Who can lead the world on human rights?

Abstract

Last month, the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Human Rights Watch released its World Report, 2007— an annual review of human rights practices from around the globe. The catalogue of atrocities detailed in the comprehensive 500-plus-page report, highlights how the world desperately needs a champion to defend, support, and promote human rights practices. In addition to the worsening humanitarian situations in Darfur and Iraq, the report details the many other human rights challenges in need of urgent attention: the ruthlessly oppressive regimes of Turkmenistan and North Korea, Russia’s crack down on NGOs, the civil war in Sri Lanka, and Robert Mugabe’s preference to ruin Zimbabwe rather than face political opposition. The organisation highlights widespread practices that need to be tackled, such as the use of torture by regimes and police forces around the world. One of the report’s main conclusions is that the USA cannot provide credible leadership on human rights. “Washington’s powerful voice no longer resonates after the US government’s use of detention without trial and interrogation by torture”, writes Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. The organisation is not alone in their view. Leonard Rubenstein, the executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, told The Lancet: “The USA has gone beyond abdication of leadership on human rights, as its use of torture and secret detention, and its denial of asylum for those fl eeing persecution have encouraged human rights abusers worldwide.” As for other countries, Roth believes that China remains indiff erent to human rights practices of others and ignores the issue of its own practices altogether: “Beijing pretends that human rights are an internal aff air when dealing with others abroad.” And he thinks Russia is going down the same path: “Its goal seems to be rebuilding a sphere of infl uence... even if it means embracing tyrants and murderers.” Roth concedes that emerging southern countries in Africa and Asia off er rare glimmers of hope before turning his attention on the European Union (EU), which he says is punching well below its weight on human rights issues. He cites many reasons for why the EU is falling woefully short of its promises as a defender of rights around the world. For example, the way that the EU operates in its decision making, especially at the UN Human Rights Council, in which the insistence of a consensus agreement causes delays in decision making, refl ect the EU’s preference for unity over eff ectiveness. The rotating presidency is also an issue. According to Roth, “It is diffi cult to imagine a less eff ective way to maintain continuity or build expertise than the EU’s rotating blur of six-month leaders”. But much of the problem is due to a simple lack of political will: “Promoting human rights can be costly and diffi cult, and many governments do not want to bother–at least beyond lip service”, writes Roth. Peter Hall, director of Doctors for Human Rights believes that it is not only governments who should shoulder the responsibility of human rights. He says: “Citizens must be educated in human rights so that electorates can infl uence domestic and foreign policy in democratic counties.” But the world may already have a human rights champion in Norway. The country has taken the lead in helping the world to achieve the fourth Millennium Development Goal (MDG4), which aims to reduce by twothirds the mortality rate in children aged under 5 years. Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister of Norway, thinks that Norway’s work on MDG-4 is also helping to promote human rights. “I cannot think of any other endeavour that so eff ectively promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms than giving opportunities for healthy childhoods, safe motherhoods so that families can raise their children with greater hope for the future”, he told The Lancet.