Diversity, human rights and peace. (Culture Watch).

If globalization is a fact of life, so is human diversity. The management of national, cultural and religious diversity is a high priority for the United Nations and national policy makers in the twenty-first century. As more and more people are brought together; voluntarily and involuntarily, by the integration of markets in the wake of globalization and the continual advances in telecommunications and transportation, many individuals encountered confusion and conflict in adjusting to a multicultural experience that for them is new. Whether people are enriched or disoriented by their contacts with the "multiculturalism of globalization" depends to a considerable extent on how their fears are addressed, what is done to make them feel less vulnerable to forces over which they have little or no control. Inspired by the UN Charter--or perhaps the inspiration behind it--human rights are of significance in helping the international community deal with the dilemmas arising from a real or imagined clash of cultures and protecting "the dignity and worth of the human person".

In practice, this means the crafting of policies that will help individuals face the radical economic and social changes that at times seem to threaten their very identity. Most problems cannot be solved entirely at the national, regional or global level; the age of globalization is simultaneously an age of interdependence. No "political command" can ensure that decisions at any level will be implemented by administrative fiat. Leaders must motivate ordinary people to participate in plans "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite ... to maintain international peace and security". This is a major challenge to international policy makers. A concomitant challenge is how to give individuals a sense of involvement in shaping and controlling the course of events that affect their lives, through democratic--or good--governance, by promoting the rule of law, an independent judiciary, fr ee and fair periodic elections, political and intellectual pluralism, and respect for human and minority rights. States are a long-term fixture, and human rights are about protecting the individuals who make up States.

Democracy cannot guarantee human rights, but human rights cannot be protected without it. The UN Commission on Human Rights affirms "the indissoluble links" between the principles underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and "the foundation of any democratic society".

Democracy and human rights are about individuals-every individual is unique-and in one sense about the expression of that uniqueness. It follows that individual or national identities cannot be replaced by a monolithic "global" identity. But they can coexist with one another. Cosmopolitanism literally means "of being of many cultures". The challenge for the United Nations and national policy makers is to create institutions through which cultural, intellectual and political diversity is best articulated, tolerated and reconciled.

The protection of the human person is a top priority of the United Nations; human rights are interwoven into all aspects of its work and cover a broad spectrum of issues--political, economic, social, cultural and individual. They are universal rights and represent the consensus of the international community. They do not exclude any culture or region and are flexible enough to be relevant to diverse cultures. The Vienna Declaration of 1993 was clear, that the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. The challenge for the international community is to help national authorities, where necessary, to enforce human rights in their own countries. It is probably for national leaders to decide whether human rights issues will widen or narrow the gap between leaders and ordinary people. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan observes: "It was never the people who complained of the universality of human rights, nor did the people consider human rights as a Western imposition. It was often their leaders who did so."

Human rights enhance respect for cultural and social diversity. Even a cursory look at some international human rights instruments brings this out, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families assumes importance in the age of globalization, as greater freedom of movement underlines the need for changes in citizenship laws and immigration policies in some countries. It also draws attention to the effects of immigration in cities and the provision of welfare for immigrants.

Are traditional cultures sufficient to protect human dignity? If individual, cultural, national and other group identities and interests can be simultaneously in flux, what is the "traditional" culture in a multicultural society? If "traditional" leaders know best, how are they appointed to positions of authority? Must their "law" be binding on all members of the group? Is there no room for political and intellectual differences within groups? The 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities gives individuals the right to decide whether they wish to be identified with a group. This is correct--to give just one reason why: election results in countries as distant and diverse as Russia and India show that the ethnic or religious majority is not synonymous with the political majority.

States implement human rights norms. Can the international community help to create an environment that might make it easier for States to do this? For instance, could the forthcoming World Conference on Racism outline a global vision that would create greater awareness of, stimulate more debate on, perhaps even inspire States to craft and carry out policies that would facilitate the accommodation of their diverse citizens? Such a process would be a long haul, especially in areas where exclusivist discriminatory policies have triggered conflict. Much would depend upon the inclinations of individual States-- those with a more democratic orientation might well be more receptive to the idea of accommodating diversity through pluralistic institutions in which all communities could participate on equal terms. More generally, it is not unreasonable to suppose that States desiring consensus, and the acceptance in the international arena, would try to build consensus and fashion inclusive, accommodative policies at h ome. Such policies could deal with several issues, and only a few may be mentioned here.

In post-conflict situations, institutions that can reconcile diversity often need to be built from scratch. Democracy assistance to community and civil society organizations is important, but it is only one side of the coin.

The training of administrators and legal and judicial officials in the art of good governance is also vital, if only because it is they who formulate and implement legislation on human rights and preventive development in their respective countries, at least to some extent with the intention, it is hoped, of reconciling their diverse populations. The international community can offer help in strengthening domestic capacities to implement such policies and contribute to the forging of a more tolerant environment within States. In addition, education in the broadest sense--of students, teachers, parents, administrators, community organizations--can contribute to the forging of a culture of peace within and between countries. Without peace, there can be neither development nor accommodation of diversity. A decade after the end of the cold war, the economic achievements of post-1945 Western Europe easily come to mind. They were made possible by a combination of peace, democratic governance, intellectual and polit ical pluralism and tolerance, and sound economic policies, and each of these probably reinforced the other. In this context, the World Conference on Racism might be able to play a unique and far-reaching role in underlining the principles of dialogue, tolerance and accommodation within and between States, to be sustained by good governance, preventive development and education policies.

Diversity can enrich human existence. The acceptance of diversity is the opposite of religious, racial, social, cultural and ethnic discrimination, intolerance, exclusion and conflict Democracy and human rights are security issues in the new millenium; they are about the security of human beings. Human rights reconcile national needs and vision with a global vision. Implemented through democratic institutions, they can simultaneously safeguard the "inherent dignity ... equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family ... [as] the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world".

Anita Inder Singh is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Wolfson College, Oxford, United Kingdom. Her book, "Democracy, Ethnic Diversity and Security in Post-Communist Europe", has just been published in the United States.