LOUISE ARBOUR INTERVIEW - Wednesday 19th March, 2008
It has got to be one of the most thankless tasks on Earth.
Whatever he or she does, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is
going to upset someone, somewhere, somehow. During her 4-year term in
the job, Louise Arbour, a former Canadian judge and UN prosecutor, has
certainly done her share of feather-ruffling, including berating the
Bush Administration over their conduct of the so-called "war on terror.
Dubbed the "human shock absorber," after only one term, come June,
Louise Arbour is calling it quits. George Negus spoke to her from the
UN's Geneva headquarters just prior to the fracas in Tibet breaking
out.
GEORGE NEGUS: Louise Arbour, thanks very much for talking to us. It is
good to see you again.
LOUISE ARBOUR, UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
GEORGE NEGUS: We just had a story on our program about Darfur,
a
terrible situation that the world is appalled at. What chance,
literally in hell in this case human rights in a situation like Darfur
and basic human rights like life itself are constantly at risk?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, I have to say I think this is the most
discouraging field in which I have been engaged. When I came to this
post on 1 July 2004, I went to the summit of the African Union to try
to persuade the Government of Sudan to let me deploy eight human rights
officers in Darfur. And four years later we now have a large human
rights component inside the UN mission. And at the end of the day, we
keep documenting the same pattern of attacks. Actually now I think
what's particularly discouraging is we see a recurrence of the kinds of
bombardments and attacks on villages, both from government side and
from rebel groups. These populations that have been these displaced
persons that have been in camps now for years are in terrible
predicament, very exposed to attacks.
GEORGE NEGUS: So what do we do about it? I mean, nothing seems
to be
changing, the situation seems be getting worse. Governments are blaming
rebels, rebels are blaming governments, and meanwhile the killing
continues, the displacement continues. What the heck do we do about it?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, you know, the decision-maker in this case
is the
Security Council. I mean, when you look at what the international
community can do when it mobilises itself, public opinion, worldwide
public opinion is really important, but at the end of the day the only
method of actual intervention is through the Security Council. The
Security Council has made the decision to deploy, as you know, a hybrid
force jointly with the African Union. The Government of Sudan has, in
my opinion, been very slow to accommodate the requirements for the
deployment of this force. Darfur, I think, is a classic case of
protection by presence.
GEORGE NEGUS: Right.
LOUISE ARBOUR: Now, when you have an internal, armed conflict,
a
rebellion, rebel forces, if this makes the government unwilling or
unable to discharge its own responsibility to protect, I think, as it
is now called in this emerging doctrine, then the international
community has the duty to come to the assistance of these civilians in
danger.
GEORGE NEGUS: But is this a classic example of the criticism
of the UN
generally, not your area of it in particular, but generally, that makes
this sort of situation it appears to be insoluble, highlights the
alleged ineffectuality of the UN?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, frankly, I don't, I don't think so. We
have the
world that we have. We have the political systems that we have. We have
inherited principles of state sovereignty that are still, for a large
part, very impenetrable. This is our world. The question is, how we
make the best of it? The UN is, to some extent, a kind of last resort.
It means there has been national failure, probably regional failure or
a lack of capacity. By the time the whole world is engaged, as you can
appreciate, there is a lot of discordance also in the vision of the
necessity to intervene, the wisdom of intervention. All this, I think,
has to be factored in. And the champions of intervention in one case
may be very reluctant in another case because it comes a bit closer to
their interest.
GEORGE NEGUS: Right.
LOUISE ARBOUR: This is our world. We have to make it work.
GEORGE NEGUS: Can I quote to you what, if you like, Louise
Arbour to
Louise Arbour, you said that, "US-led counter-terrorism, the terrorism
struggle, has set back the cause of human rights by decades and has
exacerbated a profound divide between the US, its Western allies and
the developing world." You really mean that? You think that the war on
terror has set back your cause and the human rights cause by decades,
as you say?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Yeah, and I can tell you in what more specific
ways. For
one thing, it led to an erosion in the field of civil and political
rights, where the gains, I thought, were extremely solid. For instance,
the definition of torture, the applicability of the torture convention,
the principle of non-refoulement, you don't send people back to the
risk of facing torture. Until September 11, these principles, you know,
were challenging to apply, but the normative framework was very clear
and very solid. What we have seen in the war on terror is a direct
attack on the norms themselves, on the legitimacy of the legal
framework. But worse than that, before September 11 I think we were
poised to make a lot of progress in the pursuit of economic and social
rights, you know, what Roosevelt called the two freedoms, freedom from
fear and freedom from want. And the freedom-from-want agenda was just
about ready to take hold and develop, but I think that the war on
terror has also frozen all the capacity and the goodwill to advance
this agenda, because all the efforts and concentration had to go back
to questions of arrest, detention, extrajudicial killings. So in that
sense I think it is a tremendous setback.
