Amnesty International Report 2009 – Human Rights – Gender
Author: Womens UN Report Network
Date: May 18, 2009
WUNRN
Direct Link to Full 424-Page Report:
_______________________________________________________________________
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2009
STATE OF THE WORLD’S HUMAN RIGHTS
IT’S NOT JUST THE
ECONOMY, IT’S A HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS
Irene Khan
In September 2008 I was in New York to attend the UN high-level meeting on the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the internationally agreed targets to
reduce poverty by 2015. Delegate after delegate talked about the need for more
funds to eradicate hunger, to cut preventable deaths of infants and pregnant
women, to provide clean water and sanitation, to educate girls. The life and
dignity of billions of people were at stake, but there was only limited will to
back up the talk with money. As I left the UN building I could see the ticker
tapes running a very different story coming from another part of Manhattan: the
crash of one of the largest investment banks on Wall Street. It was a telling
sign of where world attention and resources were really focused. Rich and
powerful governments were suddenly able to find many more times the sums that
could not be found to stem poverty. They poured them with abundance into
failing banks and stimulus packages for economies that had been allowed to run
amok for years and were now running aground.
By the end of 2008, it was clear that our two-tier world of deprivation and
gluttony – the impoverishment of many to satisfy the greed of a few – was
collapsing into a deep hole.
As with the case of climate change, so too with global economic recession: the
rich are responsible for most of the damaging action, but it is the poor who
suffer the worst consequences. While no one is being spared the sharp bite of
the recession, the woes of the rich countries are nothing compared with the
disasters unfolding in poorer ones. >From migrant workers in China to miners
in Katanga in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), people desperately
trying to drag themselves out of poverty are feeling the brunt sharply. The
World Bank has predicted 53 million more people will be thrown into poverty
this year, on top of the 150 million hit by the food crisis last year, wiping
out the gains of the last decade. International Labour Organization figures
suggest that between 18 and 51 million people could lose their jobs. Skyrocketing
food prices are leading to more hunger and disease, forced evictions and
foreclosures to more homelessness and destitution.
“The
world needs a different kind of leadership, a different kind of politics as
well as economics – something that works for all and not just for a favoured
few.”
While it is too early to predict the full impact on human rights of the
profligacy of recent years, it is clear that the human rights costs and
consequences of the economic crisis will cast long shadows. It is also clear
that not only have governments abdicated economic and financial regulation to
market forces, they have failed abysmally to protect human rights, lives and
livelihoods.
Billions of people are suffering from insecurity, injustice and indignity. This
is a human rights crisis.
The crisis is about the shortages of food, jobs, clean water, land and housing
and also about growing inequality and insecurity, xenophobia and racism,
violence and repression. Together they form a global crisis that requires
global solutions based on international co-operation, human rights and the rule
of law. Unfortunately, powerful governments are focusing inward on the narrow
financial and economic consequences in their own countries and ignoring the
wider world crisis. Or, if they are considering international action, they are
limiting it only to finance and economy, and so recreating the mistakes of the
past.
The world needs a different kind of leadership, a different kind of politics as
well as economics – something that works for all and not just for a favoured
few. We need leadership of the kind that moves states from narrow national
self-interest to multilateral collaboration, so that the solutions are
inclusive, comprehensive, sustainable and respectful of human rights. Alliances
between governments and corporations built on expectations of financial
enrichment at the expense of the most marginalized must be dismantled.
Alliances of convenience that protect abusive governments from accountability
must go.
Many faces of
inequality
Many experts point to the millions lifted out of poverty by economic growth,
but the truth is that many more have been left behind, the gains have been far
too fragile – as the recent economic crisis shows – and the human rights costs
too high. Human rights were too often relegated to the backseat as the
juggernaut of unregulated globalization swept the world into a frenzy of growth
in recent years. The consequences are clear: growing inequality, deprivation,
marginalization and insecurity; voices of people protesting suppressed with
audacity and impunity; and those responsible for the abuses – governments, big
business and international financial institutions – largely unrepentant and
unaccountable. There are growing signs of political unrest and violence, adding
to the global insecurity that already exists because of deadly conflicts which
the international community seems unable or unwilling to resolve. In other
words: we are sitting on a powder keg of inequality, injustice and insecurity, and
it is about to explode.
