UN General Assembly set to ignore the Most Oppressed at their meeting in September, 2008, to adopt a complaints procedure for economic, social and cultural rights.

Anthony Ravlich,
Chairperson,
Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd., Auckland City, New Zealand.
Ph: (0064) (09) 302.2761
Website: www.hrc2001.org.nz

Global elites meeting at the UN General Assembly in September, 2008, need to adopt a much more imaginative Human Rights Approach to ensure Hope for the poor, marginalized and the alienated throughout society.

Our council, the Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Region) want the draft Optional Protocol, OP, to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ICESCR), or a complaints procedure for those suffering social injustices, which is due for adoption by the UN General Assembly in September 2008, to be revisited as our council considers it offers the poor and marginalized very little hope and may well further encase them in a social prison and in the words of Samuel Coleridge ‘…die a death so slow that none will call it murder’ (Religious Musings, 1796).

While, in my view, the seeds of an imaginative human rights approach exists the current dominance of neo liberalism certainly suggests, and the draft OP seems to strongly show, that the most disadvantaged will continue to be neglected as all else remains ideologically quite unchanged with few apparent challenges to neo liberalism (What we see as major flaws in the draft OP are covered in detail in chapter 5 of my book – ‘Freedom from our Social Prisons: the Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (see below)).

Although the likelihood of the General Assembly revisiting the draft OP at this stage is probably extremely unlikely the considerable importance of the subject matter is worth the attempt. It is expected that many States will ratify the OP soon after its adoption by the General Assembly. The matter is urgent because these human rights instruments are virtually ‘set in cement’ once adopted.

Although the present draft OP represents a ‘step in the right direction’ from the existing situation in liberal democracies where the economic and social interests of the liberal, middle class, profession elite have been given considerable priority to now extending some protections to the working classes in the form of economic, social and cultural rights (although, in my view, this is largely to gain majority support for the continuance of neo liberalism and its global expansion). However, from my observations the open-ended working groups discussing the draft OP over the past four years dealt little with the most prevalent and often the worse violations experienced by the poor and the marginalized such as homelessness, the use of food banks and begging on the streets, and, what I see as, the severe restrictions placed on people’s right to development, especially ideas ‘outside of the neo liberal square’ at the lower social levels. For instance, they seemed far more concerned with limited economic resources than being positive by attempting, by ensuring a comprehensive human rights education, to maximize and harness the ideas of society (an example of a really good idea is micro credit which has been very successful with respect to small business development) for the purposes of addressing the most serious violation. This ‘budgeting mentality’, prevalent in liberal democracies, seemed to suggest that they expected those living in extreme poverty to budget their ‘one dollar a day’!!

The most serious and most prevalent violations could, in our opinion, have been tackled far better by the draft OP. While many States now promote the equal status of both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights at the United Nations they have failed to ensure core minimum obligations (i.e. as defined by the General Comments of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) in the draft OP which would have, if properly implemented, immediately addressed these core minimum obligations. Human rights legal protection of these obligations offer a much more realistic hope than relying on the market and/or the largesse of the State and its elites e.g. the present ‘food price crises’ demonstrates a need for such greater protections.
Also no core minimum obligations have been put in place for civil and political rights by the UN Human Rights Committee so they do not have to ensure a ‘voice for the poor’ - even when these rights are in law often the poor and the marginalized cannot access them. Both covenants should, in my view, be amalgamated as was originally conceived in the early 1950s – this would help ensure that food is not given with one hand and freedom taken away with the other i.e. individual freedoms are presently being curbed ostensibly because of the War on Terror while economic, social and cultural rights are rising on the UN agenda to, in my view, to use human rights law as a means of further controlling the burgeoning underclass, dissidents and terrorists.
In my view, the equal status of both sets of rights should be ensured at the level of core minimum obligations for all human rights (with higher levels an aspiration but which, however, once gained, any retrogressive measures by the State should be subject to a high democratic standard). The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should also include the empowerment rights described below. These would potentially enable human rights to be driven from the bottom-up.

The ‘wide margin of appreciation’ afforded States by the UN permit States to ‘turn human rights on its head’ as has been the case with other human rights instruments (the covenant on civil and political rights and conventions with respect to women and race) which failed to prevent the growth of under classes in many liberal democracies. It is very likely that States will continue in the same vein emphasizing the economic, social and cultural rights of elites higher on the social structure rather than emphasizing, as they should, those suffering the worst, most prevalent, violations.

