"We must nurture a new movement for peace," says High Commissioner

Chair,

Dear Colleagues, Friends,

Many thanks for this invitation. I regret that I am unable to join you in person.

It is a great privilege to be delivering the first lecture in honour of former Secretary-General Annan.

His unwavering commitment to the UN’s mission, dedication to the most vulnerable, and his leadership during testing political times, left a deep impression on me.

His seminal report, In Larger Freedom, gave birth to the Human Rights Council, a strengthening of the human rights pillar and the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission.

It is, therefore, timely that this inaugural lecture is taking place in his name as we head towards the Summit of the Future, given his legacy - one that involved reshaping the UN’s priorities and ways of working to meet the changing dynamics and priorities of a world during another moment of major transition.

For me, this is, undoubtedly, the most confronting period I have experienced in my three decades with the UN.

A few days ago, I, again, had to open my Global Update to the Human Rights Council with a roll-call of horrors from the conflicts currently tearing our world apart.

59 wars in 2023, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. With our data indicating a significant rise in civilian deaths compared to 2022.

An utterly senseless waste of life. Unconscionable.

Accompanied by cruelty and destruction on a grotesque scale.

And we are seeing the roots of our global order being poisoned as foundational norms are gutted.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine – a flagrant violation of the UN Charter - was an inflection point.

Today, from Ukraine to Sudan, Myanmar and Gaza – we see egregious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The war machine accelerates. Defence spending is skyrocketing as major nuclear powers step away from disarmament commitments.

And the wider backdrop offers little comfort.

Rule of law is eroding in every region. The cynical politics of division and distraction persists. The institutions of multilateralism are under unprecedented political and - in the UN’s case - physical attack. All while global action on the 2030 Agenda and on the triple planetary crisis falls disastrously behind.

An absurd situation – there is no other way to put it. Summed up in just a few statistics. Global defence spending spiked in 2023 at almost USD 2.5 trillion at the same time the annual development financing gap widened to around USD 4 trillion. 4.8 billion people are poorer now than they were five years ago. More than 330 million children are forced to live in extreme poverty.

All this death, destruction and disfunction breed cynicism about multilateralism’s ability to deliver.

Yet, I believe, this also presents a moment of real opportunity as governments are forced to consider the unpalatable nature of continuing on this current path.

Any honest, hard calculation of the national interest, points in one direction – a firm reset. The Summit of the Future offers States an important chance to do just that.

At risk – and what we all have to gain – is peace.

If we do not end this nightmare of escalating conflict, we can forget significant progress on development, the triple planetary crisis or anything else.

Having squandered the hard-earned peace dividend, we are now reckoning with a peace imperative.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born out of a determination to rid the world of cycles of all-consuming, self-defeating terror, bloodshed and atrocity crimes.

Clearly recognising human rights as “the foundation” of peace in the world.

We must now fully engage on human rights in the service of peace - casting off the notion that somehow rights and the making and sustaining of peace are incompatible.

It is, in fact, the opposite. A human rights path moves us away from the illogic that fuels war and insecurity.

From my perspective, having spent a career grappling with the human and political costs of war, the choice is clear.

We need to embrace the full potential of human rights as a problem-solving vehicle for driving systemic change. And we need to rediscover the art of de-escalation, of keeping all channels of communication open.

Rights as solutions - pragmatism embedded in principle - lies at the core of my vision statement published earlier this year, an outlook informed by key messages from our Human Rights 75 Initiative. As one of the UN’s three pillars, human rights are the connective tissue of global governance, essential to revitalizing international cooperation. And at their foundation is the right to peace.

Given their roots in profound values shared across cultures and histories, human rights can reach across today’s deep social and political divides within and between societies. They have the support of the silent majority. As the OSF Barometer’s global public attitudes survey reported, 72% of respondents considered human rights to have been a “force for good”, with a similar percentage equating them with their personal values.

Rights are also future-proofed; as relevant to guiding action on the climate emergency and on advancing digital technology, as they will be to challenges still unknown. We can see this in the wave of climate litigation around the world, including the recent success for a group of Swiss women at the European Court of Human Rights and the forthcoming advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.

What, then, is the value proposition of human rights to peace? We know that at every point in the conflict cycle human rights-based approaches deliver tangible outcomes. Many of you have contributed to the growing evidence-base.

Human rights allow us to diagnose the problem and to identify solutions. More fundamentally, they are the catalysts for shaping peaceful, resilient and just societies - societies in which issues that otherwise could metastasize into violence have been addressed early on in a truly preventive way. This insight is at the core of the Pathways for Peace joint study conducted by the United Nations and the World Bank.

Let me unpack this by touching on five aspects.

First, early warning. A deteriorating human rights situation is often a clear signal that violence lurks around the corner. Why, then, do we still lack a systematic integration of human rights analysis into early warning processes? This must change. One route could be better connectivity between the human rights system and the Security Council, as well as the Peacebuilding Commission.

