|
REMARKS BY
THE HONORABLE MARY ROBINSON
March 17,
2004
Dr. Sadat, President Mote, Ladies
and Gentlemen, Dear Friends, I am deeply honored to have been invited by Dr.
Jehan Sadat and the University of Maryland to deliver this year's Sadat Lecture
for Peace, and to receive an honorary doctorate from this distinguished
University. It is humbling to give a lecture established in the memory of
President Anwar Sadat, a leader who demonstrated that peace is possible, even in
the most difficult of circumstances, if there is vision, courageous
leadership and bold action.
In this context of peace and
conflict our thoughts go out to the victims of bombing outrages a few short days
ago in Ashdod, Israel and those devastating bombs in Madrid just a week ago, aimed
to kill and injure as many innocent civilians as possible. Yes, we were
all on that train.
Language can be important in
defining actions and in shaping reactions. I have always argued that
terrorist bombings against civilian targets, no matter how appalling their
scale, are not war but vile acts of criminality. Indeed, at a certain
scale the perpetrators commit crimes against humanity under international law.
The focus and determination of civilized nations to hunt down such criminals,
their supply lines and money trails, should not be blurred by conferring on them
the status of being at war. It has been disturbing to hear words like
'appeasement' used to denigrate the democratic electoral process of the Spanish
people, who have a long and stoic experience of combating terrorism.
Today is Saint Patrick's Day and
members of the Irish diaspora around the world -- and our many friends here in
the United States -- are especially mindful of the complex, difficult,
long-drawn-out steps in forging a peace process in Northern Ireland. The
title I have chosen for my address is The Journey to Peace: Finding ourselves in
the other. It reflects what, for me, was President Sadat's great insight
as a leader. He understood, in reaching out to the people of Israel that
he was reaching out, not so much to a different nation or culture, but to a
shared human desire for acceptance, security and dignity.
It is, I believe, that ability to
acknowledge the equal dignity and rights of each person which is most lacking in
our world today.
Despite the advances in
technology and communications that link us more closely than ever before, there
remains the reality of division at so many levels in our world. We see
these divides between rich and poor, between women and men, between different
religions or ethnic groups, between citizens and migrants. We know as well
that these divides are at the core of so many of today's conflicts.
In my experience, both as
President of Ireland and as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
such divides were all too evident when I visited some of the globe's most
catastrophic conflict zones. I listened to civilian victims, government
leaders and combatants alike in places both near to home, like Northern Ireland,
and far away, such as Rwanda, Chechnya, Colombia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan.
A common thread in each situation
was an unwillingness on both sides to see 'the other,' or 'the enemy', as an
individual with hopes and dreams, and with equal rights. I saw how
patterns of discrimination in a society drove wedges between communities.
And, all too often, I saw how corrupt and undemocratic governments fueled
intolerance and denied people basic rights, thereby precipitating dissent and
rebellion.
But you might ask, if the
problems and their consequences are so clear, why does it continue to be so
difficult to act differently, and accept, as Maya Angelou put it in her
wonderful poem, Human Family, that "We are more alike, my friends, than we are
unalike?"
I believe that getting at the
answer requires, first of all, that we learn to deal more constructively with a
very basic human emotion - fear. As we all know, fear comes in many forms.
Fear of difference, fear that economic or social position is threatened, fear
that identity could be lost in an increasingly globalized world - all bring
about a range of reactions, and if pushed to extremes, to hatred, intolerance
and violence.
You can fin d signs of
contemporary individual and group fear just by looking at public perceptions of
current issues. Last year, for example, the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press published a survey conducted in 44 countries which revealed
that, although people generally have a favorable view of increased economic
connections commonly associated with globalization, sizeable majorities of those
polled and their "traditional ways of life" were being threatened and agreed
with the statement that "our way of life needs to be protected against foreign
influence."
A similar finding can be seen in
an EU poll released just last week which found that while the majority of
Europeans agreed that there was an economic need for more immigrants, eighty
percent still want a tightening of passport and other entry controls for
foreigners as part of a European Union asylum and immigration policy.
Clearly, fear is one of the drivers of such seemingly contradictory views.
And unfortunately in Europe today there are politicians and political parties
only too willing to exploit those fears.
If fear is a main factor,
education and factual information provide a remedy. For example, how many
people have really considered the demographic realities that developed economies
are currently facing? Aging populations and changes in the workforce make
it imperative that industrialized economies increase immigration if they are to
sustain themselves.
