15 YEARS AFTER VIENNA: OHCHR DEVELOPMENTS AND CHALLENGES STATEMENT BY MS. KYUNG-WHA KANG, ACTING HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

28 August 2008
Vienna

Minister Plassnik, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to take part in this international conference commemorating the 15th anniversary of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. I thank the Austrian government, the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Human Rights, and the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy for organizing this timely meeting.

I am sure the new incoming High Commissioner Navanatham Pillay would have been delighted to join you in taking stock of the past 15 years. However, she has yet to formally take up her post, and I am given the honor to speak at this important gathering on behalf of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

The Vienna Conference is of particular significance to all of us at OHCHR, for it was the Vienna process that gave concrete voice to the long-standing wish of the human rights community to create the post of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Those who were directly involved in the Vienna process, many of whom are here at the conference, recall that the issue of creating the post of the High Commissioner was an undercurrent of controversy at the Conference, not extensively debated openly but kept alive in the corridors and small group meetings among delegates who were keen not to let the opportunity pass. In the end, the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action included only a simple paragraph on the issue, referring the matter to the General Assembly for priority consideration.

Thus, the work fell upon the General Assembly in the fall of same year to negotiate what a UN Human Rights High Commissioner should be and do. Numerous drafts were circulated, representing different visions of the role of the High Commissioner, ranging from strong investigative and intervention functions for the High Commissioner to a mere upgrading of the existing head of the UN Center for Human Rights. The resolution adopted, 48/141, was a sound compromise, with rather general language on the High Commissioner’s role. Some saw this as its weakness. But others thought, and in hindsight rightly so, that the language offered flexibility for adaptation in response to evolving needs and conditions. It has also meant that the personal vision and leadership of the incumbents would largely determine the orientation and evolution of the Office and the UN human rights program.

Thus, each High Commissioner made his/her mark as the Office evolved over the past 15 years. The first High Commissioner Jose Ayala Lasso built the foundation of the new Office, including shifting the focus of the then Centre for Human Rights from servicing bodies and special rapporteurs to technical cooperation and information and education activities in the field. His successor Mary Robinson further institutionalized these avenues for action and strengthened the High Commissioner’s advocacy role on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. To this day her insistence that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights constitute an indivisible whole continues to this day to resonate and inform. The third High Commissioner Sergio Vieira de Mello was instrumental in moving forward the process of engaging the larger UN system on human rights issues, although tragically was too short in the job. Acting High Commissioner Bertrand Ramcharan, while holding the fort pending the arrival of next High Commissioner, pushed ahead on pressing human rights issues and strengthened the practice of the High Commissioner drawing the attention of the former Commission on Human Rights and the Security Council to human rights situations warranting their consideration. The most recent High Commissioner Louise Arbour led the Office through a time of unprecedented expansion and reform with exceptional drive and strategic thinking, while at the same time instilling in the intergovernmental process in the transition from the Commission to the Council the vital importance of the universality of human rights and of human rights scrutiny.

Thanks to their leadership, the Office has grown from the small headquarters -based Centre for Human Rights - with some 106 staff and a biennial budget
of $31 million at the end of 1993 - to the current structure with 942 staff,49 field presences, and a budget of $256 million at the end of
last biennium.

2005 was a pivotal year for the Office and the UN human rights program. In response to the call by the then Secretary-General in his report on UN reform entitled “In larger Freedom”, High Commissioner Louise Arbour presented a Plan of Action, outlining a strategic vision for the Office. The document was presented to the World Summit in the fall of 2005. The Summit acknowledged the evolution of the UN human rights program, and gave human rights a new standing as one of the three pillars of the UN, next to peace and development. The Summit also proclaimed the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, called for the creation of the Human Rights Council, and last but not least made the commitment to significantly strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner.

With the support further reaffirmed by the General Assembly decision to double the regular budget support for the Office, the past three years have been a period of unprecedented growth for OHCHR. At the same time, the Office has striven to support the functioning of the newly established Human Rights Council, including the start of the novel element of the Universal Periodic Review, the review, rationalization and improvement of the system of Special Procedures, as well as to continue to enhance the effectiveness of the Treaty Bodies as called for in the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action.

The evolution of the UN human rights program that led to the 2005 Summit decisions and continues to materialize through the work of OHCHR can be described as a shift from standard-setting to standard-implementation, from headquarters to the field, from disconnected endeavors to an integrated approach. Thus, greater country engagement in the field, enhanced leadership role for the High Commissioner through strengthened advocacy for victims of human rights violations and vulnerable groups, closer partnerships with other UN entities and civil society, and greater synergy with the Human Rights Council, the Treaty Bodies and the Special Procedures are the key strategies that guide the Office today.

Taking human rights to the field has also meant concerted efforts to mainstream human rights throughout the peace, development, and humanitarian assistance activities of the UN. Indeed, this is one area where further investment of OHCHR expertise and resources will be called for in the years to come.

Concrete progress has been made in the field of peace. Human rights are now a regular component of Security Council mandated peace missions established in post-conflict societies. The work of the human rights component in these missions are undertaken in close collaboration with OHCHR. The head of the components have a dual reporting line to the head of the mission as well as to the High Commissioner. Recently, a joint OHCHR, DPKO and DPA guidance was issued to the peace missions concerning public reporting on human rights challenges faced by the host countries, further solidifying the place of human rights in peace missions.

However, at the intergovernmental level, integration of human rights into the debate on peace on security remains an ad hoc exercise, as indicated by the reluctance of the Security Council to place on its formal agenda countries facing human rights crises.

In the area of development, there has been some progress as well. In 2003, UN entities came to a common understanding on a human-rights based approach as a methodological tool to development programming. Furthermore, through the offer of training and human rights expertise, the Action 2 initiative has contributed much to bringing human rights thinking to the work of UN country teams. However, implementation on the ground remains uneven, depending to a large extent on the individual commitment of the Resident Coordinator heading the country teams. Continuing efforts are needed to strengthen policy and operational guidance from a human rights perspective, to build capacities throughout the UN system, and to ensure that programmatic incentives are aligned with human rights imperatives.

At the intergovernmental level, the debate remains active and often polarized. On the one hand, the principle of mainstreaming human rights into development received explicit and unprecedented endorsement at the 2005 World Summit. But many states continue to question the human rights-based approach to development as a conditionality to development assistance. This is contrary to the holistic vision embodied in the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, and to the burgeoning empirical evidence concerning the contributions of human rights to development processes and outcomes.

Such divergence underscores the challenge of trying to give better effect to human rights on the ground while working within an intergovernmental context that is inevitably political. The challenge is felt in numerous ways, from the different reactions to the High Commissioner and the Office’s statements on the human rights issues of the day, to the opposing views expressed in the on-going discussion about the relationship between the Office and the newly established Human Rights Council. Indeed, thinking through the relationship between the Council and the Office will be one challenge that the new High Commissioner is expected to take on in consultation with Member States and other stakeholders, particularly in light of the review of the Human Rights Council that the General Assembly will undertake in 2011. However as the discussion unfolds, the outcome has to be one of reaffirmation of the independence and impartiality of the High Commissioner and her Office, firmly grounded upon international human rights standards, as critical to her ability to undertake the broad mandate of promoting and protecting the human rights of all .

The new High Commissioner takes office at a time of functional and institutional maturity of the Office. While there is some growth still to achieve, the coming years are expected to be a period of consolidation for the Office itself. Meanwhile, old challenges persist and new challenges to securing freedom from fear and freedom from want for all continue to arise. Torture, rape, summary and arbitrary executions, disappearances, arbitrary detentions and other serious human rights violations continue to occur with impunity. In the midst of climate change, the food crises and other global issues that tend to be framed in macro, material terms, keeping the focus on human consequences in the language of human rights continues to be an uphill struggle.

Indeed, as we celebrate the 60 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and fifteen years after Vienna, “justice and dignity for all” remains an aspiration. We at OHCHR await with great anticipation for the next High Commissioner to exercise effective leadership in taking bold meaningful steps to turn the aspiration of the Universal Declaration into reality. In this, I am sure, she and the Office can count on the full support of the Government of Austria and all participants at this Conference.

Thank you.