Return to Main Page

This page hosted by   Get your own Free Home Page

"The present transnational regime for protecting minority rights is unsatisfactory .....

Minorities in many States suffer discrimination, and the human rights of persons belonging to them are abused. In extreme cases, the lack of adequate protection, either in domestic law or by transnational means, acts as an incentive for national minorities to claim their own State. Peaceful secession is not unknown, but more often, such claims lead to civil conflict and war".

Dr Hugh Miall: `Minority Rights in Europe (1994), Chatham House Papers, published by Pinter for Royal Institute of International Affairs

Introduction
This paper is a collection of thoughts and ideas on international organisations working on minority issues in Europe. The topic is potentially overwhelming in its size and complexity and therefore it is important that this is seen as a personal ideas paper based on my own experience at Minority Rights Group rather than an attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis. I have tried to avoid an emphasis on Minority Rights Group1, but the paper does include some reflections on "non-governmental organisations" as they merit constructive and critical review as international organisations as much as inter-governmental organisations. There is a temptation, not least of all among NGOs, to think that NGOs are always a good thing, like apfelstrudel and motherhood.

There is, perhaps, a presumption that we share a concern for the situation of national minorities. However, each of us comes with a different personal and institutional perspective and will emphasise different elements. Some of the key issues on national minorities which are reflected within international organisations include:-

- concern that violent conflicts may develop within or between states.
- ethical commitment to justice, non-discrimination and equitable arrangements.
- a need to build political stability and continuity within and between states.
- the promotion of economic stability and growth.
- the management of migratory flows and the reduction of the need to seek asylum.

Any consideration of the role of international organisations should be placed in the mid to long term to reflect a strategic approach. Only too often, politicians are absorbed by the present, sometimes playing for their next election, often unable to `see the wood for the trees'. The challenge to diplomats, to scholars and to NGOs is to take a long term analytic view, attempting to foresee the position of society and of national minorities in 10-20 years time. This is easier said than done as past history may reveal valuable pattern of human behaviour, but is no indicator of future history in a rapidly changing world. Who could have predicted the rapidity and the immensity of the changes in Central and Eastern Europe in the last ten years?

The world in which our children will be living in 10 or 20 years time will have changed dramatically. It is likely that electronic communication will continue to develop at an asymptotic rate, with electronic highways being used as a matter of course, by all by the poorest and weakest.

The global economy will strengthen the position of multinational corporations who will move capital and jobs with ease. What will their ethnicity be?

People will have many more opportunities for self-education and development with greater ability to move from poorer rural, labour intensive jobs to those in towns and cities, while the need for industrial and office jobs may reduce substantially through new technology. Will regions of ethnic homogeneity remain?

European integration may have relentlessly progressed and the nationalism of new uncertain states may give way to greater racism and xenophobia that television news can unconsciously promote.

All of these will have a major impact on the power of the state, the degree of real choices within a democracy and the position of other groups such as national minorities. What power will be shared? How will anyone be able to participate? What degree of personal or collective autonomy may be possible? Will our group identities become more and more homogenised?

Today, the position of national minorities in each European country is different, with varying histories and perceptions, varying numbers and different social, economic and political opportunities open to national minorities. Although there may be many similarities, where States often see themselves as nation states, where majority nations hold power, it is not easy for international organisations to act effectively and consistently across all States. They may help establish important principles addressing the concerns identified above, but the practical implementation will depend on each situation and particularly on the resources which are available.

Many of these principles were established at the CSCE Copenhagen Human Dimension meeting (1990) and elaborated in the `UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities', sponsored by Austria, interalia and passed by the General Assembly in December 1992. To a more limited extent, they have been incorporated in the new Framework Convention on National Minorities of the Council of Europe.

Role of Non-Governmental Organisations
In a short presentation, it is not easy to represent the variety and complexity of non-governmental/voluntary organisations. Technically, they could span the range from political parties representing minorities through to self-selecting individuals working together on some minority issues.

