Bijeenkomst Mensenrechten te Maastricht

Toespraak | 17-04-2013

To put things into historical perspective, my mother was fired from her job in 1960 just for getting married. If I look around me now and see who’s sitting here, nearly 50 years later, most of the students are females. Most of the professors are still men – overwhelmingly so in the Netherlands. On the European continent only Georgia has fewer women professors. So we still have a long way to go. But I know today that my daughters will not be at a disadvantage when they go to university, compared to my mum’s generation or my own generation. So we do sometimes make some progress in certain areas.

After listening to the heroes and she-roes who have been speaking here today, we can see, if we look back at our own history, that unimaginable things can be achieved in less than a lifetime. When I was 15 years old, I felt the urge to go and help people in Spain, who were then struggling to remove the last remnants of dictatorship from their society. I went to work for a summer on a Spanish farm. The people were almost starving; they all had stomach problems, as the only thing they were eating all day was oranges. There was little other food. And there was endemic violence in every household. Sometimes I thought that the only form of communication in a household was for the father to hit the mother and the children. That was Spain at the time.

Today, Spain has same-sex marriage, which would have been unimaginable 10 to 15 years ago. The French Senate adopted a law on same-sex marriage last week – something unimaginable even a decade ago. Do people go out into the streets to protest against that? Yes they do. Is that a problem? Remember that no human right was ever achieved without a struggle, without some level of discomfort. For moral, cultural or political reasons. But that should never discourage us from pursuing improvement in human rights worldwide.

I was trying to explain to my young kids the importance of human rights. I asked them: Do you want to live your life the way you choose? Yes. Do you want to love the person you choose to love? Yes. Do you want choose the job and education you like? Yes. Do you want that for others as well? Yes, of course. If you want it for others as well you’d better get cracking because there are billions of people on this earth who still do not have the right to choose how they want to live. Who cannot openly say who they wish to love. Who do not enjoy the same career opportunities as people of another gender. Who cannot speak out against the authorities without the risk of imprisonment. Who have no chance of a job because they are black or Jewish or Serb or Albanian or whatever. So long as that is the case, we still have a job to do.

I passionately believe in human rights, not just because Max van der Stoel was my political father, but for the same reasons he always expressed. If there is a problem with human rights, you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a problem with democracy and a problem with the rule of law. Funnily enough, if you see problems arising with human rights, this is probably the best indicator that very soon there will be a problem with democracy and a problem with the rule of law. So there is no distinction to be made between human rights, the rule of law and democracy. You cannot build a just and sustainable society without human rights, the rule of law and democracy. You need all three elements.

Let’s take a look at the Arab world today. People found freedom they had never had. They held democratic elections. The party elected by democratic means then said, on religious or other grounds: ‘We have a majority, so we’re now in a position to take away rights from women or minorities and others. That’s democracy, you elected us.’ But democracy is part of a constitutional framework that guarantee the rule of law and human rights. And democracy must respect these elements. So we should speak out against what is now threatening to happen in Egypt. Yes, the Brotherhood won the election. It was a triumph for democracy. The first democratic election in Egypt in 5000 years – a great achievement. But this does not allow the government to curtail the rights of women, religious minorities and ethnic minorities. We should be very vocal about this. It does not just apply to Egypt. It is one of the big challenges we will see in the Arab world in the next generation. How do we make sure that progress in democracy does not lead to regress in terms of the position of human rights defenders, and particularly in the position of women and minorities? This will be one of the main issues we need to address in the next couple of years.

The previous speaker emphasised that we should practice what we preach. I couldn’t agree more. We want to be not just in a political position or a legal position but above all in a moral position to say to someone like President Putin: ‘You have signed the European Declaration of Human Rights, you are party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and you are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. You are a member of the Council of Europe. Therefore you should honour your obligations. You should give people the right to express themselves. Freedom of expression is part of the European Charter on Human Rights. You should allow people to meet with whoever they want to. It’s a freedom enshrined in the European Charter.’ His reaction was: ‘You have problems in the Netherlands. You allow a political party that does not allow women to be elected.’ And my response is very clear. We have been corrected by the European Court of Human Rights and we shall abide by its ruling. That is our duty as a party to the Convention. He then said: ‘You allow an organisation which promotes paedophilia.’ If that is allowed by our legal system and we don’t agree we will change the law. The people concerned are protected by the law of the Netherlands. Perhaps it’s not a good thing. It’s what the judge decided. That is what it is like to live in a country based on the rule of law. The courts decide, and if we don’t like the law we will change it and we have a parliament to do that.

