KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY MR. PHIL ROBERTSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ASIA TO THAIMUN II
April 4, 2014 - THAIMUN Office
First of all, let me thank the John Wood and the organizers of the Thai Model United Nations for inviting me to speak to you today. It’s a pleasure to be here.
I’ve been involved in advocating at the UN, leading an inter-agency project in Bangkok on human trafficking in the GMS, and working with line agencies – both to encourage them to do more on human rights, and calling them out when they fail to meet their obligations.
The issues that the United Nations represents is varied – it’s a membership organization of states, a deliberating body where some of the most important issues in the world are discussed, a development assistance organization, an social and economic research and forecasting body, and so much more. In the coming days you’re going to explore all of these issues and roles.
But to understand the UN, and why it was created, it’s important to go back some of the major reasons that the UN was founded. In 1945, after the end of the World War II, the world faced the desperate task of recovering from the second world-wide conflagration of violence that had engulfed most of the globe in war – all in 30 years. Moreover, with the defeat of Nazi Germany, the true scale of atrocities committed by the Nazis were revealed – the Holocaust and the concentration camps, of course – but also the systematic targeting of civilians in so-called “saturation” firebombing attacks by the Allies on cities like Dresden in February 1945, and Tokyo in March 1945, and other systematic abuses of civilians – through forced labor, and sexual abuse like the so-called ‘comfort women’ who were treated as sex slaves by the Japanese Imperial Army.
And so as the United Nations Charter was being drafted and signed in 1945, there was a realization that to prevent future atrocities, there had to be an international bill of rights to help ensure that people were protected. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. So in the UN’s General Assembly’s first session in 1946, it was decided that a draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms be sent to the Economic and Social Council, and from there to the Commission on Human Rights.
The Commission formed a drafting committee, and appointed as the chair none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of FDR, who was a forceful woman leader and rights activist in her own right. Working with others, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, or UDHR, was drafted, considered and passed on December 10, 1948 – without a nay vote, though there were 8 abstentions. Thailand, a member of the UN at that time, voted YES.
In this way, the UN started down the path that is most important to Human Rights Watch – which is standard setting on human rights, helping build upon the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ provisions but coming up with more development human rights instruments which have now become a body of international human rights law – much of which is now considered to be customary international law.
So international human rights conventions have been developed like:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It’s these and other instruments of international human rights law that Human Rights Watch takes up as core elements of what we do.
In fact, one wonders nowadays – since human rights work is unfortunately a “growth industry” – how eager the original group of governments would have been in 1948 had they realized how comprehensive the human rights rule making would become.
Governments are “duty bearers” in the international system, responsible for protection of human rights. They are the ones that sign and ratify these conventions, and they are the ones responsible for domesticating these international commitments in their own national laws.
So it the governments in the world that we mostly have in our targeting sites when we are working on human rights – we are the ones who demand that they fulfill the commitments that they have freely made to ratify these conventions.
Let me say a few things about Human Rights Watch. HRW works in over 90 countries around the world and we are one of the world’s pre-eminent human rights groups. We are based in New York – actually at the Empire State Building – so if you are ever in NY, you are welcome to visit. We have approximately 400 staff, which might seem like a lot – but it’s not given the amount of things we’re trying to do.
Our motto is “Tyranny Has a Witness” – which explains a bit about our methodology, which is to research situations where human rights abuses are taking place, and then expose those abuses and demand action and accountability. Governments try to hide their human rights abuses, and we believe that if we expose them, embarrass them, and demand the UN, other governments and donor agencies take action that then we get the rights abusing government to change their behavior.
This is a “name and shame” approach, the core principle being that governments must be held accountable and that if enough attention is brought to bear on them, they can be persuaded to do the right thing, or at least stop doing some of the wrong things. Governments will react usually in one of three ways, by defending themselves that they have
(1) not done what we have accused us of
(2) or did it but not as much as we said,
(3) claim that Human Rights Watch is somehow out to get them, is unfair
Human rights is the global norm. You’ll notice that only the most hardened of governments – like North Korea, or Belarus, or Saudi Arabia – don’t say much. And they are not saying “we violate rights” but they are denying they do so.
To be honest, sometimes our approach works and sometimes it doesn't – in part because it depends on how governments react, and some governments are thick-skinned and don’t care what we say – but it does ensure that the governments both fear us, and of course they dislike us. But at the same time, I can also assure that many other governments look to our reports and our information and see it as the gold standard, very reliable and tested.
Why? Because we are careful with the facts, and we don’t report what we can’t prove. Our credibility is crucial to everything we do. As a friend of mine once said to me, you’re only born with one name so you’d better take good care of it – and that also goes for Human Rights Watch.
How do we work? Well, we expose rights abuses – and so we have a very close relationship with the international and national media – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, and increasingly web-based news outlets. I spend a lot of my time talking to journalists about various human rights situations, and we are constantly putting out press releases and other materials to the media. You will see Human Rights Watch frequently mentioned, I think, in various newspapers, on CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera, on the radio, and other places. We do the kind of in-depth investigations and reporting that news reporters used to do – but now have trouble doing so because of budget cuts in the traditional media. In fact, more and more of our staff are coming from journalist backgrounds and work experience.
Why are we this popular with the media but not with the governments?
First, our methodology also proceeds from the importance of letting the victims of human rights abuses speak for themselves whenever possible. The story is more powerful when the people who have the most at stake are telling it. So you will see our reports are often full of such testimonies.
These are very powerful and hard for governments to deny, and help put a ‘human face’ on a situation – which is what the journalists are eager to do so that the story can be more easily told.
However, we also balance this with the importance of protecting victims of human rights abuses, and we will not do anything that puts them in jeopardy – so often have to change names, omit information where they came from – because the last thing we want is for someone to be retaliated against for talking to us.
Second, our methodology is very vigorous in checking facts. We require multiple sources before we will report something. If someone tells us about rights abuses, we will double-check with other sources and unless we can confirm what we were told, we will not report it. Our view is that it’s better to be sure than to be sorry. And furthermore, everything that we put our name to – every report, every press release, every statement – must be checked and approved by our Legal Department. And our Legal Department team asks hard questions, like how do you know this, how did you prove it, let me see the evidence that shows this, etc. It’s a grueling process that can take months.
Why are we so serious about the facts? Well because it is our reputation on the line. We have governments all over the world scrutinizing what we do, checking on us – all because they want to find us making a mistake, they want to try to discredit us. That’s their counter-offensive against us. And it is our good reputation as an organization that sticks to the facts that makes us effective with diplomats and the media. Our credibility gives our words weight. So when I walk into a meeting with an Ambassador in Bangkok or Hanoi or Jakarta, it’s not just me in the meeting – it’s the reputation of HRW.
I’ll give you an example. I recall about a year or two ago, I got a call late on a Wednesday afternoon from an international journalist based in Hanoi. And he was following a case – I don’t remember which one – where he wanted to put out an article. But he couldn't because he couldn't confirm that a person had been beaten by police and was being detained. At the same time, I was working with contacts in Vietnam to try and confirm that too. But I couldn't. And the journalist pleaded with me – he said “my editor says to me that if Human Rights Watch can confirm it, then I can run the story.” And I had to tell him that despite my best efforts, I could not confirm the story – and so the story didn’t run. It was a hard choice to make, but in HRW there was only one choice that could be made – which was the one that I made.
Finally, Human Rights Watch has a clear frame of reference. We are all about protecting human rights as defined in the various international conventions and standards of the UN. We are completely focused on that, and that only – and we will call out anyone on any side of a political situation if they violate human rights.
But we also will call out protesters who use violent means; non-state armed groups who abuse civilians, use child soldiers, or otherwise violate international humanitarian law (often known as the Laws of War); or businesses or companies that violate human rights.
Critically, we don’t take sides in political fights. We’re not for or against any political party, or political movement per se – so we didn’t take a position for or against “yellow shirts” or “red shirts” in 2010, and we don’t take a position of for or against the “NCPO” now. What we do is insist all sides respect human rights in whatever they do, and make an issue of it when they don’t.
Let me explain about Descent into Chaos – and both sides being unhappy with us = success for HRW. Thailand.
Sometimes, also the abuser is a government, but it is also a company or an industry. Cambodia government failures to enforce and protect workers; but also violations of rights of women workers by factory owners & managers, and complicity of international brands – H&M, Adidas, Gap, Armani, Marks & Spencer.
