The Social Medicine Portal

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE CENTRAL OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT; IT IS UTTERLY INSUFFICIENT TO REFER TO THEM AS ONE OF THE ‘CROSS-CUTTING’ ISSUES. (part 2 of 3)

Food for a thought that does not represent the people

Human Rights Reader 270

The role of claim holders and duty bearers*

1. With an emphasis on development results that actually ought to be seen as fulfilled human rights, duty-bearers become accountable in a variety of ways: through budgetary allocations, through building capacity on work to realize specific rights, as well as through securing rule-of-law in general and, more specifically, securing judicial-enforcement mechanisms for human rights (HR).

*: It is important to be reminded here: a) that most development texts still use the term ‘stakeholders’ instead of the more appropriate terms ‘claim-holders’ and ‘duty-bearers’, and b) that claim-holders and duty-bearers are roles into which individuals (or groups of individuals) are expected to enter. This means that the same individual may be both a claim-holder and a duty-bearer at the same time, but in relation to different individuals and/or institutions.

2. It is further important to understand that an issue chosen becomes a right only if it has been codified in a HR Covenant or Convention. This then means that all people have that right  –in HR parlance they are bona-fide rights-holders. If a country (state party) has ratified that treaty, individuals move from being just rights-holders to being a claim-holders with valid claims on others, i.e., the correlative duty-bearers. This forms a ‘claim-duty pattern’ in society, in which, most often, the state is the ultimate duty-bearer**.  So, remember: It is claim holders that support the indispensable demand side of human rights!

**: It is said that non-state duty-bearers do not have duties, but rather responsibilities.

Donors as duty bearers?

3. It is interesting to note that donors consistently choose the term and pursue ‘equal opportunities’ rather than ‘equal results’. It can be argued that the second term is more human rights-reflective than the first since, in HR work, it is results that ultimately count.

4. It is not a surprise then that, in donor meetings, the discussion has been deliberately avoided of the two currently competing trends in the emerging paradigm struggle of international development cooperation, i.e., ‘the aid effectiveness’ and ‘the realization of human rights’ paradigms.

A major reason for donor countries to avoid HR commitments and even, in some cases, HR language (and the Right to Development, in particular), is their rejection of the idea that there is an obligation of donor countries to provide and to increase their aid.***

***: In the Millennium Declaration negotiations, MDG 8 (‘A global Partnership for Development’ that includes the demand for predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial systems; addressing the special needs of the least developed countries including landlocked and small island developing states; and dealing comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries) was not proposed by the donor countries, but by the developing countries who refused to sign the Declaration unless it was included.

5. Additionally symptomatic is the fact that HR and the right to development are not mentioned in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (March 2005), in spite of the fact that MDG 8 is about developing a global policy for donors, with seven targets. Paris did not address any of the targets of MDG 8 either. (R. Bissio)

6. So, after March 2005, we were left with the question that should have been answered in Paris in the first place, namely: What is, and what should be, the place of human rights conditions and indicators in the frameworks governing the flow of donor funds?

7. We have always thought that the human rights framework is a good starting point for a political dialogue between donors and partners to define the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ boundaries of acceptable behavior with respect to HR and related political governance issues****. Such a dialogue has regrettably not happened openly. Strong pronouncements thus need to be made by civil society and by poor countries’ governments to move donors beyond broad political statements, including only generic references to human rights.

****: Indeed, HR do make a contribution to the governance agenda.

The Paris Declaration and HR

8. It should first be made very clear that the Paris Declaration is not a human rights document. One could maybe even say that the Paris Declaration is an anti-human rights document in that it systematically missed any reference to HR at a point in time when most development-oriented documents did make such a reference. (In all honesty, the Paris Declaration implicitly does ‘refer’ to human rights in just a few places). It is by now thus openly admitted that the Paris Declaration does not provide any ready-made and fully-consensual framework for the integration of the HR framework in foreign aid.

9. The issue of mutual accountability, for instance, is the least developed Paris Declaration principles; it would have benefited from a human rights perspective. Civil society’s capacity to hold donors accountable thus needs to be strengthened. Therefore, capacity development in HR (i.e., HR Learning) for civil society is, again and again, a key challenge.

10. Actually, the most prominently missing element in the Paris Declaration is its almost total lack of attention to the governance context. We are clear: Only by integrating HR into the Paris Declaration principles can we  compensate for the low attention it gives to governance; only such an integration will: a) strengthen the link between aid effectiveness and the achievement of desirable development outcomes, and b) compensate for the pitifully narrow and technocratic focus of the Paris Declaration. The remaining challenge, therefore, is to find the practical way to bring the HR perspective to the implementation aspects of the Paris Declaration.

11. On the one hand, the Paris Declaration does offer good potential entry points for HR-inspired approaches by promoting a model of partnership that explicitly addresses accountability gaps and focuses on stronger and more balanced accountability mechanisms. But, on the other hand, it fails to provide institutional mechanisms to address ever-present asymmetries in power. That leaves out the discussion of the serious democracy and legitimacy deficits we see in the present aid architecture, dominated as it is by donor countries of the OECD, the World Bank and regional development banks. The UN lacks any leverage to promote its priorities in the Paris Declaration, because it was not involved in its genesis from the start! (Y. Tandon)

12. More seriously, and through the back door, the Paris Declaration brings-in quite a bit of what developing countries had already turned down. Why? Because it really does not distance itself from the Bretton Woods institutions so that it suffers from the same credibility and legitimacy gap than those institutions.

13. The relationships between the Human Rights Principles of equality/non-discrimination, participation/inclusion, transparency and accountability, and the five Paris Declaration Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonization, mutual accountability and management for results) must be somehow merged in a formal way –beyond the perception that HR are one of many equally important concerns.

14. Finally, the Paris Declaration makes little mention of the donors home-based, domestic accountability to its citizens. Human rights can contribute to strengthened domestic accountability in both donor and partner countries.

15. Bottom line, HR thinking and practice do have the potential to help in filling the rather substantial gaps that exists for the operationalization of the Paris Declaration.

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cshuftan@phmovement.org

____________________________

Adapted from ‘How to integrate and strengthen a human rights-based approach in program-based approaches’, Urban Jonsson, February 2010.

Postscript: All the above made it extremely difficult to include any type of HR language in the Accra Agenda for Action that reviewed the Paris Declaration in 2008. Even if  HR are mentioned in a few places in the Accra Agenda for Action, this does not, in any way, qualify the Agenda to be a ‘human rights document’ or even a document that has included the ‘human rights perspective’. At best, it gives it rhetorical lip-service –mostly to please some of the critical civil society organizations that attended… Depressing?  You bet! A lutta continua.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE CENTRAL OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPMENT; IT IS UTTERLY INSUFFICIENT TO REFER TO THEM AS ONE OF THE ‘CROSS-CUTTING’ ISSUES. (part 1 of 3)

Food for a thought that does not represent the people

Human Rights Reader 269

-Donors have done pretty much as they wished for quite some time now, and this has not been beneficial for the developing countries. (J. Cedergren)

-Some say that human rights goals can be achieved in  programs that have not formally mainstreamed human rights. This, of course, is not even closely true.

-Realizing the fulfillment of human rights is also much more than just an outcome in development programming.

