We live in a new age of rights
The Challenge: what changes?
The Human Rights approach: Some Iron Laws
The participation factor in Human Rights
The use of indicators in Human Rights work
The World Bank, or a position full of contradictions on how to look at the Human Rights approach
Human Rights from the United Nations’ and the NGOs’ perspective
Writing Human Rights into law
Training in Human Rights
Some conclusions
Claudio Schuftan MD, Saigon
schuftan@gmail.com
We live in a new age of rights
1. Why does our commitment to a Human Rights approach in health, nutrition and development work overall need to change?
I would argue it is a fundamental reaction to the additive negative impacts of Globalization because Globalization is creating and is accelerating poverty, disparity, exclusion, unemployment, marginalization, alienation, environmental degradation, exploitation, corruption, violence and conflict.
2. In short, people who are being marginalized by Globalization today are really being pushed to the limit and they do need action. In real terms, beneficiaries of top-down social services (mostly the poor) have no active claim to ensure their needs will be met. So the Human Rights approach comes to introduce the missing element of de-facto accountability; and this is its added value in development work. (1, 2)
3. Because the rights-based approach takes the entitlements of those being marginalized as its starting point, a preliminary consensus needs to be reached that development, to be sustainable, must be based on equity. (3, 4)
4. The rights-based approach does strive for equity and sustainability; it focuses on the basic and structural (macroeconomic) causes of poverty, ill-health and malnutrition; it further highlights the strategic importance the formation of social capital plays in the development process. (5)
5. Historically, there has been much circularity in the discussion of Human Rights. Now, more concrete actions need to be identified. There is still a segment of the Human Rights community that thinks that one can settle world order issues while the power issues are still against the majority of the marginalized. But, as just said, this is almost a contradiction. Worldwide development will simply not take place through the benevolence of the Global Free Market and of those who, through their power, control it. (3)
6. During the process of relentless Capitalist accumulation, serious social cleavages have eventually occurred. One would think these did sober us. But we are now living in yet another utopia, one that extols the ultimate benefit of Globalization. This utopia is made of a similar, but dangerous mythical belief that ultimately the free market will make everybody happy. (6)
7. The Human Rights approach is here to set limits to the vicissitudes and sways of the (socially insensitive) market. (Jolly, p.11)
The Challenge: what changes?
8. Because of the fatal flaws of Globalization as the latest stage of Capitalist development, a more humane global governance is now needed more than ever. (8)
9. It is a fallacy to focus on whether Globalization or bad governments are the most important cause of Human Rights violations. The Human Rights approach shows us what states should do or not do. When they fail the test, many governments actually use the Globalization argument (of being victims of a global process) as an excuse for not implementing their obligations. (8a)
10. In fact, one more often finds considerable softness in the approach of governments to rights and to their implementation. Often, a rights-based approach is not even on their radar screens. So both the individual duty bearers, as well as the system are to blame and to be held accountable. (3)
11. The United States, for example, has regarded the socioeconomic rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a wishful “letter to Santa Claus” (Jean Kirkpatrick, former US ambassador to the UN). The US has little sympathy for Social and Economic Rights, in contrast to its vociferous and selective support of Civil and Political Rights.
12. In the case of all governments, how much of their general budgets they devote to health, to food, to education and to poverty alleviation is of substantive Human Rights concern. One should thus look at how the various expenditures are distributed among the various population groups. Governments do violate Human Rights when they fail to offer adequate services to certain segments of society. To take a very real and current issue,
should, for example, the provision of such services be privately organized, governments still remain responsible for the egalitarian and adequate provision of the same. But, are they? They are often not; one just needs to look at the existing evidence to see that. Civil society watchdog groups should be monitoring these developments. (9)
13. A Human Rights-focused analysis of statistical data should examine the extent to which various expenditures in social and other services are distributed among the diverse population groups according to need. Beneficiaries’ watchdog groups have to scrutinize these actions to make sure they ‘respect, protect and fulfill’ Human Rights, and protest if they fail to do so. In so doing, they will actually address the whole gamut of government Human Rights violations. (9)
[In all candor, the very way in which statistics are now organized and presented by government agencies may be one of such violations already. (8)]
14. But are governments the sole holders of Human Rights duties? The answer is no. Who are the other duty holders then? The example of children as right holders helps us illustrate this point: The duty bearers of children’s rights are, first and foremost, the immediate care-givers, followed by the family/household members, the community and neighbors, local, sub-national, national and international institutions -all linked in a web of complementary duties.
