Communication and Human Rights: A Challenge We Cannot Refuse

Since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, every individual can appeal to international law for the protection of his or her rights, but he or she can also be held responsible for violations of human rights standards. The recognition of individual rights under international law was thus linked with the notion that individuals also have duties and obligations (Hamelink, 1995). The protection of internationally adopted human rights acquired a fundamentally new significance: the protection of human dignity was no longer predominantly a national affair but was put on the UN agenda.

The ideals set forth in the UDHR and in many human rights covenants, treaties, and other standards that have been adopted in the last 50 years explicitly state that human rights are universal. In the years before the adoption of the human right to development in December 1986, there was already a strong UN support for both the indivisibility of human rights, that is, the interdependence of human rights, peace, and development, and for conditions regarding the formulation of an international development strategy.

Van Boven (1982) argued that the interdependence of human rights, peace, and development means that 'free-dom from fear and freedom from want' lies at the heart of the concept of both human rights and political freedoms. 'The importance of economic, social and cultural rights and their indivisible and interdependent relationship with civil and political rights have been repeatedly affirmed by UN organs. In resolution 32/130 (adopted on 16 December 1977), the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) already emphasized that 'all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible and interdependent.'

In 1993 the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna formally confirmed the indivisibility of human rights. Reflecting on this Conference, Kooijmans (1994), the then Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated that not a single government could afterwards deny that there is agreement on what are and what are not human rights. 'More than a hundred and seventy countries agreed, and thus the long and fruitless debates on priorities can be considered concluded. From civil and political rights to development, an agenda on rights was agreed.' The unanimously adopted declaration reaffirms the solemn commitment of all states to fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, other instruments relating to human rights, and international law. Although the universal validity of human rights has been a contentious issue for some time, the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question (Hamelink, 1995).

Although the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community, dictatorial state authorities in many TWCs are unwilling to yield power over their citizens on the one hand. On the other, the so-called donors' 'reluctance' to criticize unlawful domestic affairs because of their own economic interests in some TWCs is still dominant and stands squarely in the way of a universal respect for human rights (Hamelink, 1995). The rivalry between international protection of human rights and international economic relations has been an especially sensitive issue for quite some time now and is still of special importance with regard to the indivisibility of human rights and the implementation of the right to development (Van Boven, 1982, Van Dijk, 1980, IPS 1993).

The right to development

The point of departure for the definition of the right to development lies in the principles of equality and solidarity: a greater equity in prosperity between nations and a greater equality between people within a nation (Van Dijk, 1980). The first part of the definition - a greater equi-ty in prosperity between nations - should aim at the implementation of the second aspect: a greater equality be-tween people within a nation. Art. 2 of the UN Declaration of the Right to Development considers the individual as a central subject of development and as an active participant in the development process; Art. 3 points to the compulsory co-operation between states, both in ensuring development and in removing barriers to development; and Art. 4 points to the character and the direction of relations (division of rights, duties and obligations) between developing countries and international co-operation, as a supplement to the efforts by developing countries themselves and as an essential ingredient of international co-operation.

The right to development should aim at enhancing other human rights through the elaboration of claims derived by nations and peoples into clear guidelines for nations. These guidelines aim at a more effective attuning of rights and obligations of nations and peoples according to Articles 25, 28, and 29 of the UDHR.

Rights and obligations of partners in development

The universal and indivisible nature of human rights and the fundamental principles underlying them could be instrumental towards constituting a human rights framework for the design of (communication) development policies. According to Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Right to Development this framework should contain the following conditions for rights and obligations for all partners at different levels in development co-operation:

The rights and obligations of individuals (people) as partners in development. First and foremost these concern the co-responsibility of the people in the country itself for accomplishing the implementation of core human rights for the population as a whole. It has been recognized that the needs seen by the society's leaders may not always correspond to the needs felt by the people. On the basis of their right to self-determination it is up to the people to decide how economic growth and their own development are to be achieved. This is the only warranty that governmental policies are not dictated by pure selfishness to keep a particular regime in power or to safeguard the position of a privileged group in the country.

The rights and obligations of donor agencies as partners in development. In case of a justified incapacity to implement core human rights, the government is entitled to apply to the member states for development assistance (principle of solidarity). Countries that claim the right to development from other states and international organisations, however, may at the same time have to accept the right of the partner(s) to demand a warranty that the country concerned recognises and implements the right to development by directing development assistance to the most deprived of its population as a priority (principle of equality). The claiming of this right to development and the obligation of the receiving government should share the same normative basis, which limits the fundamental human rights principle of liberty in its dimensions on sovereignty, self-determination and of non-interference.

The rights and obligations of the international community as partners in development. Implementation of the core rights has to be assessed objectively by the international community. For that reason it is important to distinguish between core human rights and other human rights; not as a fundamental distinction but for its practical implications (De Waart, 1985).

