|
Parliamentarians working on human rights meet in Geneva
|
|
Ms Loretta Ann P. Rosales
|
The IPU has always considered that parliaments are or should be a guardian of human rights. It has therefore consistently invited member parliaments to set up specialised bodies to deal with human rights as a means of better integrating human rights into their work. As IPU surveys have shown, the number of such bodies has grown considerably over the years, from about 40 in 1990 to more than 160 in 2004. Parliamentary human rights bodies differ very much with regard to their powers, mandate, functioning and working methods.
The idea therefore was suggested to bring together members of such bodies to enable them to discuss their work and to identify best practices for enhancing the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level. Together with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the IPU thus organised for the first time a seminar for chairs and members of parliamentary human rights bodies, which also included the participation of members of international, regional and national human rights mechanisms. The event took place from 15 to 17 March 2004 at the Palais Wilson, the headquarters of the OHCHR, and brought together more than 140 chairs and members of parliamentary human rights bodies from all over the world.
Participants underscored that the way in which human rights are integrated into daily parliamentary work has a strong influence on the extent to which parliaments live up to their role as guardians of human rights. The discussions provided an insight into the wide variety of human rights structures in parliaments and highlighted concrete ways in which parliamentarians work hand in hand with the human rights movement at large.
In her concluding observations, the Chair, Ms. Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Chairperson, Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights of the House of Representatives of the Philippines, stated that "Human rights are not a slogan, nor even an ideology, they are juridical, ethical and moral principles which apply to everyday life".
She summed up the challenges to which many of the participants had referred: "The problem today lies in the field of the implementation of human rights norms in the absence of economic, material and human resources. The HIV/Aids pandemic, migration and refugee problems, trade regulations and the behaviour of some States all pose serious problems to human rights. Moreover, while terrorism has no excuse, it is important to ensure that the fight against it did not result in new human rights violations."
Where to go from here? Ms. Rosales concluded that participants had expressed a clear wish to turn the Seminar into a regular event, which would focus on specific human rights issues and concerns. There was also strong support for the adoption of programmes for parliament in the area of human rights at the national, sub-regional and regional levels so as to increase MPs’ knowledge of human rights issues and mechanisms and to develop parliamentary institutional capacity.
|
|
Parliamentary human rights bodies in action: the case of Brazil
In Brazil, the parliamentary human rights committee launched a campaign for the valorisation of human rights in the media, particularly TV. In a country where 97% of the population watches TV, certain programmes can annul human rights efforts and efforts to implement a peace culture. Together with UNESCO the committee worked on a programme to fight against such programmes, and complaints can now be lodged by telephone (Internet) and raised with competent authorities, the media and their financing institutions (such as multinational corporations) and lead to sanctions. At the same time, the NGOs work with the TV stations to convince them not to send or modify certain programmes. There are also campaigns to incite people not to "consume" such programmes.
South Africa: parliamentarians participate actively in the work of UN human rights treaty bodies
In South Africa, all national reports to international monitoring bodies have to go to parliament for debate, and parliament ensures that those reports contain a wide variety of views, including those of civil society. To do so, parliament holds debates and public hearings, calls in ministers and requests documents and reports from a wide range of departments and citizens. Moreover, members of parliament are included in the national delegation to the international monitoring mechanisms so that they can better understand the recommendations that are subsequently made, and the parliament plays an active role in ensuring that these recommendations are also followed up and implemented at the national level.
|
|
Are human rights a victim of the fight against terrorism?
|
From left to right : Mr J. Saunders, Mr A. Radi,
Mr F. Margáin, Mr D. Türk et Mr H.A. Relva
|
Are human rights a victim of the fight against terrorism? This question, which is of great concern to many humanitarian organisations and citizens' representatives, was the subject of a panel discussion in Mexico City. Organised by the IPU and chaired by Mexican Senator Fernando Margáin, President of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Mexican Senate, the panel included the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco, Mr. Abdelwahad Radi, the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Danilo Türk, the Deputy Asia Director of Human Rights Watch, Mr. Joseph Saunders, and the Amnesty International Coordinator for the International Criminal Court in Latin America, Mr. Hugo Relva.
