Cape Town — A group of international figures gathered in Cape Town this week to launch a new global campaign for human rights. One of them was Irene Khan, who as secretary-general of Amnesty International leads one of the world's most prominent mass-based human rights groups. She spoke to AllAfrica's Helen Kilbey.
Zimbabwe has been in the international spotlight as a result of President Robert Mugabe's presence at the Africa-Europe summit and the resulting boycott by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Should Mugabe have been banned from the conference?
Well, Amnesty International has just had a delegation come out of Zimbabwe, where they spent six weeks or so meeting with activists, with people who have been victims of torture, of arbitrary detention, people who have been attacked, thrown into prison, including women activists who have been handled in a very rough way and who continue to live under threat.
It's very clear that the situation is worsening, and worsening in a dangerous way, because this political oppression is taking place against a background of a failing economy and most ordinary Zimbabweans are no longer able to meet their basic needs. Given this desperate situation, it is important that the international community adopt a common stand against Zimbabwe, and this is where we see a particular responsibility on the SADC [Southern African Development Community] countries – on the southern African neighbours of Zimbabwe.
We know that behind the scenes there is quiet diplomacy going on but we would like to see the results of that diplomacy now, because people are suffering. The police in particular are acting with impunity. There is legislation on security and information that is being deliberately misused and abused, and it's all being done with the authority of the government. This simply is unacceptable.
What do you think the SADC countries should be doing?
The SADC countries need to ratchet up their pressure, and they need to do it not just behind doors but openly so that world public opinion can be mobilised behind African voices, behind African leadership. It's very important that the world be seen to stand behind African leaders on a problem that is very much on African soil; but the African leaders then have a responsibility openly to take the leadership role.
There was quite fierce debate on whether Zimbabwe should even be discussed, with the SADC countries saying they would not go to Lisbon to discuss Zimbabwe, and others arguing that it should have taken a central place on the agenda. Should Zimbabwe have been on the agenda?
We think the SADC countries should show solidarity on the issue of human rights abuse in Zimbabwe; that they need to stand behind the people of Zimbabwe as strongly as they stood behind the issue of whether or not Zimbabwe should be going to the Europe-Africa summit.
It's very important that human rights are put at the forefront of the political dialogue. At the moment there is a lot of concern about the economy, about trade issues, about equal dialogue between Africans and the European Union; but at the centre of that debate must be equal concern on the side of African leaders as well as European leaders about the human rights of the people of Zimbabwe.
We don't think that the human rights issues are getting the attention they deserve. There must be explicit mention of human rights issues at every international gathering. Human rights are not a luxury for good times, or to be put to one side while other issues get discussed; if human rights are not made part of the political dialogue... the economic discussions, then the people's rights will be affected. In the context of Zimbabwe, we are talking about economic and social rights as well as political and civil rights.
Are these failures of African countries specific to the Zimbabwe situation, or are they indicative of a wider inability to address human rights issues on the continent?
Well, I would say that Zimbabwe is one example. There have been other situations where African leaders have come together – the African Union is very much engaged in seeking to resolve the situation in Sudan, for instance. So on the positive side I would say that African political leaders are taking steps; but on the negative side I would say that they are still not coherent on a common response.
They are still far too divided, particularly on issues of African solidarity. When do they stand behind African leaders and when do they speak out? There is far too much tendency to allow their solidarity to become a shield behind which governments who are perpetrating human rights abuses then hide.
Why do you think this is the case?
This is not just a problem for Africa. Around the world, governments are grappling with their responsibility domestically to uphold rights, and internationally also to be accountable for human rights. This is an evolutionary process where governments are still trying to appreciate fully that human rights are not just an issue of domestic policies but also an issue of foreign policy.
How do you stand up for human rights internationally without seeming to be in conflict with your neighbours? That's a big challenge for African countries, for Asian countries, for countries in Latin America and in other parts of the world, even Western countries – the European Union, for example, is not very vocal about the abuse of human rights – Guantánamo – or [they] have belatedly come to it. European countries have actually colluded with the United States in promoting torture and renditions of terror suspects.
What we see is a natural tendency of governments to allow political expediency to supersede human rights, and what we are saying is that it's precisely those kinds of policies that are creating problems. You only have to look around the world and you see the conflicts, you see the crises, you see the tension arising because governments consistently fail to live up to their human rights obligations – not just domestically, but also in foreign policy.
What we would like to see is governments of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America, who have lived through experiences of colonisation – who have lived through experiences of oppression and repression and come out of those situations – take a stronger stand on human rights because their own experience tells them that's the way to stability and security.
Amnesty International's 2007 report mentions the newly-created African Court on Human and People's Rights, which I understand is to be merged with the yet-to-be-created African Court of Justice. What role do you see this body playing in Africa, and how effective do you think it will be?
It's very interesting to see the way in which regional African institutions are being developed, because it's an indication that African leaders recognise their regional responsibilities. In that sense we think it's a positive step.