Human rights and communication

The MacBride Report (1980) considered the principle of free expression as the most important human right and stated that this freedom right implies three specific principles: the right to impart and publish news and information, the right to seek and to obtain information, and the right to be informed. In recent reviews of the status of human rights, the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and political participation, have been judged as representative core human rights, on the basis of the frequency of their occurrence in various human rights documents. This upgrading has led scholars to call for the original human right of freedom of expression and information to be expanded into a human right to communicate.

As with the right to development, the right to communicate implies rights and obligations at several levels: individual, institutional, and collective (international). At the individual level it means the right to inform and to be informed, the protection of privacy, freedom of movement, the right of assembly, freedom of opinion and expression, and unhampered access to information. At the institutional level it means the right to publish, unhampered access to sources of information, and the maintenance of professional secrecy. At the collective level it means the right to a free and balanced flow of information, the right to the preservation of cultural integrity, the right to cultural exchange, and the right of reply (Servaes, 1988).

Interactive and people-centred communication

Innovations in communication technology, in addition to driving economic globalization, have transformed the media world and the spread of information, with important consequences for national as well as global governance. Since the beginning of radio broadcasting, communication has been extended through television and satellite transmission to give even those in remote places immediate access to sounds and images from a wider world. Direct-dial international telephone and fax services have swelled the transborder flow of news and other messages. Another important development has been the sharing of infor-mation through links between computers around the world. Wider access to information and communication could be beneficial to co-operation and democracy, which gain from better informed citizens, as well as to deve-lopmental, scientific, and professional collaboration and many other activities.

The wide linkages now facilitated can also help to pull the world's people closer together. The influence of the media on the shaping of foreign policy is considerable in many countries. Media reporting human suffering and abuse of human rights have motivated governments and people to express their concern for and their solidarity with those in distant places by contributing to relief efforts and by demanding explanations and action from governments (Commission on Global Governance, 1995).

Next to reporting violations of human rights, new international information and communication technology can play an important role in the teaching of human rights and may contribute to improving people's knowledge about fundamental rights and the ways of protecting them. The question is how well-equipped international information and communication technology is to safeguard human right standards in its own operations.

Although there has been a spectacular expansion in the reach of some communication media, serious imbalances remain in access to information and in the distribution of even the most basic technology. With reference to the above-mentioned overview of the actual implementation of human rights, two billion people - more than one in three individuals in the world - still lack electricity (IPS, 1993; UNDP Human Development Report, 1995). Another striking illustration is the fact that 77% of the world's population has access to only 5% of all the telephone connections. This pattern of disparity is repeated in the ownership of communication satellites, the key to media globalization.

There are questions about distortion and imbalance, as the world's news is filtered predominantly through Western prisms, and information flows from and within the developing world are inadequate. Apprehension about concentration of media ownership is linked to worries that this sector's power to shape the agenda of political action may not be matched by a sense of co-responsibility.

The emergence of a so-called 'global information super-highway', based on the Global Information Infra-structure (GII), will definitely have consequences for TWCs. The GII will exclude large groups of people for the simple reason that access to the information super-highway is not feasible for those TWCs in which two billion people earn less than US$ 300 a year, in which more than one billion adults are illiterate, and in which 130 million children lack access to primary school (IPS, 1993, Hamelink, 1995; UNDP/HDR, 1995).

Strained relations exist between the availability of new electronic means of information and communication on the one hand and the protection of human rights on the other, which is comparable in some respects to the existing tension between economic growth and human development. New communication technology should be in the service of the right to communicate and to communication development in realising equal access to and equal use of information and communication facilities. The problem of unequal access to information and the unbalanced distribution of the most basic technology brings human dignity under pressure. The implementation of the human rights to development and to freedom of expression and information and the underlying fundamental principles will be severely threatened because of the enormous national and international limitations regarding access to the information super-highway. From an international perspective, the information gap is widening instead of narrowing (Report of the Commission on Global Governance, 1995).

These concerns have given rise to the suggestion that the international community should try to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting that is not linked to political and commercial interests. Hamelink (1994, 1995) stresses the urgency to strive for a solid and comprehensive Declaration on Communications and Human Rights. Such a declaration could represent important progress in the effort to implement the UDHR as a regulatory instrument for international communication in the framework of international human rights law.

Democratization of communication

The recognition of communication as a fundamental social process, which emphasizes democratisation of communication, demands a redistribution of power at all levels, which is in line with the UNESCO strategies for a more public or user-oriented view of information and communication (Servaes, 1988, 1989; Linden, 1988, 1989; Arnaldo and Servaes, 1995; Boafo and Arnaldo, 1995). The majority of those concerned with the right to communicate want it to stress the equality of all partners in the communication process (principle of equality). Its point of departure is not at the level of the national government, but at the level of the grassroots. A different view (and analysis) of the role of the authorities in TWCs is fundamental (Servaes, 1988, 1989).

