Human Rights Priorities: An Agenda for Equality and Social Justice

Ruma Mandal

So, it’s great to see so many of you here tonight, welcome. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Ruma Mandal. I’m the Head of the International Law Programme here at Chatham House. So, thank you for joining us this evening for this event on Human Rights Priorities, and also, thank you to those of you who are watching on livestream. I’m never quite sure where to look for that, but I reckon you’re there somewhere. It’s a real pleasure to introduce our speaker this evening, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet. So, welcome, thank you for joining us. So, the High Commissioner was appointed into her current role, just over a year ago, but as you’ll all know, she is the former President of Chile, twice President of Chile, where she pursued a very ambitious reform agenda, including on education and on women’s rights, and along with her extensive work on social justice issues, including as the first Director of UN Women, the High Commissioner brings to her current role, also, a very personal insight into human rights, having been a political prisoner and a refugee herself during the military dictatorship years in Chile.

So, High Commissioner, when you took up office last year, I think you said that you wanted to be a voice for the voiceless, and there are a lot of voices that are being silenced at this rather difficult moment now for human rights. So, you’re going to be outlining for us, this evening, where you see the UN’s priorities, when it comes to its human rights mission, and we’re going to make sure we keep around 30 minutes, so that we can hear from as many of you as possible here, during our time for questions. So, just a reminder again that we are being livestreamed and that we are on the record this evening. So, High Commissioner?

Michelle Bachelet

Thank you [applause]. I hope you can see me. Well, Miss Mandal, distinguished members, colleagues, friends, thank you very much for giving me this chance to speak to you today. This is a particular interesting moment we’re discussing challenges to our human rights agenda, as well as the many ways that some agenda can provide solutions to some of the challenges. I want to begin with a topic that is literally burning up the streets of many small cities, as we speak: inequalities, inequalities in opportunities, in political power, in access to justice, education, pensions and other fundamental services and resources, and they’re a cause of alienation, grievances, exclusion, social tensions and conflict. They result from poor governance, corruption, failures in the rule of law and discrimination. They are generated by violations of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, and they undermine the development of countries. They fuel insecurity and extremism. They lead to involuntary migration. They increase the vulnerability of many to the impacts of climate change and widen the gap between those with access to technology and those who are left behind. They also kill. Failure to ensure adequate access to health services, adequate housing, clean water and food kills people every day. We recognise the profound damage generated by inequalities, when we committed to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In fact, as you know, SDGs, Sustainable Development Goal 10 is devoted to overcoming inequalities, within and between countries, but in a very real sense the theme pervades all 17 goals, with a mantra of leaving no-one behind and reaching those furthest behind first.

Regardless, economic inequalities have actually accelerated in the SDG era. As Oxfam have reported, 3.8 billion people has the same amount of wealth that is held by 26 richest individuals, and the concentration is intensifying. The world’s 2,208 billionaires saw their net worth increase by 2.5 billions in 2018, while the wealth of the poorest half of humanity, 3.8 billion people, fell by more than 10%. Four billion people have no access to safety nets or any kind of social protection. The world’s poorest and most marginalised people are suffering the worst impact of climate change, and this sharply – this premature impact will probably deepen, as the climate emergency grows worse.

In 2019, street protests have erupted across a large number of countries: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Gabon, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sudan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, as well as global climate protests across even more nations. It’s a very wide spectrum of political systems, economies, governance models and resource capacities they represent suggest that a very broad movement is underway, and the noted fundamental failing of contemporary politics and economics. These are not necessarily the world’s most unequal societies. Each of the protests takes place in its own context, for its own reasons, but clearly, inequalities are a factor in most or many of these situation.

A second key factor appears to be the satisfaction and deep mistrust in leadership. There is a perception of a democratic deficit and concerns that the people’s wellbeing is not the highest priority of many states. In some countries, the perception of corruption, nepotism and a deterioration in public services, such as water and sanitation, housing and healthcare, feeds into the widespread anger at the people in power. A third common stems from a conviction among young people that they’re being robbed of the right to operate on a level playing field, politically, socially and economically, and also robbed of hope.

I mentioned earlier how climate change will increasingly deepen inequalities. Is it also super charging the perception that young people’s rightful share is being stolen from them? Playing by the rules, working hard, paying your dues is no longer seen as enough to succeed, and there is rising fear that today’s children and successive generations will inherit a much harsher and more brutal world. Pair with the perception that traditional political structures are either deaf to these concerns or actively engage in looting the future of young people, is destructive of hope and social cohesion.

A fourth factor, common to most of these protests, is that their initial response, by many governments, has been to focus on law enforcement. It has been about putting the protest down, rather than listening to what the protestor have to say, and in many cases, it has involved allegation of excessive and sometimes lethal use of force by Police, with video evidence flashing across social media and amplifying public outrage to the boiling point. Frequently, we’ve seen protests spark off from a limited and specific trigger point, then they amplify in outrage of Police brutality, resonates with a sense of unfulfilled human rights and powered by those deeper and sometimes intertwined root causes, shift into a much broader expression of dissatisfaction.

It is relevant to note here the very widespread trend towards increasing restrictions on the civic space and fundamental freedoms. Across every world region, states, in recent years, have adapted laws, which sharply restrict the rights of the people to come together and act for their rights. They include restrictions on funding and very restrictive requirements for registration and operation of civil society organisations. Activists are also suffering disinformation and smearing as traitors to their nation and is used by the justice system to repeatedly rate civil society organisations and prosecute them as criminals, mainly for expressing political views or coming together in demonstrations.