Let me start this Reader with a disclaimer: The systematic use of the word ‘rights’ instead of ‘human rights’ reflects a lack of understanding of their differences in human rights work. ‘Rights’ emphasize the moral aspect and often this does not refer to International Human Rights Law, while ‘human rights’ include both the ethical/moral and the international legal aspects. Human rights thus reflect both morality and legality; the former because they reflect universal moral codes; the latter because they are codified in international human rights law.*

*: A caveat is due here though: A disproportionate emphasis on the legal framework establishing obligations and entitlements and on legal avenues for claiming human rights (HR) can act as a barrier to open a transparent dialogue between claim holders and duty bearers involved in development efforts using the human rights-based approach.

Applying the HR-based framework to development planning:

1. In line with the MDGs, and in pursuing greater social justice**, when we apply the HR-based framework, the ultimate challenge we face is to significantly sharpen our focus on disparity reduction while incorporating the human rights perspective in all interventions, i.e., a perspective that fully reflects the aspirations and demands of poor and marginalized people.

**: Although the concepts of justice and human rights are interrelated they are not the same, and their relationships are sometimes both complicated and controversial.

2. In this context, the analytical steps followed when applying the HR-based framework stand out clearly; this, primarily because they help us asking the right questions. But we know that most development programs are not prepared as human rights-based programs despite the fact that there is an unequivocal international agreement on the need to apply the HR-based framework in development programming. This being so, are the right questions being really asked right now? In this day and age, to ask and to respond to the latter question, development planners have no choice but to include ratified human rights treaties’ and general comments’ standards and principles in preparing their development plans.**

**: Perhaps one of the strongest aspects of the HR-based framework is the fact that most donor and partner countries have ratified international human rights covenants and conventions which are legally binding according to international human rights law. In the HR-based framework, there is no doubt about who is accountable and accountable for what! It reminds everybody that no one is above the law and that, therefore, no one should escape with impunity. (We are here further reminded that the preparation, implementation and monitoring of almost all Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers did not respect key human rights principles, in particular participation, inclusion and transparency).

3. Central to keep in mind in all of the above is:

• We need to set up many, many participatory dialogues that allow claim holders and duty bearers to analyze the obstacles to development that need to be overcome. There is plenty evidence that the active claiming of rights is an efficacious way of achieving better development outcomes. (These dialogues represent an indispensable contribution to the development of a social consensus about development outcomes and about the processes needed to reach those outcomes).
• We thus need –but have, so far, failed– to better and more widely explain to the  different actors in development work why a human rights-based programming process has a better chance of achieving human rights and sustainable outcomes.

4. Why are these two key points central? Because governments’ relevant human rights commitments need to be explicitly included and referenced in their respective development plans –and also, importantly, included in the goals and in the process indicators they choose to pursue and monitor. There are good reasons for thinking that results-monitoring-systems that put the accent on results-as-rights or results-which-are-fulfilled-rights are more successful in mobilizing domestic pressures for better performance than systems that use the dry and technical language of the monitoring and evaluation tools of the World Bank. For example, as regards the MDGs, evaluating aid effectiveness needs to be integrally linked to supporting human rights, democratic governance, environmental sustainability and gender equality –which the Bank does not systematically do; (each of them separately is necessary, but not sufficient). There is thus the urgent need to change the development monitoring system and move it out of the realm of the World Bank and into the realm of human rights. Several tools, human rights indicators and benchmarks are now under development and piloting.***

***: As a priority, we have to ensure that indicators are framed in human rights terms, for example, by linking them to specific components of each identified violated human right.

5. As a corollary, we thus need to proactively promote the inclusion of an explicit human rights perspective in development programming, both  through dialogue and through the promotion of broad-based national participation, including both a representative array of development and human rights organizations.

6. Moreover, despite the fact that human rights work focuses more on public sector reform than on public finances reform, there remains the challenge to align the financing of HR components in national development plans with the existing government budgetary system –and this will not always be easy in practice.

7. Finally, HR do establish that there should be citizen-based ownership (rather than government ownership). But although the human rights perspective is geared towards promoting citizen-based ownership, be reminded that there are several degrees of ownership, simply because optimal conditions require substantial institutional capacity that often does not exist at the base. (Yet another challenge for HR Learning here!). This then provides us guidance on how program ownership ought to be operationalized. In other words, modest human rights initiatives within the reach of existing capacity stand a better chance of success than grandiose schemes. (E. Pavignani)

8. On the one hand, the focus of our work must thus be on strengthening the relationship between the citizenry and the state –manifested by a growing bargaining power of claim holders. But, on the other hand, keeping in mind that the human rights perspective needs to strengthen country ownership rather than government ownership, we better never forget that Ministries of Planning or Finance do not represent the people!

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cshuftan@phmovement.org

____________________________

Adapted from ‘How to integrate and strengthen a human rights-based approach in program-based approaches’, Urban Jonsson, February 2010.

A BRIEF INQUIRY INTO MARKETS, CAPITALISM, GLOBALIZATION, CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS.

Food for an inquiring thought

Human Rights Reader 268

-Liberalism defends the interests of the intellectual elite; conservatism defends the interests of the financial and industrial elite. The question is: Who defends the interests of human rights? (…and are we a minority or a majority?).

-Historically, in good part, the market has been stronger than democracy because, by its nature and greed, the market respects no boundaries; enforcing democracy and human rights do have boundaries. (A. Gomez)

1. Spoiled by its iniquitous economic success, the Western world has become arrogant. The arrogant victory of financial markets (with all its excesses) has been possible due to the fact that, under the law of the jungle, markets have really fallen in the hands of the mightiest as they sow segregation, discrimination and violence the world over; the ensuing ‘casino economy’ has ended up taking its own excesses to their last consequences…. immorally and to the detriment of human rights (HR). Ergo, considering the free market as a final response to the-major-social-questions-of-our-day-and-age is a dangerous fallacy. (G. Soros)

2. In Capitalism, the market is the great moralizing medium. Its guns smartly shoot on our unconscious. The market, (the essence of Capitalism*) makes things as cheap as possible and sells them as expensive as possible. Since we live in consumer societies, do not be fooled by this: we are treated as objects.

*: Somebody said that, in Capitalism, we are all slaves of economic theorists who long passed away. Somebody else was of the opinion that monetarism is the opium of economists.

3. Furthermore, in Capitalism, natural and human resources have been made profitable sources of revenue for the haves while the have-nots have been conveniently relegated to a position where they do not challenge the system and do not claim their rights. (P. Salvat)

4. The truth already expressed by Lenin, a century ago, is that social justice [human rights] cannot be subordinated to the interests of capitalist production. Those behind those interests and values hate new social order ideas (human rights included?) and consider them to be subversive. Individuals representing these values hold office in modern national governments and often only serve the power designs of local elites; they can and do thus subvert, for instance, HR-empowering initiatives. (N. Malik) So, do not be fooled here either: There are vested interests in the Capitalist system that, so far, we have left unaddressed in our quest for a fair and just world.

5. Let us retain, then, that Capitalism is incapable to fairly respond to urgent, overdue social demands; by its nature, Capitalism is excluding. This is where the HR paradigm clashes with such an unjust and inequitable ideology.

Many transnational corporations desperately try to ‘reconfigure their DNA as responsible profit seekers’. 

-The accounting of what transnational corporations  earn and what they spend does not fall into the spectrum of the exact sciences. (Z. Acevedo Diaz)

-These corporations are more interested in creating shares with value than creating shared values. (M. Cohen)

6. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become the mantra of an economic sector desperate to metamorphose itself into a new image or incarnation. This leads to CSR actions that are often knee-jerk reactions –and are often convoluted and non-transparent. (Also, being a vague concept, CSR means different things to different corporations).**

**: Note that, overall, corporations are cutting back on their direct ‘philanthropy’, but less so on their CSR initiatives….the latter have a bigger pay-off for them! (R. Stengel. Time Magazine, Sept 21, 2009)

7. Originally, CSR was to go beyond merely fulfilling promises. The idea was that corporations should rise to social and environmental challenges voluntarily. But, in reality, more often than not, CSR has only been about whitewashing the corporations public image. (On environmental issues, the term ‘greenwashing’ is used).***

***: Only 59% of the 1000 largest US corporations have publicly available environmental policies. Fewer than 8% go to the trouble of having third party verify their corporate social responsibility reports.