Unlike confidence in and respect for the role of the state, which is characteristic of the older perspectives, the right to communicate takes a more reserved attitude toward the authorities as its starting-point (Servaes, 1988, 1989; Hamelink, 1994). The political reality after the establishment of the UN in 1945 has not changed the TWC authorities' prerogative of national sovereignty and non-interference into an approach in which the needs and interests of the population take precedence in practice. The needs of ordinary women and men do not usually figure prominently on the agendas (policies) of the political and economic elites in TWCs. These elites are hampering human rights based political practices and pose serious threats to the freedom of information standard, by way of their governmental and commercial forms of censorship and concentrated control over communication channels (Karlsson, 1996, Hamelink, 1994).

Freedom of information cannot exist in a vacuum; a free press is not a warranty for a democratic society, but a democratic society acknowledges a free press as one of its basic institutions for states to take positive action and for the powerless people to raise their voices and change their situations (Hamelink, 1987). However, abuse of the right to freedom of expression and information is also possible and exists in practice in the violation of other human rights through the media. Recently this was the case with Radio Mille Collines during the Rwandan War in 1994/1995 (D'Souza, 1996; Ellis, 1995).

Towards a human right to communication development

In addition to the essence of the conceptual description of the four fundamental human rights principles of liberty, equality, solidarity and inviolability, and with regard to a human rights based framework for information and communication policies in TWCs, the following should be taken into account.

The principle of liberty is most prominent in the binding norm of the protection of freedom of information (Art. 19, UDHR, 1948; Art. 19, ICCPR, 1966). The principle of liberty also plays an essential role with regard to cultural development: it reinforces the right to cultural autonomy (Art. 1 of ICCPR and ICESCR). The 1966 UNESCO Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, Art. 1.2, reads: '...every people has the right and duty to develop its culture.' Nevertheless, liberty is bounded by possibility: one has the liberty to use sources of information or dissemination only if they are available and if they are affordable.

The principle of equality forms the legal basis for concern of the international community about the imbalance in information and communication facilities between the rich and the poor countries and also between rich and poor sections within countries. These efforts are aimed at opportunities for TWCs 'to have equal access to communication technology ... and to have equal access to the channels of information (UNGA Resolution 33/115, 1978). The 1976 Outer Space Treaty, Article 1, reads that all countries have the right to equal exploration, use, and exploitation of outer space. UNGA Resolution 1721 D (XVI, 1961) reads: 'Communication by means of satellite should be available on a global and non-discriminatory basis.'

The principles of equality and non-exclusion from the benefits of these achievements are also evident with respect to participation in cultural life, technology, and science (Hamelink, 1995). The 1966 UNESCO Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, Article IV.4, reads: '...to enable everyone to have access to knowledge, to enjoy the arts and literature of all peoples, to share in advances made in science in all parts of the world and in the resulting benefits, and to contribute to the enrichment of cultural life.'

The principle of solidarity (UDHR Art. 19, Art. 28) refers to the international community's legal obligation to cooperate and be co-responsible for actualizing the right to free expression and a free flow of information and communication within the national context. Promoting freedom of information was one of the core targets (aims) of UNESCO in 1945 (...'UNESCO should recommend such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image...'). Since the 1950s several other national and international (donor) organisations besides UNESCO have been initiating technical and social communication assistance programmes to bridge the gap in information flows between the North and the South.

The principle of inviolability refers to the legal obligation of all 1966 ICCPR state parties involved to protect people against communication that is harmful to mental and moral integrity. Article 19.3 of the ICCPR states that the exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 19.2 carries with it special duties and responsibilities. These rights may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public) and of public health or morals.

One of the underlying values is non-discrimination. Art. 4 of the 1966 International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ratified by 127 members by 1995) makes clear that the dissemination of racial views are prohibited, and that it is the duty of the member states to declare these views and activities punishable by law. The principle of inviolability is also expressed in Article 20 of the ICCPR, which reads in paragraph 20.1: 'any propaganda for war shall be prohibi-ted by law'; and in paragraph 20.2: 'any advocacy of national, racial (sexual?) or religious hatred that consti-tutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law'. Protection of mental and moral integrity are also included in provisions concerning the confidentiality of information.

Article 36 of the International Telecommunication Treaty (1992) refers to the protection of confidential information: 'Members agree to take all possible measures, compatible with the system of telecommunication used, with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence.' Hamelink (1995) states that the telecommunication authorities concerned often neglect this protection due to their broad mandates. 'Nevertheless, they reserve the right to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the application of their internal laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are parties.' Protection of confidential communication is related to the broader issue of protection of privacy, as is reflected in Art. 12 UDHR, Art. 17 ICC-PR, and Art. 16 in the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Conclusions

The human rights approach can be considered as the legal basis of development policy. It gives us the opportunity to change the arbitrariness of development assistance as a privilege of donor agencies and as a favour of recipient countries into legally binding commitments with mutual responsibilities and obligations. It signifies an advance from indifferent promises to legally binding commitments within countries, between countries, and in the international community at large. These commitments can be made more concrete by establishing criteria and conditions that can be applied to further formulation of information and communication policies and strategic planning in TWCs.