These restrictions to the civic space don’t make anyone safer. In fact, by shutting down people’s voices, they leave injustices and hurt, generate a rise in social tension and essentially, force people into the streets. People know they have a right to come together peacefully to express their views and to engage in dialogue with the authorities. People want governments to uphold and serve the people’s rights and wellbeing, to work for all, not just a few. They are demanding transparency and inclusiveness. They want to be heard. The use of unnecessary and disproportionate force against people who peacefully claim their human rights or who express critical views, constitutes a human rights violation. But in addition, by heightening tension, it makes a sustainable access on crisis more difficult, meaning that it’s also counterproductive, in a very practical sense.

As the former Minister of Defence and Head of State, I’m well versed in the challenges of dealing with security threats, and I think many authorities need to remind themselves that the point of public order interventions is to keep the peace. So, let me emphasise three points here. One, in protesting violations and abuses of human rights, today’s demonstrators make it extremely clear that sustainable solutions, which address their underlying grievances, can only be advanced through a human rights-based approach. As a human rights advocate and former policymaker, I can see both sides of the equation very clearly. My own experience and that of many others, demonstrate that the very first – the best first step towards addressing protests and dissent, is for the authorities to avoid hasty responses, based on violent repression and instead, address the underlying causes by engaging in dialogue that is inclusive and free. This is precisely what the human rights agenda requires and promotes. Many of the demands, we’re seeing in these recent protests, relate to economic and social inequalities and rights, but to the extent that those economic and social right cannot be claimed, without the ability to speak, assemble and protest, they are intrinsically are about civil and political rights, too.

So, this is my second point. We need to view civil and political rights together with economic and social rights, as a comprehensive and integrated picture. Today’s protests may be triggered by economic measures, but they’re breaching traditional sectarian and political divides and raising issues across the entire spectrum of the human rights agenda, bringing the indivisibility of those rights into heightened perspective. Third point, while continuing to emphasise indivisibility, I think that many high income and middle income countries have failed to take economic, social and cultural rights seriously as rights. Under international laws and treaties, there are legal obligations, to which the state must ensure every individual has access. States are bound to maximise available resources, to measurably improve the life of all individuals living in the country. So, we need to recapture the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which all rights, including economic, social and cultural rights need to be respected, regardless of each state’s choice of economic or political system.

I have spoken at length about inequalities and protests, and I think it might be useful now to look at other interactive challenges that are sparking protests. Let me start by talking about climate change. For me, the issues here are even larger than the millions of marchers suggest: jobs, infrastructure, transport systems, agriculture, health, the disappearance of neighbourhoods and towns, the displacements of people, and even rising conflicts. Climate harms are already on their way. In terms of the exacerbation of inequalities, hunger, health, infrastructure, economic development, conflict, displacement and the creation of social tensions and obstacles to the realisation of human rights of many different kinds, climate change will have an impact on every country in the world.

Failure to adequately address the climate emergency is more than just a serious policy blunder or misstep, it constitutes a breach of every government’s responsibility to its people. Because there’s still time for us to act, human right principles and human rights law can inform and strengthen international, regional and national policymaking, in the area of climate change. They can promote policies that increase our resilience and ability to adapt to climate harms, policies that protect the most vulnerable communities and policy, which enable us to benefit from the skills and ideas of every member of the society.

Addressing the issues, preventing climate harms, where possible, through effective climate change mitigation, supporting adaptation to help communities flourish, in the face of a changing climate, this work is crucial for all of us. We must ensure that states, businesses and all other actors, takes effective measures to prevent climate change, help everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, adapt to climate change, and protect rights in the context of climate action. But let me talk about another issue that are all intertwined as well, migration. Migration is yet another issue that has drawn considerable attention in the last few weeks, and which is also related to the questions of inequalities and protest. The deaths of 39 migrants, in a refrigerated lorry in Essex, led to an outpouring of compassion that was quite remarkable, when you consider the kind of headline usually reserved for dozens of migrants, struggling across borders, without a valid Visa. Although Police investigations swiftly ensued, it has not led so far to much examination of some pretty obvious questions. Why do some people die in the attempt to cross borders that many of us cross every day, with relative ease? What made the journey, of these 39 individuals, so dangerous?

Currently, there are about 232 million international migrants around the world. Many are demonised, treated like criminals, arbitrarily detained, and sometimes even separated from their children. Walls and barriers are built, based on the idea that shutting down channels for safe and regular movement and deliberately making migrants’ voyage more dangerous, will deter them from leaving their homes, but when people face violence, persecution, deprivation and despair, nothing deters them from moving. In the past decade, we’ve seen policymakers in country-after-country, deliberately string up hostility against migrants, because the powerful surge of outrage that they generate can then drive headlines, high profiles and votes. One thing powers, some of these leaders have openly constructed lethal barriers to the movement of migrants. But migrants are people just like you and me, or our parents and grandparents. My name is Michelle Bachelet, because one of my great grandparents moved to Chile from France. When they were Winemakers and they had the epitome of the [inaudible – 15:49], they need to go somewhere else to develop what they knew. So, and I’m sure that many of you probably claim a migrant in your own forebearers.

Although no state is obliged to accept every person who arrives at its borders, all human beings are bound by the basic value of compassion, the recognition of our common humanity, and surely, when faced with profound misery, all of us are bound at least to do no harm. Every person arriving at a border deserves at least a fair opportunity to make their own case and have a considered decision by a responsible and neutral state official. The Global Compact for Migration adopted by an overwhelming majority of UN member states last year, reminds us that the human rights of all migrant must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times. It inspires us to greater international co-operation to address the global inequalities, environmental degradation and other root causes, which compel people to leave their homes. It is about co-operating to reduce inequalities, protect the rights of all people on the move and ensure greater freedom and opportunity. The nationalism that is on the rise in many countries, fuelled by xenophobia, is also accompanied by outspoken racism and other forms of discrimination, including attacks on women’s right and the rights for LGBTI people.