15. This is the theory. But what we have real problems with right now is to convert these concepts into working programs, people’s claims into rights, so as to implement a rights-based development model in all its components. (10)
16. Although the recognition of the fundamental rights of all members of the human family is the basis of an overall ethical and political approach to development, really understanding these rights has largely, so far, been confined to Human Rights institutions, especially the UN agencies. How much should/can one rely on these agencies then to shift the focus of current and upcoming development programs to a Human Rights focus? For the time being, perhaps quite a bit. (2)
17. Their first challenge will be to create a common language with governments and NGOs, a language primarily based on social commitments to Human Rights and on raising the level of responsibility of the different actors -both as claim holders and as duty bearers. (5)
The second challenge is to make the Human Rights approach concrete and give it substance. (11, 12)
[We desperately need more rights-based programming approaches. It would be good to have concrete examples of such programming. But, for now, we don’t. (13, 12)]
Thereafter, UN agencies will have to build a more structured political constituency for Human Rights. (14)
18. But for now, most governments fear that the recognition of these rights would interfere with their policy choices. They will have to be made to understand that certain aspects of the rights approach may be subject to progressive (gradual) realization. On the other hand, poorer states will have fewer resources available. But there is a minimum core of rights that they all have to uphold! States have to guarantee the respect of those rights under any circumstance, irrespective of the resources available to them. (9)
19. What this means is that progressively, Human Rights objectives need to be better defined and refined to more explicitly establish universal Human Rights goals. Human Rights have yet to acquire a more operational meaning for people, and that is a major political responsibility we all have to deal with now.
Put another way, in operational terms, effectively mainstreaming Human Rights in all development activities remains a challenge of enormous dimensions –and the challenge is a political one. (2, 4, 15)
20. The main challenge here is to achieve consensus among development actors on such operationalization -and that is unthinkable outside an ideological framework which will bring us right back to the left/right, capitalism/socialism divide of “to all according to their needs regardless of their means”.
21. What will become central in this debate is for all of us to understand that Human Rights means the right to demand a whole series of things. Among them:
· that economic and physical access to basic services is equally guaranteed, especially for girls, women, the elderly, minorities and the marginalized,
· that steps be taken to progressively achieve all Human Rights,
· that expeditious and verifiable moves be undertaken towards realizing those rights,
· that accountability, compliance and institutional responsibility be required in all processes,
· that administrative decisions are in compliance with Human Rights obligations,
· that unwillingness be differentiated from inability to comply,
· that states prove that there are reasons beyond their control to fulfill their obligations,
· that the private business sector (national and transnational) also complies with Human Rights dispositions,
· that national strategies on Human Rights be adopted that define clear benchmarks,
· that the implementation of national strategies is transparent, decentralized, includes people’s participation and moves towards eliminating poverty,
· that new legislation be developed involving civil society representation in its preparation, enforcement and monitoring. (16)
22. If the above demands are met, the added value of the rights-based approach will accrue in a way that:
· beneficiaries become active claimants,
· the process underlines the legal obligations of states,
· Human Rights provide the principled framework used to make decisions,
· the process moves the debate from charity/compassion (where there is already fatigue) to the language of rights and duties (accountable to the international community with compliance that can be monitored),
· the respective imperatives can be made more forcefully (making governments effectively liable). (17)
23. It is in this light that the Human Rights approach enhances the scope and effectiveness of social and economic remedial measures by directly referencing them to close to universally accepted obligations to be found in the related UN Covenants. (16)
These obligations, let us be reminded, are either passive, negative or positive (depending on the specific Human Rights circumstance) and they are in competition with obligations stemming from other rights, especially when resources are scarce. (18)
24. One must nevertheless keep in mind that the duty to fulfill Human Rights does not depend on an economic justification and does not disappear because it can be shown that tackling some other problems is more cost-effective. (19)
25. The practical consequences of adopting a Human Rights approach then is that one realizes that all major currently active or passive social/political forces have the same obligations towards these rights; the challenge is to make them compliant with the fact that the responsibility must be shared. (5)
26. To put things in a historical perspective, in the Basic Human Needs-based approach, beneficiaries had no active claim to their needs being met. The ‘value-added’ flowing from the Human Rights-based approach is the legitimization of such claims giving them a politico-legal thrust.
27. Going back to the example of the child, in the Basic Needs approach, the child was seen as an object with needs (and needs do not necessarily imply duties or obligations, but promises). In the rights-based approach, the child is seen as a subject with legitimate entitlements and claims (and rights always imply and are associated with duties and obligations).
The Human Rights approach: Some Iron Laws
28. As the new era of Human Rights-based planning in development work gets under way, there are a number of iron laws that begin to gain acceptance. Among them, and in no particular order, I would say, are the following:
· a) The struggle for Human Rights is more than a struggle to defend legitimate immediate interests, but is a struggle for universal justice. (20)
· b) A right is a right only when it is universal; otherwise it is a privilege.
· c) Human Rights have already been accepted by almost all countries as universal, indivisible principles. No further discussions are necessary. The burden of compliance is now on the world’s state parties.
· d) Human Rights cannot be departmentalized and are obligatory, not optional for states. They require governments to undertake active and effective steps in this direction. Therefore, Human Rights begin at home. (8, 4)
· e) Human Rights cannot be prioritized either. But actions to end their violation can. (2a)
· f) The Human Rights approach places development work within an internationally recognized and legally binding normative framework (a significant foundation that is currently absent from prevailing development approaches and activities). (4, 21)
· g) Rights can be usefully seen as the codification of needs, reformulating them as ethico-legal norms and thus implying a duty on the part of those in power. (22)
· h) The notions of duty and justice (…and merely not social responsibility or compassion!) give rights their cutting edge. (23)
· i) Justice is supposed to be the source of state power. Challenging states on the basis of justice as related to Human Rights challenges their legitimacy. This is a very powerful challenge. (20)
· j) Human Rights are inseparable from social justice. But to be effective, they require the adoption of appropriate policies and legislation at national and international level.
· k) (Ergo,) To ensure that the values of Human Rights are respected, they have to be underpinned by international Human Rights law, and at the same time incorporated into national laws.
· l) A lack of Human Rights means multiple denials. Therefore, poverty is the main obstacle to the attainment of Human Rights. (11, 4)
· m) At the beginning of the 21st century, the implementation of the fundamental legal rights enshrined in the different Human Rights UN Covenants represents the right political approach to development, particularly because it allows us to identify and actively challenge the prevailing oppression of the poor and powerless in society.
· n) Implementing a rights-based approach redirects the efforts in a way that optimizes the satisfaction of poor people’s basic and other needs in a sustainable way. (24)
· o) All unmet basic needs represent violations of rights. (2a)
· p) Up until a specific right is realized, this right is to be considered violated. (2a)
· q) There is a big difference between having basic needs and having universal rights: the latter can be legitimately claimed. (As opposed to rights, charity is given when convenient). (4)
· r) The health sector and other social sectors are often left to deal with the results of Human Rights abuses. (4)
· s) In Human Rights work, taking the first steps is the most important; it is better to concentrate on a few practical issues and strive for an incremental progress in them. (11, 3)
· t) In the national context, the best approach is to start using the Human Rights approach, not worrying about getting it perfect the first time around. (11)
· u) One strategy can often be used to address the violation of several different rights. (2a)
· v) Society produces endless ‘justifications’ for Human Rights violations which are often even accepted by the oppressed themselves. Human Rights work debunks these justifications. It liberates minds and mobilizes people. (20)
· w) The ongoing feminization of poverty is a violation of Women’s Rights. The time has come to call these realities what they truly are: Human Rights violations. New Human Rights legislation has, therefore, to incorporate a gender perspective. (21, 5)
· x) The invisible hand of the market has no capacity to create a decent Human Rights-based society for all. (22)
· y) Human Rights facilitate the building of alliances –the joining of hands with millions of others– since appeals for justice generate worldwide support for widely shared moral reasons.
