Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
UN Declares Water, Sanitation as Human Rights
Access to clean water and sanitation was declared a human right Wednesday after a vote aimed at helping the world's neediest, passed unanimously at the United Nations.
Although the motion passed with 124 countries voting in favour of the resolution drafted by Bolivia, Canada was among the 41 nations to abstain on the issue.
In June, Bolivia's draft resolution indicated that global water rights would "entitle everyone to available, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable water and sanitation."
Maude Barlow, chairwoman of Food and Water Watch — a Washington-based group — who previously sat as a senior adviser to the United Nations General Assembly on the water issue, said Wednesday's vote was groundbreaking.
"We're absolutely thrilled," said Barlow, who also serves as national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians. "This is a historic day and I think every now and then, the human species advances somewhat in our evolution and today was one of them."
June's draft resolution declared that countries unable to provide water to their residents should be assisted through "international co-operation and assistance," essentially calling for rich countries to give foreign aid to any government that says it doesn't have the means to meet its citizens' water rights.
According to the UN, more than one billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion are without basic sanitation.
- Posted in
84 Comments so far
Show AllThis is great news. I know it's a start, but a much needed victory. I hope the momentum picks up from here on.
It is to society's advantage that all citizens are well educated and healthy.
What people do after that is up to each individual.
Yes, soon they'll declare something else that we have a right to like air. Then we can breathe and feel lucky. We're the UN! We can declare things.
Canada don't you mean the USA?
Vermonter: You mean abstaining from the vote? Yes, Canada! We have a robot Prime Minister who follows the most narrow and rigid extreme right-wing ideology. He is really hurting this country. Most of us can't stand him, and needless to say, his simplistic thinking and policies make us sick.
One more way that the socialistic UN and their One World Government are entirely out of touch with the American people, especially the hard-working rural and suburban American people, and therefore should be abolished.
I love it.. Good shot SaboCat..
Now, now. The USA is a member of the United Nations. If Americans don't agree with the rest of the civilized world, it can simple quit the UN. You do not get to decide whether or not to abolish the UN. The opinions of Americans are not the only opinions in the world that count. One could say that the American Government is out of touch with the German and French people....the point of the United Nations is for nations to stay in touch with one another's people. Do you understand the concept?
Let's have the self respect to have more respect for others and their differing opinions.
I think you are wrong about the purpose of the UN. I think it is there for states to mediate their problems and solve issues that are greater than one state. There isn't any reason though that individual states may not participate in one decision or another. For instance, the UN went into Korea in 1950 and the Russians (obviously) didn't aid that effort. Should they be vilified for it?
States have their own priorities that don't always conform to those of other states, I think the UN is where we can work those out sometimes.
Oh God! Get a life people! My brief piece was SATIRE; ok?
S-A-T-I-R-E!
"The opinions of Americans are not the only opinions in the world that count."
Where are you from?
Well, maybe not for those reasons...but it could sure use fixing.
Just how will this resolution be enforced?
Or produce or move clean water for that matter?
Here in the good old USA, we the people don't even have access to clean water. They claim it's clean, but my water has arsenic in it ... for years now. They keep telling us they are going to do something about it, but they don't. My wife and I call our water "Old Lace Springs" after the story/play/movie Arsenic and Old Lace. The Corporatists do not care whose well they shit in. We are ALL screwed!
Bring America Back !!!!
**Then where is the UN milestone which deals with Israel state sponsored blockade of Gazan supplies of food, water, and medical supplies, now for years; oh, and an attack killing 1500 humans, including 400 innocent children ?
**When is the UN milestone dealing with the USA, who joined Israel in the Genocide and as child killers ?? WHEN ?
**Guess these rights apply to all except the enemies of Zion.
Probably in the same place (or time; you don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two) as the logic behind your nonsensical posts.
q
It's a warm and fuzzy feel good. I see no way that it either produces one drop of clean water or moves any to those who need it. But now it's a "right" by gum, sure feels good.
Wow! Holy tap water, Batman! The "UN Declares Water, Sanitation as Human Rights"
And the US will show the UN resolution the same respect it has for every other resolution it feels is inconvenient.
Another declaration that means nothing. Waste of everyone's time. Why can't we reach a point where meaningful things are accomplished?
Do these declarations mean nothing?
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You have free speech zones in the USA. People have been arrested in the USA for protesting outside the White House and elsewhere. People have been arrested for petitioning members of Government to redress grievances. People have been arrested in the USA for protesting war and encouraging people not to join the Military. The Supreme court ruled in Favor of the Government in all these instances.
