Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education ... - APCEIU

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding 

Intercultural Understanding and 

Human Rights Education 

in the Era of Globalization 

A report of the International Symposium on a Culture of Peace 

25 ~ 27 October 2006, Hoam Convention Center, 

Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

Intercultural Understanding and 

Human Rights Education in the Era of Globalization


CONTENTS 

Foreword / 4 

1. Conceptual Framework / 7 

2. Opening Ceremony / 11 

3. Summary of Keynote Speech / 14 

4. Plenary Session I: Intercultural Education towards a Culture of Peace / 16 

5. Special Session: Human Rights Education through the Arts / 23 

6. Plenary Session II: Human Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education / 24 

7. Plenary Session III: Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education / 32 

8. Plenary Session IV: Migration via Globalization: Challenges to Human Rights 

Defenders / 38 

9. Plenary Session V: Rethinking Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights 

Education towards a Culture of Peace / 46 

10. Round Table Discussion / 49 

11 . Presentation papers / 52 

ANNEX 

I. Programme /233 

II. Opening, Welcoming, and Congratulatory remarks / 237 

III. Congratulatory Message from Director-General, UNESCO / 244 

IV. Results of Round Table Discussions / 246 

V. Participants list / 268

Foreword 

For the past five years, Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International 

Understanding has been holding International Symposium on a Culture of Peace. 

For this year, the theme Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights 

Education in the Era of Globalizationwas selected in line with the UN World 

Programme of Human Rights Education (2005-2014), Declaration and 

Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace related to the International Decade for 

the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001- 

2010), and the Recommendation Concerning Education for International 

Understanding, Co-operation and Peace Education Relating to Human Rights and 

Fundamental Freedoms (1974). The event was held from 25 to 27 October 2006 

at Hoam Convention Center, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 

From this endeavor, I am proud to say that recommendations to promote human 

rights sensitive intercultural education, culture sensitive human rights education 

and an educational approach responsive to the needs of the migrants were 

formulated which was the key objective of the symposium. Likewise, through this 

initiative, we were able to develop and strengthen support networks and 

working partnerships across the region especially in the field of human rights. 

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to the keynote speaker, presenters 

and participants. The success of the symposium was not made possible without 

all their enthusiastic and active participation. 

I would also like to give my deep appreciation to the UNESCO Headquarters, 

National Human Rights Commission of Korea and Korea Center for United 

Nations Human Rights for all the support and cooperation. 

As such, by organizing this symposium, APCEIU would like to reaffirm its 

commitment to promulgate Education for International Understanding towards a 

Culture of Peace. 

KANG Dai-Geun 

Director of APCEIU

6 

Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education in the Era of Globalization

1. Conceptual Framework 

During the three working days, the symposium offered the 

participants various forms of active participation and exchange 

of ideas through the following: panel discussions, round table 

discussions, open forum session and special session. 

The panel discussions provided an interactive and stimulating 

foundation for the round table discussions. The themes of the 

five plenary sessions were designed to show the relationship of 

each session. Presenters were selected from different parts of 

the region in order for them to share how the diverse issues 

encompassing intercultural understanding and human rights 

education have been approached in different parts of the 

region. The round table discussions follow each session in order 

to draw up recommendations related to the topic of the 

respective plenary session such as promoting human rights 

sensitive intercultural education, culture sensitive human rights 

education and education in response to migration issues for the 

three sectors namely: formal education sector, government 

sector and civil society. 

An open forum session was also provided for the 

person/organization to present their activities/programme 

related to the theme of the symposium. The session was divided 

into three groups namely: Understanding the Activities under 

the UNESCO s Streamline, The Endeavors to Advocate the 

Human Rights and Peace, and Intercultural Understanding and 

a Culture of Peace. 

International Symposium on a Culture of Peace 7

▲ During the Round Table Discussion 

▲ During the Open Forum Session 

The themes of the five plenary sessions were selected as 

follows: Intercultural Education towards a Culture of Peace 

which presented the UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural 

Education with its explanation and its implications to related 

fields of education such as human rights and peace education. 

The panelists presented their own institutional experiences or 

cases on intercultural and human rights education; Human 

Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education encompassed how 

religious beliefs and traditions affect the view and practice 

regarding human rights and how the interplay of these factors 

becomes complicated in a multicultural society especially in the 

era of globalization. The panelists presented cases on how 

religious beliefs influence the insights and observance of human 

rights approach; Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education is 

about how human rights education can be culture sensitive 

against the backdrop of globalization and the challenge of 

culture diversity. The panelists presented cases of some cultural 

practice relative to the universal standards of human rights in 

order to shed light on some sensitive issues and stimulate the 

8 


search for some common ground; Migration via Globalization: 

Challenges to Human Rights Defenders showcased how 

globalization brings about the unstoppable feature of migration 

and how migrant workers and internally displaced persons 

experience different forms of discrimination, prejudice and 

violation of human rights. The panelists presented the cause 

and effect of migration phenomena and the interrelation with 

globalization on multinational corporation, women migrant 

workers and internally displaced persons; and Rethinking 

Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education 

towards a Culture of Peace is the concluding part wherein the 

recommendations formulated during the round table discussions 

were presented. 

A special session Human Rights Education through the Arts 

was also included in order to show that arts can be use as an 

alternative way for intercultural understanding and human 

rights education. 


10 


2. Opening Ceremony 

The opening ceremony of the symposium was well attended 

with more than 100 guests participated. Participants included: 

EIU experts, academics, government officials, civil society 

representatives and human rights activists. The event started by 

the opening remarks of Director Dai-Geun Kang of Asia-Pacific 

Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU). 

The Director expressed his pleasure and gratitude in welcoming 

all the speakers and participants. He stressed the importance of 

the theme since the new millennium is characterized by the 

globalization of cultures and exodus of migration. He cited 

Korea as an example of unavoidable influx of people from 

different countries which changes the nation s demographics 

and the pressing need to formulate an institutional framework 

that would allow diversity and tolerance to different culture. At 

the end of his speech, he encouraged the participants to take 

▲ Haegeum-Guitar Duo serenading the participants during the opening 

ceremony 


◀ Director General Byong-Hyun Lee of 

International Education and IT Bureau of 

Ministry of Education and Human 

Resources Development delivering the 

welcoming speech 

◀ Acting President Young-Ae Choi of the 

National Human Rights Commission 

delivering congratulatory remarks 

part in the round table discussions since this is vital to achieve 

the goal of the symposium. 

This was followed by the welcoming speech of Director 

General Byong-Hyun Lee of International Education and IT 

Bureau of Ministry of Education and Human Resources 

Development. He extended a very warm welcome to all the 

distinguished participants. The Director General commended 

APCEIU for all the initiatives to bring peace and human rights 

advancement in the region since its inception. 

12 


A written congratulatory message was given by Director- 

General Koichiro Matsuura of UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. 

He acknowledged that the theme of the symposium resonates 

strongly with UNESCO s concerns and mandate and that 

guideline on intercultural education was also drafted. Quality 

education played vital role in eliminating cultural stereotypes, 

promoting tolerance and social cohesion and fostering 

intercultural understanding and respect for human rights. 

Congratulatory remarks were also given by Acting President 

Young-Ae Choi of the National Human Rights Commission of 

Korea and Secretary-General Samuel Lee of Korean National 

Commission. Ms. Choi stressed that the symposium well 

symbolizes the strong will to realize the vision and dream 

towards guarding human dignity and peace. On the other 

hand, Dr. Lee recognized that education for intercultural 

understanding must stand side by side human rights education 

to address the pressing issues of conflict between cultural 

relativism and universal dialogue. 

▶ Secretary-General Samuel Lee of Korean 

National Commission giving his 

congratulatory remarks 


3. Summary of Keynote Speech 

▲ Dr. Hugh Starkey delivering his 

keynote speech at the opening 

ceremony of the symposium 

The keynote speech was delivered by Dr. Hugh Starkey, 

Course Leader for MA Citizenship/ History Education by 

Distance Learning University of London, Institute of Education, 

United Kingdom. His speech was entitled Intercultural 

Understanding and Human Rights Education: Where we are 

now and where we are heading for” 

14 


| Summary of the speech | 

- Dr. Hugh Starkey 

Human rights education involves 

knowing the past, acting in the present 

and building the future. The United 

Nations was created just over two 

generations ago to develop freedom, 

justice and peace in the world. The 

successful building of a culture of peace 

requires knowledge of and acceptance of 

human rights as codified in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights. A right is 

not a right unless you know about it. For 

the past 60 years people have had to 

struggle for their right to learn about 

human rights, although organizations 

such as UNESCO and the Council of 

Europe have promoted human rights 

education, as have NGOs. 

International understanding implies 

relations between governments. 

Intercultural understanding is about 

relationships between people both within 

and between states. The globalize world 

of the 21st century requires human rights 

as global standards for living together. 

What needs preserving and what 

changing We must change: mentalities 

that use human rights as ideological 

weapons; that see them as problems of 

others; that define them as alien Western 

values. We must build on our inheritance 

of universal and indivisible human rights 

instruments. They are an on-going 

programme of action. Human rights 

respect multiple identities. We can apply 

human right principles to education, to 

social and political situations and to 

reflections on identities. We face the 

challenge of helping people to see 

themselves as having a common universal 

identity and destiny as human beings with 

entitlement to equality of dignity. This is a 

prerequisite for intercultural understanding 

and peace. (please refer to page 52 for 

full text) 


4. Plenary Session I: Intercultural Education towards 

a Culture of Peace 

The first plenary session focused on Intercultural Education 

towards a Culture of Peace . Dr. Seung-mi Lee, Chief of 

Research and Development Team of APCEIU served as Session 

Facilitator who introduced the theme speaker and panelists. 

▲ Dr. Lee Seung-mi acted as session 

facilitator for Plenary Session 1 

◀ Speakers of Plenary 

Session I 

16 


| Summary of the Presentation | 

- Dr. Liam Gearon 

The key issues and challenges 

surrounding Intercultural Education are: 

culture, culture and education, culture and 

language, culture and religion, cultural 

diversity and cultural heritage, majority 

and minority cultures, and multiculturalism 

and interculturalism. In spite of the 

significance of focusing on problems, it is 

important to celebrate the achievements 

made in Intercultural Education. Following 

on, there are international legal setting 

for Intercultural Education 

highlighting the universality of 

international standards and the 

outcomes of international 

conferences in discussing the issue 

of Intercultural Education. 

The set of three principles that 

should guide educational 

policies with regard to 

Intercultural Education are as follows: (i) 

Intercultural Education respect the cultural 

identity of the learner through the 

provision of culturally appropriate and 

responsive quality education for all. (ii) 

Intercultural Education provides every 

learner with the cultural knowledge, 

attitudes and skills necessary to achieve 

active and full participation in society. (iii) 

Intercultural Education provides all 

learners with cultural knowledge, attitudes 

and skills that enable them to contribute to 

respect, understanding and solidarity 

among individuals, ethnic, social, cultural 

and religious groups and nations. 

The Guidelines is a useful historical 

sensuality of text and that the very 

language itself in addition to the writing 

can raise issues for the utilization in many 

aspects raising the question of 

quantitative and qualitative assessment of 

its effectiveness in the near future. 

◀ Dr. Liam Gearon 


▲ Dr. Werner Wintersteiner 

The plenary session included theme speech by Dr. Liam 

Gearon, on UNESCO s Perspective on Intercultural 

Education . Dr. Gearon, Professor at Roehampton University, 

United Kingdom, summarized the UNESCO Guidelines on 

Intercultural Educationwith insights from the previous Expert 

Meeting held at UNESCO Headquarters in March 2006 as 

one of the participants. He explained the significance of the 

Guidelines as a contribution to the understanding of the issues 

around intercultural education in a way that it correlates with 

the value of human rights and interculturalism stressing its 

importance in intended usefulness and the potential for 

application. 

18 


| Summary of Presentation | 

- Dr. Werner Wintersteiner 

This presentation deals with three 

aspects: globalisation, culture, and 

transcultural education; peace education 

and intercultural education; and the 

EURED experience from 2004 to 2006. 

The discussion will show how mass 

migration, mass media and other 

phenomena of globalisation affect our 

concepts of cultures and societies as 

homogenous and distinct entities that are 

constantly reproduced by national 

education (education as the basic form of 

nation-building). The argument will be, in 

order to face the global challenges of a 

peaceful, just and human development of 

all human beings, we need a new type of 

education a transcultural, global peace 

education. 

The main reason for the convergence of 

intercultural education and peace 

education is the globalising of societies 

and cultures, which leads to a loss of 

many traditional securities and raises the 

question of identity in a new way. Thus, a 

new kind of education is needed that is 

based on heterological thinking and 

integrates transcultural aspects into a 

concept of non-violent encounters with the 

other . 

The EURED experience is used as a 

positive example of how to prepare 

teachers to develop a transcultural 

perspective: The first European-wide inservice 

teacher training course on human 

rights and peace education offered a 

plenitude of intercultural and transcultural 

experiences: the diversity among the 

participants, as well as among the 

leadership team, the different venues (five 

European countries) and, crucially, 

diversity as a topic of the course itself. 

These experiences are reflected in the 

arguments on transcultural peace 

education and with a critical comment on 

the experience of the pilot course. 

(please refer to page 63 for full text) 


▲ Mr. Georges Tsai 

Dr. Werner Wintersteiner, Professor and Teacher Trainer, 

Institute for German, Klagenfurt University, Austria, provided 

useful insights to the panel with presentation on Transcultural 

Approaches in Peace Education: A European Experience . He 

introduced two distinct models in the explanation of 

interculturalism: the Billiard Balls Model and the Garden 

Model. 

Mr. Georges Tsai, Vice Rector and Secretary of the Council, 

University for Peace, Costa Rica, gave a speech entitled 

Education for Peace: Illusion or Essential Investment in the 

Future of Humanity . Underlining the questions of peace as an 

educational topic and tool for realization, he stressed the 

significance of education for peace that it is not ineffective 

activity or misguided or a useless investment that peace can be 

achieved through education. 

20 


| Summary of the presentation| 

- Mr. Georges Tsai 

Can we teach peace Can we learn 

peace Is Education for Peace just wishful 

thinking, or is it a powerful tool that can 

help humanity build peace in a 

sustainable manner for future 

generations The answer is obvious - yes, 

peace can be achieved through 

education. On the other hand, others may 

be tempted to argue that trying to achieve 

peace through education is, at best, a 

well-intended but essentially ineffective 

activity, at worst, a totally misguided 

objective and a waste of resources. 

Leaving aside the theories about the 

psychology of violence, or the theories of 

Pavlov and Tchakhotine about basic 

instincts, elaborating a little bit on the 

issue of relationships between groups 

which have a long history of reciprocal 

distrust or hatred, which have opposing 

claims, whether based on history or 

religion, on territories or rights, or which 

have been unable to heal the wounds of 

past wars can explained this. 

One aspect of these destructive 

relationships which is striking is the fact 

that the groups involved seem to be 

unable to recognize the legitimacy of the 

otheror even its right to exist. 

Individual human rights are indeed very 

important in building open and tolerant 

societies, but the so-called collective or in 

many cases minority rights are equally 

important to the harmonious coexistence 

of groups with different religions, 

speaking different languages, or having 

different values. Education for Peace is an 

investment which requires vision and 

patience. It offers the opportunity, at a 

relatively low cost, to build peace on a 

solid and long-lasting foundation. (please 

refer to page 78 for full text) 


Discussion on the session presentations 

The series of speeches were followed by notable interventions 

by participants and panelists. First, the question was raised on 

the different notions of transculturalism, interculturalism and 

multiculturalism and their origins. Panelists and participants 

continued the debate on the definition of transculturalism, 

interculturalism and multiculturalism reflecting on historical 

origins, nature of globalization and geographical aspects. 

Secondly, a participant raised the question on the first principle 

of the UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education on the 

notion of the cultural identity of the learner . Dr. Gearon 

explained that similar question was raised at the UNESCO 

Expert Meeting, and that the notion had a wider bearing 

corresponding to heterogeneity and homogeneity of cultural 

identity. 

The issue on cosmopolitan citizenship was brought up for Dr. 

Wintersteiner to explain the diversity of cosmopolitanism that 

we are living in different environment with different thinking 

and different identities. Mr. Tsai mentioned the assimilation 

model of interculturalism. This was followed by the question 

raised on the issue of the definition of culture in different 

paradigms by Dr. Toh Swee-Hin. A participant questioned the 

need for historical reflection in education as it may misguide 

the students. For instance, through wars heroes are made, and 

not by peace. The panelists emphasized that history does not 

make peace education easier but rather without history, the 

issue may get even more challenging. 

22 


5. Special Session: Human Rights Education through the Arts 

◀ Mr. Babu Ayindo doing the storytelling 

In the special session Mr. Babu Ayindo, 

facilitated the session entitled Arts 

Approaches to Peace Building and 

Conflict Transformation . Mr. Ayindo is 

the Coordinator of Ubuntu Arts in Kenya 

who uses drama to teach reconciliation 

and trauma healing. 

He divided his presentation into five 

parts. First, the introduction part which 

include preliminary comments on the goal 

of the session and overview of process. 

Next, the art of being human which 

include introductory exercises that warm 

up the body and voice while engaging 

imagination on issues of spontaneity, 

power, diversity, essential theaterand 

the right to self-expression that formal 

schooling seems to stifle. Third, 

constructing a new narrative of human 

rights which is an open-ended indigenous 

storytelling performance by the facilitator 

raising questions on human rights, 

education and dialogue followed by an 

interactive attempt to complete the story in 

groups. Fourth, DVD clip from Amandla 

(South African Musicals) which is the 

video excerpt that captures the role of 

music and dance in the struggle against 

apartheid in South Africa. Lastly, he gave 

the concluding remarks on the review on 

how artful pedagogies could be applied 

in human rights education, reclaiming the 

senses and community mobilization given 

the diverse contexts. (please refer to page 

82 for full text) 


6. Plenary Session II: Human Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education 

The second plenary session focused on Human Rights 

Sensitive Intercultural Education . Dr. Hee-Soo Lee, Professor of 

Hanyang University in Korea acted as Session Facilitator who 

introduced the theme speaker and panelists. 

▲ Dr. Hee-Soo Lee acted as Session 

Facilitator for Session II 

24 


▶ Dr. Toh Swee-hin 

| Summary of the Presentation| 

- Dr. Toh Swee-hin 

In multicultural societies, the challenge 

of promoting human rights toward a 

culture of peace remains both substantive 

and urgent. Where cultural differences 

and diversity embody faith dimensions, 

there clearly needs to be an active 

process of cultivating relationships 

between faiths and cultures based on 

mutual respect, understanding and 

solidarity. At the same time, it is also vital 

for faiths to engage critically and openly 

with the prevailing predominantly 

seculardiscourse on human rights, 

which is an indispensable part of a 

holistic paradigm of a culture of peace. 

This paper seeks to explore areas of 

complementarities and synergy between 

faith philosophies/beliefs/ traditions and 

human rights concepts and practices , as 

well as potential or actual tensions 

between faiths and human rights 

discourses. In turn, what may be the 

possibilities and exemplars for 

transcending such tensions through 

educating for interfaith dialgoue and 

human rights for a culture of peace 

The affirm shared values and principles 

across diverse faiths that seek to 

transcend culture of war and violence 

toward a holistic culture of peace include: 

dismantling a culture of war - 

militarization violates human rights, faiths 

need to promote active nonviolence 

critical intra-faith dialogue on textual 

justification for violent strategies to 

resolveconflicts; living with justice and 

compassion faith and secular values 

challenge local and global inequalities 

and injustices to overcome structural 

violence of local and international 

economic systems; promoting human 

rights and responsibilities; building 

intercultural respect, reconciliation, and 

solidarity overcome racism, stereotyping, 

xenophobia, and genocide; living in 

harmony with the earth ecological 

destruction violating human rights of all 

peoples, especially marginalized, green 

theologyand faith-based environmental 

movements; and cultivating inner peace - 

growth of spirituality; faith identify roots 

of attachmentsthat can encourage 

practices violating rights of others. 



