Lord Hannay, former UK ambassador to the United Nations (1990-1995), comments on the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

London 6 December 2023

We are today celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And “celebrate“ is, I would suggest, the right word to use even if the world remains full of abuses of those rights, as it most certainly does. Celebrate because the 1948 Declaration was the first occasion in world history when all the nation states of which the world was made up joined together in promulgating a clearly articulated and comprehensive set of human rights which all of them, without exception, should uphold; and that has remained the case since then as every new state joining the UN has also accepted the Universal Declaration.

The Universal Declaration thus became the global yardstick by which to assess each individual state’s observance, or failure to observe, those rights. What was lacking, of course, and is still lacking, are any effective enforcement processes to ensure observance of those rights and to sanction non-observance. But, without the Universal Declaration we would not have even started down that road nor have traced the direction in which we were headed.

During my own period of direct involvement in the UN, as Britain’s ambassador from 1990 to 1995 and as a member of Kofi Annan’s High Level Reform Panel in 2003 to 2005 – a period in which many of the taboos which had afflicted the UN during the Cold War fell away – human rights were not neglected. In September 1990, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was signed – by Margaret Thatcher on behalf of the UK with me sitting beside her. Then later in that decade the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was established. Successive holders of that office have done notable work shining a spotlight on abuses of human rights in places like Sri Lanka and on the Uighur population of China. Then an International Criminal Court was set up under the Rome Statute to prosecute the most egregious abuses of human rights.

And in 2005, following a recommendation of the Reform Panel on which I served, the old discredited Human Rights Commission was swept away and replaced by a Council whose new system of Universal Periodic Reviews ensures that the human rights performance of every single member state of the UN was subjected to detailed scrutiny and criticism by its peers.

I recall this record not to blow my own or the UN’s trumpet but to demonstrate that incremental progress can be made, in this as in other fields, if sufficient will and determination is shown by the UN’s collective membership.

Does that mean that everything is fine? No, of course it does not. You only have to look around the world to see that. Does it mean that the Universal Declaration itself is flawed or in some ways represents a dated, Western view of human rights? Well, every country, Western or not, has accepted it on joining the UN so it can hardly be called exclusive in any meaningful sense. As a simple test take out the Universal Declaration and read it – and then tell me which of its provisions is not of general application worldwide. In truth, it is not the Declaration which is at fault but the states which have undertaken to observe it and do so, if at all, imperfectly. And that goes for all of us including the UK – if you do not credit that,

just read the outcome of the reasonably recent Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of the UK.

So, what needs to be done to improve implementation of the Universal Declaration by all its members? Well, I do not believe myself that there is any silver bullet which will achieve that in a flash. Only hard, incremental work in bringing human rights abuses and abusers into the full light of day and supporting measures to bring about effective, practical changes has any hope of doing that. That I would suggest should be the aim of every British government in office if we are to uphold and to strengthen the rules-based international order, of which the Universal Declaration is such a notable and indeed noble, part.

Reflections on the 75th anniversaries of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the first fatalities on UN staff members in Palestine

Human Rights Day, 10 December

United Nations Green, London

My friends,

On 10 January 1946, exactly where we are standing now, large crowds watched as diplomats from around the world arrived at Methodist Central Hall for the first session of the United Nations General Assembly. A historic moment.

For the first time as united nations, they could demonstrate their commitment to the UN charter.

A determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war

Reaffirm their faith in fundamental human rights,

And equal rights for men and women

Equal rights

We are not here today to judge how far short we still are from their noble ambitions.

But surely their most noteworthy and far-reaching achievement was, after countless meetings, in managing to agree on the framing of a Universal Bill of Rights. Yes, their efforts to reach agreement on a binding convention failed.

But there was concord, by overwhelming majority, on a non-binding Declaration.

This became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The magnitude of their achievement cannot be underestimated as already in 1948, they could foresee how the Cold War would soon paralyse international relations.

Yes, they knew the final document was not perfect. In fact, it would take eighteen years before agreement was reached on two binding covenants to the Declaration, on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

But the Declaration had by then gathered its own momentum. It opened the way to binding conventions on Discrimination against Women, the Rights of the Child, Rights of Persons with Disabilities, on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

And opened the way to Declarations on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And many more.

The Declaration itself has been translated into more than 500 languages, the majority of these considered to be endangered. And there lies a catch. The peoples who dare speak those languages too often do so against the will of their governments. Yes, they are endangered also.

But if there is a lasting legacy of that first meeting here in Westminster, one which all of us here should be proud, then this is it. It shows that humanity, with all its faults, can come together, reaffirming our faith in fundamental human rights,

But we are here also to mark another seventy fifth anniversary. By the time the Universal Declaration was agreed in Paris in December 1948, the United Nations was already facing challenges in Palestine. Count Folke Bernadotte, its appointed mediator there, had been assassinated four months earlier. He was not the first.  

Now, as we digest Friday’s failure by members of the UN Security Council to agree on a course of action that might halt the loss of even more innocent human lives in Gaza and through Palestine and Israel, we mourn the more than one hundred and forty members of staff working for the UN Relief & Works Agency in Gaza who have died there since the Hamas atrocities on 7 October.  

Each year we mark the sacrifice of those who have died while serving as UN peacekeepers, men and women often facing danger in a distant country with which their own has no dispute. But today, we mark the loss in Gaza of those who have died while working for the benefit of their neighbours, their communities, those in their street.

They rank alongside their colleagues working with the UN and its agencies in Sudan, Ukraine, and elsewhere, bringing together fractured communities, fighting child labour, advancing climate action – in all, contributing to progress and development in many different ways.   

But they are more than locally employed workers. They worked in the name of the United Nations.

They worked In our name, the name of people here in Westminster, in Manchester, in Birmingham, and in your country too, wherever you have come from.  

In such moments, when we are together, we are the peoples, the peoples of the United Nations.

Today, in our small ceremony, we are united.

In our grief

And in our determination to reaffirm our faith in fundamental human rights.

Now, young members of the Westminster United Nations Association will lay the wreath in memory of those who have died in Palestine.

And we remember those cruelly taken from their homes on 7 October, who have died or cannot be reached.

And those too, suffering from bombardment that none should have to watch let alone endure.   

After laying the wreath, they will sign the Declaration, recommitting all of us here to its noble ambition. Then the Revd Tony Miles, Superintendent Minister of Methodist Central Hall will share a prayer.     

David Wardrop, Chair, Westminster United Nations Association

This event is fully described in our News Pages here.

A short guide to international initiatives relating to refugees, 1951 to 2023

The UN Refugee Convention

The UN Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) was originally signed by twenty-six state parties, heavily representing Europe and North America. Today there are 146 state parties to the Convention and 147 to the Protocol since the USA has signed the Protocol but not the Convention. The universalisation of the refugee status through the 1967 Protocol has given rise to a series of discrepancies between the letter of the Convention and the purposes it is being asked to serve. In particular, the identity of the five protected categories specified by the Convention (race, religion, nationality, political opinion and particular social group) have come under criticism at times.

The 1951 Convention does not recognize conditions of extreme poverty and material deprivation as grounds for legitimate asylum. Economic migrants are considered individuals who raise spurious claims to protection and refuge. The binary between “deserving refugees” and “undeserving migrants” is one that governs popular imagination as well as state policy. But how valid is this distinction? Why are extreme poverty and material deprivation not legitimate ground for seeking opportunities to escape from them?

Persecution on the basis of race, religion, and nationality as well as political opinion result in unemployment or underemployment, job discrimination, and economic marginalization. Particularly under conditions of global economic interdependence when the policies of developed economies as well as so-called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries which cause damage to the environment all over the globe have far-reaching consequences, critics ask how can such a sharp distinction between economic starvation versus a “well-founded” fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, and the like be made?

The restriction of the scope of article 1 (A) “to events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951,” was changed with the 1967 Protocol, and the refugee status was universalized, since “… new refugee situations … have arisen since the Convention was adopted and … the refugees concerned may therefore not fall within the scope of the Convention.”

Regional variations

Latin America

The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees is a non-binding regional instrument adopted in 1984. Compared to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, the Cartagena Declaration allows a broader category of persons in need of international protection to be considered as refugees. The Declaration, in Conclusion III, adds five situational events to the definition of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Similar additions were made in the 1969 Refugee Convention, but the Cartagena Declaration has further extended them. Refugees are those:

“persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order”.

This definition allows a broader temporal and geographical scope for the risks refugees find themselves in and additionally covers some of the indirect effects such as poverty, economic decline, inflation, violence, disease, food insecurity, malnourishment and displacement.

Since 1984 the signatories of the Declaration meet every 10 years and they have even extended its reach to include Caribbean countries. Three successor declarations were made: the 1994 San José Declaration, the 2004 Mexico Declaration and the 2014 Brazil Declaration (with twenty-eight countries and three territories of Latin America and the Caribbean). No other continent or region has such a forum.

Africa

The cornerstone of refugee protection in Africa is the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (1969). This constitutes the ‘regional complement’ to the 1951 Refugee Convention and applies alongside it. It has been widely ratified by African states and its terms are increasingly being incorporated into states’ domestic legislation. The 1969 Convention has been widely praised for expanding eligibility for refugee status, widening the principle of non-refoulement and formalising critical refugee protection principles, such as the humanitarian nature of asylum and the voluntary character of repatriation.

The 1969 Convention is frequently said to be better suited than the 1951 Convention to responding to mass influx situations. This is due in large part to its expanded refugee definition, which emphasises conditions in the country of origin, and the related use of prima facie refugee status determination by African states. At a time when the continued relevance of the 1951 Refugee Convention is being challenged politically and practically, regional regimes such as the African Convention can offer a more humane and pragmatic approach to refugee protection.

Unfortunately, however, the high hopes set for the 1969 Convention have rarely been met in practice, where implementation by African states has been compromised by limited resources and a lack of political will. In international refugee law scholarship, too, African regional refugee law is largely ignored, perhaps due to the lack of preparatory works to the 1969 Convention and the dearth of information on state practice.

Europe

The Dublin Regulation (Dublin III) is EU law setting out which country is responsible for looking at an individual’s asylum application. This is usually the country where the asylum seeker first arrives in the EU. The Dublin Regulation applies to EU Member States and Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The UK was bound by the Dublin Regulation until 31 December 2020.