>>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
See the Patriot act which as all but moot this clause moot. See the case of Padilla, the tapping of phones without warrants, the interception of mail. See preemptive arrests such as at the RNC covention. Examples of this right being violated abound. See the Presidents claim he can assassinate US Citizens.
>>No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Gitmo..Padilla. The Patriot act. The Eco Terrorist act. See Lynne Stewart.
>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Military tribunals. Lynne stewart ..Padilla. The Gitmo trials.
The Supremacy clause in your Constitution and all thsoe violated treaties?
I am sure you get the drift here.
Now moving on.
The Ottawa accord and the ban on the use of Cluster munitions were also arrived at through the UN and a treaty making process. I really do not think peopl ein Angola and Bosnia and Afghanistan think those as a waste of everyones time. Just because the USA was not on board with those treatoes , it hardly means they accomplished nothing. There more to the world then the USA.
Touche! Well done!
Thanks, for taking the time to spell out the absurdities and US-centrism of mightmites remarks. Per my earlier post, which went over a few peoples heads, when I'm faced with such manifest US insularity, all I have the stomach for is some dripping sarcasm.
GwNorth, great post. Nice work.
SaboCat, I almost missed your sarcasm there and was about to "educate" you.
Maybe the inability to discern satire in others makes it difficult for others to discern it in you. The preoccupation of lacing your posts with insult might be draining lucidity away from your pathetic attempt at satire. As to your stomach problems they must be contagious.
Entschuldige bitte, aber ich muss gerade in den anderen raum gehen, um zu kotzen.
Around the world, caring, loving, men and women of all shapes, colors and persuasions, work tirelessly for human rights and environmental protections. Unfortunately their efforts are laughed at by wealthy, powerful corporate giants who also work tirelessly to enslave us all and rape our lovely home, Earth. Democratic institutions have achieved little.
As long as we participate, wasting food, water and every other resource in order to maintain our consumer theme park lifestyle, we can expect little change, internationally or domestically.
BRAVO
WHAT democratic institutions?
The UN?
The UN was designed to fail. That doesn't mean it couldn't be done right. But how to do it right...that's the question.
Hey people, don't let your cynicism guide your every post on such a topic. Try to make some exception. And also try to remember that there is a world outside of USA where this UN declaration means a lot to so many activists. That is, activists who are actually in the field AND understand the workings of the capitalism that you all rile against. Calling for a declaration of water as a human right came about after many, many battles - legal as well as physical - against local and state governments, against courts, against corporations, mafia and so on. It so happens that many of the activists still believe in non-violent means of fighting for their rights and they need an umbrella legal cover to take on the system at the local level.
It's true, that the mere declaration of human rights has not brought human rights to all. But it has at least made it much harder for governments and corporations to ride roughshod over people's basic rights. The human rights commissions in many countries are still respected and have a fair amount of credibility, even though their own governments may lack them. This is a long fight, so let's celebrate every little victory along the way.
Maude Barlow is a great woman who is also working alongside activists from other countries. She points out that it's the rich countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, etc., that are opposed to declaring water as a human right.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/07/28-1
If you think this is a trivial declaration, why do you think these countries will oppose it? And why do you think Bolivia would be at the forefront? And why do you think corporations - such as the mining companies - oppose it?
Good post. Looking at the other posts would lead me to conclude that CD had been infiltrated by a bunch of reactionaries. The UN is the only international body that has any semblance of a democratic process. It is far more democratic than the US is internally. The responsibility for the vast majority of the UN's "failures" can be laid at the feet of the United States Government (not US citizens).
Making water a human right was the result of work started by the indigenous people of Bolivia. The genesis of this new declaration by the UN was as bottom up and therefore as democratic as it gets. The UN is used by the US as democratic cover for its ruling class' imperial ambitions. If you think that water should be a human right, as I do, (and I would include health care, education and decent housing too), then the UN is not the problem. The problem is imperial global capitalism, and if you live in the US, you live in the belly of the beast.
Rights of all inhabitants of earth, not only human: light, clean water, clean air, clean food, a home, clothing (humans), privacy in your thoughts, home, papers & communications, freedom from human created artificial noise, freedom to be your true natue (no genetic mutation), freedom from ownership by another-economic, psychological & physical, freedom from attack & violence-any form
So, what you're saying is you want to live in a zoo? Protected by your keepers at the UN, for your own good of course.
Please don't impose your idea of utopia on me. I prefer freedom to some Patriarchal overlord taking care of all my needs.
No, not utopia, simply the guarantee that you have a baseline right to a decent existence.
i wonder how "free" you will be once the privatizers of life raise the price of such basics above the level of your ability to pay .....
You have a pretty strange and sick concept of freedom there.