Regarding women’s rights, progress has been made, we think, on when the Human Rights Declaration was adopted. More and more governments talk about women’s right as human rights, and women’s right and gender equality are acknowledged as legitimate goals. Just last week, I was attending a Nairobi Summit where governments – that was the ICPD25, that is Cairo +25, where governments, the UN, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders came together to deliver on the unfinished business of the International Conference on Population and Development ICPD Agenda. The summit mobilised more than 1,200 commitments from around the world, including billions of dollars in pledges from public and private sector partners. The summit was also a critical space for amplifying the voices of those from marginalised communities, who were able to engage with leaders and decision-makers to forge a path forward on the rights and health for people.

The summit demonstrated collective resource to achieve the promise and potential of the ICPD Agenda for the realisation of sexual and reproductive health and rights and against gender-based violence, I should stress, in the Nairobi declaration. Regardless, there was mobilisation against the objectives of the summit, in the lead up to Nairobi, and there were some countries, which expressed there is women with the result of the summit. So, once again, we witness how instead of moving forward, some governments and many lobby groups, are pushing back on women’s right.

In several state, we’ve seen attempts to pass laws or enact policy changes, aimed at controlling or limiting women’s freedom to make choices about their lives, including, but not limited to, sexual and reproductive health and rights. There seems to be a renewed obsession with controlling and limiting women’s decisions over their bodies and lives. We have got to come together to end this injustice, to mobilise, to stand firm and to push to progress, but the same goes for the recognition of the equality of rights of LGBTI people. We have witnessed the progress, in many countries in the past decade, but these advances too, are increasingly suffering pushbacks. It is essential that we defend and protect LGBTI communities from violence and discrimination.

So, we’re seeing all these processes, processes linked to people in the streets, with no forces of hostility, divisiveness and rejection of co-operative global processes, comes also from the alienation and dissatisfaction with leadership, and I think is yet another factor driving today’s protest movements. So again, this heightens the urgency of addressing the perception that the states and institutions do not hear and do not care about people’s ordinary lives and their access to what should be their rights.

Lastly, let me turn to the role of social media and other digital tools in this new landscape. First, we need to recognise the role of social media and new technologies in general, but also, specifically, in the rise of these protest. Technology’s playing an essential role in facilitating access to information and mobilising and bringing together people, very positive outcomes. The capacity people have today to share and receive information and converge around the cause, has clearly risen and this naturally increases the pressure on those making decisions and avenues for ensuring accountable government, and the potential for emerging technologies to contribute to – for the agenda are multiform and unprecedented. The immediacy and the interconnectedness of our digital world can be a powerful force in organising and being heard. Indeed, these new platforms are so significant that many state have resorted to blocking apps or even internet shutdowns to stem the tide of protests. But we cannot overlook that information technologies are contributing to the very forces that fuel the protest. Hate and misinformation are everywhere, and the disturbing impacts on our societies, our discourse, on our lives is immense.

The same platform that connect those who wish to fight inequality are used to perpetrate the vilest of crimes. At the same time, technology has also created unprecedented ways for states to surveil and target critical voices, such as Journalists and defenders. Facial recognition and cell phone trackers give states new opportunities to trail demonstrators and increase risk of reprisals. Harassment, trolling campaign, intimidation and lies have polluted parts of the internet and can pose very real offline threats, with disproportionate impact on women and on members of minority groups and human rights offenders. So, developing appropriate responses to such online behaviours is complex, but clearly, human rights can help in that endeavour. And the way forward is not to simply ban vaguely defined concepts, such as hate speech, we need more nuanced approaches and threshold to determine what constitute prohibitive content. So here again, human rights law may be a useful and universal tool.

Many other institutes call out for much more effective governance of the digital landscape. Just one clear example is the deployment of artificial intelligence systems, to assess and categorise people, draw conclusions about their physical and mental characteristic, allocate social protection benefits and predict their future medical conditions, their suitability for jobs, and even their likelihood of offending. So, this issue, like others, requires a much more thoughtful mix of regulation, policies and incentive to address the human rights implication of digital transformation. We simply cannot allow the digital landscape to view itself as an ungoverned or an ungovernable space, a sort of human rights black hole.

I agree that overreaction by regular – just to range in speeds and use of the online space is also an important human rights issue. Many countries are limiting what people can access and curbing free speech and political activity online, often under the pretence of firing hate or extremism. So, we need to ensure the regulatory system and the system they aim to regulate, comply with international human rights law. We need to ensure that the digital revolution is serving the people and that it complies with cornerstone principles, such as transparency, fairness, accountability, oversight and [inaudible – 23:47].

This means going well beyond to somewhat vague ethical principles and guidelines being developed by some corporations. The International Human Rights Framework is already well developed in the area of business-related human rights risk and can build on ethical frameworks. It provides a check on power and a real foundation that is concrete, legal and universal, to act as a basis for states and firms to build a response in the digital age. Perhaps you can sense a theme emerging here. Many of the challenges that I have addressed today pose significant threats to human rights and are sparking protests. They are separate issues, but interlinked, constraining our ability to seek solutions and create societies that are harmonious and peaceful.