· z) A sub-set of iron laws pertains to the issue of power in society as it relates to enforcing Human Rights. They are as follows: (23)
· i. Rights holders cannot only be passive beneficiaries of the duties of others.
· ii. It is not good enough if the beneficiaries of the duties have no power or control over their enforcement (…i.e., they need to be empowered).
· iii. Having a claim necessarily involves having (or getting) power.
· iv. More specifically, to enforce a duty, the claim holder needs power over the duty bearer.
· v. Claims are rather useless if there is no power to have duty bearers enforce their public duties.
· vi. A party other than the duty bearers have to possess power over the duties in order to make sure most public duties are enforced.
· vii. In sum, power is the key relation in Human Rights. A right confers power, i.e. the power to change some normative relations long taken as given –provided the system makes it possible for claim holders to do so. (…and we have to help making this possible).
· viii. (Montesquieu had it right:) It is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.
29. The question we are left with when looking at these iron laws collectively is: Will our new delineation of a new Human Rights approach be any more capable of solving pending fundamental development issues? This question is pertinent at this point since it is the same fundamental issues which have been and are the central constraints that have limited progress and sustainability in prior development efforts. We are talking about the political constraints.
The politics of it all
Politics is nothing more than the ability to resolve, time and again, conflicts of interest.
30. Because we need to be concerned with what happens to people now, what we do now will affect the next generation. That makes Human Rights eminently an issue in the contemporary political discourse. (8)
31. Human Rights ultimately give direction and boundaries to political and economic choices; some economic choices simply are not permissible, even if they promise a good return. Just like the limits of a national Constitution, there are things politicians can simply not do, and other things they have to do. That is how we should conceptualize Human Rights.(8)
32. With such an overwhelming mandate, most of us just feel helpless. But it is partly due to that feeling of helplessness that normative approaches are finding fertile ground, and that development thinking is no longer accepting utilitarian approaches. I thus see this as the beginning of a political movement; one that aims to develop and implement a non-ethnocentric global ethics (and, for now, we have to recognize that the United Nations is the organization that is set to lead that movement). (2)
33. In reality, there is a need for a political solution in conjunction with humanitarian efforts. But in the last instance, only politics will determine the speed with which the ultimate achievement of Human Rights will be realized. (25, 13)
34. I contend that it is by using a combination of the Human Rights instruments that we can become more political in our work. Furthermore, given their moral standing, people’s organizations should begin to speak more with one voice on these issues. (4)
35. On the other hand, political leaders do understand that change is more inevitable when communities demand their rights. Development agencies need to do likewise. (26)
36. Human Rights language raises social commitment. It is a very politically powerful language. As our social commitment increases, our level of political responsibility also increases. (5)
37. But it is more, we also need to focus on the politico-legal links in Human Rights work. (4)
38. The Human Rights framework is becoming a guidance and a directive in the area of global governance. It must now be used in a politically deliberate and systematic way to ensure its ultimate achievement, ergo the realization of Human Rights. (8)
39. The question, of course, here is: Are we all likely to have the strength and the political will to use Human Rights effectively as our supposedly new weapon against global violations of the Right to Development? Or put otherwise, will the explicit inclusion of Human Rights into the politics of, for instance, malnutrition make any difference to the many millions whose lives are blighted by this problem? (27)
40. One can be skeptical. Not much has really changed so far. This, because of the political sensitivities involved in resolving these issues. They have never really been addressed in depth. But these sensitivities are now under siege: We are at a point where you cannot but take sides! Get prepared for a fair struggle.
The participation factor in Human Rights
41. Getting Human Rights implemented means not only engaging development agencies, but also the government. For the latter to happen, the people (those whose Human Rights are being violated every day) will have to be mobilized, and that is a political decision.
