HRD Security and Protection Conference
Session 3: Strategies of NGOs to Address Repressive Trends and Gaps in the Protection of human Rights Defenders
Professor Philip Leach
Ladies and gentleman we are going to carry on straight away with the 3rd session, and turning now to being a little more forward looking and thinking about strategies that state bodies and NGO’s and regional bodies could, or should or are adopting in addressing some of the gaps we have been identifying through today, or some of the oppressive trends that have been identified by a number of speakers. We have three speakers up to the break and three after the break. One of the issues I hope we can touch on is the issue of political will that hasn’t really been addressed today to much, and is extremely important in relation to the interstate mechanism’s that have been referred to throughout the day. Can I say in relation to our experience in running the Chechen cases, there is the mechanism through the Council of Europe of the implementation of the Strasbourg judgements in relation to Chechen through the Community of Ministers that was discussed earlier, and certainly one can be very critical of that mechanism and its reliance on state peer pressure, and one can be very critical that it has not been very effective since the first Chechen judgements in 2005. Political will is possibly one area we will come back to.
Let me introduce our first speaker Liam Mahony who is International Council member of PBI and has a long history of working in civilian protection and human rights particularly having done fieldwork in Central & South America and in Asia, he also writes and teaches in this field. So I welcome Liam Mahony
Liam Mahony
I would like to thank the hosts and all of you who have come and particularly Human Right’s Defenders who have travelled far to share their experience and wisdom today.
Just to introduce myself briefly as I started working with PBI in the 1980’s during the dictatorship period in Guatemala when we were trying to accompany HRDs who at that stage weren’t even called HRDs, as the term hadn’t been coined yet. I have been able to participate in the development of a rigorous discipline of how to go about using field presence to try to support and protect HRDs and I would like to share that history as it has lessons for where we need to go with the protection of HRDs and respond to specific questions that this panel was asked to address in more detail.
Peace Brigades first went into Guatemala in 1983 under military dictatorship and during a period of genocide. It was considered impossible and insane to try to support HRDs in that situation. One of the first lessons we can draw from the history is that the impossible isn’t always impossible, and we need to learn to actually try to do the impossible in this work - and that we need to recognise that our HRDs in the field are doing this everyday and are up against impossible odds. If you look at the period between the 1980’s and late 1990’s Guatemala moved from a position of genocide and military dictatorship to a successful peace process and a considerable transition. During that period PBI in the field was asked to accompany and protect nearly every significant aspect of the popular movement in Guatemala that grew to become a significant force in the peace process. So the 2nd lesson we learnt from that experience is that you cannot always see your long-term impact, and the process of protecting HRDs can have a really powerful long-term impact on political transitions in countries. The civilian movement was a major force in bringing peace in Guatemala and many of the aspects of the civilian movements survived because of the human rights efforts, not just because of PBI but a whole network of institutions that tried to keep them alive to bring peace to Guatemala. Many of those same activists are back at work in Guatemala, which again is in a very difficult human rights situation requiring lots of human rights activity and under great threat. But even though the situation is still quite difficult we shouldn’t lose sight that a great deal of progress went on that HRDs were responsible for brining about, and international support enabled them to do it.
Peace Brigades is now working in Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala and also in Nepal and Indonesia. We are mostly known for doing protective accompaniment, for sending volunteers to spend time with organisations, individuals or communities at risk with the intention of protecting them and encouraging them to continue their human rights work. We also do other kinds of capacity building support for HRDs in some of our projects. I think we should look a bit about what is this idea of accompaniment and why does it work? Because what PBI has developed is a strategy of protection, its not just about putting a warm body there and hope that means someone won’t attack them. It’s quite a detailed protection strategy that tries to analyse why people are under threat and what are the political factors that influence them; why they would be sensitive to having an international volunteer in their way if they wish to carry out the threats they have made. We have found there is sensitivity and influence in nearly every situation we have worked in and many others we have looked at; that even armed groups and states that seem to act with complete impunity never the less would prefer to act without international pressure, and would prefer not to attack when there is international observation, monitoring and presence. The 2nd important key part of the strategy of accompaniment is one of encouragement. It is recognising that HRDs are the agents of change in their country and they need all the support and moral support they can get as they are up against calculated strategies by people who want to get rid of them, demoralise them, limit their impact and efficiency and affect as we heard earlier their mental health. So having international partnership and presence can actually give people a sense of greater legitimacy; that someone out there who even in their own country have no recognition for the importance they have, in the world outside we are there recognising the importance they have in bringing about change.
