as Maria-Luisa Silva (Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, OHCHR) demonstrated. In recent years, a number of UN agencies
have introduced an HRBA, each with its own interpretation and method
of operation. Against this background, she presented a common baseline
understanding of this approach to the different UN agencies, as outlined
in the UN paper entitled "The Human Rights Based Approach to Development
Cooperation - Towards a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies."
As a result, all UN development activities should implement human rights
and be governed by such human rights standards and principles as the
universality and indivisibility of human rights, interdependence, equality
and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, accountability
and the rule of law. Furthermore, development cooperation should promote
the capacity of duty-bearers to perform their duties, and of right-holders
to demand their rights.
At a bilateral level, efforts
to integrate an HRBA into development cooperation have made varying
progress. Sweden is one of the states leading the way in this regard.
Lisa Fredriksson (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency,
SIDA) presented a comprehensive set of documents and policy papers,
which have been compiled in Sweden with the aim of enhancing human rights
in development cooperation. This also showed that Sweden has already
resolved the issue - still partially under discussion in Germany - of
whether an HRBA offers "added value" to development cooperation.
In the meantime, Sweden has been focussing on the exchange of practical
experience, including the question of best practices, as regards the
actual implementation of an HRBA. In his discussion of the Dutch experience,
Hans Docter (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands) provided
an example of how time-consuming and difficult the development and implementation
of an HRBA in development cooperation can be. He pointed out the difficulties
involved in developing clear policy guidelines and implementing them
in practice, as well as the opposition encountered from sectoral and
traditional development experts. Nonetheless, the Netherlands has recently
begun to use an HRBA as a main guideline for development cooperation.
Although human rights play
a major role in German development cooperation, the Federal Government
has not yet developed or employed a specific HRBA. Hildegard Lingnau
(Researcher, German Development Institute - GDI) presented the results
of a consultative project entitled "Human Rights Approach for German
Development Cooperation", which was commissioned from the GDI by
the BMZ. However, she did not recommend the introduction into German
development cooperation of a strict HRBA, which would identify the realisation
of human rights as a central aim and method of development cooperation.
Instead, she called for human rights to be enshrined as a cross-cutting
task of development policy, and for an undogmatic human rights approach
to be adopted and implemented progressively. This approach would view
the realisation of human rights as a complementary task of development
policy. The GDI's recommendations included an unbureaucratic human rights
impact assessment, a focus on human rights in BMZ country and sector
programmes and sector strategy papers, specific promotional measures
in economic, social and cultural areas, and increased action in situ.
In the interests of greater consistency, the development of a national
human rights action plan was also recommended.
A comparison of the approaches
presented reveals that the human rights approach recommended for German
development cooperation in the GDI report appears to be less rigorous
than the HRBAs that have been developed in the context of the United
Nations or Sweden, for example. The issue of mainstreaming fatigue raised
in the presentations and discussions was also noteworthy. It was revealed
that the practical implementation of human rights mainstreaming within
a given organisation can certainly lead to problems. However, different
conclusions were drawn from this. Hildegard Lingnau advised German development
cooperation to avoid strict mainstreaming. Experience of mainstreaming
in other areas (environment, gender, crisis prevention) has been relatively
negative (high bureaucratic expenditure, low efficiency, sometimes counterproductive),
and there was correspondingly strong opposition. Moreover, there is
a danger that strict mainstreaming will reduce, rather than increase,
the scope for action. However, the view was also expressed at the conference
that mainstreaming fatigue can be overcome, e.g. by extending successful
examples and best practices.
In general, it became clear
at the conference that the development, introduction and implementation
of a human rights based approach to development cooperation involve
lengthy procedures, that can easily meet with opposition. Elements seen
as essential included conceptual clarity, application-oriented guidelines,
increasing human rights awareness, and developing human rights expertise,
human rights training and learning processes within development cooperation
organisations. High-level political support for a human rights based
approach was also considered useful. It was further recommended that
the aim of promoting human rights be systematically linked to existing
development policy goals in general, and poverty reduction in particular.