In other words, the old Soviet tactic of pointing out our faults should not be a way of avoiding debate. We all need to be open to criticism, because there is reason for criticism in every single country. There is no country on earth that can claim to be completely free of human rights problems. And that includes the Netherlands. The only attitude I can take as foreign minister is to say that we are always willing to listen to complaints and respond to them. And if we are corrected, we will accept it and act accordingly.

I want to raise another subject, which is now very topical. Do I accept the argument that human rights are a Western invention and a form of cultural imperialism? My answer is very simple. Human rights are something innate in ourselves, and I’m sure that everyone around the world, as an individual, would claim the same rights for themselves. But for a Dutch person to go and tell people elsewhere how they should behave because it involves human rights might play into the hands of those who are saying that this is a form of cultural imperialism, something alien to their culture. This is an example of what we see in Russia or Africa. Should we respond by giving up? Absolutely not. That would be unacceptable.

There are two relatively new ways of approaching the issue and improving the situation. In every single country there are extremely courageous individuals or groups standing up for human rights. It is our sacred duty to support those courageous people. One of my absolute priorities will be to support those human rights activists within their society and country. They are not subject to the reproach that they are not working within the cultural context because they are from that country and that region.

Let me mention a second approach that I think is very promising. We have partners in other parts of the world who perhaps present the case differently than we do and have different avenues for promoting these rights. I think I can achieve more on LGBT rights in certain African countries if I don’t speak out myself but help these activists and officials in South Africa or other countries to develop their thoughts and express themselves. They will not be seen as neo-colonialists or imperialists; they will be seen as partners.

The same applies in Latin America, where we see Brazil taking an active stance on human rights issues. I want to work with Brazil and other countries; they should be the drivers, and we should support their activities. I was recently in Indonesia, which is a challenge in all sorts of ways on human rights, but I do believe that the Indonesian government has a long-term vision of improving human rights.

Do we always agree with the pace? Do we always agree with the emphasis? No, but this is an important country in an important region, actively thinking about developing the rule of law, regional autonomy and human rights. I would be honoured to be part of that process. Not by telling them what to do, but by helping them in the areas where they want to expand their policies and by working with them in third countries whose societies they know better than we do. And perhaps we have certain human rights instruments that we can add to their toolbox.

Practice what you preach; use other forms of triangular cooperation; defend human rights activists; consider the position of women, which is so crucial to society; draw attention to the situation of LGBTIs. Why are these my priorities? Naturally, there are other subjects we address, but I have reasons why these particular subjects especially dear to me. First of all, these issues relate fundamentally to values that are broadly shared in Dutch society, and as a representative of that society, it is easier to be active in areas where I know Dutch society is passionately involved. We express the values that we share as a society. These values aren’t eternal. It took years of struggle to achieve this insight. And we are nowhere near the end of this development. We’ve reached a point in the Netherlands where we believe that men and women should be treated exactly the same. Admittedly, problems persist: in some instances women do not get equal pay for the same job. But by and large, we find it absolutely acceptable for women to be discriminated against. So we should stand for that position internationally.

We also believe that every individual has the right to choose who they want to love, whether it’s somebody of the same sex, or a different sex, or somebody who started out as one sex and is now a different one. That’s your freedom. The authorities should never be allowed to interfere with that choice. It’s a personal matter and one that we will fight for, worldwide. Our experiences in Europe over the past 15 or 20 years show that social changes that would have been deemed unthinkable are now everyday reality, even in southern Europe. So why not in Africa, Asia or Latin America? (Actually in Latin America, there are certain places that do allow same-sex marriage.) Of course, in Russia it will take longer. But I am not without hope that we can get this off the ground.

I’ve spoken to the LGBTI community in Moscow. They were of two minds. On the one hand, they were worried about developments that might occur as part of recent moves to redefine Russian-ness in a way that excluded gays. At the same time, in Moscow and St Petersburg they said they had observed a more relaxed attitude towards gays over the last couple of years. We should build on that and push back the idea that people should not be allowed to be who they are.

