Conor Foley may not agree, but by bringing human rights into the poverty debate Amnesty can hold governments to account
Comments (80)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Kate Allen
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009 14.00 BST
Article history
Contrary to recent articles by Conor Foley and William Easterly, Amnesty International does believe that poverty is a human rights issue. To be clear – the basic human rights of the millions of people around the world who are living in poverty are being violated. Thousands of families forced to live in slum conditions in Kenya and Cambodia and facing the constant threat of imminent eviction by authorities who won't consult them; Palestinian children who are prevented from going to school because of Israeli curfews and road closures; women who die in childbirth because they live in societies that condone early marriage and where a basic standard of maternal care is not provided – these people are all having their human rights violated. Just because a single individual neat violator can't always be sited does not mean that injustice is not being done.
The main problem however with Foley's critique of Amnesty's work is that he refers in the main to aid and aid policy, and he seems to think Amnesty is simply moving into this area too, as if that's all poverty was really about. Far from it. For us at Amnesty living in poverty is more than suffering material deprivation – it is being marginalised, being without power or influence over decisions that affect your life. Amnesty is currently campaigning to stop the forced eviction of more than 7,000 people from their homes in Nairobi, Kenya, where the local authority wants to sell the land to developers. "Deep Sea" residents have been forced from their homes in the middle of the night, which were then destroyed by bulldozers. The police stood by while it happened. This ongoing campaign is much more complex than "straightforward poverty" or the rights and wrongs of aid relationships. But it is without doubt a struggle for human rights.
Foley also seems to equivocate over whether the international community is obliged to provide protection for people affected by conflict or disasters, and development assistance in general. He rightly says that economic and social rights are supposed to be implemented progressively, but then balks at what follows — that all states must ensure these rights are realised, including, when they are in a position to do so, by providing international assistance. There may be a debate about how exactly this is to be done, but international law is clear that everyone is entitled to an adequate standard of living, to be free from hunger, to basic healthcare and to at least a free primary education. And in case there is any doubt about this these rights have been tested in law – they are written into the constitutions of India and South Africa and have for example been used to require governments and companies to make anti-retroviral drugs for people living with HIV/Aids available to them.
What is most disappointing about Foley's piece is that we know he's one of the good guys. Governments, companies and international institutions rely on the very complexity of economic, social and cultural rights violations to make would-be advocates throw their hands up and not know where or whether to start. But that sense of the enormity of the task ahead was there after the second world war when the original human rights treaties were drawn up, and now decades later we have changed the discourse about rights and what governments know they can and cannot do.
In the real world many aid agencies, UN agencies and donor governments have already adopted a rights-based approach to development. Amnesty believes strongly that bringing human rights into the debate on poverty is one of the most powerful ways to make poverty alleviation accountable to those it is supposed to help. And exactly because we are not an aid agency, trying to work with a given government's acquiescence, we can be very bold in challenging governments to be accountable to all their citizens.
Comments (80)
Buzz up!
Digg it
Kate Allen
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009 14.00 BST
Article history
Contrary to recent articles by Conor Foley and William Easterly, Amnesty International does believe that poverty is a human rights issue. To be clear – the basic human rights of the millions of people around the world who are living in poverty are being violated. Thousands of families forced to live in slum conditions in Kenya and Cambodia and facing the constant threat of imminent eviction by authorities who won't consult them; Palestinian children who are prevented from going to school because of Israeli curfews and road closures; women who die in childbirth because they live in societies that condone early marriage and where a basic standard of maternal care is not provided – these people are all having their human rights violated. Just because a single individual neat violator can't always be sited does not mean that injustice is not being done.
The main problem however with Foley's critique of Amnesty's work is that he refers in the main to aid and aid policy, and he seems to think Amnesty is simply moving into this area too, as if that's all poverty was really about. Far from it. For us at Amnesty living in poverty is more than suffering material deprivation – it is being marginalised, being without power or influence over decisions that affect your life. Amnesty is currently campaigning to stop the forced eviction of more than 7,000 people from their homes in Nairobi, Kenya, where the local authority wants to sell the land to developers. "Deep Sea" residents have been forced from their homes in the middle of the night, which were then destroyed by bulldozers. The police stood by while it happened. This ongoing campaign is much more complex than "straightforward poverty" or the rights and wrongs of aid relationships. But it is without doubt a struggle for human rights.
Foley also seems to equivocate over whether the international community is obliged to provide protection for people affected by conflict or disasters, and development assistance in general. He rightly says that economic and social rights are supposed to be implemented progressively, but then balks at what follows — that all states must ensure these rights are realised, including, when they are in a position to do so, by providing international assistance. There may be a debate about how exactly this is to be done, but international law is clear that everyone is entitled to an adequate standard of living, to be free from hunger, to basic healthcare and to at least a free primary education. And in case there is any doubt about this these rights have been tested in law – they are written into the constitutions of India and South Africa and have for example been used to require governments and companies to make anti-retroviral drugs for people living with HIV/Aids available to them.
What is most disappointing about Foley's piece is that we know he's one of the good guys. Governments, companies and international institutions rely on the very complexity of economic, social and cultural rights violations to make would-be advocates throw their hands up and not know where or whether to start. But that sense of the enormity of the task ahead was there after the second world war when the original human rights treaties were drawn up, and now decades later we have changed the discourse about rights and what governments know they can and cannot do.
In the real world many aid agencies, UN agencies and donor governments have already adopted a rights-based approach to development. Amnesty believes strongly that bringing human rights into the debate on poverty is one of the most powerful ways to make poverty alleviation accountable to those it is supposed to help. And exactly because we are not an aid agency, trying to work with a given government's acquiescence, we can be very bold in challenging governments to be accountable to all their citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment