1948-1998: 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Celebrating Words That Have Become Meaningless?

AIM Athens, 30 October, 1998

1948-1998: already 50 years have gone by since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If considerably little progress has been achieved towards creating the appropriate conditions for the protection and the enhancement of human rights, a lot has been done to efface all illusions that we have been freed from the human plagues of terrorism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, poverty, hunger, discrimination, racism and xenophobia. On the contrary, these fifty years that went by only proved tragically humankind's incapacity to handle peacefully and justly the human condition of coexistence. Yet, we must not stop struggling with determination so that, as Rene Cassen, one of the founders of the Declaration stated, "a constituency of well informed, vocal and determined people all over the world could be organized to work everyday, everywhere for the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in practice." Otherwise, as he wisely pointed out, "the abuses would go on, the innocent would die, and governments would do little more than pay lip service to its principles. The Declaration would be =91just a piece of paper." After all as correctly reminds us Ginetta Sagan, a renowned human rights activist, the Declaration "created a lasting framework for perpetual vigilance and effective action." It depends however on every generation to make sure that this framework of vigilance and effective action exists without any restrictions to human rights activists all over the world.

Celebrating the 50th anniversary of the "Magna Carta for all humanity," the year 1998 (whose theme is "All Human Rights for All", highlighting, as the U.N. documents tell us, the universality, the indivisibility and the interrelationship of all human rights - civil, cultural, economic, political and social -) should be a reflection over the meaning of words. As Hanna Suchochka tells us, "A society where words have lost their meaning is not a society where human rights are respected." Our participation to a number of conferences organized in the European capitals, directly or indirectly related to the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, left us wondering about the meaning of words.

A multilateral meeting took place in Budapest, Hungary between the 1-3 of October this year, to discuss "The legal status of Non-Governmental Organizations and their role in a pluralist democracy". The meeting was organized by the Council of Europe in the framework of the Royaumont Process on Stability and Good Neighborliness in South-Eastern Europe, and with the support of the Government of Luxembourg. Besides the representatives from the Council of Europe and a number of other Western intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, most of the participants came from post-communist Balkan societies or the so-called new democracies. In this meeting, where the problems of non-government= al organizations from the East were to be discussed with intergovernmental organizations from the West, several governmental representatives had come apparently to make sure that nothing critical be said about their country=92= s policies by the respective NGOs. Not surprisingly thus, an attempt to define what is after all a NGO as opposed to a governmental organization, to explain the difference between politics as power and politics as participation in civil society, as an everlasting process of interrogation, was almost dismissed. That would have required taking another step, clarifying this very hazy identity of certain NGOs in the East, no less than in the West, which choose to draw limits on the criticism of human rights violations.

However, when we want to speak about the legal framework of NGOs, democracy, transparency, accountability - oh how horrible memories this must bring to some of our friends from those post-communist states which buried for years liberty in the name of transparency and accountability to the Marxist-Leninist party - about funding, about coordination, and many other very important questions concerning NGOs, we must decide clearly about the meaning of words. After all whether in the East or in the West, it is well known that the conditions available for NGOs that set limits to their interrogation of governmental policies and practices and those that don't are entirely different and in both instances for different reasons. Of course a Western NGO will not get funding for projects if it poses the wrong questions, while an Eastern one, in a country where an authoritarian conception of power still prevails, may even end up in jail in some instances. Nevertheless, it really comes to the same issue: the violation of the conditions for the protection and support of human rights activists who want to work along the framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and set no limits to their vigilance and effective action.

The meeting nevertheless ended up with a resolution by the majority of the NGOs present which are working in South-East Europe, that calls upon the Council of Europe to intensify its efforts to induce its members to stop practices impeding NGO formation and operation, so as to be considered democratic states. This resolution continues to be open for new signatures by regional and international NGOs. Also, case examples of governmental practices that impede NGOs were provided therein. On the 10th of December, on the exact day of the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it will be presented as an example of how the rights of human rights activists are violated directly or indirectly not only in "new" but also in "old" democracies.

In Vienna, on 9-10 October 1998, a conference was organized by the European Union(EU), the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Academy of European Law under the theme "The EU and Human Rights: towards an agenda for the year 2000." It brought together a number of distinguished speakers to evaluate the state of Human Rights in the European Union and how it should become a leading example for all of Europe. Many interesting presentations were put forward which, precisely because of their contradictory character, revealed clearly the paternalistic attitude which the European Union cultivates, being confronted with a large number of "new" democracies to which it wants to provide leadership. Its objective is to lead by example on questions of human rights. No one doubts that the "new" democracies, as H. Suchkova suggests, require to improve substantially their standards concerning respect for human rights; nevertheless, she adds "high standards need to be maintained in the "old" democracies (in certain of which major problems have arisen)." Of course democracy, human rights and the rule of law are not achieved once and for all. They are principles which to be protected and to evolve according to the conditions set by human coexistence, require "constant effort from all of us wherever we are, whatever our responsibilities in society may be." They require "constant action."