So you want the "freedom" of a nasty, brutish, dog-eat-dog, hand to mouth violent, and short existence?
Put down your Ayn Rand you oh-so-typically stupid and sick USAn.
"Rights of..." and "freedoms from..." do not work, or, if they do, please point out where. "Congress shall make no law..." and "No person shall be..." and "Thou shalt not..." seem to be the formulas that do work (and might even spare us silly arguments about "freedoms"). When the ideas in this declaration are given effect, it will be in the form of restrictions and limitations on the actions and behavior of governments and groups and individuals.
Not to be a spoilsport, but I think that there some problems with declarations like this. What about LA? Or Las Vegas? Or MyTown-in-the-Arizona-Desert? Will I now be able to state that I have a right to water there now in any amount needed to keep it going when I really have no business being there in the first place?
What about Darfur? A century ago there were probably about the right number of people for the land and there was disease, war, all that we have now to trim down the population. Now we have exploding population in places that aren't really suited to humans. Will there be a right to water there?
Sure I agree generally that the people of a nation should have the right to water, but what if they have outgrown their water sources? Is it the obligation of other countries to give them additional water?
What about Pakistan where they use flood irrigation which is VERY wasteful. If that is their tradition, will other countries have to forgo their water to support their inefficient uses of water?
Any way, this is a General Assembly resolution which really isn't anything more than a talking point.
The existence of Your-Town-in-the-Arizona-Desert or the Pakistani's practice of wasteful flood-irrigation are matters to be argued about and maybe even settled in a broadly representative parliament...if somebody can tell us a way to make it representative (my unanswered question above). That's got to be figured out before everybody goes trouping off to relocate the General Assembly at Cochabamba and leave the big five to fulminate among themselves in New York.
Humans wouldn't have come to their accidental existence on this planet had water been absent on Earth in the first place (yes God didn't create us and doesn't exist) so this UN declaration is cynical and perverse at best.
And the UN is hopelessly toothless in any event (as the US and Israel getting away with so many crimes against humanity shows us) so this declaration is cynical, perverse and powerless.
This declaration, like the larger UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights passed in the late 1940's, needs to become enforceable in order to be functional.
But enforceability is only likely to happen if the UN General Assembly evolves into a democratically elected world parliament whose powers exceed, and probably/finally obliterate, the bogus concept of a Security Council's powers.
And this in turn might only happen if and when enough UN nations become internally people-governed, law-ruled democracies themselves, which in turn is only likely to happen when and if enough humans of all nationalities become conscious enough.....etc., etc.
All of which seems likely to be a very long and hard transformative process, at minimum.
Still, I see no point in mocking any formal declaration of our human concerns for each other and the biosphere that sponsors us, whether they come the from the befuddled UN or from the worst, privately conniving manipulators among us.
For reasonably well-intended homo sapiens, these kinds of global declarations at least help us re-illuminate values that declare what we could be, and must become, as diversely acculturated creatures sharing a common human body-design on a planet whose Human-sponsoring physics will eliminate us all the sooner, if we don't so-cognate, so-share.
"only likely to happen if the UN General Assembly evolves into a democratically elected world parliament whose powers exceed, and probably/finally obliterate, the bogus concept of a Security Council's powers."
And why would any of the permanent members of the Security Council ever let this happen? I don't see what is in it for any of them. No country walks away from power. Ever.
"...a democratically elected world parliament..."
What? One country, one vote?
It is hard to fathom what I have read regarding the desire for the United Nations, the singularly most feckless organization in the history of the world, to assume more power over the lives of thinking humans.
Can any of you pro-UN folks tell me one single issue, problem, war, etc., that has been solved by the UN?
The only program instituted by the UN that can remotely call successful is UNICEF, and it would be interesting if that program was audited.
Simply amazing, mind-numbing perspectives.
Actually, I've heard the argument that that the creation of the United Nations and international legal codes has at least prevented a third world war and therefore has succeeded in its mission. Also, if you take an evolutionary long view, as the evolutionary psychologist Stephen Pinker does, the UN and the emergence of civil society organizations I believe are consistent with the overall truth that we live in a remarkably peaceful period in terms of human evolution, if you look at the hard data at what humans were doing to each other as hunter gathers.
