07 SCN 37-499

SCN 37-499

WHO IS PROMOTING THE STABILITY OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS PILLAR? LESSONS FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE OF DICTATORSHIP by Günter Nooke

From: “European View”, Centre for European Studies, n. 9, June 8, 2010.

Kindly authorized by the Author.

Reproduced by The European House-Ambrosetti for the Forum “Developing the Regions of Africa and Europe”, Taormina, October 7 and 8, 2010.

112

.

• . •

G. N o o k e

In the East, the slightest opposition to the regime in the 1950s resulted in lengthy prison sentences. From the 1970s onwards, there were an increasing number of expulsions from the German Democratic Republic (GDR). To this end, the GDR—like any other wellorganised dictatorship today—had paragraphs in its penal code which could be used whenever it suited the party leadership to immediately put individual members of the opposition out of action. ' .

In West Germany, the attitudes of mainstream society and the pursuit of a certain kind of political correctness as a consequence of the changes after 1968 prevented a frank and open -debate on Germany's role,in the world. Perhaps the most important lesson leamed by those who have had first-hand experience of dictatorship and of govemments which show no regard for human rights is that no goal, no matter how positive, justifies violence and oppression.

Since the peaceful revolution of autumn 1989 and Germany's freely chosen reunification on 3 October 1990, Germany's scope for action has grown. Today, the intemational responsibility of any given federal government means providing answers, having to decide between the many large and small evils in the world. Anyone who denies that it is possible to decide between different options for the future because of their past is indirectly shirking all responsibility and thus acting irresponsibly.

The basis for responsible action by Germany is very clear. Our constitution begins with an unambiguous commitment: 'Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.' These sentences can by no means be taken for granted, for human dignity is violated even today in many parts of the world.

In presenting the report entitled Tn Larger Freedom' in 2005, Kofi Annan used the image of world peace based on three pillars: security, development and human rights. He stated that we will not enjoy development without security; we will not enjoy security without development; and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. We could therefore say that the realisation of human rights throughout the world is the most important prerequisite for human development (defined as freedorn from poverty and suffering) and human security (defined as freedom.from fear and violence).

What does it mean in concrete terms for the German govemment and perhaps even the European Union to demonstrate their active commitment to the stability ofthe third pillar, human rights?

First of all, this component is a particular strength of German and European foreign policy. It is a strength for Germany in part because we have taken a very close look at our own national history and have largely come to grips with it. Insofar as we have not tried to make our own way of dealing with the dark chapters in our history the intemational norm, we have garnered much respect abroad. ., Anyone who wants to pursue a successful human rights policy must also eamestly strive to maintain this credibility and use it for the benefit of all. Therefore, we cannot and must not shirk our responsibility, particularly when it comes to difficult issues. We always have to put ourselves in the position of those whose rights are being violated, and emphasise human rights when endeavouring to stabilise world peace. This is not all that is politically necessary and not all that has to be done. But this task is perhaps best suited to us Germans and to us Europeans.

When it comes to the first pillar—security—we first of all look at military strength. It remains indispensable for our security and for the defence of freedom. We cannot do without the close transatlantic alliance provided by the leadership of the United States and NATO. • • China will most likely become the leading power in the second pillar, economic development. The fact alone that China has a population of 1.3 billion, one-fifth of the ^

springer

^!ÂĄĂ­saiĂ­xaiMa:m

Who is promoting the stability of the human rights pillar?

113

global population, puts the country in a powerful posidon. But it is also the strength of their ancient culture and civilisation that will ensure that the Chinese take their rightful place in the new concert of world powers. Perhaps this became evident for the first time at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. But it is,up to us, the EU, to make sure that we are still part of decisive talks on the intemafional level.

But let us come back to human rights, which are under threat from two angles in particular. First, there are the well-meaning efforts of the Europeans to incorporate the largest possible canon of human rights into intemational conventions, which is certainly commendable. From a strategic point of view, however, the danger is that if we strive for too much, we could end up losing everything. Nor is it necessary. For although human rights are indivisible, that does not mean they are all equally important. Universally valid human rights are a polidcal concept and a brilliant idea which, if circumspectly translated into reality, can achieve much. Like so much else in politics, this principle can be instmmentalised.for good or bad purposes.

I would like to give a concrete example to illustrate the second angle from which a threat emanates. One of the first human rights to be developed or discovered was a particularly interesting one: the right to freedom of religion or belief. However, the debate has evolved and today the discussion in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva no longer centres on this as an individual human right but on banning the defamation of religions.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is advocating collective human rights here.

This approach is not about the protection of an individual's right but rather the right of areligious group. These group rights have nothing to do with the original concept of human rights. Indeed, they pose a threat to it because they imply that the right of the individual must, if necessary, take second place to that of the group. Individuals, not religions, have human rights. The individual haS the right and the state is obligated to respect and protect it. .

Nowadays we certainly cannot take it for granted that our understanding of human rights is accepted throughout the world. On the contrary, it is at greater risk than it was 20 years ago. This is all the more tme when hardly anyone dares to openly address this threat. But the basic approach is actually quite simple: successful human rights policy is about translating a fantastic idea into reality. This idea applies to everyone, regardless of whether they were bom in Germany or Switzerland or in China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belams or Myanmar/Burma. The polidcal art of human rights policy consists of placing the individual at the heart of all efforts, while at the same time taking into account traditions, culture and religion. This is often particularly difficult when appropriate arguments are put forward by, those who consciously disregard human rights for the sake of shoring up their own power. It is possible to champion cultural diversity without accepring the chopping off of limbs in accordance with sharia law. It is possible to combat terrorism without degrading people and torturing them to obtain confessions.

Let me state again that a gradual but genuine realisation of minimum standards for everyone can be more important than celebrating far-reaching codification on paper. We have to focus on what really matters.

And we can certainly learn something from our own experience of dictatorship; for example, that it is important to hold onto one's own convictions even when mainstream society at home is following another path. We have to begin by reaffirming that the culture of freedom as a way of life must remain important to us, by being just as convinced that huriian rights are at the very heart of our societies as we were 20 or 60 years ago. In terms of concrete policies, this means that we have to be bold time and again and speak frankly ^

Springer

114

G.Nooke

about human rights violafions in the context of diplomatic relations and in talks with heads of state. In discussions with dictators and authoritarian rulers, we should leave no doubt as to whose side we are on: the side of those oppressed and disenfranchised by their govemments.

In all of this we always have to keep in mind that getting too close to the violators of human rightsÂť can cause human rights activists to lose heart. If we have to enter into dialogue with dubious heads of state, then we should be careful not to praise them.

Incidentally, even today there are rio overarching goals which enable us to credibly explain to those suffering human rights violations why we cannot do anything for them.

It is also our experience that fundamental changes often seem to take a long time, then happen quite suddenly and unexpectedly. It is therefore not enough to observe what politicians say or what those wielding power believe is possible. It is at least as important to analyse processes within society. People's wishes and the dynamics within a society are. crucial. Wherever we can, we have to exert influence on these factors and call for changes in the right direcfion.

GĂźnter Nooke is ihe Africa Personal Representative of the German Chancellor at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and was the German Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid.