|
|
|
Oxford, Thursday September 18, 2003
At the closing banquet of the 20th Oxford Analytica International Conference at Blenheim Palace, Mrs. Mary Robinson, President of The Ethical Globalization Initiative, former President of Ireland and former United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, gave the following powerful address.
David and Suzie Young, ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to be with you in these modest surroundings to take part in Oxford Analytica's 20th Annual International Conference.
In marking this anniversary, we should take a moment to reflect on David Young's original dream for Oxford Analytica. As David has put it, he wanted to "draw on the understanding and judgment of the most knowledgeable people around the world to provide detached, non-prescriptive, non-political, non-ideological, non-spin analysis for those in authority and for those exercising power."
You set yourself a worthy but difficult goal. Yet, two decades later, no one can doubt that you have achieved it. Oxford Analytica's daily briefs are considered a vital source of information around the world. And your annual International Conference provides indepth insights into the many global issues facing business and government leaders.
Over the past three days you have been exploring some of these issues, from perspectives on the role of US power in the world to assessments of the European Union at 25, from developments in corporate governance to the prospects post Cancun for the WTO, among others.
I would like to reflect this evening on an issue I didn't see mentioned specifically in your program but which I would imagine came up in many of your discussions:
What must be done to manage more effectively an increasingly interdependent, yet increasingly insecure world?
Human security is heavy fare for a speech after a fine banquet. But concern about it is the common bond for all of us in the post 9/11 world. Earlier this week there was a poignant piece in The New York Times about the fears of women in Iraq, which began:
"A single word is on the tight, pencil-lined lips of women here. You'll hear it spoken over lunch at a women's leadership conference in a restaurant off busy AI Nidal Street, in a shade-darkened beauty shop in upscale Mansour, in the ramshackle ghettos of Sadr City. The word is "himaya," or security. With an intensity reminiscent of how they feared Saddam Hussein, women now fear the abduction, rape and murder that have become rampant here since his regime fell. Life for Iraqi women has been reduced to one need that must be met before anything else can happen."
That reminded me vividly of a similar impression I had after a visit to Afghanistan: a realization that without human security the short term gains could be lost quite quickly.
As business leaders, you understand the importance of open markets and stable societies which respect individual freedoms and the rule of law. The first years of the 21st century have already brought us face to face with fundamental challenges to these objectives at many levels:
Terrorists have demonstrated how radical ideologies combined with the tools of global integration - such as communications technology - can be used to carry out unthinkable destruction and bring about threats to democracy and civil liberties at home and abroad.
The inability of the United Nations Security Council to reach common ground over how to deal with the situation in Iraq before and after the US led war has raised questions about the viability of multilateral institutions and the role of international law in maintaining peace and security.
And the global trade system, which has benefited rich nations enormously, continues to leave the poorest further behind and is widely perceived as being at the heart of economic and social insecurity for millions. The failure to reach agreement at Cancun has brought the management of the multilateral system itself into question.
What must be done differently to address these governance challenges?
How can we foster more accountable governments, more shared purpose between nations, more integration of economies and societies in a way which protects and empowers all people?
My message this evening is that what is needed is a shift in thinking and policy from addressing state security to achieving human security. That can only be advanced through a renewed commitment to and shared responsibility for human rights and human development.
In a recent paper on 'Human Security, Poverty and Conflict: implications for IFI reform', Nat Colletta who was Manager of the World Bank's Post-conflict Reconstruction Unit, referred to Amartya Sen's observation that 'Development is not only about the growth of GNP per head, but also about the expansion of human freedom and dignity', and then continued:
'The development aspects of human security include risk, vulnerability, and insecurity resulting from poverty; especially access to productive assets (land, capital and technology/knowledge) and basic services (health, education and clean water), gender disparities and other forms of inequality. These aspects constitute what is commonly referred to in the human security and human development literature as 'freedom from want'.
In addition, the development community is now addressing human security in the sense of 'freedom from fear' through the operational construct of 'governance.' Governance consists of the transparency, efficiency, and accountability of public institutions in the management of finances, goods, and services, including an efficient and non‑corrupt bureaucracy, the exercise of the rule of law, protection of human rights, and the distribution of justice.
Perhaps a third, less tangible, dimension of human security is 'freedom from despair.' This feature should be included in the broader definition of human security to capture the social & psychological aspects, including a sense of dignity, identity, efficacy, and hope, buttressed by an institutional and social network of support marked by interpersonal trust and societal cohesion.'
