Dec 24, 2020

Against the backdrop of some of the troubling trends that have emerged in statist construction of public human rights history, the question must be asked: What are the ethical and professional obligations of public historians generally and public historians of human rights in particular? What ethical impulses must public historians heed as they engage questions of culpability and accountability in human rights practices?

For example, historians of Nazi Germany have had to be particularly conscientious about issues of trust and professional responsibility, not only thoroughly documenting the unspeakable crimes of an outlaw regime, but also in accurately situating their subject in the context of a particularly violent period. Similarly, post-colonial historical must be conscientious about documenting colonial atrocities while juxtaposing them with the ostensible “social benefits” of colonialism.

Some professions such as the medical and legal professions have, over the years, developed comprehensive codes of ethics to which members are obligated to abide. The process of disciplinary qualification, certification and accreditation is hinged on strict adherence to these codes. Historians have not been traditionally bound by such formal ethical and professional obligations. Although several Historical associations including the American Historical Association and the National Council on Public History have produced broad ethics guidelines on professional conduct, these are not as strict and obligatory as those in some other professions.[1]

Given the instrumentality of public history and particularly, the pivotal role of human rights historians in national commemoration and memorialization projects, we must ask whether it is now time to consider holding public Historians to a stricter and more obligatory ethic code -- perhaps a “Historian’s Hippocratic Oath.”

The Greek origins of the Oath of Hippocrates historically taken by physicians required them to swear by several healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. For the public historian, it would require a declared commitment to upholding the basic tenants of our trade - respecting the integrity of primary and secondary sources even while subjecting them to critical scrutiny, contributing in a fair-minded way to scholarly and public debates over what sources tell us about the past, and ensuring that argument are justified by evidence.

This point is well articulated in the AHA's “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct.”

Practicing history in the public realm presents important challenges, for when historians communicate with a wider public, they must represent not just a particular interpretation or body of facts, but the best practices of the discipline of history itself. This means they must inevitably walk a tightrope in balancing their desire to present a particular point of view with their responsibility to uphold the standards and values that underpin their professional authority as historians.[2]

The call for a “Historian’s Hippocratic Oath” might not be as facetious as it appears. Scholars working within public spaces have the potential to go great public good or harm. A historian who devotes a lifetime of research work to denying the atrocities of the Holocaust or justifying the colonial dispossessions of indigenous can potentially do as much harm as a malevolent physician.

In 2014, it was revealed in a United States Senate Report that contract psychologists devised the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program which included the torture of detainees. In some cases, academic psychologists conducted interrogations using new techniques that they had developed.[3]

This revelation triggered renewed debates within medical and academic communities about the ethical obligations of medical professionals involved in state security projects. Admittedly, historians are less likely to be embroiled in such controversies. But at a time when historians are increasingly being called upon to lend their expertise to national memorialization projects, we need to re-open the conversation about public trust and the historian’s ethical obligations. Public trust in historians as experts confers a set of responsibilities to the public: to bring that expertise to bear in debates about the past in the present.

There are at least two sides to the debate about professional ethics. On one hand, public historians have been urged to guard against being used simply to rationalize and legitimize statist agendas, particularly those that serve to exclude and further marginalize subaltern constituencies. On the other hand, public historians have to be equally mindful of their roles as advocates. 

They must guard against appropriating the stories of the oppressed and victimized in ways that drown out these voices, undermine scholarly objectivity or erode public trust. As the AHA’s “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct” cautions: “The desire to score points as an advocate should never tempt a historian to misrepresent the historical record or the critical methods that the profession uses to interpret that record.” [4]

These debates are particularly relevant to the memorialization of human rights atrocities and the role of historians and museums in documenting these atrocities. The narratives that museum and memorial sites construct through their collections and displays can represent powerful historiographies.

For an increasing number of museums dedicated to social and memorial histories, these histories are recuperated from silenced or disappeared pasts. The act of making these histories public is an important moment in the lives of the individuals who have experienced trauma, as it is for the collective memory and catharsis of society.[5]

The ethical and professional obligation of the public historian of human rights is therefore not simply academic. They also have practical real-world implications on the lived experiences of individuals and communities.

(Excepts from: Bonny Ibhawoh, “Why Public History?” Paper presented at the International Congress of Historical Sciences, 23-29 August, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China, August 2015).


[1] The American Historical Association’s “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct” (updated 2011) at http://historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-and-standards-of-the-profession/statement-on-standards-of-professional-conduct

[2] AHA, “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct.”

