Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

– The Dalai Lama

As the year closes, it is appropriate to stop to look back and see how we have progressed or regressed in the area of human rights in 2009.  The thing about human rights is that the path to progress is rarely ever a straight line; often what looks like a step back will actually allow people to take a step forward. Such may be the case with top human rights stories of this past year such as the Green Movement in Iran, healthcare rights in the US, or the climate change talks currently going on in Copenhagen. One thing is certain: there are still many challenges ahead of us in the fight for human rights. However here are some thoughts on 2009 and what to look for in 2010 from regular bloggers Nikolaj Nielsen, Jessica Corsi, and Kimberly Curtis.

Person of the Year:

It’s always difficult to pick out one person in the course of a year who stands out. What is interesting is that this year all three of us chose groups rather than a single individual as the most important persons of the year.

Nikolaj’s pick: Frontline Journalists and Human Rights Defenders

Vincent Kessler/Reuters

This past year has seen numerous journalists and human rights defenders killed or imprisoned for their work in revealing the human rights abuses.  Many of these people worked on the frontlines, risking their lives to bring the truth to the rest of the world. The importance of this work, particularly in the past year, is one of the reasons why the European Parliament awarded the Russian human rights watchdog group Memorial the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought this past week. Although the award will do little to bring back the journalists that have been slain this past year such as the 31 Filipino journalists killed in November or Russian journalist Natalya Estemirova who was killed in July, it again highlights the high value of their work and the price that so many have paid this past year for the human rights of others.

Jessica’s pick: Reproductive Rights Leaders in the United States

Recognition should be given to the myriad leaders and activists who organized in the U.S. to make sure that reproductive rights were not left out of the historic U.S. health care reform package.  In the midst of the economic crisis and the political opening of landmark U.S. healthcare reform–reform that would finally bring the U.S. closer to the rest of the developed world in terms of providing access to health care–reproductive rights advocates became locked into a battle with religious leaders that had successfully captured political power during the George W. Bush era.  While many within the U.S. Democratic Party, including the few women Senators and congress people, were willing to give up access to reproductive health care in order to sidestep this fight, reproductive rights advocates ranging from high school and University students to seasoned lobbyists and journalists made sure to keep the spotlight on access to safe and affordable abortion.

Ben Curtis/AP

Kimberly’s pick: Ordinary people coming together

From the record-setting attendance on the National Mall for Barack Obama’s inauguration to crowds of people in Berlin that marked the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that 2009 was all about ordinary people coming together.  Some of these crowds celebrated change, while others such as those in Iran and Guinea came together to fight for their rights, often with grisly consequences. The predicted potential of virtual social networking seemed to finally be realized as people used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to not just talk about the latest developments in their social lives with friends, but communicate real information to the rest of the world about what was happening in their countries.  Although revolution did not happen in many of these places, 2009 showed that the power of the people is still alive and well in the 21^st century.

Most Unexpected Event:

Both Jessica and Nikolaj picked the same event: Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the highest honor awarded in the humanitarian field, many around the world were surprised that he was awarded the prize before achieving any significant feats on the international stage.

But as Jessica notes, there were other reasons why the award was surprising:  Many claim that President Barack Obama

Bjorn Sigurdson/AP

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to express international support for the U.S.’ reengagement with multilateral peace efforts, including efforts to bring an end to wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Another reason for the award might have been his policy of re-engagement with Muslim nations.  What was so surprising about this award was its timing.  It was given before the U.S. had fully elaborated withdrawal timelines and procedures for ending its wars, and after it had engaged in some decidedly unpeaceful and certainly unexpected military operations, such as the September 14 assassination of a suspected terrorist by U.S. Special Forces helicopters in southern Somalia.  If the prize is read as an indication of global sentiment for substantial changes in U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to a congratulations for actions that have already been taken, it comes as less of a surprise.

Kimberly chose the obvious event that has been written about on several other blogs: the Iranian election protests. Although Iranians overthrew the Shah in massive protests more than 30 years ago, Iran is not really known for street action due to the oppressive policies that the government is notorious for. That is one of the reasons why the post-election protests took so many by surprise. It’s also why the results of the protests - killings, arrests, prisoner abuses, and kangaroo courts - were not surprising at all. Still, there is a reason why most of the world was engrossed with the protests while they took place: whether you like it or not, Iran is an important regional power and will continue to be so. The post-election protests, while not a revolution, definitely altered the course of Iranian politics and will almost certainly be viewed in hindsight as the start of an important new chapter in Iranian history, hopefully one that gives more credence to human rights and the will of the people.

What to Watch for in 2010:

Kimberly’s predictions:

The general trend of using international law and universal jurisdiction to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity will continue as the International Criminal Court becomes more prominent and takes on new cases. However because justice is a retroactive approach to human rights abuses, there will also be increasing pressure on prescriptive action as well. In light of this and Obama’s Nobel lecture, the debate over the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) is due for a revival. Only this time around, corporations will also be brought into the fold as their actions in conflict zones and with oppressive regimes will be increasingly scrutinized.