Allow me to reflect for a few moments on the differences between state security and human security. They may not appear so significant at first glance. As we know, at the international level, the notion of security has focused traditionally on state security and maintaining the balance of powers through the threat of military force. The terrorist attacks two years ago in the US have highlighted a new dimension, by addressing the threat posed by non-state actors operating transnational terrorist networks. But this new threat has only reinforced the importance governments around the world place on making policy decisions and taking actions in the name of protecting state security, or, as it is now called in the U. S., homeland security.
Clearly, coordinated international efforts are needed to track down those who are involved in terrorist networks. As you know, the banking industry, for example, has been a major focus of efforts to track the flow of terrorist money and to freeze assets of suspected individuals involved in supporting terrorist activities. Equally important, efforts to protect public infrastructure, aircraft and other likely terrorist targets and to regulate technologies that can be used by state and non-state actors alike as weapons of war have been central to government security measures around the world post 9/11.
Important though they are, are these current strategies alone enough? As Daniel Benjamin, a senior counter‑terrorism official under the Clinton administration, put it in the Los Angeles Times last week, in analyzing the US led war on terror, even as Al Qaeda has lost strength over the past two years, "Osama bin Laden's ideology continues to spread among most of the world's major Muslim populations..."
Some of the reasons for this lack of progress in the "war of ideas" have become all too clear. Strategies which rely solely on force may "shock and awe" but do little to "support and assist". The inattention to planning and resources for postwar Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. How would the situation in Iraq look different today if the US led coalition had been as effective in advance planning to give the Iraqi people a true sense of security after the fall of the regime, through safe streets, access to health facilities, proper information on steps being taken by the occupying authority, etc. as they were in defeating the regime?
Added to this, how has a strategy for regime change in Iraq which did not have UN backing helped to fuel further resentment and global insecurity?
What is needed now is a major course correction - a new approach. It must begin with a broader understanding of security. The most recent thinking on a more comprehensive approach has been done by an Independent Commission on Human Security co-chaired by Nobel Prize winner in economics, Amartya Sen and former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata. In its report, Human Security Now, the Commission argues that the international community urgently needs a new paradigm which shifts priority from the security of the state to the security of people - to human security.
This new approach means recognizing that human security is about both protection and empowerment. It stresses the importance of civil and political protections, but also makes clear the need to ensure socio‑economic, cultural and environmental conditions - including rights to health, education and decent employment among others - necessary for a life of dignity for all people.
On protection, the Commission makes clear:
"To protect people - the first key to human security - their basic rights and freedoms must be upheld. To do so requires concerted efforts to develop national and international norms, processes and institutions, which must address insecurities in ways that are systematic not makeshift, comprehensive not compartmentalized, preventive not reactive."
The Commission emphasizes that empowerment is:
"People's ability to act on their own behalf - nd on behalf of others... People empowered can demand respect for their dignity when it is violated. They can create new opportunities for work and address many problems locally. And they can mobilize for the security of others."
Of course, taking this approach to human security seriously will have consequences.
One which is raised most often by governments is the effect that a new focus on human security would have on state sovereignty. The classic portrayal of sovereignty sees the state as protector of its people. With the spread of democracy around the world, this picture has evolved to one of states being accountable to their citizens.
A human security focus raises the question of responsibilities to protect people in other countries whose rights are being violated when a government is unable or unwilling to act. As a new report, Duties sans Frontieres, by the International Council on Human Rights Policy - one of the partner organizations in the Ethical Globalization Initiative I am developing - points out, this assistance could take many forms, from military intervention in the case of genocide and other gross violations of the right to life, to adequate levels of development assistance in combating extreme poverty, food shortages, HIV/AIDS or other threats to human security.
But this approach also requires that outside actors look more carefully at the impact of their own practices as well. As the International Council's report suggests, when an outsider's policies can be shown to cause or aggravate rights violations, or prevent their fulfillment, there is an obligation to act.
Consider how this would apply to international trade policies. Governments negotiating in the WTO have done little to consider the potential impact of specific policies on the implementation of fundamental rights. The results have been devastating for millions of people in poorer parts of the world. One example of this is the way international trade rules concerning intellectual property rights have led to the exclusion of many people from access to essential medicines, notably to drugs needed by the developing world to inhibit the spread of HIV/AIDS, Malaria and TB. The agreement reached on this issue prior to the Cancun Ministerial meeting, if properly implemented, might change this for the better.