Research, expose & advocate – offices around the world – in Tokyo, Sydney, Berlin, London, Paris, New York, Washington DC, Beirut, Geneva, Brussels – wherever political power and influence to change policy of governments on rights exists. We influence rights friendly governments to act to pressure rights abusing governments.
Core dedicated advocates – who work day in and day out with governments where they are based to press on foreign policies.
Much of our work centers at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva – and let me explain using a North Korea example how we work globally.
North Korea is known as the hermit country, a nation deliberately cut off from the world by its rights repressing government – and this film shows the deepest secret that the government of North Korea doesn’t want you to see – which is the existence of the kwan-li-so.
What are the kwan-li-so? These are the political prisoner camps where those considered enemies of the North Korean state are sent – these total control camps, hidden in remote valleys, where the abuses by the guards are so extreme, the food provided so little, and the forced labor is so harsh that those sent there are not expected to survive.
Today, in North Korea, we estimate there are between 80,000 to 120,000 persons are being held in 6 such camps.
There used to be more camps, and hundreds of thousands, and more probably millions, have died in such camps during the 70 years that the Kim family has ruled North Korea. The names of these camps – such as Yodok, Buk’chang, Kaechon – strike terror into the hearts of ordinary North Koreans.
Today, we can see the camps in satellite photos, and as you can see from the film, some North Koreans have survived and escaped the country, and now can tell us their experiences.
But according to the North Korean government, these camps don’t exist. Inquiries and interventions to find out more are met with total denial.
And for far too many years, governments around the world were apparently content to accept those answers and to let the difficulty of getting information from North Korea prevent further investigations.
Human Rights Watch is first and foremost a research organization, documenting and exposing rights abuses, and demanding action to stop them. At this point, conducting research in North Korea is impossible, since it would expose our researchers and the people they interview to deadly danger.
So we do with the next best option – which is reaching North Koreans on the run, after they flee – either on the run in China, Mongolia, or Thailand, or after they reach refuge, usually in South Korea. More than 25,000 have now fled.
But even with our best work on the prison camps, abuses against women and children, and forced labor - we couldn’t break the complacency of the world’s governments. We needed something that would place the “human rights agenda” with North Korea at the heart of the international community’s dealings with the government in Pyongyang.
We had to do something different – and that required taking it to a whole other level with the help of our advocates in Geneva, Berlin, London, Tokyo, Sydney, and Washington.
Our strategy to move the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry that would systematically investigate rights abuses and bring out a report that no one could question.
We wanted a mandate for the commission that would examine rights abuses and potential crimes against humanity, and would demand accountability for any found responsible.
And ultimately we want to take this to UN Security Council to create the possibility that the crimes uncovered by the Commission will be referred to the International Criminal Court for action.
I won’t bore you with all the details – but in 18 months we have done all that and more. At each step of the way, Human Rights Watch’s advocates where involved in
o Getting support from the governments for a COI
o Strategizing to get the resolutions passed at the Human Rights Council and General Assembly to authorize it
o Helping flesh out the mandate for the COI
o Helping select the best commissioners;
o Supporting the COI organize, find witnesses to testify, and coming up with the idea for using public hearings in addition to private testimony to build interest
o Ensuring the response to the COI included accountability and referral
o And working with UN Security Council members to vote – over the objections of China and Russia – to place North Korea human rights on permanent agenda of the council.
What did the COI find? “Reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed pursuant to policies established at the highest level of state for decades” which entail “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.”
You never know what will be the decisive factor in a campaign – but I knew that this was really going to happen when I got the phone call from Kanae Doi, our director in Japan – who had just gotten off the phone with Prime Minister Abe – who had called to tell her that Japan was going for it, and their diplomats were fanning out across the EU to demarche and demand Europe support the commission of inquiry.
Others have other memories of key moments – but what this shows is that when this organization leans in, and pushes hard in unison, governments move and obstacles can fall away – and justice for long ignored rights abuses becomes possible.
Finally, let me speak about a situation that I hope you will be able to address – which are the crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing that took place in October 2012 in Arakan state, in western Burma. As a result of ethnic cleansing, arson attacks and killings, more than 140,000 Rohingya fled their homes – and now are trapped in IDP camps where they are deprived of access of adequate health services, food and livelihoods. To date, no one has been held accountable for the killings that took place – and I want to show you a video from Human Rights Watch to show how we use multi-media to make our case – and also to encourage you to take up the unresolved issue of the Rohingya in Burma.
