PHA-Exch> Food or a bias-free thought

[Claudio Schuftan]

* *

Human Rights Reader 201

* *

*THE HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED FRAMEWORK IS HERE TO PUT RIGHT AVOIDABLE WRONGS
WORLDWIDE.*



In terms of social justice, international borders are artificial, the
struggles of people everywhere are the same. (S. Ahmed)



1. We have to start this Reader with a caveat: Depth of feeling about the
need of adopting the human rights-based framework is not enough; passion
alone may nurture bias of its own. So, the question is: What are we supposed
to do not to nurture bias?



2. Even a very partial beginning of pointing out potential biases to be
aware of helps here.



3. For starters, there are some important legal nuances we need to be aware
of:



i) In international terms, the need for states to 'respect' human rights
(HR) *is* part of international HR law; it is not clear if the need to
'protect' HR is legally binding; and the need to 'fulfill' HR has no real
legal basis. (M. Vidar) *

___________

*: We note that sameness is different from fairness. Is it a surprise that
in the current development paradigm equality is very often backed by law,
but equity not yet?



ii) Transnational corporations (TNCs) and
public-private-for-profit-partnerships (PPPPs) do not have explicit legal HR
obligations internationally; they only have them towards their states of
origin. It thus behooves those states to make TNCs abide by HR principles
--despite what corporations (at the same time trying to be judges and jury)
would have us believe with their smooth rhetoric about their corporate
responsibility.



iii) It is not clear if UN bodies have legal international obligations in
HR.

Therefore, for now, what is needed is a high enough UN oversight body to
make all UN agencies HR-accountable, making sure, among other, they use
HR-based program planning and they carry out HR impact assessments of what
they (plan to) do. [Let us be clear, the obligations are there, but need to
be made enforceable]. It is thus high time for standards to be set and for
intra-UN mechanisms of recourse for non-compliance to be set up. That is a
challenge the international community cannot procrastinate on any longer!   It
is not an overstatement to say that, in terms of HR, UN agencies have to
move from being reactive to being proactive in the prevention of HR
violations **. After 1998, when the Secretary General clearly signaled the
path for the UN to be along the HR framework, at the core has been our
inability (so far) to go from UN-agencies-as-they-are to
UN-agencies-as-they-ought-to-be.

_________________________________

**: We have to beware of the tendency in the past towards a rhetorical
repackaging of the HR framework and its application which has meant
'integrating' HR language into instruments from the UN or other agencies,
but when doing so, going no further than this superficial addition. The
diffusion of the HR paradigm throughout the UN has actually so far scattered
the HR obligations everywhere and nowhere leading to an incoherent UN system
in matters of HR; this has clearly prevented meaningful progress. (N.
Borofsky).



4. Then, there are other scattered considerations to be objective about:



i) In our work as HR activists, slick slogans are not constructive; and
hair-splitting debates on definitions are of no help either. (P. Fuchs)
Likewise, theoretical pronouncements alone do not make good strategies for
our work***. (R. Jolly)…and opportunities should not be mistaken for
solutions.

_________

***: Beware: when academics have nothing better to offer to change a
situation on the ground, they build sand castles. (M. Anderson)



ii) We cannot overlook the fact that if an organization is to function on
the principle of consensus, divergent points of view and conflicting
interests must be conciliated. (CETIM) [Any message here for UN agencies?].

* *

iii) We have to always emphasize that supply-and-demand issues and market
forces interactions (for example in the delivery of health services) make no
sense in the HR-based framework except to hide and evade the claim
holders/duty bearers dialectic confrontation issue at the core when, from a
HR perspective, 100% of the population has to have access for the right to
health to be fulfilled. (L. Turiano).

* *

iv) We often make predictions. Keep in mind that *uncertainty* is imprecise
knowledge about potential future events whereas *risk* is uncertainty that
can be systematically assessed. The name of the game is to convert
uncertainty into risk.  [Note: Financial markets are a standard mechanism
for trading risk…until, in 2008, they began trading on uncertainty….?].



v) We also continuously speak about accountability. This should not
translate only into 'naming and shaming', but into the right to ask the
question: Why was something done/not done? It is for that that an
independent mechanism needs to be in place to monitor accountability.



vi) Do not fall into a trap: MDGs and HR cannot be married; MDGs focus on
goals (and are thus not inherently participatory); HR focus on processes
that *are* inherently participatory. [Village-level progress towards each of
the eight MDGs --as opposed to national aggregates for each goal-- is where
a HR-based framework would center its attention. That is more HR-like].



Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan at phmovement.org

[All Readers can be found in www.humaninfo.org/aviva  under
No.69<http://www.humaninfo.org/aviva%20%20under%20No.69>
]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20081216/d5d35933/attachment-0001.html>