Pierre Sané, Sous-Directeur général de l'UNESCO

Dear Friends,

Welcome to the Dublin platform. This is your platform and collectively we will use it to protect those Defenders at risk. With this platform today we launch Front Line internationally and will build it up step by step to complement the work of other Human Rights organisations and to support the work of Hina Jilani – I am confident that with the leadership and passion of Mary Lawlor this new organisation will make a difference especially at a time when dark clouds gather over Human Rights and over the Human Rights defenders worldwide.

11th September was indeed a very dark omen for Human Rights. On that day a democracy, one of the oldest in the Americas was bombed and visited by an overwhelming and well planned terrorist attack – large numbers of innocent civilians were killed, it ensued detention without trial, torture and trauma. The year was 1973, the country Chile, the perpetrator was the Chilean army and the leader of the army: Pinochet. The international governments response was at best mute – there was no global coalition to restore Human Rights and democracy in Chile. And Pinochet has still not been brought to justice although he is still very much alive. However the response of the Human Rights movement was fantastic: the solidarity, the mobilisation,, the welcome hand extended to the refugees, the experience gained in the fight against torture, the pursuit of justice for the victims and their families, all contributed to shape the Human Rights movement at the height of the Cold War. After the fall of the Berlin wall the movement grew stronger and injected Human Rights in more and more fora, marching towards the establishment of an international criminal court, putting the champions of globalisation on the defensive and expecting the universal abolition of the death penalty during our life time.

Then came the 11th of September 2001. On that day the oldest democracy in the Americas was bombed and visited by an overwhelming and well-planned terrorist attack. Large numbers of innocent civilians were killed. It ensued attacks to civil liberties, detention without trial, increase in racist attacks, talk of torture and trauma. The country: the USA. The perpetrator: groups linked to Al Quaida. The Leader of Al Quaida: Osama Bin Laden. This time the response of the international community is swift. Those responsible will be brought to justice, “dead or alive”. The government of the Taliban is swiftly overthrown and the UN pledges to eradicate terrorism – laws are swiftly passed, those deemed suspects by the executive are detained, asylum seekers sent back – the police state is turning global.

What will be the long-term impact on Human Rights? It is difficult to tell. I will not emulate Mao Ze dong who replied when asked about the impact of the French revolution: “Too early to tell”, but it is true that 4 months after this cataclysmic event it may be too early to venture definitive statements about how the world has changed. What has not changed, we know: the neglect of the poor, the negative effects of globalisation, the indifference to the plight of the refugees, racism and discrimination, violence against women, the devastation of Aids. For many the world is not a different place and the negative trends may even accelerate!

You have been provided with 4 case studies to help in your discussion this afternoon:

* one on the USA * one on the UK and Northern Ireland, which is very much a reflection of what is happening in the whole of Europe. * one on the Middle East * one on Central Asia

But I am sure all of you have stories to tell about the tightening up of the space of freedom, clampdown on legitimate Human Rights work, labelling of dissent as terrorism, new police powers, threats to democracy, demonizing of asylum seekers, mounting xenophobia, etc.

Instead of venturing into a global analysis I want to suggest what it is that we as a Human Rights movement should concentrate our efforts on. It seems to me that at a time when the world is being frozen into so called antagonistic cultures and civilisations, divided between bad guys and good guys we need to uphold 5 lines of action –

1. Always put the victim first. 2. Reject the ends justify the means logic. 3. Stress our common humanity as opposed to our differences. 4. Speed up our efforts to build a global coalition for Human Rights. 5. Devise long-term strategies.

1.We must put the victim first, always.

A victim of Human Rights violation is not a statistical number. The why and the how and the who of the violation are just steps to allow us to seek redress and prevent reoccurrence but cannot be preliminaries to our action. Whether you died in the inferno of the twin towers from the act of a suicide bomber or in the plains of Afghanistan from a bomber at a safe distance it does not matter your nationality, your religion or your profession. Your right to life has been taken away: your family deserves compassion and you are entitled to justice. It is our duty in the Human Rights movement to never discriminate amongst victims of Human Rights violations.

All too often we care only for victims of our own creed, of our own political persuasion, all too often we tend to explain away violations visited on the other side, turning a blind eye on the suffering and pain of the families affected as if it could alleviate the suffering and pain of the families on “our side”. The challenge for the Human Rights movement at this historical juncture is to stand up against the dehumanisation of all.

I realise that for Human Rights defenders caught in sectarian conflicts this is not easy and that as part of a community it is difficult to escape from the “us” and “them” stigma but how else are we going to educate our communities if we do not embody the values of universality that are so central to our work.

2. We must reject the “Ends justify the means logic”.

Central to the Human Rights approach is that we reject the notion that the ends justify the means. We are all too familiar with the confiscation of rights in the name of communism, or in the name of combating communism. In the name of national liberation or in the name of combating national liberation. In the name of development and nation building, or tradition or culture or collective security… or even in recent wars in the name of human rights. Our stand must be unequivocal: Human Rights must be protected at all times – torture should never be contemplated, prisoners of war must be treated according to existing conventions, the death penalty must be outlawed. A wrong cannot justify another wrong.