Human rights have an essential role to create new spaces for dialogue and shaping policies that allows us to face those challenges and to right the wrongs that are being doing – done. And as I pointed out earlier, this is not only about justice, it is also about self-interest, it is about shaping societies, which can survive and thrive in the turbulence of a very challenging era. We need to rebuild public trust in shared institutions, and no marketing tool can do that. It will take genuine effort to deliver on what people know to be their rights. The force of fundamental rights binds us together as human beings, regardless of our sex, race, beliefs, sexual orientation, nationality, migration status or any other factor. These core values and principles have proven themselves to be essential to the maintenance for a mutual, peace, prosperity and sustainable development, and they can guide policymakers to better policies, as we jointly navigate through the threats that lie ahead. Framing our responses to mass protests, in terms of human rights, can constitute a very productive basis for advances together towards solution.

Governments have legal obligations to uphold specific rights and focusing on this point, can create leverage for a genuine and respectful discussion with critics and protestor to facilitate effective and positive policy changes. Each of the protest situation has its own roots, narrative and lessons, but I think all of them generate a small numbers of recommendations that all officials everywhere will do well to bear in mind. I’m not going to make a huge list, just mention some things. Listen to critics respectfully and attentive. I often encourage policymakers to view activists as their allies, whose analysis and engagement can drive positive changes. Move beyond barebones measurements of average national progress, like GDP, to broader indicators of social justice and wellbeing across all the society. Drive fair economies with development that is sustainable and inclusive.

The 2030 Agenda is about realising economic growth that promotes greater freedom, wellbeing, justice and rights. For the first time in human history, thanks to advances in health, economies and many other fields, we now have the capacity to end extreme poverty and advance universal social protection and universal health coverage. The cost of doing nothing is far too expensive. Ensure respectful policing. Police brutality is perceived as an expression of the government’s contempt for its own people. It can only make a challenging situation worse. Eradicate discrimination. There’s nothing beneficial about laws, practices and mindsets that impede people from enjoying their rights and contributing fully to society. Discrimination is harmful to society as a whole, profoundly unjust, and its humiliations and affronts create lasting suffering and resentment. Last but not least, build governance that is responsive, participatory, transparent and accountable. Difficult to achieve, but [inaudible – 27:49]. Thank you very much [applause]. I didn’t broke my pen, but you need it?

Ruma Mandal

Thank you, High Commissioner. So, there’s a lot to reflect on there, and I don’t want to add to your work this evening, ‘cause you’ve given us a set of recommendations, but I just wanted to pick up on the role of private sector. I mean, they are increasingly, of course, impacting on human rights, and we’ve had the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights now for quite a while. The pace of progress, though, is a bit slow, or are you a bit more optimistic than me? I mean, what are you saying to private – to the private sector?

Michelle Bachelet

Well, I think private sector has to be an important partner when we need to ensure human rights. I mean, the – I would say that it will be a guarantee everywhere. I mean, states have the main responsibility of respect, protect and promote human rights, but private sector can be an important factor. I mean, sometimes, people look at the private sector only as the, if I could say, the threat for the victims, and they look at from the remedy point of view, and I think, of course, if there is damage done, you need to think on the remedy for the victims. But I think they can also be important partners, and we already have these guiding principles you said, and next week, in Geneva, we have the Business and Human Rights Forum, and last year, that was my first forum that I went to, for the first time went third-world businesses, because usually, it was governments and civil society and very small group of businesses. And I think we have very good champions of the business sector that are championing three elements: high human rights, SDGs, I mean, and the Agenda 2030, but also, understanding the importance, how business can be part of the – in this struggle to tackle climate change. So, I really believe that business can play an important role. We’re trying to do our best. It has been a little bit slow, but in particular, because many things that are easy for big businesses, for SMEs, it’s very difficult to adapt. So, that – we need to think on business not as a homogenous group, we need to think on the particularities and how can we help those that are more difficult? We’re working with business, in terms of identify all over the chain if they find some of the providers or other labour place, of course, marketplace, but also, all over the chain, how they can ensure that everyone can fulfil human rights, labour rights, etc.

As I say, we have good champions, and I hope that we will continue making stronger partners, because we need partnership, and private sector has to be a partner on this work.

Ruma Mandal

And they can be a powerful voice on civil society space as well.

Michelle Bachelet

Of course.

Ruma Mandal

It’s not just their own practices, but it’s about being part of the debate, and the drivers are keeping rule of law in civil society space open.

Michelle Bachelet

Yes, indeed, and, for example, when I – we were in UN Women, we work women rights, guiding principles and business, and my predecessor, three years ago, went to Davos and find out that businesses were not aware that LGBTI communities had obstacles in their work and that their rights were human rights. So, in the office, they develop standards for inclusion, and, like, 200 and more companies, sort of, signed these principles, but only a group of them have been able to really implement it. So, last – this year, in Davos, we signed an agreement with the World Economic Forum and big companies that have been doing this and recognising and supporting LGBTI communities inside, but in the labour and in the marketplace, and to mentor other companies to do, as well.

One big challenge, though, is that it’s easier to do it in Europe or the US, but not many times in African countries, where it’s, in some of them, are still, death penalty. So, it’s – but they can support civil society, they can do more, not only inside the company as you say, but outside, and that’s things that we’re working with them.

Ruma Mandal

Okay, thank you. So, I think it’s probably a good time to open up to questions, and I think we’ll take them in groups. Just – I mean, you’ll all be familiar with this, so please just wait for the mic and do tell us who you are and any affiliation before you speak, okay? So, this gentleman here. Okay, I really want to avoid using my glasses, so please – and this gentleman here and this lady here. Thank you.