42. While there is a fair spectrum of policies, legislation, structures and programs pertaining to the realization of Human Rights already out there, there are still many people who do not receive these basic rights. Human Rights are not yet being applied for many. We thus need social mobilization efforts of a more aggressive type to fight for the enforcement of such rights. (28)
43. Under the existing Human Rights Covenants, it is one of the state’s obligations to actually facilitate the mobilization of civil society, to make them powerful actors in the process. But we all know the difference between doing and paying lip service…
44. Therefore, fostering a viable civil society is key for pressuring governments into doing what they solemnly signed and are supposed to do in the first place.
45. In the process, capacity building alone is not enough. We need to empower people along the lines of their rights being upheld.
46. All this, because only when those living in poverty are understood by all to be the most effective analysts of their own problems and agents of their own solutions is it possible to formulate effective and sustainable interventions. (19)
47. In short, to succeed, we need citizens action in a broad two-way consultative process aimed at enforcing Human Rights. (5)
The use of indicators in Human Rights work
48. Tools need to be developed to assess the impact of Human Rights.
49. Under te new paradigm, activists in every country must demand verifiable benchmarks be set to monitor the evolving status of people’s rights; and they also will have to struggle for the adoption of a framework law to be used as a major instrument to implement the national Human Rights strategy. (16)
50. On te other hand, a responsible research community also has much to offer, particularly in terms of collecting information on rights violations and feeding the same back to communities directly. (11)
51. They also need to again reanalyze all the information stored in official data banks of routine data collection systems to try to reinterpret that information from a Human Rights perspective, i.e. disaggregating it by gender, socioeconomic group and other pertinent parameters that can uncover flagrant or hidden inequities and Human Rights violations.
52. An example can illustrate this need for reinterpretation: We can no longer celebrate growths in GNP/capita while nutritional status is not improving — and using that to argue that malnutrition is not significantly a poverty (or income) related issue… As it turns out, child malnutrition can and should be used as a prime indicator to monitor Human Rights violations. Stunting is a good poverty indicator as is the percentage of household income spent on food. (29, 30)
The World Bank, or a position full of contradictions on how to look at the Human Rights approach
[For your judgment, I am here quoting from the intervention of James Christopher Lovelace, WB vice-president, in the ACC/SCN Symposium on ‘The substance and politics of a Human Rights approach to food and nutrition policies and programs’, Geneva, April 1999. (13) (Emphases are mine)]
53. ”The WB recognizes that the Human Rights approach is an important new narrative (…?) of the international development discourse…
(Granted,) Sustainable Development is impossible without Human Right. (But)This realization does not imply the World Bank’s lending and non-lending decisions will always be governed by Human Rights considerations…
For the WB, the measure of its commitment on ethical, political or rights issues does not lie in its pronouncements, but on how its resources have been applied. Its loans have helped turn rights into realities (…?)…
(On the other hand,) The Bank’s Articles of Agreement clearly state that in all its decisions, only economic considerations shall be relevant.(WB, 1996). This criterion has, at times, been applied in too narrow a fashion, sometimes with negative consequences…
The question (then) is whether the limited mandate of the WB would preclude it from adequately confronting the issue of Human Rights…
(No matter what,) The Human Rights framework still leaves us with the practical challenge to make choices…
(I think) The principles of Human Rights must exert an abiding influence on the design of the operational details of WB projects…
(Actually,) We need a division of labor: advocacy for respect of Human Rights should be the task of the UN agencies, bilateral donors and NGOs; providing resources for scaling up projects that fulfill Human Rights should be the role of the International Financial Institutions…
The WB’s specific role and contribution will (thus) continue to be to bring to the debate a measure of economic rigor required to systematically weigh alternative means towards fulfilling the states’ obligations towards Human Rights”…
54. One critic of Mr Lovelace’s portrayal of the Bank’s stance countered that the World Bank had been instrumental in making it very difficult for governments to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill their Human Rights obligations. It had repeatedly created constraints such that people in many countries had not had their rights fulfilled. As a matter of fact, he said, Structural Adjustment constantly creates difficulties and constraints for Human Rights. (2)
55. To this, Mr Lovelace replied: “I would agree that structural adjustment hasn’t always considered the human dimension, and in some cases has clearly worked against it”. (13)
[The above is not presented as an exposee or a mockery; it just is to show how the Human Rights approach also forces institutions to take sides: and they are not always well prepared to do so. I am confident the Bank will find some astute way out (or in) on this issue as well].
