UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, aims to stimulate dialogue and action to reclaim the integrity and universality of human rights
The 21-page vision, "Human Rights: A Path for Solutions", to protect and promote human rights, unveiled on Monday by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, offers an interesting yet unsurprising perspective, echoing the institutional failures of a once highly esteemed organisation now plagued by chronic illness and internal politics.
Contextualising this within the current global landscape reveals stark realities: amidst a world where 828 million people face regular hunger and the wealth of the five richest men has more than doubled since 2020, while nearly five billion others experience worsening financial conditions, the persistence of inequality undermines the universality of human rights. Highlighted by reports showing corporations amassing unprecedented profits at the expense of widespread wage cuts and with affluent countries disproportionately owning global wealth, it's clear that addressing systemic inequality is imperative for truly realising the principles of human rights on a global scale.
Seventy-five years after the UDHR, it's evident that the traditional approach to safeguarding these rights has been gravely distorted. Countries investing significant resources in global institutions like the United Nations have often exploited this noble cause to further their own agendas. This exploitation is camouflaged by elaborate narratives crafted to veil the abuse. Consequently, human rights have been commodified, attracting opportunists who profit from others' suffering, turning empathy into economic gain. This pervasive hypocrisy has plunged us into a moral abyss.
The essence of upholding human rights lies in fostering collective cooperation among diverse social entities. Collaborative efforts are essential for addressing shared challenges with a unified approach rooted in the defence of fundamental principles. To truly protect human rights, we must first cease treating it as a transactional commodity, devoid of its inherent dignity and worth.
There are contradictions evident within, as certain organisations prioritise increasingly self-serving agendas and select topics. A prime example lies in the misuse of veto powers by members of the United Nations Security Council when faced with certain resolutions on common challenges. Instead of collective action for common goals, organisations often prioritise their own interests, overlooking equally important but less visible human rights issues. Consequently, human rights have continually fallen victim to political interests and biased media behaviour. This explains why the death of a political activist in Russia garners global attention while the trial of Julian Assange and the sustained abuses he endures remain overlooked. This is where we need a radical approach to change.
Furthermore, the involvement of various actors such as policymakers, philanthropists, and government officials raises concerns regarding conflicts of interest and power dynamics within the network, potentially leading to the manipulation of human rights discourse to advance individual political or economic agendas and marginalise certain voices and perspectives. Additionally, while the vision calls on governments to protect human rights defenders and uphold freedom of expression and association, many governments perpetrate human rights violations themselves, casting doubt on their ability to serve as reliable protectors of human rights and potentially compromising the independence and efficacy of human rights advocacy efforts. Moreover, while human rights policies are pivotal for preventing violence and fostering sustainable peace, their application in conflict situations often encounters challenges stemming from conflicting interpretations of human rights obligations, oversimplifications of complex conflict dynamics, and the frequently disregarded early warnings and recommendations for preventive measures.
The concept of human rights economics offers promise in prioritising the well-being of individuals and the planet, yet concerns persist about its feasibility and susceptibility to exploitation. Despite states' obligations to fulfil economic, social, and cultural rights, uneven power dynamics and political agendas often obstruct progress. Western nations, self-proclaimed guardians of human rights, criticised for selectively advocating human rights to advance geopolitical interests, may encounter resistance from influential economic entities when proposing strategies to embed human rights in economic frameworks.
Efforts to bolster financial self-sufficiency and combat corruption commendably aim to prioritise human rights. However, the influence of multinational corporations and financial institutions, prioritising profit maximisation over human rights considerations, poses significant challenges. Additionally, while allocating resources toward education, healthcare, and social welfare in highly indebted nations is essential for advancing human rights, achieving debt relief and restructuring demands substantial political resolve and international collaboration, often lacking in a global economic paradigm favouring creditor and financial market interests over vulnerable populations.
The vision emphasises acknowledging the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment within legal frameworks, yet it inadequately addresses hurdles posed by nations resistant to environmental protection agreements. Despite progress in promoting environmental rights, the efficacy of these endeavours is hindered by a lack of global consensus. Moreover, while emphasising strategic prosecution and accountability to drive policy changes, it overlooks the disproportionate burden borne by vulnerable communities, especially in developing nations, facing environmental degradation and climate change impacts despite minimal contribution to the issue. Additionally, while critical, the insistence on meeting climate finance obligations is undermined by historically high-emitting countries shirking responsibility to support less developed nations, perpetuating environmental injustice and hindering global efforts to address the climate crisis.
The vision rightly pushes for the integration of human rights policies into climate action but neglects to hold accountable nations prioritising economic growth over environmental sustainability and disregarding the rights of indigenous peoples, who often bear the brunt of environmental degradation. Despite emphasising participation, ending discrimination, and fostering accountability, it fails to fully address systemic challenges perpetuated by certain countries which perpetuate inequalities and sidestep responsibility for human rights violations. Discrimination, often entrenched within governmental structures and powerful institutions, remains pervasive even in Western nations. Despite professed commitments to equality, these countries struggle with deep-seated inequalities and structural barriers that hinder meaningful inclusion and participation.
Furthermore, many member-states prioritise the interests of elite groups and corporations over those of marginalised communities, all while extolling the importance of participatory processes in shaping effective solutions. Monetary influence and institutional sway in politics frequently undermine democratic processes, impeding the implementation of policies that serve the broader populace. Additionally, although holding governments and corporate entities accountable for human rights violations is paramount, there often exists a notable lack of political will to prosecute perpetrators, particularly when they wield significant power.
Additionally, while it is imperative to address the crisis in education, the vision overlooks the root causes of this crisis, such as underinvestment in public education systems and persistent inequities in access to quality education. According to UNESCO, the number of out-of-school children surged to 250 million by September 2023, marking a staggering increase of 6 million from 2021. The urgency of the situation is evident, and mere rhetoric cannot suffice without an authentic and transformative approach.
Moreover, while acknowledging the disproportionate impact of environmental crises on younger generations, the vision lacks concrete proposals to address this pressing issue. Despite the existential threats posed by environmental degradation, governments often prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability.
It's praiseworthy to note that this latest vision acknowledges the necessity for deeper cooperation and coordination within the human rights system, implicitly recognising the presence of double standards and selectivity in dealing with human rights crises. This recognition is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability.
What's crucial, however, is that while advocating for the expansion and strengthening of human rights mechanisms, it lacks specific proposals to hold states accountable for their actions or address the root causes of double standards in human rights enforcement.
It fails to outline how these mechanisms will ensure fair treatment of all human rights violations. As the old school of thought teaches us, both action without vision and vision without action are deemed failures.
(The writer is a Sri Lankan journalist. Views are personal)