Jessica’s predictions:

Economic and social rights, legal entitlements for the poor: Poverty, increasing and deep, will continue to plague us for years due to the global recession.  As a result, we’re likely to see an increased focus on Economic and Social rights, such as the right to work, the right to fair remuneration, the right to food, and the right to health and healthcare.  Increased poverty will also refocus efforts around legal entitlements for the poor such as land ownership and community ownership of natural resources.

Climate justice: Climate justice will gain traction as the poor nations and poorest peoples of the world become better legally equipped and politically organized to hold everyone from corporations to governments accountable for the effects of climate change and pollution.  As a result we will see increased legal accountability for non-state actors.

Increasing legal accountability for State action during conflict: Powerful governments such as the US and the UK will be held more responsible than ever for violations of human rights during conflict, a trend helped in part by the increasing power of the International Criminal Court.  For example, a Milan Court convicted and sentenced 23 former CIA agents for the abduction of a Muslim cleric and rendition practices.  This trend of conviction in national courts will continue.

Anti-Muslim sentiments: Anti-Muslim racism and tension between the “Muslim world” and “the rest” will continue in the short and medium term, leading to more human rights violations, claims, court decisions, and policy developments on everything from religious clothing to state conducted or supported torture that was motivated by a person’s Islamic affiliations.

The mainstreaming of LGBT rights: LGBT rights will continue to become more mainstreamed in the global North.  We will witness expanded recognition of gay marriage and related civil rights and family law claims such as child custody and health care rights.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s, Prof. Olivier De Schutter’s, second presentation to the UN General Assembly.  The interactive dialogue that followed Prof. De Schutter’s presentation is an excellent example of how the Special Procedures system of the UN Human Rights Council allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to thematic issues like the right to food and to country specific situations. 

The role of a Special Rapporteur and of independent UN mandate holders in general represents progress in the human rights field and within the UN system because it takes a pressing human rights concern that has bubbled up to the UN via civil society and member state activity, empowers an individual or small team to further investigate and recommend solutions to these concerns, and can harness all members of society, from States to grassroots organizations to United Nations bodies to the media, in researching and formulating responses to these problems.  Appointing an independent expert who is both within and beholden to the UN system and yet functions independently and flexibly enhances the efficiency and capability of the UN.  And, it allows for reporting from these experts in a manner that is often impossible for member states of UN bodies to undertake on their own.

Prof. De Schutter’s latest report is a case in point regarding the ability of a special expert to say things that others cannot.  The report takes on current intellectual property rights as they relate to seeds, agricultural technologies, and the right to food.  In the first place it is both innovative and necessary that a right to food approach to food security takes into account the commercial side of food production and related agricultural concerns such as climate change, as opposed to limiting the right to food focus on (the also important and necessary) legal entitlements to this right located in court cases, framework laws, and constitutional provisions. 

Without addressing the commercial regime in which the production of food takes place the right to procure and obtain food rings hollow, as it captures only the demand side of the equation.  Analyzing the commercial concentration of agricultural inputs through a human rights lens and with a focus on the smallest, poorest farmers, who are not only food producers but must use their livelihoods from this production to secure their own food, refocuses the food security debate on those most affected.  While dominating the seed market may be seen as a success for companies such as Monsanto, agro-business monopolies have a significant impact on the lives, livelihoods, and production capabilities of small, poor farmers that is often detrimental.  These monopolies also impact agro-biodiversity, which has become even more crucial to maintain in the face of climate change.  And yet it can be hard for member states who benefit financially from such companies or whose governments are highly oriented to accept foreign investment in any form to take a critical eye or a public voice to such commercial concentration issues.

What is fascinating about the interactive dialogue process between a Special Rapporteur and the General Assembly is that it provides a platform for member states and affiliated organizations to respond to such claims and for the special experts to further explain themselves.  Yesterday, countries were not reticent to comment on their own view of the world’s intellectual property regime and to ask pressing questions.  In turn, Prof. De Schutter was able to respond briefly and advance and further elaborate upon the claims made in his report.  It is always heartening to see a report being put to use to further discussions and plans for action rather than just sitting on a shelf gathering dust. 

And, it is encouraging to see UN member states fully engaging UN special experts on topics that often call for substantial changes to be made at the national level and thus for engagement and resource shifting from these governments.  While no one pretends that the global food security problem will be solved over night, it is nonetheless inspiring to see people in positions of influence asking all of the right questions.

As the United Nations headquarters in New York prepares to host what is being hailed as the largest General Assembly gathering to date, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is disseminating a report designed to call attention to the plight of the world’s working poor.  Mr. Ban prepared a report entitled “Voices of the Vulnerable,” and today distributed it to all foreign missions in an effort to keep attention on those most impacted by the global recession.  The aim is to stimulate and maintain aid flows by reminding country representatives that many working poor living on the margins of the absolute bottom category could, without assistance and interventions, quickly fall to the very bottom rung. 

Statistics from the report include the following bleak figures: 

–Up to 222 million workers risk joining the ranks of the most impoverished category of the working poor, who earn less than $1.25 a day.