At the UN Human Rights Office, much of our work is dedicated to human rights monitoring, documenting and reporting, including the growing early warning analysis capacity in our Regional Offices. As we refine our indicators and data, including on socioeconomic rights and inequalities, we can deepen the analysis fed into the UN System’s early warning mechanism for imminent crises.

In Paraguay, for example, our data gathering and analysis on alleged forced evictions of peasant and Indigenous communities enabled us to engage with authorities and local communities as soon as potential risks of social conflict and unrest were identified.

Early warning is rendered redundant, though, if prompt action does not follow. One stark illustration. Our numerous reports over the last few years on a sharply worsening picture in the Occupied Palestine Territory amounted to alarm bells repeatedly and tragically ignored.

I encourage States with influence to reflect honestly on the price of so many missed opportunities in so many contexts – and to adopt a more responsive stance. This must be accompanied by greater investment in platforms and mechanisms dedicated to early action, including enhanced UN capacity to propose targeted courses of action.

Second, peace operations. Fewer in number, now, and with increasing pushback on the integration of human rights mandates and components, despite evidence of a win-win. Three decades of human rights integration has been, in some ways, an exercise in untapped potential. As the recent Effectiveness of Peace Operations Network study indicates, human rights can be a powerful enabler for reaching the objectives of these missions – stretching beyond protection of civilians and early warning to engagement on the factors that triggered violence in the first place.

States have an opportunity here. Clearer, more realistic and adequately resourced mandates from the Security Council - as called for in the Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace - could ensure greater impact from human rights components in these complex operations. If there is a pivot to smaller, more agile peace operations, a well-designed human rights capability can help achieve more with less.

And human rights analysis can support smoother transitions as peace operations come to an end through a solid plan for continuity of human rights protection. This requires an ongoing, resourced human rights presence. It also illustrates the benefits of equipping the human rights component at the outset to engage on root causes.

This concept of continuity of protection is at the core of the Agenda for Protection launched earlier this year by the Secretary-General and myself. The Agenda makes clear how we, in the UN System, will ensure that our mandates and capacities are exercised in a way that places protection as the priority in all our work, in crisis situations and beyond.

Third, peacemaking. Let me dispel the misconception that a human rights approach is incompatible with the pragmatism and hard bargains necessary to end conflict.

If you do not anchor a peace agreement in human rights, you simply saddle it with a fatal flaw, one that will lead to its unravelling as the very issues that drove the conflict re-emerge. This was clearly understood in the series of peace accords throughout the 1990s, from Dayton to Guatemala and Cambodia. Indeed, the Cambodia process resulted in the establishment of a UN Human Rights Office there.

Consider Colombia. Our involvement in negotiations contributed to the grounding of the 2016 Accords in human rights, attending to longstanding issues, such as discrimination and violence against women, Indigenous Peoples and People of African Descent.

After all, a human rights approach gives us a blueprint for rebuilding a fractured society - woven around rule of law, equality, inclusion, a life in dignity and accountable institutions. We have the tools for setting up and empowering institutions necessary to secure progress on rights.

We have the pillars for transitional justice processes to navigate constructively the painful legacy of human rights violations. Not because human rights are intrinsically backward-looking or focused on blame, as some are inclined to believe. The converse, in fact. Human rights can offer a forward-looking tool for facilitating a reckoning with the past that allows victims, along with society as a whole, to move ahead.

It is really critical that we continue to break down silos between the peace and human rights spheres. The benefits accrue right from the outset of any peace process, where long- present and well-networked actors like my Office can help with confidence-building. Human rights narratives encourage participation, acting as an antidote to the binary mindset of “winner takes all”. Tapping, instead, into common hopes and a shared vision of a future where the rights of all are respected. Ongoing human rights activities can build trust in what a peace agreement, if sufficiently rooted in rights, will deliver for all constituencies.

And inclusivity, so crucial to the legitimacy and robustness of a peace agreement, is intrinsic to a human rights approach. In Colombia, for example, our involvement ensured the meaningful inclusion of the voices of victims, including women. Liberia is another illustration where women’s participation was transformative.

The human rights framework can ease the mediator’s task in drawing up a negotiation agenda that is acceptable to all parties while covering key issues. And adopting human rights framing opens up space for concessions to be made – recasting these as positive moves towards a universal principle rather than weak capitulation. Many more rich and practical insights on human rights and mediation are captured in our joint practice note with the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. I urge all relevant actors to draw on these valuable lessons.

Fourth, peacebuilding. This is more likely to be successful where your starting point is a peace agreement strong on human rights. A case in point is again Colombia where the 2016 Accord gives us a role in monitoring implementation of its human rights aspects, allowing us to flag early on grievances that could otherwise derail progress. We are also able to bring a human rights lens to other key elements of the agreement – reform of the security sector, new drug policies, tackling inequities in land access and so on.

The Colombian context also illustrates the intricate interdependence of human rights. The recent Peacebuilding Fund Thematic Review noted how initiatives that were focused on economic, social and cultural rights have led to an improvement in the enjoyment of civil and political rights by women and other disadvantaged groups.