The traditions vary considerably even within Western Europe, while in Eastern Europe, truly independent non-governmental organisations have only been free in their operation, since the fall of the Communist governments. Generally, NGOs concentrate either on advocacy, service delivery or self help groups, though some will span more than one of these activities. These categories are worth examining for international NGOs. Those involved with international advocacy, often with contrasting styles and mandates such as Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation or Minority Rights Group, are probably best known to fora such as these.

Those INGOs who are competent, have a reputation for high quality research to support their advocacy and often see their role as catalysts for change, pushing, pressing and provoking governments and intergovernmental bodies. At their worst, international NGOs can be impractical and arrogant, though as such, their influence in international fora quickly diminishes.

There is some tension between those NGOs which are experienced organisations providing a `professional' service and those which are self-help groups. The former offer alternatives to state delivery services, are much smaller, can be flexible and responsive and offer choices of delivery to the donor. There are many advantages of using NGOs, especially when the state apparatus may be unresponsive to sectors of society. Nevertheless, NGOs can become dependent on their donors and reduce the control responsibility and accountability of the State and NGOs. Donors, particularly governmental donors, may have their own political and economic agenda which they may seek to implement through NGOs who have become dependent upon them for contacts. If the NGO is not solidly based in the country, it may be donor driven and may not base its activities on the real needs identified within the country. Clearly, the government of a state, even in a democracy, should not be the sole arbiters of the real needs of the people, but NOs have no moral authority, unless they are able to listen carefully to the express needs of different communities and respond positively to them.

In this environment, multi-lateral intergovernmental donors can play a key role ensuring that funding is not linked to the political aspirations of one country as a donor, but rather based upon international standards and agreements open to public access. This places a clear responsibility on these donors to be open, transparent and consistent over time with clearly defined criteria, which is not influenced unduly by any one official and acceptable to an elected body.

Without in any way encouraging a return to the monolith of bureaucratic Communism, democrats need to hold a careful debate on this issue, avoiding simplistic generalisations. There is already a concern in many developing countries that the resources channelled to NGOs in developing countries as implementing partners may be democratically unaccountable, the more so, if they are an international NGO. They may undermine the competence of the newly emerging democracy.

One of the ways forward is to emphasise self-help groups, those which promote self reliance and empowerment. In contrast, they can lead to powersharing and a broader democracy. Such bodies may require professional support, education and training, which can be provided by those with experience in service delivery.

Broadening Democracy
NGOs can provide an excellent opportunity for broadening democracy, but only if their role is evaluated carefully and strategically. A broadening of democracy, which enables people individually and collectively at local and state levels to participate in their society (especially if they are not part of central government), can be advanced by NGOs. Furthermore, it gives expression to an individuals multiple identity and, over time, can help break down, rather than reinforce, ethnic, religious or linguistic identity as being the only forms of group unity and political expression. In a mature democracy, people should be able to express their identity in a multiplicity of ways, including their national minority identity - but not only this identity.

Where self-help groups of minorities fit into this complex web may seem contradictory. Indeed it is one of the ironies, which the OSCE at its 1990 Human Dimension meeting in Copenhagen has recognised, that in order to strengthen harmony within a state, the identity of national minorities should be both protected and promoted.

There are great advantages in minorities playing an active role through self-help groups, political or otherwise which may be based geographically or personally for dispersed minorities. It should not end here, additional efforts are essential to promote multi-ethnic, multi-cultural initiatives.

The same may be said internationally; while there is an important role which can be played by international organisations, promoting the rights of minorities, it is equally important to promote intercommunity co-operation. This is a complex and difficult exercise, especially in emerging democracies with an awakened national majority identity, which can be exploited by politicians.

The work can include research and analysis leading to publications, including education materials. It may involve seminars and conferences to exchange information and ideas or to promote intellectual discourse. It may involve presentations and lobbying at international fora to promoting an understanding of international standards and responsibilities of States, groups and individuals.

