The Flawed Side of Human Rights Advocacy

By Jennifer Tapia Boada.

23 January 2020, Geneva.

Landmark Event in Bolivia

I was living in Switzerland when the former president of my home country, Bolivia, publicly resigned on national television, amidst unrest unleashed by a fraudulent election; and he then immediately travelled, or some say escaped, to Mexico with the purpose of seeking political asylum. 

The case was by far the most covered Latin American event of the second semester of the year 2019 by media outlets. Some ill-intentioned people, most likely, not Bolivians, dared to call what happened as a “Coup d’état”, without having clarity of neither the definition of a Coup, nor being completely honest with what happened in Bolivia in reality.

Nevertheless, the debate about whether what happened in Bolivia was a Coup or a Fraudulent Election would require a separate, very well informed, dedicated research composed of inputs by Bolivian people. However, the public opinion about the events in Bolivia reached the nerves of the majority of its population because little were those opinions based on real facts but malicious slander, and the manipulative use of the human rights rhetoric.

Working for the Human Rights Council mechanism

By that time, I had worked on the human rights advocacy field for three years, writing, researching, and drafting statements to read before the Human Rights Council, a UN specialised subsidiary body based in Geneva.

I must admit that coming from very far away lands while working on the human rights platform in Geneva, I also dared to publicly take positions against other countries in the Middle East, and therefore governments, of which my knowledge, I realise nowadays, was and will always be limited. I published press releases, delivered oral statements before the Human Rights Council, organised advocacy side events, and truly believed in what I was defending. Of course, I had good intentions like most human rights advocates.

After some time in which I worked on this field and especially after the events that took place in Bolivia, I concluded that the methodology employed in the advocacy arena by human rights advocates, delegates, or so-called “experts” is, firstly to focus on one side of the story which corresponds to their political alignment, then and only then shall the “vulnerable group” they want to defend can be identified…so the advocacy work starts.

But during the first year in which I undertook research and human rights advocacy for civil society organisations, little was I aware of the true essence of global politics, regional hegemonies, bipolarity theories, proxy wars, hidden agendas and political interference into the human rights system or even governments-promoted retaliation against human rights defenders!

It was not until years later, when I worked for a government at the Human Rights Council, that I realised that even civil society organisations and media companies owe their existence and funding to politics. How naïve was I before? I suppose the international system does a good job at hiding how politicised it came to be, at least for those who scratch it only at the surface.

I still remember how some State representatives from highly controversial governments on human rights matters at the Human Rights Council sessions repeated time after time the issue of the “politicisation of human rights”, “the use of human rights as a political instrument”, and some kept repeating about the “principle of non-interference in internal affairs”. 

Basically and among other things, these countries argued that some powerful States, usually referring to western allies, might use international mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council to harm their reputation, impede their good governance, and interfere in the internal affairs of such countries, thereby overstepping on their sovereignty.

The more States used this argument when faced with human rights violations allegations, the more it became clear to me that the words “State sovereignty“ somehow became a shield behind which governments can rest. Hence it may be considered by scholars in plenty of literature as an obstacle for the international human rights system to be able to effectively protect universal human rights.

Although State sovereignty is supposed to be a positive concept that protects small States from different types of foreign aggression, one can see that such concept can be evoked conveniently both for good and not so good ends, especially regarding States’ obligation to protect, respect and fulfil human rights.

The International Human Rights System

When I started working in Geneva and learning about the International Human Rights System, I was amazed by the existence of so many independent experts, special rapporteurs, working groups and experts composing the human rights Treaty Bodies, which have such a leverage on the human rights system and the evolution of international human rights law.

Because I read that these experts do not make any salary out of their work, the first conclusion I made up is that they are indeed independent, impartial, with no political alignment whatsoever, and that they must have gone through a very competitive and strict procedure to be elected and of course to reach that very prestigious point in life. Yet again, I was naïve.