samuel, a response to your query re; the ineffectiveness of the UN in solving problems. My view it's how one perceives the UN. The Un is more of a 'think-tank' of ideas recommendations etc. It sets out 'rules/international laws actually' that 'if' adhered to by all nations, the world would be a much better place. Metaphorically, let's take the Olympics or the World Cup, if states, teams & individuals did as they pleased, playing by some rules ignoring others according to what suited them at any given time, the games, as a sporting event wouldn't be so enjoyable or entertaining. In my view the UN is the same, if some countries decide to abide by certain treaties & covenants, international laws & not others, what can the UN body do! It cannot by 'force' impose it's will on others, rather as a body & according to specific principles sets out a road map, of how to make sure 'never again' to have a repeat of the German State at that period in time, the carnage was to great to not address the root causes, after all the Nazis didn't come to power over night it was a decades long process, the UN wanted to made sure the 'conditions' that led to this conflagration could again occur. Hold on--going to find a copy of the preamble to the UN charter, ah here's a good description---the issue is more one of implementation of policy(UN ideology promoting a HR culture of specified values) & for it to become common practice, which is addressed in the final paragraph as pointed out below & if it's not taught & made alive to the imagination as another way-----well than here we are, eh!
The Universal Declaration begins with a preamble consisting of seven paragraphs followed by a statement "proclaiming" the Declaration.
Each paragraph of the preamble sets out a reason for the adoption of the Declaration. The first paragraph asserts that the recognition of human dignity of all people is the foundation of justice and peace in the world. The second paragraph observes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and that the four freedoms: freedom of speech, belief, freedom from want, and freedom from fear – which is "proclaimed as the highest aspiration" of the people. The third paragraph states that so that people are not compelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law. The fourth paragraph relates human rights to the development of friendly relations between nations. The fifth paragraph links the Declaration back to the United Nations Charter which reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person. The sixth paragraph notes that all members of the United Nations have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The seventh paragraph observes that "a common understanding" of rights and freedoms is of "the greatest importance" for the full realisation of that pledge.[13]
These paragraphs are followed by the "proclamation" of the Declaration as a "common standard of achievement" for "all peoples and all nations", so that "all individuals" and "all organs of society" should by teaching and education, promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.[13
The Preamble is:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
so, what d'ya think!
I think CD need not have bothered to publish this story - because this declaration is of greater value to activists in developing countries. They look to it as an additional tool or a weapon in their fight to get fair access to water. It's important in their fight against creeping privatization in the name of development and the commodification of something as essential as water. To force their governments to stop stealing water from the poor and giving it for elite use - such as hotel swimming pools and golf courses for rich, foreign tourists. It seems like many here view it from a North American point of view. Also with a misunderstanding of what this declaration means. The UN is not going to enforce it. However, countries that have signed on will have to come up with suitable legislation that guarantees this right. Once again, it's a start. It's needed in places where there is no legal framework to even talk of water as a right.
Also keep in mind that multinational corporations are much more alert and aware about the implications of such a declaration than you and me. That is precisely the reason that the rich countries do not want to sign on. Corporations have been working relentlessly to get legislation passed in India, Latin American countries, etc., that would allow freer access and greater profiteering. Privatization of water distribution has been taking place by stealth in India.
To those who think solidarity with activists who fight for the rights of those at the bottom of the society is important, I want to say this: please spend some time to educate yourself about the (unequal) fight going on elsewhere and the challenges faced by activists. It's often a small number of people who work relentlessly that secure the minimal rights to people at the bottom. Let's not trivialize their efforts. It's obviously not a "sexy" topic, and it's obviously not immediately important for anyone in the USA or Canada. But still...
There also this to consider.
My own feeling, which I expressed before is that the USA sees "water" as a weapon to be used against the peoples of the world.
If the US votes YEA to water as a human right can they so easily bomb water treatment plants wherein several hundred thousand children die due to lack of access to such in the "Next Iraq" ? (The US targetted water treatment plants AND sanitation plants)
If not acknowledged as a fundamental human right, then it is a target and a weapon.
Not only can it be bought and sold. It can be witheld and destroyed.
Quote from a US Diplomat (The US abstained)
>>US diplomat John Sammis told the General Assembly that the United States "is deeply committed to finding solutions to our water challenges," but he said the resolution "describes a right to water and sanitation in a way that is not reflective of existing international law."
Another bullseye.
I do believe international law already frowns upon the targeting of civilian infrastructure, so do Sammis' remarks signal a newfound respect for it?
Interesting diplomatese on Sammis' part. Does it mean it is conceivable that there is a way for a resolution to describe a "right to water and sanitation" that the US could subscribe to? Precisely how, I wonder, would such a resolution have to be worded to pass muster as being reflective of existing international law, as Sammis' interprets it?
Which of course raises the interesting issue - if existing international law reflected this resolution, there, it would seem, have been no need for it. On the other hand, one can certainly argue that any new resolution, including any proposed by the US, if not already reflected by internat'l law, might be said to be unworthy of support ....
Clearly, it seems to me, that the US "solutions" to water challenges must be ones that would clash with any concept of water as a right .....