Statement by Hilde F. Johnson, Minister of International Development and Human Rights

Statement at the Symposium on Human Rights and Human Development

United Nations Development Programme
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Government of Norway

High Level Symposium on
Human Rights and Human Development

Oslo, 2-3 October 1998

High Commissioner Mary Robinson,
Administrator Gus Speth,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Introduction

Just imagine that present-day word-processing technology had been available to the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Would it have looked any different? Picture one of the founding fathers, René Cassin, hacking away on his laptop, downloading images from Human Rights' sites on the 'net, while crunching spreadsheets as he prepares one of his presentations. Would he have achieved different results if he'd been able to hyperlink the text, to present it on LCD wide-screen to the other authors? I don't think so.

You see, Cassin was driven by a vision of the fundamental, the essential. I don't even think it would have made much difference if he'd had access to present-day policies for interaction between states as well as within states. His language might have been different, but I believe his concepts would have carried the day. Because they were based on fundamental values, on the fundamental value of the human being - the human dignity of every individual.

Our obligations

Bear with me for a moment to consider four such concepts as they relate to the theme of our meeting:

1. According to Article 22 of the Universal Declaration, 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 a rights-based approach for the UNDP? Not in my book, as long as we make the text applicable to the non-male part of the world as well...
2. Take Article 25, which addresses the issue of standard of living. The need for "food, clothing, housing and medical care and social services" is no different whether you consider it to be a goal for development co-operation or as a human right.
3. The subsequent article is perhaps even more of a case in point; I like to think it is not a coincidence that the French school in Oslo is called the Lycée René Cassin. The right to education is fundamental, and explicitly defined in terms of availability, accessibility, content and parental rights. I know of no major development programme which does not also seek to implement this human right.

   I am glad to see the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education present here today. I had occasion to call for the establishment of your office at the opening of the Commission in Geneva this spring. The independent expert on the right to development is also here. We look forward to learning more about your priorities and proposals as you start on your important tasks.

4. My final example of the universal concepts central to this meeting is Article 28, which simply states that "everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised". The Article doesn't spell it out, but I do: the entitlement concerns all human rights, and is primarily provided by the state. The mandate for any and every government is clear.

And so, my friends, is the mandate for this symposium. The title Human Development and Human Rights might tempt some to think in terms of development on the one hand and human rights on the other. The goal of this symposium is to gain increased understanding of development as an achievement of human rights and vice versa. The challenge for this symposium is to seek new and improved ways to act on this understanding. As Minister of International Development and for Human Rights, I'm often in a situation where I'm perceived as wearing two hats. In fact, I keep telling people that these hats fit together very well; I can wear one on top of the other, and I wouldn't go without the two!

The human rights debate - and the window of opportunity

The international debate on human rights has far too long been dominated by the assumption that human rights is all about civil and political rights, while development is all about economic growth. This is wrong. This was the case, however, during the Cold War and is still the case in much of the debate. The discussion about the universality of human rights was also dominated by this assumption, with several developing countries 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. Not recognising this fact, and focusing only on one set of human rights is not credible. Poverty does not, however make it more legitimate to oppress people. Neither does culture. And as a South African member of parliament once said: " Culture can never be an excuse for abuse."

Our answer to this debate must therefore be a holistic approach. All human rights deserve equal attention. Taking on this challenge is one of the main purposes of this symposium.

Because development is "the process of expanding people's choices". This important and useful UN definition 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 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.

It is very important not to lose the focus on the individual when we extrapolate policies or measures to the macro level.

Last week I met a South African visual artist, Mr. Andries Botha, at the opening of his exhibition in my home town Stavanger. He spoke about political developments in his own country, and the link between them, society, and the individual. “South Africa is like a body,” he said, “and the people of South Africa own this body. The body has felt much pain. Its skin carries many cruel marks. The body carries the sub-text of past violence. However, inside the body is a heart and a soul. The heart feels guilt. But the soul is still strong. The soul is optimistic. The soul has new visions. The soul is the source of transformation, and the key to the recovery and healing of the body”. This tells us a lot about human strength, human potential and human dignity.

