Our world is as dangerous now as it was during the cold war. Only a common commitment to human rights values can bring a lasting solution, writes Seán Love
In 1948, in a united global effort to ensure that the brutality and inhumanity of the second World War would never happen again, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlined the framework of a new world order founded on four fundamental freedoms: freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Regrettably, as we approach the declaration's 60th anniversary, the overwhelming message from Amnesty International's 2007 annual report is that powerful governments, repressive states and terrorist groups are deliberately using the politics of fear to erode human rights and create a dangerously divided world.
Our world now is as polarised as it was at the height of the cold war, and in many ways is far more dangerous. The agenda is driven by fear - instigated, encouraged and sustained by unprincipled leaders. This agenda erodes the rule of law, increases inequality, feeds racism and xenophobia, divides communities and sows the seeds for more conflict.
So, why do some leaders promote fear?
Because it allows them to consolidate their own power, create false certainties and escape accountability.
President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has played on racial fears to push his own political agenda of grabbing land for his supporters. President al-Bashir of Sudan has blocked the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur by claiming it would be a pretext for an Iraq style US-led invasion, while his militia has continued to kill and rape in Darfur with impunity.
President Bush has invoked fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power without congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny. The Howard government of Australia portrayed desperate asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to Australia's national security.
This increasing polarisation has strengthened the hand of fundamentalist and extremist groups and others who have always feared the powerful appeal of human rights. We have seen bomb attacks targeting civilians in Turkey; an escalation in sectarian and political violence by armed groups in Iraq; armed groups forcibly recruiting children in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC); armed groups bombing Muslim and Buddhist civilians in Thailand.
No right is sacrosanct. How far are powerful governments willing to go? No one is safe when governments use or excuse torture. Yet the US is attempting to legalise this abuse. European skies - including Ireland's - are criss-crossed by flights illegally transferring prisoners to known torturing states, and the US president has admitted to secret CIA detention centres.
The corrosive nature of the so-called "war on terror" has been exposed by secret "renditions" of suspected terrorists to known torturing states such as Egypt, Jordan and Syria. This murky multilateral conspiracy involved a range of European, Middle Eastern and north African governments, facilitating abuses and undermining the universal ban on torture.
The failure of governments to reject torture has undermined their moral authority and ability to challenge such abuse in states where torture took place during 2006, such as Algeria, China, Iran, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Russia.
No one is safe. In Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, all combatants breach international humanitarian law. In Afghanistan, government administrators, teachers and human rights defenders face violent attacks, sometimes leading to death, by the Taliban and local warlords.
In Colombia, the crisis continues with the army-backed paramilitaries and guerrilla groups responsible for many abuses, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Old fashioned" repression has gained a new lease of life. Journalists are persecuted in China, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Iran, and newspapers closed down. In many African countries, anti-terror and public order laws have restricted dissent, particularly in Burundi, DRC, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Free speech has come under increasing threat in many liberal democracies because of the ever-widening net of counter-terrorism law and policies. The severe clampdown on civil society continues in Belarus. In Russia, new legislation has given the authorities powers to restrict the activities of NGOs, while the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya sent a chilling message to anyone daring to speak out on what is happening in Chechnya.
European states have disregarded the rights of refugees and migrants, adopting repressive approaches to irregular migration that include forcible detention and expulsion without access to fair and individualised asylum procedures. In the context of the "war on terror", governments have violated their international obligations by returning people to countries where they may face serious human rights violations, including torture.
Racism and intolerance have been fed by fears of uncontrolled migration and by counter-terrorism strategies targeting Arabs, Asians and Muslims.
Incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism have become increasingly evident.
The editorial in this newspaper yesterday describing the scale of the suffering in Darfur highlighted the failure of international leadership, with its consequent neutralising of the UN.
Is there any solution? The single most significant sign of hope for transforming the human rights landscape is the human rights movement itself - millions of people worldwide who are demanding change. Ordinary people possess the ability to create huge change. A massive campaign by civil society organisations in 2006 moved the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution to begin work on a legally binding global arms trade treaty.
Drawing on such example, this means we must all reject the fear syndrome and speak out in defence of our human rights, which provide the basis for a sustainable future.
Only a common commitment based on the shared values of human rights can lead to a sustainable solution. In an interdependent world, global challenges of poverty or security or of migration or marginalisation demand responses based on human rights to bring people together and promote our collective wellbeing. World leaders must reject the use of fear and the sponsoring of dictatorships and abusive regimes for reasons of political and strategic convenience. History shows that supporting repressive regimes and arming dictators is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
Governments cannot ignore their human rights footprint. They must reject the politics of fear and invest in human rights institutions and the rule of law at national and international level.
• Seán Loveis director of Amnesty International's Irish section