Moreover, how many realize that
money sent home by migrants to their families - in the form of remittances - is
a growing source of income that is vital to many countries? The
International Monetary Fund reported that in 2002 alone remittances from
migrants were around $100 billion, as compared with only $51 billion in global
development assistance. How many more people would be forced to leave
their homes if not for the remittances coming from their family members abroad?
As avenues for legal migration
become more and more limited, would-be migrants have increasingly resorted to
illegal entry and unauthorized stay. This has fuelled the activities of
human smugglers and traffickers who show little respect for the humanity of
their cargo. Unknown numbers have died in transit and those who do reach their
destination often find themselves trapped in a cycle of abuse and exploitation -
giving a new face to slavery in the modern era. They are part of a growing
population of undocumented immigrants who find themselves vulnerable to
exploitation in employment, to racist crime, and to security measures in the
context of the ongoing 'war on terrorism.' Can any of us say that we truly
identify with the situations faced by millions of today's migrants?
The public debate in most
countries around migration has thus far been marked by negativity, hostility,
and fear of migrants. What is needed today is a new approach, anchored in
human rights, that acknowledges both the potential problems and benefits for
receiving and sending countries.
At the international level, a
Global Commission on International Migration has been established to study these
issues further and make policy recommendations to UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan in 2005. I am pleased to be a member of this Commission which must
seek to reframe in a more positive way the migration debate, to understand that
the rights of people who have left their countries in search of greater human
security must be protected and that governments - both sending and receiving -
must be accountable. Last month, at the Commission's first meeting in
Stockholm, Commission members agreed that political leadership on this issue is
vital.
In a speech at the White House
last January to announce new proposals on US immigration policy, President bush
set out some of the problems that need to be addressed .The President noted:
"As a nation that values
immigration, and depends on immigration, we should have immigration laws
that work and make us proud. Yet today we do not. Instead, we
see many employers turning to the illegal labor market. We see
millions of hard-working men and women condemned to fear and insecurity in a
massive, undocumented economy."
President Bush went on to say
that the challenge was to make US immigration laws "more rational, and more
humane." I recognize the importance of focusing on working closely with
Mexico as it is the source of at least three-fifths of the United States'
undocumented immigrant population. At the same time, I would point out the
need to reflect seriously on policies concerning those from other neighboring
countries who seek refuge and economic opportunity in the United States.
The present situation in Haiti comes to mind.
Present US policy towards those
seeking to flee Haiti risks violating obligations under international law.
According to reports from US based groups such as Human Rights First, Haitians
currently interdicted at sea are not informed of their right to seek asylum and
are not interviewed by any U.S. official to determine whether or not they are in
danger of persecution if returned.
As difficult as a new inflow of
refugees would be to manage, we should call on the government to recognize that
no migrants should be returned to Haiti if the situation there is so dangerous
that their safety cannot be assured.
Important as the current focus on
migration is, it should not cause us to neglect other forms of discrimination
and intolerance which persist in the world today. One of the most
disturbing of these is anti-Semitism. Much recent media coverage of
anti-Semitism has centered on the situation in Europe where synagogues and
Jewish cemeteries have been defaced and Jews have been physically attacked on
the streets. While many in Europe will point out that the situation is a
complex one that cannot be easily equated with historical anti-Semitism on the
continent, it is vital that Europeans take effective action to stop these
reprehensible acts.
Nor should we forget the
anti-Semitic diatribes so common in the Middle East. Even in the United
States, on some prestigious college campuses, there have been attempts to cast
Israel as a pariah state and equate its actions with those of South African
apartheid, a first step toward questioning Israel's right to exist.
Allow me to reflect briefly on an
experience during my term as High Commissioner when I came face to face with
such anti-Semitism. It was in a setting I had hoped would be one of
tolerance and respect - The Durban World Conference against Racism.
I should give some brief
background on the Conference for those of you who may not be familiar with this
event which took place the first eek of September 2001, just days before the
terrible attacks on the US on 9/11. The decision to hold this Conference,
the third UN global forum to address the subject of racism, was taken by
the General Assembly in1997. It was decided that the Conference should
address in a comprehensive manner all forms of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related contemporary forms of intolerance, that it should be
action-oriented and focus on practical measures to eradicate racism, including
measures of prevention, education and protection and the provision of effective
remedies for victims.