In a similar way, as you all know, much of the discussions in Cancun focused on how rich nations have used trade rules to open markets for their products while maintaining high tariffs on agricultural goods from developing countries and subsidies to farmers. This has had devastating effects on food security in poorer nations, many of which could improve living standards if only given a chance to export farm products at fair prices. As a New York Times Editorial on Tuesday, September 16th [2003], put it: "For struggling cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, and for millions of others in the developing world whose lives would benefit from the further lowering of trade barriers, the failure of Cancun amounts to a crushing message from the developed world - one of callous indifference."
But what would this shift in focus to human security, if implemented, mean for the business sector? How should responsible business leaders play a constructive role in fostering human rights and human security?
Before going any further, let me state clearly that national governments alone have the responsibility for putting systems of law and regulatory frameworks in place to protect human rights. Business has neither appropriate resources nor the legitimacy to replace governments.
Yet, at the same time, it is clear that multi-national businesses are major actors in world affairs today. More and more, we see a continuing trend towards the privatization of power, with governments looking to the private sector to play a role in providing services which impact directly on the security of individuals, communities and nations. Also, in the context of failed or weak states, companies may have additional responsibility for security of employees and of company assets, such as pipelines. This in turn may give rise to human rights concerns, such as in Colombia and Nigeria. Therefore, defining the appropriate role for business in governance issues is an important question which needs to be addressed head on.
In my travels to over 80 countries during five years as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, I was encouraged by the fact that business leaders increasingly recognized that they were not immune from human rights issues, and indeed had an important part to play in fostering greater respect for human rights in the countries where they operate.
But I also found that business leaders were unsure about where their responsibilities for human rights begin and end. They were concerned that by expressing their commitment to international standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they would be going beyond their proper role and risking their ongoing relationships with some governments.
Fortunately, there are a growing number of tools available to business leaders who are seeking guidance in taking on, in an appropriate way, their responsibilities for human rights.
One important development I would mention is the adoption of UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights by the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights a month ago. The Norms are not a binding set of standards, but they are the first authoritative interpretation of the responsibilities of corporations under international human rights law by a UN human rights body.
The UN Norms and their explanatory Commentary will help businesses know about and comply with relevant human rights laws. They provide a useful road map for action that transcends the sometimes conflicting provisions of the different privately developed codes of conduct that exist today.
As a recent policy brief by Oxford Analytica points out:
The Norms are a comprehensive description of companies' risks in relation to reputation beyond economic conduct. Most existing codes only cover core labour rights.
The Norms might also enhance the quality of stakeholder relations. Since many NGOs base their work on human rights principles, adopting the Norms enables companies to understand and communicate positions on sensitive issues in the same language.
Companies that have invested in corporate social responsibility will probably be better able to reap the benefits of such investment. The Norms will level the playing field and open the comparison between companies, thus establishing the basis for competition on better performance.
The Oxford Analytica Daily Brief stresses that "the advantages for business outweigh by far the perceived risk of binding compliance. In the longer term, binding standards may indeed benefit the private sector by strengthening the rule of law in general."
I'm glad to report that a number of multinational companies have committed themselves to a 3 year process to determine how human rights can be fully integrated into company policies and processes. The recently launched Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights, which is supported by Respect Europe and by the Ethical Globalization Initiative, seeks to better define the interface among business, government, and NGO responsibilities for ensuring respect for the full range of human rights. An early commitment the companies participating in the Business Leaders Initiative are making is to test the UN Norms within their own organizations.
I would encourage all of the companies represented here to study the UN Norms and to agree to test their validity in your own operations at home and abroad as part of your commitment to fostering greater human security for all.
I also wish to stress the important advocacy role business leaders can play in helping win the competition of ideas over what security means in human rights terms, and how it can best be ensured for all. As you know well, public opinion matters today as never before, and my concern is that the competition of ideas is being lost in the current war on terrorism. An alternative set of ideas put forward by advocates for change is desperately needed. By combining their voices, business leaders can be powerful advocates for human security which gets at the root causes of the discrimination and despair which have fueled growing discontent around the world.
In the end, I believe it is that new narrative - a new global agenda that all people can rally around - which is so desperately needed. At the heart of that new agenda must be the recognition that our welfare is intimately bound up with the welfare of every other person on the planet. Our security depends on the security of our fellow men and women, whether they live on the next street or the next continent.
Instead of putting up walls of fear and resorting only to the strategies of power politics, we should seek ways to focus even more on promoting in practice shared values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, respect and shared responsibility which can unite rather than divide North and South, rich and poor, religious and secular, us and them.
Thank you.