In September 2020, the EU adopted the New Pact on Migration and Asylum after consultations with the European Parliament, Member States and others. The New Pact sets out that no Member State should disproportionately take responsibility but that all should participate.

In 2021, the UK Government announced plans to overhaul its asylum system. These plans have been met with criticism and concern from some EU Member States and the UN. As the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin Regulation there are significant questions regarding whether the UK can return asylum seekers to the EU without a replacement returns mechanism.

The New York Declaration  

The New York Declaration (2016) identified commitments both to address issues at that time and to prepare for future challenges. These commitments included:

a) Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.

b) Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.

c) Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.

d) Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.

e) Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.

f) Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.

g) Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.

h) Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.

j) Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.

k) Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.

l) Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

The Global Compact on Refugees

The Global Compact on Refugees (2018) agreed in Marrakesh is a framework for more predictable and equitable responsibility-sharing, recognising that a sustainable solution to refugee situations cannot be achieved without international cooperation. It rests on two simple ideas: First, migration has always been with us – but in a world where it is ever more inevitable and necessary, it should be well managed and safe, not irregular and dangerous.

Second, national policies are far more likely to succeed with international cooperation.

It provides a blueprint for governments, international organisations, and other stakeholders to ensure that host communities get the support they need and that refugees can lead productive lives. Its four key objectives are to:

1] Ease the pressures on host countries,

2] Enhance refugee self-reliance,

3] Expand access to third-country solutions,

4] Support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.

The Compact is not legally binding and allows countries to remain in charge of their own immigration policy but commits signatories to improving co-operation on international migration. All 193 members agreed it, except the United States but only 164 countries have formally adopted it. Among those who refused to adopt the deal – in addition to the United States – were Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile and Australia.

Dealing with false myths

In introducing the Compact, Antonio Guterres, UN Secretary-General, set about dispelling familiar false myths.

1] The Compact will allow the United Nations to impose migration policies on Member States, infringing on their sovereignty.

False: The Compact is not a treaty. Moreover, it is not legally binding. It is a framework for international cooperation, rooted in an inter-governmental process of negotiation in good faith, that specifically reaffirms the principle of State sovereignty, including “the sovereign right of States to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law.”

2] The Compact would establish a new right to migrate allowing everyone to choose where to go and when to go. 

False: The Compact only reaffirms that migrants should enjoy human rights, and independently of their status. And it would be ironic if, on the day we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we would consider that migrants are to be excluded from the scope of the Declaration.

3] Migration is essentially a movement of people from the South to the global North.

False: South-South migration today is larger than South-to-North migration.  For example, there are more African migrants in other African countries than in Europe.

4] Developed countries do not need migration.

False: In the many places where fertility is declining and life expectancy is rising, economies will stagnate, and people will suffer without migration.

The Global Refugee Forum

The Global Refugee Forum (2023) will be the opportunity to build on the progress made by States and stakeholders towards the implementation of the Global Compact on Refugees and of pledges and initiatives announced since the first Forum in 2019.

Six states, Colombia, France, Japan, Jordan, Niger and Uganda, together with UNHCR will co-convene the Forum. Co-hosted by UNHCR and Switzerland, it will take place in Geneva on 13 to 15 December 2023, with an advance day for side events on 12 December 2023.

The Forum is envisaged to facilitate the announcement of concrete pledges and contributions, and consider opportunities, challenges, and ways in which burden- and responsibility-sharing in support of the objectives of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) can be enhanced.

Terminology: refugees, asylum seekers and migrants

Refugees are people fleeing armed conflicts or persecution. They are recognised as such in their host country on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, politics or membership of a particular social group.

Asylum seekers are people who claim to be refugees but haven’t been recognised as such yet. Currently, they must apply for protection in the first EU country they enter. They receive refugee status or a different form of international protection only once a positive decision has been made by national authorities. This means that not every asylum seeker will be recognised as a refugee.

Migrants, on the other hand, generally choose to move not because of a direct threat or persecution but mainly to improve their life: finding work, seeking better education, reuniting with family. Refugees are protected by international law, specifically the 1951 Refugee Convention, whereas national governments handle migrants under their own immigration laws and processes.

Human Rights influences on the Refugee Convention

The impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Refugee Convention can be detected here:

1] Article 13 of the UDHR reads: “Everyone has the right of freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” The second clause of the Article states: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

2] Article 14 encodes “the right to asylum”: “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The second clause places certain limitations by stipulating that “this right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts to the contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

3] Article 15 seeks to guarantee against “denaturalization” or “loss of citizenship” by stating that “everyone has the right to a nationality,” and further, “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor be denied the right to change his nationality.” This is reiterated in Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

David Wardrop, 5 July 2023

If the UK is proud of its tangible cultural heritage, why not so when it comes to intangible heritage?

Does the English-speaking world have a dark secret, a discomfort towards aspects of our cultural heritage? That is a question I never thought I would ask, but the more I reflect on it, the more worried I feel.

I have long supported Britain’s renewed enthusiasm for the 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Even though Britain joined the USA in marching out of UNESCO in the 80s -it returned in 1997 – it honoured the Convention through those years, contributing its dues towards the fund to protect heritage in danger worldwide.

