On the road for human rights

‘Are you a human rights defender?’ I was asked by a Chinese official at a meeting in 2012 at the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry after I tried to explain why supporting human right defenders is one of our priorities. The question puzzled me, first I thought maybe he misunderstood my explanation, maybe he was trying to question the meaning of our policy in an indirect manner or maybe it was just a question. I decided to answer in an affirmative way underlining that the task of the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador is to support the Government’s policy to promote and defend human rights at home and around the world. To defend human rights, you need to show sincerity and respect for the ideas of others, their culture and society, but at the same time clearly express your own ideas on how human rights can be improved. I told him that, for me, a human rights ambassador is in a way the diplomatic version of the human rights defender.

I used this opportunity to ask my interlocutor if he had any ideas, critical or positive, on the human rights situation in the Netherlands. He then in turn seemed a little puzzled. No, he said, for the Chinese Government it is important not to interfere in the way other countries rule themself and to respect the sovereignty of other governments in the way they deal with policy matters, like human rights. We had a good conversation, and I was able to raise most of our concerns regarding the human rights situation in China. At the same time, he raised China’s concerns about the way the Netherlands - and Western countries in general - focused on criticising China’s human rights policies and even awarding human rights awards to people that have been convicted by Chinese courts. I believe this meeting was an important step towards resuming the official human rights consultations between China and the Netherlands, which was held in 2013 after a four year interruption.

During my four years as Dutch Human Rights Ambassador I visited China three times. The first two informal visits were needed to build trust and respect necessary for the long awaited invitation for a new round of formal bilateral human rights consultations. Interestingly, China requested, many years ago, ‘structural’ consultations on human rights with a number of Western countries. Over the years, China became less and less engaged and indicated that they are not interested in receiving people that only come to lecture them without acknowledging the important progress made in the field of social and economic rights. Now, we are seen as the requesting party.

When Prime Minister Rutte visited China in November 2013, an agreement was reached to resume bilateral human rights consultations and a few weeks later, by mid-December, I was in Beijing. Not only did I discuss human rights with representatives of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry, but also from the United Front Work Department, the State Administration of Religious Affairs, the All China Federation for Trade Unions and the State Council Information Office. Besides these official contacts, I had the opportunity to meet several human rights defenders, civil society groups and academics in Beijing as well as in Hong Kong.

The Dutch Human Rights Ambassador’s mission

In 1999, the Dutch Government decided to nominate a Human Rights Ambassador for the first time. In reply to parliamentary questions on this new position, the Minister (Jozias van Aartsen) wrote: “the human rights ambassador will give a recognisable, visible and personal profile to the human rights policy, both bi- and multilaterally. This official will also give greater visibility to the involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the debate in Dutch society on human rights”. ¹ The Dutch Human Rights Ambassador is, however, not unique. In the European Union I had around seven colleagues, all with different job-descriptions and different status. Some were career diplomats, like me, others political appointments. Also outside of Europe I came across officials with the title of Human Rights Ambassador.

During my posting as Human Rights Ambassador, the main tasks included:

To integrate human rights into all areas of foreign and development cooperation policy, and across all issues in which human rights play a role.

To conduct missions, to discuss human rights questions, explore the scope for dialogue and, occasionally, form part of the delegation of foreign and development ministers.

To maintain and develop contacts with Dutch society (in particular parliament, universities, human rights organizations, the media, businesses) in order to propagate human rights policy and acquire new ideas. ²

In this present column, I will focus on the second and third tasks, on the missions I conducted and my meetings with foreign government officials, human rights and civil society groups in countries around the world. In other words, I will focus on how it was to be on the road for human rights. The first element, which is also known as ‘mainstreaming’ human rights was an important task within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other ministries, but was of a different nature than the other elements.

I started in August 2010 and was the fourth person to do this job of Dutch Human Rights Ambassador. I was appointed by Minister Maxime Verhagen, but coalition talks for a new government were already ongoing and the new Minister, Uri Rosenthal, was de facto the first Minister I worked with closely. Before taking on a new function in September 2014, ³ I also worked with Minister Frans Timmermans, who took office in 2012. Throughout these four years human rights remained a priority of the Dutch foreign policy and the Human Rights Ambassador continued to be one the ‘instruments’ for the implementation of the Dutch Government’s human rights policy.

Human rights, as a specific policy area, were introduced for the first time in 1979 in a policy paper to the Dutch Parliament as an ‘essential component’ of the foreign policy of the Netherlands. At present, human rights are seen as the ‘cornerstone’ of Dutch foreign policy. The development from ‘component’ to ‘cornerstone’ illustrates the growing importance of human rights in this policy realm. Nevertheless, during my posting as Human Rights Ambassador there was debate on how sincere the Dutch Government was in these matters. The recurrent question in the human rights debate in the Netherlands was: who comes first, the vicar or the businessman? In this Dutch metaphor the vicar represents the person who is guided by their principles and ideals, while the businessman’s drive is money. This metaphor illustrates, in a typical Dutch way, the dilemma between human rights and business.