Socioeconomic rights is something else you mentioned. Why is this a contradiction for so many of you? You’ve read about the Cold War and the ideological confrontation of that period. I was brought up in that confrontation. And in those days we would have the same debate over and over, the same debate Putin is trying to engage in now: we would talk about civil and political rights, and they would react by saying, ‘Aha, but in our system you have socioeconomic rights: you can’t be fired, you always have a salary, you always have a home, etc. Those are the rights we champion.’ We were trapped in this dichotomy for too long, and today, too little attention is being paid to the question of socioeconomic rights in the world. Remnants still exist of the old dichotomy between East and West, when these categories of rights were pitted against each other.

And why should we leave this behind us? If you look at women’s rights, of course they entail civil and political rights, but in most parts of the world there is also a strong socioeconomic element: the right to own property, the right to inherit, the right to keep your job, the right go to school. These are also socioeconomic rights. Like the right not to be stripped of ownership when you divorce or when you’re rejected by your husband. It’s not just civil and political; it’s also socioeconomic. So I’m trying to redefine these things in terms of socioeconomic rights.

Another issue I would like to raise – and I really would like to hear your comments on this – is the need to change our instruments. New instruments exist. Not so long ago, some loony guy in Korea invented a weird dance. [laughter] Ah, the sound of recognition. Within a couple weeks it was a global phenomenon. This would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. This is thanks to the internet – Google, YouTube, etc. How will we put it to use for human rights? You tell me. I believe in the power of this instrument. Whatever authorities may try, it cannot be put under the full control of the state. There is an undeniable power you can generate by showing stuff on the internet and making it accessible to the whole world. But we need young people like you to think up ways of making sure that stories with human rights connotations are disseminated online so quickly they cannot be removed by oppressive regimes. We need to think about that. I believe that seeing is knowing, in this modern world. You can write 10 texts about human rights violations, but if you show images on television of a young man who was severely beaten on the streets of Paris for being gay, there will be an immediate outcry because people will feel his pain all the more strongly for having seen it. We need to use these instruments more than in the past, because we have them at our disposal. Maybe old farts like me aren’t clever enough to do that, but you have no excuse for not finding ways of spreading the word about human rights violations via new instruments.

I found this an inspiring session. It’s not just being here with you today; it’s also the reactions I got on the internet, on my Facebook page. Please join us. It’s an interesting community, with a lot of controversy. Sometimes people like you; then they hate you again. You know how it goes on the internet. Almost like real life, only a bit more intense. People feel less inhibited in expressing themselves. Do try and use those instruments. Create them yourselves. Human rights is a cause worth struggling for. It is a cause that will always create discomfort, not just when I talk to my Russian friends and colleagues. I often feel discomfort when I raise human rights issues, and it can be tempting to avoid the subject. We have a moral obligation to reflect on this feeling of discomfort. After all, what is my discomfort compared to the feelings of a young man who is beaten to a pulp in the streets of St Petersburg because some right-wing movement feels justified in their homophobia by the attitudes of the authorities? What is my discomfort compared to that? What is my discomfort in relation to the horrific story Angela just told us about what was happening to people in the Philippines? Nothing! All our collective discomfort should not stop us from doing this. I fully believe this.

But of course, the Netherlands can’t do this on its own. I see a tendency in the European Union that worries me. Members say, ‘We now have a Special Representative for Human Rights and Cathy Ashton. Let them deal with the issue. Yes, please, Cathy! Go to Russia and talk to them about human rights, so we don’t have to.’ That is a very worrying development, and we should take a stand against it. Our efforts will only work if we all convey the same message in the same way all the time. And we cannot put Cathy Ashton or Herman van Rompuy or the Special Representative in the awkward position of having to do our dirty work. This is something I will fight for within the group of foreign ministers of the European Union. At the end of the day, my colleagues and I can only do this if there is strong public support for human rights. Please, if I could ask you one thing at the end of my speech, I would ask everyone here to talk to at least 10 people in the next couple of days about the importance of human rights and why you personally believe human rights are important. Your reasons may be completely different from mine. It doesn’t matter. Spread the word. As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said, ‘Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.’