First of all, let me thank the John Wood and the organizers of the Thai Model United Nations for inviting me to speak to you today. It’s a pleasure to be here.
I’ve been involved in advocating at the UN, leading an inter-agency project in Bangkok on human trafficking in the GMS, and working with line agencies – both to encourage them to do more on human rights, and calling them out when they fail to meet their obligations.
The issues that the United Nations represents is varied – it’s a membership organization of states, a deliberating body where some of the most important issues in the world are discussed, a development assistance organization, an social and economic research and forecasting body, and so much more. In the coming days you’re going to explore all of these issues and roles.
But to understand the UN, and why it was created, it’s important to go back some of the major reasons that the UN was founded. In 1945, after the end of the World War II, the world faced the desperate task of recovering from the second world-wide conflagration of violence that had engulfed most of the globe in war – all in 30 years. Moreover, with the defeat of Nazi Germany, the true scale of atrocities committed by the Nazis were revealed – the Holocaust and the concentration camps, of course – but also the systematic targeting of civilians in so-called “saturation” firebombing attacks by the Allies on cities like Dresden in February 1945, and Tokyo in March 1945, and other systematic abuses of civilians – through forced labor, and sexual abuse like the so-called ‘comfort women’ who were treated as sex slaves by the Japanese Imperial Army.
And so as the United Nations Charter was being drafted and signed in 1945, there was a realization that to prevent future atrocities, there had to be an international bill of rights to help ensure that people were protected. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. So in the UN’s General Assembly’s first session in 1946, it was decided that a draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms be sent to the Economic and Social Council, and from there to the Commission on Human Rights.
The Commission formed a drafting committee, and appointed as the chair none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of FDR, who was a forceful woman leader and rights activist in her own right. Working with others, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, or UDHR, was drafted, considered and passed on December 10, 1948 – without a nay vote, though there were 8 abstentions. Thailand, a member of the UN at that time, voted YES.
In this way, the UN started down the path that is most important to Human Rights Watch – which is standard setting on human rights, helping build upon the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ provisions but coming up with more development human rights instruments which have now become a body of international human rights law – much of which is now considered to be customary international law.
So international human rights conventions have been developed like:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
The Convention on the Rights of the Child
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
It’s these and other instruments of international human rights law that Human Rights Watch takes up as core elements of what we do.
In fact, one wonders nowadays – since human rights work is unfortunately a “growth industry” – how eager the original group of governments would have been in 1948 had they realized how comprehensive the human rights rule making would become.
Governments are “duty bearers” in the international system, responsible for protection of human rights. They are the ones that sign and ratify these conventions, and they are the ones responsible for domesticating these international commitments in their own national laws.
So it the governments in the world that we mostly have in our targeting sites when we are working on human rights – we are the ones who demand that they fulfill the commitments that they have freely made to ratify these conventions.
Let me say a few things about Human Rights Watch. HRW works in over 90 countries around the world and we are one of the world’s pre-eminent human rights groups. We are based in New York – actually at the Empire State Building – so if you are ever in NY, you are welcome to visit. We have approximately 400 staff, which might seem like a lot – but it’s not given the amount of things we’re trying to do.
Our motto is “Tyranny Has a Witness” – which explains a bit about our methodology, which is to research situations where human rights abuses are taking place, and then expose those abuses and demand action and accountability. Governments try to hide their human rights abuses, and we believe that if we expose them, embarrass them, and demand the UN, other governments and donor agencies take action that then we get the rights abusing government to change their behavior.
This is a “name and shame” approach, the core principle being that governments must be held accountable and that if enough attention is brought to bear on them, they can be persuaded to do the right thing, or at least stop doing some of the wrong things. Governments will react usually in one of three ways, by defending themselves that they have
(1) not done what we have accused us of
(2) or did it but not as much as we said,
(3) claim that Human Rights Watch is somehow out to get them, is unfair
Human rights is the global norm. You’ll notice that only the most hardened of governments – like North Korea, or Belarus, or Saudi Arabia – don’t say much. And they are not saying “we violate rights” but they are denying they do so.
To be honest, sometimes our approach works and sometimes it doesn't – in part because it depends on how governments react, and some governments are thick-skinned and don’t care what we say – but it does ensure that the governments both fear us, and of course they dislike us. But at the same time, I can also assure that many other governments look to our reports and our information and see it as the gold standard, very reliable and tested.