This work should continue to promote better public information both in Western and Eastern Europe, which may, in the shorter term, lead to changes in the curriculum and in the longer term, to new participatory programmes and a genuine partnership between different communities in a state. The weak and less powerful need to be protected and their empowerment promoted.

Although this will lead to a more vibrant and stable state, this long term work does not have the immediacy and political glamour of `conflict resolution' and is invariably under resourced. One major new area for action would be the development of long-term plans with NGOs in order to promote community co-operation in a multiplicity of ways.

Inter-Governmental Organisations
Earlier on in this paper, it was stated that one of the advocacy roles of international NGOs is as catalysts for change, pushing, pressing and provoking governments and inter-governmental bodies. Therefore, let me turn to some comments on inter-governmental organisations2. The strength of inter-governmental organisations is often to complement and fortify what might be achieved in state or bilateral arrangements. Within the OSCE, it is clearly recognised that implementation of the OSCE agreements are the legitimate concern of all parties to the agreements. Consequently, some help may be provided by international organisations where the `democratic process' has led to majority rule. In some states where this process has occurred, there is a danger of exclusion of minorities by nationalistic politicians, whose previous traditions and limited experience of responding constructively can impose boundaries on the abilities of states to act. In the most extreme form, it can lead to democratic governments allowing racism and discrimination to occur.

Bilateral agreements between States, particularly those concerning national minorities, may be thought of as helpful in guaranteeing minority rights. Those agreements can cause more problems than they solve. There is a danger of these agreements inadvertently fostering irredentisms and the concept of `mother state'. The key issue of how national minorities may effectively participate in the future of their state can be ignored and the historical contest between states becomes the focus. It is often forgotten that the Russian minority in the Baltic states largely supported the break up of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Baltic states.

Multilateral agreements and multilateral organisations can have a real added value in establishing agreed standards of behaviour, political and legal, and a consistency and durability over time. They can help provide a counter-balance to local and bilateral political pressures while if effective, encouraging dialogue and a sharing of experience. At worst, international organisations can be bureaucratic and unaccountable, manipulated by some governments and used to promote the careers and kudos of certain individuals.

One central issue is how such bodies can listen to minorities and allow their representatives to participate constructively. A document which is needed is a review of the ways in which minorities can participate in inter-governmental organisations and offers a `layman's' explanation on minority standards.

The OSCE/CSCE
The CSCE gained much of its strength through the interlinkage of the three domains of security, economic co-operation and the human dimension. Its loose, flexible structure, with the consensus of all 35 states, and enforcement through NATO and the Warsaw Pact made it a powerful non-bureaucratic inter-governmental mechanism. Today, the concerns over security remain, though of a different character where these concentrate on `inter-ethnic' conflicts whether in Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans or Baltic states. The conflicts are essentially within states or between neighbours, rather than the threat of a European or world-wide conflagration. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists, while the solidarity of NATO, without a major external threat, has diminished. Furthermore, the economic dimension is essentially negotiated elsewhere, largely influenced by the free market, the European Union and its 15 members.

Consequently, the implementation imperatives for the human dimension are reduced as peer group pressure is lessened. The mandate of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities has a narrow security focus. This is often seen as a short term matter with the longer term human dimension concerns for groups such as the Roma being marginalised. In turn, this may undermine economic and political stability as these groups become disillusioned and provide incentives for large population movements. A crucial question for the OSCE, as it matures into an organisation, is whether it has sufficient vision to understand that its primary concern for security necessitates the Human Dimension being realised. Many commentators argue that this is not happening for national minorities.

A question to explore is what proportion of OSCE resources is placed in the ODIHR in Warsaw; the way in which the OSCE follows up the evidence from implementation meetings is also crucial. It may be interesting to see what links the OSCE has with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as well as the funding initiatives of the European Union. Conversely, it is interesting to observe what level of attention these bodies pay to the OSCE implementation meetings.

The European Union
The European Union through the funding programmes administered by the European Commission and by the conditionality of economic and political stability which will be insisted upon for new members, offers probably the strongest prospects for protecting and promoting the rights of national minorities.

The European Union and its Commission is by far and away the most powerful inter-governmental organisation within Europe. The budget enhanced by the membership of Austria, Finland and Sweden, all of whom have progressive policies on minorities, offers opportunities to provide incentives and additional encouragement to those states which adopt constructive policies. Programmes of co-operation and assistance should be planned and implemented with due regard to the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

The participating states of the OSCE and the Council of Europe have all agreed upon clear, unambiguous statements condemning racism and xenophobia and setting standards on national minorities. However, this has not as yet been translated into priorities for funding institutions or projects responding to racism and xenophobia within the Union or to the needs of national minorities within the major funding programmes of TACIS and PHARE. There is a need for the Council of Ministers and the Parliament to ensure that their policy positions are translated into programmes. The PHARE and TACIS programmes could ensure that equal opportunities for minorities are guaranteed both in the dispersal of grants and in the implementation of projects. It is surprising that to date, governments and MEPs have not insisted on such contract compliance in a formal and transparent manner. It would be interesting to see what the plans are for the future.

In a similar way, the banking activities of the EBRD, which includes a concern for human rights in its mandate, should ensure that all project proposals include an impact analysis for national minorities which is open for public scrutiny and based on the World Bank's experience. Evidence for this would be heartening, to ensure that investments are not being made on shifting sand.

The European Commission has, however, supported some modest initiatives by NGOs under the very much smaller PHARE and TACIS Democracy programmes. Hitherto, these have been modest one year projects to support democratic objectives. Since they have taken up to one year to approve, they tend to be a series of stop/go initiatives rather than a strategic attempt to strengthen minority organisations. There are also valuable adhoc initiatives, and MRG is the beneficiary of one of these one year grants for the work of MRG's partners in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Poland. The pioneering efforts to empower elements of the Roma community, who often exist in the most appalling conditions in ghettos within Southern Europe, are important. However, such efforts will only be seen as tokenistic, if attempts are not made to learn from them and create major institutional responses within the countries funded by the major PHARE and TACIS schemes. The lack of institutional support for NGOs within the European Union, however, means tht there is a weak lobby to press for these changes.

There is a grave danger that the lack of public scrutiny over these funding programmes and the current insensitivity in the programming may lead to the same disastrous misexpenditures experienced by the World Bank, occurring with minorities. It would be valuable to learn of any reviews of impact of expenditures on National Minorities and of any major programmes for the Roma.

The Council of Europe
One of the most effective roles of the Council of Europe has been its custodianship of the European Convention on Human Rights through the European Court of Human Rights. Although the delays are caused by seeking full redress within a state before matters are referred upwards, the Court is respected and generally accepted as the final arbitrary opinion, sometimes leading to re-education and rethinking by judges and lawyers at the national level.

The European Convention does not include group perspectives hence the new Framework Convention on National Minorities offered the prospect of an important move forward where national minorities might be protected and promoted through hard law. Although many capable and supportive human rights lawyers were involved in the drafting process and 24 states signed the Framework Convention almost immediately, it remains controversial. There are those who argue that this has been an important educative process and its principles are genuinely supported by the signatories. There are others who regard it as a lessening of existing standards with an apparently weak implementation regime3.

It is probably too early to judge the significance of the Convention, but much work will need to be done by States and the Council of Europe to ensure that this Convention has the confidence and support of national minorities. Minority Rights Group is currently conducting a survey of governments on how they intend to publicise and implement the Framework Convention and the OSCE agreements for non-signatories. Already MRG has received replies from eighteen states. These will be published in due course. However, it is also a critical time on standards. The additional cultural protocol is making little progress, there is a deadlock. This may not be a bad thing, as it is much more important to ensure that there is a protocol of some quality that will stand the test of time over 20 or 30 years, than to have something which will not be implemented and may undermine the quality of the whole Council of Europe.