After some time, I landed a job at the intergovernmental sphere. During this time, I become intrigued by the cynical lobby that all 193 Member States composing the United Nations undertake through reaching reciprocal support agreements among States on the candidates they nominate for these positions, to win the elections and therefore gain more State leverage from inside Subsidiary Bodies, Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies at the Human Rights System. 

The CVs and years of experience on the human rights field of these candidates seem to matter nothing compared to the good relations they have with their governments to be nominated, and the amount of energy that their nominating States put at the international level on the lobby and reaching those mutual agreements.

Of course, this is a legit and common practice, and most people who have worked at the multilateral level are aware of it. However, until these days, it still surprises me. It was such a disappointment to see how those experts who had reached those positions were there through the direct nomination of governments and political influences.

Consequently, after my first-hand experience on this type of lobby of good relations among States, and after seeing how all of that can influence the composition of the United Nations human rights bodies, I dare to say that the human rights system as we know it, is the first entity that is “interfered” by politics, needing and urgent cleansing where CVs are actually analysed and independent experts are indeed independent and are indeed experts.

Human Rights Civil Society Organizations

I felt more naïvely passionate when the human rights illusion was not yet torn and I worked for civil society organisations. It was a time in which I freely wrote, researched, spoke up, and truly believed that human rights advocacy was politically-free and filled with good intentions.  Without a doubt, I realise now that I was the one who was politically-free and filled with good intentions embarking into the human rights field.

When I reached the governmental level at the Human Rights Council, I understood finally about the big influence that non-governmental organisations have on the work of the Human Rights Council and therefore on International Human Rights Law. It was also a time in which I realised that there were probably not many NGOs based in Geneva which did not receive financing and support from at least one government. I keep asking myself, are there so-called “non-governmental organisations”, which are NOT related to governments, advocating at the Human Rights Council?.

While the space granted for civil society is imperative at the Council, mechanisms should be put in place by the United Nations to guarantee that these organisations are not mere political instruments of governments to do... politics, instead of advocacy, and make sure that these are a real representation of civil society and vulnerable populations.

I used to attend a weekly meet up of a voluntary human rights advocacy group at the international neighbourhood of Geneva, to discuss human rights abuses involving excessive use of force on demonstrations around the world. From that moment on, during my time as a self-proclaimed human rights advocate, I wrote and researched a lot about the excessive use of force by governments during demonstrations.

My approach to it was very clear: there was something deeply wrong with the power imbalance there exists in so-called internal affairs, between people composing national governments, in comparison with ordinary people on the streets. To me, this power-imbalanced system is the one root cause of governments becoming dictatorial and extremely abusive towards targeted populations, because they tend to centralise all power by controlling telecommunications, basic services, social security benefits, press, content on social media, and they have excessive control over public servants, including the security forces of the State, and of course State resources.

Are the Armed Forces a tool for facilitating dictatorships?

Coming from this background, I found it marvellous and amazing what happened in my home country with the armed forces, and I considered this event as a human rights lesson for all the governments in the world. The armed forces of Bolivia, despite all attempts of bribery and threats by the government, had united against a dictatorial strive to never leave power. For the first time did the armed forces do what it was right, what many peoples throughout history would have wished their armed forces did during horrid past civil wars.

The armed forces refused to repress massive and peaceful demonstrators, who were already marred by illegally armed government militias on the streets. The armed forcesn refused to defend the abusive and to repress those who were defending democracy and the constitutional rule of law.

After this, I found it excessively hypocritical that those self-proclaimed human rights advocates or experts with, in many cases, solid human rights background, would not want to understand how the fact that security forces refused to unjustly repress a massive defence for democracy undoubtedly constitutes a human rights lesson for abusive governments, especially for those who illegally intend to stay in power forever.

Anyway...

But then again, the lesson I gained from all the time I was submerged into the human rights arena until this day, is that on this particular field, albeit there are plenty of international standards and norms, subjectivity inevitably plays a major role, most likely steaming from political interests, underlying agendas and the interference of the system itself.