The theme speaker is Dr. Toh Swee-hin, Director of Multi-Faith 

Centre in Griffith University in Australia. His speech is entitled 

Education for Interfaith Dialogue in the Context of Human 

Rights: A Multicultural Perspective . He presented the 

complementarities and synergy between faith/religions and 

human rights concepts and practices. 

The first presenter was Dr. Ichsan Malik, Professor of School 

of Psychology at University of Indonesia in Jakarta. He spoke 

on Islam and Human Rights: At a Crossroad . He presented 

how the Islamic values are compatible with the notions of 

human rights and how the modern concept of human rights 

makes headway in the face of religious dogma and Islamic 

traditions. 

The second presenter was Dr. Aasulv Lande, Professor of 

Center for Theology and Religious Studies at Lund University in 

Sweden. He presented a paper on Human Rights and 

Buddhist Cultures . He stressed that Buddhism is not only for 

Buddhists but instead has a vital contribution on human rights to 

share in various forms of interreligious dialogue. 

▲ Dr. Ichsan Malik 

26 


| Summary of Presentation| 

- Dr. Ichsan Malik 

Is the Islamic value compatible with the 

notions of human rights Can the modern 

concept of human rights make headway 

in the face of religious dogma and Islamic 

traditions It seems that these two entities 

Islamand Human Rightsare at the 

end of each continuum and especially at 

the latest trend of Islamophobia with all 

the global issues on terrorism, gender 

equality and democracy, these two 

entities seems at a crossroad. 

The universal character of human rights 

is of strategic importance.There is a 

definite needs for some universal codes 

based on mutual consent in order to 

function. It is the universal character that 

can be made for a common platform for 

relations between peoples across national 

and cultural from all walk of life. Today, 

people understand the importance of the 

respect for the dignity and uniqueness of 

every human being. At the same time, 

there is a common awareness of dignity 

disregarded. 

There is a real need to change the 

methodology on spreading the religion 

with the tendecy to compare religions 

values. These can serve as triggers and 

also acceletor on religious conflict. A new 

methodology which focus on human and 

humanity in this diverse world and also 

can accomodate the diversity of each 

religion. Distorted collective memory on 

violence conflict between Muslim and 

Christian has to be put into proportion, so 

that this collective memory will not 

become another source of conflict. It has 

to be understood that violence and 

conflict is part of the ongoing history. Past 

to present and future is connected and 

this means that conflict that happened 

ages ago can happen today.(please refer 

to page 103 for full text) 


▲ Dr. Aasulv Lande 

The last presenter is Dr. Liam Gearon, Professor of 

Roehampton University in London who made a presentation on 

Between Tolerance and Dissent: Religious, Citizenship and 

Human Rights Education . He outlined four critical contexts and 

critical tensions and argued that religious educators might be 

justified in disputing not for tolerance but dissent. 


Dr. Starkey stated that human rights is not one-sided and 

often does not take community into consideration. Reflecting on 

Article 29, he added that religion identified absolutism and 

hence the necessity to create democracy. Now that democracy 

is a dominant ideology religion can return and be 

amalgamated into society. Dr. Gearon supported the view and 

explained that there has been long history of justification of 

separation of the state and religion. Dr. Toh added that 

secularization can be used as a useful tool for politicians. A 

participant raised the question on the significance of religion in 

the future. Dr. Lande explained that there is a tendency towards 

secularization in Europe but in countries like China, Nepal and 

28 



- Dr. Aasulv Lande 

Buddhist cultures worldwide have 

developed different types of concern for 

human rights during the centuries. 

Buddhist social movements such as 

Japanese Nichiren Buddhism and True 

Pure land Buddhism emphasized human 

dignity and egalitarian principles in 

society and religion. Maitreya-movements 

in Korea or Indo China sided with 

suppressed people. Ideas of enlighten 

ment and compassion were mobilized to 

enforce ultimate improvement of human 

conditions In modern Buddhism Indian 

B.R. Ambedkar,and Dr.Tilokasundari 

Kariyawasam, Siamese Sulak Sivaraksa, 

Western, Engaged Buddhist Sallie King, 

Vietnamese Thich Nhat Hanh and Tibetan 

Dalai Lama and others manifest continued 

concern for the rights of suppressed 

people. Socially concerned Buddhism is, 

however, struggling for a progressive 

understanding of Buddhist realities within 

wider Buddhist cultural frames. 

In the ongoing discussion among 

Buddhists about the feasibility of a human 

rights language I largely follow 

personalities like Sulak Sivaraksa and Sri 

Lankan scholar Ananda Guruge in finding 

such a language acceptable in Buddhist 

contexts. The concept of human rights 

within Buddhist thought and action 

presuppose, however an understanding 

of human rights phrased in the universal 

language of enlightenment and 

compassion. Furthermore, a social 

translation of Buddhist language is 

needed. So is also an awareness of the 

difference between Buddhist human rights 

with their concern for interaction and 

mutuality and the Western originated 

liberal, individual rights language. 

In postmodern environment of today a 

Buddhist contribution to understanding 

and promotion of human rights in 

accordance with the above principles 

contains a universal potentiality and is to 

be welcomed. The fields of non-violence, 

religious freedom and egalitarian 

principles in a context of mutuality 

particularly inform the Buddhist 

contribution. Together with progressive 

Buddhists, humanists and religious people 

worldwide have an unprecedented 

opportunity in leading contemporary 

global community towards a non-violent 

world where tolerance and egality reign. 



Korea, the situation is different where Christianity and religion 

is increasing. For Dr. Lande, this phenomenon is due to the 

tendency of the world to constantly change, in the future, he 

observes oscillating dynamic of change in the level of 

secularization of religion. 

Dr. Malik mentioned that in some province in Indonesia, 

religion is becoming a problem but efforts should be made to 

find common grounds in the spirit of religion not only formally 

but functionally. Dr. Gearon also agreed that the influence of 

religion will be persistent, taking the example of the United 

States, idiosyncrasy in the use of languages in politics despite 

the complete separation of the state and religion. He also 

emphasized that there is often a mistake to overly look at 

secularism at a public sphere, but religion persist in personal 

spirit. 

Dr. Toh stated that the globalizing multi-faith community 

through immigration will keep the spirits of religious institutions. 

The question of Asian values and universality of human rights 

was raised by a participant where Dr. Gearon reiterated the 

situations where languages of human rights have been used 

and abused in different context especially when used by 

leaders. He also mentioned that Asian values are still of high 

importance and should be used to structure social and political 

values. 

A participant stated that Asian value is a global value 

reflecting on the experiences and challenges in the pursuit of 

identifying ASEAN community. Mr. Ayindo raised the question 

on the Islamic classification on good and bad Muslims. Dr. 

Malik answered by stressing the importance of the 

consciousness and values of religion together rather than 

separately. He stressed the importance to have common 

grounds and not discuss each principle as different substances. 

30 


▶ Dr. Liam Gearon 


- Dr. Liam Gearon 

Drawing largely upon Western, 

Christian, theological and philosophical 

contexts, this paper attempts to articulate 

the question of tolerance for religious 

education within a broad historicalpolitical 

and pedagogical context. It 

argues that during the twentieth century, 

in the aftermath of tyranny and 

totalitarianism, tolerance was not only a 

guiding political principle but an 

emergent educational one; that this 

principle has been behind the 

development of citizenship and human 

rights education (with its emphasis upon 

shared universal, especially human rights 

values) as well as shared by religious 

educators. However, this approach, with 

its emphasis upon universally shared 

values, has tended as a result, to neglect 

cultural particularity and especially 

religious difference within wider political 

as well as educational contexts. 

Outlining four critical contexts namely: 

religion and global governance; religion 

and the United Nations; religion in 

citizenship and human rights education; 

and citizenship/human rights education 

in religious education and the four critical 

tensions for religious, citizenship and 

human rights education namely: 

genocide, gender, governance and social 

justice the paper argues that in the 

context of a number of dystopian political 

realities religious educators might be 

justified in arguing not for tolerance but 

dissent. (please refer to page 116 for full 

text) 


7. Plenary Session III: Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education 

The third plenary session focused on Culture Sensitive 

Human Rights Education . Ms. Young-Hee Na, Director 

General at Human Rights Education Department of the National 

Human Rights Commission of Korea acted as Session Facilitator 

who introduced the theme speaker and panelists. 

▲ Ms. Young-Hee Na 

32 


▶ Ms. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer 


- Ms. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer 

HRE can be a barrier for diverse races 

and ethnicities. HRE can potentially serve 

to reinforce power dynamics that 

maintain a privileged status quo. Hence, 

HRE and its facilitators need to 

consistently challenge institutionalized 

forms of oppression both in terms of its 

design, delivery, and dissemination. 

Some of the barriers that the human rights 

educator and HRE process need to 

recognize are: dominant racial/ethnic 

group holding the economic, social, 

cultural, political, and civil power and 

marginalized individuals or marginalized 

collective groups of peoples. 

HRE moves beyond passive learning 

about human rights and embraces 

learning that is actively for human rights. 

One clear example of this is in the design 

and delivery of human rights workshops, 

led by facilitators who are committed to 

the goals and objectives of HRE. Four 

essential components of facilitating 

workshops involving diverse races and 

ethnicities are: (1) to provide guidelines 

for an open, respectful learning 

experience; (2) to acknowledge 

assumptions of societal human rights 

myths, discrimination, and power and 

privilege differentials; (3) to link diverse 

peoplesmovements with a human rights 

movement in the U.S.; (4) to foster an 

environment of trust and transparency; 

and (5) to examine different conflict 

resolution approaches and styles, 

including individual and collective 

responses. 

We need to maintain the integrity of 

HRE and subvert systems of oppression. 

This inherent tension between human 

rights reinforcing a status quo or 

transforming the dynamics of oppression 

is the essence of the power of HRE. 

Hence, HRE can provide the tools, 

vehicles, and accountability processes to 

build our individual and collective crosschecking 

system. (please refer to page 

131 for full text) 


▲ Dr. Young-Sun Chung 

The theme speaker is Ms. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer, Co-director 

of University of Minnesota Human Rights Centre in USA. Her 

speech is entitled Ethnicity and Race in a Multi-cultural Society 

in the Context of Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education . 

She presented the barriers and bridges encountered while 

working with human rights education in multi-cultural societies 

in the U.S. 

The first presenter was Dr. Young-Sun Chung, Director of 

Human Rights Research Team in National Human Rights 

Commission of Korea. He spoke on Human Rights Education 

and the Practices in Koreapresenting the human rights 

education at schools, human rights education for public 

servants and human rights education for civil society. 

34 



- Dr. Young-Sun Chung 

Human rights education aims to 

promote understanding of universal rights 

of human beings; create behavioral 

patterns and techniques promoting 

respect for and protection of human rights 

and form an attitude respecting human 

rights. Culture sensitive human rights 

education makes a great contribution to 

realizing human rights, basic freedom 

and enhancing equality. 

Systematic HRE is almost non-existent in 

Korea. An emphasis must be put on early 

HRE starting from children in order to 

overcome a discriminative and repressive 

social climate and to create a human 

rights-friendly culture. There is a need to 

develop school curriculums on HRE and 

incorporate human rights issues into 

regular education courses and curriculums 

covering kindergartens to universities. 

There is also a need to strengthen HRE by 

means of development and dissemination 

of various teaching/learning 

methodologies and materials. An 

inclusion of HRE in teachersfostering or 

training courses to improve their 

competences as well as create a human 

rights-friendly educational environment 

through realignment of school regulations 

are also recommended. 

As for the present condition and needs 

of HRE for public servants, the following 

suggestions should be considered: render 

human rights education mandatory by 

opening human rights curriculums or 

courses at public servantseducation and 

training centers; strengthen human rights 

education in the process of fostering law 

enforcement officers; and establish a 

system to support human rights education 

for public servants. And lastly for the HRE 

for civil society, it is recommended to do 

the following: HRE for vulnerable social 

groups and minorities; support HRE 

targeting companies; cooperative ties 

with human rights NGOs and lifelong 

education institutions for strengthening of 

HRE; and HRE by means of the mass 

media and Internet and to raise 

journalistsawareness of human rights. 



The last presenter is Dr. Kenneth Sumbuk, Executive Dean of 

the School of Humanities and Social Sciences in University of 

Papua New Guinea. He made a presentation on Minorities 

and Indigenous Cultures in a Multi-cultural Society . He 

presented and discussed the countries that are identified under 

the Melanesian cultural grouping and attempted to present the 

strategy to build a Culture of Peace in the Melanesian region. 


Ms. Rudelius-Palmer concluded the session by summarizing 

that Dr. Sumbuk s presentation described the needs and details 

and recommendation for human rights; and Dr. Chung s 

presentation explaining the action plans and accountability of 

human rights and what is actually done in reality. 

▲ Dr. Kenneth Sumbuk 

36 



- Dr. Kenneth Sumbuk 

In a diverse country like the Papua 

New Guinea, where quality education is 

not so evident, other factors played and 

contributed to help achieve cohesion and 

tolerance among the many different 

minorities. 

exist in building a Culture of Peace and 

that need to be further strengthened are 

as follows: common educational facilities; 

University of South Pacific had centers in 

most countries; regional sporting facilities 

need improvement, linguistic ties need 

further developing and strengthening. 

Papua New Guinea has managed to 

survive as an independent state and 

demonstrated acceptance and tolerance 

among different minorities. The 

acceptance of people of different and 

varied cultural backgrounds can be 

attributed several factors: increase in the 

number of interracial marriages between 

peoples of varying groupings; mobility of 

peoples of different regions and linguistic 

background ; success in sports like rugby 

league; and the Tok Pisin language. 

The close linguistic and cultural affinity 

of the Melanesian people allowed them 

to enjoy a very stable period of cordial 

relationship. The avenues that already 


8. Plenary Session IV: Migration via Globalization: 

Challenges to Human Rights Defenders 

The fourth plenary session focused on Migration via 

Globalization: Challenges to Human Rights Defenders . Dr. 

Sookhee Kwak, Chief of the Education and Training Team, 

APCEIU in Korea acted as Session Facilitator who introduced 

the theme speaker and panelists. 

▲ Dr. Sookhee Kwak 

38 


▶ Dr. Piyasiri Wickramasekara 


- Dr. Piyasiri Wickramasekara 

Recent globalization trends have been 

characterized by the greater integration 

of global markets for goods, services and 

capital across borders while their impact 

on the cross border movement of labour 

has been limited. In fact international 

migration has been described as the 

missing linkor unfinished business of 

globalization . 

Yet globalization per se has important 

implications for international labour 

migration. It has facilitated the linkages of 

international labour markets through vast 

improvements in information and 

communications technology. The demand 

for high tech skills has expanded 

opportunities for mobility of skilled 

labour. At the same time, expanded trade 

would reduce the need for migration by 

creating jobs in source countries. Virtual 

mobility enabled by ICT will similarly 

promote outsourcing and more jobs in 

source regions. 

The current discourse on migration and 

development has tried to shift attention 

from the central issue of rights in 

development by focusing mainly on issues 

such as remittances. The proliferation of 

temporary migration programmes is 

alsosending the wrong signals regarding 

rights issues. A rights-based approach 

forms the best strategy to maximize 

benefits from migration within the 

overarching framework of decent work 

for all agenda of the ILO. International 

instruments covering universal human 

rights and migrant worker rights form a 

solid foundation for this rights-based 

approach. The ILO s non-binding rightsbased 

Multilateral Framework on Labour 

Migration will be highlighted as a 

consolidated guide in this respect.(please 

refer to page 154 for full text) 


The theme speaker is Dr. Piyasiri Wickramasekara, Senior 

Specialist of the International Labour Office in Geneva. His 

speech is entitled Globalization and International Labour 

Migration: the Case for a Rights-Based Approach . He 

highlighted the contradictions between globalization and 

international migration focusing on the protection of the rights 

of migrant workers. 

The first presenter was Dr. Chin-Sung Chung, Professor at the 

College of Sociology in Seoul National University, Korea. She 

spoke on Women migrant workersand examined critically 

the globalization of domestic and sex works that has become a 

new phenomenon. 

▲ Dr. Chin-Sung Chung 

40 



- Dr. Chin-Sung Chung 

Related with feminization of poverty, 

feminization of migration is widely 

discussed nowadays. In the context of 

contemporary globalization labor 

migration from developing countries to 

developed countries has been ever 

expanded. Especially women occupy 

majority. 

Why do more women than men 

migrate Patriarchy of both sending and 

receiving countries is the most important 

factor. (i) Patriarchal way of thinking (of 

the sending countries) pushes women to 

earn money for their families, especially 

foe their brotherseducation. (ii) Feminist 

movements in receiving countries has 

liberated women of those countries from 

domestic works in a considerable degree, 

but patriarchy of those countries which is 

not fundamentally changed makes 

domestic works still wait for women s 

labor. Situation of sex industry is the 

same. This is also the target of 

transnational feminist movement. Thus, 

globalization of domestic and sex works 

has become a new phenomenon. In 

Korea, which used to be one of the 

sending countries, changed its position to 

a receiving country since the end of the 

1980s. A large number of workers have 

entered Korea mostly from Asian 

countries and Russia. 

It is recommended that UN should 

pursue practical measures for protection 

of human rights of the female migrant 

workers; intensify regional efforts for 

intercultural understanding; create 

government policies and strengthen 

government policies. (please refer to 

page 175 for full text) 


▲ Mr. William Gois 

The second presenter is Mr. William Gois, Regional 

Coordinator of Migrant Forum in Asia, Philippines. He made a 

presentation on Social and Cultural Integration: Issues, Myths 

and Challengesoutlining the international standards and 

international instruments protecting the rights of the migrant 

workers. 

The last presenter is Ms. Pranom Somwong, Coordinator of 

Migrant Assistance Programme Foundation in Thailand. She 

presented a paper on How Multinational Corporations affect 

migrant workersShe outlined the role of states, multilateral 

organizations, and other interested parties in mitigating the 

effects of transnational corporations on workers and presented 

a concrete example on how multinational corporations affect 

migrant workers. 

42 


| Summary of the Presentation | 

- Mr. William Gois 

Poverty and the inability to earn 

enough or produce enough to support 

oneself or a family are major reasons 

behind the movement of work-seekers 

from one State to another.The fact 

remains that vast numbers of migrant 

workers are uninformed and ill-prepared 

to cope with life and work in a foreign 

country. Equally, most of them are 

unaware of the human rights protection 

and fundamental freedoms which they are 

guaranteed under international treaties 

and national laws. 

The integration of migrant workers and 

their families into the social environment 

of receiving States without loss of their 

cultural identity is a problem which has 

been the subject of international debate. 

It has often been said that the children of 

migrants-studying in a different language 

and trying to adapt to new customscannot 

be expected to equal the 

performance of their fellow pupils unless 

special measures are taken to overcome 

their difficulties. The factor of resistance 

on the part of local parents who fear that 

overall educational standards will decline 

with the admission of migrant children 

has become a sensitive issue in some 

States. 