–Remittance flows, which reached $328 billion in 2008, are predicted to drop by 7.3 percent in 2009.

–Hunger rates are up in every region in the world.

Critics of these figures argue that no one, the UN included, is able to obtain and maintain accurate global data on poverty levels, and in particular on those living on less than $1.25 a day and working the world’s lowest paying jobs.  In response, Mr. Ban’s report suggests global funding for a poverty monitoring system.  While this may sound inverted at first–why fund the collection of data when the money could be used to actually alleviate poverty?–adequately mapping poverty could prove essential to advancing its eradication.  For one thing, the first retort to anti-poverty actions is often that the program lacks the data to support its raison d’être.  Having the data in hand would shut down this first line of argument.  For another, before we can claim we are fighting poverty, we should have a solid idea of the factors causing it.  For example, in terms of the current global crisis, analysts argue that the poorest countries have been most effected by lower trade flows, decreased investment, and a drop-off in remittance.  But because such countries do not keep employment and other related data in as comprehensive and timely a manner as rich countries, we can’t be fully sure that the global recession hasn’t also caused massive waves of unemployment in the poorest countries as well.  It would be helpful to have the real story before attempting to unbend the problem.

In the meantime, what can we do? Call for aid as Mr. Ban is doing? Given that for many people the financial crisis literally means a crisis–homelessness, hunger, even starvation–immediate aid is certainly a useful proposition.  But when proposals such as this are on the table at moments that could be historically important–such as the largest UNGA gathering ever, amidst the economic crisis and the global warming crisis–it could be a moment to make a significant break.  This could be the moment we rethink wealth and poverty.  While Mr. Ban’s report may have a more modest, short-term objective, it will be interesting to watch what comes out of the UNGA in the coming days and weeks.  It could be something meaningful for the world’s poorest inhabitants.

Around 500 different groups of Indians still in the vast forest of the Amazon. Some have never had contact with the outside world.  Last year, a small prop plane flying over forests in Peru spotted on such group.  The images that came from that venture were truly astonishing.

It is hard to imagine that in these forests, entire cultures, languages, and ways of life remain untouched by the presence of determined evangelical and catholic missionaries, by commercial exploitation, and by intrusive adventurers and television crews.

Unlike in Brazil, Peru refuses to acknowledge their existence, hoping instead to secure huge areas for a commercial enterprise.  There is just too much money to be made and the discovery of oil has made the task to protect the forest and its inhabitants all the more difficult and precarious.

FUNAI, Brazil’s national foundation to protect the Awas, has outlawed logging in areas inhabited by such people.  The Awa count only 300 individuals today, living in perfect harmony with nature, in small groups of 20 to 30.  The largest live in Maranhao, in the north-east of Brasil.

They represent and symbolize a way of life that reaches back into our past, our own history of who we are as humans.  And they know the threat of the outside world.  Sixty have never come into any kind of contact with the rest of the world.  But just 3km away, the black smoke of machinery is advancing.

Today the loggers are still encroaching, cutting paths undetectable from the air, and felling the oldest and most valuable trees.  In 2006, the problem became so bad the Brazilian army was called in to throw them out.

They did, but now the chainsaws and rifles are back and the Awa, having already been pushed further and further into the forest – have nowhere else to go.

Climate change is inextricably linked to poverty.  As the droughts continue and as the sea level rises, hundreds of thousands will be forced to resettle.  The most recent conference on climate change in Copenhagen concluded that the climate is changing faster than previous models suggested.  Rhetoric and fear mongering aside, these are serious issues with serious consequences.

For instance, we know that if greenhouse gas emissions do not see a downward trend by 2015, then it will become next to impossible to stop the world from heating up by 2 degrees Celsius.  The last time the world saw a 6 degree increase, 95 percent of all life was eradicated.   The Kyoto protocol did not impose greenhouse gas emissions from such developing countries like China and India.  And the US never signed up.

Human trafficking will increase as immigration through forced circumstance compound the already tough living conditions of the world’s poorest.  Land will dry up and more will go hungry.  Already, over 1 billion people go hungry; the most in recorded history.  The World Health Organization estimates that 150,000 people perish every year because of changes in climate. 

What to do? Today, the World Bank released a document  of the 12 countries most afflicted by climate change.  Not surprisingly, four of the world’s poorest nations top that list.  The lack of basic infrastructure compounded by  corruption and free market exploits  (see global financial crisis for example) by developed nations has left the poor without any protection and worse off.   The World Bank then identified six climate change risks:  flooding, drought, storms, coastal deterioration, and agriculture.

In December, nations will gather in Copenhagen to discuss what can be done to reduce the impact of global warming under the guise of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC).  The 2005 Kyoto Protocol ends in just three years and given the dismal track record of most signatories, it just seems unlikely that those who live in the poorest of nations will stand to see any benefits in the near future.

In a report (pdf) released this March by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, mechanisms to measure global climate remain ambiguous.  If nations cannot agree on how to quantify climate change, then reducing its impact will be a difficult endeavour.