Volume 5

October - December  2002

ISSN 1541-2482

Pressing your case: More ways than one

Human rights activism must no longer be restricted to issuing urgent action appeals, holding demonstrations and writing reports; optimum use must be made of national and international human rights mechanisms....

AS the approach paper for the Third Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress acknowledged, the "playing field" available to national human rights organisations has been augmented considerably by recent changes in the international human rights framework.

Developments such as the United Nations 1503 Procedure, the Special Mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, and the Special Procedures have given national NGOs access to international mechanisms that were until not very long ago the domain of those located at the foot of the Swiss Alps or the centre of Manhattan Island. A small organisation without any official UN ECOSOC accreditation in a remote village, under a repressive regime, can now communicate human rights abuses to a United Nations official in Geneva. More than ever, local and national NGOs are using international human rights procedures to supplement their grassroots advocacy.

With this changing arena in mind, the Asia Pacific Human Rights Network (APHRN) convened the Third Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress on 9-10 November 2002 in New Delhi.

The proceedings began on 9 November 2002 with an introductory speech by Mr. Ravi Nair, executive director of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre which is also the APHRN Secretariat. Mr. Nair's comments highlighted that adjustment in the balance between local, national, and international NGOs necessitates a reconsideration of the structure of the human rights movement. Human rights activism can no longer be restricted to issuing urgent action appeals, holding demonstrations, writing reports, or asking members and supporters to write letters expressing concerns to governmental authorities.

In many cases, he added, it is quicker to obtain positive results by filing complaints with newly formed national human rights institutions (NHRIs) or with judicial bodies.  There are also a number of international mechanisms that NGOs can use - with great publicity - if such initial actions meet with resistance or are, for whatever reason, untenable.

Yet institutional mechanisms are underutilised by national NGOs today, and their activities have been slow to incorporate the changing dynamics of international human rights to their full potential.

Mr. Nair noted that NGOs have been known to publish reports without a clear advocacy strategy, sometimes simply to meet the project requirements of donor agencies. It was agreed by all that the "donor mentality," rather than providing a needed catalyst for institutional introspection and informed strategising, often serves as an opiate for members of the international human rights movement. It is necessary for national human rights NGOs to utilise and concretise the growing devolution of international human rights mechanisms; their work will be effective and professional only if it reflects the confluence of local and international perspectives on human rights.

Over the course of the proceeding day and a half, participants in the Third Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress addressed key international issues through a series of presentations and informal discussions.

The first of these issues was implementation - or lack thereof - of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in the Asia Pacific region. 

Mr. Suhas Chakma, also of the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, presented an overview of the NGO, UN, and governmental proceedings at Durban. He noted the ineffective methods of the NGO Forum and related them to the unusable text that resulted from their deliberations. He illustrated that considerable distance, both physical and ideological, hampered coordination between non-governmental and governmental participants.

He also provided an overview of key international developments that preceded the Durban Conference, thus placing the events at Durban in the greater historical context of the international human rights movement.

Five country-specific strategy papers were presented on the Durban Declaration and its implementation. Participants from China, Bhutan, Bangladesh, India and Indonesia outlined critical national issues regarding racial discrimination and intolerance from an NGO perspective.

It was clear from these discussions that countries in the Asia Pacific have taken even fewer concrete steps towards realising the goals of the Declaration than the NGOs criticised by Mr Nair and Mr Chakma. The Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress adopted a Draft Resolution on Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

The draft resolution included, inter alia, the following recommendations: that the United Nations Secretary General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights ensure the equal and effective participation of NGOs in the process of implementing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights undertake programmes for implementing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; that the Special Rapporteur undertake visits to the Asia Pacific; that Asia Pacific NHRIs address issues of racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance both individually and collectively; and that the governments of the Asia Pacific Region and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights address the issue of racism at the annual meeting of the Regional Arrangement for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights in the Asian and Pacific Region. 

The second issue discussed at the Congress was the concept of "mainstreaming" human rights within United Nations development programmes.

This process refers to the UN Secretary-General's 1997 reform programme, in which the UN has prioritised the integration of globally agreed upon international development targets and cross-sectoral mandates, including human rights, in the Common Country Assessment/United Nations Development Assistance Framework. Mr. Suhas Chakma provided the introductory presentation on mainstreaming human rights, and his paper was followed by a discussion of mainstreaming within the context of the right to housing which was led by Miloon Kothari, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing for the United Nations.

Two things became clear from these presentations: first, there is considerable need for conceptual clarity on the part of all bodies involved in the process of "mainstreaming"; second, there is ample space for the participation of civil society in this process and NGOs must adapt their activities to take advantage of this development. Mr. Chakma, for example, pointed out that NGOs should be able to contribute to the Common Country Notes and Common Country Assessments and that UN agencies should create such mechanisms.

In addition, Mr. Kothari outlined six ways in which civil society can influence the process of mainstreaming. They included the need for follow-up on all world conferences on human rights, the need to use legal methods, and the need to incorporate a human rights curriculum in schools. Both speakers stressed the importance of conceptual clarity and consistency.  A focused question and answer session followed.

Participants ratified a Draft Resolution on United Nations Mechanisms and Regional Arrangements for Protection and Promotion of Human Rights in the Asian Pacific Region.

This Resolution criticised the lack of commitment of governments in the Asia Pacific region in developing a regional human rights mechanism, and called upon the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure the informed participation of non-ECOSOC and national NGOs in Regional Arrangement processes.

Lastly, the Third Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress addressed the issue of due process of law in anti-terrorism measures.  Members unreservedly condemned acts of terrorism as a violation of fundamental human rights.

However, they expressed concern at the growing trend in many Asia Pacific countries of suspending human rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

Members noted, for example, the increasing incorporation of the death penalty as a form of punishment in anti-terrorism laws, the use of special courts to the detriment of the due process of law, and the sanctioning of summary executions in the war against terrorism.

The participating members of the Congress then discussed and revised a Draft Resolution on Due Process of Law in Anti-Terrorism Measures.

This document was adopted by the Pre Forum NGO Consultation to the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) on 11 November 2002 and was circulated at the APF meeting held from 11-13 November 2002.

The Third NGO Congress ended with renewed commitment on behalf of APHRN members, and the foundation was laid for future regional and national projects. It constituted an important first step in building and utilising regional awareness of evolving human rights mechanisms.

The size of the field has expanded, the available procedures have multiplied, and Asia Pacific NGOs must be sure to utilise them to the fullest extent possible.