Basis for welcoming remarks by Hilde F. Johnson Minister of International Development and Human Rights

Colloquium on the Role of Government Departments in the Formulation and Implementation of Human Rights Considerations in Foreign Policy

Convened by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists (AAICJ) Oslo, 14 - 15 October 1998

Dear friends,

Welcome to Oslo, and welcome to the Government guest house here in Parkveien. I am afraid that at the moment this building exemplifies the motto that "it is the inside that counts", and I apologise for any inconvenience the present refurbishing may cause for your meeting.

You see, it is not just this building that needs an overhaul. The Government that I represent - which is the first Norwegian Government to include a minister with a specific portfolio for human rights, has decided Norwegian respect for the dignity and worth of every human being also needs a bit of an overhaul. This is why we are presently engaged in an ambitious exercise to involve practically all ministries in the task of considering needs and ways of promoting the implementation of human rights in Norway.

There are a number of issues that can do with more scrutiny - ranging from Norwegian custody practice, via the way we deal with asylum seekers who refuse to reveal their identity, the issue of freedom of religion or belief in our school system, the use of force in psychiatric care and the struggle against discrimination and racism, to the conditions we offer people with disabilities in our society.

I know you have not come here to learn about our efforts to improve our own human rights record - but I feel it is important to point out to you that we realise that we must apply the same standards to ourselves as to other countries, and that we take this responsibility very seriously indeed. This is a question of consistency and credibility.

I shall not comment too directly on your agenda - you will of course be able to give topics like international investments and human rights, mainstreaming, the five-year review (VDPA+5) and challenges and threats to the international respect for human rights more thoughtful and deliberate consideration than I can do in a 15-minute introduction.

Nor will I present a full picture of Norwegian human rights policy; I will not speak about the need to focus on implementation, the challenge of mainstreaming, providing adequate resources and selecting appropriate measures to promote better implementation where needed, or the importance of being ready to apply a wide scale of measures, whether political, economic or development-related, whether bilateral or multilateral.

I will not lecture you on the importance of direct, critical and targeted dialogue on human rights with states where these rights are violated, nor will I stress the role that NGOs and civil society play in human rights work. I will not even say a word about human rights defenders, and certainly not about standards of humanity, the importance of addressing the situation of indigenous peoples more constructively, freedom of religion or many other worthwhile subjects. I may not even mention the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Instead, I will offer you some thoughts on an issue which is relevant to what you will be discussing here in the next two days.

For far too long, the international debate on human rights has been dominated by the assumption that human rights is all about civil and political rights, while development is all about economic growth. This is not the case. This assumption was prevalent, however, during the Cold War and still dominates much of the debate. It has also dominated the discussion about the universality of human rights, where several developing countries have been in the driving seat. This is not surprising. It is true that certain human rights are of little value to people who are starving and in need. Combating poverty is an important human rights issue. Failing to acknowledge this fact, and focusing only on one set of human rights is not acceptable.

Poverty does not make it any more more legitimate to oppress people. Neither does culture. And as a member of the South African Parliament once said: " Culture can never be an excuse for abuse". Our answer must therefore be a holistic approach, where social, economic and cultural rights are given as much attention as civil and political rights.

Making the connection between development and human rights is one such approach.

According to Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to “the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”. Can we find a clearer mandate for any and every government for a rights-based approach to human development?

According to the well-known UN definition, used by the UNDP and other organizations, development is "the process of expanding people's choices". This important definition, or understanding, shows us that growth - economic or otherwise - is a means, and not an end. Furthermore, human rights is an integral part of, and a precondition for expanding people’s choices. The Declaration on the right to development addresses this topic very directly in at least three ways:

• Firstly, it deals with the full range of human rights in insisting on the right of everyone to "participate in, contribute to, and to enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised".
• Secondly, it emphasises participation, which reminds us that the importance of civil society as a factor in development and the pursuit of human rights cannot be overestimated.
• Thirdly, it places the individual as "the central subject of development" who "should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development". The individual is the subject - and the globe is the arena.

Globalization, with its opportunities and problems, is a dominating trend in the world today. It may be seen as an impregnable wall of multinational intrigue, as a new variety of cultural or economic imperialism, as poverty generation or a development that provides new opportunities for everyone. Despite its shortcomings, globalization may, by providing new and frequent meetings between cultures and individuals, in itself contribute to the universalisation of human rights.

