| JOHANNESBURG--"Now
what is the problem with that?" asked Diana
Bronson grumpily, pointing at proposed--but as
of yet unapproved--human rights language in the
draft final document of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD).
Actually
Bronson, of Rights & Democracy in Montreal, Canada,
wasn't at all grumpy until a nosey Parker reporter
asked how the human rights struggle was going in
the Johannesburg summit.
In fact she was downright chipper after
having walked nine kilometers from the
slums of Alexandra Township to Sandton
Conference Center (SCC) to protest the
lack of progress on human rights. The
demonstration went well and peaceably,
and without any hint of violence.
But when asked about the proposed language,
her mood changed.
"It is threatened in all the key
paragraphs," she said.
For example she said, paragraph 5 reads--with
the bracketed part as yet unapproved:
"Peace,
security, stability [and the respect
for human rights and cultural
diversity] are essential for achieving
sustainable development and ensuring
that sustainable development benefits
all."
The way
she asked the question, "what
'the hell' is the problem with that?" was
implied, though not spoken.
She also
pointed to paragraph 121 which reads,
in one version: "promoting
the rule of law as well as respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms,
and the strengthening of governmental
institutions and links among them," and
said the diplomats were trying to drop
the bits about human rights and freedoms.
The attempt
to drop the human rights language,
she said, "completely
perverts the originally intention of
the paragraph and is absolutely unacceptable
to human rights around the world." If
successful, she said, "It will constitute
a huge failure."
"If we marginalize human rights
in this conference, it really threatens
not only the human rights of the people
of the world, but the integrity of the
United Nations itself," she said.
And the by now thoroughly grumpy Bronson
walked some more, to dinner.
|