Why? Because we are careful with the facts, and we don’t report what we can’t prove. Our credibility is crucial to everything we do. As a friend of mine once said to me, you’re only born with one name so you’d better take good care of it – and that also goes for Human Rights Watch.
How do we work? Well, we expose rights abuses – and so we have a very close relationship with the international and national media – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines, and increasingly web-based news outlets. I spend a lot of my time talking to journalists about various human rights situations, and we are constantly putting out press releases and other materials to the media. You will see Human Rights Watch frequently mentioned, I think, in various newspapers, on CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera, on the radio, and other places. We do the kind of in-depth investigations and reporting that news reporters used to do – but now have trouble doing so because of budget cuts in the traditional media. In fact, more and more of our staff are coming from journalist backgrounds and work experience.
Why are we this popular with the media but not with the governments?
First, our methodology also proceeds from the importance of letting the victims of human rights abuses speak for themselves whenever possible. The story is more powerful when the people who have the most at stake are telling it. So you will see our reports are often full of such testimonies.
These are very powerful and hard for governments to deny, and help put a ‘human face’ on a situation – which is what the journalists are eager to do so that the story can be more easily told.
However, we also balance this with the importance of protecting victims of human rights abuses, and we will not do anything that puts them in jeopardy – so often have to change names, omit information where they came from – because the last thing we want is for someone to be retaliated against for talking to us.
Second, our methodology is very vigorous in checking facts. We require multiple sources before we will report something. If someone tells us about rights abuses, we will double-check with other sources and unless we can confirm what we were told, we will not report it. Our view is that it’s better to be sure than to be sorry. And furthermore, everything that we put our name to – every report, every press release, every statement – must be checked and approved by our Legal Department. And our Legal Department team asks hard questions, like how do you know this, how did you prove it, let me see the evidence that shows this, etc. It’s a grueling process that can take months.
Why are we so serious about the facts? Well because it is our reputation on the line. We have governments all over the world scrutinizing what we do, checking on us – all because they want to find us making a mistake, they want to try to discredit us. That’s their counter-offensive against us. And it is our good reputation as an organization that sticks to the facts that makes us effective with diplomats and the media. Our credibility gives our words weight. So when I walk into a meeting with an Ambassador in Bangkok or Hanoi or Jakarta, it’s not just me in the meeting – it’s the reputation of HRW.
I’ll give you an example. I recall about a year or two ago, I got a call late on a Wednesday afternoon from an international journalist based in Hanoi. And he was following a case – I don’t remember which one – where he wanted to put out an article. But he couldn't because he couldn't confirm that a person had been beaten by police and was being detained. At the same time, I was working with contacts in Vietnam to try and confirm that too. But I couldn't. And the journalist pleaded with me – he said “my editor says to me that if Human Rights Watch can confirm it, then I can run the story.” And I had to tell him that despite my best efforts, I could not confirm the story – and so the story didn’t run. It was a hard choice to make, but in HRW there was only one choice that could be made – which was the one that I made.
Finally, Human Rights Watch has a clear frame of reference. We are all about protecting human rights as defined in the various international conventions and standards of the UN. We are completely focused on that, and that only – and we will call out anyone on any side of a political situation if they violate human rights.
But we also will call out protesters who use violent means; non-state armed groups who abuse civilians, use child soldiers, or otherwise violate international humanitarian law (often known as the Laws of War); or businesses or companies that violate human rights.
Critically, we don’t take sides in political fights. We’re not for or against any political party, or political movement per se – so we didn’t take a position for or against “yellow shirts” or “red shirts” in 2010, and we don’t take a position of for or against the “NCPO” now. What we do is insist all sides respect human rights in whatever they do, and make an issue of it when they don’t.
Let me explain about Descent into Chaos – and both sides being unhappy with us = success for HRW. Thailand.
Sometimes, also the abuser is a government, but it is also a company or an industry. Cambodia government failures to enforce and protect workers; but also violations of rights of women workers by factory owners & managers, and complicity of international brands – H&M, Adidas, Gap, Armani, Marks & Spencer.
Research, expose & advocate – offices around the world – in Tokyo, Sydney, Berlin, London, Paris, New York, Washington DC, Beirut, Geneva, Brussels – wherever political power and influence to change policy of governments on rights exists. We influence rights friendly governments to act to pressure rights abusing governments.