The labour market performance of 

migrants in host economies is a major 

component of integration. Economic 

success of migrants and ethnic minorities 

is generally considered to be a positive 

outcome for both migrants and the 

receiving society. There are international 

standards promoting social and cultural 

integration of migrant workers these 

include: International Convention on the 

Protection of the Rights of All Migrant 

Workers and Members of Their Families, 

Cairo Programme of Action, Copenhagen 

Declaration, Copenhagen Programme of 

Action; Beijing Platform for Action, and 

ILO Multilateral Framework on Migrant 

Workers. (please refer to page 202 for 

full text) 


Discussion on the session 

presentations 

Dr. Wickramasekara commented that there 

are lots of different internationally accepted 

definitions of migrant workers ranging from 

definition that concentrate on human rights to 

ILO and UN definitions. He also mentioned 

that there are a lot of Asian based NGOs 

who have done considerable work in this field 

apart from the ILO and UN at global 

standards. On Mr. Goispresentation, Dr. 

Wickramasekara elaborated on the Brain 

Wasteof migrant workers explaining that 

this is a loss for every actor, and that work 

experiences as well as academic level should 

be considered extensively. He also mentioned 

the significance of the problem of floating 

children . 

Series of questions were raised on the 

influence of multinational corporations; 

employment relationship; worker protection; 

global citizenship and nationalism. On 

employment relations, Dr. Wickramasekara 

stressed the importance of flexibilizationof 

employment in which due to subcontracting 

employment relations are broken. In relation 

to this, Ms. Somwong explained the lack of 

spread of success stories of migrant workers 

and it is important to raise awareness in this 

issue. The task is to collect these success 

stories and diffuse into other countries 

unaware of the situation. In the context of 

Multinational Corporations, Ms. Lee 

mentioned that already these Multinational 

Corporations are beyond the control of the 

state. A misconception of employment 

displacement was raised, that it is not often 

the case that migrant workers are responsible, 

it is rather local workers. Intensive discussions 

were made in the issue of nationalism. Dr. 

Wintersteiner emphasized that raising 

awareness of global citizens in global markets 

is the only way to conceive right under the 

nationalism obstacles. Adding to the 

nationalism question, Dr. Wickramasekara 

added that no government can prevent the 

formation of trade unions of migrant workers 

under the freedom of association. Dr. Gearon 

commented that there is a tendency to 

oversimplify nationalism reflecting on the fact 

that national identity having a crucial role in 

liberalization. Finally, Mr. Gois stated that the 

idea of nationalism should be on the broader 

notion in order to advance into a greater 

dimension of global citizenship. 

44 


▶ Ms. Pranom Somwong 

|Summary of Presentation | 

- Ms. Pranom Somwong 

Migrant workers come face to face with 

the reality of globalization on a day to 

day basis. They work side by side with 

migrants from other areas, work under 

foremen or women from the local 

population, have foreign employers, sew 

labels into garments in languages they 

don t understand, pack into crates to 

send off to countries they have only read 

about in books. But when they want to 

improve the conditions that they work in, 

they find they have to deal with all these 

various multi-national levels of their work. 

Who they have to bargain with is 

unclear. 

To deal with the multi-national 

corporations, multi-workers are needed. 

Decent work is decent work is decent 

workwhoever is doing it. But it will 

never be achieved without all workers 

joining together to achieve that standard. 

All corporations, but particularly MNCs, 

aim to divide the workers, by subcontracting 

the work, by making work 

temporary and unstable, by pitting 

permanent workers against temporary 

workers, local against migrant. But no 

work can be called decent when there 

are sectors within the work that do not get 

decent work. And no work can be called 

decent, while sectors within the work are 

living in indecent housing, having to eat 

indecent food, getting indecent health 

care. 

We need pro-active strategies in 

places. We don’t need to wait for people 

to be arrested, abused, disappeared, and 

ridiculed. Pro-active stralegies include: 

building collective capacity and action 

among migrant worker; provide enabling 

environment to empower migrant worker 

to defending their rights; and the right to 

organize and unionize. (please refer to 

page 218 for full text) 


9. Plenary Session V: Rethinking Intercultural Understanding and 

Human Rights Education towards a Culture of Peace 

After three days of intensive discussions and exchange of 

ideas, the time has come for the concluding part of the 

symposium. The selected moderator of each break-out group 

integrated all the formulated recommendations for each sector 

(formal education, government and civil society) during the 

roundtable discussions and made a presentation. Ms. Kristi 

Rudelius-Palmer presented for Group 1 (formal education), Dr. 

Aasulv Lande and Mr. William Gois for Groups 2 (government) 

and 3 (civil society). 

The Recommendations formulated and adopted during the 

round table discussions of the International Symposium on a 

Culture of Peace 2006, under the theme ofIntercultural 

Understanding and Human Rights Education in the Era of 

Globalizationwere as follows: 

46 


Recommendations on Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education 

For the formal education 

1. It is recognize that there is a need for more 

fundamental and systemic changes and holistic 

approached for culture sensitive human rights 

education. 

2. There is a need to improve the students 

awareness of their own human rights and to 

empower them to overcome obstacles for 

protecting their human rights in their community. 

Cross-cultural exchanges can provide 

opportunities for both educators and students to 

have fellowships /internships with communitybased 

organizations and agencies to learn about 

human rights-related issues in local communities. 

The use of participatory methods and fieldtrips 

for students to have experiential learning in 

schools and in the communities to overcome 

prejudice and discrimination are also 

recommended. 

3. Inter-faith discussions are important to build 

human rights sensitive intercultural education. 

However, it should be admitted that no religion is 

superior over others and differences exist among 

the religions. 

4. Pre-service and in-service training to learn 

effective ways for unlearning discrimination and 

teaching students culture sensitive human rights 

and peace education. The training should 

provide effective strategies and participatory 

methods. Core curriculum elements should 

include: harmonization of different cultures; 

prejudice reduction workshop to overcome 

discriminatory attitudes and behaviors; 

experiential programming and cross-cultural 

exchanges to learn how marginalized people 

become victims by the violation of human rights 

and how they struggle and overcome their 

circumstances. 

5. Teachers should have community human rights 

and peace workers to speak in their classrooms. 

Schools should also provide an opportunity for 

marginalized people s voices to be heard and 

understood. 

6. There is the need to develop intercultural 

curriculum and resources in multiple languages. 

A cyber education center for distance learning 

can also be implemented to provide cross-cultural 

learning opportunities for students. 

7. There is the pressing need for education to be 

close to local communities and supported by 

formal education system. 

For the government sector 

1. International institutions should be given legal 

possibilities to influence individual countries. 

2. Multifaith schools can be encourage and made 

conscious efforts to include students of different 

faith and backgrounds. Human rights awareness 

programme for parents, students and the 

community must also be initiated. 

3. Scrutinize educational materials in order to 

eliminate all forms of discrimination be it cultural, 

racial, religious, or social background and utilize 

legislation in order to secure acceptable 

standards of textbooks that eliminate all forms of 

discrimination. 

4. There is also the need to enhance the ability of 

education authorities responsible for the 

formulation of education curriculum. The creation 

of expert groups that will study and improve the 

education curriculum can be one good way. 

For the civil society sector 

1. The civil society organization (CSOs) played 

substantial role in pre-departure, upon arrival, 

post-departure, and reintegration information, 

education and training programmes for migrants. 

All training and education programmes need to 

be modeled on a rights-based approach. 

2. CSOs can help promote diverse methods of 

education namely: traditional arts, parents-andchildren 

program, popular education modules, 

non-formal education, first hand experiential 

learning such as field trip and associated 

dialogue, internships in NGOs in developing 

countries, and exchange programmes. 


3. CSOs should play a substantial role to review 

and examine the history that is usually written by 

dominant countries and groups in order to 

address and correct sensitive historical issues. 

4. CSOs need to hold meetings with journalist 

regarding the human rights sensitivity in their 

publications. As such, CSOs and the media 

should work closely to change the negative 

perception of migrants. 

5. CSOs should pressure the government to ratify 

the Core labour standards and key ILO 

Conventions that call for the promotion and 

protection of the rights of migrant workers. 

Furthermore, it must continue to call for the 

ratification of the UN 1990 Convention on the 

Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers 

and Members of Their Families. 

6. The prevailing negative perspective against 

migrants in host countries leads to discrimination 

and xenophobia. There is an urgent need for 

social education in host countries in order to 

facilitate the integration of migrants in host 

communities. 

Closing Ceremony 

▲ Ms. Susan Pascoe, Chairperson of Australian 

National Commission for UNESCO 

After the presentation of the final recommendations, the 

closing ceremony followed. Chairperson Susan Pascoe of 

Australian National Commission for UNESCO gave an 

encouragement message. She acknowledged the 

timeliness and value of this symposium and encourages 

the participants to carry out all the lessons learned in this 

event. Director Dai-Geun Kang of APCEIU gave the 

closing remarks. He emphasized that the theme of the 

symposium is imperative as the dawning of the new 

millennium is characterized by the inevitable 

multiculturalism and exodus of migration. Multiculturalism 

becomes inevitable as the world now becomes 

‘borderless’. There is a need to disseminate and put into 

practice the values and methods that enable the peoples 

of diverse races, cultures and religions to live together in 

justice and peace. He emphasized that without 

intercultural understanding, promoting human rights is not 

possible. He proposed that the recommendations adopted 

should go to UNESCO Headquarters in order to help 

develop the guidelines on intercultural education. 

48 


10. Round Table Discussions 

The round table discussions followed 

each session in order to formulate 

recommendations on promoting human 

rights sensitive intercultural education, 

culture sensitive human rights education 

and education in response to migration 

issues. There were three break up groups, 

each with a moderator and rapporteur 

and a separate room. One hour was the 

allotted time for the round table 

discussion. APCEIU designated the 

moderator and rapporteur. Moderators 

meeting was held during dinner time on 

the second day of the symposium 

(October 26). Among three moderators 

for each group, one was selected to 

present the outcomes of group 

discussions. 

The three groups focused on three 

sectors namely: formal education sector, 

government sector and civil society. The 

discussions mainly tackle clarification of 

the terms, sharing of specific cases in 

each country, assessment of the current 

situation and recommendations for further 

action on the topic concern. 

Despite minor differences, most 

national educational systems of the 

countries were open to various cultures. 

However, eventhough they put their best 


efforts to intercultural education the problem relies in the 

process of application. The formal education group 

recommended that educators can form a network through an 

online platform which will serve as an arena to share 

information and materials which can create a synergy effect. 

Creating a cyber education center can be a good alternative 

which can provide teachers with distance learning, teaching 

resources and at the same time a venue to share and discuss 

various forms of pedagogy. 

For the government sector group, they recognized the 

significance of Anti-discrimination legislation; support the 

minorities in education and embed multicultural ideas in the 

national curriculum. Furthermore, it is vital for the government 

to make use of international institutes and teachersunion for 

awareness raising in the society. The importance of textbook 

revision which eliminates bias and prejudice was also given 

attention. 

50 


On the other hand, the civil society group recommended the 

use of traditional arts in EIU and other diverse modes of 

education such as parents-and-children program, popular 

education modules, non-formal education, first hand 

experiential learning such as field trip and associated 

dialogue, internships in NGOs in developing countries, and 

exchange programmes (please refer to page 246 for full text). 


11. Presentation papers 

Keynote Speech 

Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education: 

Where we are now and where we are heading for 

Hugh Starkey 

Course Leader for MA Citizenship/History Education by Distance Learning 

University of London, Institute of Education, United Kingdom 

It is my great honour to provide the first input to the 2006 International Symposium on a Culture of 

Peace, held in Seoul, Republic of Korea hosted by the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for 

International Understanding under the auspices of UNESCO. The theme of the symposium is 

Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education. I have been asked to address the 

question of where we are now and where we are heading for. 

Definitions 

Within this first paragraph or these first three sentences we can already find evidence of where we 

have come from, where we are now and where we are heading. The reference that has the longest 

historical association is the notion of symposium. The symposium is described by Plato nearly 2 

400 years ago as a convivial but serious dialogue between philosophers and government officials 

on the most pressing political issues of the day. We continue this tradition of debate and discussion 

and I will argue that the kind of intercultural dialogue in which we are engaging here is one of the 

most important aspects of the future of human rights education. Intercultural dialogue is now seen 

as such an important concept that the European Commission has designated 2008 as the year of 

intercultural dialogue. Dialogue is absolutely fundamental to democracies and to the fulfilment of 

human rights. 

It is striking that the other references in the full title of our symposium are to concepts and 

institutions that are far more recent. The signing of the Charter of the United Nations on 24 October 

1945 marked the start of an entirely new period in human history. For the first time, governments 

of member states formally recognised that their citizens had rights as individual members of the 

human race. Human beings hold these rights irrespective of the laws of the country in which they 

live and of the actions of government and its agents. Of course governments may not always and 

entirely respect the human rights of their citizens and those that live in their territory. Human rights 

52 


do not always have strong legal force. What they do have is great moral status. Governments claim 

to accept human rights. Individuals and groups can act to claim human rights on the basis of this 

acceptance in principle. 

The goals of the UN as set out in its Charter set an agenda that corresponds to the wishes of 

ordinary people across the world to lead peaceful and fulfilling lives. They continue to provide 

guiding principles and an inspiring vision. Our symposium this week is a manifestation of the 

commitment of ourselves and our organisations to this vision. It is useful to remind ourselves 

occasionally of the foundation of the tradition that we recognise as ours. 

We the peoples of the United Nations [are] determined 

● to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought 

untold sorrow to mankind, and 

● to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in 

the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and 

● to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties 

and other sources of international law can be maintained, and 

● to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. 

(United Nations, 1945) 

The four aims of the United Nations are, then: peace through the avoidance of war; human rights 

and equality; universal respect for international law; social progress. 

The achievement of peace requires a culture of human rights and this in turn can be powerfully 

promoted through education. This was expressed by one of the architects of the Universal 

Declaration, Ren- Cassin, in an address to teachers: 

When [teachers] teach about human rights, when they convey to their pupils the notion of 

their rights, their dignity and their duties as citizens and human beings, then they are 

carrying out a task that complements wonderfully the work that we have achieved at the 

highest level…Legal force of itself is only a secondary safety valve: it is the education of 

young people and also of adults that constitutes the primary and real guarantee for minority 

groups faced with racial hatred that leads so easily to violence and murder. 

(Alliance Isra-lite Universelle, 1961:123, my translation). 

Cassin’s argument is twofold. First, rights are only meaningful when people know about them and 

understand them. Secondly, it is the culture of a society more than the law itself that creates the 

conditions for democracy and for social peace. 

We can conclude that there are two inter-related concepts that inform our symposium. The overall 


theme of the symposium is a culture of peace and the vision of the United Nations is that peace 

will be achieved when human rights are universally respected. In other words we need human 

rights education and the creation of a culture of human rights in order to develop a culture of 

peace. 

Our agenda 

The founding of the United Nations in October 1945 was a turning point in world history. Just a 

year later on 4 November 1946 UNESCO was created with the explicit aim to create peace through 

culture. The UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation aims: 

To contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through 

education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule 

of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the 

peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion by the Charter of 

the United Nations. 

(UNESCO, 1946) 

Education and culture are to be the means to promote respect for human rights, which in turn will 

lead to peace and security. The programme is clear and apparently simple, but what is human 

rights education and how do we make it effective 

Whilst the UN Charter and the constitution of UNESCO recognise respect for human rights as 

essential to peace in the world, there was no agreement at that stage as to what constituted human 

rights. It was a concept without a definition. 

The drafting of a definition of fundamental human rights was achieved in the space of three years. 

An international team produced the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 

which was proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948. The 

preamble to the Declaration proposes a vision of a ‘human family’, that is to say a global 

community. It affirms that all human beings on the planet are entitled to equal dignity and bear 

equal rights. Recognition of this equality, it asserts, is the basis for ‘freedom, justice and peace in 

the world’. 

Article 26.2 of the Universal Declaration states that education shall be directed ‘to the 

strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. In other words, since a 

right is not a right unless you know about it, human rights education is itself a right. 

Between 1945 and 1948, then, the agenda to which we are responding today was set. We are still 

guided by this vision, but its implementation, being a cultural movement, has been gradual and 

there is still much to do. That is why we are meeting here. 

54 


Competing agendas 

Creating a culture of peace and human rights has had to compete with a number of other agendas 

that have been in their time very powerful. We believe, as did the founders of the United Nations, 

that our agenda of human rights and peace will prevail. The process sometimes seems painfully 

slow. 

Let us think of some of the political and cultural movements that have inhibited a full commitment 

to human rights education. Two of them started also in the late 1940s. The Cold War lasted from 

1947 -1991. During this period a rhetoric or discourse of human rights was used by both sides, but 

in competition. The Soviet Union and its allies emphasised economic rights such as the right to 

work and to social security. It criticised the USA and its allies for inequalities. In turn the USA 

emphasised individual freedoms and political rights and criticised communist states and 

movements for suppressing these. These competing political discourses, both based on partial and 

inadequate visions of human rights, served to discredit the concept of human rights. Any use of the 

term might be interpreted as taking sides in the ideological struggle. 

The wave of independence and anti-colonial struggles achieved their first successes in the late 

1940s with the independence of India. Since that time the number of member states of the United 

Nations has grown to nearly 200. Independence struggles have often been accompanied by 

strongly nationalist cultures that have often defined themselves in opposition to the cultures of the 

former colonial powers. Since the colonial powers were categorised as Western, nation-building 

sometimes drew on cultural models that were claimed as being in opposition to perceived Western 

values. Human rights became in some contexts wrongly identified as Western values. 

A more recent competing agenda is the so-called war on terrorism instigated following the 9/11 

attacks on civilians in New York in 2001. This has led to the ironic situation where the human 

rights and freedoms that are under attack from terrorists are also threatened by the actions of states 

in combating terrorism. The attacks by the Israeli military (IDF) on civilians, on economic targets 

and on infrastructure in Lebanon and indeed on the UN itself, were justified in the name of the war 

on terrorism, as is the blockade of Gaza. In many countries civil liberties have been curtailed also 

in the name of a war on terrorism. 

Milestones in human rights education 

(i) UNESCO 1974 

The first significant attempt to define human rights education is contained in the Recommendation 

concerning education for international understanding, co-operation and peace and education 

relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms adopted by the General Conference of 

UNESCO in November 1974. This long and detailed recommendation provides guidance that is still 

totally relevant today. It has a holistic view of education as the rather long title indicates. 

‘International understanding, co-operation and peace are to be considered as an indivisible whole 


ased on the principle of …respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’(para 1.1.b). 

Human rights are those defined in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and the International 

Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights. 

The recommendation insists on the need for a ‘global perspective in education’and on intercultural 

understanding ‘including domestic ethnic cultures and cultures of other nations’. This is a 

particularly relevant consideration in the globalised world of the 21st century in which migration 

has created multicultural and multiethnic societies across the world. This, together with the 

recommendation’s strong emphasis on combating racism (or racialism), supposes an education for 

intercultural dialogue within nations. As Will Kymlicka (2003) proposes, such an education can 

help to avoid communities standing with their backs to each other. It is this vision of intercultural 

education as democratic dialogue that is perhaps the priority for human rights education today. 

Another very important recommendation from 1974 is that the principles of the Universal 

Declaration be applied ‘in the daily conduct of education’. In other words, schools and education 

systems should be based on human rights as fundamental principles. 

The recommendation also defines some pedagogical principles. It proposes ‘methods which 

appeal to the creative imagination of children and adolescents and to their social activities’. In 

other words, it proposes an education that allows learners to participate and be involved. It 

confirms this by recommending that teacher education include ‘the use of active methods of 

education’. 