Human Rights from the United Nations’ and the NGOs’ perspective
56. As is well known to most readers, in his 1997 Reform Proposal, the Secretary General of the UN called for all UN agencies to mainstream Human Rights in all their activities. (2)
57. UN agencies are considered to be duty bearers particularly in terms of monitoring and publishing indicators of Human Rights worldwide. (11)
58. It is also the UN’s role to hold states accountable for non-compliance with their specific Human Rights obligations. In such a function, UN agencies act as political mediators. UNDAF, the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, is a new tool set up by the organization at country level to strengthen inter-agency cooperation and coordination in this mediation. (9, 8)
59. Moreover, since the Covenants already delineate both state and societal obligations, civil society, NGOs, the private sector and others in the national and international community also are bona-fide duty bearers. (5)
60. So, the more society is organized as a myriad of institutions that respect, protect and fulfill Human Rights and that act locally to assure the realization of these rights, the more we can expect progress in the future. (5).
61. The role of civil society groups is to, among other, act as pressure groups. Therefore, to guarantee gains, civil society will have to continue its strong sociopolitical mobilization effort in a bid to hold national and international institutions with obligations in the realization of Human Rights accountable. (8)
62. This, because development cooperation (ODA) does not automatically contribute to the respect of Human Rights. Civil society will thus have to oppose development activities that are ill-conceived and even counterproductive in Human Rights terms. Ergo, development agencies will need to fix their sights more on the Human Rights dimension of their work and civil society will have to create and sustain the pressure for this to happen. (31)
63. The NGO community can indeed play a major role in this. Among other, they will have to:
· keep asking the right questions that seek information on violations/fulfillment of Human Rights,
· submit written statements (plus photo and video documentation when appropriate) to authorities and to watchdog groups on their assessments and findings,
· follow up on corrective measures taken (or not taken),
· detect bad faith in the implementation of Human Rights obligations, and publicly denounce this fact.
64. Ideally, all development agencies should, in the near future, develop internal mechanisms to ensure that their own policies and programs de-facto execute Human Rights obligations.(2)
65. In the meantime, the danger exists that organizations use Human Rights language as non-committal rhetoric just to feel good and ‘move with the tide’.
66. Finally here, we still need to clarify the role of the for-profit private sector in the Human Rights discourse. Historically, small local enterprises have not been a threat to Human Rights; Transnational Corporations have. Now they need to be held accountable.
Little has been written on this topic so far. (6, 18)
Some breakthrough will be needed here. I declare my incompetence on this issue.
Writing Human Rights into law
67. In all honesty, many governments (if not most) continue to take a soft approach to the implementation of Human Rights. Human Rights actually require a people-oriented state — a fact that superficially may seem obvious, but of course isn’t. (3, 32)
68. There are at least two challenges in this front to which they are not living up to. On the one hand, we need to adopt corrective legislation and take administrative measures to amend and abolish dispositions that are now contrary to Human Rights. On the other hand, new legislation needs to be put in place.
69. The new national legislation on Human Rights will have to contain specific targets and corresponding time frames/deadlines which can be monitored . (33)
70. In an ideal situation, the mere reference to Human Rights should create legal pressures towards the implementation of those rights. But, being very realistic, Human Rights enforcement and accountability still are key remaining unanswered questions in this struggle. (11, 20)
71. Because of the acute current monitoring needs, it is important to establish national Human Rights Commissions whose funding is independent of government bodies. When laws are then promulgated, states will simply have to respect the work of these Human Rights advocates and other watchdog groups –including the work of non-nationals involved in taking steps to foster the respect of universal Human Rights; there should be no fear of harassment or persecution for them. (11. 16)
72. Very early drafts of proposed legislation must be forwarded to civil society movements, labor unions, academic and scientific associations, private sector representatives, relevant government bodies and international organizations for review. (5)
73. Later on, a powerful measure that could be implemented is for victims of Human Rights violations to be entitled to adequate reparation. For this, one could conceive of nationally respected ombudsmen or national Human Rights Commissions being put in charge of holding hearings for victims of poverty and Human Rights violations. (16, 28)
74. In their reporting on Human Rights to the UN, Party States have to acknowledge: implementation problems, existing relevant national legislation and rules, regularity of monitoring (open to public scrutiny), priorities established and how the administration makes sure these rights have been implemented, how progress is being evaluated and the specific measures taken to achieve the realization of each of the rights.