The booklet distributed at the conference with the recommendations by the Comite des Sages does not hesitate to call upon the need to reevaluate som= e of the EU policies and consider the contradiction between rhetoric and practice. Acknowledging the fundamental principle that respect for human rights is the only enduring foundation for building peace and harmony, we are told once again that the EU human rights policy should be guided by: Recognition of legal obligations for Member States, universality of the principle of human rights, indivisibility of all rights, consistency between internal and external policy, a strong information base and mainstreaming, in order to make human rights an integral part of all the activities of the EU. Yet the text did not fail to note that so far the EU has not provided such effective conditions that will make any discussion about a human rights policy realistic and consistent. On the contrary, the authors noted that large scale discrimination persists in various forms, minority groups in most states are already at the mercy of the new rising nationalism, which, instead of being confronted effectively, is rather accommodated by accepting discriminatory policies in the name of "efficiency" and "new" challenges. In the Final Project Report, we were told that there is a "gap between the political rhetoric of commitment to human rights and the unwillingness to provide the EU with the means to make that rhetoric a living reality." This was confirmed even more firmly as we were reminded that no policy exists which commits the Union to work actively within Europe in relation to human rights.

It is quite contradictory if not ambiguous therefore for the EU to argue that it wants to lead by example societies in transition when it does not even provide clear and effective solutions to the major human rights violations taking place in its own home. Another well wishing document to add in the plethora of documents provided by the EU. As long as the Union lacks effective protective mechanisms to give credibility to its human rights rhetoric, it will not be able to prevent governments from signing Conventions with no intent of implementing their provisions. How can therefore the EU lead by example unless the notion of human rights is to become meaningful. A warning to the Council of Europe (CE) made in an article by Professor Sudre, in La Semaine Juridique (7/1/1998) is equally a warning to the EU itself: the CE, he writes, "compose aujourdhui des etats est transforme de club des democraties en un centre d'apprentissage de la democratie et il est clair que nombre de nouveaux Etats membres sont incapables de respecter l'engagement fondamental inscrit dans l'article 3 du Statut du Conseil. L'abaissement des standards du Conseil de l'Europe est manifeste et la ratification de la Convention EDH par les nouveaux Etats semble relever de l'alibi, transformant la Convention, de standard minimum exigeant, en une lointaine ligne d'horizon."

In Warsaw, on 14-16 October 1998, the "Third International Human Rights Conference" took place, for the first time in the "new" democratic Poland. Unfortunately well wishing intentions did not produce the expected results and non-democratic procedures were used to manipulate its outcome. It was a human rights conference where unanimity was set as the condition for the adoption of resolutions; a NGO was arbitrarily not allowed by the organizers to address the plenary session and present its position; the veto by a parliamentarian delegation was admitted as a legitimate argument against the decision of all other participants in order to prevent the adoption of a resolution. A resolution about harassment of NGOs in the Balkans proposed by the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe and Greek Helsinki Monitor was only rejected because the text mentioned Turkey alongside other states of the region in a phrase delimiting the region. The Turkish delegation made up of the parliamentary Human Rights Commission, objected to the text, arguing that Turkey is a democratic country and no such problems exist there, except for the problem of Kurdish separatism and terrorism. It was of no surprise that the Turkish delegation "had never heard" about the violent harassment of Turkish NGOs, even about attempts against their members' lives, for example the Human Rights Foundation or the Human Rights Association. However, all the other participants had no difficulty approving the resolution. But, the Chairwoman considered that the final decision should be made by the plenary session where a debate would take place. Yet the organizers arbitrarily did not allow such discussion to take place acting against the knowledge and wish of all other participants.

Only in non-democratic meetings, the chair can impose the rule of unanimity as a prerequisite for a resolution to be adopted; can refuse to give the floor to some participants; or can mislead the assembly about a pending matter to prevent its discussion. Unfortunately, that was not the only incident that gave the impression that the Warsaw meeting was not meant to be a genuine human rights conference, but a meeting where unprincipled instrumentalization of human rights was used to further political ambitions. Several participants were wondering why, in a human rights conference, the organizer, who is the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the Polish Senate, invited six Human Rights Commission members from only one other parliament, the Turkish one. Turkey is a country known for its widespread disrespect for human rights: why then invite so many parliamentarians and not secure the participation of NGO representatives? This "paradox," along with an arbitrarily imposed congratulatory message to the Pope, the absence of critical Polish intellectuals from the conference, the absence of discussion on human rights violations in Central Europe, including Poland, explains why the Balkan resolution was handled as it did, and only strengthens the veracity of the rumors in Warsaw that the meeting was used, among other things, to help Poland woo Turkey in the former's bid to join NATO, over which Turkey has veto power. In this International Conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the meaning of words was tarnished by intentions foreign and contrary to the principles of human rights. The defense of human rights was limited to discussions about human rights violations in authoritarian and totalitarian states.

Yet, real discussion about human rights begins when their enemies become invisible rather than when they are visible and we can point them out. The challenges human rights pose begin when we want to establish a democracy which does not stop to question acquired liberty, justice and knowledge. Even well intended organizers, who carry the burden of a legendary movement like Solidarnosc, can be swept by the weight of words, words that allow no room for tolerance or concessions.

Nafsika Papanikolatos