Commissioner Patten's Speech on Current and future trends of the human rights' agenda

Introduction

We find ourselves at a fascinating juncture in the history of human rights in international relations. In little over half a century, we have seen the horrors of war galvanise the international community into embracing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; we have witnessed a gradual strengthening of international human rights law. And we have recently seen international interventions in conflicts - such as in Kosovo - triggered and justified by humanitarian concerns and the protection of human rights. From tyrants hiding behind the cloak of sovereign immunity, we have come to an increased willingness to bring even heads of state to justice for their crimes - witness the decision last month by the Special Court for Sierra Leone to indict Charles Taylor. With 90 ratifications already secured for the International Criminal Court, the human rights' writ indeed begins to run large.

Amidst these significant developments, it is more important than ever to articulate why human rights matter in EU external relations' policy.

Why human rights matter

First, promoting human rights, democratisation and the rule of law promotes peace and stability. This is a doctrine of pre-emption to which the EU can happily subscribe. We have constructed a solid framework for the protection of human rights in Europe - backed up by credible supra-national courts, in the shape of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. This has served the cause of peace well. It makes just as much sense to promote human rights in the wider world: Even though democracy is not perfect, states which are founded on democracy and human rights are less likely to lapse into bloodshed and wage aggressive wars. In the words of Winston Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

This is why democracy and human Rights are an integral part of our conflict prevention strategy: they are, for example, a key aspect of the Commission's Country Conflict Assessments covering more than 120 countries. This is also why human rights' projects are being supported from the 30 million euros available this year for the Rapid Reaction Mechanism.

Promoting human rights is not just in our interest morally. Democratic States, which respect human rights and the rule of law make more reliable trading partners. With the EU accounting for around one-quarter of the world's gross domestic product and one-fifth of the world's trade flows, this is a factor we cannot afford to ignore.

Democratic and human rights-based States are also more likely to take their international commitments seriously. When States undertake obligations - whether in the trade, armaments, human rights or any other field - compliance should be the expectation. That is one reason why the EU has invested diplomatic energy in opposing the signature of ICC bilateral immunity agreements - they could serve to undermine the Rome Statute, and States parties to the ICC should not undermine the Statute by the back door.

There is more the EU could do, in my view, to support the implementation of international human rights' obligations, a point I will return to a little later. But in terms simply of treaties, there is an impressive degree of subscription to human rights' values by the international community.

With over 140 countries having ratified the two major covenants and almost all States having ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the argument that human rights are a "western construct", and universality a distant dream, simply no longer rings true.

Invoking international law tends to put the spotlight on States. But we should not forget that human rights are vested in individuals. Those rights aren't derived from the benevolent acquiescence of States. They stem from a higher, 'natural' legal order. And this is what lends legitimacy to our concern at what goes on in others' backyards, to our actions to promote human rights in third countries and to our protests when rights are violated.

This is also why the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights is such an important instrument. Unlike bilateral assistance, there is no droit de regard on the part of foreign governments: we are reaching out directly to the people. And this is why it is so important to acknowledge individuals as rights-holders in the concrete cases we discuss as part of the EU human rights' dialogues, with countries like Iran and China, and in the démarches we make on individual cases under the Guidelines on torture and the death penalty.

The evolution in international justice, and the ICC in particular, are good examples of this higher legitimacy : set in a robust framework of international law, acting as an enforcer of the rights of individuals, a force against impunity and a deterrent to would-be human rights' violators, the ICC is perfectly in tune with the principles underpinning the EU's human rights' policy. That is why we have provided over €13 million since 1995 through the EIDHR for international justice.

I also mentioned military intervention as a means to defend human rights. Here we must take care, given the value we attach to international law and the multilateral system. I do not say that the violation of human rights should never be invoked as a cause for intervention - the genocide in Rwanda is testament to the potential horrors of inaction. But in each and every such case, human rights' concerns must be articulated convincingly to dispel any suspicion of 'ulterior motives' and to counter the charge of selectivity of approach. And we must take care to preserve the integrity of the multilateral system and remain alert to the danger of States citing similar arguments to justify aggression.