On transitional justice, a brief illustration. On Nepal, whose journey is well known to Dr. Kihara-Hunt. My Office is supporting the mapping of violations of economic, social and cultural rights, both as the root cause of the decade-long armed conflict and as its consequences. This analysis will feed into and strengthen Nepal’s ongoing transitional justice process.

Yet, globally, transitional justice is still a misunderstood and under-utilized tool. I hope that the recommendations in the Secretary-General’s 2023 Guidance Note will trigger a much-needed shift in perspectives and practice.

Lastly, and perhaps most fundamentally, addressing root causes. We know that unaddressed grievances, exclusion and inequalities are the underlying causes of conflict. An investment in human rights - with its core principles of non-discrimination, meaningful participation and accountability, including responsive and accountable government - offers a comprehensive approach for countering these drivers.

This investment needs to be across all rights - economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to development – including concerted efforts on confronting inequalities of all kinds.

This has been brought home to me repeatedly on my country missions. For example, in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, where competition over valuable mineral resources continues to fuel nightmarish bloodshed.

Because, ultimately, the true preventative power of human rights lies in their working together as a system, empowering people to shape solutions to the problems they face. Inclusion and engagement underpin resilient and peaceful societies. This necessitates continuous efforts to strengthen all the pillars of an open society, from democracy and civic space to the rule of law and independent media.

It also demands a re-examination of how our economies work. Time and time again, we see how exclusion from economic opportunities, coupled with an inability to change this, have incubated the toxic conditions from which insecurity and violence erupt.

There needs to be a fundamental shift so that our economies start working for people and planet, instead of serving a privileged few. Our concept of the Human Rights Economy does just that, anchoring all economic, fiscal, monetary, business and investment decisions in the full spectrum of rights, including the rights to food, health and education.

This means:

• going beyond GDP to agree on broader measures that can illuminate trends in well-being and inequalities;
• improved data collection and disaggregation to drive targeted action on discrimination;
• budget-setting processes that are inclusive, participatory and transparent; and
• prioritization of public services so they have a better chance of receiving the funding they need, fulfilling the commitment of States to apply maximum available resources to realize progressively economic and social rights.

The Human Rights Economy also calls on the private sector to play their part, through aligning business models and operations with their human rights responsibilities.

Adopting a Human Rights Economy approach at the national level can transform the prospects for both the 2030 Agenda and for peace. We need to see, in parallel, the cultivation of an enabling global environment.

This includes:

• long overdue reforms of both operations and governance of international financial institutions, with the IMF’s recent announcement on SDRs very welcome;
• a fair and effective mechanism for sovereign debt workout to release governments from crippling debt burdens that restrain investment in public services; and
• stronger cooperation on tax, corruption and illicit financial flows, including through a new Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.

The incentives for re-vitalizing efforts on prevention are already significant and multiplying. We only need to project a little further into the future to grasp how the worsening effects of the triple planetary crisis will erode security everywhere. Now is the time to rescue Kofi Annan’s vision of a “century of prevention”.

Colleagues, Friends,

Whether on peace, development or any other global priority, this is the moment for States to perform a clear reset. Exiting the trap set by short-term thinking, denial, confrontation and escalation. And, instead, choosing to pursue the dividend that flows from a decisive investment in human rights.

This is not wishful thinking. The requests from governments to my Office for support grow daily. Why? Because delivering on the aspirations and needs of people, and tackling the most daunting problems ahead, is simply not possible if you are not making real progress on advancing rights.

During our Human Rights 75 Initiative, over 140 States made pledges to take transformative action on specific human rights issues - a downpayment on the necessary work ahead if we are to avoid grappling with tomorrow’s problems using yesterday’s mindsets.

And away from the headlines, every day human rights advances are still happening, even in these challenging times - driven so often by the courage and sacrifice of human rights defenders.

For us to turn the corner as a global community, the lessons we have learned about effective human rights-based approaches to peace, as in other critical areas, need to be applied consistently and at scale. This calls for political space and sustained resources.

The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to address the chronic underfunding of human rights work generally, including that of my Office and the wider international human rights system.

We have a strong global movement for human rights, driven by the needs of individuals and communities. Its renewed strength lies in its increasing diversity, bringing together civil society organisations of all kinds, youth activists, economists, environmentalists, technology experts, policymakers, and so many more.

And, with that in mind, I have a couple of requests to the research community.

First, to help unpack further the impact of human rights approaches on peacemaking and peacebuilding.

Second, to collaborate on tools, methods and evidence that we can offer States to help them adopt the Human Rights Economy.

Ultimately, building thriving societies that are fair, inclusive, peaceful and sustainable is the work of countless actors whose lived experiences, expertise and insights are each to be valued. No one constituency has all the answers. We must learn from each other.

We have seen where double standards and a privileging of certain voices has brought us on human rights - on our entire system of global governance. As we work to re-invigorate international cooperation, we must nurture a new movement for peace. In the human rights movement, it has a committed ally.

Thank you.