We were never meant to be neutral, we are just impartial
Ivan Šimonović* (UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights)
This, I think, I think is of fundamental importance when it comes to the UN, and indeed anyone intervening in the affairs of states (conflict resolution practitioners for example). The point is not strict neutrality, which as we saw in the Balkans (to name one) ends up serving not the victims but the aggressors, but impartiality. I will not be a neutral actor, coming as I always will from the biased perspective of wanting the conflict to end. I will almost certainly always be on the side of the victim (where they can be determined), and in favour of those who need protecting from people who seek to harm, demean or otherwise damage them.
I will never be neutral. But this does not mean I cannot be impartial. Impartiality implies a lack of pre-judgement, a decision not to chose sides or favour one conflict party over another. I will however seek to protect those outside of the conflict, from the worst of its effects. I will work with conflict parties to mediate the end of violence. I will not decide which is right, but I will act on the occasions when one of them has acted wrongly. As is necessary in the protection of human rights. For, as was seen in the case of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, both sides in the conflict had violated human rights, and in choosing to deal with those who had done so (whether through amnesty or punishment) they were no longer neutral, but in treating all actors equally, they did remain impartial.
*(There is a small possibility that it was someone else speaking on the UN meeting on the Human Rights Commission today, if so, I apologise)
No comments:
Post a Comment