by Hannah Wu, '90

Distinguished members of the
Advisory Council,
Dear Professors, dear friends,

It is a great honour to be invited back to Notre Dame as a “distinguished alumna” and to be speaking in front of such an important group today. It is an honour that I accepted with thoughts for many of my fellow students who have been working for peace and justice in the four corners of the world, often under difficult conditions. I take this honour as an invitation to reflect on the journey that I have travelled since graduating from Notre Dame - some 15 years ago.

When I left the International Institute for Peace Studies in 1990, I took with me a diploma, and much more. That much more I was not exactly conscious of then, but began to treasure over the years. I would simply define it as “a sense of direction in life”. It is a sense of direction that I gathered from the academic learning as well as from the many sources of inspiration around me - from my teachers and my fellow students, from the opportunities for reflection and debate, from living together in the peace house with people from other parts of the world and with their struggles, and from the field travels we undertook. In my eyes, that is the beauty of the peace studies programme. What I carried away from that one year here were some fundamental preparations that have shaped my foundation - my morals, my philosophy, my politics, and my vision of the world. What I carried away was something that has led me from a life lived in a closed society to an international life of tolerance and to a professional experience of multilateralism.

I have spent most of these years since Notre Dame with the United Nations, working in the field of human rights. “Have I made any difference?” I often ask myself. Sure, I have done many things: worked with governments as well as civil society organizations; drafted numerous reports of the Secretary-General; organized human rights gatherings; developed human rights assistance projects; met with heads of states; listened to villagers; visited police stations, courts, prisons, and military barracks; collaborated with other institutions, and even briefed the Security Council.

“Have I made any difference?” I remember that exciting police training programme I organized in Nepal in 1996 – two weeks of intense work with the support of the police leadership at the highest level, and a team of experienced police trainers from other countries. The follow-up of the programme included the incorporation of human rights into the curriculum of the national police academy as well as the publication of human rights standing orders for all police officers throughout the country. The programme was such a success and I was so proud of the achievement. Then, shortly after the training, the war with the Maoist rebels started, and human rights became the first thing to be thrown out of the window.

“Have I made any difference?” I have experienced many frustrations of working at inter-governmental settings, sometimes spending endless hours through negotiations for the choice of a word, or listening to empty rhetoric and politicized debates.

“Have I made any difference?” The reflections I would like to share with you today are the following - if the impact of human rights work is not always visible and results not always immediate, it is because human rights are complex. For changes to happen, there are no magic quick fixes. What it takes is a long and laborious journey, one that unites the efforts of a variety of actors at many different levels.

Few subjects are as sensitive as human rights have been over the years. Few subjects are so much charged with emotions and judgements. Few are so much politicized and instrumentalized. The complexity and sensitivity have also made human rights an often misunderstood subject. Though roots of human rights are to be found in diverse cultures and traditions, we are a long way away from making human rights a natural part of ordinary people’s lives.

I often find it a challenge to try to explain my work to my family in China. Somehow, my language sounds foreign. Somehow, I give the impression of coming from another world. This bothers me, as my family has been my reality check and my reference over the years, while I work on human rights with a postcard view of the Geneva Lake in front of me.

I do understand them. Human rights do not always come to people naturally. It was certainly not in my vocabulary nor in my concept of the world when I was growing up. My world was that of “revolution”, that of “class struggle”, and that of “proletarian dictatorship”. I still remember how puzzled I was when I learned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the first time – that was at Notre Dame - at Bob Johansen’s class. I had a difficult time to reconcile the provisions in the Declaration with the life that I had lived. Right to the presumption of innocence, right to privacy, right to leave one’s country, right to own property, freedom of expression, association, assembly, elections? “What do they mean in reality and who are to guarantee these universal rights?” I remember that I was so confused that I asked at some point, “what about driving?”.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a Guinness record of the world’s most translated document, is not necessarily the most studied document. Understanding of human rights requires education. Human rights education does not equal civic education or learning legal knowledge, as is often the response from some countries. Human rights cannot be equated with being nice to each other, respecting each other, and being law-abiding citizens. Human rights are not about charity, but about state responsibilities and obligations. Human rights oblige states and state actors to do some things and prevent them from doing others. For example, States are forbidden to practice torture and illegal detention. States also have to take a range of measures to make human rights a reality to people, ranging from legislative and institutional measures to administrative and financial measures. Finally, human rights are about international legal guarantees for the dignity of the human person.

Human rights are not only about freedom from fear, but also about freedom from want. President Mandela put it most simply - one should not have to choose between “bread and ballot”. For those who are illiterate and those who live in extreme poverty, the right to participate in the public and political life of the country carries little meaning. The dignity of the human person starts at the moment of birth and continues throughout his or her existence. From the right to birth registration to the right to education, right to health, right to marry and to found a family; from the right to decent working conditions and the right to social security protection to the right to participate in political and cultural life of the country, from freedom of thoughts and freedom of religion, to the right to personal security, to the right to equal protection of the law. In short, human rights are as much about government not using torture as about its budget allocations.

“All human rights for all” has been used as a slogan to catch the comprehensiveness of human rights and the overarching principle of non-discrimination. But when we work for human rights, we must move a critical step further by asking the fundamental question: “Who are the people needing the most protection?” We would then remember the elderly, people with disability, victims of trafficking, sex workers, criminals, prisoners, migrant workers, asylum seekers, refugees, and more. However, human rights of these people who are disadvantaged, marginalized, vulnerable, persecuted and exploited are often not a popular cause in societies.

Father Theodore Hesburgh once said, "All of us are experts at practicing virtue at a distance." Human rights problems are not reserved to some “bad countries”; they are relevant to every country. Not a single country on earth is free of human rights challenges. Just think about each of the societies we know – the range of issues and our government’s actions or inactions. In a rich country like Switzerland, more than 10% of the population lives under the poverty line and more than 7 percent of the workforce are unable to get by on their salaries. In France, it was only in 1945 when women gained their right to vote, and today women represent 12% in the country’s parliament. The US, confronted with a wide range of human rights challenges, has not ratified some of the major international human rights treaties. It is one of the two countries in the world that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The treatment of children in the US, especially those in conflict with the law, often shocks the world. About 9,700 American prisoners are serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were still children.

Each country carries its own historical baggage and faces its own unique set of challenges. When it comes to human rights, countries have to be compared against their own records and judged against their own means. “Is the country progressing or regressing on human rights?”, that would be the right question to ask. Today, countries in the north are facing some increasingly challenging and pressing human rights problems – from the fight against terrorism to the treatment of refugees to the issue of migration and human trafficking; the list is not short. Sweden, a model of human rights in many ways, has recently been found in breach of the Convention against Torture for its handling of the expulsion of a suspected terrorist to Egypt. Migrant workers are working in many European countries under conditions not permitted by the law. From the United Kingdom to Australia, countries are revising their anti-terror laws in ways that threaten to infringe upon human rights. The scandals of torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners by the US military have been widely known to the world.

Human rights challenges are everywhere, and there is no simple response for any country. Advancing human rights is a long journey that sometimes takes generations and even revolutions. If I see the mountains of human rights challenges China faces today, I also see the long way it has travelled from the generation of my grandmother, when, as a girl, she was destined to live a life of illiteracy and with her feet bound. She was to suffer from hunger the moment she lost her husband. The life of my mother, which began in colonial occupation and war, was transformed from child labour to employment and responsibility as a school director. I have become the first one in the history of the entire family to be university educated.

Advancing human rights is as much about will as about means. Confronted with realties on the ground in countries like Cambodia, I found myself humbled in front of the challenges – judges paid at a monthly salary of 20 or 30 dollars, working in court buildings where the rain would come through the roof and where simple stationary supplies were treasures; prison officials not receiving money to buy food for prisoners; provincial police having no vehicles to transfer suspects within the legal time of detention. I found myself angered by the irresponsibility of those in power, by the flagrant corruption and waste. At the same time, one always leaves these countries with hope – hope from having witnessed the commitment and courage of many – in civil society, but also within the state structures. The picture is never simple. I always ask myself, “what will it take for changes to happen?” I tell myself that it will certainly require more than finger pointing, more than naming and shaming. It has to be a combination of every tool at our disposal – monitoring and denouncing, but also supervision and assistance.

A Chinese proverb says "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness". It neatly sums up the two sides of human rights work: denunciation and critique on the one hand, and remedial action on the other. No doubt, exposing violations and criticizing abuse are essential elements of the struggle to advance human rights. But it is equally true that "cursing the darkness" is not enough. The hard work of human rights also means investing resources, building institutions, revising laws, educating rights-holders and educating duty bearers-- in other words, "lighting a candle." This is what the UN human rights programme aims to do – addressing the darkness with a candle.

The United Nations has built a rather comprehensive human right machinery – though it is not always well known to the public. Even some mainstream media shows much confusion when they do report on human rights. For example, the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not the head of the Commission on Human Rights, which is an intergovernmental body – comparable to a national parliament. This is the body that will soon be replaced by a new Human Rights Council.

The UN Human Rights Programme can be described in broad terms as consisting of the following three parts – one, the human rights treaty bodies. They are committees of independent experts that supervise treaty obligations of State Parties. Two, the so-called special procedure mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. They are special rapporteurs, experts, or working groups that monitor and report on human rights situations of countries under scrutiny and on a wide range of thematic issues from torture to the freedom of expression to the right to health. Three, the technical assistance programme which helps countries to implement human rights.