Khalil Yousuf

Khalil Yousuf, United Kingdom parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats. First of all, High Commissioner, thank you very much for sharing your wisdom and recommendations on important matters of human rights, including in relation to xenophobia and women. My question is in relation to Politicians, and the question is, that I am increasingly concerned by the irresponsible and divisive rhetoric that is used by Politicians, which enflames hatred. For example, Politicians who might compare Muslim women, who decide to dress modestly, in a highly derogatory way, which has led to a spike in Islamophobic hate crimes or comments, which enflame anti-Semitic sentiments. What message do you have to Politicians, in relation to this, High Commissioner?

Ruma Mandal

Thank you, I think…

Member

Thank you, High, Commissioner. Ruma mentioned at the beginning that you saw your mission as giving a voice to the voiceless. I just wondered if I could ask you, where there is a marginalised group that is having its human rights abused by a state actor, I wonder, how does that group get itself on the agenda of you and your team?

Ruma Mandal

Thank you, and this lady at the front, and just please tell us who you are and your affiliation, thanks.

Cinzia De Santis

My name is Cinzia De Santis, and I’m from a charity, Healing Venezuela. Mrs Bachelet, first of all, thank you so much for your work in Venezuela, it really means a lot to us. Second of all, you have highlighted the risk that humanitarian aid agencies are facing with the US sanctions, and actually, because US sanctions are so all-encompassing, we have seen small charities and larger charities, we have seen our work being jeopardised by the financial sectors. So, basically, the financial sector, for being afraid of sanctions from the US, is shutting down a lot of operations. We cannot, sometimes, deliver aid, and we don’t have access to services, banking services. So, my question would be – or my question is, can the UN have a word with, well, maybe not Mr Trump, but somebody in the – and highlight the fact that the sanctions are really damaging the already really suffering people of Venezuela?

Ruma Mandal

Thank you. So, three very different questions there, and I’m sure you would love to have a word with Mr Trump about the US sanctions, but anyway.

Michelle Bachelet

I will not answer that one.

Ruma Mandal

No.

Michelle Bachelet

No, no, but I will answer you, because I ‘ve done it with other members of the states. Well, what I’ve been saying for some time is that leaders, Politicians of course, but leaders as a whole, and particularly lead – important leaders of the world should be role models and should be models of constructive messages, of – that will mean how we get people together and not with this divisiveness that you mentioned. I think because role – I mean, leaders are role models for other people, and when you start creating divisiveness, hate speech, xenophobia or anti-religious minorities, or – what happens is that it gives the liberty to others.

I come from a generation where it was politically uncorrect to say a lot of things. I mean, I didn’t believe in those kinds of things that you hear to some people. I always thought that people are human beings, that is, respect dignity, and that we have to respect the diversity. So, I didn’t have a problem, but it – but I think many other people will never dare to say something that was inadequate, because it was punished by the society, because this society has evolved and has realised that these kind of messages were really damaging the fabric of the society.

So, I will – my message has been, since I arrived, that we expect leaders to have the stature, that when they’re elected by others, be it a Presidential Republic, Prime Ministers or Politicians, they should have the stature and be able to have – include the princ – messages with principles and values that will be sure to give all human beings the respect and the dignity they deserve, because I truly believe and we are very concerned in the UN about the hate speech. We have been working and we have developed strategies on this, because we believe that this is something that is unacceptable, because there will – and we have seen that, if I may say, maybe in countries far away from here, but you know Myanmar. Myanmar, there was this situation with the Rohingyas many years ago. It was not something that happened in 2017, out of the blue, and Special Rapporteurs has said years before, “Look, this is not going well. If the international community does not – nothing about it, there can be a terrible massacre,” and we had the genocide of 2017. But what – some of the things that triggered violence was hate speech online against Rohingyas, but we have seen it in other areas as well, in Christchurch, in others. So really, we need to – and people, they see their policy, but not only people who are in politics. I mean, we need to, all of us, be very responsible, because words matter and words have an effect and trigger violence, and when leaders permit themselves to do this kind of messaging, unfortunately, it makes other people, and unfortunately, many do it because that means gaining votes. And that’s something that, again, it’s unacceptable, because yes, you win votes, you can win, but then you have a very polarised society, with a lot of people feeling not respected, and that is also, if I may say, a possible trigger for instability, for all kinds of lack of social cohesion, etc. So, my message is, be at the stature that you need and be a good role model for the societies, for – and it’s also for young generations, because otherwise, we’ll have a lot of bad consequences to deal with.

On the issue of the voice of the voiceless, I don’t know if we know everyone who – I mean, of course not, we don’t know all the groups of the minorities, but where we do – I mean, we do know who, in general in the world, are the ones who are suffering the most, who are the ones whose human rights are less, if I would say, guaranteed, and we do have presence in many parts of the world, less than I would like, because we only have presence, as an office, in 78 countries at the Resident Co-ordinator’s office. We have regional offices, we have country offices, in the main countries where there have been conflicts in the past. But we work strongly with the Country Team to identify, and in some areas where we do, for example in Kenya, we work with the National Commission of Human Rights and with the National Institute for Statistic, and we support them with methodologies, so they could identify a group of people who have never been seen before, huh? I mean, they were left behind because they were not counted. They didn’t exist, as the group of experts of Africa then told me, that many countries people don’t have disaggregated data, so they don’t know who are left behind, huh? And then they told me, you know, “When they don’t count us, we don’t count.”

