Mrs Mary Robinson's decision to stand down as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is disappointing but understandable. She has sharply contrasted the high rhetoric on the subject with the failure to give her office sufficient resources to carry out its increasingly comprehensive mandate. She has contrasted her preferred role as an outspoken advocate of human rights with the constraints that a multilateral organisation inevitably imposes. Her conclusion that she has more to offer outside the UN system is honourable and courageous. But perhaps she should have realised more clearly that it would take at least two terms to build up the office to the point where there is a better balance between aspirations for more universal and rounded realisations of human rights and the political realities which frustrate them. That has been the working assumption of the human rights organisations and the governments - not least the Irish Government - that have steadfastly supported Mrs Robinson's appointment and subsequent work. They are disappointed because it will be difficult to match the progress she has made. The Government now faces into the bulk of its term on the UN Security Council without her as an ally on its own important human rights agenda.
The progress she made has been considerable and the office has a much higher profile within the international system as a result of her work. She found the introduction to the UN's bureaucratic world bewildering in its complexity and frustrating in its duplicitous diplomacy. She was slow to adapt and made several political mistakes as a result. But she did learn from these, to the point where her recent exchanges with Russia over Chechnya and China over its human rights failures were better focussed - and therefore more difficult for these countries to ignore. Mrs Robinson has also made a substantial intellectual contribution to the policy debates on human rights within the UN system. Her emphasis on the right to development and on economic and social rights, found a ready response among developing states.
Her commitment to the classical liberal repertoire of civil and political rights could not be questioned by big powers such as the United States which are so reluctant to move beyond them to widen the agenda in the ways she has advocated. Necessarily, that is long-term work. Her conclusion that she has a greater contribution to make as a forceful external advocate than as the most influential internal participant in the debate, has surprised those impressed with how effectively she managed to give voice to her agenda. It is not as easy to question Mrs Robinson's frustration over the failure to provide adequate resources for her office and staff to carry out their work. Short-term contracts, budgetary sidelining and political intrigue by states opposed to her policies, all contributed to that. This is the common currency of international politics. Mrs Robinson may feel personally satisfied she has had enough of it, but this should not be taken as conclusive evidence that her efforts have been defeated. On the contrary, they have advanced the human rights agenda. It is welcome news that she will continue to add her eloquent voice and mind to those concerns when she leaves this office.