Despite sustained economic growth in many parts of Africa, millions of people
remain below the poverty line, struggling to meet their basic needs. Latin
America is possibly the most unequal region in the world, with Indigenous and
other marginalized communities in rural and urban areas denied their right to
health care, clean water, education and adequate housing despite the impressive
growth of their national economies. India is emerging as an Asian powerhouse
giant but has yet to address the deprivation of its urban poor or marginalized
communities in rural areas, while in China the gap in living standards between
rural and migrant workers and affluent urban classes is becoming even starker.
The majority of the world’s population today is urban and of them, more than a
billion live in slums. In other words, one in every three city-dwellers lives
in inadequate housing with little or no basic services, and with the daily
threat of insecurity, violence and forced evictions. Sixty per cent of the
population of Nairobi, Kenya, lives in slums – one million of them in Kibera,
the largest slum in Africa. To give another example, some 150,000 Cambodians
are at risk of forced eviction in the wake of land disputes, land grabbing,
agro-industrial and urban redevelopment projects.
Inequality as a by-product of globalization has not been limited only to those
living in developing countries. As the October 2008 report of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) showed, in industrialized
countries too “the economic growth of recent decades has benefited the rich
more than the poor.” The USA, the richest country in the world, came 27th out
of 30 OECD member states in terms of entrenched poverty and growing income
disparity.
From the urban poor in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil to Roma
communities in European countries, the dirty truth is that many people are poor
because of overt and covert policies of discrimination, marginalization and
exclusion, perpetrated or condoned by the state, with the collusion of business
or private actors. It is no mere coincidence that many of the world’s poor are
women, migrants, ethnic or religious minorities. It is not by chance that
maternal mortality remains one of the biggest killers of our times, although a
minimal expenditure on emergency obstetric care would save the lives of
hundreds of thousands of women of child-bearing age.
A clear example of the collusion between business and state to deprive people
of their land and natural resources and impoverish them is the case of
Indigenous communities. In Bolivia, large numbers of Indigenous Guarani
families in the Chaco region are living in what the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights has described as a state of bondage analogous to slavery.
Following his visit to Brazil in August 2008, the UN Special Rapporteur on
indigenous people criticized “the persistent discrimination [that is]
underlying the formation of policies, delivery of services, and administration
of justice” to Indigenous People in that country.
Inequality extends into the justice system itself. In an effort to strengthen
the market economy and encourage investment by foreign business and private
actors, international financial institutions have funded legal reform in the
commercial sector in a number of developing countries. But there has been no
comparable effort to ensure that poor people are able to assert their rights
and seek redress through the courts for the violations committed by governments
or companies. According to the UN Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor,
around two thirds of the world’s population have no meaningful access to
justice.
Many forms of
insecurity
The numbers of people living in poverty and subjected to human rights abuse are
likely to grow as several factors come together in a recessionary economic
climate. First, structural adjustment policies, led by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank until a decade ago, have eviscerated social
safety nets in both developing and developed countries. Structural adjustment
policies were designed to create conditions within states which would support a
market economy and open national markets to international trade. These led to
the promotion of the minimal state in which governments abrogated their
obligations on economic and social rights in favour of the market. In addition
to calling for economic liberalization, structural adjustment policies also
pushed for privatization of public services, deregulation of labour relations,
and the cutting of social security nets. User fees promoted by the World Bank
and the IMF in areas such as education and health care often put these services
out of the reach of the poorest. Now, with the economy in shambles and
unemployment rising, too many people are facing not just loss of income, but
also social insecurity with no safety nets to support them through troubled
times.
Second, the global food insecurity, despite its gravity, is getting
insufficient attention from the international community. Nearly one billion
people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, according to the Food and
Agriculture Organization. There has been a sharp spike in hunger, as a result
of food shortages caused by decades of underinvestment in agriculture; trade
policies encouraging dumping and the consequent devastation of local farmers;
climate change leading to growing water shortages and degradation of land,
increasing population pressure; rising energy costs and the rush for biofuels.
In many places, the food crisis has been aggravated by discrimination and
political manipulation of food distribution, obstruction of much needed
humanitarian aid, insecurity and armed conflict, which destroy the
possibilities for farming or deny people the access to the resources they need
to produce or buy food. In Zimbabwe, where five million people were in need of
food aid by the end of 2008, the government used food as a weapon against its
political opponents. In North Korea, food aid was deliberately restricted by
the authorities to oppress and keep people hungry. “Scorched earth”
counterinsurgency tactics by Sudanese armed forces and government-backed
Janjawid militia destroyed livelihoods as well as lives of people in Darfur.
