International Herald Tribune p.8

Paris, Wednesday, December 9, 1998

Bread and Ballots: Human Rights

Aren't Divisible

By Mary Robinson , UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

GENEVA - This Thursday we commemorate the adoption

in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an

unprecedented commitment by nations around the world to

defend human dignity and freedom. Half a century later,

much still needs to be done, but at no other time have there

been as many opportunities to make human rights a reality

for so many people.

The reasons for guarded optimism are several: Many more

people are aware of their rights, and so can claim them; the

number of democracies is larger than ever before; access to

education and health care is growing; the body of

international law on human rights is ever more solid.

This anniversary year has been marked in two appropriate

and pragmatic ways: by a declaration on human rights

defenders, and by the statute for an international criminal

court. Almost 10 years after the end of the Cold War, there

is also near universal agreement on just what human rights

are.

I say ''near universal'' because there are still people who, in

a throwback to the language of the Cold War, claim that

economic, social and cultural rights are not really rights at

all, but mere goals that we should aspire to.Some

commentators see economic, social and cultural rights as

new rights, or as some sort of smoke screen for violations

of civil and political rights. In fact, there is nothing

innovative about economic, social and cultural rights. They

are long-standing, fundamental and internationally

guaranteed obligations of states.

Remember how essential to human dignity, and often to life

itself, are clean water, food and basic health care.

Some will argue that defending the right to education or the

right to work ''waters down'' the fight for freedom of

expression or due process. But the promotion of human

rights is not divisible. Defending one right does not take

away from promoting another. The UN committees that

monitor how each sets of rights is applied are equally

vigorous in their work. As Ambassador Thomas

Hammarberg of Sweden, a longtime human rights defender,

has put it, ''There are more instruments in the orchestra than

the trumpet, and they can all be played at the same time.''

It is also claimed that countries can legitimately plead lack

of resources to escape their obligations to respect economic,

social and cultural rights. This is not true. The Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clearly says that each

country must take steps to the maximum of its available

resources with a view to achieving these rights

progressively. All countries can act to realize economic,

social and cultural rights; the excuse of lack of means to do

so is just not available to them.

Nor is there a similar excuse at the international level,

where debt relief and the policies of the IMF and the World

Bank are so crucial to the capacity of countries to realize

these rights.

During the Cold War, terms like ''democracy,''

''development'' and ''human rights'' provided fodder for

ideological assaults across the East-West, North-South

divides, but today the international community has for the

most part put the old paradigms and the divisive rhetoric to

rest. Thanks to 50 years of standard-setting, negotiation,

refinement and interpretation, these much abused terms now

carry with them an agreed, legally established and

irrefutable definition, as codified in the international law of

human rights.

As we approach the new millennium, we must be very

mindful of our responsibility to work together in restoring

the symmetry of human rights discourse. We must finally

put aside the tired notion that some rights are somehow

more fundamental than others.

The framework for human rights protection, from this point

forward, must be based upon the logic agreed upon by all

countries that took part in the 1933 World Conference on

Human Rights: ''All human rights are universal, indivisible,

interdependent and interrelated. The international

community must treat human rights globally, and in a fair

manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.''

The time for mere talk about human rights is long past. The

iron test for us is implementation. Our challenge is to come

up with integrated strategies for the promotion and

realization of all civil, cultural, economic, social and

political rights, including the right to development. A life

worth living includes education, culture and the right to

vote.

To paraphrase President Nelson Mandela of South Africa,

no one should ever be forced to choose between bread and

the ballot.