Positive and negative
measures
"Classic" human
rights policy in development cooperation contains both negative measures,
such as the setting of political conditions for development cooperation
and sanctions, and positive measures, namely support for specific human
rights projects and programmes. Bilateral and multilateral development
cooperation, in its present form, usually gives priority to the positive
promotion of human rights over sanctions. There was also general consensus
at the conference that positive measures should normally take precedence
over negative ones. Annette Windmeisser (Desk Officer, Federal Ministry
for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany) expressly emphasised
that "negative logic," which uses human rights as a criterion
for withdrawing from development cooperation, was not the solution,
but instead "positive logic", which identifies entry options,
was needed.
Annette Windmeisser called
not only for the implementation of positive measures in the traditional
areas of political and civil rights, but also for the stronger and more
targeted promotion of specific economic, social and cultural rights
(ESC rights). Many other participants also view the promotion of ESC
rights as being especially important within the context of development
cooperation, thus reflecting the general increase in significance of
ESC rights in recent years. Although the specific promotion of human
rights in development cooperation originally focussed on civil and political
human rights, a trend has been emerging in development cooperation since
the nineties to also explicitly promote ESC rights, especially if they
have a close thematic link to development issues. In the meantime, ESC
rights have correspondingly assumed a major role in development cooperation.
In contrast to the broad
consensus regarding the importance of positive measures, especially
in the ESC area, sanctions were a controversial issue at the conference.
The question of how best to deal with states in which human rights are
being systematically violated on a large scale was repeatedly raised.
For example, Sushil Pyakurel (National Human Rights Commission, Nepal)
and Emmanuel Kagambirwa (Collectif des ligues pour la défense
des droits de l'Homme, Rwanda) considered the mass violation of human
rights to be unacceptable. Arjun Kumar Sengupta also believed that it
was impossible to remain neutral in these situations. However, in this
context he distinguished between states that systematically violate
human rights and those that fail to realise them. In the latter case,
it would be useful to create incentives, although this would require
international cooperation. He thus introduced a distinction into the
debate that was taken up again by Peter Rothen (Federal Foreign Office,
Germany) in the final discussion. Peter Rothen was against suspending
development cooperation where the governments of the partner countries
were doing too little in the area of human rights. However, in the case
of governments that were systematically violating human rights on a
large scale, donor countries should be able to react in an appropriate
manner, including potentially cutting off the flow of resources.
In contrast, Birgit Lindsnæs
(The Danish Institute for Human Rights) reminded us that sanctions do
not always help, and also punish the population. She pointed out that
the effects of sanctions on the actual target groups of development
cooperation are often negative, or at least ambivalent. The human rights
expert favoured dialogue, and posed the following question: If sanctions
are currently considered necessary, is it possible to make them more
targeted? John Joseph Clancey (Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong)
further emphasised that continuing or withdrawing aid are not the only
available alternatives. He mentioned an option already being used in
some areas of development cooperation, namely providing development
funds directly to civil society groups, and thus bypassing the relevant
governments.
Multilateral development
cooperation in practice
The presentations on multilateral
development cooperation in practice added new aspects to some of the
issues discussed previously. Thus, Timothy Clarke (EuropeAid) emphasised
the close correlation between human rights and good governance in his
presentation entitled "The European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR) - Supporting and Promoting Human Rights and Democracy
in Third Countries Within the Framework of EU Foreign Policy."
This issue is addressed, for example, in a new EC Handbook on Good Governance.
He also presented, inter alia, the Communication on Human Rights in
the Mediterranean Region, a detailed ten-point action plan on implementing
reforms in the area of human rights and democracy through cooperation
with partners in a specific region. This could also serve as a model
for the development of similar Communications for Africa, Asia, etc.
Clarke also discussed the possibility, already applied to some governments,
of suspending cooperation or conducting EU human rights dialogues. He
raised doubts, however, about the practical impact of resolutions.
The coordinator of the Human
Rights Strengthening Programme (HURIST), Thord Palmlund, added to Maria-Luisa
Silva's comments on the HRBA within the United Nations. The HURIST programme
was jointly introduced by the UNDP and OHCHR in 1999, and aims to integrate
a human rights based approach to development into the decentralised
work of the UNDP, with the support of the OHCHR. Activities until now
have focussed on supporting partner countries in the development of
National Human Rights Action Plans and strengthening human rights capacities
at the UNDP country bureaus, for instance through UN volunteers with
human rights expertise. The presentation showed the importance of developing
user-friendly guidelines and checklists when applying an HRBA, exchanging
practical experience in the field and strengthening inter-agency cooperation
at United Nations level.
