18 December 1997 Edition
No right to celebrate
Dara Mac Neil is not looking forward to a year of hypocrisy over human rights
Expect to hear an inordinate amount of drivel about human rights in 1998.
Around the globe, governments busy themselves in preparation for the year of `celebration' that will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And among their number are some of the worst, most systematic violators of that Declaration.
Colombia and Algeria provide two telling examples.
In the month of November alone, for example, over 60 unarmed citizens were massacred in Colombia. Unlike the bloody 1980s, when official security forces murdered with impunity throughout Latin America, this newer generation of state terrorists has learned a degree of sophistication.
Murders and massacres officially attributable to the Colombian security forces have declined in recent years. Simultaneously, those carried out by supposedly `independent' right-wing death squads have risen. Human Rights Watch recently confirmed that the security establishment continues to ``organise, encourage and mobilise'' the death squads.
Taking its lead from the US (which still supplies military aid) the international community still adheres to the US State Department designation of Colombia as a country which ``has a democratic form of government and does not exhibit a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights.'' Western multinationals such as BP have invested heavily in Colombia.
A similar pattern emerges in Algeria, where a state-run campaign of murder has dramatically intensified over the last 12 months. Since 1990, close to 60,000 people have died. The Algerians, however, have gone one better than their Colombian counterparts.
Here, the pretence is that the modern, westernised, secular state is locked in a war to the death with the fanatical Islamic zealots that make up the Armed Islamic Group (GIA).
The conflict began when the government annulled elections it was losing, in 1992.
On paper, it looks good. Any government battling a fundamentalist Islamic insurgency is guaranteed, at the very least, that the West will look the other way while it gets on with the nasty but very necessary business of winning the war.
But however efficient the Algerian state - in reality, the military establishment - has been up to this point, some notable cracks have begun to appear in their cover story.
First, there is the testimony of army deserters, who have related how the army regularly carried out multiple atrocities while disguised as members of the GIA. Exiled Algerian diplomats claim that at least 80% of the GIA is ``run'' by Algerian military intelligence.
Their evidence is supported by a number of other factors. Remarkably, many of the civilian massacres attributed to Islamic zealots have taken place close to army installations, many indeed in the most heavily-militarised area of Algeria, just south of the capital, where support for the FIS is strong.
It is also worth noting that the Algerian regime has rejected several offers of peace talks made by the Islamic Salvation Front. Perhaps most remarkable of all is that, in a country where almost 60,000 have died in the last seven years and is itself supposedly on the verge of collapse, lucrative oil and gas installations have been untouched.
Surely, if the armed Islamic opposition wanted to topple the regime it would target that industry from which Algeria derives the bulk of its income?
As in Colombia, Western multinationals have invested hugely in Algeria - BP and French company Total, in particular. The Algerian government too has learned that state violence pays.
Human rights violations also headed the agenda in the Middle East. Here, of course, it was Iraq's failure to comply with a UN resolution that caused excitement, and almost led to a military attack on the country.
By way of contrast, Israel's complete disregard for a succession of UN resolutions on its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory has failed to elicit even the diplomatic equivalent of a reprimand. Thus encouraged, Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu has spent his year intensifying his assault of the human rights of Palestinians.
Elsewhere, the US continues its blockade of Cuba - in violation of all human rights' conventions and the Geneva Convention. Indeed, the practice of including food and medicine in the blockade - a stricture not even applied to Iraq - has been condemned by the US Chamber of Commerce and, most recently, the Washington Post. An invitation to our very own Mary Robinson - as High Commissioner for Human Rights - to condemn this use of food and medicine as a political weapon, was ignored by Robinson.
Never short of a condemnation when it comes to great powers like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Mrs Robinson refused to attack US policy on Cuba, even when the US Chamber of Commerce had the courage to do so.
This is not entirely unexpected, given how the West has skewed the human rights `agenda' for the last 50 years. Thus, it has become accepted that human rights are exclusively `political rights' - the right to free speech etc - as opposed to the right to food, healthcare, work and shelter. Human rights are now limited to a few (a minority) of the rights laid out in the 1948 Declaration.
Thus, those articles of the 1948 Declaration that promote social and economic rights are ignored for the very simple reason that, were they to be as rigorously supported as the articles dealing with political rights, virtually every rich western power would find itself in the dock, charged with gross violations of the rights of its citizenry.
As it is, human rights have become a stick with which to beat nations that offend powerful western interests. Thus, human rights `violations' only ever occur in countries such as Libya, Iraq, Iran or Cuba. Yet, how many millions of people worldwide are consistently denied the right to food, education, clothing, shelter, healthcare, the right to a decent life?
Perhaps in 1998, the UN might decide on the full enforcement of just two articles from the 1948 Declaration.
Article 23 might be a good starting point: ``Everyone has the right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment, with remuneration ensuring for himself and his (her) family an existence worthy of human dignity, supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection.''
It also states that ``everyone has the right to form and join trade unions, for protection of his (her) interests.''
Also worth mention is Article 25: ``Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself (herself) and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to secure that in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood.''