Displaced civilians trapped by the conflict in northern Sri Lanka were deprived
of food and other humanitarian assistance because the LTTE armed group would
not let the people leave and the Sri Lankan armed forces would not give full
access to aid organizations. Possibly one of the most outrageous cases of denial
of the right to food in 2008 was the refusal of the Myanmar authorities to
allow desperately needed international assistance to 2.4 million survivors of
Cyclone Nargis for three weeks, even as the government diverted its own
resources to promote a flawed referendum on an even more flawed Constitution.
Add to the higher food prices, the lay-off of hundreds of thousands of migrant
or foreign workers as export-driven economies slow down and economic
protectionism raises its head. The remittances from foreign workers totalling
some US$200 billion annually – twice the global level of overseas development
aid – are an important source of income to a range of low and middle income
countries like Bangladesh, Philippines, Kenya and Mexico. Falling remittances
mean less revenue for these governments and so less cash to spend on basic
goods and services. Furthermore, in some countries the fall in the export of
labour leaves more disillusioned, angry, young men idle in their home villages
and an easy prey to extremist politics and violence.
Meanwhile, even as labour markets shrink, the pressure to migrate continues to
rise, and receiving countries resort to ever-harsher methods to keep people
out. In June 2008, I visited the public cemetery of Tenerife in the Canary
Islands where unmarked graves bear silent testimony to the failed endeavour of
African migrants to enter Spain. In 2008 alone, 67,000 people made the perilous
crossing across the Mediterranean to Europe, with unknown numbers drowning in
the process. Those who made it live a shadowy existence, without identity
papers, open to exploitation and abuse, and with the threat of deportation
preceded by prolonged detention hanging over their heads as a result of the
2008 European Union (EU) directive on returns of illegal immigrants.
Some EU member states, such as Spain, have entered into bilateral agreements
with African countries to return migrants, or stop them from leaving in the
first place. Countries such as Mauritania see these agreements as a licence to arbitrarily
arrest, detain in substandards conditions and deport without any legal remedy
large numbers of foreigners on its territory, with no evidence of their
intentions to leave the country and even though it is no crime to leave
Mauritania irregularly.
As more and more people are pushed into ever-more precarious conditions, social
tensions are increasing. One of the worst instances of racist and xenophobic
violence in 2008 occurred in South Africa in May, when 60 people were killed,
600 injured and tens of thousands were displaced, even as tens of thousands
more entered the country to seek refuge from political violence and deprivation
in neighbouring Zimbabwe. Although official inquiries failed to establish the
causes of the attacks, it is widely believed that they were motivated by
xenophobia and the competition for jobs, housing and social services,
exacerbated by corruption.
Economic recovery depends on political stability. Yet those very same world
leaders who are scrambling to put together stimulus packages to revive the
global economy continue to ignore the deadly conflicts around the world that
are spawning massive human rights abuses, entrenching poverty and endangering
regional stability.
The economic and social conditions in Gaza, blockaded and battered by military
attacks, are appalling. The political and economic fall-out of the conflict in
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories reverberates far beyond its
immediate vicinity.
The conflicts in Darfur and Somalia are playing out in areas with fragile
ecosystems where increased pressure on water and the ability to provide food to
sustain the population are both a cause and consequence of the continuing wars.
The massive displacement they have generated has put enormous pressure on the
neighbouring countries, which now have to cope also with the additional
consequences of the global economic crisis.
In eastern DRC, greed, corruption and economic interests have vied with
regional power politics to impoverish the people and entrap them in a
persistent cycle of violence. A country of immense natural wealth, it now finds
reconstruction and recovery efforts set back by a fall in foreign investment in
the wake of the economic downturn.
In Afghanistan, pervasive insecurity has restricted the ability of people
living there to access food, health care and schooling, particularly women and
girls. The insecurity has seeped across the border to neighbouring Pakistan,
already suffering from the government’s failure to uphold human rights, tackle
poverty and address youth unemployment, and is driving the country into a
downward spiral of extremist violence.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the financial crisis it is that
international borders do not insulate us from harm. Finding solutions to the
world’s worst conflicts and to the increasing threat of extremist violence
through greater respect for human rights is part and parcel of the bigger
picture of getting the global economy on its feet.
From recession to
repression
On the one hand, we face the grave danger that rising poverty and desperate
economic and social conditions could lead to political instability and mass
violence. On the other, we may well end up in a situation where recession could
be accompanied by greater repression as beleaguered governments – particularly
those with an authoritarian bent – clamp down harshly on dissent, criticism and
public exposure of corruption and economic mismanagement.