Sabine Schlemmer-Schulte
(Professor of International Law, University of Leiden, The Netherlands)
discussed the World Bank's Inspection Panel, describing it as "the
first body that an international organisation created that can be used
by third parties that have no legal relationship with that organisation
to hold that organisation accountable." The panel looks into complaints
that projects supported by the World Bank do not comply with the Bank's
own policies and guidelines. The professor of international law explained
that as the World Bank is primarily bound by its own rules and policies,
and in a formal sense is not actually governed by international law,
an independent panel of this kind is necessary to monitor whether the
World Bank is in fact meeting its own standards. A number of participants
shared her opinion regarding the panel's great potential and its need
for further development, to ensure that human rights elements are also
included in the work of the World Bank. However, there was debate as
to whether the World Bank has a formal commitment to uphold international
law, in addition to its charter. In contrast to Sabine Schlemmer-Schulte,
several representatives of non-governmental organisations took the position
that the World Bank was also bound to uphold human rights recognised
under international law (or at least should be).
The great importance of
the PRSP process came up again in the discussion of multilateral development
cooperation. Calls were made for the further alignment of the PRSP process
and human rights, as these specific aspects of participation and ownership
need to be even more closely integrated.
Protecting human rights
in developing countries
By ratifying international
human rights agreements, in particular the International Pact on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Pact on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, nation-states have committed themselves to respecting,
protecting and guaranteeing human rights. Individual national constitutions
also usually contain a relatively large proportion of human rights,
from which a direct constitutional obligation is derived. A range of
presentations and contributions looked at how developing nation-states
can be urged to actually implement human rights.
At the very beginning of
the conference, Salma Khan (NGO Coalition on Beijing Plus Five) demonstrated
the importance of UN human rights instruments to the realisation of
human rights on the ground, on the basis of the UN Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). She
outlined how CEDAW identifies right-holders and duty-bearers and obliges
states to respect, protect and implement women's rights. In this way,
CEDAW goes beyond the concept of formal equality and requires states
to also achieve actual equality. Major significance must also be attached
to the CEDAW committee's interpretative functions as a monitoring body.
Moreover, Salma Khan underlined the fact that the agreement emphasises
the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. In this sense,
the convention clearly shows that the implementation of civil-political
and economic, social and cultural rights is mutually dependent and must
occur in a joint, integrated manner.
Lindiwe Mokate (Chairwoman,
South African Human Rights Commission - SAHRC) described the importance
of a national monitoring system for ESC rights. The SAHRC is an independent
commission that fulfils the constitutional requirement of reporting
on the state's progress and problems in implementing the rights to housing,
health, food, water, social security, education and environment, to
which the South African constitution accords great significance. The
Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa has also handed
down various judgments confirming the legally actionable nature of these
rights. The human rights expert showed how important monitoring and
reporting are to achieving governmental accountability in the implementation
of economic and social rights. However, she also described problems
encountered in the SAHRC's work, including a lack of willingness among
government departments to provide information and the low level of commitment
by the parliament to translate the SAHRC reports into political action.
Another type of national
monitoring system for ESC rights was presented by Jayme Benvenuto Lima,
the coordinator of a civil society network called the "Brazilian
Platform for Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights" (Plataforma
Brasileira de Direitos Humanos Econômicos, Sociais e Culturais).
Six national rapporteurs have been working on individual economic and
social rights (food, health, education, etc.) in Brazil since October
2002, modelled on the UN rapporteurs and supported by the United Nations
Volunteers Programme. The rapporteurs were appointed by various non-governmental,
state and UN organisations. According to Benvenuto, the rapporteurs
work independently and in close cooperation with broad sectors of society
to perform exemplary monitoring of the human rights situation in Brazil.
Benvenuto explained that as a large number of social groups participate
in the hearings and contribute to the compilation of the reports, Brazilian
society is further developing its ability to monitor the observance
of economic and social rights.