8. Real added value in all this can only arise from an external monitoring that holds corporations accountable for their actions –especially in HR terms. Therefore, in HR work, we insist on using the term Corporate Social Accountability. These accountability checks have to be in the hands of civil society since the risk of ‘regulatory capture’ –where the regulators act in favor of special interests– is real. The regulation needed has to ultimately regulate and harness the private sector in relation to HR and the ‘rights of nature’.

Globalization is a threat to the world, because it signifies a victory of the market over democracy and over human rights. (A. Gomez)

The globalization process divides the world into controllers and the controlled. In the world of the globalized free market we live–in, the ‘liberty of  money’ demands that the dispossessed be constantly imprisoned in the jail of fear and fright –which is the worst of all jails. (E. Galeano)

9. Millions of workers, farmers and families find themselves on the wrong side of globalization. Globalization is not inevitable –there are forces that can reshape its negative effects, and HR must become one of those forces.

10. In our globalized world, solidarity (mutual responsibility) begins to dry out and people’s eyes turn towards possession, i.e., a narcissist self-realization; values get centered more on having than on being; personal realization is opposed to solidarity and to human rights.

11. In this context, it is generally not true that most international NGOs bring pluralism to corporate and state-led Globalization. They can indeed be part of the problem. On the other hand, they cannot represent actors they work-with in the field if the latter are voiceless in decision-making processes that affect them.

12. At the international official level, we have to face the reality that members of the Group of 20 are more concerned with the stability of the world’s financial system than with the interests of developing countries and the status of HR in them. Confronted with such a situation, there are few points of entry for active HR work to take roots. But we certainly are not deterred by this: We find those few points…

13. Economic measures packages imposed on poor countries by international financial institutions (IFIs) controlled by the Group of 8 should actually bear a sign that says: “it has not been proven that this product is beneficial for the health, the livelihoods and the wellbeing of poor people”. (A. Gomez)

14. Unfortunately, the world is full of corrupt formal democracies that, in part in order to pay their international debt to those IFIs, foster and keep-good-relations-with and pay-allegiance-to monopolistic transnational corporations (TNCs).****

****: It would not seem facetious to say that, if things continue like this, corruption will become a legal behavior and the crime will be to denounce it. (A. Gomez)

14a.[Note that the United Nations also has formal links with TNCs . As regards HR, the UN has some norms on the responsibilities of these TNCs. The latter norms were adopted by the UN Sub-committee on the Promotion and Protection of HR in 2003. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G03/160/08/PDF/G0316008.pdf?OpenElement  Prior to that, in 2000, a ‘UN Global Compact’ with the transnational private sector was launched as a voluntary initiative of UN institutions, governments, business and civil society to function as a network to promote the principles of accountability, transparency and partnership in the fields of labor, the environment and HR. Historically, the Compact has been rather weak in terms of monitoring what it preaches. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/]. 

The other face of Globalization

15. I am further worried by something else: Our youth seems more interested in the other face of Globalization (the information superhighway, iPhones, ‘apps’, music downloads, 3d online games, Facebook and Twitter connectivity, among other). We have to overcome this downward spiral of disdain for social issues like HR. We have to do so by using the same media to give more appropriate direction and guidance to the general public and to our youth on options to counter the negative effects of Globalization and to more aggressively foster the principles of human rights.

In sum

16. An effective strategy against Globalization and its negative effects on human rights is possible, but demands the same kind of intellectual and action-oriented commitment and vigor that characterized anti-colonial or independence struggles.

17. Taking a minimalist stand towards the negative effects of Globalization will do no harm, but neither will it do much good.  Inertia in history (has) and will always work(ed) against the more visionary and radical changes necessary when the same fall outside the ruling paradigm.

18. Make no mistake, these are matters determining the lives of millions of people. We all know that “when all is said and done, a lot more is said than done”.  It is, therefore, not enough to bring these issues under the spotlight; we need to make more light!

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

________________________

Adapted from A. Gomez, Despojos y Semillas, Editorial Belgrano, Buenos Aires, 1997; A. Gomez, Tiempo de Descuento, Editorial El Fin de la Noche, Buenos Aires, 2009; A. Gomez, Ultimo Patio, Ed. Turmalina, Buenos Aires, 2009; Z. Acevedo Diaz, La Dama de Cristal, Fondo Editorial Casa de las Americas, La Habana, 1999; Development in Practice, 19:8, 2009; The Broker, Issue 9, Apr 2010; D+C 37:5, May 2010 and 37:7-8, July/Aug 2010; and F+D, 47:2, June 2010.

ACTIVITIES ACHIEVE OUTPUTS. PROGRAMS ACHIEVE OUTCOMES. BUT TO ACHIEVE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT, CLAIM HOLDERS HAVE TO BECOME DE-FACTO CLAIMANTS.

Food for thought potpourri

Human Rights Reader 267

-For the HR paradigm to impose itself, small is beautiful, but big is necessary. (F.H. Abed)

-The thinking that created the problem cannot be the same as that which will solve it. (Albert Einstein)

1. For this Reader, allow me to get back to my files and put together a few not necessarily connected ideas extracted from different sources.

2. As this Reader has argued before, the (not so) veiled attempt to castigate the emerging human rights (HR) paradigm is but one more aggression of the ‘Development Establishment’ that adds insult to injury to the debate on how to achieve real sustainable development.

3. But the debate and our struggle continues its relentless advance. Here is just a sample of the issues it comprises.

A. When can we expect the widespread introduction of HR standards and principles to become a reality? … When most players agree.

4. The most facetious response I ever heard from a recalcitrant duty bearer was: “Yes, hmmm, human rights… we think it is urgent to wait”. This is just one extreme example of how the elites have failed to connect the ivory tower they live-in to main street. Whether they are based on reason, conjecture or delusion, they embark in a string of patch solutions that may be partially effective, but ultimately, effective only to buy the haves some time. Let us be clear: In HR work, trite, banal or cliché as it may sound, a cookie-cutter-approach does not work.

5. Being basically silent about HR violations is to-all-intents-and-purposes accepting HR violations as a fait-accompli. It is a political fact that the height of indifference, of lack of social consciousness and of concern has no known ceiling.  (J. Koenig)

6. For example, as self-interested-outsiders to the development process, transnational corporations (TNCs) are simply not adhering to the ‘triple bottom line’ of profit, planet and people they say they are willing to abide by, i.e., trying to improve environmental and workers conditions as they make a profit. Although they claim to abide by this triple bottom line in their glossy brochures (full of value-laden words and ambiguities), this is yet another example of one of those empty buzz phrases of corporate social responsibility for which TNCs are so well known.

7. Two further examples come to mind here: a) many of our rulers defend the idea of immigration, but hate immigrants (don’t they?), and b) on top of that biased inconsistency, yet another one: when they talk about citizens rights, they  invariably leave out migrants and refugees. (I. Allende)

(This, of course, goes against HR principles).