I should also explain my own
role. At its session in 1998, the UN Commission on Human Rights requested
the UN Secretary General to designate the High Commissioner for Human Rights as
Secretary General of the World Conference. It is common for a Secretary
General of a UN Conference to be a senior UN official who is mandated with the
main responsibility for the preparations for and secretariat functions of the
Conference.
The decision to hold this
conference in Durban, South Africa was fitting given the country's own legacy of
racism and its inspiring example of reconciliation. As Secretary General
of the Conference, I was determined to play a role in helping make it a global
event which would encourage each society to ask itself hard questions. Is
it sufficiently inclusive? Is it non-discriminatory? Are its norms
of behavior based on the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights/ How best could the Conference confront the many horrors of
racism - from slavery to the Holocaust, from Apartheid to ethnic cleansing - and
agree on comprehensive measures to prevent them from happening again? To
encourage positive thinking, I had earlier presented a Vision Statement of
positive commitments, under the patronage of Nelson Mandela, which more than 80
Heads of State signed and which I hoped might influence government debates.
Unfortunately, some participants,
both inside and outside the Conference, wanted to make the conflict in the
Middle East, which at the time had entered a new phase of violence, the
principal focus of Durban. At the Non-Governmental Forum, a parallel
meeting which, as is common practice at UN conferences, was also held in Durban
to coincide with the inter-governmental discussions, some participants resorted
to blatant anti-Semitic speech and activities to convey their message.
And so, at a Conference in which
we were supposed to be defending human rights values, we found ourselves faced
with appalling bigotry and intolerance. I and many others condemned such
language and, in the circumstances, I refused to recommend the final NGO
document to the Conference.
Meanwhile in the Conference
itself, which was, of course, inter-governmental, attempts were also being made
to insert unacceptable language concerning Israel which had first emerged - in
brackets, and therefore not as agreed text - at the Asia regional preparatory
meeting for the Conference which was held in Tehran in February 2001. I
should point out here that, as is the practice in UN conferences, governments,
during regional preparatory meetings, are entitled to place on the table for
discussion issues they consider relevant. Such issues are then discussed
and negotiated in a lengthy process that ultimately reflects a global consensus
in the final document. Usually agreement is reached in the last hour of
the final day!
The decision by the US and Israeli
governments to leave the Conference before
its conclusion was regrettable because it
occurred during intense efforts to remove
the unacceptable language and make the event
a success. In the end, all anti-Semitic
language was successfully removed, but the
terrible attacks of 9/11 three days later
understandably prevented a considered
appraisal of the Durban outcome.
Now, more than two years later, I find that
many people want to understand what happened
in Durban, yet few here in the United States
are aware of the real progress that was
actually made. The final Declaration and
Program of Action are powerful tools for
lobbying governments, educating people,
empowering civil societies and establishing
frameworks for dialogue. Their specific
calls and strategies for countering
anti-Semitism, challenging rising xenophobia
and protecting minorities, indigenous
peoples, migrants and other vulnerable
groups should be used and not disregarded
out of hand.
Equally important, Durban created an
opportunity for victim groups around the
world, many of whom had been without a voice
on the world stage, to articulate their
concerns and engage their governments in a
new and powerful way. Groups representing
the Roma, the African-Descendant communities
in Latin America, migrants, the Dalits of
India and many other marginalized peoples
found in Durban an energizing place to forge
new alliances and strengthen grassroots
efforts to address the problems they faced
at home.
Perhaps what people in the US most want to
know is: what lessons can we learn from the
Durban experience in countering
anti-Semitism today? I would say, first,
that governments everywhere must acknowledge
that anti-Semitism is a virulent form of
racism and that anti-Semitic acts need to be
seen as violations of international human
rights law. Its governments need
systematically to monitor and report on hate
crimes, and to adopt aggressive measures to
prosecute those who are responsible.
Second, I believe we must all be vigilant in
distinguishing legitimate criticism of acts
by the Israeli security forces—which have
raised serious and legitimate human rights
concerns – from the anti-Semitism that
masquerades as concern. While rightly
condemning suicide attacks and other
assaults against civilians, the global
community must set and honor clear lines in
the debate about current Israeli practices
with respect to the Palestinians.
Supporters of Israel need to recognize that
criticisms of Israeli policies and practices
are not in and of themselves
anti-Semitic. Many human rights group here
and elsewhere are sharply—and I believe
rightly – critical of some of Israel’s
practices, such as targeted killings, based
on the application of universally accepted
international human rights norms. The Jewish
community should engage in this discussion,
and use its influence to challenge the
government of Israel whenever its policies
and security forces violate these
international standards.