No man is an island unto himself. We form nations and cultures which interact, spread and change. This also applies to development. Development in one place affects development in other places. What we now call "globalization" is not a new feature. The Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl has also made this point in his autobiography, which - by the way - is being launched in Oslo today. He writes about the challenges of global co-existence, about the challenge of regarding the world as "an unstable entity, an entity in constant change". Mr. Heyerdahl has devoted his life to exploring the possibilities of cultural interaction in former times.

Today, we need neither balsa rafts nor reed boats to surf the oceans towards meetings between cultures. We surf the Internet and the peoples of the world grow closer through travel, trade and cultural cross-roads every day. Globalization is a dominating trend - with its opportunities and problems. It may be seen as an impregnable wall of multinational intrigue - as new-found cultural or economic imperialism as poverty generation or as providing new possibilities 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 state 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 equally 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 analysis is wrong. Today there isn't even an Iron Curtain left to bear it out.

The focus of the North-South debate is beginning to shift too. 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 exert our efforts more usefully in pursuing policies we agree on. Countries are to a larger extent moving away from their defensive and denial 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 constitutes what I consider to be a window of opportunity. Several of the factors that have been major stumbling blocks to a common understanding and progress in the area of human rights have more or less ceased to be so. How can we use this window of opportunity, and act urgently 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. Every one of them. This is what development is all about.

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

We also need to recognise our responsibilities in assisting states in their obligation to implement these rights. As donors, we can give resources - we cannot give rights. We can offer means, but we cannot provide will.

By committing ourselves to the full scale of human rights in our development efforts, we have a better basis for gaining the confidence of the recipients.

In view of the High Commissioner's recent return from China, I am tempted to quote the Confucian classic Great Learning, where one of Confucius' disciples wisely comments that "For a state to have riches is not prosperity; to have justice is prosperity". Economic development can contribute to achieving many of the human rights I referred to initially. I believe, however, that so much more can be achieved if efforts also are directed towards fulfilling other human rights, such as freedom of assembly, association and expression. I would like to borrow words spoken namely by the High Commissioner, who is a co-convenor of this meeting, during her recent visit in China; "the right to development is based on respect for all human rights - whether civil, cultural, economic, political or social - together, as an integrated whole - and none of these can be fully realised without democratic governance and the rule of law”.

Multilateral efforts in ‘Shaping the 21st Century’

What is the situation then, on the ground?

• 100 million of our fellow human beings are homeless.
• One third of the population of the developing world live in absolute poverty - most of them are women and children.
• Prisoners of conscience are found in 94 countries.
• Prisoners were 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 constitute massive violations of human rights.

While our planet in many ways is shrinking, the income gap continues to grow - between as well as 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 on the part of the developed countries to poverty alleviation - and to reaching the 0.7 per cent target. Norway 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.

As referred to by Mr. Gus Speth 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 in the areas of education, health, gender disparity, eradication of poverty and environmental sustainability etc. with fixed time limits.

Observance of human rights is stressed 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, we need to move on to action, both in our own programmes and in our co-ordination efforts.

Effective and increased 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 have a major role to play in making it more possible for these governments to fulfil their human rights obligations.

The issue of quantifiable goals has long been an elusive goal in human rights work. While I emphasise the tremendous 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 a major difference here.

When this year's report was launched a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speth, who is co-hosting this meeting, pointed out that; "...not everyone has been invited to the party. Expectations have gone global, but not the affluence. Human poverty is deprivation in multiple dimensions, not income. The priority to eradicate poverty and ensure the basic needs of all remains. The failure of the richest countries to do that is a scandal...". I welcome the increased attention to human rights - and to human rights terminology - in the report. I also welcome the opportunity to measure with greater precision indicators of consumption and development even at the country level, which are valid for all countries in the world. These concrete indicators are, after all, also human rights indicators.