8. The fact that key duty bearers do not really care is not intuitively appealing. But this is the reality we face. The evidence is there to show it. Therefore, given the current gap between people’s aspirations and the results of past and current development initiatives, we have no choice but to rise to the challenge, i.e., we have to embark in a critical tactical counterattack –an attack for equality*, for social justice and for dignity ergo for human rights. (A. Gomez)

*: Note that equity is a justice term; equality is the equivalent human rights term.

9. The problem with such a counterattack is our own hesitant attitude towards it and, in general, the way we are. Whether we call it a lack of commitment or a  lack of will is irrelevant here; it is just a semantic difference. (I am aware this causal argument of mine may well be only partially true, but I am here just expressing an inconvenient truth that flies in the face of the argument that most of our fellow development workers are indeed adopting the HR-based framework in their work. The truth is they are not –yet.

10. This brings us to consider what we are told versus what is really happening with the current development process. The fate of what is ‘true’ in development work is quite sad: variously manipulated, it too often ends up being a lie**. (But although not really a consolation, deep down, for the liar, every lie implies a tacit recognition of the truth). (A. Gomez) The problem is that many of our colleagues do not mind being lied-at, as long as the lie does not affect them directly…and that, I am afraid, is the problem with some of our fellow development workers.

**: Note that myths are not necessarily lies (even if many are…). They can be great stories that entice us to believe we can actually achieve what we set out to do. (S. George)

11. At this point, it is worth borrowing from Albert Einstein. He reminded us that “the real purpose of [human rights] is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development”.*** (He actually used socialism instead of human rights).

***This reminds me of an old joke: Here is a definition of dialectics: Hello, is this the Hegel residence? … “Yes and no”. (A. Gomez)

12. Jokes aside, what it all boils down to is: We may be intelligent, but do we have the right experience?  If we do, have we learned from that experience? (F. Stern)  Does that experience tell us that the HR-based approach is the strategy whose time has come? Do any of you hesitate? If yes, why?

13. I contend that too many of our colleagues are not rescuing what is substantial from the things they have experienced to apply it to what matters for HR. Maybe this is an exaggeration, but it is becoming part of the local folklore in our guild in many places the world over. (Z. Acevedo Diaz)

14. For instance, in terms of experience: What have we learned from the corruption of the ‘hambourgoisie’? (If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys; if you pay truffles, you get pigs). What have we learned from public-private-for profit partnerships (PPPPs)? (Best characterized by two brothers who own one cow: one feeds the cow, the other enjoys the benefits of milking the cow).

15. We have to bring such experiences (and many other) to a level of ‘impertinent consciousness’ (Sub-comandante Marcos) where we will be so disturbed that we will act. The crucial role of Human Rights Learning cannot be emphasized enough here.

B. Earth Rights.

16. A topic I have hardly covered before in the Readers is that, along the lines of HR, one can speak of the rights of nature. Nature is also being neoliberalized. As a consequence, we can say we are living in a planet that has already started to die –faster than its inevitable cosmic fate.**** (Faced with such a fast degradation of the environment in our little planet, one can say the relentless process is like a child sitting in a chocolate house who starts to eat its walls without understanding that at any time, if anything is left, the house will collapse on him/her. (C. Castoriadis and A. Gomez)  A new tough-hitting Green Movement has emerged strongly though. Indeed a welcome development in the direction of the rights of nature.

****: Il n’y a que le provisoire qui dure. (F. Stern)

17. But beware: As a matter of fact, some tendencies in the ecological movement can also sometimes be quite reactionary –not always in sync with  HR standard and principles. This controversy has a clear ideological tint to it and is not meant in a judgmental sense here…I think outlier tendencies like that will eventually die out.

18. Bottom line: I am actually an optimist. Nature’s protection drive will win over its abuse. (…As hopefully also the movement for women’s rights will displace patriarchy).

C. Science and human rights.

19. Just for your  reassurance: The new HR paradigm has a strong foundation in the philosophy of sciences: It can be soundly and scientifically applied to achieve veritable social change.

20. Now, because the dynamics of change is often different for science (and technology) than for society*****, we do need a drastic change in this domain. (Just consider how many scientific conferences where the best meet the brightest have become so awfully elitist and disconnected from society’s urgent needs. Also, and not facetiously, keep in mind that to steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research).

*****: In society, all we describe as reality is always an interpretation since ideology plays a key role in finding what one looks for. (A. Gomez)

21. As opposed to the one way flow of charity, if we apply the HR principles of universality-inalienability, individuality, interdependence-interrelatedness, equality-nondiscrimination, participation-inclusion, accountability-rule of law and empowerment, our actions in development work will not be open to ambiguous interpretations; these principles are scientifically sound and are clearly established in international HR law.

22. Moreover, as you know, we are called to make sure HR are respected, protected and fulfilled (facilitated and provided for). In other words,

• Respect means to do no harm to others.

• Protect means to prevent harm to others by third parties.

• Facilitate means to help others to meet their own rights.

• Provide for means to meet others’ needs when they cannot do that themselves.(G. Kent)

23. The bottom line here is that, for progress to be made in HR work, what we really need then is research-for-HR as opposed to HR-research. The former, importantly focuses on the multi-tiered actions needed to achieve HR impacts using HR-based processes.

Epilogue

24. To quote Isabel Allende yet again, by now, I have lost the arrogant certitude I had in my youth. I have learned the hard way that there is a distance between what is necessary and what is indispensable. I nowadays go for the latter. As Leo Tolstoi did, I now understand that every human tragedy is unique for those who suffer it –and this is what is at the core of the HR-based approach.

25. Due to its vital force, in our youth, we are inspired more by hope than by confidence. (Ortega y Gasset) If there is one thing I have gained as I reach the golden age, that is confidence. The question is: Have I been plowing in the ocean though? I see a future not so bleak; I do not dare to be pessimistic. (D. Acheson)  Reason will eventually be instilled into ‘homo sapiens/demens’ and (as the song goes…) we shall overcome….some day. (L. Boff)

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

____________________

Adapted from D+C, Vol.35, No.11, Nov 2008; The Broker, Issue 9, Apr 2010, Issue 15, Aug 2009, Issue 16, October 2009, Issue 20/21, July 2010 and  Issue 22, Oct/Nov 2010; and  Development in Practice, 19:8, 2009.

Postscript: For those of you who have followed these Readers, you know that, basically, I am a ‘hunter-gatherer writer’. This explains the potpourri in this Reader. Potpourri or not, I write to fight (or try hard to speak Truth to Power).

THE REAL POTENTIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS LIES IN ITS ABILITY TO CHANGE THE WAY PEOPLE PERCEIVE THEMSELVES VIS-A-VIS THE GOVERNMENT.

Food for staging a thought

Human Rights Reader 266

Human rights are intrinsic values that give all human beings dignity.

1. Human rights (HR) are a foundation of the UN. Therefore, the UN has a core mandate to institute international HR mechanisms worldwide. “HR are foreign to no culture and native to all nations”. (Kofi Annan)  HR are legally guaranteed by HR law. Governments are thus obliged to do certain things and prevented from doing other. Yes, but are they faring well at this?

2. In 2000, the Millennium Development Declaration was signed by 189 member states. But the MDGs that came from it, stripping it to the bone, do not underscore HR sufficiently thus absconding from one of the main purposes of the United Nations. Since HR and the MDGs both clearly confer obligations on governments –but do not fully succeed in it yet– they are to be considered two sets of interdependent and mutually reinforcing commitments: I wish I could say they were.