At the same time, those who advocate for the
rights of Palestinians must ensure that
their criticisms and related actions do not
become broadside attacks against Jews and
the Jewish State. It is at this point that
they become racist. The conflict in the
Middle East between Israelis and
Palestinians—and by extension much of the
Arab world—will become even harder to
address if the rhetoric continues in this
way; if anger against Israel continues to
spill over into broader patterns of
antagonism against Jews, and if the speech
devolves into outright racism and calling
into question Israel’s right to exist.
And just as there has been a sharp rise in
anti-Semitism, so also, in the aftermath of
9/11, there has been a sharp increase in
Islamophobia and anti-Arab
sentiment. Families and even whole
communities live in fear or endure new
levels of hostility. Students are unable to
obtain visas, academics cannot attend
conferences and people worry about traveling
out of the country and being unable to
return.
All this leads me to a final point that I
believe we must look at together in an open
and honest way. There are some, in this
country and elsewhere, who suggest that
human rights concerns, including the
specific issues of discrimination I have
been raising this evening, might get in the
way of winning the peace or the war against
terrorism. But there can be no stable peace,
no true human security without human rights
and real public participation. There can be
no true enjoyment of human rights by all
where some are excluded by discrimination
and prejudice.
Can the future be different? Can we come to
expect greater shared responsibility for
realizing the rights which we proclaim as
being basic to a life of dignity for every
individual?
Let me share with you the deep sense of hope
and encouragement I experienced just last
week in Ireland. In a hotel near the border
with Northern Ireland I had been invited to
address a conference of local community
groups from areas such as North Belfast and
North Dublin where local people over several
months had been working through a
rights-based approach to their problems. The
theme of their conference was ‘participation
and the practice of rights in making
connections and owning outcomes.’ I met
senior citizens form both communities, and
women from the Shankill Protestant and the
Falls Catholic women’s centres in Belfast. I
met youth workers, former prisoners and
community activists, all engaged in a
conscious attempt to relate human rights
standards to their local experience in poor
housing estates and inner city
environments. In the process, they had
forged close friendships across the
religious and political divides of the
past. They were living Eleanor Roosevelt’s
philosophy, that if human rights are to
matter at all they must matter ‘in small
places close to home.’ ‘It isn’t easy,” they
told me, ‘but the experience has bonded us
together.’
I am also encouraged by examples of
innovative thinking here in the United
States. Some of you may be aware of a report
issued last year by the Migration Policy
Institute, titled America’s Challenge,
which, among other recommendations, proposes
the creation of an independent national
commission on integration to address the
specific challenges of national unity
presented by post-September 11 events and
actions. The report recommends that such a
commission should be guided by the principle
that the long-term interests of the nation
lie in policies that strengthen the social
and political fabric by “…weaving into it,
rather than pulling out of it, all
immigration and ethnic communities. In the
post-September 11 world, this means paying
special attention to the experiences of Arab
and Muslim communities, as well as to South
Asian communities who are sometimes mistaken
to be Muslim or Arab.”
The report calls for new policies that
consciously and systematically prevent
stigmatization of Muslim and Arab
communities and actively see them as adding
to the social, political, and security
strengths of the country. It highlights the
importance of educational instruction about
Islam and Muslim in schools and workplaces
and encourages interfaith dialogue at
national and local community levels.
The report points out that promoting
tolerance and pluralism is a huge challenge.
Like any other ethnic or religious minority,
the Muslim population alone cannot dispel
the prejudices about its communities and
religion. In the end, it is up to all of us.
I conclude with a simple truth which
President Sadat understood so well: whether
our world becomes a more brutal or a more
peaceful place, rests in our own
hands. Human rights have become the world’s
common benchmark for justice but they have
yet to become our common framework for
action. In giving his life for peace Anwar
Sadat gave inspiration to generations to
come. Yes, the challenges ahead are
formidable, the familiar catalogue of
problems and future obstacles remains to be
faced. Yes, we have a long road to travel
before human rights will be secured for
all. But I am convinced that this is a time
when civil society world-wide can make its
voice heard as never before.
If we can overcome doubts and fears, if we
can build on shared values and learn to
recognize ourselves in ‘the other,” this
century can, after such a tragic beginning,
become one of human development and human
security for all—a century of human rights
and peace.
Thank you, Dr. Sadat, for your vision in
keeping alive your husband’s ideals.
|
|