References

Ansah, P. (1992). Communication and Human Rights in Africa: Implications for Development. Nairobi, WACC-AR.

Arnaldo, C. A. and J. Servaes (1995). IAMCR Newsletter, Vol. 5/1, February 1995, pp. 7-10.

Boafo, S.T. Kwame and Carlos A. Arnaldo (1995). The Unesco communication programme: Building capacity and protecting press freedom. Media Development 1/1995, pp. 3-7.

Boven, T. van (1982). People Matter. Views on International Human Rights Policy. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff.

Commission on Global Governance (1995). Our Global neighbourhood. The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford University Press.

Dijk, P. van (1980). Rechten van de mens en ontwikkelingssamenwerking, enige rechtsbeginselen. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de mensenrechten NJCM Bulletin. Leiden, TMC Asser Instituut.

D'Souza, F. (1996). Communicating for peace. Media Development 1/1996, pg. 6-9.

Ellis, S. (1995). Africa Now. People, Policies & Institutions. Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS), The Hague, Carey/Heinemann.

Hamelink, C.J. (1987). Setting the agenda for national communication policies. Media Development 1/1987, pg. 12-14.

Hamelink, C.J. (1988). Communication and human rights: the international dimension. Media Development 4/1988, pg. 6-8.

Hamelink, C.J. (1994). The politics of World Communication. A Human Rights Perspective. London, Sage.

Hamelink, C.J. (1995). De Rechten van de Mens en Internationale Communicatie. Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Hamelink, C.J. (1996). Globalisation and human dignity: The case of the information superhighway. Media Development 1/1996, pg. 18-20.

International Press Service (1993). Rights or Privileges? An independent guide to the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, June 1993. Rome, IPS.

Karlsson, M. (1996). Africa's New Politics Demand an End to Dependence on Aid. Internation Herald Tribune, 21.02.1996.

Kooijmans, P.H. (1994). 'Human Rights, A Challenge You Cannot Refuse. Speech for the UN Commission on Human Rights, Geneva 10.02.1994. The Hague, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Linden, A. (1988). Het belang van communicatie voor ontwikkelingsprocessen. Visie, mogelijkheden en beperkingen; konsekwenties voor het Nederlandse Ontwikkelingsbeleid. Den Haag, DGIS/DPO-BIJ.

Linden, A. (1989). Communication assistance for Third World communities: Going Dutch. Media Development 3/1989, pg. 34-36.

MacBride, S. et al (1980). Many Voices, One World. Report by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Paris, Unesco, and London, Kogan Page.

Manor, J. (eds) (1992). Rethinking Third World Politics. London, Longman.

Media Development (1988). The right to communicate is fundamental to all human development. Media Development 4/1988, editorial (pg. 1.).

Pronk, J.P. (1990). 'A World of Difference'. A new framework for development cooperation in the 1990's. The Hague, SDU.

Pronk, J.P. (1992). 'The call for affirmative action'. Speech delivered on the occasion of the IPS-Council on Information and Communication for International Development. The Hague, May 1992.

Pronk, J.P. (1993). A World of Dispute. A survey of the frontiers of development cooperation. The Hague, Development Cooperation Information Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Scherpenzeel Media Foundation (1994). Changing Media in a Changing Society. Utrecht, School of Journalism and Communication.

Servaes, J. (1988). The right to communicate is a basic human right. Media Development 4/1988, pg. 15-17.

Servaes, J. (1989). One World, Multiple Cultures. A new paradigm on communication for development. Leuven/Amersfoort, Acco.

Servaes, J. and R. Arnst (1993). First things first: Participatory communication for change. Media Development 2/1993, pg. 44-47.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1995). Human Development Report 1995. New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Waart, P.J.I.M. de (1985). Recht op ontwikkeling: van utopie naar richtlijn. Internationale Spectator, Maart 1985 (xxxix-3), pg. 128-136.

Zevenbergen, A. (1996). Rechten mens moeten in elke cultuur worden gerespecteerd. NRC Handelsblad, 15.03.1996.

Ank Linden (MA in Sociology and Mass Communications) is director of MEDAC (Media Development Advisors & Consultants) with projects in several African countries. From 1990-1995 she was a policy adviser for East Africa at the Netherlands Embassy in Nairobi. She has written various articles about development, communication policy and women. Currently she is finalizing her PhD thesis (title: Communication from a Human Rights' Perspective: Tool for Democratic Development) at the University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.