LSE Public Lecture: "Human Rights in the 21st Century: Problems and Prospects"

Date: December 6, 2007
Host: LSE Film and Audio Team
Speaker: Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
Chair: Dorothy Thomas, Visiting Fellow, LSE Centre for the Study of Human Rights

Overview

This episode features Kenneth Roth delivering the 2007 Human Rights Day lecture at LSE. Roth explores the core methodologies, challenges, and future prospects facing the international human rights movement, focusing particularly on post-9/11 and post-7/7 contexts. He reflects critically on the movement’s tools—shaming, advocacy with powerful governments, and legal action—and examines the preconditions for their effectiveness, threats posed by security politics and cultural relativism, and the complex morality at play in humanitarian interventions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Defining the Human Rights Movement

[05:01 - 08:00]

• Roth distinguishes the international human rights movement, specifically groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, from broader political and legal activism.
• These organizations often operate where litigation is impossible due to nonfunctional or compromised courts.
• Even in Western democracies, courts can abdicate responsibilities (e.g., US prison conditions, immigrants' rights), creating a need for non-litigation methodologies.

Quote:
"The way to understand the human rights movement ... is as an alternative to litigation ... [to] put political pressure on governments to live up to the responsibilities they have accepted." — Roth [07:51]

2. Core Tools of Human Rights Advocacy

[08:10 - 12:30]

• Shaming: Exposing abuses to damage a government’s reputation and legitimacy.
• Influencing Powerful Governments: Persuading influential (often Western) governments and institutions to use diplomatic, economic, or political clout against abusers.
• Hardball Tactics for Atrocities: Pursuing international prosecutions, peacekeeping, or even humanitarian interventions in extreme situations.

3. Fragility of the Movement’s Preconditions

[12:40 - 16:30]

• Each tool presupposes receptive audiences, responsive governments, and a global moral consensus—which are frequently absent or undermined.

4. Challenges to Shaming as an Advocacy Tool

a) Security Issues: War and Terrorism

[16:31 - 32:35]

• Public support for abuses increases when issues of war or terrorism invoke fear and nationalism.
• Intuitions often clash with humanitarian law: both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict justify civilian targeting.
• Geneva Conventions are not well internalized by publics, and shaming can be ineffective if the public applauds rather than disapproves.

Quote:
"Shame requires the exposure in front of an audience that disapproves of the conduct. If I say, you know, dictator so and so did X, and everybody starts applauding—no shame, right?" — Roth [12:35]

• Counterterrorism policies (e.g., Guantanamo, torture) have required human rights advocates to shift arguments from pure legality to pragmatic, consequentialist concerns (e.g., torture is counterproductive; coercion undermines public cooperation and aids terrorist recruitment).

Quote:
"There's an odd irrelevance to the mere citation of international law ... we've had to make much more pragmatic arguments time and time again." — Roth [24:03]

• The Bush administration’s conduct has complicated US advocacy and undermined the ability to use shaming both domestically and internationally.

b) Culture and Religion

[32:38 - 38:50]

• "Culture/religion" is frequently invoked to justify gender, sexuality, or religious discrimination.
• Human Rights Watch shifts methodology to center local voices and victims’ perspectives, aiming to localize the struggle and focus on personal freedoms rather than outside imposition.

Quote:
"We cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and they cite God—guess who wins?" — Roth [33:52]

• Example: Success in Egypt required reframing torture of gay men as a broader torture issue, enabling local groups to join advocacy.

5. Challenges in Enlisting Influential Governments

[38:55 - 49:41]

• US Credibility Crisis: US abuses during the war on terror have silenced its voice on rights abuses abroad.
  • Example: Egyptian officials using US torture as justification; US diplomats reluctant to criticize torture elsewhere.
• EU Limitations: The EU’s consensus and rotating presidency dilute its ability to act forcefully.
• China and Economic Modernization Model: China’s and Singapore’s economic success despite rights abuses tempts others to follow suit and offers Western governments an excuse for complacency.
• Economic Rights as a Tool: Advocating for governments to use resources for the worst off helps challenge the Chinese model and ground economic growth in rights-based accountability.

6. International Justice and Humanitarian Intervention

[49:45 - 59:00]

• Prosecutions—via ICC and ad hoc tribunals—deter leaders, but can provoke claims that they hamper peace or transitions from dictatorship.
• Roth argues justice and peace are not necessarily incompatible; smart sequencing and timing are essential.
• Iraq war aftermath has damaged the plausibility and legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.
• Human Rights Watch supports intervention in situations of genocide but is conscious of the abuse of "humanitarian" rationales for war.

Quote:
"We are not a pacifist organization. We are willing to press for military intervention in cases of genocide or comparable atrocities. But this is a tool that it is much more difficult to do because of what Bush has done to this kind of concept over the last two years." — Roth [48:24]

Notable Q&A Highlights

1. On Trade and Burma/China

[54:05 - 55:10]

• Against increased trade with Burma; it entrenches the military regime. Pressure should target China, Burma’s key backer, and China’s Olympics may supply useful leverage.