Not only national, but also
regional efforts to protect human rights in developing countries were
presented and discussed. On the first day of the conference, Arnold
Tsunga (Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) warned against viewing individual
countries in isolation, and favoured the protection of human rights
at a sub-regional level. Lindiwe Mokate later discussed South Africa's
endeavours to promote relevant African initiatives. Marzuki Darusman
(Working Group, ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism) described in his presentation
the attempts made within the context of the Association of South-East
Asian Nations (ASEAN) to establish appropriate human rights mechanisms.
For years, the working group has been endeavouring inter alia to set
up an ASEAN regional human rights commission via dialogue with the relevant
governments. He also emphasised the vulnerability of human rights in
South-East Asia, not least because this is a region in which democracies
are still the exception rather than the rule. The central role played
by democracy in the implementation of human rights was repeatedly raised
during the conference.
Darusman's position that
our understanding of human rights should take some account of cultural
differences certainly fuelled the debate. Although he conceded that
political elites use this argument to disguise repression, he nonetheless
believed that cultural differences affect the way human rights are understood
in the East and the West. His statement that donors may need to move
away slightly from the myth of the universality of human rights, and
acknowledge hard-won local forms of human rights, met with particular
criticism. Thus, Wilfried Steen (Church Development Service - EED) stated
that the universality of human rights was the definitive point of departure
for the human rights debate. Other participants also highlighted the
importance of applying the same human rights standards globally. According
to John Joseph Clancey, criticism of the concept of universality at
most reflects the opinion of governments, and not of the people of Asia.
Martin Okumu Masiga (Human Rights Network of Uganda) supported this
point of view with respect to Africa. Neither the people nor leaders
like Nelson Mandela believe that human rights are determined by culture,
only the tyrants.
The responsibility of
industrialised nations
The issue of why and how
rich countries should or can contribute through their development cooperation
to the promotion of human rights in developing countries formed the
focus of many presentations and contributions to the discussion. Robert
Archer (International Council on Human Rights Policy, Switzerland) made
a very thorough presentation on the global responsibility of states
to participate in international cooperation: "To what extent, and
when, do (richer) countries have an obligation to take action abroad
to protect or promote economic and social rights?" The international
human rights framework identifies duties and responsibilities, thus
creating important reasons for international action to improve economic
and social rights. Firstly, it creates a duty to act if nation-states
are either unwilling to or incapable of meeting their human rights obligations
(the "do good" dimension of international commitments). Secondly,
states are also prevented from violating human rights in other countries
(the "do no harm" dimension.) If ethical grounds and national
interests could be made to apply alongside the requirements of international
law, Robert Archer believes that good reasons could be found to show
why rich countries should help developing countries. Their increased
capacity to help would be accompanied by an increased duty to do so.
The discussions clearly
showed that there is no standard solution for the central question of
how industrialised nations should support human rights endeavours in
developing countries. There was agreement, however, that we will ultimately
need to work together to find the answer. Participants from the partner
countries further emphasised that the people on the ground need to take
the fight for the implementation of their human rights into their own
hands. Industrialised nations cannot conduct this struggle on behalf
of developing countries, but should at least refuse to support any regime
that brutally represses its people. Donors can also promote human rights
efforts in situ. This however should not involve "putting human
rights on tap", but instead enable people to stand up for their
rights independently. A strong civil society is indispensable to this
aim.
The donor countries were
called on to step up their activities on the spot and seek increased
access to the target groups of development cooperation on this basis.
Jorge Daniel Taillant from the Argentinian Centre for Human Rights and
Environment (CEDHA) was particularly emphatic on this point. Simply
stated, his message was: Go to the people you want to help! Although
many donor countries had included participatory mechanisms in their
policies, this was insufficient. Taillant explained that opportunities
for participation by the beneficiaries of development cooperation are
needed at a local level. Participation should not be limited to big,
complex consultative systems. It is also very important to support the
creation of local human rights capacities.
However, the conference
also clearly revealed the need for civil society groups to adhere to
such principles as participation, transparency and accountability. Notwithstanding
the importance of civil society, strengthening the state was also considered
necessary to the implementation of human rights. It was agreed that
civil society cannot replace the state, and the need to strengthen state
infrastructure was also raised, especially as regards the judicial sector.
The hope was even occasionally expressed that development cooperation
could contribute to promoting national dialogue between the government
and society.
