Analysis and Action

A number of challenges were named and addressed in the course of the meeting. To some of these we have already alluded. In the section that follows, we bring together some of the more important issues that emerged in the course of discussion, focusing wherever possible on practical responses that participants or Front Line identified, which will help human rights defenders to manage them better.

" Touch all buttons. " Taking security seriously

Fear haunts the work of human rights defenders. It deeply influences the behaviour of the societies in which human rights defenders operate. Violators of rights rely on fear to protect themselves and inhibit those whom they oppress. Yet it is rarely spoken about openly.

At the request of those who participated in the first Dublin Platform in 2001, Front Line has commissioned research from Peace Brigades International into how human rights defenders can better protect themselves. Managing and acknowledging fear, we learned, is an essential element of improving security. In the past many human rights defenders have treated bravado and courage as if they were the same thing. They have refused to acknowledge the danger they are in, have refused to take security precautions, and the stress that this creates has caused some to behave in inappropriate or self-destructive ways.

" Don't be afraid – take steps."

In their presentation, Enrique Eguren and Christoph Klotz emphasised that fear itself, as well as security, need to be taken seriously. Security procedures require time and commitment, and if some members of staff ignore them, or the procedures are treated merely as administrative regulations, they will not protect those at risk. If care is taken, however, and all members of an organisation follow agreed security practices, staff will not only be safer but will feel safer. Adopting a sound approach to security enables those who are in danger to recover some control over the risks they run and, by acknowledging those risks and managing them, they can reduce the power of those who threaten them.

Building links and alliances with others is obviously part of this strategy, and participants described a number of ways in which organisations can help one another and increase their safety by working together, and linking regionally and internationally with organisations abroad that can provide forms of support or protection.

Governments can play a valuable role in providing such protection. Representing the British Foreign Office, Jon Benjamin discussed some of the ways in which his own and other EU governments can provide support to human rights defenders. He pointed out, for example, that it is much more difficult for Missions to make swift representations on behalf of human rights advocates if they do not already know about the work they do. For human rights defenders who are at risk of arrest and retaliation, therefore, visiting Missions to introduce their work is a worthwhile precaution.

"Security starts at home – start with yourself. "

Front Line will publish a manual on security in 2004, in cooperation with Peace Brigades International (PBI). The manual which is being researched and drafted by PBI will be based on very wide consultation with human rights defenders,. Countering interference and electronic harassment

The Conference also looked in more detail at the question of electronic security, and Robert Guerra of Privaterra, and José Cruz from Guatamala spoke to the meeting about some of the new risks that electronic communications generate and the precautions that human rights defenders should take to avoid electronic eavesdropping and theft, and to protect their information.

Front Line expects to do further work in this area, and asked participants to indicate the needs they have. In the workshop, several suggested that national and regional training programmes would be extremely helpful.

This is also an area where international co-operation can be extremely helpful, not only because some countries provide much greater protection of electronic privacy, but also because electronic communications can operate very easily across frontiers. Already, for example, some organisations copy their files for safety in another country, or base their Web Site at a foreign host.

" Adversaries don't work only in the real world – but in the internet world as well. "

Robert Guerra and José Cruz noted that traditional email messages and information on old-generation computers can easily be read and copied using quite simple technologies. The information on these systems, as well as Web Sites, can also be manipulated easily. They recommended that human rights defenders should consider more carefully how to protect the information they collect and send. At the same time, they stressed that most surveillance and monitoring is done using old-fashioned police methods, rather than electronic surveillance; and that human rights organisations should certainly give as much, or greater attention, to more mundane problems such as environmental damage and power breakdowns.

" We are all afraid of our history. " Relations with the State

Relations with government were an issue that participants raised persistently, and from many angles. With regard to security, for example, Chris Collier discussed an analysis made by HIVOS of the effectiveness of interventions by the Netherlands government and the EU to protect human rights defenders. HIVOS concluded that EU governments need to develop policies in this area; it is not enough just to intervene in an ad hoc manner. Governments should also be more transparent in reporting the interventions they make. At mission level, HIVOS suggests that a diplomat should be responsible in each mission for relations with human rights defenders, and that missions should do more to support financially the work that human rights defenders do; such support should include helping them to strengthen their security.

In this context, participants offered many examples of cases where governments have shown willingness to protect and support the work of human rights defenders – and protect the safety of human rights defenders themselves. The decision by Ireland to provide respite facilities to human rights defenders, announced at the meeting, is a case in point. Co-operation has increased. A number of governments are actively seeking to fulfil their commitments under the Human Rights Defenders Declaration, and new proposals for effective and appropriate support are being explored in some countries. In this area, emerging co-operation with government is an important and positive trend that deserves to be recognised.