(ii) Council of Europe programme of human rights education 1983-1996 

Just as a right is not a right unless you know about it, so a recommendation also requires to be 

known. The responsibility for disseminating the UNESCO Recommendation of 1974 lay with 

member states, in other words with governments. However, non-governmental organisations 

(NGOs) such as Amnesty International, founded in 1961, can also help to make such 

recommendations known and also put pressure on governments to implement them. We cannot 

know the precise impact and influence of the UNESCO Recommendation, but we can say that it 

remains entirely relevant today and that it inspired a regional initiative that in turn has had a major 

influence on human rights education (Starkey, 1994). 

At the time of the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration (1978) human rights was still 

considered to be the domain of lawyers, such as Leah Levin who wrote the useful and still relevant 

Human Rights Questions and Answers (1981) initially published in the UNESCO Courier in 1978. At 

this point there were few educationalists with knowledge or understanding of human rights. The 

subsequent history of human rights education is about a dialogue between specialists in 

international law and educationalists. 

56 


Also in 1978, perhaps inspired by the Recommendation of 1974 and the publicity of the thirtieth 

anniversary, the Committee of Ministers of Education of the Council of Europe passed their own 

Resolution (1978). This requested that member states include teaching about human rights within 

the formal curriculum of schools. In order to help implement this policy, the Council convened a 

symposium held in Vienna, that brought together leading educators from Europe and the USA to 

provide more detailed guidance on human rights education in a form that would offer some 

practical help to teachers and curriculum advisers (Starkey, 1984). The outcome was a new 

Recommendation (Council of Europe, 1985). 

The Recommendation set out the context as the need to reaffirm democratic values in the face of 

intolerance, acts of violence and terrorism and public expression of racist and xenophobic 

attitudes. The appendix to the Recommendation contains guidance that is still widely quoted, such 

as: 

Democracy is best learned in a democratic setting where participation is encouraged, where views 

can be expressed openly and discussed, where there is freedom of expression for pupils and 

teachers, and where there is fairness and justice. An appropriate climate is, therefore, an essential 

complement to effective learning about human rights 

(Osler & Starkey, 1996: 183). 

This proposition still needs to be emphasised. If the UNESCO Recommendation stressed creative 

approaches to teaching, the Council of Europe recognised that this is rarely achieved in schools 

that retain their authoritarian traditions inherited from the 19th century. 

From 1985 the Council of Europe promoted a programme of support for initiatives in human rights 

education, working with a number of governments, teacher unions and NGOs. One initiative that 

has had a world-wide influence since it started in 1983 is the CIFEDHOP training programme 

started by the Geneva-based School an Instrument for Peace (EIP). The results of this programme 

of human rights education were published in a number of studies and reports and also two books 

supported by the Council of Europe (Starkey, 1991; Osler & Starkey, 1996). 

(iii) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) 

The coming into force of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) from 1989 marked 

another important step in the development of human rights education. The CRC, which, as a 

Convention has legal as well as moral force, puts the emphasis not only on the provision of 

services for children and their protection from harm but also their rights to participation. If children 

now have a right to participation this potentially changes traditional relationships in schools. Of 

course teachers have the responsibility and the duty to take decisions, to lead and to organise 

learning. They also have the obligation to listen to and enter into dialogue with the learners. 


Another important development from the CRC is that children, as bearers of rights, must now be 

thought of as citizens. Traditionally young people are considered to be potential citizens or citizens 

in waiting. From 1989, given that the CRC has been ratified by virtually every country in the world, 

there is now a universal standard that gives young people rights on the same basis as adults. 

A third implication of the CRC for human rights education is that UNICEF and UNESCO are 

increasingly working together. In particular, UNICEF’s recent campaign for the rights respecting 

school is a significant site of development in human rights education. 

(iv) The UN Decade for Human Rights Education (1995-2004) and the World Programme of Human 

Rights Education (2005-2014) 

By promoting human rights education at global level, potentially involving every member state, the 

UN gives explicit acknowledgement that a culture of peace requires human rights education. By 

accepting a timescale over two decades, the organisation recognises that changes of culture 

through education are slow processes. 

One of the most significant developments of the Decade that continues to be highly influential in 

the current period of the Programme is the work of Human Rights Education Associates (HREA). 

The global reach of the website and the online dialogues promoted by the listserv have enabled 

the creation of a global community of human rights educators. Members share information and 

insights, provide documentation and materials and support each other’s campaigns. 

I would like to argue strongly that the globalized world of the 21st century requires human rights 

as global standards for living together. Since human rights are universal, so too human rights 

education can be based on universal principles, whilst acknowledging local contexts. 

Models of human rights education 

I will briefly present two models that I have found useful in conceptualising human rights 

education. 

The first sets the concepts of human rights in relationship (see figure below). The model 

emphasises the importance of justice and peace as the goal of human rights as expressed in the 

preamble to the Universal Declaration. These are the central focal point. In practice, the realisation 

of justice and peace in the world is through effective participative democracy. This form of 

democracy guarantees fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression and freedom of 

peaceful assembly and association. A denial of such freedoms is a denial of the ability to 

participate. 

Democracy and freedoms alone are not enough to guarantee justice and peace, since unrestricted 

freedom could lead to exploitation and chaos; equality, rights and dignity are also set in place, in 

tension with freedoms. 

58 


The framework within which we work is made up of the concepts of reciprocity, universality, 

indivisibility and solidarity. These are reminders that the system is for all people (universality), that 

an attack on any part of the system is an attack on the whole system (indivisibility). It is also a 

social system, and one which can only operate where there is a sense of mutual interdependence 

(reciprocity) and where people are prepared to take into account and, indeed, defend the rights of 

others (solidarity). 

Intercultural dialogue, which is central to human rights education, requires procedural values such 

as tolerance, mutual respect, and a commitment to peaceful resolution of differences (Crick, 1999). 

All these are based on respect for the equality of dignity of each individual. Security is guaranteed 

when rights are protected and defended (including through the law) and when individuals engage 

in dialogue, showing the respect and tolerance which follow recognition of equality of dignity. 

Democracy and participation are central concepts within human rights and these can only be 

maintained with due regard to such procedural values. Human rights support the procedural 

values essential for peaceful resolution of differences within multicultural societies (Osler & 

Starkey, 2005). 

SOLIDARITY 

UNIVERSALITY 

Equality 

Democracy 

Security 

Justice 

Peace 

Dignity 

Freedoms 

INDIVISIBILITY 

Participation 

RECIPROCITY 

Fig 1. The basic concepts of human rights(Starkey, 1992) 

The second model suggests a way of thinking about human rights education. At the centre is a 

triangle suggesting that all good learning opportunities are based on thinking, feeling and doing. 

Human rights education cannot simply be about learning facts, as the 1974 Recommendation 

noted, in its concern for engaging with young people’s creativity and providing opportunities for 

active learning. 


Human rights education involves knowing the past, acting in the present and building the future. 

Our students need to know that the United Nations was created just over two generations ago to 

develop freedom, justice and peace in the world. They need to know that for the past 60 years 

people have had to struggle for their right to learn about human rights. 

As the previous model demonstrated, the aim of human rights education is a culture of peace. 

Currently there is neither total justice, nor total peace nor total respect of human rights in the 

world. Human rights education is about building a future based on a vision of a culture of peace 

and respect for human rights. That is the aim of what we are undertaking. 

This requires acting in the present. All the time we need to ask the question: what needs 

preserving and what changing We need strategies for peaceful change and we need to promote 

attitudes and values that accept human rights as the basis of all human interaction. 

Human Rights Education: developing the curriculum 

Values and 

BUILDING THE 

FUTURE 

Strategies 

FEELING 

DOING 

KNOWIN THE 

PAST 

THINKING 

Preserving 

WORKING IN 

THE PRESENT 

Conclusion: where are we heading 

We can use this model to help us look ahead. First we have to decide what needs preserving of 

our heritage of human rights education. We must build on our inheritance of universal and 

indivisible human rights instruments. They are an on-going programme of action. Reference to 

these key texts is what defines human rights education. 

We must also preserve and build on our inheritance of structures and institutions, including, of 

course UNESCO, UNICEF and Centres such as APCEIU. We must preserve and develop our 

60 


networks such as HREA. We must value the education programmes of NGOs such as Amnesty. We 

must use and support academic work, writing and publishing as well as courses for the education 

of teachers and other professionals. Much of this work is based in universities. We also have the 

strongest reason to value and celebrate publishers. 

There are also things we must challenge and change. We must challenge mentalities that use 

human rights as ideological weapons. We must help to change perceptions that human rights 

means abuse in distant countries, the problems of others, not something that is relevant to all of us 

every day. We can apply human right principles to education, to social and political situations and 

to reflections on identities. 

We must challenge definitions of human rights as alien Western values. This case has again been 

put powerfully in the context of thinking about identity (Sen, 2006). Human rights respect multiple 

identities. We face the challenge of helping people to see themselves as having a common 

universal identity and destiny as human beings with entitlement to equality of dignity. This is a 

prerequisite for intercultural understanding and peace. 

What better way to conclude than to quote the Constitution of UNESCO. This set our agenda and 

its diagnosis remains true and fresh today although the sexist language situates it firmly in its time. 

That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace 

must be constructed; 

That ignorance of each other's ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the 

history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world 

through which their differences have all too often broken into war; 

That the great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the 

denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and 

by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the 

inequality of men and races; 

That the wide diffusion of culture, and the education of humanity for justice and liberty and 

peace are indispensable to the dignity of man and constitute a sacred duty which all the 

nations must fulfill in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern; 

That a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of 

governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous, lasting and sincere 

support of the peoples of the world, and that the peace must therefore be founded, if it is 

not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. 

Human rights education is the means to intercultural understanding and a contribution to 

promoting the intellectual and moral solidarity of human beings. 


References 

Alliance Isréalite Universelle (1961) Les Droits de l'Homme et l'Éducation (Paris, Presses Universitaires 

de France). 

Council of Europe (1978) Resolution R (78)1 of the Committee of Ministers on the teaching of human 

rights (Strasbourg, Council of Europe). 

Council of Europe (1985) Recommendation No. R(85)7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States 

on Teaching and Learning about Human Rights in Schools (Strasbourg, Council of Europe). 

Crick, B. (1999) The presuppositions of citizenship education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33(3), 

pp. 337-352. 

Levin, L. (1981) Human rights questions and answers (Paris, UNESCO). 

Kymlicka, W. (2003) Multicultural states and intercultural citizens, Theory and Research in Education, 

1(2), pp. 147-169. 

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (1996) Teacher Education and Human Rights (London, Fulton). 

Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2005) Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion in education 

(Maidenhead, Open University Press). 

Sen, A. (2006) Identity and Violence. The illusion of destiny (London, Allen Lane). 

Starkey, H. (1984) Human rights education in schools in Western Europe. Report of the symposium 

Vienna 17 - 20 May 1983. (Strasbourg, Council of Europe). 

Starkey, H. (Ed.) (1991) The Challenge of Human Rights Education (London, Cassell). 

Starkey, H. (1994) Development Education and Human Rights Education, in: A. Osler (Ed) Development 

Education (London, Cassell). 

United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations (New York, United Nations). 

United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, UNICEF). 

UNESCO (1946) Constitution of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation 

(Paris, UNESCO). 

UNESCO (1974) Recommendation concerning education for international understanding, co-operation 

and peace and education relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms (Paris, General 

Conference of UNESCO). 

62 


Presentation Papers on Session I 

Transcultural Approaches in Peace Education 

A European Experience 

Werner Wintersteiner 

Professor and Teacher Trainer 

Klagenfurt University, Austria 

This paper deals with three aspects: 

1. Globalisation, culture, and transcultural education 

I discuss how mass migration, mass media and other phenomena of globalisation affect our 

concepts of cultures and societies as homogenous and distinct entities that are constantly 

reproduced by national education (= education as the basic form of nation-building). My argument 

is that in order to face the global challenges of a peaceful, just and humane development of all 

human beings, we need a new type of education -a transcultural, global peace education. 

2. Peace education and intercultural education 

I show that the main reason for the convergence of intercultural education and peace education is 

the globalising of societies and cultures, which leads to a loss of many traditional securities and 

raises the question of identity in a new way. Thus, a new kind of education is needed that is based 

on heterological thinking and integrates transcultural aspects into a concept of non-violent 

encounters with the “other”. 

3. The EURED experience (2004 - 2006) 

The EURED experience is used as a positive example of how to prepare teachers to develop a 

transcultural perspective: The first European-wide in-service teacher training course on human 

rights and peace education offered a plenitude of intercultural and transcultural experiences: the 

diversity among the participants, as well as among the leadership team, the different venues (five 

European countries) and, crucially, diversity as a topic of the course itself. These experiences are 

reflected in my arguments on transcultural peace education and I finish with a critical comment on 

the experience of the pilot course. 

1. From intercultural to transcultural education - the task 

“Recently, in the art gallery, the manager spoke twice as slowly with me, even after another 

confirmation that I understand German very well, it is not stranger to me than to her, the manager 


of the Gallery who speaks twice as slowly because of the way I look, twice as strange, maybe - a 

situation that happens quite often to me. (It is crunching in my self-confidence), when I see myself 

from her perspective, the perspective of those who hear my strange appearance more than they 

see it”. And the young Austrian writer who tells this story continues: Quite often, she admits, she 

starts stuttering and using a false accent, she believes to be wrong; she thinks she was never 

allowed to speak perfect German. (Kim 2004, 36, my translation, my emphasis) Austrian writer 

Anna Kim, born in Korea, but brought up in Vienna, touches on a taboo. Language is not only the 

attribute, but the privilege of a nation, and a discriminating criterion of the other. You look 

different - how dare you speak like one of us- You have to have deficient language skills, because 

obviously we see that we cannot hear and understand you. 

This (true) example shows clearly that national or cultural stereotypes are not our natural heritage, 

but cultural constructions. They are not based on a natural inborn fear of the other or the stranger, 

but they are rather the result of a nationalistic socialisation and education. To put it bluntly: 

National prejudices are not only the side effects, but sometimes even the intended result of the 

nationalist educational system. 

But is this statement not exaggerated- Doesn’t any education preach of understanding between the 

nations and cultures- Is intercultural education not a programme of reconciliation and respect for 

the other - Obviously, there are two concepts of intercultural education: 

- One concept could also be called the billiard balls model: cultures are conceived as 

billiard balls, homogenous inside, but at their surface strictly distinct from each other. 

Intercultural encounters, according to this concept, are respectful meetings of 

unchangeable different entities. Intercultural education must teach respect for the absolute 

nature of others, but in fact, it does not show what we have in common with them. 

- Another concept could maybe be called the garden model: Each culture is like a garden, 

with many different flowers and with only very uncertain borders. The gardens differ by 

the variety of their flowers, which does not mean that they are not composed of the same 

plants, as is quite often the case. In this view, any encounter is a mixture, nobody leaves 

the meeting without being changed themselves. I call this concept transcultural education, 

and the task is to teach both identity and openness at the same time. 

Only the second concept is compatible with another important criterion of intercultural education - 

self-reflexivity and self-transformation: 

“Intercultural learning takes place if a person, when dealing with people from another culture, is 

making an effort to understand their specific orientation system of perception, thinking, values and 

action, integrating this in his own cultural orientation system and applying it to his thoughts and 

actions in the foreignculture field of action. Intercultural learning requires not only the 

64 


understanding of foreign culture orientation systems but also a reflection on one’s own cultural 

orientation system”(Thomas 1983, 83). 

The first concept of intercultural education derives, at least in Europe, from a kind of special 

education for foreigners, migrants and minorities, in order to assimilate them. Originally, the idea 

was that they have to change, to accept our way of life. In a more sophisticated form, inspired by 

the concept of international relations, mutual understanding and equity is propagated, and, of 

course, tolerance of the other who is not so well established. However, there is still a power 

relationship between us and them, a gap to be bridged by politeness. Is not the manager in the 

gallery that Anna Kim mentioned before a perfect example of this kind of intercultural education- 

Polite, respectful, friendly, but with a very clear notion of the otherness of the other. 

As our example shows, this concept is less and less adequate in times of globalisation when the 

mixing of cultures, the permanent changes of fatherlands, mother tongues and residences, and 

thus, even identities, are becoming more and more common, when global media have a strong 

impact even on those who do not travel and do not “change”. The result is, if not a transcultural 

perspective, at least the awareness of a fundamental social change: 

This doesn’t mean that we all experience the world as cultural comopolitans, much less that a 

‘global culture’is emerging. But it does imply that ‘the global’increasingly exists as a cultural 

horizon within which we (to varying degrees) frame our existence. The penetration of localities 

which connectivity brings is thus double-edged: as it dissolves the securities of locality, it offers 

new understandings of experience in wider - ultimately global - terms (Tomlinson 1999, 30). 

This social change does not lead automatically to a transcultural perspective, to a “planetarian” 

point of view on our “homeland earth”(Edgar Morin) or to a position of “ethical glocalism” 

(Tomlinson). It can also cause fear, anger and thus, xenophobia and racism as a way of dealing 

with this new and perturbing situation. Intercultural or transcultural education, on the contrary, 

tries to allow the learners to develop a more relaxed and positive attitude, hoping that finally they 

will feel and understand themselves as citizens of one world, as global citizens. John Tomlinson 

describes this attitude as a double and in some way contradictory task: 

[...] the cosmopolitan first needs an active sense of belonging to the wider world, of being able to 

experience a ‘distanced identity’. [...] The first characteristic of cosmopolitanism, then, is a keen 

grasp of a globalized world as one in which ‘there are no others’. 

But then the second necessary specification is an almost opposite sensibility: an awareness of the 

world as one of many cultural others. [...] And this awareness must be reflexive - it must make 

people open to questioning their own cultural assumptions, myths and so on. (Tomlinson 1999, 

194). 


These few considerations should be enough to understand the paradigmatic change of intercultural 

/ transcultural education. Seen in this way, it is not an additional component of education and 

another task in the already filled agendas of the teachers, but rather a new perspective. It should 

be considered as a guideline and a principle of education, and even more, as a concept to 

transform the educational system. Until now, intercultural competence has still not automatically 

been part of teacher’s education. Thus, more effort is needed both on the conceptual and on the 

practical level to mainstream transcultural education. 

2. Peace Education and Intercultural Education: The Other 

The transcultural perspective helps to identify the communalities between intercultural education 

and peace education. In fact, education for global citizenship, or in short global education, can be 

seen as the common focal point of development education, intercultural education and peace 

education. During the 1990s, peace education became directly linked to intercultural education as 

well as to human rights education and education for tolerance, either as a theoretical umbrella term 

that integrates different approaches to intercultural issues in a democratic plural society or as an 

(interchanged) educational practice. Pre-service and in-service teacher intercultural training 

became more focused on non-violent conflict resolution methods and techniques with an aim to 

prepare teachers to deal effectively with hidden curricula and classroom cleavages caused by 

cultural misunderstanding, prejudices and disrespect. The skills of understanding the other were 

developed through the understanding of one’s own reaction towards the other and through 

listening to the other’s position. Peace education contributed to intercultural education by 

introducing the dynamics of non-violent intercultural conflict-resolution and by giving the meaning 

to what was than introduced in educational theory and practice as “intercultural sensitivity”. 

But it would be a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that this development is only a 

pedagogical reaction to a sociological shift towards multicultural societies. In fact, the changes in 

our more and more globalize societies go much deeper and affect the psychology of human 

beings. When clear defined cultural borders begin to break down, when traditional securities 

disappear, the individual as a whole is challenged. Identity becomes a central theme, just because 

we cannot be anymore sure about our identity, just because we discover the non-identity, “that 

empty space in each of us”(Wulf). Consequently, there is a need for a re-orientation of education 

in order to face these new challenges. 