In the course of trying to develop this as a strategy one particular aspect of the strategy we found quite vital is something I will call constant diplomatic contact what we found in the course of building up larger projects and Peace Brigades is that you couldn’t take for granted that people who are responsible for the abuses understand the political influence you are supposed to have. We have come up with strategies to insist and repeat and demand that all levels of authorities in the states in which we work fully understand why we are there, and what we are doing. We constantly have meetings at the local and national level to remind people why we are there, and why they need in some sense to be accountable to the international community. It’s a very diplomatic process its not like we go in accusing people of human rights abuses or getting into denunciations in these discussions, but very often it is sitting down having a cup of tea presenting and introducing ourselves and making sure they know we are there, going to be there the day after and for the long term. We are not there to attack them or insult them but are there to watch. This is a strategy based on the knowledge that oppression and human rights abuses are based on calculated intelligent strategies people are using for political reasons. Because of that they will strategically calculate the impact of having a human rights observer there and this is largely why it works for protecting.
I would like to briefly comment on some of our work in the field. We started in Guatemala in 1983, we stayed ‘til after the peace process completed in 1999 and then were asked back by the same people in 2003 we helped prior to 1999. We have a significant presence in Guatemala. We found even before that peace process and now again after it, that largely the HRDs that needed protection and asked for help are groups working on impunity seeking and truth, on campacino issues, land issues, farmers organisations in rural areas, now we include more recently marginalised groups such as lesbian/ gay & bi-sexual or AIDS groups and groups working on environmental issues in rural areas. The long term lesson from that experience in Guatemala is that it works to have an international field presence and protects a lot of people and you can see the long term impact if you stick with a country over a long time. You can really see how important a broad and diverse civil society is for bringing about change in a country. It has been mentioned how we should always see the HRDs term in its broader sense. We are looking at labour unions and farmer’s organisations, Mayan mayors organisations, and a range of organisations that wouldn’t see themselves as HRDs. Not lawyers or NGO’s, in most cases a really broad range of people making these changes happen.
In Colombia our biggest project, we are working in 4 different places in Bogotá Barrancabermeja, Urabá, and Medellín. We are working with classical organisations, such as lawyers, with human rights organisations in regional areas, families of the disappeared, with communities that have been under threat in contested areas, communities that have stood up for their own independence and the right to resist the abuse of the war. We have accompanied groups working on women’s issues. accompanied groups working on union issues and political prisoners. From the start one of the important things we did was establish ourselves outside the capital and establish a presence in regional areas. This was important to actors in regional areas who often found they didn’t get much attention from the international community, as they weren’t in Bogotá. To recognise that it’s always easier for logistical reasons to do it in the capital and there is much less communication with regional/rural activists, we needed a calculated strategy to give attention to areas outside capital cities.
We have also worked in Nepal over the last few years in fact accompanying the Advocacy Forum and Conflict Victims Committee, in many ways complementing the larger OECD presence in Nepal. Also in Nepal a process that developed which led to an important spin off from Peace Brigades, that is work referred to as Protection International, which developed in Nepal what is called protection desks to bring together HRDs to look at strategies for own security, that process was initially part of Peace Brigades in Brussels but is now part of an independent organisation establishing these protection desks around the world.
In Mexico we have quite a unique strategy to get outside the normal circles where international organisations were having an impact, we established a presence in Guerrero this was not in Mexico city and not in Teapa where a lot of human rights organisations had had an interest in previous years. We went out to Guerrero to establish a long-term trust building presence with human rights institutions there, which has been quite successful. The response from Mexican human rights activists was they had seen international activists come and go but PBI was the first one to actually stay. Because we stayed we are able to provide a service to other international actors interested in human rights in Guerrero; we know all the actors, can put international visitors in touch, invite the diplomatic community to this region.
So again I stress that in terms of our ongoing search to improve our policy protection for HRDs, that all our institutions need to look for ways of avoiding the magnet of the capital city in the countries we work in, we need to be out there with HRDs as much as possible if we want to see their needs and respond to them.