I venture to claim that never before has the distance between the individual person and the global community been smaller. The inherent “dignity and worth of the human person”, as set out in the United Nations Charter, is therefore closely linked with the universality of human rights.

There was a time when the Iron Curtain was seen by some as separating those who valued economic, social and cultural rights from those who favoured civil and political rights. This distinction was wrong, and today there is not even an Iron Curtain left to form the basis for such an assumption.

In North-South debate the focus is now beginning to shift. The issue of the universality of human rights begins to look different in the light of our ever closer interaction. Five years after the Vienna Conference, we can devote our efforts more usefully to pursuing policies we agree on. Countries are to a larger extent moving away from denial and defensive positions and accepting that the international community has a say in the human rights situation. This year's Commission on human rights in Geneva showed some promise in this regard.

The current economic crisis is an added reason for us all to focus on the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. This is a time to consider basic rights and freedoms as building blocks for the future.

This situation at the end of the millennium represents a window of opportunity. Several of the factors that have been major stumbling blocks to a common understanding of human rights and to progress in this area have more or less ceased to be so. Here we may have a golden opportunity.

How can we use this window of opportunity, and act for the benefit of mankind? How can we make new and concerted efforts towards development through increased respect for human rights?

We can do so by insisting in a consistent and committed manner that human rights constitute an integrated whole. Expanding people’s choices means respecting people’s rights. All of them.

We must give the economic, social and cultural rights their rightful place in the human rights machinery and in practice. If the window is to swing open and lead to development, both hinges must be in good working order. We need to understand that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights are mutually reinforcing, and we must act upon this understanding.

We also need to recognise our responsibility to assist states in their obligation to implement these rights. As donors, we can allocate resources, but we cannot allocate rights. We can offer the means, but we cannot provide the will. If we commit ourselves to the full range of human rights in our development efforts, we have a better basis for gaining the confidence of the recipients.

We know what we are up against:

• 100 million of our fellow human beings are homeless.
• One third of the people in the developing world live in absolute poverty - most of them are women and children.
• There are prisoners of conscience in 94 countries.
• Prisoners are being tortured, mistreated or raped in 124 countries.
• 250 million children work - often risking their health and future development.
• Every fourth child in developing countries does not attend school.

These figures illustrate all too clearly the lack of respect for the rights of the individual in all parts of the world. They reflect massive violations of human rights.

Although our planet is shrinking in many ways, the income gap continues to grow, both between and within nations. At the same time we are experiencing a steep reduction in official development aid from the North to the South. It is a regrettable fact that the industrialised countries are increasingly distancing themselves from the agreed UN target of 0.7 per cent of GDP for development purposes.

Developed and developing countries alike are accusing each other of broken promises and failure to live up to their commitments. What we need is a new partnership based on result-oriented policies in developing countries and a commitment to poverty alleviation and to reaching the 0.7 per cent target on the part of the developed countries. Norway's allocation has been well above this target for decades. We will renew our efforts to counter the growing donor fatigue. We intend to further increase our official development assistance (ODA) to 1 per cent in the years ahead.

The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (DAC) has launched a global development partnership effort - Shaping the 21st Century. They have taken on the challenge of a rights-based approach to development, introducing quantitative goals with specified time limits for education, health, gender disparity, eradication of poverty and environmental sustainability and so on. Observance of human rights, all of them, is stressed by the DAC as one of the essential conditions for development in the wider sense of the term. It is encouraging that most donors have recognised this. Now it is time to move on to action, both in our own programmes and in our coordination efforts.

Increased and more effective international support will make a real difference in achieving these goals. Important contributions to development will have to be made by the people and governments of the developing countries themselves. As partners in development, however, we also have a major role to play in helping these governments to fulfil their human rights obligations.

Quantifiable goals have long been an issue in human rights work. While I recognise the great value of reports published by Amnesty International, Reporters sans Frontières, the International Helsinki Federation and many others, I believe the Human Development Report (HDR) of the UNDP can make even more difference here. It should become an important tool in our human rights work.

Ten years ago, I spent a year in a village in Tanzania, not far from my birthplace, doing field work for my thesis in social anthropology. I lived and worked among the farmers and ”measured” at close range how international prices, debt, government subsidies and the lack of them, and adjustment programmes affected these villagers and their families. Make no mistake about it, these seemingly abstract, almost academic, phenomena about which we publish books, papers and articles determine the lives of millions of people.