As Human Rights Ambassador I was often confronted with this issue of business and human rights. This never occurred abroad, but was mostly raised by human rights organisations and journalists in the Netherlands. As the Human Rights Ambassador, I was very much aware of the fact that a government has many responsibilities and interests, amongst which defending and promoting human rights. In addition, I was realistic about the possible impact of a visit by the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador on the human rights situation in another country. However, I still think that it is important to engage and discuss human rights with other countries, even if Dutch actors need or want to do business with that country. In my experience, the one does not exclude the other and during my meetings with foreign government officials the issue was never raised in these terms by my interlocutors. Human rights and business are one the priorities of Dutch policy and the Netherlands play a leading role in this field.

On the road

My missions took me to many countries and cities, from Beijing to Berlin, San Salvador to Seoul, Riyadh to Ramallah, Nairobi to New York, Moscow to Madrid, Cairo to Chisinau, Tunis to Toronto, and not forgetting Jakarta, Harare, Paramaribo or Washington, just to name a few. As you can see, I visited not only countries ‘of concern’, but also like-minded countries because all countries have human rights concerns. The decision on where to go would depend on political attention from the Dutch Parliament, human rights activities by our embassies, consultations with Dutch human rights organisations and more practical considerations like availability or willingness of foreign officials to receive a visit from the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador.

Before every visit I would consult Dutch human rights groups, NGO’s and academics with a special interest in the country concerned. Also important to note is that, as much as possible, the program of my visits always included meetings with local human rights groups, human rights defenders or activists, civil society, journalists, academics and others. Often these latter meetings were the most revealing and inspiring.

I often combined participation in a conference or international meeting with a visit to local authorities. One of my first missions was to participate in a conference for LGBTI groups from countries of the Former Soviet Union organised by the Dutch NGO COC Netherlands in Chişinău, Moldova. This was a very interesting and inspiring way to start the new job. The strong contrast between the discussions at the conference and the meetings with Moldavian officials was an eye-opener for me.

Sometimes it was difficult to set up an official visit and to get a government official to meet with the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador. A main reason for such difficulties is that many considered such a visit a sign of criticism rather than an opportunity for dialogue. My mission to Jakarta, Indonesia in June 2012 was a good example of this. Because of the colonial history between Indonesia and the Netherlands, a visit by the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador was a sensitive matter and needed long preparation, not only to build trust, but also to agree on the content of such a visit. I was fortunate to have Retno Masudi, who currently is Indonesia’s (first female) Foreign Minister, as the Indonesian Ambassador to the Netherlands at that time and thus main interlocutor for the preparations. At first I planned to visit not only Jakarta, but also Ambon and Jayapura. In the eyes of the Indonesian Government this was a step too far for the first visit by a Dutch Human Rights Ambassador, but it was possible to discuss the human rights situation in these regions in depth with many people directly concerned, including officials, local civil society representatives, journalists and human rights groups. Without such a compromise the mission would not have been possible.

Reading over the letter that was sent to Parliament in June 2012 on this mission, I noticed that most experiences and concerns are still topical. Especially the one about the rights and protection of religious minorities: “there is a general concern over the rise of radical groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) that use violence and set up communities against each other”. ⁴ Unfortunately, this concern has proven to still remain very urgent.

Besides the country visits, during my term there were of course many occasions to discuss human rights developments in meetings in the various relevant global and regional organisations, African, American, Arabic, Asian as well as European.

At the beginning of my mandate I was closely involved in setting up the Freedom On-line Coalition (FOC). The FOC was initiated by Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal. At a Conference in the Hague in December 2011, 15 countries jointly endorsed the FOC Founding Declaration and committed to the principle that human rights apply offline as well as online. In 2016, the Coalition has grown to 30 member countries spanning from Africa to Asia, Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East. However, at the 2012 FOC conference in Nairobi, the freedom of speech and independent media NGO’s were the biggest supporters of this initiative. The strong support of Kenya and Tunisia from the start made it possible for the FOC to became not a Western, but a global coalition. Cooperation with UNESCO, the UN-body responsible for internet governance, was also crucial for the success of the FOC. I was proud to contribute, in my current position as the Dutch Ambassador to UNESCO, to UNESCO’s General Conference’s endorsement in November 2015 of the position that internet governance should be guided by four principles that can be summarised by the acronym R.O.A.M. This implies that the internet should be human Rights based, Open, Accessible to all, and nurtured by Multi-stakeholder participation.