We had a taste in 2008 of what could lie ahead for 2009 and beyond. When people
took to the streets to protest against rising food prices and the dire economic
conditions, in many countries even peaceful protests were met with tough
responses. In Tunisia strikes and protests were put down with force, causing
two deaths, many injuries and more than 200 prosecutions of alleged organizers,
some culminating in long prison sentences. In Zimbabwe, political opponents,
human rights activists and trade union representatives were attacked, abducted,
arrested and killed with impunity. In Cameroon, following violent
demonstrations as many as 100 protesters were shot dead and many more
imprisoned.
In times of economic stress and political tensions, there is need for openness
and tolerance so that dissatisfaction and discontent can be channelled into
constructive dialogue and the search for solutions. Yet, it is precisely in
these circumstances that the space for civil society is shrinking in many
countries. Human rights activists, journalists, lawyers, trade union
representatives and other civil society leaders are being harassed, threatened,
attacked, prosecuted without justification or killed with impunity in every
region of the world.
Media censorship is likely to increase as governments seek to stifle criticism
of their policies. This will add to the threats that journalists already face
in many countries. Sri Lanka holds one of the worst records, with 14
journalists killed since 2006. Iran has tightened internet expression and Egypt
and Syria imprisoned bloggers. China relaxed media control in the run-up to the
Beijing Olympics but soon after that reverted to old habits of blocking
websites and other forms of censorship. The Malaysian government banned two
prominent opposition newspapers, fearing criticism in the run-up to elections.
Open markets have not necessarily led to open societies. Emboldened by its
economic power derived from high oil and gas prices, the Russian government
increasingly adopted a nationalistic and authoritarian stance in recent years
and sought actively to erode freedom of expression and attack its critics. As
the Russian economy runs into trouble with falling oil prices and rising
inflation, and social discontent spreads, the authoritarian tendencies could
become even more pronounced.
China continues to suppress harshly those who criticize its official policies
and practices. The result is that official corruption and corporate
malpractices are not tackled until the scandal can no longer be suppressed and
much damage has occurred, as shown by the SARS/bird flu scare or the HIV/AIDS
epidemic a few years ago or the more recent scandal about melamine in powder
milk products. The Chinese government has reacted with high profile executions
of those found guilty of corruption but that has done little or nothing to
change corporate or official behaviour in China.
An informed citizenry empowered to demand accountability is a better guarantee
that governments and companies will do their job well. Freedom is an asset to
be encouraged, not suppressed, at a time when governments are seeking to
stimulate the economy.
New kind of
leadership
“…the G-20 must subscribe to global values and
confront their own tarnished records and double standards on human
rights.”
Deprivation, inequality, injustice, insecurity and oppression are the hallmarks
of poverty. They are clearly human rights problems and will not yield to
economic measures alone. They demand strong political will and a comprehensive
response integrating political, economic, social and environmental issues
within an overarching framework of human rights and the rule of law. They
demand collective action and a new kind of leadership.
Economic globalization has brought about a shift in geopolitical power and a
new generation of states, in the form of the G-20, is claiming the mantle of
world leadership. Composed of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other
emerging economies from the global South as well as Russia, USA and leading
western economies, the G-20 claims to be a more accurate representation of
political power and economic clout in the world today. That may be so, but to
be truly global leaders, the G-20 must subscribe to global values and confront
their own tarnished records and double standards on human rights.
True, the new US administration is striking a markedly different path on human
rights as compared to the George W. Bush administration. President Barack
Obama’s decision, within 48 hours of taking office, to close Guantánamo prison
camp within a year, unequivocally denounce torture and end secret detention by
the CIA, was commendable, as was the administration’s decision to seek election
for the USA to the UN Human Rights Council. However, it is too early to tell
whether the administration will call as frankly and forcefully on countries
like Israel and China – as it does others like Iran and Sudan – to uphold human
rights.
The EU remains ambivalent on its commitment to human rights. Although strong on
issues like the death penalty, freedom of expression and protection of human
rights defenders, many EU member states are less willing to live up to
international standards on protection of refugees and elimination of racism and
discrimination within their borders or to own up to collusion with the CIA on
the extraordinary rendition of terrorist suspects.