The three components are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Together they create the needed synergy. The purpose of providing technical assistance for capacity-building is to improve human rights protection and empowerment. It is therefore a means to achieve an end. It is only on the basis of close monitoring and analysing of the problems and deficiencies that meaningful technical assistance programmes can be developed.

Today, the UN human rights programme stands at a historic moment. The place of human rights, as one of the three pillars of the United Nations, together with peace and security, and economic and social development, has never been so much emphasised since the drafting of the Charter. In the words of the Secretary-General, “we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights”. This was agreed by some 170 heads of states and governments at the 2005 World Summit in New York. Their final outcome document of some 30 pages contains more than 50 references to human rights. The doubling of the human rights budget was something unprecedented in the UN. The responsibility to protect concept raises human rights above state sovereignty.

These gains are particularly significant, as they have taken place against a background of years of neglect and lip service paid to human rights despite the importance given in the UN Charter. The human rights programme represents only 1.8% of the UN regular budget. For years the programme has remained rather isolated and politicised. Working from inside, sometimes one cannot help wondering “Is there any government interested in making the international human rights system work?”

Some of us continue to wonder what has happened for this recent dramatic change of hearts by governments, for such a leap forward, for such a demonstration of commitment to human rights. Perhaps history has come to such a point after 60 years of the existence the UN. Today, it is rare to find a government which would not see human rights as a noble cause, a government which would not take every opportunity to praise its human rights achievements. After affirmation and reaffirmation of human rights principles, it is perhaps just time for action.

In fact, it has been a long journey already travelled, in which persistent efforts were made and important milestones laid. Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, step by step, an impressive body of human rights standards and norm has been built. Today, we have seven major human rights treaties and numerous declarations, guidelines, and principles, covering a comprehensive range of rights. The standard-setting task has taken years and will continue to a lesser extent. The Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples has been in the works for more than a decade and is expected to conclude soon. The focus now is on the declaration on the rights of persons with disability. After these major efforts of standard setting, it is high time to prioritize implementation.

This positive change has come about also as a result of the political leadership of the Secretary General Kofi Annan, who has made human rights his personal commitment. His reform programme has started by mainstreaming human rights in all other areas of work of the UN and has continued by making supporting the national human rights protection system a mission for UN country teams.

This change is also a result of the strong leadership of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, who, with her combination of qualities and skills, brings the needed courage, competence, and wisdom. Historians will probably tell us that what happened with human rights in the UN in the beginning of the 21st century was a political opportunity that was seized.

If in the past the human rights programme has been asked to make miracles with little means, the future will not be easier. Initially it will look like a long neglected child getting too much attention, with much of the attention not immediately translated into concrete actions.

Some preparations have already begun though. An ambitious Plan of Action prepared as a major part of the Secretary-General’s reform agenda set the overall direction and vision of UN’s response to human rights challenges. The response could be summarized as the following: strategic country engagement to overcome implementation gaps; High Commissioner’s leadership to influence the agenda of security and development; partnership to establish a global alliance for human rights; and management to build a strong human rights office to implement the vision.

Striving for leadership and initiative, in my eyes, is a most significant aspect of the Plan of Action, as it implies a fundamental change of relationship. As part of the UN Secretariat, what we do has always been viewed as “providing service” to Member States. The new vision would see the High Commissioner taking initiatives, developing independent positions, and actively shaping the global human rights agenda. Our sense of priority will no longer be driven by the mandates given to us, but by our vision of the human right challenges. The relationship with UN bodies would be that of a partnership.

It is an exciting new era, but not less challenging. We will be walking on a tight rope requiring constant delicate balance. Within the constraints of an intergovernmental setting and working with a range of stakeholders from duty bearers and rights holders, we are to be impartial in our dealings, strong in front of the big and the powerful, active without being activist, respecting the rules without being bureaucratic. We are to subject to no influence other than the Charter of the UN and the universal standards of human rights. I am glad and I am proud to be part of this endeavour.

I would like to end my speech by expressing my deep gratitude to my teachers, the peace studies programme, the institute, and the university for what you have given me. I am grateful for this opportunity to be back and to share with you some of my thoughts. I will leave here reenergized and revitalized. The honour you entrusted on me only strengthens my commitment. After a certain number of years, after acquiring knowledge and gaining experience, there is nothing more valuable than a positive new push. This energy will help me stand firm in front of difficulties and frustrations and prioritize the essentials. I will continue my journey remembering that so many people around the world are working for change. All together, wherever we are from, with our persistent efforts at every level, advances are made in the field of human rights and justice, and hope for a better world is kept alive.

Thank you.

Interview with Hannah Wu

 

Top of Page

Home > Alumni > A Journey to Human Rights