Of course all of us want to be shielded from terrorist attacks, wherever they are coming from and it is the responsibility of political leaders to prevent such acts by using force if necessary. But if terrorism is a global threat, it is best tackled through international cooperation, within the framework of international law and international justice. And even if poverty, discrimination, inequality and injustice cannot justify attacks on innocent civilians they ought to be tackled in the name of human rights. For, all those hundreds of millions who live in abject poverty, whose children die of preventable diseases, with no job, no prospects, no stake in the system…for how long can we hold them back with just words of patience and resignation?

3. Tactically over the coming years we need to stress our common humanity as opposed to our differences.

Whether we like it or not the dominant paradigm today is the Huntingtonian one: the clash of civilisations. We are told the world has moved from a period of conflict between kings followed by conflicts between nation states, then to conflicts between ideologies and now to conflicts between civilisations. We are all supposed to belong to one monolithic bloc called civilisation, shaped by culture, religion and appearance. These are seen as immutable and bearers of opposing values and conflicting rationalities.

It is the dominant paradigm because it shapes the minds and practices of those who dominate the world. It is the dominant paradigm because leaders everywhere emphasise the differences in culture, religion, tradition and go on to promote the so called “dialogue of civilisations”, seek ways to “reconcile differences” with arguments of civilisational superiority, Asian values, Islamic culture, African traditions…

True, we are all different. True, cultural diversity is a fact like biodiversity is a fact. True, we are all unique – the world is peopled by 6 billion unique individuals. And that is what makes our humanity. We all belong to the human race. We have one thing in common – we are all born free and equal. In the Human Rights movement at this historical juncture this is what we have to stress: our common humanity. We are on this planet together primarily as individual human beings endowed with rights then as members of a group or of groups. We are not here as members of a monolithic bloc that think the same and act the same. We are complex beings with complex and dynamic identities.

We in the Human Rights movement have to mobilise afresh our energies to promote the universability of human rights and our common humanity. What we share in common is far greater than our differences. And it is this common humanity that needs to be defended, protected, and nurtured. By ensuring that the resources of this planet are directed primarily at meeting the needs of all, and to free everyone from want. Indeed any economic system, that does not place at the centre of its concern or of its logic the welfare of global humanity cannot be sustainable. As Argentineans are learning painfully today, neo liberal fundamentalism can be as destructive to societies as any other form of religious or ethnic fundamentalism. These fundamentalisms actually feed into each other. They share in common the belief that they alone hold the truth, that that truth has to be imposed to all by all means necessary, they divide the world into categories: the have and the have not, the believers and the doomed, those who belong and those who are excluded. This system fosters inequalities and breeds violence. We all know that. We have to change it.

4. Global coalition in the defence of Human Rights.

In these times of great threat to Human Rights we must come closer together than we have ever before. We have to look beyond our borders, be they territorial, institutional or issue based. A globalised world requires a global movement. Partnerships must be strengthened with governments attached to Human Rights advancement, with UN institutions, with popular movements, with academics, artists, workers organisations, women’s groups, and environmental bodies.

The first task obviously is to protect the Human Rights Defenders wherever they are at risk. And this is why protection mechanisms are so important. Keeping Defenders alive and free to do their work everywhere is absolutely essential and this is what Front Line and the Dublin platform want to contribute to.

In doing so let us not overlook the US human rights movement. Paradoxically its connection with the global Human Rights movement is weak: why? Because it did not benefit from the antecedent of a strong independent trade union tradition, because the civil rights movement did not embrace the international human rights framework, because of the focus on foreign policy by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and because of the lack of international involvement of groups such as the ACLU and the NAACP. We must intensify our efforts to reach out to them and bring them into the global arena and push the international Human Rights framework into their domestic agenda.

Finally, 4. We have to devise long-term strategies.

-Human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent. -The best way to deal with violations is to prevent them.

These are the two pillars of any effective long term, global strategy. Here is what I believe could be a 4 point checklist that could help assessing whether we have a global strategy or not.

1. We cannot be on all fronts but we have to ensure that all fronts are covered, i.e. all countries are monitored, all rights are addressed, no group of victims is left out, especially women, children and ethnic minorities and migrants. 2. We have to bridge the gap between standards and practices. Identifying gaps in international law, lobbying for new conventions and treaties wherever needed, campaigning for ratification, following up on the legislative changes, institutional development and local mechanisms. Monitoring implementation, reporting abuses and calling for an end to impunities. This is all part of the same continuum and they should all be covered adequately. 3. We have to call all perpetrators to account: State or non-state actors. Religious leaders as well as business leaders. Traditional leaders as well as international organisations. Military leaders as well as abusive husbands and fathers. When justice cannot be done at home it should be pursued elsewhere, in other countries and at the international level. We have to ensure all perpetrators receive a fair trial and do not face the death penalty. 4. We in the Human Rights movement have to be the change we want to see in the world. We have to work in solidarity and transparency, sustain democratic participation amongst our members, and ensure leadership accountability and political independence.

Dear friends,

11th September may be the beginning of the end of governments’ consensus on Human Rights. For us it must be a new beginning where we rededicate ourselves to protecting all human rights everywhere.

Thank you for your attention.