In 1995, I wrote a guide to its World Heritage Sites. Then there were fourteen, now there are thirty-three. These include natural sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, historic buildings like Canterbury Cathedral and recent marvels of the industrial age like the Jodrell Bank Observatory. And there are more, sitting on the UK’s tentative list ready to join them.

But there’s another Convention, a twin so to speak, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, not so widely known.

To date one hundred and eighty nations have signed up to this convention, selecting examples of their own heritage for inscription on the world list as they have for the similar list of World Cultural and Natural Heritage sites. The criteria for inclusion are clear. Submissions must be traditional, contemporary and living at the same time; inclusive; representative; and community based. On the last count, there were 584 elements of heritage, contributed by 131 countries. Many of these are shared with neighbours but all considered worthy of safeguarding with care, each a treasured legacy to be passed on to our successors.

But long before that instrument was opened for signature in 2002, this immense lacuna was fully visible. “When an old man dies in one of our villages a whole library disappears.” It was that observation by an extremely well-educated delegate from Mali to UNESCO that persuaded Richard Hoggart, the British social scientist, to accept the invitation to become an Assistant Director General at UNESCO in Paris. “The old men who carry our history in their heads, in songs, in all kinds of phrases, are very old now: and the young men are moving to the towns and have other interests” the old man had sadly observed.

So why do I worry? Because, in 2023, when the Convention will be celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada remain high profile non-signatories. What links these five nations? Is it that four were all invaded by the fifth, the UK and alone of all its former possessions, the dominant culture of those invaders lives on uncomfortably with that of the marginalised indigenous populations?

Those four nations still betraying strong links with Britain, face issues different in nature and scale to once colonised, now independent. The particular challenge they face was demonstrated by their early suspicion of the thrust of the later, non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This provides for the right of such peoples to ‘maintain, control protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions’. UNDRIP was adopted by the General Assembly by a majority of 143 states in favour with only those same four nations voting against. Later all reversed their decision, but this reversal did not extend to the Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. And there, for them, the matter rests.

But how can we explain the UK’s stance? Partly because since its return to UNESCO in 1997 until 2020, responsibility for UNESCO projects lay with the DFID led initially by Clare Short, overwhelmingly interested in development matters. Those relating to culture or many of UNESCO’s other responsibilities did not fit in with her programmes. In reply to a question in the House of Lords tabled by Lord Black in 2017 on why the UK government had not agreed to the convention, the reply was:

It is necessary to carefully prioritise resources towards those Conventions that will have the most impact on the safeguarding of our heritage, such as the recent final steps taken towards ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. However, the Government fully recognises the contribution that the UK’s oral traditions,

It is true that the government was completing ratification of the 1954 Convention at that time (an initiative that Westminster UNA had been urging since 2004) but now five years have passed, and government continues to sidestep the matter of intangible heritage. Built heritage remains its priority. In March 2022, the DCMS online conference ‘Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital Conference’ did not address intangible heritage at all although it acknowledges regional initiatives such as Museums Galleries Scotland’s project to record and map intangible cultural heritage in Scotland. Other regional initiatives include Cornwall 365, a project commissioned by Cornwall Council and the Wilderness England project to list English activities for those interested. These and other projects, albeit well-researched, are but piecemeal efforts.

As they struggle without any coordination, government remains indifferent. In reply to Westminster’s request for an explanation (January 2023), the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport stated:

The government is fully committed to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the UK. Whilst we are committed to exploring the government’s position on ratification of this convention, we are mindful it would require significant resources to deliver and meaningfully implement at a time when resources are currently under review.

Surely the problem is not really one of resources, more one of commitment. It is time for the UK to bring this exceptionalism to an end, joining the large family of nations who have set about listing their unique and often shared traditions with enthusiasm. However, some might claim that this reluctance to engage with this UN convention is post-colonial overhang, tacit support for those other four nations. If this is the case, it is misplaced. It is for them to reconcile with their indigenous peoples, and not our business.  

2023 marks the twentieth anniversary of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Let us mark that by announcing our intention to ratify it and showcase to the world those traditions which remain contemporary and living, inclusive and community based. Let it not be that when our old men die, a whole library disappears.

David Wardrop

A Concise Guide to the Ceremony of the Coronation

by Sir Peter Marshall KCMG, Joint Vice-President, Westminster United Nations Association

The Coronation of King Charles III will be watched avidly worldwide, particularly by viewers living in Commonwealth nations. While the ceremony relates primarily to the responsibilities entrusted to His Majesty as Sovereign of the United Kingdom and as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, central themes such as service, justice, rule of law and protection of the vulnerable apply more broadly within the wider personal responsibilities and commitment of King Charles III as Head of the Commonwealth.

His Majesty succeeded Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth in accordance with the agreement reached by Commonwealth Heads of Government and communicated in their Leaders’ Statement issued following the Retreat at Windsor Castle on the final day of the CHOGM 2018. In doing so collectively, on behalf of all member nations of the Commonwealth, Heads of Government stated that: ‘…we put on record our continuing gratitude for the duty and commitment Her Majesty has shown to all members of the Commonwealth over those decades. We recognise the role of The Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples.’

In doing so, she had carried forward a record of service and dedication begun by her father King George VI to whom the role of Head of the Commonwealth had first been entrusted in 1949, with the London Declaration by the then Heads of Government of Commonwealth nations recognising ‘…acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.’ The future King Charles III was at that time less than six months of age.

