A year ago we were speculating about what the new millennium would hold for the world. Yesterday was the first Human Rights Day of the century and is thus an opportunity to look at how things have started out, to take stock of where we stand and consider the prospects for human rights in the period ahead.
At first glance there is little ground for optimism. The century has got off to a depressing start: many gross violations were committed while no real progress was made to close the huge gap between wealthy and developing countries.
If we try to conjure up the enduring images of the year 2000, mostly negative pictures spring to mind. Two shocking images came from the Middle East: a young Palestinian boy cowering behind his father and then shot dead before our eyes; the body of a brutally murdered Israeli soldier thrown from a window.
And what of the missing images, of the violations which continue but which are no longer highlighted? We know deep down that civilians continue to be injured and killed in the innumerable conflicts that disfigure our world. We know the grim plight of the Chechen people as winter comes on. We know the dreadful toll of lives which the AIDS pandemic is taking in Africa, far from our view.
Not all impressions of the past year have been negative. The pictures of the people of former Yugoslavia insisting that their democratic wishes be respected heartened many, as did the growing evidence of rapprochement between North and South Korea. The peace process in Northern Ireland has been shaken more than once but remains on track.
One image which will stay with me is that of Cathy Freeman raising the Olympic flame in Sydney: a powerful symbol of changing attitudes towards minorities. But, in a way, the image of Cathy Freeman sums up the challenge we face in championing human rights: symbols are important but governments must deliver with real improvements, protection and preventive measures to ensure human rights for all.
THE hope that a new century would mean a radical new start in instilling respect for human rights has not as yet been fulfilled. Seeing first hand the human rights situation this year in Chechnya, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo has brought home to me forcefully the challenges we face.
The most troubling impression from my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was of two peoples, linked by history and geography but separated by a wide and growing gap in their perceptions of each other. What I heard was essentially two different narratives with one side preoccupied - understandably - by security concerns and the other suffering the daily humiliation of the petty discriminations and powerlessness of occupation, now aggravated by excessive use of force against them.
I have recommended the introduction of some form of international monitoring presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to help break the daily cycle of violence - with funerals on both sides - and encourage the resumption of dialogue.
I am convinced that the way to a peaceful, stable future for the Middle East is that all involved conform to the requirements of international human rights and humanitarian law. But that raises the essence of the challenge in every region of the world: to embed a culture of human rights through human rights education and training; to support capacity building directed to rule of law and justice systems; to ensure implementation at national level of the international human rights norms and standards - far more priority needs to be given to this, including more resources and better co-ordination of efforts between the UN agencies and programmes and regional organisations.
We also need to put more emphasis on preventing human rights violations before they occur. There have been many calls for this. I am convinced this is where our efforts should be directed and would mention four areas where I see scope for improvement.
Perhaps the most positive human rights development in 50 years has been the widespread agreement by governments to accept a sophisticated set of international human rights standards.
This year further progress was made. States lined up at the Millennium Summit in New York to ratify core human rights treaties. As a result, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women will enter into force this month. There was also strong support for the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child - on child soldiers and the sale of children.
The greater challenge is to see these norms implemented at national level. Governments may be reluctant to implement for the wrong reasons; but there may also be a lack of capacity to do so - and that is where my office can play a positive role.
An example is China. Last month in Beijing I signed a Memorandum of Understanding on technical co-operation with China in the field of human rights. I urged the Chinese authorities to ratify the two UN Covenants on civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights. China has a long way to go before it can be said that a true culture of human rights exists, but I believe that this agreement to co-operate with my office is a step forward and can be built on.
THERE is a growing awareness of the importance of the right to development and the realisation of rights through development. Just a few years ago, the language of human rights was unwelcome in development work. On the rare occasions it was mentioned it was often in the context of conditionalities, trade-offs or vague generalities.
Happily, this changed. This year's UN Human Development Report is devoted to human rights and human development. A new dialogue is taking place between development and human rights experts, enriched by Amartya Sen's work on capability rights. This approach recognises that human rights and human development are mutually reinforcing.
As concern about the disparity in benefits from globalisation has deepened, so too has the trend emerged to raise questions about the impact of globalisation on the enjoyment of human rights. Indeed, I believe international human rights could provide part of the "rules of the road" to guide policy decisions which influence and shape what we call globalisation. In 1998 we marked the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed the universality and indivisibility of human rights. Over the coming years we will need to connect those principles with the reality of implementing economic and social rights by effective strategies to eliminate extreme poverty.
In my view that it is the most constructive response that can be made to the protesters at Prague, Seattle and elsewhere, who see the international economic order as being weighted against the poorer countries, and development policy as taking insufficient account of the human dimension.
Accountability is a powerful preventive instrument. It sends a clear signal that people who are guilty of gross human rights violations will not enjoy impunity but will be called to account for their crimes. The first duty of responsibility rests with national authorities. That was why I urged, and continue to urge the Russian authorities to respond in a credible manner to the allegations of serious human rights abuses in Chechnya.
Where domestic law and order have broken down, or where the competent authorities are unwilling to take action in the face of abuses, there is an urgent need to apply the principle of international responsibility for crimes. If serious human rights violations are not addressed and a climate of impunity exists, the effect will be to stoke the fires of long-term social, political and other conflict. The Pinochet case, including the most recent decision of the court in Chile, has sent a powerful message that impunity will no longer be tolerated.
Hence the need to bring into effect the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute is a historic achievement, establishing for the first time a universal framework to end impunity for the most serious crimes under international law. The statute is also a major step forward, in that for the first time a major multilateral treaty codifies certain acts as war crimes when committed in non-international armed conflict. The International Criminal Court should be established as soon as possible so it can begin its work in helping to prevent future violations of human rights and humanitarian law. At this point there have been 116 signatures and 23 ratifications, while 60 ratifications are needed to bring it into effect.
A unique opportunity will present itself next year to address the issues of racism and xenophobia, issues at the root of so many conflicts within and between societies. Racial assaults and murders, attacks on synagogues throughout Europe, the rise of racist attitudes and support for far-right parties - all are proof that racism remains a potent force in society. Next September the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance will be held in Durban, South Africa. The conference should be the occasion to devise new strategies to combat the evils of racism, but I believe it can be more: it can be an occasion to focus on an inclusive approach to national identity which sees diversity as strength and tolerance as the basis for social cohesion.
The success of the World Conference will be measured by whether it produces a renewed determination to combat racism. Over the coming months it must become a people's World Conference, energising young people, women - particularly on issues of gender and race - minorities, indigenous peoples, religious leaders, trade unionists, journalists, academics and the international human rights community as a whole.
My aim is to see a ringing declaration and a realistic programme of action with a review mechanism. The World Conference will be a good test of governments' willingness to match ideals with action.
Mary Robinson is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights