| |
NEWS of the Index
The Green Party of
England and Wales has adopted the Index as policy
The Index is the next
logical step now that the UN has adopted a Responsibility to Protect
stance.
Index of Human Rights in the UN: Improving
Governance at International Level
Summary
Iraq in 2007 is a tragic, bloody mess as a result
of the violent intervention led by the USA.
But for all of us who opposed the war, this
question remains:
"What would you have done to
end Saddam Hussein's reign of terror? Or to stop the genocide
in Rwanda, or the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?"
There is a way forward through measuring the
human rights performance of the world's governments, and applying
rewards for good practice and disincentives for bad practice.
The effects of an IHR will
be to:
-
provide a continuous motivational
force for governments to improve their human rights record.
- show year-on-year progress (or regress) of
all states.
-
cause release of political
prisoners as governments seek to improve their standing.
-
enable low scoring countries
to seek and receive assistance in improving their performance
-
diminish the possibility
of the UN having to make military R2P interventions.
-
Lessen the tendency for
political caprice to determine who is and is not regarded
as a rogue state.
-
pave the way for the worst
offenders to be brought to court and penalised with a
tariff of smart sanctions designed to hinder and disable
the ruling elite of states that fail to protect the human
rights of their citizens.
It is proposed to use a modification of the
1990s Observer
Index of Human Rights as the instrument, and to make its
annual publication an integral part of the United Nations membership
process.
Later, the worst performing governments could
be tried in an international Court, and if the human rights
abuses are upheld, will experience targeted sanctions.
The Problem
The problem with tyranny lies in the way governments
are accepted by the international community. Anyone who controls
the army and the police is accepted as the legitimate government.
For our leaders, the question is not, "Is this a decent
government dedicated to justice?" but "Will he align
with us or with some other bloc? Will he trade with us? He may
be a wrongdoer, but is he our wrongdoer?"
Tyranny is tolerated and overlooked by governments
when it suits them, but when it becomes expedient or desirable
to do so, the tyrant that our leaders have been supporting may
be denounced in the UN and at home. He is described as "the
new Hitler" in our media. Full on sanctions are applied.
Later, the bombing starts. His people are killed as collateral
damage, his country is reduced to rubble, and the development
process is set back by decades. All the while, our government
and those of our allies present themselves as "democratic"
and therefore above reproach.
This is not a good management strategy. The
right way to change behaviour is through consistency and the
setting of clear boundaries.
This simplistic and capricious good/bad categorisation
is not a true representation of the situation. Standards of
governance range on a continuum from the reasonably good (e.g.
Scandinavian) through the indifferent to the thoroughly unpleasant
(e.g. Hussein's Iraq, Burma, Zimbabwe).
In order to reflect this continuum, a league table of governmental
performance can be created, so that governments could see how
they match up on an objective set of criteria. It would be a
measuring rule to rate the quality of governance of any state.
In this way, what constitutes a legitimate Government would
move from the de facto towards the de jure - from
deriving authority from pure power to deriving it from justice.
Oppression Leads to War
George W Bush's Operation Iraqi Liberation shows
that violent overthrow of oppressive regimes causes as many
problems as it solves. The arbitrary and illegal actions of
the US-led "Coalition of the willing" have caused
unprecedented hostility and controversy world wide. Yet on the
other hand few people support the idea that the international
community should sit back in a spirit of laissez faire
and watch while atrocities and genocide take place as in Rwanda
and Kosovo. We have to address the question of what to do about
regimes who use torture, murder and genocide.
In September 2005 the
UN Summit in New York took on board the doctrine of Responsiblity
to Protect (R2P) with the following words: "We ... intend
to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to help states
build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to
assist those which are under stress before crises and conflicts
break out...we are prepared to take collective action, in a
timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in
accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII, on a
case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional
organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate...
"
Chapter VII enables the UN to authorise military
action against a state.
This leaves the UN in a position of being prepared to use violence
in which innocent bystanders are bound to be injured and killed.
This may ultimately become necessary, but before it resorts
to military action, the UN needs to put in place a non-violent
system that rewards good governance and penalises governments
that are tending towards oppression and genocide.
One important lesson to be learned from Iraq
is the danger of lawlessness when an authoritarian regime is
removed. It should have been anticipated because to a lesser
extent, there was a similar reaction after the fall of Communism,
and after the fall of the right wing regimes in Portugal and
Spain. It might prove to be the case be the case that gradual
change, although it is slower, and therefore prolongs the suffering
under the tyrant, is better in the long run because it may minimise
the lawlessness (not to say anarchy) that follows the sudden
collapse of a repressive regime.