There are it seems a number of other major flaws in the draft OP. The draft OP does not ensure the right to human rights education (without which people cannot make an informed vote or make a complaint). Since the signing of the UDHR in 1949 liberal democracies have invariably excluded education in economic, social and cultural rights thereby protecting elite interests by keeping people ignorant. In addition the right to development (without which people cannot use their abilities, follow their dreams, and provide jobs for others such as the underclass) has also been excluded. Consequently States are free, if they so wish, to discourage small enterprises, which potentially could employ the under class. This, in my view, is presently the case. The right to development is also particularly important as it operates under both sets of rights (see the UN Declaration in the Rights to Development) extending the domain of reason thereby creating in the words of Franklin Roosevelt a ‘true freedom’ (also with greater welfare enable people to access their civil and political rights) reducing the domain of political expediency. This, in my view, would allow many new ideas to come to the fore (see below). Also the OP does not include non-retrogression with respect to human rights thereby giving States ‘a margin of appreciation’ to violate their own human rights where it suits them e.g. an increase in social control when under threat from a burgeoning under class and terrorist activities. We see a need for a requirement that if States are to compromise their human rights principles this should be subjected to a public referendum or a supermajority of parliament or congress and certainly should not go so far as to violate core minimum obligations of either sets of rights.

The ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, with the empowerment rights, described above would both protect and empower the most vulnerable as well as being much more likely to considerably reduce relative poverty and alienation i.e. the social ‘them versus us’ and individual ‘mind/heart imbalance’. This would allow people more space to pursue, if they so wish, their full potential and protect, in particular in today’s world, intellectual freedom from the social control of the statue quo.
This human rights perspective would mean social structures, domestic and international, operating under the umbrella of the UDHR, which is more an aspiration but which would ensure at the very least core minimum obligations of both sets of rights and with the empowerment rights (and non-retrogression) added to the list of core minimum obligations. This would allow for the maximization of ideas with respect to the right to development whereas at present only those ideas which suit neo liberalism gain currency. Such a human rights approach could incorporate a range of ideologies and belief systems (i.e. both covenants have been ratified under international law by nearly all countries) whose proponents could then be unified in the promotion and implementation of this approach. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states: “In terms of political and economic systems the Covenant [on economic, social and cultural rights] is neutral, and its principles cannot accurately be described as being predicated exclusively upon the need for, or desirability of, a socialist or capitalist system, or a mixed, or centrally planned or laissez-fair economy, or upon any other particular approach” (UN Document E/C. 12/1990/8). Neo liberalism, which, for example, has failed to prevent under classes being created in many liberal democracies as well as increasing alienation throughout societies, means that such a more civilized alternative approach is required. Neo-liberalism would have to abide by such core minimum obligations etc, as would any other ideology, in order to fit into this human rights approach and be part of the civilized world. At present, I consider, liberal societies are operating to a large extent at the level of illusion rather than reality – these illusions, often with neo liberalism at their source, reflect much more middle class realities than the realities of the population as a whole. Such liberal societies are locked in a ‘left, right wing neo liberal square’, giving the illusion of wide-ranging choices when actually many challenging ideas and activities, and the search for truth, including spiritual truths, are relegated to the fringes of society or many creative individuals are forced to leave the country.
However, considerable global changes are taking place suggesting that globalization, which means that liberal societies strongly focus the right to development at the higher social levels and the corporations, is in decline e.g. the ‘global food price crises’ mentioned, regionalization, the serious lack of progress of the Millennium Development Goals, and also the considerable global expansion of liberal democracy now seems to have halted and may be contracting (Freedom House, 2008) and, in my view, there is now massive alienation and extreme conformity in society which would make it very difficult to adjust to any necessary future changes and, in fact, severely alienated leadership could pose a grave threat to world peace. Consequently it may be dangerous for a State to continue to ‘put all its eggs in the corporations basket’ and instead should also further encourage small enterprises.

Many on our council, including myself, have spent many years living in poverty on the fringes of society in Auckland, New Zealand. The fear of the establishment is that new ideas may offer more hope than their neo liberalism consequently our council’s ‘freedom of speech’ has been almost exclusively restricted to fringe outlets. We are not funded like most of the left-liberal NGOs attending the open-ended working groups so could not attend any of the discussions regarding the draft OP over the past four years. Consequently, States and international bodies are able to ensure that the ‘voices of the poor’ are rarely ever heard and pass human rights instruments without having to take responsibility for how they are implemented by States.

• Freedom from our Social Prisons: the Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by Anthony George Ravlich has just been released – see Chapter 5, ‘Lack of Will for Social Justice for the Most Disadvantaged at the UN’. Also Lexington Books has provided chapter one on the internet - ‘Sample Chapter(s) for Freedom from Our Social Prisons’.