In the opinion of the Panel's chair, Senator Fernando Margín, "a clear position must be found which makes it possible to combat terrorism without violating human rights. Security must be a priority, but not to the detriment of human rights. In turn, upholding human rights must make it possible to live in freedom while taking security into consideration. For now, the line between them is not clear, which is why we must all work together."
The Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco, Mr. Abdelwahad Radi, says:
"We must define terrorism and understand its causes in order to combat it more effectively"
Q: How can terrorism be fought while maintaining respect for human rights?
Abdelwahad Radi : First, we must define terrorism and understand its causes in order to combat it more effectively. The physical manifestations of terrorism, such as death and destruction, are there for all to see. But we must also understand the deeper causes of the phenomenon. The panel discussion held by the IPU made it possible to agree that the human aberrations that we see may have moral or philosophical causes, or may be underpinned by material motivations. Terrorism as a phenomenon derives from both. Societies and the international community cannot function unless they rest upon values that are accepted by all. Societies must have some points of reference, too. There is good and evil, and there is fair and unfair, and everyone tries to adjust his or her behaviour accordingly. In today's world, there has been a loss of moral values and references for many people, and sometimes for whole societies. We are convinced that terrorism is related to the loss of values such as justice, equality and solidarity, which are no longer respected not only within certain countries, but also internationally. This is extremely unsettling for many people. And it means that some individuals can be recruited by just about anybody.
Q : What do you mean by material motivations?
A.R. : I am referring to people who lose their jobs, their homes or other property, and those who become stateless and lose their identity. When an individual or a group loses such points of reference; it triggers a whole series of negative and destructive forces is set off. Combating terrorism does not merely mean making use of violence, repression and regulations; it also means upholding certain values and defending moral reference points and landmarks, and restoring hope when people are in despair. It means making them confident in the international system, and in their own systems as well.
Q : How can that be done?
A.R. : By creating a more just world order, and by attacking problems at their roots. When the United Nations adopts a decision, it must enforce it. There cannot be a double standard. We must not invoke lofty principles one day, and the next day say that "might makes right". That is what causes confusion. Democracy is an indivisible whole, which must be respected at both the national and international levels. If you oppose single party systems within nations, you should oppose unilateralism internationally. Single party systems degenerate into dictatorships, and unilateralism ultimately degenerates into hegemony. People who oppose that react in a disorganised way, which breeds terrorism. Commitments must be fulfilled. It is a question of self-respect, and also of respect for others.
Q : Many people are concerned about the role played by the United States as a superpower, especially in Iraq. Do you think people in the United States are aware of this?
A.R. : I think that there are people of great valour in the United States who are perfectly aware of it, who are responsible and who respect standards and values, just as we do. Some are in power, others are not. And there are some who think that in a transitional period, you can take some liberties. But there must be no exceptions or concessions. Human rights are not negotiable, and cannot be bartered off. They are to be upheld, and that is all. Whatever the price, world peace and justice must be defended.
Q : Morocco is a crossroads between the Western and Arab-Muslim civilisations. Is there a mutual misconception between the two, or can they come to an understanding?
A.R. : The misconception between the West and the Muslim world dates back to the birth of Islam. Unfortunately, ever since the Middle Ages, the way in which Islam and Muslim civilisation have been portrayed in the West has done nothing to help. Because Christians saw Islam as a heresy, it followed that there was no reason to make an effort to understand the religion of the devil; instead, it was thought that it should simply be fought. Today the situation has improved; there are now tools that help us establish both a cultural and a religious dialogue. The world is more democratic, people are more educated, and they want to understand. Paradoxically, at the same time there are clashes in a very specific situation: the Middle East, with all of its complex problems, not just political or territorial ones, but also some that relate to religion. I am optimistic. This crisis cannot last forever. It is encouraging that democracy is spreading. But at the very moment that democracy is spreading, we have seen an abandonment of values, a deprecation of politics and a credibility failure on the part of certain politicians. We have to keep our cool and correct this; we must foster democracy, but without slipping into demagogy. We must steadfastly defend our values and remain true to them. I do not believe in the clash of civilisations.
|
|
What is the IPU?