The Index of Governance
The performance of any institution can be measured. There are
instruments in existence which can form the basis for measuring
governmental performance. The Observer Index of Human Rights
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex/Story/0,2763,201762,00.html
) is a good working model. (If the link above does not work,
go to the observer website and search Index of Human Rights).
It was compiled in two ways. The first - the simple ranking
- represents the incidence of headline abuses of human rights
over 13 categories, including:
- the use of torture;
- scale of disappearances (these critical indicators
marked out of 30);
- use of the death penalty;
- denial of free speech;
- political rights;
- abuse of political prisoners
- denial of free movement,
- child rights;
- religious freedom;
- fair trial;
- minority rights; and
-
women's rights.
The total for each country was then multiplied
by its score on the Human Development Index (HDI), as defined
by the United Nations, to avoid unfairly penalising less-developed
countries. Some people find this kind of weighting objectionable,
arguing that torture and killing is absolutely morally repugnant
no matter who authorises it. The opposite view is based on the
premise that "To whom much has been given, from them more
will be expected." The clinching argument for this adjustment
is that it removes a block on its acceptability by the majority.
It is better to have some control on torture than no control
on torture.
A similar approach has been also been developed
in the Political Terror Scale which was created in 1983 by Michael
Stohl at Purdue University, and is currently maintained by Mark
Gibney. It is a graded scale for measuring human rights
violation and was adapted from work originally published by
Raymond Gastil of Freedom House in 1979. The raw information
for the scale comes from the United States Department of State
(marked with an s on the tables) and Amnesty International Annual
(column marked a) reports on countries' Human Rights practices.
The data is graded into categories of 1 to 5, with best human
rights practices ranked as 1 and the worst at 5. There is no
adjustment for stage of development. The scores can be viewed
here.
Surprisingly, the World Bank
in 1999 published a report
which comes to the conclusion that good governance, which they
measured under the headings of
-
Voice and accountability, democracy,
free expression, free association, media
-
political stability, absence
of violence
-
governance quality
-
regulatory quality - permitting
private sector development
-
rule of law
-
corruption
will lead to economic prosperity. They also defended the measurements
as robust.
Of course, a variety of other
factors could be added in to these instruments, for example:
- Non possession of weapons of mass destruction
- Low Military/Social budget ratio
- A convergent economy, that is, an economy
in which the ratio of incomes of the highest and lowest
parts of the population are tending towards the median.
Dr Marie Besancon has reviewed
the range of instruments available to measure governance.
In her report "Good
Governance rankings: the art of measurement" she
lists 47 different methods of measuring governance - although
she does not mention human rights as a main indicator.
Although a broader approach
would give a better picture of a government's performance,
the increased complexity would inevitably give rise to complex
objections and appeals that would slow the process down. The
focus on human rights stands as a simple proxy for the other
actions of a government, and it is likely that it would also
be an accurate indicator of the global performance.
One of the advantages of using
human rights abuses is that we are not dependent on (possibly
unreliable) government data, since friends and relatives of
detainees will be motivated to provide information to the
UN Governance agency.
As well as the Human Development
Index, a weighting or an allowance could be applied to allow
for the extent to which the writ of a regime may or may not
run in the territory for which it is nominally resposible.
Some governments may not have full ability to control what
goes on in their country. However, this consideration should
not be used to indemnify governments for responsibility for
their own agents.
The final form of the UN index
will emerge from negotiations at UN level, so it is not necessary
to perfect them here. It is sufficient to say that to create
an Index of Governance based on human rights would not be
a difficult or expensive task, and it could be run by a modest
secretariat within the UN, on an on-going basis.
Effects of installing the Index
- The very act of creating the Index would
have a therapeutic effect. Governments, even tyrannical
ones, are sensitive to public opinion, as evidenced by
the success of Amnesty International's letter writing
campaigns over individual cases. There will be a natural
desire to rate more highly in the Index.
- All parties know
where they stand, instead of the arbitrary and ad hoc
way that tyrants are dealt with at present. The demonisation
of one tyrant (prior to waging war) will be less easy
to do if everyone knows that he is only, say, 6th from
the bottom on the Index.
- Governments will doubtless appeal against
their ratings. The UN can set a time to send in inspectors
to review the conditions in the country. Regimes will
tend to release prisoners and improve other conditions
prior to the appeals inspection.
- Some countries may accept advice and
assistance in improving their human rights performance.
Mediation could be set up to initiate dialogue with opposition
groups.
- Finally, when the Index is established,
it can be used to bring specific legal action and targeted
sanctions to bear on the very worst offenders.