Core dedicated advocates – who work day in and day out with governments where they are based to press on foreign policies.
Much of our work centers at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva – and let me explain using a North Korea example how we work globally.
North Korea is known as the hermit country, a nation deliberately cut off from the world by its rights repressing government – and this film shows the deepest secret that the government of North Korea doesn’t want you to see – which is the existence of the kwan-li-so.
What are the kwan-li-so? These are the political prisoner camps where those considered enemies of the North Korean state are sent – these total control camps, hidden in remote valleys, where the abuses by the guards are so extreme, the food provided so little, and the forced labor is so harsh that those sent there are not expected to survive.
Today, in North Korea, we estimate there are between 80,000 to 120,000 persons are being held in 6 such camps.
There used to be more camps, and hundreds of thousands, and more probably millions, have died in such camps during the 70 years that the Kim family has ruled North Korea. The names of these camps – such as Yodok, Buk’chang, Kaechon – strike terror into the hearts of ordinary North Koreans.
Today, we can see the camps in satellite photos, and as you can see from the film, some North Koreans have survived and escaped the country, and now can tell us their experiences.
But according to the North Korean government, these camps don’t exist. Inquiries and interventions to find out more are met with total denial.
And for far too many years, governments around the world were apparently content to accept those answers and to let the difficulty of getting information from North Korea prevent further investigations.
Human Rights Watch is first and foremost a research organization, documenting and exposing rights abuses, and demanding action to stop them. At this point, conducting research in North Korea is impossible, since it would expose our researchers and the people they interview to deadly danger.
So we do with the next best option – which is reaching North Koreans on the run, after they flee – either on the run in China, Mongolia, or Thailand, or after they reach refuge, usually in South Korea. More than 25,000 have now fled.
But even with our best work on the prison camps, abuses against women and children, and forced labor - we couldn’t break the complacency of the world’s governments. We needed something that would place the “human rights agenda” with North Korea at the heart of the international community’s dealings with the government in Pyongyang.
We had to do something different – and that required taking it to a whole other level with the help of our advocates in Geneva, Berlin, London, Tokyo, Sydney, and Washington.
Our strategy to move the UN Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry that would systematically investigate rights abuses and bring out a report that no one could question.
We wanted a mandate for the commission that would examine rights abuses and potential crimes against humanity, and would demand accountability for any found responsible.
And ultimately we want to take this to UN Security Council to create the possibility that the crimes uncovered by the Commission will be referred to the International Criminal Court for action.
I won’t bore you with all the details – but in 18 months we have done all that and more. At each step of the way, Human Rights Watch’s advocates where involved in
o Getting support from the governments for a COI
o Strategizing to get the resolutions passed at the Human Rights Council and General Assembly to authorize it
o Helping flesh out the mandate for the COI
o Helping select the best commissioners;
o Supporting the COI organize, find witnesses to testify, and coming up with the idea for using public hearings in addition to private testimony to build interest
o Ensuring the response to the COI included accountability and referral
o And working with UN Security Council members to vote – over the objections of China and Russia – to place North Korea human rights on permanent agenda of the council.
What did the COI find? “Reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed pursuant to policies established at the highest level of state for decades” which entail “extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.”
You never know what will be the decisive factor in a campaign – but I knew that this was really going to happen when I got the phone call from Kanae Doi, our director in Japan – who had just gotten off the phone with Prime Minister Abe – who had called to tell her that Japan was going for it, and their diplomats were fanning out across the EU to demarche and demand Europe support the commission of inquiry.
Others have other memories of key moments – but what this shows is that when this organization leans in, and pushes hard in unison, governments move and obstacles can fall away – and justice for long ignored rights abuses becomes possible.
Finally, let me speak about a situation that I hope you will be able to address – which are the crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing that took place in October 2012 in Arakan state, in western Burma. As a result of ethnic cleansing, arson attacks and killings, more than 140,000 Rohingya fled their homes – and now are trapped in IDP camps where they are deprived of access of adequate health services, food and livelihoods. To date, no one has been held accountable for the killings that took place – and I want to show you a video from Human Rights Watch to show how we use multi-media to make our case – and also to encourage you to take up the unresolved issue of the Rohingya in Burma.