Within the area of intercultural learning, the epistemological conditions governing knowledge are 

especially important. Through the plurality of views on reality and science, the experience of 

difference becomes a crucial moment in both the production and treatment of individual and 

societal knowledge. This experience represents our initial approach to the other and without it 

constructive relations to foreign cultures are impossible. Heterological thinking is required to cope 

with the multiplicity and multiple meanings involved in this situation, and to be the means through 

66 


which thought absorbs the difference to oneself. Only through such an encounter with the other 

and the development of heterological thought can there be peace education. (Wulf 1999) 

Put the other way round, today’s peace education has to be transcultural and global education. 

Any peace education has to take into consideration the real conflict lines in a given society, 

including cultural conflicts, but without accepting that very often conflicts are too easily 

“culturalised”, i. e. explained by using cultural patterns that are not adequate and do not rely on a 

concrete analysis of the concrete situation. Peace education, a discipline that focuses on the 

possibilities of overcoming violence, can contribute a lot to deepen the discussion on questions of 

multiculturalism. Especially as it brings in the concept of alterity, openness towards the “other”as 

the horizon of any education (see Wulf 1999 and Wintersteiner 1999), as the following quotation 

shows: 

The preconditions for peace education lie in the acceptance of the other and in the mutual 

acceptance of differences. The road to understanding, co-operation and empathy is based on a 

recognition and acceptance of the other’s differences. The other needs to be discovered; without 

the other there can be no education in today’s world. Social development, too, needs the other as 

an external point in relation to which young people’s inner world can unfold. The other thus 

represents the external, the societal environment towards which the young move and from which 

they need to distance themselves in order to find themselves as individuals. The situation is similar 

with regard to the other from a neighbouring cultural background. In this case, the other 

represents something which young people had not previously known, something which bewilders 

them and is a challenge to them but which simultaneously offers the chance to expand their 

cultural horizon. Such experiences of the foreign as an experience of the other are of central 

importance. We need to be open for such experiences and life-long learning processes. But we 

must also clarify the limited nature of such experiences for ourselves: knowledge of the other is 

not final, and can only be obstructed by stereotypes. (Wulf 1999). 

To make a long story short, one could say that a positive attitude towards otherness is the common 

thread between peace philosophy, politics and intercultural as well as peace education. When 

peace philosophy stresses the need of the other for me to define myself, peace politics emphasises 

a holistic approach to conflicts, where the adversary, the other, is defined as a “conflict partner”. 

Personal peacefulness, in turn, can be defined as the sense of responsibility for the other, while no 

inner peace is conceivable without considering the non-identity of myself. The “other”is the 

horizon and the perspective of an intercultural, transcultural and global peace education. 

3. The EURED experience 

The EURED experience is a good example of peace education with an intercultural and even 

transcultural perspective. It is an international peace education project that focuses very much on 


differences which are not simply considered as an obstacle for cooperation but, on the contrary, as 

an enriching factor, as a source of joy. Furthermore, it concentrates on teacher training because 

teachers are the main agents of change towards a transcultural perspective. Any progress in 

education has to consider the crucial role of teachers, and thus, of teacher training: 

The vision, values, capacities and skills of teachers more than any other factors in education 

determine the quality and direction of the socialisation of the young in the public institutions 

charged with preparing them to function constructively in their respective societies. Thus, it is the 

tertiary education of educators, both formal and non-formal, that is the most important sector in 

higher education with respect to the possibilities for the emergence of a culture of peace (Reardon 

1999, 4-5). 

The acronym EURED stands for European Education as Peace Education. It is a special kind of inservice 

teacher training programme for educators and teachers from all over Europe, developed 

and designed by an international group of peace educators - the EURED group. Thus, a 

transcultural perspective is not only the programme, but also the characterising feature of the 

whole EURED process. 

3.1. The EURED philosophy 

In fact, dealing with diversity and multicultural awareness is at the heart of the whole EURED 

project. The EURED logo, designed by an Italian graphic designer, is a blending of different scripts, 

symbolising the diversity of human cultures. In his paper accompanying the logo, he quotes a 

phrase from the first EURED folder: 

“In our continent, there are rich traditions of peacemaking, reconciliation, peacekeeping, nonviolent 

conflict resolution, of living together and realizing unity in diversity. There is no other 

continent with so many different cultures on such a small territory”(EURED folder 2000). 

The EURED logo - a symbol for transcultural cooperation 

The first letter, e, is derived from Cyrillic, the v (u) comes from Latin, while the r is inspired by 

Armenian, and finally, the d is taken from Brahmin script. 

An essential feature of the course was the co-operation between teachers from the whole of 

Europe, i.e. from all the countries that are members of the Council of Europe. This learning 

community of teachers, working under very different conditions and embodying very different 

learning cultures, is itself a substantial field for intercultural learning, encounters and the exchange 

of experience in respect and tolerance. At the same time, however, it is an opportunity for cooperation 

in which the different positions necessarily come into contact with each other, and 

where conflict-solving skills are required. The same is true for the team of facilitators and teachers. 

68 


The inner circle was a group of 5 people, including one person from Great Britain, Spain, The 

Netherlands and two Austrians. Other group members came from Hungary, Germany, Italy, 

Turkey, the USA and - Korea. 

3.2. The EURED Course Programme (2004-2006) 

The two-year-programme - a university course offered by Klagenfurt University, Austria - consisted 

of five seminars, a set of practice assignments, electronic networking and a final paper. The 

following table gives a more concrete picture of the course contents. All three summer seminars 

have a five-day-format (plus an arrival and a departure day), the two winter seminars are shorter, 3 

to 4 days of work. This programme was taught as a whole for the first time in the period 2004 - 

2006. 

The EURED Course Programme 

Date of Seminar Main Topic Venue Activities at Home 

Seminar I 

Summer 2004 

“Human rights, peace, 

peace education and 

culture of peace - 

basic knowledge” 

Gernika/Guernica, 

Basque Country 

(Spain) 

Practice Assignment I 

Seminar II 

February 2005 

“Human rights and 

human rights 

education - theory, 

policy and practice” 

Magedeburg 

(Germany) 

Practice Assignment II 

Seminar III 

July 2005 

“Human rights and 

peace education - 

methodology of 

teaching” 

Budapest (Hungary) 

Practice Assignment 

IIPractice Assignement 

III 

(Specialised Study) 

Seminar IV 

February 2006 

“Specialisation - 

selected topics” 

Bozen/Bolzano 

(Italy) 

Seminar V 

July 2006 

“Human Rights and 

Peace Education in 

Europe” 

Stadtschlaining 

(Austria) 

Not all details of the programme are fixed in advance. As a pilot course, the curriculum is not too 

strict; it is always open to modifications in order to meet the needs of the participants. For instance, 

in seminar II participants were able to choose from a wide range the topics and methods on which 


they wished to focus in seminar III. This is also a way to taking the (cultural) differences among 

the participants seriously. 

3.2.1. Intercultural and Transcultural Experiences as a Pillar of the Programme 

Intercultural experiences were not only seen as something that just happens in international 

encounters, but they were defined as an important component of the course, as one of the five 

dimensions of the course programme (compare The EURED Curriculum, p. 32, fig. 10). 

The Five Dimensions of the Course Programme 

Phiosophy 

Habitus 

Knowledge 

Peace 

EURED 

Peace 

Education 

Course 

Skills 

Teaching 

Inter- 

Cultural 

Practice of 

Teaching 

This means, for instance, that the learning of new knowledge about peace issues or the training of 

new teaching methods takes place as an intercultural encounter. The intercultural encounter is not 

simply another field of learning, but rather another dimension - always present in any other 

dimension. This shows the enormous importance of the intercultural/transcultural perspective, but 

it makes it more difficult to describe as an isolated aspect. However, some main points can be 

identified - the definition of intercultural learning as a “learning together”, the question of multilinguism, 

and finally, some concrete topics of the course programme focussing on intercultural / 

transcultural learning. 

We were aware that the encounters themselves and the knowledge of different cultures alone are 

insufficient in order to be able to speak and work satisfactorily with one another. In the EURED 

course programme, as part of the theoretical basis of our course, we stated: 

70 


Intercultural education, therefore, sees itself less as an exchange of (factual) knowledge than as 

“learning together with people of a different cultural origin”. This mutual exchange focuses on the 

expansion of personal and social skills, the reflection on the creation of one’s own point of view 

and sensitisation to the relativity of one’s own values and action orientations: It is only through 

joint action by teachers from different countries that contradictions become apparent, that an initial 

superficial harmony can become the social dynamism in which contrasts needing approaches and 

solutions become apparent 

It is precisely because training in an international group must overcome obstacles that are of little 

importance in mono-cultural learning groups that increased attention should be devoted to 

creating and promoting a communicationfocused atmosphere through pedagogical processes. 

Contrary to the common assumption that contact between participants arises “automatically”in the 

course of time, experience shows that communicationstimulating situations must be carefully 

planned and prepared if they are in fact to lead to contacts marked by equality of value and mutual 

respect. Of assistance are experiencefocused methods such as gettingtoknowyou games, 

interactive simulation activities and role plays.”(EURED Curriculum, 40-41). 

3.2.2. Multi-lingualism as an integral part of the course 

This position has also consequences for the design of the whole programme and especially, a 

language policy in the course. Seen from a pragmatic point of view, the use of English (or - as we 

used to call it - ILSE) 1 as a common seminar language, especially for the plenary sessions, appears 

reasonable. It has the benefit that the participants can communicate directly with each other and 

do not require the assistance of professional translation. Working and personal relationships can 

be made easier and more co-operative, and above all more personal. It goes without saying that 

the seminar language also be used as a matter of principle for the (international) organisation of 

the course, the written correspondence with the participants and the drafting of written 

information (working instructions, texts, website, etc.). 

However, at the same time, we knew how crucial it is to address languages issues and to practice 

language democracy. In preparation of the course, we developed a specific language policy 

(Wintersteiner 2004). We encouraged the participants to examine communication possibilities in 

other languages and to make use of these in specific social forms (e.g. thematic working groups, 

phases of selfevaluation, etc.). This was an approach that abandons strict mono-lingualism in 

plenary events, permitting participants to put questions in their mother tongue and to translate 

communication jointly into the seminar language - this too allows for variety to be present. “The 

1 ILSE: International Language Similar to English: Since we had basically no English native speakers, 

we had to encourage the participants to make use of their English as foreign language. 


(multilingual) trainers supported the use of different languages. Another way was to build 

languagespecific “home groups”, i.e. small groups in which summaries and interim reflections are 

carried out. Their advantage is that major contents and processes can be discussed in a relaxed 

mothertongue atmosphere, and the intellectual and emotional restrictions that go hand in hand 

with the foreign language do not occur. In fact, apart from English, it was basically German and, to 

a minor degree, French that were used as working languages in small groups. As for the practice 

assignments and the final papers, they were mostly written in English while some were done in 

German. 

3.3. Practical experiences with the EURED intercultural encounters 

How did we succeed to “translate”our general considerations into practice- What happens when 

one tries to apply all these beautiful principles in a mixed course, with people from very different 

countries, both within and outside of the European Union- In fact, the 17 participants who took 

part in the whole two-year course came from all over Europe: Armenia, Austria, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Italy, Malta, Spain and Switzerland, and one participant was from the USA. There were 

teachers, teacher trainers, university teachers, school inspectors, coordinators, or NGO activists. 

Having people from different educational contexts and levels has proven very enriching and 

dynamic. 

3.3.1. Experiences of otherness in daily life 

In the context of a seminar, intercultural differences are not so much about philosophical 

principles, moral values, and ethic codices. Indeed, they are quite often a matter of simple and 

banal experiences in daily life. When the first course took place in Gernika, Spain, many 

participants felt exhausted. Did they work more than in the other seminars- No. But they were not 

used to the specific rhythm of the day, starting relatively late, 9.00 a.m., with lunch only after 2.00 

p.m., and dinner never before 9.00 p.m. - a time-table perfectly adapted to the hot July sun in the 

Basque country - but unfortunately not to the stomachs and brains of many Central-European 

participants. This sounds like a technical detail if one reads about it, but it can be very important 

for the well-being of the learners and thus, for the success of the whole seminar. 

Another experience of diversity: Officially, religion was not a topic of the course programme. In 

fact, one could see that it played an important role as a background of the behaviour and even the 

very concept of peace education activities of some participants and experts. This was also evident 

in the first seminar, when a Spanish (Basque) teacher, an invited expert, presented her peace 

education programme in a Catholic private school. Some participants criticised the presentation 

because - according to them - it was more about moral education (Christian values) than about 

peace education (critical self-awareness). It was interesting to see that this criticism came partly 

from Turkish teachers with an - atheist background! This might be confusing for people with clear 

72 


concepts of the “Europeans”and the “Turkish”in their mind: In fact, the opposition between the 

“enlightened”, religiously rather indifferent Western Europeans and the traditionally religious 

Muslim Turkish was not mirrored in the seminar. 

Another way to experience and to express otherness was found in the many opportunities 

participants had to talk about their own activities, their teaching experiences and the general 

circumstances of their work. Very often, we heard phrases like “Unfortunately, in my country 

teachers are not used to dealing with peace issues”or “It is typical for my country to avoid 

conflicts”etc. Obviously, participants had a tendency to interpret their experiences in cultural 

terms, often with a critical purpose. In fact, they were very often contradicted by their fellow 

teachers from other countries who argued that this “typical element”for one country is in reality a 

very general attitude, not limited to their specific country. These discussions among peers helped, 

without any major explanation, to overcome thinking too narrowly in cultural terms. 

But sometimes the participants were explicitly asked to present their own experiences, embedded 

in their own school and political system. It was up to the learners whether or not they focused on 

national features or rather on the micro-level of their school or personal experiences. They could 

present themselves as representatives of their own country or as part of an international 

community of peace educators. Most of them referred to the situation in their country, but in a 

critical manner. Generally speaking (but there were exceptions), one could say that people from 

the European Union had a more critical attitude towards their own country than people from 

outside the European Union. But this is maybe not due to their country, but rather due to their 

position in the hierarchy of their school system. 

3.3.2. Transcultural education as an intended outcome of the course 

Even if we addressed intercultural and language issues at the very beginning of the course, dealing 

with these differences was not central to the course programme, but rather a “side effect”of it. 

Nevertheless, the programme provided a theoretical framework that allowed the participants to 

reflect on their intercultural experiences. During the two-year programme, we offered a couple of 

lectures, excursions and workshops, dealing with (cultural) diversity. They were on different 

theoretical or practical levels. Altogether, they presented a rich puzzle of various aspects of 

intercultural education: 

- In the initial seminar, there was a lecture on Europe and Peace (Education), setting the 

frame for any discussion on diversity in our continent, addressing the political dimension. 

- In all seminars, excursions to and discussions with ethnic minorities, or - in the case of 

seminar II - with the two populations in the reunified Germany, were assigned an 

important role in the programme. Participants could study the political and cultural 

dimension of multicultural societies, as well as - in the encounter of personal testimonies - 


the personal one. 

- In seminar III the focus was on intercultural education, including a theoretical framework 

and practical exercises, which covered the conceptual and practical pedagogical 

dimension. An inquiry into human rights in (Turkish) history textbooks, including a 

discussion of national stereotypes and prejudices, allowed for the programme to touch on 

the dimension of educational policy. This was followed by methods and exercises to 

highlight and appreciate any diversity in the classroom: different forms of intelligence, 

gender, class, ethnic origin etc. This was basically at the level of practical teaching. 

- Finally, a lecture on “peace education and the other”added depth to the discussion and 

introduced a philosophical dimension into the work on intercultural and transcultural 

education. 

- This was probably not enough to develop the “heterological thinking”highlighted by 

Christoph Wulf. At least, some exercises were introduced to explore psychological deep 

structures and to touch on the spiritual dimension of peace education. However these 

parts remained marginal in terms of the overall programme. 

Maybe the excursions and field studies had the most sustainable impact on the participants, since 

they combined theory and practice, personal encounters and first hand information. There were 

five field studies: 

- The Basque conflict, in Spain 

- The difficult reunification of the two Germanies 

- Roma minorities in Eastern Europe, and especially in Hungary 

- The living together of Germans and Italians in South Tyrol, Italy 

- The Burgenland, an Austrian province with strong proportions of Hungarian, Croatian and 

Roma population 

The field studies allowed the participants to get in touch with representatives of the minorities, to 

get insights into their work and, quite often, their culture, as well as to listen to lectures and to get 

material for more in depth research. Sometimes, but not systematically, educational questions were 

addressed. The focus was on examples of good practice of conflict transformation, reconciliation 

and peaceful living together among different (ethnic) groups. 

In a retrospective description, this sounds like a well thought out programme with a clear 

perspective. But in fact, as a self-critical remark, I have to say that this was not presented in such a 

comprehensive way to the participants and thus, most probably, they did not get this picture of our 

transcultural approach as a whole. It was up to the participants to bring these pieces of a puzzle 

together and to order them the right way. The course itself offered too little space to rethink and to 

integrate all this knowledge into a clear concept of “heterological education”. 

74 


3.3.3. Intercultural education as a specific focus of the participants’work 

However, many participants felt inspired by intercultural or transcultural education and have 

decided to write a practice assignment or their final paper in this the field. Here are some 

examples: 

- A participant from Greece wrote a report on her intercultural education work in a primary 

school with a very high proportion of migrant children, for instance from Albania. 

- A participant from Germany used the course to prepare the foundation of a private interreligious 

peace school. The school aims to educate children as world citizens with an 

excellent education, international competencies and a focus on their national, cultural and 

religious roots. 

- Many other participants showed their raised awareness of intercultural issues in their 

critical evaluation of their own class-room activities. They were able to identify and to 

criticise racist behaviour. 

3.4. Summary of the EURED experiences 

The EURED course programme dealt with multiculturalism on three levels: 

- The course itself as a three-fold intercultural experience - the encounter of people from 

different countries, with different educational cultures at different venues; 

- Intercultural aspects of the course programme - the field studies, the language issues, 

Europe as a topic, intercultural education as a field and a method; 

- Intercultural education as a focus of participants’work - in their practice assignments and 

their final papers. 

In their oral and written feed-back, participants expressed their satisfaction with the course 

programme (Uranga Arakistain/Hendrick 2006). This satisfaction corresponds with the observation 

of the leadership team that the participants have made great steps forwards in their knowledge and 

skills of intercultural education, human rights education and peace education. As a result of the 

first pilot course, we can claim/assess: 

- Intercultural education as “learning together with people of a different cultural origin” 

(EURED curriculum, 41) has successfully taken place. We could observe a growing 

awareness of differences and communalities, and the willingness to learn from each other. 

- Participants could accumulate concrete knowledge of the diversity of any of the five 

countries visited, ethnic minorities, migrants, encounters with people. 

- These experiences led them to develop an increased awareness of diversity in their own 

country, school, environment, and many of them discussed this in their statements and 

papers. 


4. Conclusion 

- It was crucial for the success that the leadership team mirrored the diversity of nations, 

educational approaches and experiences with peace education. 

- The EURED design of the course has proven a viable and useful way of raising 

transcultural awareness and of training intercultural skills to teachers. The motto “peace 

by peaceful means”applies as well for transcultural education: “intercultural education by 

intercultural means”. 

What I tried to show is that intercultural and transcultural education means a necessary paradigm 

shift in education. However, the real task is to break down this challenging mission into small daily 

tasks, to keep a broad perspective without neglecting the small and sometimes banal troubles, 

problems and jobs. 