Heinz-Dieter Koeppe (Director,
Environment and Politics, KarstadtQuelle AG, Germany) made a presentation
at the end on the social responsibility of enterprises, using KarstadtQuelle
AG's foreign procurement as an example. He referred to the concept of
corporate social responsibility (CSR), according to which enterprises
integrate social and environmental interests into their activities and
interrelations with stakeholders on a voluntary basis. Heinz-Dieter
Koeppe explained that KarstadtQuelle did this firstly for reasons of
social responsibility, and secondly as a function of better risk management.
Critical questions from customers and protest campaigns by non-governmental
organisations can easily damage an enterprise's image and lead to a
loss of sales. The code of conduct essentially comprises the International
Labour Organisation's core labour standards. It must be accepted by
suppliers, and efforts to ensure its practical implementation include
auditing and coaching.
Finally, a discussion developed
regarding the responsibility of commercial enterprises for human rights.
Company codes of conduct compiled at an international level (e.g. in
the context of the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights) gave rise to differing expectations. Controversial
points included the desired scope and binding nature of this type of
code. Peter Rothen's comments revealed that the German government has
been seriously considering the issue of human rights and business for
some time, and actively supports such elements as the CSR concept and
the Global Compact Initiative. However, Peter Rothen clearly stated
that: "We do not support the move away from the voluntary approach."
Conclusions
The International Policy
Dialogue showed how important it is for the "world of human rights"
and the "world of development cooperation" to become more
closely aligned and find a common language, as this will be of further
benefit to both areas. The participants felt this was even more crucial
given that human rights and development, as was emphasised on all sides,
are so strongly interlinked. In the final discussion, Heiner Bielefeldt,
Director of the German Institute for Human Rights, once again pointed
out that both sides - development cooperation and human rights policy
- are closely interconnected and could benefit from one another. He
also joined the calls for an integrated understanding of human rights,
that incorporates civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
He further underscored the need for national human rights action plans
and a coherent policy free of double standards.
The significance of a coherent
policy had been previously raised by Edmund Cain (The Carter Center,
USA), among others. In his keynote address, he presented the Global
Development Initiative of the Carter Center in the US, which aims to
implement an integrated human rights agenda. He established inter alia
that the principle of the ownership of national development strategies
will fall on deaf ears "... if a country lacks the capacity to
implement it or finds itself placed in a hostile international policy
environment." He viewed the existing international trade regime
as a particularly striking example of an "incoherent environment."
Against the background of the current discussion of terrorism, he took
the position that human rights problems in one part of the world affect
the national security of other parts of the globe. Poengky Indarti (The
Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, IMPARSIAL) revealed on the other hand
how the fight against terrorism can be used by authoritarian regimes
as a means of suppressing human rights.
The different calls for
political credibility at the conference extended beyond the remit of
development cooperation, because the ultimate aim is to strengthen the
promotion of human rights as a cross-cutting policy task and increase
the coherence of the policy as a whole. The broad impetus at the conference
was to strengthen human rights in development policy and in politics
generally. However, Markus Löning, the FDP Bundestag member, asked
us to bear in mind that, in addition to the promotion of human rights,
there are other legitimate foreign policy goals, which must be considered
and evaluated in relation to one another to identify potential conflicts
of aim. Everyone agreed however that the promotion of human rights is
an important goal of development cooperation and other policy areas.
Thus, the aim of strengthening
the promotion of human rights in development cooperation was undisputed.
The debate did not centre on if, but rather on how this can best occur.
To this end, the organisers turned to the international debate on human
rights and development, and endeavoured to apply it to the promotion
of human rights in German development cooperation. The conference saw
the presentation of many national and international initiatives on promoting
human rights and implementing a human rights based approach to development
cooperation, all of which illustrated the immense progress made in the
formulation of human rights policies in recent years. However, they
also revealed the major challenges that are yet to be overcome in the
practical implementation of such initiatives and approaches to development
cooperation. Despite all the differences in conceptual understanding
and practical implementation, a human rights based approach to development
cooperation met with broad approval at the conference. Adolf Kloke-Lesch
(BMZ) explained in his closing speech that one of the main advantages
of the approach is that it puts people at the forefront and establishes
a common reference framework.
|
Contents