So, one of the things that I’ve been discussing in many countries and also with my colleagues is, that we need to work with [inaudible – 40:47] countries, so they can identify really who are the people who are being left behind, whose human rights are being affected in different dimensions? So, when we are thinking on the Agenda 2030, for example, or in concrete policies, that we can reach those groups. And it’s not easy. Let me tell you one particular example, in my case. My first government, we had a crisis, the economic crisis that was all over the world, it affected us as well. So, the Ministry of Finance, with other ministries, created a plan that, according to the Economists, not in terms of money, amounts of money, but in terms of comprehensives, etc., was the fifth – one of the fifth better in the world. But afterwards, I look and there was nothing for women, nothing, it was just not in the head of the colleagues, I mean, the Ministers and so, I did that.

So – and women, it’s not a minority, really, no? In my country – I mean, because usu – I was amazed in the UN when I saw a resolution that said, “Minorities such as women, children,” and, well, in many countries, at least half of the population. In my country, was 52%, but what I mean is, sometimes it’s a lack of perception of what is important, and in some others, lack of information. But the other way we know is that we have – it’s not only the office, it’s the whole UN system that has many different mechanism and other treaty bodies and they have these individual petitions, allegations all over the world, to the Committee of the Rights of the Child, to the Committee of the Civil of the Women, to the Committee of Torture, to the Committee of Human Rights, etc., we have the Special Rapporteurs, 80 special Rapporteurs on 56 different issues, a group of experts, and they go country-to-country. They describe situations, they ask for recommendation, and then we have the UPR, that’s the Universal Periodic Review, where countries have to go, every four years, to the Human Rights Council, or the peer make a review, identify problems, make recommendations that afterwards, they have to come back and say what they have done for it, and so on.

So, I would say there’s a lot of different, not necessarily in my office alone, because we’re small, different ways to receive information, but also because even though when we don’t have presence in many places, today, technology permits you to be in many places, and one example is Venezuela. In Venezuela, we did not have anybody there, but of course, we were monitoring for years this, and we had the information from victims, from families, etc., including no-political ways, and the same happens to us in Syria. We’re not inside Syria, but on Lebanon, we monitor, we collect information, or in Yemen, we are, for example. We have offices there, so we collect there on the ground. So, it will depend on the situation, but if you ask me, we know everything about everyone? No, of course not, but we are looking forward to receive as much – and we, through civil society, we have a strong relationship with civil society, also receive all kinds of allegations and information that we try – we work with them.

On Venezuela and concrete – on sanctions, yes, I’ve spoken with the State Department officials, but also with Ellen Abrams about this, and I made a public statement about this as well, because I’m convinced that of course the sanctions did not produce the economic crisis, but are creating additional problems to it, as you mentioned, that could possibility be, I mean, ships won’t go, won’t pro – bring medicines because they are afraid of the reprisals, if I may say. When I spoke to them, they said to me, “Look, this is overcompliance, this is not what our instructions said,” but overcompliance unfortunately works. I mean, banks don’t send money for hospitals, for – in Italy or in Argentina becau – when they send – because, I mean, health’s in in terrible conditions, so they try to send children who need, say, a kidney or they have leukaemia or they need a transplant of kidney, but banks won’t send the money because it comes from PDVSA and they are afraid of – so, it is overcompliance, but unfortunately, overcompliance is working and it is damaging the possibility of humanitarian action. So, I have raised this issue many times, and I – and in the dialogue in Oslo, this is something that on the actors of governments and opposition, they have been talking about these things as well. And I know the opposition in the US and the people who represent the opposition in many parts, have also been raising the same, because it’s – I mean, because at the end, you know, there is different ways of sanctioning countries.

The European Union prefers, for example, to sanction individuals, not more bigger companies that can provide the money or something like that. There are other kinds of sanctions that can be used as well, if people believes that it’s necessary to sanction a country. So, I have raised all these issues. What happened is that they – afterwards, they develop a very detailed instruction from the Treasury, saying what should not be done, but unfortunately, compliance still exists. So, we’ll continue doing our efforts, and I guess important – the more important thing is the dialogue between the opposition and government. They are working. There will be an election this year, parliamentary elections. They are working on changing the electoral law and so on, because I do believe that dial – political dialogue is needed to be able to advance in many of these issues, but – and we have now two people on the ground, and they are visiting prisoners and their families, and so on, and doing our work over there. And we’re interest to be there, because we need not only to record – we’re not Historians, we want to make a difference. We’re not – we want – give, if it’s needed, technical co-operation, to do things better, but also, to be close to the people there and to see what else we can be helpful.

Ruma Mandal

Thank you. So, let’s have another round. Okay, so, maybe this side of the room, there’s a lady there, and then we could go to the lady over here and the gentleman in front of her.

Member

So, thank you very much, High Commissioner, for your very illuminating talk. What I would like to know, actually, is you mentioned something quite important about the Rohingyas. You said that you were aware of the problems already pre-2017. Now, in – if I’m not mistaken, as far as I know, the United Nations Charter distinctly says that ethnic cleansing, the governments do not get involved, but when it comes to genocide, you do. So, in 2017 you declared that, in fact, this Rohingya crisis had become a genocide, but why could you not have – first of all, this charter is totally wrong, because what was going on in Burma was absolute genocide right from the beginning. So, why has it, the United Nations, has done nothing about it ‘til today, because I’d like to know what are you doing about this – you know, we’ve talked about so many different aspects, women’s rights, you know, whatever other problems that you’re facing, protesters, but – immigration, but what do you do with this? This is a total scandal, and the world has done nothing about it because, of course, it’s a very minority community, and there’s no importance. So, thank you.

Ruma Mandal

Thank you, and then over here?