[3] Jefferson M Fish “Psychologists played a key role in the CIA torture program.” Psychologists and Torture.www.psychologytoday.com/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201412/psychologists-and-torture. (Accessed June 16, 2015.)

[4] AHA, “Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct.”

[5] Carter, “Human Rights Museums and Pedagogies of Practice,” 328.

 

A Hippocratic Oath for Historians

Dec 7, 2020

 Excepts of Statement by Bonny Ibhawoh (Chair, United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development) at the International Dialogue on Promoting and Protecting the Rights of People of African Descent and their communities In Latin America and the Caribbean in the Context of Covid-19: Building Back Better

The United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development with is the foundational document on the Right to Development conceives the right to development as the inalienable human right of everyone to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized. A key theme in the right to development is self-determination and the equitable distribution of the resources of nations and the global community. 

The Right to Development Agenda establishes development as a fundamental right and puts people at the centre of the development process. Development is seen as a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.

The right to development was first articulated and formulated by representatives from developing countries that had long been subjected to colonial racism, in their demand for a new international economic order which would be more favourable to the development of less developed countries and for the full control by people over their own natural resources. Much of this early was done under the auspices of the Non-Allied Movement at the UN. Afro-descendant people were at the forefront of putting the right to development on the international human rights agenda.

Since the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development by the UN General Assembly in 1986, the right to development has become a well-established principle in the international human rights system. The DRTD outlines three levels of state responsibility for the Right to Development a) in national policies within individual state jurisdiction, b) in policies affecting persons outside the state’s jurisdiction c) in global and regional partnerships. 

Since the adoption of the DRTD, efforts have been made at the UN and elsewhere to operationalize the right to development. The right to development has not been recognized at per with other human rights. There remains a tendency to see the right to development as a “subsidiary right”; a “Third World” right.

The good news, however, is that the intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development of the UN Human Rights Council continues to explore the content and scope of a legally binding international instrument on the right to development. The goal is to advance the right to development beyond a declaration to a legally enforceable Covenant.

International human rights and systemic racism

I will now comment on the intersection between the right to development and the fight against systemic racism. The intersection between racism and the right to development manifests in all three levels of individual state obligations, extra-territorial jurisdiction, and global partnership. 

Equality, including the right to freedom from discrimination, is at the core of the human rights framework, and included in all human rights instruments. Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms “without distinction of any kind, such as race …”. 

Article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination acknowledges systemic racism and obliges States parties to actively combat racism.  

The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action adopted in 2001,  reasserts the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and assigns primary responsibility for combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to States, as duty bearers, while also calling for active involvement by international and non-governmental organizations, political parties, national human rights institutions, the private sector, the media and civil society. The Durban Declaration recognized that social biases and discrimination prevailing in public and private institutions continued to create barriers for people of African descent, including in the realization of human rights.

Racism and the Right to Development 

These provisions recognize a global reality that racism is not confined to any single region of the world. It is a worldwide phenomenon that requires a worldwide response. On the legal and institutional framework to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ERD has stated that “racial discrimination or the potential for racial discrimination exists in all societies.” 

In relations to persons of African descent, the key historical manifestations of institutional and systemic racism are the slave trade and colonialism. 

The protests against racial injustice that have erupted globally has brought renewed attention to the lingering question of institutionalised racial discrimination and its devastating impact on racialized communities, particularly communities of Afro descendant peoples. The disproportionately high infection and mortality rate of COVID 19 among racial minorities and recent incidents of the excessive use of force towards people of African descent have brought reviewed attention to the lingering problem of racism and the need to prioritise within the international human rights agenda. 

Racism, racial discrimination, and racial injustice are violations of fundamental human rights. Racism is linked to state violence, lack of economic opportunities, poverty, unemployment, and health that all bear directly on the right to development. 

The UN DRD defines development as “an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.’ It calls for free and meaningful participation in development and fair distribution of its benefits; and makes equality of opportunity for development ‘a prerogative both of nations and of individuals who make up nations.’ 

Central to the Right to Development agenda is the elimination of historical and systemic obstacles that have impeded development in some regions of the world. As reflected in the preamble of the DRTD, the obstacles to be eliminated include “the massive and flagrant violations of the human rights of the peoples and individuals affected by situations such as those resulting from colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, foreign domination and occupation, aggression and threats against national sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity and threats of war.” 

Article 5 of the DRTD reinforces this point by enjoining states to take resolute steps to eliminate the violations of the human rights of peoples affected by racism and racial discrimination. The elimination of racism is therefore recognized as essential to fulfilling the right to development. 

The Declaration on the Right to Development is one of only a few international human rights instruments that explicitly frames racism and racial discrimination as a violation of universal human rights and a barrier to the enjoyment of human rights by those who face racial discrimination. 

While others several UN human rights prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and other individual and collective identities, the Declaration on the Right to Development explicitly identifies racism and racial discrimination as key obstacles to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and calls for resolute steps to eliminate racism. 

The EMRTD Study 

Given the centrality of anti-racism to the right to development agenda, the Expert Mechanism on the right to Development (EDRTD) is undertaking a thematic study on the connections between the right to development and the fight against racism. The issue of racism has been a longstanding item on the UN human rights agenda. I note the important role played by the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) in putting racism and racial discrimination on the international human rights agenda. 

I also recognize the pivotal role of the World Conferences Against Racism (WCAR) organized by UNESCO to promote struggle against racism ideologies, policies and practices, notably the Durban Conference. The EMRTD is committed to supporting this ongoing work.

The objectives of my Expert Mechanism’s study on Racism are threefold.  

1. The first is to examine systemic and institutional racism as obstacles to fulfilling the non-discrimination, equality of opportunity and fair distribution provisions of the right to development at both national and international levels, that hinders the entitlement of all human persons and peoples to participate in, contribute to and enjoy self-determined development. This includes examining how systemic racism within individual state jurisdictions impede the right to development, for example, by exacerbating poverty and inequality. 

2. The second is to examine systemic and institutional racism as it manifests in policies affecting persons outside the state’s jurisdiction, in the context of the right to development.

3. The third is to examine the obstacles that racism and racial discrimination pose to international cooperation and global partnerships on the right to development. This includes examining how racism and racial prejudice have shaped the debates about the right to development manifesting in the persistent lack of its effective operationalization and recognition at par with other human rights.

Two recent global developments make this study necessary and timely.

The first is the current global movement for racial justice which has called to question historical and contemporary structures of racial discrimination. Across the world, marginalized racialized groups are calling for racial equality, demanding anti-racist interventions from the state, international organizations, and the international community.

The second motivation for this study is the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on racialized communities which has worsened poverty and reduced the quality of life in these communities. In many countries, maps of the pandemic reveal its disproportionate impact on racialized communities economically, socially and in terms of their general wellbeing. 

The recent report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent does an excellent job of analysing the links between systemic racism and COVID-19 pandemic. As the Working Group report states: “Structural racial discrimination exacerbates inequality in access to health care and treatment, leading to racial disparities in health outcomes and increased mortality and morbidity for people of African descent. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought racial disparity and discrimination to the surface in institutions designed to confer justice, equity and redress.” 

The social and economic disruptions of COVID-19 have highlighted the persistence of deep inequalities within and between nations. The United Nations describes it as an explosion of inequality. There is need for urgent and concerted international action to prevent COVID-19 from creating even wider inequalities and exacerbating poverty around the world. These issues can all be addressed through the framework of the right to development.  

As individual states and the international community map out plan on how to distribute COVID-19 vaccines, there is justified concern that racial minority communities will be excluded and marginalized in the distribution of the vaccine. Even though it should be expected that racialized communities  that have been disproportionably affected by the COVID-19 pandemic should be among the first in line to receive the vaccines, we know from the history of pandemics and present day health disparities that racialized communities are at risk of being ignored or relegated to the background in distribution plans. 

Vulnerable racialised minority communities who may not be able to assert political and economic power in COVAX distribution should be given a voice in the distribution plans. Initiatives such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator must consider the historical marginalization of racialized communities, particularly people of African descent and the economic and health disparities that they have made them disproportionally vulnerable to the pandemic.

Racism as an obstacle to development has been recognized by other international organizations. The European Commission Action Plan against racism in the European Union issued on 18 September 2020 acknowledges that high levels of inequality arising from racism represent an obstacle to the achievement of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. 

The Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development is committed to identifying obstacles of systemic racism to the realization of the right to development and to making concrete policy recommendations on how to overcome this obstacle both in the context of individual state jurisdictions and in the context of global cooperation and partnerships. We welcome the cooperation and support of states, academics, practitioners, and civil society organizations in undertaking our work. 


The Right to Development and the Fight Against Racism

 
GIAZILO © 2015 Templateism.com