GEORGE NEGUS: Could I ask you a question much closer to home,
where
we're concerned. Last year we had an intervention action, for the want
of a simple way of putting a very complicated event. And the way the
government of the day decided to apply their power was to send in the
troops and the cops, as it were. How did you react as a UN human rights
commissioner to what the previous government did here in Australia?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, I can't go back to a particular event,
but I can
tell you first in very general terms, I think it's certainly the use of
military forces in law-enforcement has to be a very exceptional
measure, but in the case of the interface of state law-enforcement
agents with Indigenous communities, I think it's particularly
aggravated because there's a background both in Australia and in a lot
of other parts of the world there is a history of distrust, of neglect
and of, sometimes, overreach in these kinds of situations. Now, the
state has a primary responsibility to provide security, and I think it
has to have the courage to live up to that responsibility.
GEORGE NEGUS: Since the intervention we've had a change of
government,
and whilst the current government is going ahead with that intervention
for at least a year, they say, and then they will review the situation,
we have taken one step that hasn't been taken by previous governments,
we have said sorry to the Indigenous people of this country. Again, how
did you react to that? Because in Canada, where you come from, there's
no sorry been said but your people have got compensation. Our guys have
got an apology but no compensation.
LOUISE ARBOUR: Looking at it from outside Australia, it got
enormous
coverage. It was really quite a moment, I think, of courage, of
dignity, a very important step forward for Australians collectively.
GEORGE NEGUS: And what about the tricky issue of compensation?
Where
would you stand on that? I mean, the Canadian Government have done it,
we haven't at this point, anyway.
LOUISE ARBOUR: From a rights perspective, it's trite to say
there is no
such thing as a right without a remedy. We have exactly the same debate
or the international community has been challenged to have the same
debate regarding colonialism, slavery. Now, how far back does the need
to repair the harm caused by gross human violations? Now, you will not
be surprised that I am an advocate of, the most extensive remedy
available should be extended, so compensation, reparations of all
forms, I think are necessary, not only to heal, but really to restore
the right in its entirety and not make it a rhetorical right.
GEORGE NEGUS: Given the old adage of did she jump or was she
pushed,
why are you quitting what a lot of people would regard as probably the
most thankless task in the world?
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, first of all I'm not quitting. I had a
4-year
appointment. It is theoretically it could be renewed once and I have
made the decision that I can't make another 4-year commitment. It's
very hard work, I think I've done everything I could in four years. I
think it's time for somebody else to take it on.
GEORGE NEGUS: So what about the suggestions that you have been
under a
lot of pressure and that pressure is making you less effective than you
might like to be?
LOUISE ARBOUR: No, in fact to the extent that there have been
criticism
of me personally and of my office and the work we're trying to do,
these would be very good reasons and very tempting to make me decide to
stay on and face these criticisms head on. But the reality is, it is
endemic, it is in the nature of the job. Human rights work deals with
issues that are very much at the centre of the relationship between
governments and their own people, so to try to do that from an
international perspective I think inevitably generates a lot of
criticisms.
GEORGE NEGUS: I'd have to ask you, what is next for Louise
Arbour? I
would imagine, given what you have been through for the last four
years, just about anything would be an anti-climax.
LOUISE ARBOUR: Well, first, my mandate ends on 30 June. As you
know, in
Canada July and August is the two most beautiful months of the year. So
what is next for me is a wonderful Canadian holiday. If there is
anything after that I'll let you know.
GEORGE NEGUS: Thank you very much. Well, you have certainly
earned that
holiday. It is good to talk to you again.
LOUISE ARBOUR: Thank you. Good to talk to you too.
GEORGE NEGUS: All the best. LOUISE ARBOUR: Thanks.
Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights not
so shy,
but as we've heard, soon to be retiring. Earlier today, we contacted
her office about Tibet. A spokesman indicated that "stuff" was going on
the diplomatic front re that current crisis, but she wouldn't comment
for fear of undermining those efforts.