A delay will help ensure that the Framework Convention is effectively implemented and that the quality and integrity of the Council of Europe standards are not undermined. Key questions remain on:
Who will provide information to the Council of Ministers?
Will there be financial aid to assist minority representations?
What will be the composition of the `Advisory Committee' - expertise, selection term of office?
Will the monitoring system be in public and how will conclusions be publicised?
How will the beneficiaries know of the convention?
What training will there be of Public Officials in these standards?

I would suggest that governments listen carefully to Officials of the Council and those with experience on ECHR on what is needed for effective implementation.

We remain optimistic and invite all governments to provide comprehensive replies and enter into dialogue on strengthening their implementation.

The United Nations
`Several hundred international treaties and declarations set forth widely accepted human rights standards. The promotion and protection of human rights are among the purposes of the United Nations, but reluctance and resistance are still the names of the game. The protection of human rights requires governments to address real problems at home and face tough choices abroad, notwithstanding recent changes towards democratisation. This is particularly true for minority rights'. These are not my words, but those of Gudmunder Alfredsson, a scholar on minority rights, who has immense experience of the UN system4.

Rather than seek to undertake a critical review of the UN system on minorities, I will draw from Gudmunder Alfredsson's paper, a few suggestions for future work:

i) Make active use of group and individual rights under the international instruments and of the respective procedures. Allow groups to contribute to state reports under treaty obligations and to gain access to policy-making and monitoring bodies. Include group rights in good governance texts. Underline affirmative action as a necessary means of achieving equality when de facto discrimination persists.

ii) Support the new UN Working Group on Minorities. Identify cases where dialogue is called for. Seek technical co-operation projects to the benefits of minorities and indigenous peoples. Emphasise prevention of conflicts through respect for human rights and support existing and new mechanisms for this purpose.

iii) Encourage the monitoring bodies, separately or jointly, to carry out on-site fact finding and inspection visits with minimal notice to the receiving country and without visa requirements. Place minority and indigenous rights on agendas of chairmen and rapporteur meetings. Follow-up on decisions of monitoring organs.

iv) Insist on the rule of law, objectivity and non-selectivity in all applications of minority and indigenous rights standards. Case by case political solutions to minority situations result in continuing discrimination for other groups who may then choose the conflict avenue. Consistency in the resolution of ethnic conflicts and judicial avenues are much preferable to political solutions, but when necessary these must also aim at objectivity and respect for human rights.

v) Demand universal acceptance of human rights treaties. Publish lists of non-ratifying states. Challenge reservations when they are incompatible with or detrimental to the objectives and purposes of the texts concerned.

vi) Create and give access to databases for making available necessary statistics, increasing capacities for verification and early warning, facilitating research, integrating minority and indigenous rights into technical co-operation, securing the flow of information between procedural instances and the different organisations, giving IGO co-ordination a chance and enabling effective networking with NGOs.

vii) Take an active part in carrying out, at home and abroad, the action programmes for the Decades to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, for the World's Indigenous Peoples and for Human Rights.

To this list, I would add:

viii) Ensure that the `UN Declaration on the Rights of ..... Minorities' is effectively implemented in Europe, in particular Article V:

1. National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.
2. Programmes of co-operation and assistance among States should be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

and Article IX:

The specialised agencies and other organisations of the United Nations system shall contribute to the full realisation of the rights and principles set forth in this Declaration, within their respective fields of competence.

Finally, the proposal made by Asbjorn Eide on the protection of minorities, in his report to the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission (attached to this paper), provides a wide range of constructive ideas of measures which can be taken at the international level. If most of these were implemented, there would be little need for Encounters such as this on national minorities. Sadly, as Hugh Miall states, the present situation of minorities in many parts of Europe is bleak and the Encounter is of major importance.

August 1995