It is quite clear that as long as the educational system is exclusively organised on a national level 

(education nationale), no substantial change will take place. It is definitely not enough to introduce 

some intercultural elements into the prevailing national education, like classes of intercultural 

education or youth and teacher exchanges. There is rather an increasing need for transnational 

structures in education, starting with in-service teacher training. The EURED experience is 

interesting just because it is an attempt to move in this direction - not a single seminar, but a whole 

university course, one of the rare elements of European education. The EURED course should not 

be considered as the solution, but as pointer towards where the solution lies, as well as an 

important step in the right direction. 

References 

The EURED Teacher Training Programme. Curriculum for a European Peace Education Course. 

Klagenfurt. 2002. 

Kim, Anna. Verborgte Sprache. In: Zwischenwelt, 21. Jg., Heft 1/2004, 36 - 37. 

Morin, Edgar/Anne Brigitte Kern. Terre-Patrie. Paris: Seuil 1993. 

Reardon, Betty. Educating the Educators: the preparation of teachers for a culture of peace. Malmö1999 

(= Peace Education Miniprints No. 99). 

Thomas, A.: Psychologischp-dagogische Aspekte interkulturellen Lernens im Schüleraustausch. In: ibid.: 

Interkulturelles Lernen im Schüleraustausch. SaarbrückenFort Lauderdale. 1988. 

Tomlinson, John. Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press 1999. 

Uranga Arakistain, Mireia/Hendrick, Diane. Evaluation EURED seminar 5, Schlaining 2006. Nonpublished 

paper. 

Wintersteiner, Werner. Pedagogik des Anderen. Bausteine fer eine Friedenspädagogik in der 

Postmoderne. Münster: agenda 1999. 

76 


Wintersteiner, Werner / Vedrana Spajić-Vrkas / Rüdiger Teutsch (eds.). 2003. Peace Education in 

Europe. Visions and experiences. Münster: Waxmann (= European Studies in Education, 19). 

Wintersteiner, Werner. The UNESCO/EURED Course and multilinguism. 2004. Not published. 

Wulf, Christoph. The Other in Peace Education. In: Peace Education. Contexts and Values. (Eds.) Calleja, 

J., Perucca, A. Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia 1999. S. 197 - 215. 


Education for Peace: Illusion or Essential 

Investment in the Future of Humanity 

Georges Tsai 

Vice Rector and Secretary of the Council 

University for Peace, Costa Rica 

Distinguished representatives of the Government and of the National Human Rights Commission of 

the Republic of Korea, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

I would like first to thank the APCEUI and the National Human Rights Commission of Korea for 

their very kind invitation. It is for me an honour to represent the University for Peace today and to 

share the podium with Dr. Linda King and Dr. Werner Wintersteiner. 

Can we teach peace- Can we learn peace- Is Education for Peace just wishful thinking, or is it a 

powerful tool that can help humanity build peace in a sustainable manner for future generations- I 

am sure that for many of you the answer is obvious - yes, peace can be achieved through 

education and I, as Vice Rector of the UN-mandated University for Peace, will certainly not 

contradict you. 

On the other hand, others - and they might very well be in the majority - may be tempted to argue 

that trying to achieve peace through education is, at best, a well-intended but essentially ineffective 

activity, at worst, a totally misguided objective and a waste of resources. 

Prime Minister Blair, in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council delivered on 1 August 

2006, referring to what he calls “Reactionary Islam”, used the following words: “[…] in a host […] of 

nations it is a global fight about global values; it is about modernisation, within Islam and outside 

of it; it is about whether our value system can be shown to be sufficiently robust, true, principled 

and appealing that it beats theirs”. These are not exactly words that are conducive to a generative 

dialogue susceptible to build bridges between two enemies. The finality is that “we”have to beat 

“them”. My point here is not to take position on what Mr. Blair said (in fact his was an excellent 

speech from a “realistic”perspective), but rather to show that the current political discourse 

remains still well entrenched in the traditional concepts of “war”, “battles”, “enemy”, “otherness”, 

“them vs. us”, “defeat”, and “victory”. And it is true, to go back to my initial point, that “education 

78 


for peace”, or “peace education”, or “human rights education”appear to be rather feeble 

responses - or at least desperately slow responses - to the prevalent culture of war. 

Therefore the question remains valid: should societies, governments, the academic world and the 

private sector invest in initiatives promoting a culture of peace in view of all the other priorities the 

world is facing, and given the seemingly low return-on-investment and very long pay-back 

horizons- My answer is an emphatic yes. It is a yes because we have no other choice if humanity 

wishes to both survive and prosper, but it is also a yes because of all the forces that seem to draw 

men and women (but mostly men) to embrace a destructive behaviour with, unfortunately, much 

effectiveness, creativity, and energy. 

Leaving aside the theories about the psychology of violence, or the theories of Pavlov and 

Tchakhotine about basic instincts, I would like to elaborate a little bit on the issue of relationships 

between groups which have a long history of reciprocal distrust or hatred, which have opposing 

claims, whether based on history or religion, on territories or rights, or which have been unable to 

heal the wounds of past wars. 

One aspect of these destructive relationships which is striking is the fact that the groups involved 

seem to be unable to recognize the legitimacy of the “other”or even its right to exist. Individual 

human rights are indeed very important in building open and tolerant societies, but the so-called 

collective - or in many cases minority - rights are equally important to the harmonious coexistence 

of groups with different religions, speaking different languages, or having different values. 

The reasoning here can be summarized as follows: I, as a human being, need to have my 

individual rights recognized and upheld in order to preserve my dignity. But I am not just an 

isolated human being, I am also a member of a specific group (or of various groups), be it ethnic, 

linguistic, religious or based on sexual orientation, and it would be impossible for me to feel that I 

am fully recognized and valued if the group I belong to is ostracized or is not equal in status to the 

other groups, is denied access to public office, or to education in the language of its members 

(Taylor 1994, Kymlicka 1995). 

As a Canadian I am of course hooked on the perennial debate on individual vs. collective rights. 

The one thing I can say is that without the modest but crucial recognition of the collective rights of 

French-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Quebeckers, I doubt that Canada, as we know it, 

would have been able to survive beyond the 1995 referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec. 

Allow me now to say a few words about the University for Peace (or UPEACE) and the 

contribution it is making from its headquarters in Costa Rica to the development of a culture of 

peace in all regions of the world. UPEACE is a unique organization in that it is the only UNaffiliated 

institution mandated to grant university degrees at the Master’s and Doctoral levels in the 


field of peace and conflict studies. It was established pursuant to a resolution of the General 

Assembly of the United Nations. 

UPEACE’s activities are organized in three inter-related parts: teaching and research; ‘sharing 

knowledge for peace’utilizing information technologies to disseminate UPEACE curriculum to 

those unable to participate in a face-to-face programme; and expanding the impact and reach of its 

programmes beyond the Costa Rica campus through joint activities with other institutions in all 

parts of the world. All our activities address the fundamental causes of conflict and methods of 

conflict transformation through a multidisciplinary and multicultural approach. 

UPEACE is currently teaching eight Master’s Degree Programmes: in International Law and Human 

Rights; in International Law and the Settlement of Disputes; in International Peace Studies; in 

Media, Conflict and Peace Studies; in Gender and Peacebuilding; in Peace Education; in 

Environmental Security and Peace; and in Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. A total 

of 136 students from 37 countries are enrolled in UPEACE’s class of 2007. 

Our network of alumni and students covers all continents of the world. Our alumni work today in 

a variety of organizations such as the Earth Rights in Thailand, the International Criminal Court in 

the Netherlands, the European Free Trade Association in Belgium, the Organization for Security 

and Co-operation in Europe Centre in Tadjikistan; the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre in Nepal, the 

International Organization for Migration in Sri Lanka, the United Nations Assistance Mission to 

Afghanistan, and the Freedom House in Hungary. 

UPEACE is thus contributing, modestly but in a very real way, to the building of the capacity that is 

so much needed to offer a better world to our children and grand-children. 

But of course, while graduating some 150 students every year may be viewed as a significant 

contribution, it is also a drop in the ocean of conflicts and violence that are beleaguering the 

world. This is why UPEACE has started working on a programme of dissemination of its curriculum 

and expertise through e-learning and the production of toolkits designed to be shared with partner 

universities interested in adopting, or adapting, our programmes. For example, 54 Nigerian 

universities will be integrating a course on peace and conflict resolution studies developed by 

UPEACE into all undergraduate programmes. This is the kind of initiative that provides a 

spectacular multiplier effect to our action. 

By the same token, the University for Peace, to increase its impact, is extending its activities to 

various parts of the world. Its Africa Programme is managed from Addis Ababa and it has opened a 

centre in Toronto. Thanks to a generous contribution from the Nippon Foundation, UPEACE, in 

partnership with Ateneo de Manila University, will be launching in April of 2007 a dual-campus MA 

in International Peace Studies specially designed for students from the Asia and the Pacific Region. 

This programme will incorporate a five-month language training module that will allow the 

80 


participants to reach the appropriate level of mastery of the English language in order to fully 

benefit from our teaching, a semester at our main campus in Costa Rica, a semester at the Ateneo 

de Manila campus, and an internship in the Philippines or another country of the region. The 

expectation is that students graduating from this programme will become very attractive candidates 

for positions with international organizations. 

I am very happy to report that discussions with interested partners are under way for the possible 

establishment of a UPEACE Centre in the Republic of Korea. Such a centre could become an 

academic hub dedicated to conflict and peace studies for the entire Northeast Asian Community. It 

would contribute to the strengthening of the existing capacity in the region to solidify the current 

initiatives that seek to promote dialogue and a reciprocal understanding among the various 

communities and countries of the region. It would also help further develop a pool of 

knowledgeable and trained leaders, which would allow global and international organizations to 

recruit an equitable number of promising young men and women from the region. The Centre 

would involve a strong Korean presence in its management structure and would launch 

programmes and courses that are of interest to the country and the region. 

The Republic of Korea can justifiably be very proud of the appointment of Mr. Ban Ki-moon as the 

next Secretary General of the United Nations. Under the Charter of the University, Mr. Ban, as 

Secretary General, will become honorary President of UPEACE. I see this as a very positive sign for 

the future relations between Korea and UPEACE. 

Education for Peace is an investment which requires vision and patience. It offers the opportunity, 

at a relatively low cost, to build peace on a solid and long-lasting foundation. 

Thank you for your attention. 

References 

Taylor, Charles. 1994. “The Politics of Recognition”. In Taylor et al., Multiculturalism: Examining 

the Politics of Recognition, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 


Special Session 

Arts Approaches to Human Rights 

Babu Ayindo 

Coordinator, Ubuntu Arts, Kenya 

82 



84 



86 



88 



90 


Presentation Papers on Session II 

Educating for Interfaith Dialogue in the Context of Human Rights: 

A Multicultural Perspective 

Toh, Swee-hin 

Director, Multi-Faith Centre, Griffith University, Australia 


92 



94 



96 



98 



100 



102 


Islam and Human Rights 

“At a Crossroad” 

Ichsan Malik 

Professor 

School of Psychology, University of Indonesia 

The Major Religions Of The World 

The two major religions in the world is either Christianity or Islam. These two religions have made 

up the half of the world population, being 33% of Christianity and 21% of Islam. Christianity (2.1 

billion people), if taken as a whole, is the largest religion in the world. Even though Islam has only 

started in the 7th century, in this short period of time, compare to Buddhism and Hinduism, Islam 

has become the second largest religion in the world. Samuel Huntington 1 , Islam is growing faster 

numerically than any of the other major world religions, estimate that it is growing at about 2.9% 

annually, as opposed to 2.3% per year global population growth. Most of this growth is due to the 

high population growth in many Islamic countries (six out of the top-ten countries in the world 

with the highest birth rates are majority Muslim. Commonly cited estimates of the Muslim 

population today range between 900 million and 1.3 billion people. 

The Mission of the Religions 

Normatively, the mission of each religion is to glorify humankind and one most important thing is 

to bring salvation to its believers. As we all know that there are 4 major religions in the world, 

which share this same mission and they are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. 

Buddhism (also known as Buddha Dharma or "the teachings of the awakened one") is a way of 

life, focuses on the teachings of Siddharta Gautama. The 3 major divisions of Buddhism are 

Theravda Buddhism, stressing on the the attainment of freedom from suffering. The Mahyna 

(Sanskrit words for "Great Vehicle") emphasizes infinite, universal compassion, or bodhicitta - the 

selfless, ultra-altruistic quest of the Bodhisattva to attain the "Awakened Mind" of Buddhahood so 

as to have the fullest possible knowledge of how most effectively to lead all human beings into 

1 Al Islam quoted by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance 


Nirvana. The Vajrayna or "Diamond Vehicle shares the basic concepts of Mahyna, but also 

includes a vast array of spiritual techniques designed to enhance Buddhist practice. 

Hinduism is a set of religious traditions that originated mainly in the Indian subcontinent. The goal 

of lide is to have the direct experience of divinity, regardless of precisely how one may choose to 

define it. The experience of divinity is the only thing that can give one true peace and happiness, 

and salvation from suffering and ignorance. According to Hindu thought, one does not necessarily 

have to wait until death to attain salvation; it is possible to achieve it in this very life. Ahimsa is a 

concept that advocates non-violence and a respect for all forms of life - human as well as animal. 

Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered that believe Jesus to be the Messiah and God 

incarnate. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest 

religion. It is the predominant religion in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, and large parts of Africa. 

It is also growing rapidly in Asia, particularly in China and South Korea, Northern Africa and the 

Middle East. 

Islam, the most important of Islam mission is rahmatan lil- ’alamin (a blessing for humankind), on 

the pragmatist level was realized in the monotheistic theology --> laa ilaaha ilal-lah, ’There is Not 

God But Allah (quoted from Said Aqiel Siradj, 1999 in his book of Human rights guidance for 

religious leaders). 

The Journey of Islam 

The mission of each religion, or the most important of Islam mission is rahmatan lil- ’alamin (a 

blessing for humankind), on the pragmatic level was realized in the monotheistic theology --> laa 

ilaaha ilal-lah, ’There is Not God But Allah (quoted from Said Aqiel Siradj, 1999 in his book of 

Human rights guidance for religious leaders). 

Slavery was widely practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia, but then with this realization, Islam abolished 

the practice of slavery that was part of this Arabic custom and tradition. Islam has also bring the 

authoritarian regime to and end and also eradicate the absolutism of the emperor at that time. 

This theology was shadowed by the The Constitution of Medina, also known as the Charter of 

Medina, which was drafted in 622. It concerns the rights and responsibilities of the Muslim, Jewish, 

and other Arab and tribal communities of Medina during the war between that city and its 

neighbours. The Constitution of Medina was a social contract derived from a treaty and was built 

upon the concept of one community of diverse tribes living under the sovereignty of One God. 

The Medina Constitution also instituted peaceful methods of dispute resolution among diverse 

groups living as one people but without assimilating into one religion, language, or culture. 

This mission was strengthened withe the spirit of Muhammad last speech (Speech of Haj Wada) 

104 


which stated that ”All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab 

nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a 

black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a 

brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be 

legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. 

Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.” 

On the previous statemnt, we then can only understand that Islam mission was reflected on the 

essence of universal value of the human rights, which we can find on the article 1 of the 

declaration of human rights, that ”All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. 

They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of 

brotherhood. “ 

We then can only understand that Islam mission was reflected on the essence of universal value of 

the human rights, which we can find on the article 1 of the declaration of human rights All human 

beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and 

conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. 

Even though we can learn from the previous slides that there is no differences on the Islam and 

Human rights mission, but then we come to the realization that on the practice of the Islamic 

values and also the human rights values, we stumble upon a crossroad. 

Based on the Islamic tradition, human being is only a component of a bigger group such as family, 

relatives, tribe sor even ethnic. Whereas the Human rights charter values human being as an 

otonomous individual, with its own rights. For Islam, God’s rights (huquq Allah) is more 

important than human rights (huquq al adami). Human being is inferior to God (Jean Claude 

Vatin, 1995 in Ichsan Malik’book). 

Another crossroad is on the universality claim of the human rights. Universality is the claim of the 

religion, Based on the Moslem belief, human rights values is just rules that were made by human 

being and can only regulate people who are still alive. Since God oversee the world of the living 

and also the dead, then the human rights regulation that were made by human has to obey God’s 

laws, which regulate the people in the world and also the after life. All of these values were 

refleted in the Holy Book of Al`qur`an. 

A Big Cloud after the 9-11 

September 11 2001 was remembered as the Twin Tower attack. This attack was widely believed by 

the majority of the world population that Osama Bin Laden is the mastermind. Osama belongs to a 

mega rich family from Saudi, and he used many Islamic reference on his speech. President George 


Bush’first reaction of the incident was to take on a Holy War against the Moslem. Even though 

after the speech he toned down, but then Islamic world was stigmatized with the terorrist issue that 

was raised by the American, British and Australian government. 

The three mentioned countries are the watchdog of human rights and democracy in the world. It is 

not surprising that with this development, realtionship between Islam and Human rights that were 

before at a cross road become ’the other road’, a grey relationship, shadowed with distrust, 

anxiety, with the agressive tendency and then develop to a latent conflict. 

Indonesia, with 200 million population is the 4th largest populated country in the world. Indonesia 

can boast as the largest Moslem populated country in the world (16% of the Moslem population in 

the world). Even though Indonesia is the largest Moslem populated country in the world, 

Indonesia is not a Moslem country. Indonesia has been affected with these latest trend of 

Islamophobia, and was stigmatized as the terrorist country as well. The Islamic worl in Indonesia 

fights back and even there is a back current, that small group is the radical Moslem that sounds 

their concern on the countries that promote the terrorism stigma on Moslem or the Islamic world. 

Solidarity among these small groups are obvious. Even though the number of the radical Islamic 

group are limited, but we can sense that this small group are flourished, and they have stronger 

networking as well. This condition was accelerate not only in the Moslem dominant country, but 

also the countries that are facing political and economical crisis. Terrorism stigma is indetical as the 

fire that lit the dry grass on these countries. 

The strengthening of religious intolerance 

Terrorism stigma was raised by the prominent dominant countris and were cosidered as the 

watchdog of human rights and democracy, (USA, Great Britain and Australia). Consequently, these 

act has raised the intolerance on Islamic world. Intolerancy to the Islamic world was intensify as a 

result of the preceived threat to the Moslem. Perceied threat was the essence of the intolerance 

concept. Intolerancy will only flourished if supported by discrimination and political and 

economical marginalization. 

We have to be modest to acknowledge that each religion, including Islam, has develop this 

intolerance tendency to other values beyond of what they belief, including the human rights and 

democracy. 

Religious intolerance was started with the claim of salvation and the righteousness that was 

possessed by each religion. This claim was make known to the believers or nonbelievers. The 

common methodological of ’spreading the religion’is the comparative method. It was quite 

common to compare with the value of other religion that was considered as inferior or even was 

106 


improper. The human rights valuas can be considered as an improper values as it was not allign 

with the commonal values. The human rights issues were also questioned about the gender 

equality, male dominancy as the leader. 

According to Jacob Burckhardt (1818 -1897), a historian, religious intolerance can be consindered 

as the oldest and dominated form of intolerance. Racial and ethnic intolerance is only follwing this 

pattern. 

Intolerance act will lead into prejudice, Prejudice will only surface hostility. We can only say that 

this only a step away to a conlfict between the Moslem and Non Moslem. 

Political Memory, was used by by each side. Osama Bin Laden used a justification based on history 

during the 9-11 incidents: “Muslims have been abused and insulted for too long”. President Bush 

responded to the attack by also using the historical justification ”this was a continuation of the 

struggles and violence of the eleventh century Crusades”. Sad to say that all these act based only 

on history and history itself has become the main only reason to back up an act of attack 

(Moghaddam F.M ; Marsella A.J. 2004) . 

