Abstract
According to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, world peace is based on the pillars of security, development and human rights. The defence of human rights is a particular foreign policy strength of both the EU and Germany. Despite advances, human rights are currently under threat from two angles. The first is a tendency to demand so much in the realm of human rights that, in the end, very little is achieved. The second is a growing movement that prioritises the rights of the collective over individual rights. However, it is individual human rights that are paramount and it is possible to extend individual rights without trampling cultural diversity. Given Europe's history of freeing itself from the shackles of dictatorship, its role in the defence of human rights is invaluable.
The twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall last year gave us cause to look back with pride and joy, not just at the events of 1989 but also at what has been achieved since then. Germany has seen great changes over the past 20 years. More than ever before, we are shouldering responsibility on the international stage. It is right and important that we do so. And yet, we could do more. Not despite our past, but rather because of it.
Above all, taking on responsibility means taking advantage of the possibilities for action and the new freedom to make decisions. Those who want to act responsibly, who are prepared to assume responsibility, must embrace their own freedom to decide and use that freedom intelligently. This is the very challenge which Germany must face up to.
At first glance, using this opportunity to make decisions would appear to be a matter of course. However, before 1989 it was difficult in both parts of Germany (albeit in very different ways) to conduct rational political debates on human rights as a strategic foreign policy goal or to even recognise the possibility for independent action.
In the East, the slightest opposition to the regime in the 1950s resulted in lengthy prison sentences. From the 1970s onwards, there were an increasing number of expulsions from the German Democratic Republic (GDR). To this end, the GDR—like any other well-organised dictatorship today—had paragraphs in its penal code which could be used whenever it suited the party leadership to immediately put individual members of the opposition out of action.
In West Germany, the attitudes of mainstream society and the pursuit of a certain kind of political correctness as a consequence of the changes after 1968 prevented a frank and open debate on Germany's role in the world. Perhaps the most important lesson learned by those who have had first-hand experience of dictatorship and of governments which show no regard for human rights is that no goal, no matter how positive, justifies violence and oppression.
Since the peaceful revolution of autumn 1989 and Germany's freely chosen reunification on 3 October 1990, Germany's scope for action has grown. Today, the international responsibility of any given federal government means providing answers, having to decide between the many large and small evils in the world. Anyone who denies that it is possible to decide between different options for the future because of their past is indirectly shirking all responsibility and thus acting irresponsibly.
The basis for responsible action by Germany is very clear. Our constitution begins with an unambiguous commitment: ‘Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.’ These sentences can by no means be taken for granted, for human dignity is violated even today in many parts of the world.
In presenting the report entitled ‘In Larger Freedom’ in 2005, Kofi Annan used the image of world peace based on three pillars: security, development and human rights. He stated that we will not enjoy development without security; we will not enjoy security without development; and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. We could therefore say that the realisation of human rights throughout the world is the most important prerequisite for human development (defined as freedom from poverty and suffering) and human security (defined as freedom from fear and violence).
What does it mean in concrete terms for the German government and perhaps even the European Union to demonstrate their active commitment to the stability of the third pillar, human rights?
First of all, this component is a particular strength of German and European foreign policy. It is a strength for Germany in part because we have taken a very close look at our own national history and have largely come to grips with it. Insofar as we have not tried to make our own way of dealing with the dark chapters in our history the international norm, we have garnered much respect abroad.
Anyone who wants to pursue a successful human rights policy must also earnestly strive to maintain this credibility and use it for the benefit of all. Therefore, we cannot and must not shirk our responsibility, particularly when it comes to difficult issues. We always have to put ourselves in the position of those whose rights are being violated, and emphasise human rights when endeavouring to stabilise world peace. This is not all that is politically necessary and not all that has to be done. But this task is perhaps best suited to us Germans and to us Europeans.
When it comes to the first pillar—security—we first of all look at military strength. It remains indispensable for our security and for the defence of freedom. We cannot do without the close transatlantic alliance provided by the leadership of the United States and NATO.
China will most likely become the leading power in the second pillar, economic development. The fact alone that China has a population of 1.3 billion, one-fifth of the global population, puts the country in a powerful position. But it is also the strength of their ancient culture and civilisation that will ensure that the Chinese take their rightful place in the new concert of world powers. Perhaps this became evident for the first time at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. But it is up to us, the EU, to make sure that we are still part of decisive talks on the international level.
But let us come back to human rights, which are under threat from two angles in particular. First, there are the well-meaning efforts of the Europeans to incorporate the largest possible canon of human rights into international conventions, which is certainly commendable. From a strategic point of view, however, the danger is that if we strive for too much, we could end up losing everything. Nor is it necessary. For although human rights are indivisible, that does not mean they are all equally important. Universally valid human rights are a political concept and a brilliant idea which, if circumspectly translated into reality, can achieve much. Like so much else in politics, this principle can be in-strumentalised for good or bad purposes.
I would like to give a concrete example to illustrate the second angle from which a threat emanates. One of the first human rights to be developed or discovered was a particularly interesting one: the right to freedom of religion or belief. However, the debate has evolved and today the discussion in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva no longer centres on this as an individual human right but on banning the defamation of religions.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference is advocating collective human rights here. This approach is not about the protection of an individual's right but rather the right of a religious group. These group rights have nothing to do with the original concept of human rights. Indeed, they pose a threat to it because they imply that the right of the individual must, if necessary, take second place to that of the group. Individuals, not religions, have human rights. The individual has the right and the state is obligated to respect and protect it.
Nowadays we certainly cannot take it for granted that our understanding of human rights is accepted throughout the world. On the contrary, it is at greater risk than it was 20 years ago. This is all the more true when hardly anyone dares to openly address this threat. But the basic approach is actually quite simple: successful human rights policy is about translating a fantastic idea into reality. This idea applies to everyone, regardless of whether they were born in Germany or Switzerland or in China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus or Myanmar/Burma. The political art of human rights policy consists of placing the individual at the heart of all efforts, while at the same time taking into account traditions, culture and religion. This is often particularly difficult when appropriate arguments are put forward by those who consciously disregard human rights for the sake of shoring up their own power. It is possible to champion cultural diversity without accepting the chopping off of limbs in accordance with sharia law. It is possible to combat terrorism without degrading people and torturing them to obtain confessions.
Let me state again that a gradual but genuine realisation of minimum standards for everyone can be more important than celebrating far-reaching codification on paper. We have to focus on what really matters.
And we can certainly learn something from our own experience of dictatorship; for example, that it is important to hold onto one's own convictions even when mainstream society at home is following another path. We have to begin by reaffirming that the culture of freedom as a way of life must remain important to us, by being just as convinced that human rights are at the very heart of our societies as we were 20 or 60 years ago. In terms of concrete policies, this means that we have to be bold time and again and speak frankly about human rights violations in the context of diplomatic relations and in talks with heads of state. In discussions with dictators and authoritarian rulers, we should leave no doubt as to whose side we are on: the side of those oppressed and disenfranchised by their governments.
In all of this we always have to keep in mind that getting too close to the violators of human rights can cause human rights activists to lose heart. If we have to enter into dialogue with dubious heads of state, then we should be careful not to praise them. Incidentally, even today there are no overarching goals which enable us to credibly explain to those suffering human rights violations why we cannot do anything for them.
It is also our experience that fundamental changes often seem to take a long time, then happen quite suddenly and unexpectedly. It is therefore not enough to observe what politicians say or what those wielding power believe is possible. It is at least as important to analyse processes within society. People's wishes and the dynamics within a society are crucial. Wherever we can, we have to exert influence on these factors and call for changes in the right direction.
Footnotes