3. Readers should be aware that, in the UN 2005 World Summit, Member States in the General Assembly resolved and agreed to mainstream HR into their national policies and that UN agencies were to assist them to do so.*

*: More than 20 multilateral HR treaties have been formulated since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What HR treaties have done is to put into legal language the obligations of states (principally) and other duty bearers to do certain things, as well as to prevent them from doing other. The full body of international HR instruments consists of more than 100 treaties, declarations, guidelines, recommendations and agreed principles. The 1993 UN Vienna Conference recognized all rights as equally important; there is thus no hierarchy in HR: all HR have equal status.

4. To instrumentalize all the above, the HR-based Approach to Programming was born. [Together with some others, I personally prefer to speak about the HR-based framework, but we are in a minority. In this Reader, for once, I will yield to the majority].

So, what is the Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA)?

5. At its simplest, the HRBA is defined as the process furthering the realization of HR, being guided by HR standards and principles and developing the capacities of claim holders and of duty bearers to change the approach to development programming. In short, today, it is the right approach to follow –both morally and legally. Given the complexities involved, the HRBA prompts claim holders and duty bearers to think differently and to ask a different set of questions. But it does not automatically give them the ‘right’ answers as, often, in fact, there is more than one right answer.** Conversely, what the HRBA is not is a panacea to the world’s development challenges.

**:The HRBA offers us a process and guides us towards which questions to ask; it does not provide easy answers; to some degree, we are still left with the challenge of embarking in trial and error.

6. So, what are the Human Rights-Based Approach’s attributes:

• The HRBA alters the way that programs are designed, implemented, monitored and evaluated –it is a veritable new roadmap.
• It moves development action from benevolence into the mandatory realm of law.
• It considers the individual as an active agent.
• It recognizes each development challenge as a HR challenge –or as several unfulfilled or violated HR that need redress.
• It provides a mechanism for renaming problems as violations making it clear that violations are neither inevitable nor natural, but arise from  deliberate decisions and policies. (!)
• It exposes the hidden actors and structures behind violations and sets out to change them face-on.
• It focuses on analyzing the unjust power relations that are the root cause of HR violations and of maldevelopment. It thus gives insights into the unfair distribution of power. (!)
• It imposes limits on excessive power and addresses all economic inequalities and their causes.
• It is the prime vehicle for governments to fulfill their HR commitments.
• It is directed at reducing the vulnerabilities of the most marginalized, i.e., it has a special focus on groups subjected to discrimination and suffering from disadvantages and exclusion. It thus gives the disadvantaged special priority.
• It sets out to impact prevailing norms, values, and structures –thus the development workers’ practice– and it shapes their relations with partners in a new way.
• It entails consciously and systematically paying attention to HR and HR principles in all aspects of program development.
• Making the needed situation analysis HR-based, it identifies the primary claim holders and duty bearers and their corresponding rights and obligations. i.e., it asks who is affected and who needs to be involved in solving the problem(s). Ergo, it looks beyond just the numbers (i.e., on what, how, who, why, and not just how many).
• It can invigorate NGOs by helping them recognize their roles as duty bearers as opposed to seeing themselves as strictly charitable institutions.
• It takes concrete steps to identify and combat social stigmas.
• It requires devoting time to capacity building activities (HR Learning) for both claim holders and duty bearers (includes forming HR trainers and mentors on how to use and teach the HR framework).
• It involves addressing areas that are highly political. (!)
• It opens up space for public dialogue, and
• It is not a rigid plan; it is an extremely flexible approach that consists in asking key questions, applying key HR principles to the program’s processes and outcomes, and in framing the program being designed around the realization of HR –a realization that governments are legally obliged to secure.

7. The caveat here though is that there is still little solid evidence to fully demonstrate the HRBA’s effectiveness; it has, so far, been difficult to measure success and widely shared indicators are still in their development phase. (But a growing body of evidence is indeed amassing).

You may think you are already applying the HRBA, but are you really?

8. Among other, this begs the following questions:

In your work,

• do you identify the HR claims of claim holders and the corresponding HR obligations of duty bearers, as well as the structural causes of the non-realization of HR?
• do you consistently assess the capacity of claim holders to claim their rights and of duty bearers to fulfill their obligations?
• do you design programs around strategies and plans to build these capacities?, and
• If you are a donor, are you according the highest priority to addressing the needs of the most vulnerable in the least developed countries?

9. Bottom line, the HRBA is a process with a myriad of different challenges –all of them surmountable with the right attitude, the right programming tools and the right determination.

We can truthfully talk of ‘the art of staging HR-based initiatives’.

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

____________________

Adapted from UNFPA’s  A HRBA to Programming: Practical implementation manual and training materials, 2010.

Postscript: In typical HR-based programming:

• People are recognized as key actors in their own development and not as passive recipients of commodities and services.
• Participation is treated both as a means and as a goal.
• Activities planned are empowering, not disempowering.
• The situation analysis to be carried out includes all stakeholders and is used to identify the immediate, underlying and basic causes of development problems.
• The program focuses on the marginalized, the disadvantaged and the excluded groups. It demands accountability of all stakeholders and aims at reducing disparity.
• The development process proposed is, in last instance, locally owned.
• Top-down and bottom-up approaches are used in synergy.
• The capacity-gaps of all stakeholders is assessed and support is given to fill these gaps.
• Measurable goals and targets are used in the programming.
• Strategic partnerships are developed and sustained.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS OPPOSE ANY ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM THAT FINDS ITS PLACE WHERE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN. (part 2 of 2)

Food for a campaigner’s thought

Human Rights Reader 265

- When one leaves behind problems without solutions, one does not leave, one absconds.  (J. Koenig)

- A powerful interest of a few has the potential to sway the situation for many.

- The truth of the activists does not coincide with that of the ones that accumulate wealth. (Doing good for the cause of justice requires personal, unselfish commitment; doing good for any other cause requires incentives that buy commitment). The words of truth are not written with gold, but with blood, with tears, with mother’s milk and/or with excrements.  A society happy in its anesthesia does not need activists. Actually, such a society has found the way to silence activists. Activists are the denouncers of inertia –of no action on human rights. Human rights are thus an attitude. (C. J. Cela)

19. On the normative side, HR activists are expected:

• To stand behind two imperatives: a refusal to lie about what they know and a fierce resistance to oppression. (Albert Camus)
• To paint the big picture that conceptualizes and contextualizes reality.
• To recognize that everybody shares a responsibility for the human rights (HR) issues identified.
• To carry out seven key roles to address issues of equity, namely the roles of  educator, watchdog, resources broker, community developer, partnerships developer, advocate and catalyst. (R. Labonte)
• To fight for more equitable distribution of state resources to the historically marginalized groups.
• To detect violations or situations which pose a risk of HR violations.
• To realize that claim holders take a lot of things for granted –often myths that need to be debunked.
• To put pressure on duty bearers by aligning claim holders’ interests, identifying and working with ‘champions’ in the community and by going for early wins to reach tipping points –since delayed decisions have a cost.
• To assume a leadership role in their communities.
• To develop trust so that new roles and greater responsibilities are taken up by claim holders so that they come away with a different frame of mind regarding their ability to successfully claim their HR.
• To oversee the implementation of the collective decisions arrived at.
• To channel people’s demands into veritable people’s movements.
• To provide some key answers, and to oversee the implementation of actions agreed upon –including the placing of concrete demands and the negotiation of needed time frames. (Remember: Action unites, words and procrastination divide).
• To negotiate agreements between competing interests and to act as brokers allowing the community to solve their differences and to take the initiative in pushing them to demand their HR.
• To assess the state’s HR efforts in terms of its legal structures (constitution and laws).
• To assess the measures taken and not taken by the state in the realm of HR (what is being done) and to assess outcomes (what has been actually achieved).
• To choose areas for their own further learning and engagement*, and
• To co-opt important allies ** (the middle class, the media, political parties, trade unions, public servants) and to neutralize opponents of the HR-based framework.

