UN Human Rights Council Passes “Traditional Values” Resolution

The General Assembly resolution that established the Human Rights Council back in 2006 decided “that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner” (A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, operative paragraph 2).

But On Friday 2 October, the Council took no account of human rights law when states adopted a resolution in support of “traditional values”.

The full title of the adopted resolution is “Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through a better understanding of traditional values of humankind.” Just a few days previously, when Russia, the main sponsor of the resolution, tabled the draft, the title finished with the stipulation that “traditional values of humankind” should be “in conformity with international human rights law”.  

This promotion of traditional values without taking account of human rights law is very disturbing and something we need to be factor into future strategies.

In explaining their position on the resolution, several states commented on Russia’s refusal to provide a definition for “traditional values” in the resolution. Working on this resolution we had looked for references to “traditional values” in human rights standards, outcome documents of the world conferences, resolutions from the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council (and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights), human rights treaty monitoring bodies, independent experts (the UN Special Rapporteurs), and other UN sources. We didn’t find many references.

What is there in abundance is documentation on violations of human rights arising from harmful traditional practices. We compiled these sources and pointed out that previous UN resolutions from the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and its predecessor the Commission on Human Rights, on rights of the Child, the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, and violence against women have addressed the threat posed by harmful traditional practices to human rights.

The “traditional values” resolution is tabled under item 8 of the Council’s agenda, which is entitled “Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action”. Paragraph 38 of that Programme of Action imposes upon States a positive obligation to work towards the elimination of “the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices, cultural prejudices and religious extremism”.

But states supporting the draft resolution were adamant in the informal negotiating meetings that traditional values and traditional practices were separate. Thus something like slavery – one example suggested by one state trying to square the draft with human rights – could be condemned as a negative practice and human rights violation, and that rendered it apparently irrelevant to the noble intentions of the draft resolution. However, they fail to recognize that slavery is based on a value that suggests some persons are superior to others.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, in its Fact Sheet No.23 on Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children, describes the dangers of this link between some of these values and practices. It states: “Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practising them.”

So a resolution that we had lobbied against was adopted. It becomes another development that we will need to monitor closely, to counter any efforts to build on this fairly basic text with more explicitly restrictive provisions. But there is good news in what happened last Friday morning in Geneva too.

The resolution was adopted by a vote, not by consensus as Russia had wanted. Consensus is always more powerful, but in this case it is arguably necessary. Of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council, 21 did not sign up to this endorsement of “a common set of values that belong to humankind in its entirety” (from the preamble of the resolution). So, not such a common set of values, then? South Korea commented that bringing the resolution to a vote contradicted Russia’s stated goal when they introduced this initiative, which was to broaden the consensus base for human rights.

And the voting pattern gives us some good news and provides useful insights for future strategies.

There was cross-regional opposition to the resolution. It was Norway, not an EU state, who called for the vote on the resolution. And Chile, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, and South Korea opposed it, along with the EU and the USA. Mexico spoke strongly against it in their explanation of vote, expressing concern that the resolution could introduce cultural relativism.

Argentina, Brazil, Ghana and Uruguay were amongst those states that abstained. It is disappointing that Argentina and Brazil chose to abstain, as those two delegations had strongly opposed the draft resolution at the June session. If you listen to Argentina’s explanation of vote (available in the video archives for 2 October on the Human Rights Council website at http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=091002), it strongly suggests a “no” vote: Argentina states that they could not support an initiative in which “traditional values” were referred to for the first time, without clarifying what exactly was meant under that term. So next time out we need to pay more attention to these MERCOSUR countries.

Ghana abstained. Together with Mauritius’ vote against the resolution, that broke any block vote of African countries in favour of the resolution – something that was said to be in place at the time of the June session.

Also positive is that even states who did not vote against the resolution made clear in their explanations of vote that this resolution should not be used to justify human rights violations. Senegal, who voted in favour, stated its commitment to the universality and interdependence of human rights. It added “taking into account such values should in no way, shape or form jeopardise the principles that we have adopted in the sphere of human rights”. Bolivia also voted in favour but emphasised that in no case would it accept that traditional values included acts that are contrary to human rights. Ukraine abstained and stated that it “strongly objects to any attempts to substitute them by those national traditional values or regional particularities which run contrary to the universally recognised human values and the very essence of the body of human rights and fundamental freedoms established in contemporary international human rights law.”

It is also interesting that Bolivia cited its Indigenous Peoples as a rationale for supporting the resolution. Most of the positive references to tradition to be found in UN human rights sources relate to the human rights of Indigenous Peoples. The preamble to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), far from recourse to common values, reaffirms diversity, namely “the commitment of the international community to ensure their enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value and diversity of [Indigenous Peoples’] cultures and identities”.

Given all of this, were we wrong to be so concerned about the resolution? It does, after all, only call for the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights to convene a workshop. Were we, as Cuba accused in its general comment after vote, guilty of holding preconceived notions against the resolution, instead of approaching it with an open mind? The proceedings themselves gave us strong grounds for concern.  Indonesia stepped up to remind us that the resolution really did have a particular view of tradition, stating that “traditional family values…serve an important good and solid foundation in the strengthening of human rights principles and norms.”

The workshop will provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate that traditional, or any other, values cannot be invoked in any way that is inconsistent with human rights law. There are really knowledgeable experts who will be vital voices to have at the workshop, along with good representation from civil society.

Russia and the 28 other sponsors of the resolution refused to reaffirm that no state has the right to invoke traditional values to counter, limit or avoid their obligations to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.  This resolution never belonged in the Human Rights Council. And at the workshop in 2010 we need to be ready to prove that.