But we also recognise that it's going to be a very tough job to make sure there are sufficient financial and human resources to make these institutions work. At the end of the day, institutions are only as good as the political commitment behind them, and we have seen far too many institutions created and then not sufficient goodwill, sufficient political determination coming behind those institutions. Our concern is to make sure that African governments, when they create these institutions, actually stand behind them.
We have seen African governments actually take – in the context of Darfur – very courageous decisions: to send out African Union troops, to cooperate with the AU, with the United Nations. Unfortunately, much more needs to be done in Darfur by the international community, not just by the African states. I would like to see that kind of positive example also coming into the issue of justice.
Africa has a history of human rights abuses, of past abuses for which there has been no justice, and this is an opportunity to show that African institutions can provide justice and that the people of Africa don't only have to wait for international institutions.
Speaking of international institutions, what role do you think the international community should be playing in terms of addressing human rights violations in Africa?
The international community has a very big role to play. There are many powerful members of the international community whose record in the past in Africa has been appalling, who have left behind a trail of human rights abuses in the context of colonisation. There are many large international companies that have a record of which they cannot be proud in Africa on the human rights side; so whether we talk about business, or whether we talk about governments, Africa has been exploited, Africa has been abused, by powerful actors; and it is time for those actors to rise to the challenge of human rights.
We are just beginning the 60th year of the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a time to renew commitment, and we hope very much that the international community and big business will pick up that commitment, not just on the issue of civil and political rights, but also on the issue of economic and social rights.
Africa has a huge burden of poverty on its shoulders, Africa has a huge burden of coping with HIV and other debilitating diseases. This is a continent that is awash with small arms that are killing people; there are terrible examples of violence against women, of abuse of children, of the use of child soldiers. These are all very, very big challenges that this continent has.
The international community is interested in Africa for its natural resources, and it has an obligation to work with African people – and I emphasise here African civil society as well as African leaders – to set some of those past abuses right, and to create some hope in the people of Africa. There are parts of Africa where community groups are coming together, building societies, working hard to rebuild their own countries – there are also good stories, and those good stories need to be told as well.
Do you think Africa as a whole is improving in terms of respecting human rights?
There is a greater consciousness on the side of civil society about human rights, and people are mobilising themselves, people are organising themselves. We see fantastic women, women's groups, even in countries like Zimbabwe, where they are under so much pressure – we see them take courageous stands, speak out, stand up and push the agenda for change. This is a remarkable story of human rights. I think human rights actually has a positive future in Africa because the people of Africa are making the story of human rights their story.
So you think it comes from the bottom up?
I think human rights is about grassroots-up today. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written by governments, signed by governments, but today it's being signed by people, because it's people's endeavour that will bring about change. We've seen what governments have done, we know that if we don't keep the pressure on government, if we don't hold government's political leaders to account, things will not move. So people must grab that agenda, must claim the rights as their own.
It's sometimes argued that Western norms of constitutional rule often stand at odds to traditional African values – the traditional value of respect for one's elders is used to justify curbing people's right to freedom of expression, for example; or what the Western world sees as corruption could be seen as being, rather, an expression of the African value of giving or sharing. What is your position on these arguments?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
I think that human rights are not the domain of any one civilisation. They are drawn from common values of justice, of equality, of respect for each other. The notion of human rights – including in the 1948 Universal Declaration – includes also the notion of duties; duties that lie with governments but also with other organs of society such as companies or leaders of society or even individuals. So yes, there is a duty on us to ensure that we protect the rights of others – in that sense I think that human rights also contain African values.
But this issue of cultural values is abused in many different societies in many different parts of the world to allow exploitation. No cultural value should be abused to perpetuate exploitation. Corruption, poor governance, misuse/abuse of power, is not a cultural value. It is no more a cultural value of Africa than it is of Europe or the Americas or Asia. I believe that those who use those arguments to perpetuate abuse and exploitation are using them wrongly.
I do think that African culture has a lot to contribute to the debate about human rights – how the strong must take care of the weak; how you must work together to make a difference; these are very much African values that need, in fact, to be injected more into international debates on human rights.
Where are Amnesty's efforts in Africa going to be focused in 2008?
We will continue to work on the problems in Zimbabwe – we believe that more work will be needed in 2008, particularly in increased international monitoring. We would like to see... civil society leaders, opinion leaders, take a much stronger and overt stand on the issues there.
We will continue to work on Darfur – we feel that a lot more has to be done there.
We also feel that there are other situations that are slipping off the international agenda, for example the Democratic Republic of Congo. While there have been elections there and a government put in place, there continues to be – still – a lot of insecurity in the Kivu region, [to] which attention has to be given.
We [also] think that there are stories of hope in West Africa. We are working very closely with women's groups in Liberia and Sierra Leone, particularly on issues of justice for past abuses. So we have crisis situations – like Darfur and Zimbabwe – in Africa, but we also have rehabilitation [and] reconstruction issues in parts of West Africa on which we will continue to work.