*: Often, the training of HR activists is not necessarily based on a reflection generated by what they read in history or social sciences books, but is based on their own personal history; their thinking can be said to be ‘anecdotally-analytical’. (A. Gomez)

**: But by interacting with new allies, they also risk being co-opted themselves or losing direction or momentum. Or, otherwise, their positive motivation can fast turn into frustration.

20. HR activists are further expected to determine:

• Whether any HR elements have been incorporated into the country’s development agenda and whether additional elements still need to be introduced.
• Whether HR elements are being implemented by the state at all.
• Whether implemented HR actions are making progress as quickly as possible.
• Whether specific HR policies are being effective and have eliminated prior HR violations.
• Whether non-discrimination is being universally ensured and how.
• Whether international cooperation is playing a positive role in fostering HR.
• Whether victims have the possibility to assert their rights and have access to mechanisms of redress.
• Whether what should be getting done is not being done.
• Whether what is being done is done incorrectly and/or inadequately, and
• Whether steps are being taken towards progressively realizing specific HR with appropriate benchmarks being achieved.

What are the determinants of success of human rights activists in implementing human rights reforms?:

21. Normally, the content of a reform is less important in determining whether or not it receives policy and/or legislative approval than, among other things: the timing of the proposal; the way in which the reform proposal is presented; the discussions that are spurred between those with roles of claim holders and of duty bearers; the power relations between these two groups; the existence of appropriate HR-watch institutions to support HR reforms from decision to implementation to monitoring.

22. When demanding reforms, it is important for HR activists to keep in mind the following:

• The expected impact on, and the reactions of those affected by the reform.

• The content of the reform agenda, its timing and its expected effect on other policy areas, and

• The support received from international organizations to sustain the reforms.

23. A number of stages in the demanding-for-reforms-process need to be covered before the demand can be placed successfully; failure in one of them will generally lead to failure of the reform.

Issues particular to the health sector, for instance, include taking into consideration:

• The position assumed by the professional monopolists in the provision of health services (physicians and their associations).

• The role of available information on right to health violations, whether disaggregated or not and who has access to it.

• International comparisons with the functioning of HR-compliant health systems in other countries.

• Matching the design for the proposed HR-based health R-nbasd HR-basedreform with a clear, realistic diagnosis of the actual violations of the right to health in the country.

• Taking advantage of political ‘windows of opportunity’.

• The engagement of both claim holders and duty bearers –especially of those duty bearers holding veto power.

• The use of incentives, to align the interests of all affected by the reform.

• Securing sufficient resources to ‘oil the wheels of change’.

Epilogue:

24. After chronicling over two Readers about all the nice attributes of HR activists, the truth is that the biggest chunk of our work is still to be done. So, paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto, I say: Proletarians of the world, forgive us.

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

All HR Readers from 1-211 can be found at www.humaninfo.org/aviva under No.69

_______________________

Adapted from Development in Practice, 19:8, 2009; A. Gomez, Ultimo Patio, Ed. Turmalina, Buenos Aires, 2009; D+C 37:7-8, July/Aug 2010; F+D, 47:2, June 2010; and A. Gomez, Despojos y Semillas, Editorial Belgrano, Buenos Aires, 1997.

Postscript: The tactic used by the strategic enemies of HR is to demoralize, to put-down the self-confidence of claim holders. Depressed people do not win fights against social injustice. This is why HR activists face the challenges ahead cheerfully. Nothing big can be achieved in a sad mood. (A. Jaureche)

IPHU Bronx 2011: An Introduction to the PHM

Today we came together on this first day of the IPHU from all over our small planet:  Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Lebanon, Puerto Rico, Russia, Rwanda, Thailand and the United States.  The day begins with introductions that are more than asking this group of inspiring and eloquent agitators the bland recitation of names, organizations and what are you interested in; we are asked to speak of ourselves through our personal and social mandates, or, what is the change you wish to see in the world and how do you see it?  As  brothers and sisters, we respond with a passion born of being fed up with a global system that perpetuates inequality and injustice at the cost of the health of our communities, and speak of our hopes and common threads of the need for advocacy, speaking truth to power, and alternative models and ways of thinking about health and health care that is people centered, not profit focused:  “Health for all Now,” “Love Solidarity,” “Access,” “Health Activism,” “Meaningful Participation,” “Progressive Work,” “Mental Health,” “Englightening,” “Bright Future,” “Visual Healing,” “Cultivate Love,” “Health Education,” “Awakening,” “Education Action.”

Next, David Legge gives a comprehensive overview and history of the People’s Health Movement, International People’s Health University (IPHU) and the People’s Health Charter (PHC).  We go over this radical document, a unifying, organizing vision that views health as a right for ALL.  This profoundly simple understanding is so fundamental, that some of us in our small group discussions ask, “Why Not?” Not “Why Not” as this is a good idea, but “Why Not” as in why is this socially, economically and just idea not implemented and what do we as advocates and activists need to do to push this forward, use this in our work, and what do we need to include (LGBT rights, more emphasis on gender inequality, and a suggestion to create a handbook on how to use the PHC)?

Laura Turiano follows with a presentation on using a Human Rights based approach to advocate Health for All Now.    Next follows participants’ big task:  group work on our projects that advance the idea of Health for All in our communities.  Our task at hand:  present our projects with our compadres in small groups where, over the course of the week, we will support each other to: analyze, re-think, re-fine, conceptualize, strategize, and put into action our vision of the world and communities in which we wish to live.

The “formal day’s agenda” concludes with a brief introduction of the Theatre of the Oppressed by John Sullivan.   Free form movement and human sculptures is what we are and mold ourselves into as we attempt to convey the fundamental values and concepts of the days proceedings:  Hope, Inspiration, Thinking, Motivated…all conveyed through our bodies, expressions, and movements.  The consensus over dinner discussions and late night debates, rabble rousing, getting to know you sessions, is:  this is going to be a great, learning filled, intense, memorable week.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS OPPOSE ANY ALTERNATIVE PARADIGM THAT FINDS ITS PLACE WHERE TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN. (part 1 of 2)

Food for a campaigner’s thought

Human Rights Reader 264

In dedicated human rights work, it is not about being a bit more leftist or a bit more centrist than others, but it is to offer a viable and better perspective for the future –one in which human rights activists are willing to engage-with actively. Activists do thus dare to boldly and fearlessly presenting the problems at hand, as well as presenting the fairest and most equitable way to solve them. This often implies adopting a matching ideology* This is why good human rights activists are feared more by their foes than by their followers. 29

*: In human rights work, there is no zone of an ‘ideological zero’.

[Note: These two Reader do not intend to be ‘self-congratulatory’ by aggrandizing the image and the role of human rights activists. I here only explore what human rights activists do, can-do, have-to-do and need-to-do --adaptable to the specific settings they work in].

1. As human rights activists, we do engage in combating the inertia rooted in many of our fellow development workers (including those that do not believe in anything, or that believe that everything is useless). But at the same time, in our work, tolerance wins over rigidity and over personal interests. [Note here that tolerance should not mean or be understood as indifference, but as an attitude, one not avoiding conflict (B. Sarlo)].

2. We all do strongly feel we have to act in the name of a vision that is motivating, that goes along with our moral duty, that is not rooted in any dogma. We all also strongly feel that we cannot just cross our arms and do nothing.