It'd be a good start.
Expect to hear an inordinate amount of drivel about human rights in 1998.
Around the globe, governments busy themselves in preparation for the year of `celebration' that will mark the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. And among their number are some of the worst, most systematic violators of that Declaration.
Colombia and Algeria provide two telling examples.
In the month of November alone, for example, over 60 unarmed citizens were massacred in Colombia. Unlike the bloody 1980s, when official security forces murdered with impunity throughout Latin America, this newer generation of state terrorists has learned a degree of sophistication.
Murders and massacres officially attributable to the Colombian security forces have declined in recent years. Simultaneously, those carried out by supposedly `independent' right-wing death squads have risen. Human Rights Watch recently confirmed that the security establishment continues to ``organise, encourage and mobilise'' the death squads.
Taking its lead from the US (which still supplies military aid) the international community still adheres to the US State Department designation of Colombia as a country which ``has a democratic form of government and does not exhibit a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognised human rights.'' Western multinationals such as BP have invested heavily in Colombia.
A similar pattern emerges in Algeria, where a state-run campaign of murder has dramatically intensified over the last 12 months. Since 1990, close to 60,000 people have died. The Algerians, however, have gone one better than their Colombian counterparts.
Here, the pretence is that the modern, westernised, secular state is locked in a war to the death with the fanatical Islamic zealots that make up the Armed Islamic Group (GIA).
The conflict began when the government annulled elections it was losing, in 1992.
On paper, it looks good. Any government battling a fundamentalist Islamic insurgency is guaranteed, at the very least, that the West will look the other way while it gets on with the nasty but very necessary business of winning the war.
But however efficient the Algerian state - in reality, the military establishment - has been up to this point, some notable cracks have begun to appear in their cover story.
First, there is the testimony of army deserters, who have related how the army regularly carried out multiple atrocities while disguised as members of the GIA. Exiled Algerian diplomats claim that at least 80% of the GIA is ``run'' by Algerian military intelligence.
Their evidence is supported by a number of other factors. Remarkably, many of the civilian massacres attributed to Islamic zealots have taken place close to army installations, many indeed in the most heavily-militarised area of Algeria, just south of the capital, where support for the FIS is strong.
It is also worth noting that the Algerian regime has rejected several offers of peace talks made by the Islamic Salvation Front. Perhaps most remarkable of all is that, in a country where almost 60,000 have died in the last seven years and is itself supposedly on the verge of collapse, lucrative oil and gas installations have been untouched.
Surely, if the armed Islamic opposition wanted to topple the regime it would target that industry from which Algeria derives the bulk of its income?
As in Colombia, Western multinationals have invested hugely in Algeria - BP and French company Total, in particular. The Algerian government too has learned that state violence pays.
Human rights violations also headed the agenda in the Middle East. Here, of course, it was Iraq's failure to comply with a UN resolution that caused excitement, and almost led to a military attack on the country.
By way of contrast, Israel's complete disregard for a succession of UN resolutions on its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory has failed to elicit even the diplomatic equivalent of a reprimand. Thus encouraged, Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu has spent his year intensifying his assault of the human rights of Palestinians.
Elsewhere, the US continues its blockade of Cuba - in violation of all human rights' conventions and the Geneva Convention. Indeed, the practice of including food and medicine in the blockade - a stricture not even applied to Iraq - has been condemned by the US Chamber of Commerce and, most recently, the Washington Post. An invitation to our very own Mary Robinson - as High Commissioner for Human Rights - to condemn this use of food and medicine as a political weapon, was ignored by Robinson.
Never short of a condemnation when it comes to great powers like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Mrs Robinson refused to attack US policy on Cuba, even when the US Chamber of Commerce had the courage to do so.
This is not entirely unexpected, given how the West has skewed the human rights `agenda' for the last 50 years. Thus, it has become accepted that human rights are exclusively `political rights' - the right to free speech etc - as opposed to the right to food, healthcare, work and shelter. Human rights are now limited to a few (a minority) of the rights laid out in the 1948 Declaration.
Thus, those articles of the 1948 Declaration that promote social and economic rights are ignored for the very simple reason that, were they to be as rigorously supported as the articles dealing with political rights, virtually every rich western power would find itself in the dock, charged with gross violations of the rights of its citizenry.
As it is, human rights have become a stick with which to beat nations that offend powerful western interests. Thus, human rights `violations' only ever occur in countries such as Libya, Iraq, Iran or Cuba. Yet, how many millions of people worldwide are consistently denied the right to food, education, clothing, shelter, healthcare, the right to a decent life?
Perhaps in 1998, the UN might decide on the full enforcement of just two articles from the 1948 Declaration.
Article 23 might be a good starting point: ``Everyone has the right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment, with remuneration ensuring for himself and his (her) family an existence worthy of human dignity, supplemented if necessary by other means of social protection.''
It also states that ``everyone has the right to form and join trade unions, for protection of his (her) interests.''
Also worth mention is Article 25: ``Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself (herself) and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to secure that in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood.''
It'd be a good start.