" We have given over the world to careless power. "

In general, however, participants described a relationship with government that was overwhelmingly negative. The testimonies we heard reminded us that states are the worst violators of human rights and that state behaviour is the single greatest obstacle to achieving respect for human rights in most societies. In reporting the problems that they had met, however, participants described many kinds of state and different obstacles. Some spoke of states that were criminal; others of states that were militarised; some were incompetent, others attempting to reform; and some participants described states in which different legal and political regimes coincide within the same territory.

" We have different governments in my country and different sovereignties."

One presenter, Rashid Kang, from Forum Asia, spoke about the experience of human rights defenders in the Asian region. Governments in this region have never regarded human rights NGOs, or civil society more generally, as being fully legitimate. While governments from abroad have been helpful in specific cases, they have worked less hard to change such thinking and their intervention has sometimes been used by Asian Governments to challenge the legitimacy of civil society actors through propaganda about threats to sovereignty. Several Asian Governments have undergone political reform, but it is less deep than it looks, and has tended to produce "soft despotic" regimes that avoid outright repression but are becoming sophisticated at administrative harassment, and rather smoothly manage their differences with Western governments over human rights.

Elsewhere, participants described political systems that remained classically authoritarian, or were highly militarised. In both instances, repression was exceptionally violent, impunity widespread, and effective protection of human rights weak or virtually absent. Situations of this sort were described to us by participants from Chechnya, from Aceh, and from Colombia in the list for example.

" We have no rule of law in our country. "

In other societies, the State exhibits an exhausting combination of incompetence and corruption. It is unwilling and unable to meet its human rights obligations, and equally unable and unwilling to provide essential services to the population. Defenders working in these conditions face a host of difficulties. This is not only because officials are intolerant of human rights and civil society activities, irresponsible in the conduct of their duties, or corrupt. It is also because, in these conditions, human rights defenders cannot generate or show progress.

" We cannot make progress in the absence of a political system that functions. "

They, but also the public around them, can then become demoralised. Democratic reform brings no improvement in the quality of life; peaceful political and legal action appear to be ineffective; people lose hope in the prospect of change. In these conditions, models of progressive and rational reform, like those which human rights defenders espouse, seem to be unable to influence the special interests and entrenched bureaucracies that characterise this form of state.

" If you have no international remedies, you must rely on national systems. If these are corrupt or do not function, what then can you do? Where can you go to secure justice? What hope of improvement can you offer people? "

The weaknesses of international human rights institutions, and above all the weaknesses of international enforcement procedures, are particularly frustrating for defenders living in such societies.

" If you have a feeble or immoral government, and a feeble or corrupt judiciary, it is no good relying on legal strategies – so what choice do you have? If you cannot seek remedy abroad, what can you do? "

In a number of countries, nevertheless, the situation is more positive, in that States have more capacity and also show evidence of wishing to reform in ways that will tend to promote and respect human rights. During workshop discussions, for example, participants gave several examples of cases where their governments had been positively influenced by advocacy, and where the establishment of stronger legal and also administrative procedures had enabled human rights activists to be more effective.

It seemed that such advocacy was particularly likely to be effective where national civil society organisations allied themselves with regional bodies or with international organisations, to press their case. In this area too, co-operation was an important element of success.

Participants frequently expressed deep concern about the price they and their societies will have to pay if reform is deferred and greater national and international efforts are not made to build just and efficient institutions. Many testimonies foresaw that tolerance of impunity would cause immense harm in the long term, and spoke of the enormous effort that would be required to reconstruct social and political institutions that have become corrupt or criminal.

"Reconciliation is a term that troubles me. Reconciliation starts with making sure that whoever has committed a violation confronts justice. Otherwise the victim will harbour bitterness and this will be the cause of future conflict" Violations by non-State actors

States are not the only cause of violations, of course, even if they have the primary duty to promote and protect human rights. Violations for which private actors are responsible were mentioned in several contexts.

Unsurprisingly, the influence of private companies was raised by several participants. Companies were criticised for being unaccountable in some countries, for bad working practices in others, and for complicity in human rights violations by the state. More generally, participants recognised that in coming years human rights defenders, and other national and international human rights institutions, would need to give more attention to the influence of private companies in coming years.