3. We further do call on supporters of the idea of human rights (HR) to change their own rules of engagement by switching the political outlook of their work.  For example, turning a researcher into a HR activist involves a reorientation towards a social and political engagement rather than towards academic achievement; it also requires the researcher acquiring new skills, such as building multidisciplinary HR teams and pursuing a different range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural processes and outcomes. For this to become a reality, researchers have to, first, stop being embarrassed of exposing damning evidence.

4. The challenge we do face every day is to try to share the HR belief system that better interprets the shortcomings and injustices of our contemporary world ….and using the HR framework we can do (and do) this by using the HR language in the logic of the possible. (R. Piglia)

5. As HR activists, we do have the ambition of power for the HR movement; it is not enough to complain all the time; we do always project to the future and do aim at surpassing any limited universe of action that does not change power relations and their reproduction. (Not being facetious here, tactically speaking, “between divorce and divorce, it is sometimes OK to be married with power”). Things are complex, but that does not push us to work in small little corners; our horizon is the future… (A. de Negri)

6. We do thus create circumstances for change –circumstances in which, for a change, somebody else now wins and somebody else now loses.

7. We also sometimes do assume the role of proxies for active citizens groups or individuals –advocating on their behalf, particularly on behalf of those who must remain invisible.

8.If we do underestimate people’s no-nonsense intelligence, HR principles will never be respected in society –our own ideas will then risk working against the realization of our ideals. That is why not departing from where people actually are is a grave mistake.

9. As HR activists, we do not deny the complexity of the political and social facts behind what we are struggling for; we also do not believe that ours is an absolute truth. (We do admit that error is always possible). What we ask for is for people to look more lucidly and less arrogantly at the bleak,  discriminating social and political reality that surrounds them.

10. We do not pretend to be ‘illuminators’ by defining the objectives to be pursued in HR work. But we do aim at performing a protagonist’s role in the search for ways out.

11. We do not fear confrontation. Confrontation has been with us for time immemorial: confrontation between force and weakness, between the future and the past, between unity and disintegration, between good and evil.

12. And finally here, we do not confuse obfuscation with firmness.

13. Overcoming many barriers and being humble about what the HR-based framework can deliver, HR activists still need to find a way to primarily fight the reluctance (or incapability) of many to understand that their Welt-Anschaung needs to change towards a HR perspective. Despite all the barriers, policies can be steered towards HR principles **.

**: But HR activists are also keenly aware that policy change does not always lead to actual change.

14. The ‘climate’ or outlook in policy-formulation-processes is constantly changing, so HR activists need to continually adapt their strategies in response to this, especially as donors are under increasing pressure to justify their spending –and even sometimes to adopt the HR-based framework in their ODA/aid. This requires active negotiations and partnership building. It is a necessary investment to engage with ongoing processes and to make sure the funding available is channeled in a HR-responsive way. Therefore, HR activists need to make the monitoring-of-opportunities-to-influence-policy a full-time job. This said, in a way, the role of HR activists is one of ‘advocate-guardians’. But, beware, being advocate-guardians may cause tensions for HR activists arousing the ire of local authorities. (M. Clarke)

15. Furthermore, to increase their understanding of HR issues, HR activists need to work on developing personal bonds in the direction of becoming globally connected***. To raise awareness, develop common agendas and joint solutions, as well as to plan needed collaborations, they need to develop skills of leadership, of personal expression and of communication; they need to listen and learn more about/from  people’s ideas to intimately understand their needs so as to integrate them into a HR-based process. Furthermore, to make action plans together with claim holders, they need to foster this group’s self-esteem by fostering action-oriented HR working groups that can start placing demands, can set agendas for further learning, and can actively engage in mobilization activities in their own communities and beyond.

***: Global issues do have a local and individual dimension. Claim holders must understand they can have an influence on global issues and vice versa; they need to know what they can learn from and contribute to the global experience –and how.

16. Finally here, HR activists need to know when to blend-in as opposed to taking an adversarial role any time it is needed (e.g., when state responsiveness is weak or non-existent).

17. Among many other, here are some practical tips human rights activists can follow in their advocacy:

• Invoking the principles of ideology, enthusiasm, commitment and of social justice without emphasizing good organization, is not enough.
• The use of compelling human stories/testimonies that present current concerns using personal examples is of prime value in HR work.
• Placing demands on online web platforms and on email products have proven to have an impact as have framing messages in ways that better suit target audiences, making presentations in public fora and partaking in petitions or special drives.
• Also, messages are to reach duty bearers through multiple routes and channels.****

****: For instance, periodic lunches with journalists, with legal activists, with parliamentarians, with members of HR commissions, with members of the judiciary, of traditional, of religious and of women’s organizations, with civil society coalitions and with the media are a tactic to be considered seriously.

18. Bottom line, as HR activists, we all the time keep asking ourselves: what are we doing here? What have we done so far? What do we need too do better? …and we keep thanking those anonymous voices that keep driving us.

Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

_______________________

Adapted from A. Gomez, Tiempo de Descuento, Editorial El Fin de la Noche, Buenos Aires, 2009; A. Gomez, Despojos y Semillas, Editorial Belgrano, Buenos Aires, 1997;  Health Insights, IDS, Issue 78, Oct 2009; D+C, 36:12, Dec. 2009, Development in Practice, 19:8, 2009; and Z. Acevedo Diaz, La Dama de Cristal, Fondo Editorial Casa de las Americas, La Habana, 1999.

HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT A TOOL THAT ACCEPTS POVERTY; HUMAN RIGHTS ARE A WAY TO FIGHT IT. (Julius Nyerere)

Food for a tipping point thought

Human Rights Reader 263

-The fields of the poor may yield much food, but the same is swept away through injustice. (Proverbs 13:23)

-If the rich could hire others to die for them, we, the poor, would make a nice living. (Mordechai the inn-keeper, in the musical ‘Fiddlers on the Roof’). (cited by A-E. Birn)

1. What is generously distributed in the world is poverty. (A. Gomez) But poverty is not genetic. Poverty is the result of disempowerment and exclusion. Poverty humiliates. (Z. Acevedo) Poverty itself most often is a result of the violation of human rights (HR). Actually, HR violations occur both as a cause and as a consequence of poverty. Poverty, in its political dimension, shows the inequality in the enjoyment of HR among members of our societies. (W. Benedek)

2. Regrettably, poverty is progressing faster than the laborious international climate negotiations. We cannot eradicate poverty by decree. Putting band-aids on the problem of poverty has become an industry for the rich. (R. Thurow)  Chicken and miserly handouts have not reduced and will not reduce poverty. The end of extreme poverty will only come when masses of individual citizens around the world demand an end to the HR violations that come with extreme poverty and things reach a de-facto tipping point. (W. Smith)

3. Impoverishment as an ongoing process –and not just poverty– should be the focus of HR work, because impoverishment (i.e., the persistence and reproduction of poverty) is the process that actually reflects the destitution that results when some actors deny others their HR. This is why we say that ‘poverty lines’ really represent  ‘destitution lines’.

4.  There are unfair things in our societies: There are those that are born with a life that has been comfortably preset for them and those who will have to fight for every inch of their future. (Z. Acevedo) A couple of ‘iron’ laws’ apply here: i)  Suffering from hunger is terrible, but much more so when our hunger is due to our neighbor eating at leisure, (A. Gomez) and ii) Shantytowns, lost cities, favelas, villas miseria…are all the same; you either live there or you are one of the guilty ones that they exist. (C. Fuentes)

5. Malthusian arguments obscure the real roots of poverty, of inequality and of environmental degradation in capitalist societies. This, with the result that people who happen to be poor are blamed for environmental destruction rather than treated as the victims of the capitalist development mode at the base of such degradation.