Member

Thank you. Yes, thank you, High Commissioner, for your wide-ranging talk. I’d like to ask you about the right to life and the death penalty. What do you see as the prospects for its worldwide abolition? Now, with regard to certain countries, they are still executing children, and right now a teenager has been sentenced to death in South Sudan for accidentally killing his cousin with his father’s shotgun. He’s underage and this is clearly not murder. I wondered, in such cases, is it possible for your Commission to speak to, say, the Ambassadors for South Sudan to the UN and try to stop his execution? Thank you.

Ian Martin

My name’s Ian Martin. Good evening, High Commissioner. I was once Secretary General of Amnesty International, and I worked for three of your predecessors, as a UN Official. I very much agree with your emphasis on inequality, but I want to press you a bit on how the intergovernmental human rights system can actually be effective on inequality. One of the strongest reports on poverty and inequality was the report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty on the UK. The UK is the government that normally co-operates with the UN human rights system. It not only rejected the findings of that report, it in effect, rejected the proprietary of that report, and while one can still embarrass governments when they’re caught out in torture and killing, governments aren’t actually embarrassed when their record on inequality and poverty is exposed through the human rights system. So, how can the intergovernmental system actually be effective on that, perhaps one of the very most important issues of our time.

Ruma Mandal

Thank you. So, a question on whether the UN was maybe too slow in calling out what was happening in Myanmar, the issue of the death penalty still persisting and particularly its use against children, and you can’t embarrass governments on inequalities. Oh, well, on poverty, through a human rights lens, perhaps.

Michelle Bachelet

Well, one of the things that I’ve been talking to member states and I arrive, I was not in 2017 at that time, in this position, I was President for my country, is that everybody speaks about prevention, and prevention is a very essential priority for my office, and we try to do it through different mechanism and the articulation to identify early on warning signs, because nothing comes as out of the blue. I mean, you could see signs for many of the things before, not only in Myanmar, in other places as well, and you see the shrinking of civil space, you see the arbitrary detention of political leaders. I mean, you could see certain trends that can go into a worse situation. So, we have been working, but what I meant on Myanmar is because in the Human Rights Council, it was raised many times, but there was no – I mean, there was early warning signs, but there was no early action by the international community. And one of the reasons I think, on the other hand, is the lack of or, not the lack of, the gap between the system, in terms of human rights and peace and security, because the actions have to be done, given by the Security Council. Is the Security Council the one – I mean, the Human Rights Council doesn’t have the tools, the mechanism, can only speak out, but cannot define, for example, a peacekeeping mission, a political mission on intervention, that is the Security Council.

So, one of the call – but, to be honest, the relationship is not as fluid as it should, and one of the things that I have been telling them, the occasion that I have been able to talk to them, is that we need to work hard because we can help them in really making earlier interventions that can eventually prevent, and if not prevent, at least to support. What they’re doing right now, it’s after all what happened, of course, and the flow of almost one million Rohingyas to Bangladesh and the present Cox’s Bazar and other parts, is, of course, the – my colleagues, from the refugee office, they have been working there, trying to provide – working with governments.

Our people have been there, looking – getting the testimonies, because in some minute, it might be – it might have legal consequences, and when we do – because we are not an implementing agency. We don’t have the power to say, “Okay, tomorrow we’ll do this and this, and you government do this and this.” So, our role is to accompany the families, the victims, to give legal advice, when it’s needed, to give different support, but also, to collect all the data. When you have data of the traders, for example, and all of that, all when the special committees, because what the Human Rights Council does, is that they have created different commissions of enquiry or a special mechanism, commissions of enquiry that go to the ground, investigate, collect information, take testimonies, try to identify who could be held accountable, for in the future case, when there will be legal action, even national tribunals or international tribunals, we can have that information and provide it. That kind of information, of many parts of the world, we keep it in the office, under a lot of security, so that in the case that it’s needed, we will provide to the adequate mechanism that information, so people could be held accountable.

In the case of Myanmar, as in the case on Syria, in the case of Syria, for the first time in the history of the UN, it was created, a mechanism called IIIM. Investigative – I always forget the three Is, but it’s all about the investigation and so on, and that is different than these groups of Commission of Inquiry, because the Commission of Inquiry are experts, Judges or former Prosecutors, but the mechanism, the tools that they use are not useful for if you have, like, afterwards, a Rwanda tribunal, and so on. So, these commissions, these special IMs, now, because for a – for Myanmar it was created an investigative mechanism, the Head is a former Prosecutor of many international tribunals, and they do it – all the information they collect is with – it’s a criminal investigation that will be very useful for the day that they can be brought to justice and held accountable. So, on the same time, the Secretary General – I mean, the Country Team is working there, the different agencies that can work. We don’t have presence in Myanmar, but ILO and other UN Country Team has some very small agencies, but at the same time, the Secretary General has a Special Envoy, a Swiss lady, Diplomat, that she goes there, negotiates, tried to convince to do the right thing, etc., etc. So, the most powerful tool, when you want to have something more strong, is the Security Council, but the Security Council discussed this kind of issue, and because we haven’t been able to stop the veto capacity of the P5s, many times .these kind of discussion don’t lead anywhere because they get obstaclised by the veto vote of the P5s. So – but we do our best with the capacity that we have, we try, and we’re making advocacy and we’re trying to bring attention, and we work with the ASEAN countries to see how they can support the Myanmar situation, and we work with Bangladesh, to tell them, “You cannot deport Rohingyas because there are no conditions to go back safely right now,” and we have also, the new situation, because the Tatmadaw is fighting with the Arakan Army. They’re Buddhist, they’re not Muslims, and there are also new sorts of a conflict there. So, we do our best, but as I say, there is – that we cannot do miracles. We try to do our best, but we do our part, that is, how we ensure the situation of victims, families and how we keep information for the future, when there will be conditions to hold accountable the perpetrators.