This is already written into state obligations. Civil society now just has to sign off on these reports to keep them truthful.
75. Adding another perspective, it is not a well known fact that the right to ensure international fair trade between nations is also explicitly mentioned in the Human Rights legal documentation. The latter calls for no restrictions in the access to markets and no trade embargoes which may jeopardize a state’s population. It clearly emphasizes fair trade over free trade. This, of course, is another vast area begging for more worldwide activism. (9, 2)
76. In sum here, let us agree that without enshrining civil and political rights into explicit legislation, there is no guarantee that other rights, even when inscribed in laws and constitutions, can be made effective. The absence of powers to make governments accountable and responsible to their citizen on these fundamental rights is one of the greatest obstacles to rights-based agendas.
Training in Human Rights
77. Having a Human Rights framework does not automatically change the way managers working in the development sector think about benefits. Only through a long process of incorporation of these politico-legal and other principles into everyday norms and directives and into service training programs will it be possible to progressively change deeply rooted Human Rights-neutral or Human Rights-opposed attitudes. (5)
78. Nobody suggests that we begin each day by reciting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! National and international development and social services delivery staff should be appropriately trained and be challenged to, by themselves, explore the effective use of Human Rights in their everyday work. For sure not a small task, but one we need to tackle with a sense of urgency. (4)
79. Human Rights standards have thus to be incorporated into personnel training, because by using these standards they will gain an additional degree of authority and power, at the same time becoming more accountable. (31)
Some conclusions
Betting on the invisible hand and ignoring the rights of the socially excluded is immoral; it is the issue of a deliberate collective social exclusion that we are out to combat. (22)
80. Borrowing a term from sub-comandante Marcos of Chiapas fame, the first challenge we face in Human Rights work is to bring the Human Rights issue to a level of “impertinent consciousness” where it bothers us not to get involved.
81. In the strategy of imposing the new Human Rights paradigm over the old and obsolete development paradigm, we have to get involved in a long haul capacity building, advocacy, social mobilization and people’s empowerment effort so as to influence short, medium and long term outcomes.
82. We are ultimately fighting for a development that is anchored in the dyad Human Rights-Human Needs. And because to succeed in this field we need to change current realities in a socially and politically relevant manner, our actions will have to be based on a very strong political discourse. (22, 5)
83. Normatively, this means we need to go from declarations (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Convention of the Rights of the Child, Convention on Eliminating Discrimination Against Women) to national plans of action, and to national legislation on these rights.
Operationally, it means we actually need to go from people articulating their needs into specific claims and then targeting them to specific duty bearers who already have clearly stipulated obligations. These claims have to then become enshrined in laws that are enforceable in practice; in the enforcing of these laws, we need to make full use of existing facilitating factors and join hands with all strategic allies to tackle all possible obstacles and face all strategic enemies. (34, 12)
84. We all know that it is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them (Alfred Adler 1875-1937).
At every step of the fight you commit yourself to embark on, just keep in mind that the actual issues you will be fighting for together with the people, are important, but not crucial: The process is!
More impact does not require just more inputs… It is not about doing the things right; it is about doing the right things and accessing the right leverage points that will make the big difference.
85. The Human Rights approach thus brings to the forefront the point many activists have been making for over 30 years … Previous development initiatives had good intentions in them; we could have gone further with the Basic Human Needs approach or with Primary Health Care, for example… But we did not. Basically, because the political resolve was not there.
86. A lot will have to be deconstructed before we can start to set up this new Human Rights approach. What may look destructive from outside is a necessary precondition. Resolving the principal contradiction in each country will require identifying the main opponents of the new approach, as well as the right tactics and strategies to forward the noble cause of Human Rights.