Brazil and Mexico are strong supporters of human rights internationally but
unfortunately often fail to practice within their own borders what they
advocate abroad. South Africa consistently blocked international pressure on
the Zimbabwean government to end political persecution and electoral
manipulation. Saudi Arabia detains thousands of terrorist suspects without
trial, locks up political dissidents, and severely restricts the rights of
migrant workers and women. China has a deeply flawed criminal justice system,
uses punitive forms of administrative detention to silence critics and is the
world’s top executioner. The Russian government has allowed arbitrary
detention, torture and other ill-treatment, and extrajudicial executions to
flourish with impunity in the North Caucasus regions of Russia, and threatens
those who dare to criticize it.
The G-20 governments have an obligation to uphold international human rights
standards to which the international community has subscribed. Otherwise, they
undermine their own credibility and legitimacy as well as effectiveness. The
goal of the G-20 is to find a way out of the global economic crisis. They also
claim that their efforts will benefit people living in poverty. But economic
recovery will be neither sustainable nor equitable if it does not include a
strong focus on human rights.
It is incumbent on those sitting at the world’s top table to set an example
through their own behaviour. A good start would be for the G-20 members to send
a clear signal that all human rights, economic, social or cultural rights,
political or civil rights, are equally important. The USA has long denied the
validity of economic and social rights and is not a state party to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China, on the
other hand, is not a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The two countries should accede immediately to the respective
treaties. All G-20 members should ratify the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the
UN General Assembly in December 2008. Signing up to international treaties,
however, is only one step in what needs to be done.
New opportunities
for change
Global poverty – exacerbated by the economic situation – has created a burning
platform for human rights change. At the same time, the economic crisis has
triggered a paradigm shift that opens up opportunities for systemic change.
“Governments should invest in human rights as purposefully
as they are investing in economic growth.”
For the past two decades, the state has been retreating or reneging on its
human rights obligations in favour of the market in the belief that economic
growth would lift all boats. With the tide receding and boats springing leaks,
governments are radically changing their positions and talking about a new
global financial architecture and international governance system in which the
state plays a stronger role. That opens up an opportunity to also halt the
retreat of the state from the social sphere and re-design a more human rights
friendly model of the state than the one that has characterized international
policy-making for the past 20 years. It creates the possibility to radically
rethink the role of international financial institutions in terms of
respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights, including economic and
social rights.
Governments should invest in human rights as purposefully as they are investing
in economic growth. They should expand and support health and educational
opportunities; end discrimination; empower women; set universal standards and
effective systems to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses;
build open societies where the rule of law is respected, social cohesion is
strong, corruption is eradicated and governments can be held to account. The
economic crisis should not become a pretext for wealthier countries to cut back
on their development assistance. International aid is even more important now
in the economic downturn to support some of the poorest countries deliver core
services on health, education, sanitation and housing.
Governments should also work together to resolve deadly conflicts. Given the
inter-relationships, ignoring one crisis to focus on another is a sure recipe
for aggravating both.
Will governments seize these opportunities to strengthen human rights? Will
corporate actors and international financial institutions accept and live up to
their human rights responsibilities? So far, human rights have barely figured
in the diagnoses or the prescription being proposed by the international
community.
History shows that most struggles for great change – such as the abolition of
slavery or the emancipation of women – started not as the initiative of states
but as the endeavour of ordinary people. Successes in establishing
international justice or controlling the arms trade or abolishing the death
penalty or fighting violence against women or putting global poverty and climate
change on the international agenda are all largely due to the energy,
creativity and persistence of millions of activists from around the globe. It
is to people power that we must now turn to bring pressure to bear on our
political leaders. That is why, together with many local, national and
international partners, Amnesty International is launching a new campaign in
2009. Under the banner of “Demand Dignity”, we will mobilize people to seek
accountability of national and international actors for human rights abuses
that drive and deepen poverty. We will challenge discriminatory laws, policies
and practices, and demand concrete measures to overcome the factors that
impoverish and keep people poor. We will bring the voices of people living in
poverty to the centre of the debate to end poverty and insist that they are
allowed to participate actively in decisions that affect their lives.
“We also “demand dignity” for prisoners of poverty so that
they can change their own lives.”
Almost 50 years ago, Amnesty International was created to demand the release
of prisoners of conscience. Today we also “demand dignity” for prisoners of
poverty so that they can change their own lives. I am confident that with the
help and support of our millions of members, supporters and partners around the
world we will succeed.
================================================================
To contact the list administrator, or to leave the list, send an email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.
Categories: Releases