Allan Baddeley on his article titled The Psychology of Remembering and Forgetting that was 

published in 1989, has stated that history sometimes is being confused with collective memory. 

In the social psychology perspective, history most of the time is being confised with collective 

memory, even though we have to noted on a slight differences that hostory is definitely a 

semantic collective memory, whereas collective memory can be defined as episodic memory. On 

this paper I will use history as the collective memory of the society. 

Collective memory is very easy to manipulate and become the victim of politization, this history 

manipulation is called as political history. 

It si quite acommon knowledge that history belongs to the winnner. Authoritarian regime, 

Dictators, dominant ethnic, will politized the memory of the respected country ( ( Adam, H. 1998 ). 

Systematically, the government will chose the event that can be remembered, memorized, and 

commemorate by its people. There can only be one version of history. This political memory will 

continue with erasing some part of the unfit history, bringing in new facts, exploiting heroism act 

of some ethnic or groups, recontexting the whole evebt and blaming enemies. 

Manipulative and distortive collective memory as a result of politization, in highly connected with 

terrorism stigma to the Moslem. This stigma has followed up a snowball effect and was nurtured by 

the elder generation to the younger ones using the medium of art such as movies, songs, historical 

books and rituals. 


A brief history of human rights 

Human rights has come such a long way, the early documented of can be found in England. 

Magna Carta is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant 

early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of human rights today. Magna 

Carta was originally created because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and 

his English barons about the rights of the King. Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain 

rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that the will of the king could be bound by law. 

Magna Carta (1215) then become the symbol for the first time the citizens of England were granted 

rights against an absolute king. 

The Bill of Rights 1689 is largely a statement of certain positive rights that its authors considered 

that citizens and/or residents of a free and democratic society ought to have. It asserts the Subject's 

right to petition the Monarch and the Subject's right to bear arms for defence. It also sets out (or in 

the view of its writers, restates) certain constitutional requirements where the actions of the Crown 

require the consent of the governed as represented in Parliament. This bill of rights has negative 

impact for the catholic minority in Scotland and Ireland. 

The Virginia Declaration of Rights was a document proclaiming that individual natural rights are 

inherent, and calling for American independence from Britain, was initially drafted by George 

Mason (May , 1776) and the Declaration can be considered the first modern Constitutional 

protection of individual rights. The Declaration consists of sixteen articles on the subject of which 

rights "pertain to [the people of Virginia]...as the basis and foundation of Government."[1] In 

addition to affirming the inherent nature of natural rights to life, liberty, and property, the 

Declaration both describes a view of Government as the servant of the people, and enumerates 

various restrictions on governmental power. 

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (French: La Déclaration des droits de 

l'Homme et du citoyen) is one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a 

set of individual rights and collective rights of all of the estates as one. Influenced by the doctrine 

of natural rights, these rights are universal: they are supposed to be valid in all times and places, 

pertaining to human nature itself. The Declaration was adopted August 26, 1789 by the National 

Constituent Assembly (Assemblé nationale constituante), as the first step toward writing a 

constitution. It not only sets forth fundamental rights of French citizens but acknowledges these 

rights to all men without exception, making it a precursor to international human rights 

instruments: 

"First Article - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded 

only on the common utility." 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (also UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United 

108 


Nations General Assembly (December 10, 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris), outlining the 

organization's view on the human rights guaranteed to all people. It was referred to by Eleanor 

Roosevelt as "a Magna Carta for all mankind." 

A Grey history 

But at the same time, on the parallel level with the development of human rights, The Crusades 

which were a series of military campaigns- sanctioned by the Papacythat took place at the same 

period. Originally, the aim was to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims and at 

supporting the Byzantine Empire against the Muslim expansion into Asia Minor. Another famous 

religious conflict are 

Catholic - Protestant in Ireland, 

Moslem - Christian: Bosnia - Serbs 

Hindu - Moslem: Kashmir, 

Christian - Moslem: Maluku, 

Budha - Moslem: Southern Thailand 

The history of human rights has shown that the human rights values were perfected from time to 

time. Its impelementation has its own ups dand downs depend on the goodwill opf the developed 

countries in the North America and Europe as the initiator and to provide guindance to the 

developing countries in the Africa and Asia, it is then widely recognizable that majority of Muslim 

do not feel as part of the human rights development. 

During the discourse between Islamic group in Indonesia, these questions on the limitations of 

Islam part on the development of human rights were raised. There were other questions on the 

ignorance of the Madinah charter as part of the humasn rights history. As the Charter of Medina, 

which was drafted in 622, concerns on rights and responsibilities of human being despite their 

religions or race (Kassim. Ahmad. 2005). On the global level many of the Islamic movement 

activits/al-harakah al-islamiyyah, consider Human Rights as a cultural invansion/al-ghazwul fikri, of 

the western world on the Islamic world. History intra religion showed that most of the conflict 

were unsolved. Many of these become a latent conflict that develop a stereotype on other parties, 

prejudice and perceived threat to other religious group. This has manifested to a distorted history 

for the next generation. 

Religion history has shown that there always be a conquest either by persuasive methods or 

violence from the older religion to the new religion, or the new religion tries to improve the old 

religion and of the old religion rejected this options, then it will be destroyed. This history full of 

violence made the relationship between Muslim and Christian on the grey area. Its logical 

consequences is that the majority of Muslim is sceptical on the human rights values, with its own 

double standard, masked for the benefits of the western world and Christianity. 


Indonesia has its own share of human rights controversial issues: 

One of them is the gender equality issue. Even though in the west, the common picture 

of a Muslim woman is the stereotype of a woman hidden behind a veil, a voiceless, silent 

figure, bereft of rights, the Muslim women in Indonesia is far from that picture. Anyway 

when it comes on the leadership issues, it become quite different. Megawati, as the first 

Muslim woman that become the president of Indonesia. Her appointment was rejected by 

the majority of the Islamic political parties in Indonesia. 

Closing 

Another issue is the capital punishment. Most of the Islamic state still have this capital 

punishment, even though the international covenants on the civil and political rights has 

prohibited it (article 6. --> no to capital punishment). But this capital punishment issue 

has develop a stereotype that Islamic country is savage and too easy to utilize this capital 

movement. 

Another important issue is the Islamic law in certain provinces in Indonesia. This 

regulation that based on the syariat Islam is not compatible with the democratic laws that 

were considered as the implementation of the humanrights values. The relation between 

the sacred, as announced in the Qur'an, and the political is one of the ongoing, 

controversial debates within Islamic countries. There is today a wide range of views as to 

what is covered by the shari'a, the nature of the State's legal system, the nature of the 

authority for its legal codes, the nature of these codes themselves, and the modalities for 

modifying them. In the light of the more and more frequent appeals to the authority of 

the shari'a by Islamist groups - in order to sanctify violence, or highly restrictive social 

measures imposed by them upon defenceless people under their ideological and 

totalitarian control - more and more voices are being raised for the separation of the 

political from the traditional legal and religious doctrine in Islam.- 

Religion is a gift from God to Human kind. Which means human and humanity is the main focus 

of religion. Human rights values and all its institution has to be considered as strategic partners for 

religion on its humanity mission. The universal character of human rights is of strategic 

importance. There is a definite needs for some universal codes based on mutual consent in order 

to function. It is the universal character that can be made for a common platform for relations 

between peoples across national and cultural from all walk of life. Today, people understand the 

importance of the respect for the dignity and uniqueness of every human being. At the same time, 

there is a common awareness of dignity disregarded. 

The human dignity of every single human being can be properly affirmed and given effective 

protection only within the framework of an interrelated system of norms, principles and 

110 


institutions. Human rights issues in international relations are frequently interpreted as belonging 

to the moral sphere, whereas the Islamic human rights were beyond this moral sphere as it also 

applied in the after life sphere. There is a real need to change the methodology on spreading the 

religion with the tendecy to compare religions values. These can serve as triggers and also 

acceletor on religious conflict. A new methodology which foicus on human and humanity in this 

diverse world and also can accomodate the diversity of each religion. 

Human rights implementation in the Muslim majority populated countries will face a dead end and 

will not able to destroy stigma, discrimination, double standard and dominance from the superior 

countries that played as the watchdog of the human rights. 

As the racial and ethnic intolerance were always followed the MO (Modus Operandi) of a religious 

intolerance, there is a defnite urgency for an encounter and empowering process between 

religious and cultural organizations. In the hoping that the religious organization can take an active 

part as a trouble shooter in solving the cultural and polotical economical problems that were the 

essence of the human rights problems these days. 

Distorted collective memory on violence conflict between Muslim and Christian has to be put into 

proportion, so that this collective memory will not become another source of conflict. It has to be 

understood that violence conflict is part of the ongoing history. Past - presnet and future is 

connected and this means that conflict that happened ages ago can happen today. 


Human Rights and Buddhist Cultures 

Aasulv Lande 

Professor 

Center for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University,Sweden 

I have as a Christian enjoyed the priviledge of living parts of my life in a Buddhist environment 

(Japan) and have on several occasions visited countries of Eastern Asia with Buddhist cultures. 

Working in university contexts it has been a professional occupation and a personal joy to 

establish contacts with Buddhist groups Western as well as Eastern. I hope that my presentation of 

Human Rights and Buddhist Culture from an outside perspective might be accepted as fair; if not 

that comments and responses from panel and audience might lead me unto a sounder path! 

Human Rights from a Buddhist Point of View 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a resolution by United Nations General Assembly 

December 10 1948 has resounded positively in a large majority of the nations of the world. It is 

even followed up by a drafted Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the World’s Religions, 

occasioned by a World Conference in Montreal December 1998 commemorating the UN 

declaration 50 years earlier. The declaration by the world’s religions follows the same structure as 

its UN predecessor and contains as its model 30 paragraphs with related contents. However, the 

striking difference is the inclusion of ”duties”together with ”rights”in the religious documents. 

This also leads on to a reflection on how Buddhists have received the original, UN Declaration. 

Buddhist leaders have not reacted to the declaration of human rights with one, single voice. It 

might be appropriate to mention the Indian politician and religious leader B.R. Ambedkar as one 

of the representative supporters of human rights. In 1956 he converted from Hinduism to 

Buddhism, particularly to fight the social discrimination imbedded in the Hindu cast 

system.(Sangarakshita, Ambedkar and Buddhism, Windhorse Publications, Glasgow 1986: 162f) 

Later, the Siamese Buddhist Sulak Sivaraksa has spoken strongly in favor of Buddhist human rights. 

Sulak finds a concept of human rights already in premodern, Buddhist Siam. He sees human rights 

as a natural implication of the non-ego as this was exemplified in the lives of Buddhist monks. He 

thus recommends an understanding of human rights, based in indigenous, Thai traditions ( See his 

book A Socially Engaged Buddhism, Khana Radom Than, Bangkok 1982: 42ff) 

112 


A Westerner, Sallie King, who like Sulak Sivaraksa identifies with ”Engaged Buddhism”, also 

speaks in favor of human rights in Buddhism. She underlines, however, the mutuality of 

Buddhism, which differs from the onesided ”rights”found in the UN declaration (reformulated in a 

spirit of mutuality, however, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by World’s Religions;. 

see her article ”Human Rights in Contemporary Engaged Buddhism”in Jackson and Makransky 

(ed) Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars,. Curson, 

Richmond 2000, p 300. 

For all these and other Buddhist supporters of the Declaration of Human Rights, however, the idea 

is that human rights should be seen in a context of mutuality and thus as implicit in the Buddhist 

ethos based on virtues such as compassion. 

Several Buddhist leaders are basically sceptical to the concept of Human Rights as defined in the 

UN Declaration. With James Fredricks in his contribution ”Buddhism and Human Rights”in Runzo, 

Martin and Sharma (ed) ”Human Rights and Responsibilities in the World Religions”, One World, 

Oxford 2003: 251ff, I point at Buddhists such as Thai monk Phra Dhammapidok and American 

Buddhist scholar Peter Junger. The former fears that the struggle for human rights overlooks the 

real malady of humankind, suffering (dukkha). The latter opposes a Buddhist approach to social 

problems by adopting the idea of human rights.The human rights mentality is according to Junger 

incompatible with the Four Noble truths.”’Rights’are merely an impermanent mental construction. 

As is the case with all mental constructions, human rights are dependently arisen (pratitya 

samutpada) and therefore contingent, not absolute… Therefore, clinging to human rights, insisting 

on the universality of rights, and most of all asserting our own rights is yet another form of thirst 

which leads to the creation of more suffering, in accordance with the Second Noble Truth’s 

teaching that suffering arises through craving.”(Quoted from Frederick 2003: 253) 

There is thus not a clear, unanimous, Buddhist understanding of human rights. The above glimpses 

from the discussion show, however, that Buddhism has a capasity of including human rights as 

part of an ethos of compassion. One has, however, to renounce individualist ideas present in the 

original UN declaration and also to emphasize the duty and responsibility of humans. The 

Declaration drafted in a World Religion’s context would therefore much better comply with 

Buddhist ideas of Nature, Society and allembracing interrelationships. Let me quote Article One of 

the Declaration of World’s Religions: ”All human beings have the right to be treated as human 

beings and have the duty to treat everyone as a human being” 

Contexts of Buddhist Use of Human Rights 

I will differentiate between three contexts where Buddhist fight for human rights have appeared: 

Survival - Dehumanizing Forces and Constructive Initiatives. 


Survival 

Buddhism has been threatened by political forces under many circumstances. It ranges from 

periods of political persecution of Buddhism in China, to instances of persecution under the 

pressure of modernization. Buddhism in Japan was in early Meiji period under political 

suppression from Shintoists. During the last decades political suppression has been stongly felt in 

Tibet. Dalai Lama has fled Tibet under the pressure. It is most significant to note how this religious 

leader has fronted a movement which combines a fight for religious freedom, f.i. the right of 

Tibetan monasteries to manage their own religious affairs (such as election of a new Dalai Lama) 

with a demand for political rights of the people. In a situation where Buddhism and Buddhist 

Culture is vitally threatened and survival is at stake, Buddhism hoists the flag of rights. Cp UN 

Declaration Article 18: ”Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ...” 

Dehumanizing Forces 

In Thailand a strong Buddhist work for human rights, I have above already referred to Sulak 

Sivaraksa, is directed against dehumanizing forces. This fight might take a variety of forms such as 

a struggle against a planned oilpipe through the rainforest, protests against political 

authoritarianism and degradation of women. Lately there has been a special accent on the stuggle 

against effects of consumerism and liberal market economy. 

”An even greater problem (than scientism and technological problems) is that when we reach the 

age of economism and consumerism which goes by the name of globalization, we change the 

phrase ”I think, therefore I am”to ”I buy therefore I am”. Hence human beings have on the whole 

only two aspects in life: to earn money in order to consume whatever advertisers brainwash us to 

purchase”Advertisers are on the whole controlled by transnational corporations which have 

become more influential than the national state, and their main objective is to exploit natural 

resources and human beings in the pursuit of economic gain. The heart of Buddhist teaching has 

much to do with social ills. The crux of Buddhas teaching trancends the notion of individual 

salvation and is concerned with the whole realm of sentient beings. The inescapable conclusion is 

that Buddhism requires an engagement in social, economic and political affairs”(Sulak Sivaraksa ” 

A Buddhist Response to Globalisation”, p 285 ff in Melvin McLeod (ed) Mindful Politics, Wisdom 

Publications, Boston 2006) 

Constructive Initiatives 

Japan is a country which after 1945 has developed a democratic mode of life and where Buddhism 

in no way is threatened by extinction. It is interesting to note how Buddhist movements have 

engaged in a struggle for world peace and against the imperialist politics of the past. I will in this 

connection particularly mention the initiatives of ”Critical Buddhism”. The whole movement rose 

in conjunction with a discussion on Buddhist neglect of the problems connected with ”buraku- 

114 


min”- a special area of social discrimination in Japan (Machida Issue 1979) and also the 

discussions on State support of Yasukuni Shrine, the Japanese War Memorial which in World War 

II was closely tied to the Imperialist, war ideology. In the following dicussions on these and related 

issues, two professors at the Zen Komazawa University in Tokyo came up with a strong self-critical 

statement whick included a refusal to accept terms like ”Buddha nature”. This term and other 

related central terms from Japanese Zen were not in their view Buddhist terms. Buddhist could not 

in their view support any Japanese, nationalist policies. Buddhism was based on interrelationships 

and was in its very character ”critical”. A Buddhist could not ”love Japan”(See Hubbard and 

Swanson (ed) Pruning the Bodhi Tree, University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu 1997). I consider this 

approch an example of a constructive initative for world peace. It is namely neither brought up by 

social or ideological suppresssion, nor has it emerged from a struggle for survival. It is actually 

formed by willingess to enter a process of contributing from a genuine Buddhist point of view to 

World peace and establishment of human dignity. In this approach the strong element of costly 

Buddhist self-criticism adds to the serenity of the contribution. 

Concluding Remarks 

Contributions from Buddhist cultures to the work for Universal Human Dignity might first be seen 

as extending and transforming human rights of the individual to intricate rights and duties in 

allencompassing mutuality. Individual rights are seen in a context of nature and wider society and 

the individual rights are based on a concern for mutuality and interaction in correspondence with 

Buddhist doctrines of interdependent co-arising. 

Contributions come from Buddhist individuals and groups and relate to different contexts where 

issues extend from threat of extinction to confrontation with life threatening forces Special 

contributions come from theoretical studies of original Buddhist ideas and relate to Buddhist 

selfunderstanding and to ongoing discourse on Human Rights in a world context . 

For the sake of world peace and human dignity it is of utmost importance that these varied 

Buddhist concerns and ideas are developed and brought into a world context. It is furthermore of 

great significance to bring these thoughts and concerns into an international, interreligious and 

inter-ideological dialogue.Not only would the Buddhist discourse gain from such inter religious 

relationships. Movements promoting peace and human dignity would significantly be strengthened 

by such interreligious dialogues 


Between Tolerance and Dissent: 

Religious, Citizenship and Human Rights Education 

Liam Gearon 

Professor 

Roehampton University, London, United Kingdom 

Introduction 

A philosopher refugee from Nazi persecution (like his Viennese countryman, Ludwig 

Wittgenstein), Karl Popper’s (1946) The Open Society and Its Enemies is a work of increasing 

relevance to our time threatened by new forms of totalitarianism, often presenting itself in the 

name of religion. Popper’s book is divided into two volumes; the first is a critique of the 

totalitarian impulses of Plato, the second of the totalitarianism inherent in Marx’s historical 

materialism. Popper’s major point is that an open society needs to maintain a permanent guard 

upon those forces which might foreclose the openness of thought and other basic freedoms, 

whether these be from philosophical, political, ideological or theological sources. An authoritative 

critic of Popper puts it well: ‘the maximum possible tolerance or freedom is an optimum, not an 

absolute, for it has to be restricted if it is to exist at all …’There are always compromises in 

freedoms, despite any stated indivisibility of rights, and ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance’ 

(Magee, 1985: 81; cf. Bailey, 2000; Gearon, 2004). Popper is important at both a theoretical and 

practical level because his thinking radicalizes and gives considerable urgency to the question of 

dissent. To what extent should a religious believer exercise tolerance and under what condition 

dissent- And do we mean tolerance of the State and its laws- To what extent should a religious 

believer dissent from or tolerate his or her religious tradition- What are the bounds of tolerance 

and when might a person or a tradition be impelled not to tolerance but dissent. And what form 

should dissent take- Might religious education offer a pedagogical framework for such analysis- 

How might it contribute to refining in pupils the skills of a beneficent discrimination- This article 

cannot hope to articulate all of these questions, but will present an attempt, tentative and 

provocative, to the question the limits of tolerance; arguing that there is much in the world about 

which a religious educator might offer not tolerance but dissent. 