In the year before his birth, his mother then a young princess laid great emphasis on the ideal of service when in her 21^st birthday broadcast from Cape Town in 1947 she said: “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service.”

Seventy-five years later, on the occasion of the 70^th anniversary of her accession to the throne she signed her message to the Commonwealth “your servant Elizabeth”. King Charles has made it crystal clear in the speeches that he has made recently that he sees his high calling as being to serve. Indeed, through his many years as Prince of Wales in preparation for becoming King, his motto was ‘Ich Dien’ – ‘I serve’.

The notion of service of course is very wide ranging, but its implicit logic is that it is relevant internationally, nationally, regionally and within communities. There is in fact no difference between the rendering of service one to another, from the highest to the most modest member of society. What counts is the notion itself.

There is no more dazzling array of symbols than those used in the Coronation service. These have accumulated over the ages in relation to the monarch and his or her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, yet from these inheritances there are aspects of deep significance in modern terms for the Commonwealth as a whole.

After the rituals of the Recognition, the Oath and the Anointing comes the Investing. At the Investing, the Gold Spurs symbolise courage and honour; the Sword of State justice; the Golden Bracelets sincerity and wisdom; the Orb surmounted by a Cross a righteous world order; the Ring a commitment to the people; the Sceptre with Dove, which is the Rod of Equity and Mercy; and the Sceptre with Cross, which symbolises good governance.

The Investing is followed by the Crowning, which symbolises righteousness, trust and commitment and good works; and is in turn followed by the Enthronement, symbolising vision and purpose.

That King Charles begins his reign with vision and purpose is clear and has been well expressed in four recent speeches. In June 2022, when he deputised for the Queen at the Commonwealth Summit in Kigali in Rwanda; in his address to the Commonwealth on the Queen’s death; in the traditional broadcast at Christmas; and then his Commonwealth Day message.

These four texts repay close study as expressions by King Charles on behalf of those whom he represents of collective commitment to cooperation and coordinated action for the common good. In them, he conveys with persuasive clarity his confidence in the part the Commonwealth can play in mobilising and delivering such service globally to one another.

Notably, his 2023 Commonwealth Day Message delivered from the pulpit in Westminster Abbey concludes with the rallying call to “Let ours be a Commonwealth that not only stands together, but strives together, in restless and practical pursuit of the global common good”. There could be no more encouraging or uplifting prospect on which to fix our eyes and to guide our progress as we celebrate this coronation and a new reign. ‘God save The King!’

Searching for reasons why some Commonwealth countries choose to abstain in UN resolutions on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

United Nations member states have now had two opportunities to set out their position on Russia’s invasion of its neighbour Ukraine. Some might argue that the first of these, held on 2 March, so soon after the invasion, offered governments little time to fully develop their policy. Thirty-five nations, including eight Commonwealth members (Bangladesh, India, Mozambique, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Uganda), chose to abstain in that vote.

The stance of these Commonwealth members was raised in ministerial questions in the House of Commons on 31 October. Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and Mark Pritchard both sought comment on this from Foreign Secretary James Cleverly. He could only observe that these abstaining states should recognise who are the real losers in this war, far from the scene of battle.

So why did they abstain in March? India, a founder member of the UN and key player in delivering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, clearly settled for self-interest. Traditionally, it chooses to arm itself with Russian equipment and now benefits through heavily discounted Russian oil purchases. Not very principled. South Africa argued that continuing crises elsewhere, especially in Africa, should be addressed as urgently as that in Ukraine. None would argue, but 141 fellow nations successfully managed to separate that point from the illegality of the Russian invasion, supporting the General Assembly resolution. The other six Commonwealth nations did not publish their opinions. The Westminster United Nations Association wrote to the High Commissioners of all eight seeking explanations for their governments’ stance on the issue. None replied. Had they been overtaken by the suddenness of it all? Maybe. 

By the time of the second debate, on 12 October, eight months later, none could argue they were suddenly surprised by developments in Ukraine. Following international outcry, especially from the ‘global south’, the UN, Turkiye and the two combatants had agreed to commence grain and fertiliser shipments, bringing relief to more than one hundred million people. At the same time, the immediate consequences of Russia’s Special Military Operation, claimed initially to ‘protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide’ were clear for all to witness. So, did any of those eight Commonwealth states change their position in the second vote? Only Bangladesh.

The South African delegate piously reaffirmed that ‘the territorial integrity of States, including Ukraine, is sacrosanct, calling on parties to respect international law’. The Indian delegate regretted that ‘as the war unfolds, the entire global South continues to suffer food, fuel and fertilizer shortages, as well as price hikes’. Claiming that there were other pressing issues at play, some not addressed in the resolution, it abstained once more, insisting, though, that ‘India is on the side of peace and will remain firmly there.’ The redoubtable Mrs Hansa Mehta who represented India in human rights negotiations in 1948 would have been appalled by such pusillanimity. 

The Pakistan delegate had clearly been instructed to evade the issue, preferring to reference its continuing dispute with India in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, prompting further intra-South Asian tit for tat. But the Bangladesh delegate was unequivocal in explaining its changed stance, reaffirming its belief that respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and peaceful settlement of all disputes must be universally complied to, without any exception. The other four Commonwealth members I have mentioned did not take to the General Assembly floor, nor change their position.

Can we assume these nations (excepting Bangladesh) have concluded that they have more to gain by abstaining? What can that be? One veteran African commentator told me that ‘the West’ must take its own medicine, citing invasions of Iraq and Kosovo without the clear authority of the UN Security Council. Even though neither of these were neighbour states, and their leaders had already begun to cruelly attack their own people, the general observation is well understood. Countless lesser, unrequested Western interventions over decades understandably led young nationalists in post-colonial countries to accept valuable Soviet offers in education and wider support at the UN. Their longevity of their gratitude is understandable. But surely the two UN debates on the invasion of Ukraine were not the best-chosen platforms for now senior national leaders to demonstrate their thanks to Moscow for its help in decades past. We urge them to think again.   

Human Rights: why we need both the Universal Declaration and the European Convention

The degree and wide-ranging scope of human creativity shown in the immediate post-war years can be too easily overlooked. Industrial capacity could now turn towards satisfying the demands of development, not destruction. Along with this, the single-minded intensity of war tribunals in Nuremburg and Tokyo led to new protocols for the exercise of international justice. And new mechanisms were devised to promote peace, encourage development and guarantee human security, essential to underpin and define the new world order.

These new mechanisms included the identification of those human rights relevant and accessible to all. At that time, there came into being two historic instruments defining human rights, the UN’s Universal Declaration (UDHR) and the Council of Europe’s Convention (ECHR). Both are landmark examples of joint effort, wrought in the face of cultural and ideological challenge. Both should be considered firmly established, immovable statements so why are both under attack as seldom before?

Each had a course to follow. The UN Human Rights Commission, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, was tasked to ‘draft an International Declaration, a draft covenant, and provisions for their implementation’. The Commission identified thirty Rights, roughly identified in three bundles:  fundamental; civil and political; and economic, cultural and social.

Differences of opinion, ideological and cultural, continually challenged the Commission but on 10 December 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the UDHR although the Soviet bloc, Saudi Arabia and South Africa abstained. Had the vote been deferred until the following year, as powerfully advocated by the Soviet delegate, many feel no agreement would have been reached as by then, the Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb and Mao Tse Tung had entered the Chinese capital, all changing the global geopolitical landscape. The Declaration’s two supporting covenants, on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights, both legally binding instruments, came into force in 1976. And to guarantee a more pro-active advocacy, the appointment of the first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was confirmed in 1994. The current High Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, declining to seek a second term, has prompted the search for her successor, due to take over in September 2022.

The UDHR, the most translated document in history, is also the world’s most widely recognised statement of intergovernmental intent, after the Preamble to the UN Charter. One might ask how well today’s 193 UN Member States would manage in seeking to agree on a similarly powerful statement? Now approaching its 75th anniversary, we cannot fail to recognise the UDHR’s importance, showing what can be achieved when nations work together for common good. It still strongly binds us together through its two covenants and the exercise of the role of the High Commissioner.  

Working at the same time as the UN Human Rights Commission, politicians, academics and civil society set about drafting a Convention for Europe with their mission driven by the influence of Stalinism in central and eastern Europe. The newly formed Council of Europe endorsed the Convention in 1953 and to ensure member nations complied with it, a Court of Human Rights located in Strasbourg came into being in 1959.

Today, the Council of Europe numbers forty-six member states, of whom only two have left it. Greece pulled out in 1969, to avoid expulsion, after a military coup but re-joined five years later. Earlier this year, Russia pulled out following its invasion of Ukraine, which would have seen it expelled anyway.

It is surely beyond comprehension that the UK might consider joining Russia in leaving the Council of Europe, as would necessarily follow if it disregarded the authority of the ECHR. However, the UK government’s proposals to drive through the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Agreement (APA) have led some of its ideologues to argue that the ECHR can be ditched without loss.

This thinking is remarkably narrow-minded. After all, the UK has no record of being serially challenged by the ECHR. In 2021, the ECHR dealt with 215 applications from the UK, 205 of which were declared inadmissible. Only one violated the European Convention. This record should be put into the perspective of the Court’s enormous workload. In 2021, there were 72,000 pending applications including those targeting Russia (25%), Turkey (23%) and Ukraine (15%), collectively totalling two thirds of all applications even though only a tiny proportion of these reach legal process.

The APA is the latest in a line of cooperative asylum arrangements that seek to shift asylum responsibility from destination states in the Global North (pace Australia, Denmark) to countries in the developing world. However, opponents to the APA claim it will fail the test of Article 3 of the ECHR which states:

‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’

There are no exceptions or limitations on this right which, apart from torture, covers cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention. So, does the APA pass the test of Article 3 by ensuring that those transported to Rwanda will not be subjected to “inhuman and degrading” treatment? The Home Office argues that the APA is compliant, but it is less clear on whether it is also compliant with Article 26 of the Refugee Convention. This refers to those people who “cross the border illegally” and which makes it clear that people who cross a border to seek asylum are never illegal, even if they use smugglers.