" The oil companies operate like a state within the state – to protect the company not the people. […] People's rights to their land, which is often sacred, are waived to allow prospection. "

The issue of violence against women also emerged clearly. Strong testimonies and statements were made about rape and the protection of girls and children, as well as about domestic violence, trafficking and the sex trade.

The specific and additional risks faced by women human rights defenders was given specific attention during a panel discussion chaired by the UN Special representative for Human Rights Defenders. It highlighted many serious abuses that women face, and the fact that actions to resist some of these are taken almost exclusively by women. It was agreed that these issues need more extensive discussion. The participants suggested that an international conference specifically to discuss the challenges facing women human rights defenders would be useful, as would further discussion about the links between women human rights defenders and the broader human rights movement.

Equally strong evidence was presented about the economic marginalisation and social humiliation of Dalits in India and enslaved people in Mauritania and other countries.

Finally, the issue of honour killings was brought before the meeting, which heard a powerful personal description of the murder of a young women called Samia Sarwar in the offices of Hina Jilani in 1999.

These, and a range of other issues involving violations of human rights by non-State groups, require attention in coming years. The new political environment

In many respects, human rights activists are operating in a political and economic environment that is new. It is new because the world is changing: globalisation and the integration of economic and political systems is generating many changes at every level, some of which are threatening, while others (such as electronic communications) offer opportunities. The powers and role of states are changing in this process (not necessarily diminishing, but certainly changing). The emergence of new security policies in the context of the "war against terrorism" is itself having a direct impact on policies in many fields, and on treatment of dissent in many countries.

New, equally, because the thinking of human rights organisations also needs to evolve – to match the demands of a changing environment, and to take account of the emergence of many new human rights activities and organisations around the world. Building alliances and coalitions

This discussion was one of many that highlighted the importance of building alliances and networks, and sharing information within countries and across regions. This report has already referred frequently to instances where co-operation and alliances have improved advocacy, increased security, saved lives or increased capacity.

" Partnerships must be real, must be transparent, must reflect human rights values. They should focus on outputs and results, not only activity and effort. "

Participants also expressed a wish to co-operate around training – an area that Front Line is itself developing, in relation to the security human rights defenders and electronics security issues.

Participants particularly highlighted the importance of sharing knowledge and gaining expertise, through training and other means, on economic, social and cultural rights.

"We do need to be sure that we continue to defend political and civil rights, while advancing economic social and cultural rights – and this implies returning to basics and affirming again how much they are interconnected."

"The strategy of optimism"

" The scale of human rights problems is so great that I think we need to disassemble the statistics locally, by district and region; so that we can see where progress is occurring. "

" An active critical civil society is vital to an open society. "

At the very beginning of the Conference, one of the first speakers referred of what he called the "strategy of optimism" – an approach that looks frankly at the hardships and setbacks and dangers of human rights work, but refuses to be disheartened or cast down. In the same spirit, the poet Seamus Heaney spoke about the moment "where hope and history rhyme". This spirit infused the meeting as a whole. Though many spoke of the damaging impacts of the "war on terrorism", it did not dominate discussion. Though many deplored the damage that global economic policies were doing to their societies, their comments were not backward-looking. The many people, finally, who described the debilitating influence of corrupt and irresponsible government officials and institutions in their societies, spoke at the same time of their determination to persist and the tremendous effort that would be required to achieve change.

Overall, the political context is less favourable to human rights than it was two years ago, when the first Dublin Platform was held. In the last few years, there have been important setbacks, both politically and economically, in many countries. This cannot be denied even if, in the longer term – measuring by decades rather than years - human rights and the work of human rights organisations have steadily increased their influence.

In this context, two final comments may be relevant. One is the value of achieving small victories – wherever possible, planning approaches that enable progress to be made in specific areas, even if the achievement of larger objectives still lies out of sight. In periods of reversal, it is vital to maintain morale – not just the morale of human right defenders themselves, but also the morale of those who sympathise and support human rights values in the wider society. Without small achievements, this is much more difficult to do.

The second is the value of alliances and co-operation. The usefulness of such alliances, to strengthen protection, improve advocacy, and maintain confidence, was highlighted by very many of those who spoke. It was also, of course, the principal objective of the Dublin Platform itself. Let three final quotations speak directly for the Defenders who were there.

" We are living in a situation of perpetual anger."

" Fear generates anger and anger paralyses us. We need hope to continue. "

"This conference has made me feel stronger still and made me more convinced that we will succeed – We do have hope, which is shared by all human rights defenders. "