Enforcing good behaviour with Smart or Targeted Sanctions
This is the second phase of
the initiative, which will take a longer time to install.
The use of sanctions was successful
in the cases of South Africa and Libya, but the effects of
sanctions against Saddam Hussein caused severe suffering to
the Iraqi people. In order to avoid this, sanctions in future
should be designed specifically to affect the ruling elite
of the country and not the general public.
Smart Sanctions have been examined extensively in the
late 1990s, and there is a great deal of confidence that they
can be employed to curb the regime without hurting the common
people. They are primarily financial measures. It is very
possible that banks will resist the kind of interventions
required by smart sanctions, so a head of political steam
will have to be created before this can go forward.
There are other measures that
can be brought apart from sanctions, such as supporting opposition
groups.
The 192 or so governments on
the UN Index will be grouped into a convenient number of bands
according to their score, so that each government will belong
to either a top, middle, low or lowest band. In practice,
it will be necessary to leave more than three quarters of
the UN members in their present state, and apply disincentives
only to a minority of governments. This is necessary because
if the majority were to lose out under the system, it would
not be possible to vote the system into being.
A legal process will be followed
before sanctions of any level of severity are applied. The
International Criminal Court, or a branch of that Court, or
another Court set up for the process, should check out the
accuracy of the data that the Index is based on. The ICC will
of course still be free to investigate cases of abuse in countries
that may rank higher in the Index; but countries in the lowest
band of the Index will automatically receive legal attention.
In this way the capricious and unpredictable politically motivated
behaviour of the superpower referred to above, and exemplified
in the case of Saddam Hussein, will be avoided.
The lowest 10, say, of the
poorly performing governments should fall into the "failing
state" bracket that receives disincentives. This group
might be divided into perhaps, two bands, with the upper five
receiving intensive help to enable them to escape falling
into the sanctions bracket, and the lowest 5 (or even less,
perhaps starting with one and building up as the scheme progresses)
actually receiving sanctions. Or the sanctions could be graded,
with first one, then two then more being applied as the Index
score (legally ratified in the Court) falls to lower levels.
Here are some possible mild
sanctions:
- Loss of the right to take a seat on the
UN Security Council, or take up other responsible positions.
- Loss of specified voting rights in UN,
with diminution of the power of the country's vote
- Assistance given to democratic opposition
groups who support principles of good governance.
- Tightened border controls, in readiness
for sanctions on arms related materials.
- Loss of ability to receive loans, for
instance for some state-run enterprises.
- Restriction on government members' ability
to use airlines.
- Restrictions on visa issues to members
of the Government.
If the country falls further
down the scale, graduated sanctions are introduced progressively,
such as:
- Prohibition of specified financial transactions
- freezing of accounts of government officials
- ban on imports of all lethal goods
- ban on imports of dual purpose technology
- ban on imports of chemical weapon precursors
- ban on imports of biotechnology
- ban on imports of nuclear technology
- ban on imports of wines and spirits
- ban on imports of tobacco, cars, oil
& oil products, and luxury items. (These are often
used by oppressive regimes to buy loyalty)
For those with worse records,
or in the case of governments who fail to reform despite being
under milder sanctions, opposition groups will be supported
with financial and logistical help, provided that they support
the principles of good governance.
Finally, if the regime still
refuses to improve, or if it is engaging in ethnic cleansing
or genocide, these opposition parties could be entrusted and
empowered with responsibility for imports of, and fair distribution
of, necessities like food and medicines. This would give them
practice in the arts of co-operation (with each other) and
administration, enabling them to prepare for government.
If necessary, the distribution
efforts will be protected by UN forces, which would finally,
and regrettably but necessarily, lead on to the kind of "Responsibility
to Protect" military measures being contemplated by UN
General Secretary Kofi Anan and the Canadian Commission.
Despite its advantages, the
second part of this proposal will be very difficult to implement,
and will raise many objections, which are set out below and
on the FAQ page.
"The proposal runs counter to the aims and practices
of the WTO"
Agreed. The central objection
of the anti-globalisation campaign is that globalisation sets
free trade above human and environmental values. There is
a direct contradiction between the aims of the World Trade
Organisation and the aims of the human rights, green and peace
movements. The WTO and associated organisations must be challenged
to assent to these proposals as their contribution towards
the effort to improve the lot of humankind. There is no better
time than the present to make this challenge.
"America (or China, or dictatorsip
of your choice) would never agree to it"
The fact (or possibility) that
bad people will obstruct good initiatives is not a valid reason
to give up. America cannot remain forever in the grip of people
like George W Bush. There are signs that his regime is already
beginning to run out of steam. The UN has a good record of
putting good measures in place in the teeth of opposition
from selfish politicians.