Further uncertainty on the UK’s position relates to the APA’s provision for an independent Monitoring Committee which will have wide access to both individuals and facilities. However, its powers are not clear. For instance, it cannot demand the return of individuals to the UK or suspend transfers to Rwanda where breaches of international law are uncovered. Further, it has no mechanism to report its findings. It was this failure that led to the ECHR reaching its interim judgement in June this year in favour of the appellant due to be flown to Rwanda. (See Asylum seekers’ appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: clearing the fog of disinformation, Perspectives June 18). Even if the Judicial Review due in September considers this to be legally acceptable, surely it cannot be deemed as morally so. The UK cannot disclaim responsibility for those sent to Rwanda if the UK courts later decide against it.  

In summary, we need the ECHR as much as we need the UDHR. The UK should be proud of the leading role it played in the creation of both, and it should be the fiercest of those defending them.

David Wardrop July 2022

Sleep-walking into ‘Cold War Mark 2′

Cameron Duodu

This article was written on 15 April 2022 but we failed to publish it on our blog. Now three months has passed and the UN-brokered deal on the export of foodstuffs from Ukraine has been announced, we will invite Cameron Duodu to comment on how opinions in Africa have been influenced.

The escalation of the Ukrainian war that will be the inevitable consequence of the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva sends shivers down my spine.

Of course, Russia has not admitted that the ship was sunk by Ukrainian missiles. But one doesn’t need to be a military analyst to conclude that with the increased provision of arms to Ukraine by NATO, it’s more than likely that the warship was, indeed, the victim of a deadly Ukrainian pre-emptive strike.

Russia will no doubt seek to retaliate in a spectacular manner. For although the Russian people are denied a truthful account of how the Ukrainians have been courageously fighting back, many Russians will be intelligent enough to conclude that a warship that is supposed to be the “flagship” of a major Russian naval formation, does not just “sink” because of “a fire accident on board” (as the Russian military authorities have characterised the mishap.)

Simultaneously, the Ukrainians will be pressurising NATO – especially the US – to “give us the weapons and we shall do the job!” (as the UK war leader, Winston Churchill, put it to President Roosevelt during the darkest days of the Second World War, when Britain was suffering from a devastating blitzkrieg that was similar to the ceaseless pounding that Ukraine is currently receiving at the hands of Russian tanks and artillery.

The clear danger is that “hawks” in both the Russian and Ukrainian war machines will – whether with disapproval from the higher leadership or not – stage military offensives that will take the conflict to a more dangerous level.

The most obvious path for any “hawks” anxious to give the enemy “a bloody nose”, will be to shoot down a plane – preferably one carrying civilian passengers. The fallout from such an air attack would, inevitably, be an air confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Each side knows that such a confrontation will create a situation that would be just “one minute to midnight”, “midnight” being the deployment, initially, of “tactical” nuclear weapons, which could easily trigger an all-out nuclear holocaust.

The question the world should be asking the two sides is this: what gain would such a deadly outbreak of wart bring to either side? Already, enough devastation has been caused in Ukraine as must convince Ukrainian President Zelensky that he might have badly miscalculated the cost of loudly proclaiming Ukraine’s intention to join NATO.

Of what use will Ukraine be to himself and his followers if it wins NATO membership for a country half of whose dwelling places and factories have been burnt to ashes? Indeed, of what use would a Ukraine with a “moon-like” terrain be to NATO? Yes, bravery and tenacity of purpose are worthy virtues in a nation’s leadership. But so is political cunning that does not go to the extreme length of pitting national survival itself against the achievement of a desired political goal, however worthy such a goal might be.

Russia too would be wise to pull back from the brink. The course of the war against Ukraine, so far, has demonstrated that the Russian military machine might have ignored its “clay feet” in certain areas of operation, when it moved, head-first into Ukraine. Trying to regain national pride by committing atrocities (whilst seeking to punish Ukraine for showing up Russian military weaknesses) may well be a case of using good money to chase after bad.

Certainly, by any calculation, Russian gains from a victory over Ukraine cannot make up for the economic sanctions – ever being ramped up – that the Western nations are imposing on Russia. The disquiet over relations with Russia that non-NATO Western nations are currently displaying, should tell Russia that there could be an oversize political price to pay in Europe, for the Ukrainian misadventure.

The fact that both Russia and Ukraine are victims of military and political weaknesses they did not anticipate before the outbreak of war between them, gives hope that if world leaders who seriously treasure the peace which the world has enjoyed since the end of “Cold War Mark One” were to step forward and jointly put unbearable pressure on the two sides, the war might end with a negotiated settlement that saves the faces of both countries.

At the moment, though, it is difficult to identify world leaders who could summon the moral authority to knock heads together in a bid to end this meaningless war. But with the United Nations General Assembly divided and the Security Council crippled – as ever – by the veto system, it is difficult to see who could step forward and fulfil a role which, if cleverly executed, could bring new hope to the world – especially to the young citizens of the world, to whom the sight of so much destruction caused by armed warfare, must bring great depression.

The Ghanaian journalist Cameron Duodu has followed African and international affairs since the late 1950s. He is a regular contributor to the UK and Ghanaian media, and his writings are widely syndicated.