Human Rights and Security

That the rationale for promoting human rights is clear is not to say that human rights occur in a vacuum of EU policy. As many of your organisations have documented, the aftermath of September 11th has created new challenges for the promotion and protection of human rights. There is a superficial similarity in the strategies which the EU has devised to promote security and those which it uses for human rights. First, an emphasis on international instruments: just as EU Member States are committed to the ratification of the 12 UN Conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, so all Member States have ratified the six major UN human rights' Conventions. The incorporation of a counter-terrorism clause in new EU agreements - such as the association agreement with Chile - is modelled on the human rights' clause, which now applies to over 120 countries. And for both issues, the EU recognises the need to assist third countries to meet their obligations. The EU is providing technical assistance for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1373 in fields such as police and law enforcement work, border management and combating illegal arms trafficking.

Indonesia, the Philippines and Pakistan have been selected as pilot countries for a more concerted approach and needs' assessment missions have identified specific areas for action in those countries.

But the crucial point is how the fight against terrorism and the promotion and protection of human rights' impact on each other. As EU statements in the Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee constantly highlight, the fight against terrorism must be conditioned on maintaining respect for human rights, not the other way round. And I would go a step further: Fostering human rights should become an integral part of the fight against terrorism. Only then can we hope to defuse the societal tensions on which terrorism feeds.

I have said that by promoting human rights' we are upholding international law, preventing conflict and fighting terrorism. How do we ensure that human rights are promoted effectively?

How to promote human rights effectively - mainstreaming

Mainstreaming is designed to genetically modify our entire approach to external relations. We have introduced basic and advanced human rights' training for all Commission staff - whether they are in Brussels or being sent to Delegations. Yet our greatest hope for mainstreaming lies in our external assistance programmes, in particular through our Country and Regional Strategy Papers (CSPs). This is straightforward arithmetic: 55% of all international aid is managed by the EU and its Member States. If we can ensure that all this assistance is set in a framework that includes human rights, we can make a real difference. The European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, for all its strengths, is a minor instrument by comparison, with just over 100 million euros per year. One of its 4 thematic priorities is democratisation, good governance and the rule of law, and this recently saw 40 million euros allocated to 29 focus countries. At its best the EIDHR can offer valuable 'seed-money'. But it will never be big enough to really 'tip the balance'. This is why mainstreaming is so utterly important.

I am not going to pretend now that we have yet reached a point where human rights and democratisation have been satisfactorily factored into all CSPs. But the instrument is there to be refined and the periodic reviews, including the upcoming Mid Term Review, give scope for this to happen. And there are encouraging examples - such as the recent Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for Afghanistan, which includes the promotion of human rights, democracy and the functioning of public institutions as a clearly articulated goal and identifies the rights of women, freedom of expression and independent media as targets for support.

Another facet of mainstreaming is the human rights' clause in EC trade and co-operation agreements. I do not agree that the measure of success of the clause is found in the frequency with which it results in punitive measures or suspension of agreements. I do believe, however, that we can make the clause a dynamic tool to advance human rights in a positive mode.

The idea of using this clause to establish dedicated working groups on human rights with partner countries is gaining ground: the first such group has been established in the context of the Co-operation agreement with Bangladesh. It held its inaugural meeting this May.

The Commission Communication on Reinvigorating EU actions on Human Rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners paves the way for similar groups on human rights in the framework of the Mediterranean Association Agreements. These in turn will be supported by National Action Plans on human rights, which will analyse existing human rights' legislation, identify human rights' objectives and the technical and financial assistance required for their realisation. The priorities of civil society will feed into the process through regular workshops to be organised by the Commission with Member States.

In my view, structured exchanges on human rights offer a more realistic way of realising the goals of the human rights' clause than the application of rigid criteria for the suspension of agreements. That is not to say that criteria are wholly irrelevant. Quite the contrary: we will need to develop performance indicators for our projects and 'benchmarks' for measuring success. As the suggestions for the new approach in the Mediterranean take shape, we can examine how best to measure progress or deterioration within that framework. What we should avoid, however, is a 'mechanistic' approach to the suspension of co-operation.

There are times when talking and assistance must be curtailed - as Zimbabwe and Burma illustrate, sanctions have a role to play. But where sanctions are applied, we should also consider their impact on the population, as well as the conditions for their lifting. In the case of Fiji, for example, the EU identified the holding of free and fair elections as a pre-condition for lifting sanctions. But what benchmarks should we choose in more complex situations - for example, where respect for human rights has gradually eroded, or in countries which never knew democratic structures? This is the daunting challenge we have to face - and I would be very grateful for your input into this difficult exercise.

The UN Commission on Human Rights and Treaty Commitments

The human rights' clause not only constitutes a commitment to human rights in a domestic context: it also concerns the promotion and protection of human rights at the international level. This leads me to the EU's approach to the UN Human Rights Commission. These are difficult times for the United Nations, and the CHR is no exception. The election of a Libyan Chair, Cuban membership and the rejection of resolutions on Zimbabwe, Chechnya and Sudan - to which incredulity is the only sane reaction - have significantly eroded its credibility. Therefore, a major challenge in the coming years is how best to organise the EU's resources - political, diplomatic and financial - to reinforce the international system of human rights' scrutiny and the implementation of international human rights' obligations.

In terms of the country and thematic initiatives, which it takes at the CHR, the EU bears a disproportionate burden. It does so because it recognises the force of a public acknowledgement, by the international community, that human rights' problems require concrete action. We therefore fully support the CHR's special procedures, mandated by resolution, to investigate and report on human rights' violations. But a mere 47 States have issued a standing invitation to these procedures - 28 of which are EU Member States, acceding States or candidate countries. It sometimes feels as if the EU were a voice in the wilderness.

What could we do about this? One way could be to raise the position taken by our partner states in the CHR and the UN General Assembly Third Committee in our political dialogue with these countries.

We could then seek to 'push' our partners to issue standing invitations, and encourage them to implement their international human rights commitments, in particular where the countries concerned are seeking election to the CHR.

External assistance can serve as a vital complement to a reinforced EU approach to the UN human rights' system. We should therefore consider how best to apply this assistance to help third countries meet their international commitments, or to redress shortcomings raised in CHR special procedures. The EIDHR has a history of supporting the implementation of human rights' commitments. That work will continue in 2003, for example through support to the ratification and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in China. We will also fund targeted projects with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to bolster the work of the Treaty bodies, strengthen the implementation of international obligations and support CHR special procedures.

The Communication on the Mediterranean illustrates how all these elements - the human rights clause, the dialogue, the assistance, the reinforcement of international standards - can be brought together in a coherent EU strategy. This has been devised as a 'pilot project' - we hope to develop more such strategies in the future. Here again, your comments and suggestions will be very useful.

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights

Turning to the EIDHR, let us first admit that this has been hugely successful. To give but one example, our election observation missions have set international standards, with over 20 missions since our 2001 Communication. Spending has risen from around €5 million in 2000 to €11 million in 2003. Last year ended on a high note, with the mission to Kenya helping to oversee peaceful regime change and solid progress on the road to democracy.

But there are difficulties in our current approach to the selection of projects: 37% of the proposals submitted in the last call proved ineligible. Only 10% of all proposals finally qualified for funding. A mere 31% of proposals selected came from the "South". All in all, a huge waste of scarce resources on our side and on the side of those submitting proposals. Somehow, the instrument has become so popular that it ends up being unmanageable.

I truly count on your suggestions on how to improve the 'machine'. As a Commission in full RELEX reform, we are not wedded to immutable procedures: changes can be made to the structure of the Calls. We need to review how we filter applications. The whole system must become more efficient. And we must develop tools to evaluate our projects - we need reliable indicators to measure impact on the ground, channel that knowledge back into programming and ensure that future Calls for Proposals are structured to facilitate that process.

If it is to remain successful, the EIDHR must continue to reflect EU priorities - which, of course, do not come about unaided. The European Parliament has an important role, not least through its Annual Report on Human Rights. You, the NGO community, play an indispensable role. EU institutions are not only learning the language of transparency, they are putting it into practice. I therefore welcome the increased opportunities for NGOs to express their views, including at the regular discussion fora, the Council Working Group on Human Rights and the Human Rights' Contact Group. Our discussions today should help us shape the future course of the EIDHR and ensure that we continue to fulfil our role promoting human rights. Please give us your ideas on what factors we should consider in approaching this important task.

I wish you a stimulating and successful day.

| Haut |