Finally, our last and other large project in Indonesia focused on Papua, previously it had been focused on Aceh one of the most conflicted areas in Indonesia. Here again is a lesson from our experience there; Indonesia is a very difficult country. It has a powerful state and a military with influence on the state and is sensitive of international presence and intervention. PBI was told we would never be allowed to establish a presence, the state/military would not allow a human rights presence. Because probably we were told it couldn’t happen that’s what we did. Step by step we talked to government, military, regional government and explained ourselves in a most non-threatening way and convinced them we could establish a presence that would not be a threat to them, they could allow. And they did. Interesting thing is what’s the point of having a presence that’s not a threat to them; it’s not a threat in terms they would see but it’s a pressure on them. We found we could be engaged with a lot of useful protection of institutions without offending the military yet doing serious protection work for human rights organisations. We are now carrying out the same activities in Papua, which again is a region tightly control by the military. They are sensitive about what international organisations see in an area wealthy with mineral resources and also sensitive in terms of past separatist movements and concerns about security. We now have a presence in two different regions in Papua where we are trying to provide protection for rural activists who are dealing with indigenous and human rights issues throughout that region.
Now if we look at the questions this panel was to address:
Do our existing mechanisms meet the challenges for protecting HRDs?
The answer is of course not, people are under threat and people are being killed. If you look at the history of the development of human rights we will be coming up with new mechanisms. I think the biggest weakness is not the lack of new mechanisms, we don’t maximise the use of the mechanisms we have. In many cases not enough enforcement of existing International law, not enough use of EU Guidelines, not enough presence in the field. So maximising the tools we already have is a huge area of potential for more protection.
What are the gaps in protection?
From PBI perspective we are in 5 countries, and there is an awful lot of places where human rights violations are taking place and no one else is doing field based protection. In some cases they have other mechanisms in place but in some places they would like it. There is a quantity gap. There is also a gap in our intensity of our ability to affect perpetrators, the lack of enforcement means those states and armed actors with enough guts can act with impunity and ignore the fact we embarrass them in public, and this happens in many places.
One other big gap I would like to point out is there are various sorts of cultural gaps. There are places were the international human rights organisations can more easily work than others. Clearly the fact that international human rights organisations are both dominated by Western nations and perceived to be so, affects our ability to have the legitimacy to do protection in certain parts of the world where that Western image is suspicious. Whether taking about many of the Arab countries or parts of Africa where colonialism is still resented. There are places we have to overcome the cultural image the international human rights organisations have, there are also alliances and new partners who could be major human rights actors in future who are not at this time.
What measures are being organised by HRDs themselves?
As we heard previously everything, all the measures being done in human rights, are done by HRDs themselves, and it’s the local and national HRDs that are the vast majority of the human rights movement. What I found quite useful myself about my experience in the Peace Brigade is recognition we are not change agents ourselves we are a tool they may choose to use. If you go back to Guatemala in 1984 when accompaniment was used, Peace Brigades did not create it; it was suggested by HRDs who said if you stay with us your presence might make us safer. We need to see that we are tools for local activists to use strategically.
How will mechanisms like EU Guidelines, Universal Periodic Review or ICC improve HRDs security?
We need to recognise that policy and laws don’t change anything in themselves, they are only tools, they only change things if they are used. The EU Guidelines give legitimacy for HRDs and activists for what they would do even if they didn’t exist; gives them something to rely or call on or hold powers accountable to. But it’s still just a tool that people active in human rights feel a need to work out how to best use.
The last point I would make that is linked to this is the idea that human rights protection is not about mechanisms, policies and laws but actions they take using tools. We need to see when looking at EU involvement and guidelines, the diplomatic corps and how states function in third countries. We need to see that action is taken by individuals, when we look at our 25 year plus experience in the field what we have seen is when you look at one person in an embassy who has responsibility for human rights and look at an other person in another embassy who has responsibility, but does 20 times as much as the one in the other embassy. Because it is about individual decisions and prioritisation and all sorts of agendas that people have and reasons for not doing things that lead to a huge difference in impact from the same policies and job descriptions. As human rights NGOs we have a responsibility to facilitate as much as possible how people in state institutions, in embassies, in the EU in the UN and in national governments in host countries (where there are allies who are very concerned with human rights who potentially could do more) can be more effective. We need to look for ways to encourage them to do more with what they have just as how we look for ways to make EU Guidelines work better. Part of it is to knock on the doors of the European embassy everyday and talk to them and suggest things they do each day. The European embassy in the field will achieve human rights change not because of the policy or work plan but because the ambassador or staff go out every single day thinking about what they could do with this agenda or policy and figuring out something new. When they do it they make a huge difference; and we closer to the HRDs need to provide them with creative links, contacts, friendly barrage of really friendly invitations to inspire and encourage all the international bodies interested to do more tomorrow than they did today.