References
1.- Ngongi, N. The practical challenges of overcoming hunger, SCN News, No. 18, “Adequate Food: A Human Right”, July 1999, pp.30-32 + 80, UN ACC/SCN).
2.- Jonsson, U. Historical summary: Nutrition ethics and HRs, SCN News, op.cit., pp.47-49 + 73-83.
2a.- Jonsson, U. Realization of children’s rights: Charity or solidarity?, mimeo, UNICEF ROSA, Kathmandu, Dec. 3, 1997.
3.- Ramcharan, B. Invited remarks SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., pp.16 + 73-83.
4.- Brundtland, G. H. Nutrition, health and Human Rights, SCN News, op.cit., pp.19-21 + 73-83.
5.- Costa Coitinho, D. Understanding HRs approaches: Food and nutrition security in Brazil, SCN News, op.cit., pp.50-53 + 59-62.
6.- George, S. The Lugano Report: On preserving Capitalism in the 21st century, Pluto Press, London, 1999.
7.- Jolly, R. Opening remarks SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., p.11.
8.- Eide, A. Studying the rights to food and nutrition, SCN News, op.cit., pp.45-47 + 73-83.
8a.- Windfuhr, M. Comment, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., p.80.
9.- Toebes, B. HRs, health and nutrition, SCN News, op.cit., pp.63-70.
10.- Matlon, P. Comment, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., p.83.
11.- Haddad, L. Synopsis, overview and synthesis, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., pp.12-15 + 73-83.
12.- Schuftan, C. HRs based planning: The new approach, accepted for publication by SCN News, Sept. 2000.
13.- Lovelace, J.C. Will rights cure malnutrition?, SCN News, op.cit., p.p.25-28 + 73-83.
14.- Kennedy, E. Discussion of country cases, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., p.59.
15.- Schuftan, C. The role of HRs in politicizing our ethics and praxis in health, submitted for publication to Development and Change, Aug. 2000.
16.- UNHCR, Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, General comment 12, The right to adequate food, Art. 11, SCN News, op.cit., p.p.41-45.
17.- Jenssen-Petersen, S. Food as an integral part of international protection, SCN News, op.cit., pp.32-33.
18.- Barth-Eide, W. and Kracht, U. Towards a definition of the right to food and nutrition, SCN News, op.cit., pp.39-40.
19.- Lewis, S. Malnutrition as a HRs violation, SCN News, op.cit., pp.22-25.
20.- FIAN, Hungry for what is right, Newsletter No.13, Aug. 1998.
21.- Whelan, D. A HRs approach for women in development, SCN News, op.cit., p.90.
22.- UNRISD News, No.22, Spring/Summer 2000.
23.- Sumner, L. W. The Moral Foundations of Rights.
24.- Robinson, M. Keynote address, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., pp.17-18.
25.- Salama, P. Mainstreaming the HRs approach in humanitarian interventions, SCN News, op.cit., pp87-88.
26.- Uauy, R. Comment, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., p.74.
27.- Pellett, P. A HRs approach to food and nutrition policies and programs, SCN News, op.cit., pp.84-86.
28.- Thipanyane, T. A national framework for the promotion and protection of the rights to food security and nutrition: South Africa, SCN News, op.cit., pp.53-56 + 59-62.
29.- Clay, W. Comments, SCN 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., pp.77+82.
30.- Schuftan, C. Malnutrition and income: Are we being misled? (A dissenting view), Ecol. of Food and Nutr., 37(2), 1998, pp.101-121.
31.- Dandan, V. B. Monitoring, supervision and dialogue in the HR system, SCN News, op.cit., pp.34-38.
32.- Stavenhagen, R. UNRISD News, No.22, Spring/Summer 2000, pp.1-4.
33.- De Haen, H. Summary of statement, 26th session, SCN News, op.cit., pp.28-29 + 73-83.
34.- Schuftan, C. Sustainable development beyond ethical pronouncements: the role of civil society and networking, Comm. Dev. J., 34(3), July 1999, pp.232-239.
Claudio Schuftan
Saigon, Vietnam.