On the death penalty, yes, well, we, you know, we work strongly on trying to either convince states to eliminate death penalty, either the moratoria, hmmm, because many countries already have moratoria, but unfortunately, we still have death penalty in countries that sometime it’s amazing that they still have penalty, big countries, important countries. And we’re not going to mention anyone, of course, and I’m always writing to the Governors letters to stop executions, and I’m writing or calling Ministers of Foreign Affairs that are my counterparts, calling to stop executions, in different places, in Bahrain, in Iran, in Egypt, and I take note of this South Sudan case. So, we’re sending letters, when we know it from before, or one day they call me that the – there were these people that were in death row, and the King decided they will be killed, so start calling, that was in Bahrain, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I spoke to them, but it looks like I came late, because I knew late. So, it’s a very difficult situation, because it’s true what you say, and sometimes they are not executed before they are 18-years-old, they committed the crime when they were, I mean, according to international law, children, under age at 18, but the day they are 18, they execute them. So, it’s – and nobody could say, “Oh, well, I’m complying, huh, with the international law.” So, it is a very difficult task, but we are working very strongly on that, trying to convince why death penalty is not the solution, and one problem that we also have with death penalty, I mean, all of the problems, but one additional issue is linked to inequalities.

If you see the death row, in many countries, who are they? The poorest: Afro-American, Latinos, people with mental health diseases, who cannot defend themselves, who cannot access to Lawyers, or people who don’t understand the language. So, it’s really an issue of inequalities, as well. I mean, not only the moral, global issue, principle against death penalty and the right to life, but also, its crossed by inequalities. People who do have access to money, they will have a Lawyer and probably they won’t be in a death row. So, it’s really something important.

Should I say this or should I not say it?

Ruma Mandal

Say it, say it, say it.

Michelle Bachelet

One thing that surprised me is that, in the UK, the age for putting in jail children is very low. Is it ten or 12-years-old?

Ruma Mandal

Ten.

Michelle Bachelet

Ten. I have to say, was a surprise for me. A real surprise, because children are children, and tomorrow we’re celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Convention of the Rights of the Children, and children should be treated as children, and this is one thing we have been saying also with ISIS, families and children. Even if children was a soldier, he should never be treated like an adult, it should be treated as children, but that’s a matter I leave for you, the Brits, to define, but I think there’s a problem that I – for me, I’m a Paediatrician, and I think on ten-year-old children, I mean, this is a child. I mean, has no maturity. Maybe killed somebody, but I think it needs to be seen in a different way, and I was in Australia and I think they also have ten-years-old for people to be – children to be in jail, and I saw this case of these Aboriginal children, and he almost went to jail because he didn’t want to go to school because they only teach him English. They didn’t speak anything about the history of the Aboriginal, and he felt so bad, he didn’t want to, and he was saved, and I saw the documentary and they say, “You’re going to go to jail because you’re not respecting the rules and so on.” He did not make any crime, huh?

So, I think there’s a lot of things that in every country we need to improve, really. We need to improve because sometimes, there is a discussion who should be sitting on the Human Rights Council? But to be honest, and about what you said and what you said, there’s no such a country that is perfectly human rights, because some are better, of course, much better, but all of us need to improve, in every place. And on your – well, one thing that I have learned in my life is that nobody likes to be criticised, people, neither governments, and in any area, and of course, every time that a Special Rapporteur makes a report, I receive the call, because, I mean, everybody knows that they’re independent, that I don’t elect them, I don’t choose them, and that they’re independent and they do their job, the best they can, and they’re elected by member states of the Human Rights Council, but of course, Ambassador need to go and tell the capitals they complain, so they call me and complain. But yes, and that’s one of the things that I – is linked to something that I realised, when I came to my post, is that, for many reasons, on one hand, people – it’s easier for people to look outside than inside the problems, and it’s linked what I was talking about, not listening to the people, to the concerns and the problems of the people.

The other thing is that usually, when people used to talk about human rights, even in my country, because of our experience with a dictatorship, people tends to think only on civil and political rights. I mean, I’m not talking if there is poverty or not, I mean, people can understand that there is poverty, but don’t think about it like economic, social and cultural rights. And I think that what happens is that for many developed countries, it’s – they don’t like to be – to show or to be shown us countries that have inside inequalities, and there are inequalities, and there are huge inequalities, and that’s why I believe, and I say that, I don’t think neither the political systems today, neither the economic system, are working for the people. I think we need to rethink that very, very profoundly and deeply, because it’s really not working. The inequalities are increasing, and for the first year, FAO said that in a decade, it’s the first time that hunger has increased in humanity, and it only will get worse. So, we need to look at things not only on the average, on the good, what we like to see, we need to look at it, because I think it’s not only what you mentioned in the UK, we’ve seen that in many other places of the world, and in developed world, and the tendency for the economy for the next year are not good, and particularly on – I mean, this year was not good in WEOG, Western European, but in next year, it won’t get much better either. So I think we need to be really responsible on this and think much profoundly, what else we need to do, because we cannot use only bandage, is that the word? But…

Ruma Mandal

Band-Aid.

Michelle Bachelet

Band-Aid, I have to solve problems that I think are much more structured.

Ruma Mandal

Thank you. Well, I think we’ve – I mean, we could speak much more about all of these issues, but unfortunately, we’ve run out of time, but maybe it’s fitting, we started on inequalities and we’re, sort of, concluding on inequalities. So, it just leaves me to thank you all for joining us this evening, for your questions and to ask you to thank the High Commissioner for coming here and for speaking so candidly [applause].