At the end of my mandate as Human Rights Ambassador, the focus was largely on the Dutch Government’s campaign for the Netherlands to be elected as a member of the UN Human Rights Council for the term 2015 - 2017. However, this column is too short to present this and other experiences I had in my four years as Human Rights Ambassador. It is also too short to go into all the important changes that went on the world in those years, the Arab Spring, the development of ideas on business and human rights, the foundation of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the emerging migration crisis, increasing attention for LGBTI rights as human rights, just to name a few. Instead, I would still like to share some more general reflections, based on my experiences and the many discussions on the future of human rights that I have had with so many interesting and wise people around the world.

Dialogue in a changing world

I experienced that most governments are willing to discuss the human rights situation in their country, but also that they do not like ‘finger pointing’ or to be lectured in a way they see as disrespectful. It was often difficult to find the right balance and I frequently had the feeling that people were open to talk, but not open to criticism. In my meetings, government representatives emphasised the progress made, for example new legislation in line with human rights treaties and their positive efforts. Most of the time existing human rights problems were not denied, but put in a broader context of failing executive power, corruption, lack of administrative resources, and so on. During my posting I noticed an assertive attitude whereby recognition of the self-defined positive results of their human rights policies comes first.

In my perception many governments seem to be beyond a feeling of shame for seriously failing to protect human rights. The moral and legal appeal coming from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the duty to treat all with respect and guarantee their rights, was often seen as an obligation to make an effort rather than an obligation to come to concrete results. In my experience, this particular attitude was strong in countries with governments that have limited executive capacity to implement their policies. I often met with government officials who tried to convince me of their best intentions and pointed to the laws of the land that clearly do not tolerate human rights violations, but at the same time made clear that their administration lacked the power and resources to put all of those in practice. I have no reason to doubt their good intentions. I understand that there are obstacles and problems that make effective implementation of policies and legislation in these countries very difficult or almost impossible. However, I also often wondered what would have happened had such governments tried harder.

This did not mean that there was no need for me as the Human Rights Ambassador to address these issues with the local governments - on the contrary. I fully support what Minister Timmermans wrote in his 2013 human rights policy letter: “The Netherlands has a rich tradition of defending human rights, both at home and abroad. Doing so is a moral and legal obligation, besides which respect for human rights leads to a more stable and prosperous world, which also benefits the Netherlands”. ⁵ In the same letter to Parliament, ‘Justice and Respect for All’, the Minister also stated that “traditional dialogue does not always work. Countries will not always respond when called to account, even if they have previously signed up to international obligations”. ⁶ And he continued: “we need to find more innovative ways of advancing respect for human rights”. ⁷

I experienced that we need to do both, because the world has changed and the context in which human rights need to be promoted has also changed. In my view, not only government officials but all promotors of human rights, should remind governments of their shortcomings when they fail to fulfil their human rights obligations, and at the same time we should figure out alternative ways to promote human rights efficiently in this changing context. The changing context also refers to what some consider to be a shift of human rights as a moral utopia to human rights as what is politically achievable. The Dutch philosopher Hans Achterhuis recently said with reference to Samuel Moyn: “Human rights are no longer defended in a moral negative way, but are positively disseminated via political actions all over the world”. ⁸

In my discussions with officials in countries like Russia and China, I experienced that they hesitate to accept the moral, undisputed, normative side of human rights critique on their policies, but rather interpret this as unacceptable political pressure. Because of this, human rights risk to be ‘downgraded’ to one of the instruments with which opponents can fight each other in the international political arena. Instead of working from the moral high ground, we should look for innovative and effective ways to engage constructively with each other as equal partners. The ‘old’ national sovereignty reflex is back, but at the same time this reflex has to deal with ‘new’ globalisation and the increasing need for international legal order. Many governments reject what they see as interference, but can still accept cooperation and dialogue, also in the field of human rights.

In this context it is interesting to note that regional, including various non-Western human rights initiatives are increasing. I have noticed this trend in my meetings with representatives of the human rights bodies of the Organisation of American States (OAS), African Union (AU), Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). I believe that supporting these initiatives can be useful to promote a positive human rights agenda in the longer term.

Change has to come from within

As the Dutch Human Rights Ambassador I have worked hard to address human rights problems with local governments and to support civil society and local human rights organisations, but I was always aware that I was seen as a visitor. As I said in the beginning, one can try to be a diplomatic human rights defender, but change has to come from within the countries themselves, from the local interaction between all stakeholders, including governments. The strongest agents of change usually are the local human rights defenders and local civil society. They deserve our full support, but the success of their efforts to improve human rights depends in the end on the support they get in their own societies. Therefore, I feel it is important to promote local and regional human rights initiatives and respect their agendas for change.

In conclusion, human rights are certainly under pressure and need to be defended in an unequivocal manner. I am convinced that the Netherlands remains in the front-line of the defence. Working for a positive development of human rights and engaging in a constructive human rights dialogue has become yet more complicated, but I am optimistic because I have met so many inspiring people with tremendous energy, power and resilience working for their human rights.