"The proposal challenges the notion of absolute sovereignty"
The doctrine of state sovereignty
was introduced about five hundred years ago to end the meddling
of the Pope in secular affairs and is well overdue for revision.
We are under no illusions as to how difficult it will be to
institutionalise this system of international standards of
governance. What leader of a country is going to let go of
any degree of his sovereign power to a council of his peers,
even if it is in the cause of inhibiting wars and terrorism?
A great deal of pressure from "civil society" (citizens
and NGOs) will be necessary. There is a discernible current
of thinking within the UN that is questioning the notion of
absolute sovereignty.
The political difficulty can
be overcome by the use of the Simultaneous
Policy tactic, which asks politicians if they would pledge
to implement a measure on condition that a majority of other
politicians would do the same.
"This is the old idea of World Government"
This is not the case. World Government implies a standard
regime affecting all aspects of behaviour; this proposal is
restricted to prevention of inhumane activity.
"This is not enough of itself to bring
about peace and justice"
It is not claimed that the
IoG alone is sufficient to change the political culture of
oppression, tyrrany and war. It is claimed that alongside
other measures such as reform of the UN, wider ranging powers
for the International Criminal Court, and greater democratisation
of international affairs, it will play its part in bringing
about a fairer and more peaceful world. The
Movement to Abolish War has a useful overview of some
of the other measures required. Dan Plesch's Beauty
Queen's Guide to World Peace and War
No More by Rotblat and Hinde are useful texts.
"Oppressive regimes will simply walk out of the UN"
This is a major risk of this
strategy. It must be recognised that the UN is severely under-resourced
- its total budget is less than Britain's military expenditure,
and its establishment is less than the NHS establishment in
Wales. The UN must be supported, expanded, fully resourced
and reformed. The UNA
and Action for UN Reform are organisations that are concerned
with this.
One of the key reforms needed for the UN is that it should
be democratised, with UN representatives being directly elected
by each country, rather than mere appointees of the government
of that country. Many other reforms are currently being considered
within the UN.
It may take years or decades
to implement the full Index of Governance with the smart sanction
component in place; but the simple measure of performance
alone could be implemented in the near future, if sufficient
pressure could be generated by the green, peace and human
rights movements acting together.
Opressive regimes cause suffering
to the people who fall within their power, with genocide,
torture, disappearances, ethnic cleansing and imprisonment
being the worst. These actions cannot be tolerated, but in
addition, these regimes are more likely to get involved in
wars. Even more, the UN is gearing up to prosecute wars against
regimes which are practicing ethnic cleansing and genocide.
At the time of writing (May 2005) there is a building head
of steam calling for intervention in Sudan because of the
ethnic cleansing and genocide being carried out in Darfur.
Modern wars are so destructive,
whether fought with high explosives or machetes, that we must
create a political framework that makes war less likely. This
central reality is the motivation that will help us slowly
to overcome the self-interest of politicians.
The choice before the world
is clear: either continue as we are with absolutely sovereign
states oppressing their people and going to war with each
other, or we form a community of states who are signed up
to a common set of ground rules, and in which poor governance
is inhibited by loss of privilege and trading disadvantages.
Development of the Index of
Governance proposal
The Index of Governance proposal
has been :
-
discussed at the 2004 conference
of the Medical
and Scientific Network, achieving majority approval.
-
published on the CultureChange
website owned by the environmentalist Jan Lundberg
- adopted as policy
at the Green Party Conference in Lancaster 2005.
- Discussed on
the Monbiot forum and at the Green Party Conference Spring
2005
- Weblished
on the Global Ideas Bank site.
- A version of this page was published
in Quaker Monthly in February 2005 and later an article
in the Friend.
- A referenced article was published in
July 2005 in the journal Medicine, Conflict and Survival
- Correspondence has gone to the FCO and
Sir Emyr Jones Parry, UK Representative to the UN.
Next moves
The Index is currently being considered
by the Boards of the UK UNA (United Nations Association)
and also Board of Amnesty International UK.
The AGM of Medact
on April 23rd 2005 decided to ask the Board to look at
the proposal (keeping an eye on what Amnesty decided).
Support is being sought from many other
organisation concerned with peace and human rights.
If you would like to be kept up to date
with developments with this initiative, please use the
Contact link.
If you would like to help, please write
to any peace and human rights organisation that you know,
asking them to adopt the Index of Governance initiative.
At this stage we need to raise consciousness of this as
a possibility. When a good number of NGOs are on board,
we will start lobbying national governments and within
the United Nations.
Richard Lawson
|
|