2. On Accountability and Humanitarian Intervention

[55:20 - 57:25]

• HRW opposes using humanitarian rationale to legitimate wars of choice; advocates for independent oversight and is explicit when interventions are pretextual (e.g., 2003 Iraq war).

3. On Partiality & Resources

[57:31 - 59:10]

• HRW strives for impartiality: “In any armed conflict, we always report on both sides.” [57:54]
• Admits serious resource limitations and incomplete coverage (e.g., Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Japan).

4. On Labor Rights and Outsourcing

[63:55 - 64:45]

• Exporting jobs isn’t inherently abusive; what matters are labor rights and non-abusive workplace conditions wherever labor is located.

5. Justice vs. Peace Sequencing (e.g., Darfur, Uganda, Liberia)

[65:00 - 67:00]

• HRW will sequence justice to prioritize ending conflict and displacement but never supports formal amnesty: “The key is not to have formal amnesty, but to leave open that possibility of prosecution when political conditions permit.” [65:44]

6. On Prosecuting US Officials

[67:05 - 68:30]

• HRW supports prosecutions (e.g., for torture), but is realistic about US political resistance: “I wouldn't hold your breath... The most we can hope for initially would be serious hearings, sort of a truth commission model.” [67:32]

7. On US Abuses and Global Impact

[68:35 - 69:50]

• US not the worst abuser, but "the most influential one":
  "When the US does it, it degrades the standards.” [69:36]

8. On Shame and US Public Opinion

[75:03 - 76:20]

• Shaming the US is possible and sometimes effective, particularly after public attitudes shift post-2001.

9. On Relations with Amnesty International

[77:51 - 79:25]

• HRW and Amnesty collaborate closely, share information and campaigns, and have complementary strengths.

10. On Methodology and Access

[79:28 - 80:25]

• HRW uses a range of methods to get information, including covert work and work via migrants or in-country partners.

11. On Cultural Relativism

[83:05 - 85:20]

• HRW frames work as support for local rights-claiming minorities, not Western imposition:
  "We try to give our backing as effectively as we can to the side of that local cultural conflict that is more compatible with the international standards ... we're not imposing ... but if somebody wants to do it differently, we’re going to be standing there with them." — Roth [84:25]

12. On Addressing Global Poverty and Climate Change

[82:21 - 83:05]

• HRW's methodology is effective for poverty when a clear violator can be identified; less so for climate change, which diffuses responsibility.

Memorable Quotes

• On Humanitarian Law: “One of the real challenges is how do you make the requirements of humanitarian law more a matter of public morality so that when you expose these kinds of abuses, people frown rather than smile.” — Roth [16:55]
• On Cultural Arguments: “You cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they cite God—guess who wins?” — Roth [33:52]
• On US Global Example: “The most powerful example setting a negative example and the most powerful voice silenced. Not a good situation...” — Roth [40:37]
• On Human Rights Progress: “Today, human rights are a key way in which governments legitimize themselves ... but it is also a movement that is young and fragile and that is built on certain premises, certain conditions that are not necessarily the given reality.” — Roth [49:19]
• On the Need for Engagement: “We need debate on these issues, because it is, you know, we've got tough challenges ahead of us and we've got to make sure that we're most effective as possible ... we need you.” — Roth [87:05]

Notable Timestamps

• 00:00 – 05:01: Welcome and introduction (Dorothy Thomas)
• 05:01 – 12:30: Roth defines HRW’s approach and distinguishes methodologies
• 16:31 – 32:35: Security threats, terrorism, and public morality’s limits on shaming
• 33:52 – 38:50: Culture, religion, and the limits of shaming—case studies
• 38:55 – 49:41: The shifting landscape of international leverage and examples from US, EU, and China
• 49:45 – 59:00: The prospects and perils of international justice and humanitarian intervention
• 59:10 – 87:05: Q&A—challenges from the audience on resources, impartiality, sequencing justice, relations with other NGOs, access, global poverty, cultural relativism, and more

Summary

Ken Roth’s lecture offers a searching, nuanced, and sometimes self-critical examination of the global human rights movement at a pivotal historical moment. By probing the limitations and successes of HRW’s core tools—shaming, leveraging third-party influence, and resorting to legal or military intervention—Roth uncovers the murky ground between principle and pragmatism. He openly discusses the impact of global events, the erosion of US legitimacy, the rise of new global powers, and internal debates around local legitimacy and cultural diversity. The richness of the Q&A session further illustrates the movement’s complexities—from navigating accountability and resources, to the challenges of advancing rights in a reality shaped by security and economic anxieties, to the enduring debates over universality versus relativism. Roth closes with an invitation: Fresh thinking and active participation are essential if the movement is to adapt and continue to be effective.