6. In an apparent paradox, poor people and other marginalized groups*, are perfectly capable of ‘modernizing’ demographically while still remaining poor economically.

*: Among other, the marginalized are those living in extreme poverty, ethnic minorities and indigenous people, disadvantaged adolescents and youth, women survivors of violence and abuse, out of school youth, persons living with HIV, women engaged in sex work, men who have sex with men, persons living with disabilities, refugees and internally displaced persons, women living under occupation and a good portion of the elderly population.

7. It is no news to you that those who happen to be poor are disconnected from gainful employment, from access to clean water, from electricity, from feeder roads, from transport, from calories and micronutrients, from health care, from education, from banking, from telecommunications, from the internet, from justice, from security… –all related to the denial of their HR.

8. The potential contribution of HR to development remains the largest overlooked and wasted resource on earth.  It is mainly claim holders demanding access to productive work that will enable marginalized groups to ‘buy’ themselves solutions to many of the HR challenges they face –and these solutions involve the creation of jobs. To address a number of the HR violations affecting them, claim holders thus need to demand employment generation preferably with terms negotiated by strong labor organizations.

9. In the World Bank’s widely promoted Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), an open, truly participative discussion about how to reduce poverty (to be understood as reducing disparities) has not really taken and does not take place despite it officially being the stated goal of the entire exercise. No wonder the PRSPs approach has made little difference. (T. Siebold)

10. The poverty that surrounds those that live a marginalized life devoid of dignity has too often seeped-in into their souls; this lethargy needs to be interrupted. (Z. Acevedo) This attitude of submission stays dormant in the back of poor people’s gazes; the attitude gets stirred up every now and then though. It is then when we have to capture it so as to turn it around. The concept of justice remains unquestioned, but quiescent in their minds, making it look like downtrodden people have a lack of social and political consciousness. Nothing further from the truth!

11. Analizing the nature of the social relations brought about by the prevailing market is crucial to understand who wins and who loses.  The current globalized, unfair market keeps poor people stuck in poverty traps. Losers simply have to more aggressively start demanding equal access to justice as an important component of any poverty eradication process.

12. Let us be clear: Better governance –as so often is called for– will simply not automatically lead to governments combating HR violations, blatant disparities and poverty with greater urgency.

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

__________________

Adapted from The Broker, issues 15, 16, 22 and 24, Aug.2009, Oct 2009, Oct/Nov 2010 and Feb/March 2011 respectively; F+D (IMF) 47:1 and 47:2, March and June 2010 respectively; D+C 37:12, Dec 2010; and Getting the MDGs right: Towards the founding of an operational framework for the MDG-Human Rights Nexus. Copenhagen , Nov. 2010.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE THAT IT HAS SO FAR BEEN UNABLE TO BECOME AN AUTHENTIC MASS RENEWAL MOVEMENT?

Food for an alternative thought to follow

Human Rights Reader 262

A contemporary philosopher asked himself: Is it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism?

1. According to the same philosopher, we tend to ignore existing social conflicts and contradictions thus avoiding a political mobilization against the excesses of capitalism. In this vision, human rights (HR) are too often presented as a (carefully depoliticized) global-humanitarian-cause disjointed from the existing critical political and ecological discourse, and not as our best current alternative to follow that covers that discourse.

2. It is argued that, in order to fix the  shortcomings of capitalism, one has to acknowledge that it is technological transformations that are necessary –and this is deemed beyond questioning. We have, of course, to change this attitude radically. The global social threat of epic proportions we face affects not only a few, but everybody. That alone calls for global actions carried out in many little places at the same time.

3. The notion of humanity, of a global-human-subject, is a fiction, because it presents to us social actors without serious contradictions, without conflict. It negates very real serious antagonisms. In a true democratic environment, it is these internal contradictions that are at the center of not recognizing there are social groups with different, social, cconomic, political and environmental interests to defend.

4. Ignoring this, leads to avoiding the questioning of ultimate interests of the ruling class and, in so doing, ignoring the needed transformation of the socioeconomic and political order. Conversely, it leads to asking the rulers to implement actions that allow the situation to basically continue unchanged.

5. Under such circumstances, any HR movement risks being apolitical and reactionary. Current political leaders respond to calls from their constituencies by assuring them that capitalism can solve the HR problems just “by doing some course corrections” over what has been done for the last 200 years in development work: “A couple technological innovations and management measures should do…”  Within such a vision, they only create an illusion that we are moving forward only to stay put in the same place with the HR problems remaining unresolved.

6. The underlying assumption is that HR and capitalism can both be achieved by developing and introducing such new technologies and applying stricter management standards. Political action is thus negated and instead replaced by a better-management-logic where decisions are, more and more, considered the business of experts that position themselves strictly outside the political domain.  Can one then honestly say that HR-projects-thus-structured can lead to a better, more just, society?

7. Seen another way, political-decision-making, confrontation-of-opposing-views or projects-for-a-different-social-order are discounted as legitimate democratic objectives by the elites. They are replaced by ‘the administration of the possible’, meaning that confrontation is placed in the realm of existing mercantile relationships. Consensus then really means crashing dissent, i.e., reaching ‘agreement’ without negotiation.

8. Moreover, we have to be aware that the strategy of seeking a consensus by instilling fear about any confrontation, is also part of the capitalist discourse. In this discourse, ideological confrontation, divergences and class struggle, as said, are replaced by techno-administrative planning processes that stay aloof of conflicts and disagreements.

9. The result of all of this is a world that shies away or represses public confrontation and liberty of expression of anything that is not part of the consensus. A ‘deal’ with civil society organizations, trade unions, popular political parties, community organizations, student unions, women’s organizations is out of the question. Instead, deals are struck with state agencies, experts, sympathetic NGOs, charity and interest groups –as long as they back the neoliberal order. Otherwise, discussions and disputes are recognized as democratic rights only as long as they do not question the prevailing system.

10. As a result, radical disagreement, political criticism and class conflicts are extricated from the political arena and equated with terrorism, criminal activity and illegal violence.

11. It is the raising consciousness about this scenario that explains a part of the HR movement rise in the last decade. I ask, have we not all preferred participating in policy negotiations centered on patch solutions rather than sticking to our principle of organized action, of militant disagreement centered around an alternative social vision? Some may ask, so what? Anything wrong with that? What is wrong is that negotiation of a non-political consensus rests on the idea that social problems that we face today are collateral, external effects and not something inherent to the economic relationships of capitalism.

12. In the capitalist paradigm, humanity and nature are elevated to the realm of a universal order. This then closes the space for social groups and social classes to contest the ‘universal order’. The obstacle that we are supposed to overcome, because it is constantly threatening us, remains unnamed, empty,  vague, external and can only be dealt-with through a consensual, depoliticized dialogue within a socioeconomic order for which humanity has, so far, been incapable of providing a better alternative…

13. Our HR movement can be transformed into a reactionary movement that turns its back to new socioeconomic alternatives. The idea of a society with respect for HR without modifying the capitalist order remains a neoliberal project that only is a fiction at best or a swindle at worst.

14. We need a different narrative. A sequence of events capable of mobilizing and seeking the compromise of claim holders to make the HR narrative come true. The current HR debate is the opportunity we have to transform the narrative, to foster debate about democracy and its deeper meaning; a democracy where contradictions can be expressed and class conflicts and disagreements can lead us to a better world.

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org

__________________

Adapted from an article by Nieves y Miro Fuenzalida.