The Human Development Report also helps illustrate that few investments yield a higher direct return than investments in basic social services - in primary health and education. Since the Social Summit, Norway has actively advocated the so-called 20/20 principle. This calls for a mutual commitment between developed and developing countries to allocate 20 per cent of ODA and 20 per cent of national budgets, respectively, to basic social programmes. We encourage all countries to adhere to this target. When I leave for Hanoi later this month to meet with other nations in the context of the 20/20 initiative, a 5 + meeting after the Social Summit, I hope to bring with me ideas from this meeting on how to stimulate this process.

For the poorest and most heavily indebted developing countries, the debt burden represents one of the main obstacles to development. Let me again remind you of Article 28 of the Universal Declaration which states that "everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration can be fully realised". Several factors in the international order, not least of a structural and macro-economic nature, may in fact limit the possibilities of individuals to fulfil their rights. The debt burden is one of them. Thus, debt may also be regarded as a human rights issue.

Urgent action is needed to end the unsustainable debt burden of these countries. Norway for its part is launching a comprehensive debt relief strategy. This will also be presented internationally in connection with the annual meeting of the World Bank next week. I will call on my colleagues in other countries to consider similar debt relief measures. The strategy forms the basis for our policy for supporting and strengthening the international debt relief schemes, including the HIPIC initiative and the Paris Club. It also contains additional debt reduction measures on a bilateral basis which will be applied on top of the reductions made under multilateral operations.

We must step up our efforts for debt relief, for improving the global terms of trade through the WTO system. We must support macro-economic adjustment processes led by the Bretton Woods institutions although not necessarily uncritically or unconditionally. We must get our act together in all donor fora to strengthen donor coordination.

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 village farmers and ”measured” at close range how international prices, debt, government subsidies and the lack of them, and adjustment programme affected these women and their families. Make no mistake about it; these seemingly abstract, almost academic, phenomena about which we publish books, papers and articles are matters determining 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" are taken into account. This impression is one of my motivations for working internationally to improve the enabling environment for development, in all arenas where we have influence.

Other Norwegian efforts

Alleviating and eradicating poverty is the most urgent challenge of our time. This is the point of departure for Shaping the 21st Century, and therefore also for Norwegian development policies. The urgently needed solution to global poverty constitutes a moral challenge that we cannot ignore. It is our moral duty to find solutions and maximise our efforts to make sure that fewer of our fellow human beings live under degrading conditions.

That is 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 possibilities - but not the least his or her rights.

The right to sufficient and nutritious food is in itself a fundamental human right. The responsibility of implementation at the national level rests with the respective governments. This in turn requires the existence of fundamental social and political rights. At the same time, donors can help governments fulfil these obligations and increase food security. The right to food is closely linked to other basic human rights, such as the right to work, to an income and a decent life and to popular participation.

The right to education must be given particular attention. We know from World Bank studies that the best investment one can undertake in a country is educating girls. In my statement to the Norwegian parliament this spring I announced that the Government’s goal to increase the share of development assistance to education to 10 per cent will be reached within the year. We will now be working to reach the 15 per cent figure. 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 expenditures in the countries when investing 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 also now 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 from 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 and civil society, 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 a majority of our partner countries, the prospects for co-operation and results in this field have improved significantly. We are working out 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, which 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.

Conclusions

Our commitment to development is motivated by the fact that human rights are violated in many of the countries which receive our assistance. As partners in development, we cannot implement rights for them, but we can assist them in fulfilling their own human rights obligations. This involves providing both food and shelter and developing democratic institutions and the rule of law. The basis for our co-operation should therefore not be to require a "clean record", but to require of these countries the will 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 veteran economist calls for “a larger sense of common responsibility”.

This should also be the call from this symposium. 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. When commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we constantly should remind ourselves of this fact.

We all have the same value. Human rights apply to all of us, and concern all of us. It is on this basis we must act, not only for their sake, but also for our own, for the sake of decency.

Thank you.