Responding to the BBC programme ‘The Whistle-blowers: Inside the UN’

The BBC programme The Whistle-blowers: Inside the UN’ will have shocked UNA members. It reported on scandalous cases of wrongdoing, corruption and especially sexual harassment of junior UN staff by their line managers or superiors. Several UN agencies were cited including the Human Rights Council, UN Development Programme, the World Food Programme and UNAIDS. Professor Purna Sen of the London Metropolitan University’s Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit anchored the programme. Ms Sen worked at UN Women (2015-2020) and in November 2021 was appointed as Special Advisor to the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.

It is widely agreed that the United Nations has an ‘Impunity Problem’ but this has not come about by oversight or malice, rather by design. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) and another similar relating to the specialised agencies (1947), both agreed in London, set out to develop further the protocols first established by the League of Nations. The United Nations needed to be able to work in all Member States without hindrance and Article 104 of the Charter states that it ‘shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.”

The Convention’s core provision with regard to immunity from jurisdiction states “The UN and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except when it has expressly waived its immunity.” However, staff disputes within the UN would be settled by its Administrative Tribunal. This structure was reformed in 2008 at the time that many of the incidents reported in the BBC TV programme took place. Clearly, senior staff members have hidden behind a wide interpretation of the Convention and the reforms have not been effective.  

A useful case study of such organisational failures can be read in THE UNITED NATIONS’ IMPUNITY PROBLEM, published by Code Blue. This examined a pattern of sexual abuse committed by WHO personnel against women and girls in the DRC during the 2018-2020 Ebola outbreak.WHO set up a so-called “Independent Commission” to “investigate” the allegations but this was far from independent, reporting to WHO leadership with WHO staff determining what evidence the commissioners could access. The case study examined alternative routes to justice for a victim, concluding that her ability to access any legal remedy is contingent upon the UN choosing to clarify the immunity of its personnel and choosing to allow its employees to be held criminally accountable. Its closing observation is sobering, “If the Organization continues to misuse immunity to shield its personnel from all systems of criminal justice, those working under the UN flag will continue to commit rape and other sex crimes with impunity.” The BBC programme has clearly shown that the UN continues to fail in addressing issues which seventy-five years ago might have remained hidden but now, in the era of MeToo, can no longer be ignored.

Since this programme was broadcast, the BBC has interviewed UN spokesperson Stephen Dujarric. The programme can be watched here.

UNA members must be in the forefront in challenging this outdated institutional mindset. Public support for the UN is vital and we must press for change.

Asylum seekers’ appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: clearing the fog of disinformation

“Opaque….scandalous….politically motivated” are the UK Home Secretary’s choice observations on the recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The ‘Rwanda removals’ incident has certainly lit up media interest, leading to predictable, partisan opinion but little explanation. The appeal to the European Court of Human Rights by those due to be flown to Rwanda sought an ‘interim measure’, not a lasting judgement. The government’s case for its planned action is well-documented elsewhere so this summary sets out to clarify what happened in Strasbourg, no more.

In agreeing to grant the interim measure, the ECHR noted that the asylum partnership arrangement between the governments of the UK and Rwanda provided for asylum seekers to have their claims considered after relocation to Rwanda but also that a UK Court would be ruling on the issue in July.

The ECHR ruled that the removal of the initial applicant should not take place until three weeks after the final decision of the UK court. However, on the same day as its ruling, five others also due to be flown to Rwanda, lodged applications with the Court, requesting similar interim measures to halt their own removal. In two of these, the Court decided to stay the applicants’ removal until 20 June so their requests could be considered in greater detail. Two others had their appeals rejected and the final request was withdrawn as the UK Home Office had by then ‘capitulated’.

The Court is empowered by the Convention to rule in such cases without prejudging the subsequent decision on the case by a UK court. Such requests to the ECHR are rare but apply when the applicants would otherwise face a real risk of irreversible harm. That irreversible harm was clear in this case because, if the UK Courts decide in July that the Home Office’s case falls, to whom should those already deported apply for return to the UK? The Home Office’s failure to respond satisfactorily led the ECHR to reach the only possible decision, whatever partisan media uproar this provoked.

A brief guide to the European Court of Human Rights

The Court was a creation of the Council of Europe, following the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953. Only a few years before, the machinery of the United Nations had failed to agree a Convention, that is a binding instrument that signatory states cannot cherry pick. Instead, the UN’s Members States had to settle for the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), although this is widely agreed as the most important international statement after the UN Charter itself. Rene Cassin of France and other European human rights activists who had worked on the UDHR knew that a Convention for Europe was both within their grasp and sorely needed as its member states were emerging from such a wounding war. The Court was set up in Strasbourg in 1959.

Today, the Council or Europe numbers forty-six member states. Only two member states have left it.  Greece pulled out in 1969, to avoid expulsion, after a military coup but re-joined five years later. Earlier this year, Russia pulled out following its invasion of Ukraine, which would have seen it expelled anyway. Few can imagine the UK following these.

The workload of the ECHR is enormous. In 2021, there were 72,000 pending applications including those targeting Russia (25%), Turkey (23%) and Ukraine (15%), collectively totalling two thirds of all applications. Only a tiny proportion of these reach legal process but each can create a storm in the accused Member State. In 2021, the Court dealt with 215 applications from the UK, 205 of which were declared inadmissible. Only one violated the European Convention on Human Rights but this failed to generate indignant outrage.

David Wardrop, Chair Westminster UNA