A development assistance programme is almost meaningless unless it takes these conditions fully into account. Human rights policies are inadequate unless structural factors related to the "social and international order" - to quote from Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - are taken into account. This is one reason why I am involved in international efforts to improve the enabling environment for development, in all arenas where we have influence.

“Social and international order” applies to fairer terms of trade within the WTO system, as well as debt relief strategies for the poorest and most heavily indebted countries, like the one Norway has recently presented. “Social and international order” applies to the 20/20 initiative, and similar measures in which we are actively involved. Fundamentally, alleviating and eradicating poverty is the most urgent challenge of our time. It is our moral duty to maximise our efforts to make sure that fewer of our fellow human beings live under degrading conditions.

This is also why we target our development assistance towards poor regions, countries and population groups. The target is the individual in need, and the goal is to contribute to the expansion of his or her opportunities and choices, in accordance with the UNDP definition, and not least his or her rights.

The right to sufficient and nutritious food is a fundamental human right. The responsibility of implementing it at the national level rests with the individual government. To do this requires respect for fundamental social and political rights. Donors can help governments fulfil these obligations and increase food security. The right to food is closely linked with other basic human rights, such as the right to work, to an income and a decent life and to participation in the community.

The right to education must also be given particular attention. We know from World Bank studies that the best investment one can make in a country is to educate girls. Our Government’s goal to increase the share of development assistance allocated to education to 10 per cent will be reached within the year. We are now working to reach the 15 per cent figure. Girls are given special attention. The right to social services must also be emphasised. Health is therefore given priority in Norwegian development assistance. This is all part of our work to realise the 20/20 goal in our own development assistance. Our intention is to invest in human resources, in human capacity.

The resulting increase in public expenditure in countries that are investing more heavily in, for example, the social sector makes it all the more important to stimulate income-generating activities in the private sector, the real engine of economic development.

The Government is now also working on a new strategy for private sector development in the poor countries. The aim is to create investment activity and jobs in the poorest developing countries, instead of focusing on returns for our own businesses. We want to see donor-recipient relationships evolving into economic relationships on equal terms. In this light, the interest among Norwegian business and industry in business ethics and human rights is encouraging and forward-looking.

Many of our partner countries also need to comply more closely with civil and political human rights obligations. Norwegian policy goals therefore include increasing our assistance to the legal system, the electoral system and building expertise in the field of human rights, to mention only a few of our priorities. We regard NGOs both in our own country and in our partner countries as extremely important partners in this process. Thanks to democratic reforms in the majority of our partner countries, the prospects for cooperation and results in this field have improved significantly. We are drawing up guidelines that will help us ensure that our assistance promotes respect for civil and political rights.

Several studies conclude that development projects are more successful where civil rights in particular are respected. The protection of human rights helps to give the authorities a greater sense of responsibility towards the population, and this in turn has a favourable impact in terms of development. Thus, there is a strong interplay between closer observance of civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. They are in fact mutually reinforcing.

Our commitment to development is reinforced by the fact that human rights are being violated in many of the countries which receive our assistance. As partners in development, we cannot implement rights for other countries, but we can help them to fulfil their own human rights obligations. This involves both providing food and shelter and developing democratic institutions and the rule of law. We should not require a "clean record" as a basis for cooperation, but we should require our partner countries to take on responsibilities and obligations towards their own people. In this partnership it is impossible to succeed without patience, perseverance and a will for dialogue.

John Kenneth Galbraith has made a thoughtful contribution to this year’s Human Development Report - 40 years after The Affluent Society - which provides some key truths in the poverty debate. For Galbraith the problem of poverty is "not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature”. The economist calls for “a larger sense of common responsibility”.

Perhaps he is thinking of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment? Perhaps he is commenting on the effects of globalization? Or perhaps he is simply talking of the division between the North and the South?

This is where you start your debate, at the structural factors like the MAI, which is the first point on the agenda, so this is where I leave you. I am pleased, nevertheless, at what I can see is the focus of your discussion. This is very much in accordance with what I regard as a need for a more holistic approach to human rights.

For at the end of the day there is one truth that must remain. Our commitment to development is identical with our commitment to the implementation of human rights. It should be and it must be. They cannot be separated.

This commitment should be based on one premise: respect for the dignity and inherent worth of every human being. Every single individual. That is all it takes - no more, but certainly no less.

Thank you.