The Rule of Law and Human Rights
- By Konstantin Dolgov
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, September 13, 2013
Dear colleagues,
I am grateful to our Chinese partners for the invitation to the 6th Beijing Forum on Human Rights, an authoritative and representative annual event, which is a good platform for professional discussion of relevant human rights issues.
This year, the organizers of the forum have chosen as its main theme the "Creation of the Environment for Sustainable Development of Human Rights". This theme is multifaceted. I will try to approach it using the practical experience in the field of human rights that I have acquired as the Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
First of all, I would like to say a few words about the sphere of my activities. This post is relatively new in the Russian Foreign Ministry. It was created in April 2011 in accordance with the decision of the President of the Russian Federation in order to reinforce the activities of our country aimed at upholding the principles of universality of human rights and non-selective and depoliticized approach to their promotion everywhere. The Commissioner of the Russian Foreign Ministry is responsible for systematic monitoring of the fulfillment of human rights in various countries around the world, the process of their democratic development, the implementation of the principle of the rule of law.
Currently, the Commissioner of the Russian Foreign Ministry has prepared several special reports on the human rights situation in a number of states around the world. The first report was published in December 2011, the next – on the situation of human rights in the United States – in October 2012, and the report on ensuring human rights in the European Union was released in December.
Probably, someone will be wondering, why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is paying increased attention to human rights situation in countries that position themselves as models of democracy and seemingly do not require special attention from the international community. The answer to this question is simple. Contrary to the image which these countries actively promote, they have serious human rights problems, including systemic ones, that require comprehensive solutions. And if we proceed from an understanding that human rights are universal values, then they must be respected by all members of the international community without exception. Therefore, by attracting international attention to these issues we hope to encourage the governments of the respective countries to search for the solutions required and not to hush up these problems, as it often happens now.
Unfortunately, what we are witnessing now in the human rights situation demonstrates the growing trend to politicize this sphere, first of all by the Western states. Many of them use, without any retouching, human rights in order to promote their own national and geopolitical interests in various states and regions, interfere in the policy of sovereign states and even change undesirable regimes. To this end, flawed concepts are being invented, such as the "responsibility to protect" and "humanitarian intervention", to justify the illegal and arbitrary use of military force under the pretext of protecting civilians and their rights.
We all remember the cause of the tragic events connected with the use of force against the former Yugoslavia. Then, the civilians were similarly "protected" in Iraq and Libya. Lately, a number of Western capitals, especially Washington, are threatening Syria with their readiness to attack that country in order to protect the civilians, who suffered from the alleged use of chemical weapons by the SAR government.
The illustrative examples of such "protection" are still seen in Afghanistan where hundreds of civilians, including women and children, are killed by drone and air strikes. The "defenders" of civilians cynically call such killings a "collateral damage". This term was invented to cover up the most flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. We strongly condemn the principle itself underlying the approach taken by the proponents of such theories: "protection" of civilians despite the additional and sometimes even greater damage incurred by them.
The practice of double standards in human rights is a significant obstacle, preventing the establishment of a constructive and mutually respectful international cooperation on relevant issues of human rights agenda. We all still remember the recently revealed facts of mass electronic surveillance, which was carried out in the framework of the PRISM program by the U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, under the pretext of combating terrorism.
These facts can be considered as nothing else but the invasion of citizens' privacy, which is protected by the Constitution in most countries, including the United States. The fight against terrorism is an important challenge faced by the international community. However, this fight must be conducted with respect for international human rights obligations.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)