Tyranny, Totalitarianism and Tolerance: Pedagogy from Politics 

It was totalitarianism and genocide that were on the mind of the newly formed United Nations 

116 


(UN) when the UN General Assembly -- established by its founding 1945 Charter -- instituted a 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights in thirty articles, on 10 December 1948. Only the day 

before the UN General Assembly had made the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. 

Arguably, because of this juxtaposition of declarations, totalitarianism and genocide define the 

subsequent contours of the UN mandate in all others areas of its operation (Ryan, 2000). The 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights arose from, or as a direct reaction to, the extreme 

denigration of freedoms by tyranny and totalitarianism. Studies abound of the United Nations, sixty 

years or so after its creation (Forsythe, 2000; Sellars, 2002; Schlesinger, 2003; Baratta, 2004; Bowles, 

2004; Fasulo, 2004; Krasno, 2004; Weiss, Forsythe and Coate, 2004). These studies review the 

successes and failures of the UN from its inception when the world was a smaller place to a time 

when the notion of globalization has become a worn clich. Arguably the UN has been preeminent 

amongst bureaucratic inter-governmental structures which have, along with advances in 

communications and other technologies, made the world smaller. The First and Second World 

Wars were indicative of the global reach of technology demonstrated by world war and the 

impetus for a global inter-governmental system based on common values (‘universal human 

rights’) that would determine and, at least in theory, maintain the peace. 

The question of tolerance and its limits have been constantly raised by the short (six decade) 

history of the United Nations. If we look to the foundational statement of moral principle - the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those documents which constitute the International Bill 

of Human Rights (1) - we see that educational provision has been central since the beginning of 

the United Nations to the promotion of human rights and the wider political context of liberty (2). 

Thus, when - on that now famous 10 December day in 1948 - the UN General Assembly 

proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in thirty articles, it provided a moving 

testimony to the good intentions of humankind in ridding itself of totalitarianism, genocide and the 

scourge of world war, as well as being a positive affirmation of human worth and fundamental 

moral principle. The Declaration provides the necessary legal and historical context and a 

statement of human value: 

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 (sic), 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 

(sic) 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 … 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. (UN, 1948: available www.un.org, emphasis added) 

There is little that thirty articles do not themselves cover, at least in basic outline, by way of an 

ideal, aspirational statement of rights and responsibilities, freedoms and obligations - for the 

individual, the state and international community of nations. 

In excess of a half century later - in a world despairingly short of those ideals - the United Nations 

reiterated the role of education in the process and established the International Decade for Human 

Rights Education (1995-2004). During that Decade there was held an International Consultative 

Conference on School Education in relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and 

Non-Discrimination (Madrid, November 2001). Advance planning of the meeting in Madrid could 

not have predicted what had happened in the preceding months to give the meeting a tragically 

topicality. Indeed, there were other ironies of the time: the events of 11 September 2001 had been 

preceded only days before with the closure, in Durban, South Africa, of the meeting of the World 

Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and Other Forms of Discrimination. This gave a more 

than nuanced urgency, two months later, to the address in Madrid by Amor (then Special 

Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief) ‘The Role of Religious Education in the Pursuit of 

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination’(www.un.org and follow links) (3). In it, Amor suggested that 

prevention of much global conflict based upon religious difference could be ‘ensured through the 

establishment of a culture of tolerance, notably through education, which could make a decisive 

contribution to the promotion of human rights values and particularly attitudes and behaviors 

which reflect tolerance and non-discrimination, hence the role of schools’. 

Between Tolerance and Dissent I: 

Four Critical Contexts for Religious, Citizenship and Human Rights Education 

This contemporary rise to prominence of religion in global politics parallels the international 

development of interest in human rights and citizenship: 

During the 1990s there has been a resurgence of interest in Civic and Citizenship Education. 

The number of formal democracies in the world has increased from 76 (46.1%) to 117 

(61.3%). This has been described as the ‘third wave of democracy’related to significant 

world events such as the ending of apartheid in South Africa, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 

democratisation of former communist states in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the 

Soviet Union. Civic education programmes have become an increasingly important means 

for countries to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities. Increasing pluralism 

within states has encouraged the development of civic education programmes that go 

beyond simple ‘patriotic’models of citizenship requiring uncritical loyalty to the nation 

state. By defining ‘citizenship’in terms of human rights and civic responsibilities, civic 

education programmes attempt to avoid concepts of ‘citizenship’that define nationality in 

118 


terms of ethnic, religious or cultural identity. The aspiration is that concepts of citizenship 

based on human rights and responsibilities may make it more difficult to mobilise political 

conflict around identity issues (www.unesco.org; follow links to citizenship) 

The same report makes clear the general link between citizenship and human rights education: 

A comprehensive human rights education takes account of citizenship, and considers that 

good citizenship is connected with human rights as a whole. Conversely, citizenship 

education which trains citizens aware of the human and political issues at stake in their 

society or nation, requires from each citizen ethical and moral qualities. All forms of 

citizenship education aim at shaping respect for others by fostering a spirit of tolerance and 

peace (www.unesco.org; follow links to citizenship) 

Simultaneously with such pedagogical developments, themselves the result of pressures in global 

politics (Osler and Starkey, 2006), the rise to prominence of religion in global governance has also 

been marked and dramatic in the recent history of the twenty-first century. Concomitant to the 

latter, as noted in a major report by UNESCO, has been a parallel and equally worldwide rise in 

religious teaching (IBE/ UNESCO, 2003). World events continue therefore to heighten the need for 

increased attention religion or belief in education, particularly in human rights and citizenship 

education, and the links between religious, citizenship and human rights education. Our 

understanding of religion in education, either within citizenship or as part of a wider curriculum 

needs to take account therefore of a wide historical and political, as well as a philosophical 

perspective. Yet the wider relation of religion and human rights and between religious, human 

rights and citizenship education has been the subject of little systematic critical interrogation nor 

pedagogical innovation. However, the same United Nations system that has recognised the need 

for education in the promulgating of universal human rights has also increasingly recognised the 

need for specific protections to be provided to ensure freedom of religion or belief. Presented here 

are four critical contexts which attempt to outline four aspects of the relationship: religion and 

global governance, religion and the UN, religion in citizenship and human rights education, 

citizenship and human rights in religious education. 

Critical Context 1: Religion and Global Governance 

The role of religion in public and political life has been historically underplayed since the 

European Enlightenment. There is now increasing evidence of the importance of religion in post- 

Cold War public and political life, often but not exclusively centring on issues of human rights, 

including freedom of religion or belief. This trend highlighted by a number of theorists of religion 

and education: Smart (1969; 1989); Casanova (1994); Haynes (1998); Bowker (2002); Woodhead 

(2002); Ward (2003); Gearon (2002; 2005); Runzo et al. (2004); Jackson (2003; 2004). 

Following the Reformation and resultant wars of religion, the European Enlightenment encouraged 


freedom of religion, thought and expression, and one of the defining political implications of this 

was separation of Church (or religion) and State, as with, for example, France and the United 

States in the eighteenth centuries (4). The post-Enlightenment separation of Church and State 

presented the groundwork for a wider marginalization of religion in public life, often defined as 

‘secularization’. Post-Enlightenment secularization thesis common amongst classical social and 

political theorists, and indeed even psychoanalytic theory (Durkheim, Weber, Marx Freud; see 

Ward, 2003) presents us with an expectation of the decline in the public role of religion, and its 

marginalisation to the private sphere. The post-Enlightenment tradition includes some militantly 

atheistic tendencies as well as those that take a more benign view of religion. In this wider 

intellectual tradition, though, religion was often regarded (and in some quarters still continues to 

be so regarded) as an anti-progressive element within society. When this intellectual tradition has 

been combined with totalitarian political power, such states have tended towards a militant 

atheism and violent persecution of religious traditions is frequently the result (Smart 1989; Ward 

2003). Yet religion seems, against the expectations of secularization thesis, to have retained a role 

in public governance. Indeed, some time before 11 September 2001, religion and associated rights 

of religious freedom have been increasingly viewed as a barometer of wider democratic freedoms. 

For example, in the United States the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act made it a 

requirement for the US secretary of State to publish an annual report on religious freedom 

worldwide, the US Department of State clearly linking freedom of religion and the likelihood that 

countries that preserve this will respect other fundamental rights. The report is extensive and 

provides country-by-country and comprehensive worldwide accounts of religious freedoms, the 

infringements of and improvements in relation to such rights to belief, and can be found at 

www.house.gov/international_relation (and follow links). Even if the database represents, to a 

degree, a bias of the US administration it remains a resource much underused by educationalists. 

For a critique of this US law on religious freedom, see Shattuck’s (2003) keynote paper to a 

Harvard Conference on Religion, Democracy and Human Rights entitled ‘Religion, Rights and 

Terrorism’; www.law.harvard.edu (and follow links). 

Critical Context 2: Religion and the United Nations (UN) 

The UN system incorporated and defined freedom of religion or belief since the 1948 Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights but the early history of the UN tended to downplay religious and 

ideological diversity. Now, after a long neglect (or low level treatment) of religion explicitly, the 

UN system from the late 1970s and with the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of’ 

Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981) began to recognise the 

international significance of religion for a stable world order. 

The 1948 United Nations’Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a number of articles of 

relevance to freedom of religion and belief. These include Article 2 (forbidding prejudicial 

distinctions of any kind, including those related to religion), Article 26 (on the rights to a particular 

religious education) and Article 29 (on responsibilities and proscription against limitations of 

120 


proclaimed rights). Pivotal, though, is Article 18 of the Declaration, which states that, ‘Everyone 

has the right to freedom of: thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change 

his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or 

private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.’As Lerner 

(2000) comments, Article 18 was influential in regional treaties and the 1981 Declaration and 

integral to several international instruments, notably: 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) 

The Arcot Krishnaswami Study (1959) 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 

The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (1966) 

The Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of’Intolerance and Discrimination Based 

on Religion or Belief (1981) 

Until the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based 

on Religion or Belief (1981) had been relatively low level but after this relative neglect of religion 

explicitly, the UN system (especially with the 1981 Declaration) began to recognise the 

international significance of religion for a stable world order. During the 1990s - notably again in a 

post-Cold War world where issues of nationalism emerged along with struggles over religious, 

cultural and ethnic identities - religion emerges further, gaining a new, unprecedented 

prominence, for instance in the: 

Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and 

Linguistic Minorities (18 December 1992) 

Oslo Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief (1998) 

World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Discrimination 

(September, 2001) 

For full texts, follow links at www.unhchr.org 

The notion of freedom of religion was itself extended to freedom of non-religious (for example 

humanistic) worldviews in 1981 and 1998 Declarations, the ‘or belief’in both being here 

significant. This in turn has had the effect of linking in a fairly direct way rights of ‘freedom of 

thought, conscience and religion’to ‘later generation’rights of ‘human solidarity’, concerned 

with specific groups - women, children, indigenous peoples, religious traditions - rather than 

generic ‘civic and political’(‘first’generation) or ‘cultural and economic’(‘second’generation) 

rights (Wellman, 2000). Most notable is the linking of religious intolerance to the ending of racism, 

xenophobia and discrimination more broadly. For example, the 1981 Declaration on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief was 

followed just over a decade later by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to 

National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities (1992). While a post-September 11 context 

has further highlighted the issue of potential violence in and over conflicts in (religious and/ or 

ideological) worldview, this potential fissure between universal rights and particular cultural, 


especially religious traditions has been a live one for many years (Ayton-Shenker, 1995). Yet there 

is no denying that, recently, issues of religion have increasingly come to the fore in a United 

Nations formerly cautious about being explicit about arguably the most contentious of all human 

rights. The historical irony should not be lost that the World Conference Against Racism, 

Xenophobia and Other Forms of Discrimination in Durban, South Africa (September 2001) 

concluded its business on an ‘optimistic note’according to a Human Rights Watch report on 10 

September 2001 - how different the world was to seem twenty-four hours later (HRW, 2001). 

Critical Context 3: Religion in Citizenship and Human Rights Education 

The role of religion in civic education, citizenship, human rights education has been underplayed. 

Reflecting broader global trends there is now increasing recognition of the importance of religion 

in citizenship and human rights education, although the recognition of the importance of teaching 

about religion remains arguably less strong in civic or citizenship education than in religious 

education. 

If religion has tended to have been underplayed in the early UN system for similar reasons that led 

to the creation of the UN in the first place; and within educational context the same negative 

historical and political aspects of religion have tended to be excluded from school curricula for 

similar reasons that is, of potential conflict. However, the range of global educational initiatives (in 

response to the International Decade of Human Rights Education) in relation to citizenship and 

human rights education curricula (http://ap.ohchr.org/documents), presents strong evidence that 

to show marginalisation of religion in citizenship and human rights education. There yet remains 

then an absence of any systematic consideration of the role of the place of religion fully developed 

within human rights and, more broadly, citizenship education, as a systematic review of citizenship 

education literature indicate (EPPI, 2005, Osler and Starkey, 2006; cf. Gearon, 2004). At the 

international level, the UN and UNESCO have made moves towards a consideration of the 

contribution of teaching about religion as a contribution to toleration and mutual understanding 

but this still presents a piecemeal, arguably reactive and in some regards negative appraisal of the 

role of religion, in that religion is seen as a contributor to conflict as much as a factor in its 

resolution. Global politics have however forced a change and there is increased evidence of the 

importance of freedom of religion or belief, forcing a radical, and as yet unresolved reappraisal of 

religion in the context of global governance (Harpviken and Eggen Rioslien, 2005) and the 

implication of education for this (Lindholm, Durham and Tahzib-Lies, 2003). 

Critical Context 4: Citizenship/ Human Rights Education in Religious Education 

The political (for example, citizenship/ human rights) has been underplayed in religious education, 

and contentious historical contexts sidestepped. Yet the exponential growth of civic or citizenship 

education around the world has forced religious education to consider the political and historical, 

an exponential growth itself forced upon education by manifold changes in the world in which we 

live. 

122 


The historical circumstance of a European post-Enlightenment context has meant the consequent 

neglect of religion as a subject of serious study, and indeed religion has been formally excluded 

from many curricula internationally. UNESCO studies have pointed, too, to the increase in new 

emphases and new worldwide thinking on re-including forms of religious education (UNESCO, 

2005). Ironically, where it exists, religious education has tended to emphasize precisely the 

positive aspect of religion in order either to justify its place in contributing to harmonious and 

open governance where religious difference is tolerated. Arguably, though, in a context where 

tolerance, and related positive utopian attributes of religious education, is often the focus (cf. 

Grimmitt, 2000; Osmer, 2003; Larson and Gustavsson, 2004) educators need to take seriously 

dystopian global realities of which religions, often through ethnic and cultural identity, are a root 

cause (Gearon 2002; 2004; Rushton, 2004; Runzo et al. 2004; Harpviken and Eggen Roislien, 2005). 

It is precisely these sorts of dystopian realities with which religious education needs to come to 

terms, but in many historical and contemporary contexts, religious educators might be justified in 

arguing not for tolerance but dissent. Arguably the pedagogical methods do not at present exist 

which would allow us sufficiently to integrate both sensitivity to freedom of religion or belief and 

discussion of those divergences between religious traditions and modern democratic governance 

based on universal human rights. The tensions do exist, and ignoring them by opting for a sole 

focus upon the positive and harmonious aspects of religious traditions in historical and 

contemporary contexts, risks only an anodyne treatment of religion that could arguably perpetuate 

the very prejudices open and critical religious education seeks to promote. I present here, in bare 

outline only, four ‘case study’exemplars which demonstrate where dissent or at least critical 

engagement might be preferable to ‘tolerance’: genocide; gender; governance; social justice. 

Between Tolerance and Dissent II: 

Four Critical Tensions for Religious, Citizenship and Human Rights Education 

Genocide 

In her Pulitzer-winning A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Power (2003) 

presents an account of the post-Holocaust development of term ‘genocide’from Latin and Greek 

derivations meaning ‘race-killing’. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the 

Crime of Genocide was approved on 9 December 1948, the day before the Universal Declaration 

and in many ways foundational to it. Few regimes intent on silencing a minority will remain 

content with the repression of their culture and whether the term genocide is used; and there are 

few instances of mass slaughter since those optimistic days of late 1948 when the repression of 

culture and genocide have not, almost inevitably intertwined (Saunders, 2001; de Baets, 2001; 

Jones, 2001; Rose, 2000; Raven 2004; Gearon, 2002; 2006). There are no major religious traditions - 

Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism - that do not advocate or espouse 

values of peace and non-violence, and it is therefore amongst the greatest of historical ironies that 

few religions have not contributed in some way or other to war, violent conflict and mass slaughter 

(Bartov, 2002). Religious, cultural and ethnic differences remain the major source of conflict in a 


post-Cold War world, as they were prior to this period (Gearon, 2002); though the same traditions 

are also a source of conciliation and peacemaking (Harpviken and Eggen Roislien, 2005). Religion 

and cultural difference remain then a source of potential conflict, whether worldview is a cause or 

a pretext. Yet, the matter is complex. If the emphasis in the international media today and in 

contemporary international relations is on the role of religion as a source of conflict, Marshall’s 

(2000) international study, (and monitoring by the Freedom House NGO and indeed the US 

Department of State’s annual reports on international religious freedom) demonstrates how in a 

contemporary context religions are as likely to be persecuted as they are to persecute. 

Gender 

There are tensions between particular cultural and especially religious traditions and the notion or 

the idea of universal human rights. Of all universal human rights in relation to religious traditions, 

differences in attitudes to gender equality are likely to be most consistently paramount. Here, 

issues of universal rights between men and women remain as critical for religious traditions as they 

do for the international community. It is not simply that many religious traditions exclude women 

from positions of power and authority but that they envisage roles which limit women’s role 

within wider societal contexts, and this restriction on female freedom tends to happen in societies 

governed by religious and especially theocratic rather than secular principles. On 18 December 

1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was 

adopted by the UN General Assembly, and entered into force as an international treaty on 3 

September 1981. While marking significant progress, and the culmination of three decades of work 

by UN Commission on the Status of Women (established 1946), from the 1990s onwards, the 

Beijing and Beijing+5 meetings show that the equal status of women remains in many countries 

and cultures a distant ideal, despite the fact that fundamental equality in human rights was 

foundational to the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration. The Convention outlines that 

discrimination against women is real and extensive and details the areas (health, education, 

employment, and legal and political status, for instance) where progress needs to be made. The 

Convention also devotes much time to reproductive rights, issues around maternity and rights 

centered on marriage. Of general importance is the disparity between the UN definitions of 

women’s rights and those perceived within cultural and religious traditions. Here, each religion 

will represent particular issues of integrating or rejecting women’s rights within their respective 

traditions, tempered by particular political circumstances. We should note that, in general, the legal 

difficulties in combining equalities, rights and freedoms of religion with equalities, rights and 

freedoms of women are very real, representing arguably the most significant tension between 

international system of human rights and religious traditions (Askin and Koenig, 2001). 

Governance 

There are tensions within and between religious traditions and models of open, democratic 

governance. Religions are members of states and the international community but religious 

traditions and states do not always share the same models of governance or the models of 

124 


democratic openness. Few religious traditions operate hierarchies governed under democratic 

principles. Many, across a range of traditions, are autocratic. Notions of authority are based simply 

upon different principles than they are within democracies. In societies where there is separation 

of religion and state, the latter will not generally interfere with the former; in states governed by 

religious principles (theocracies), the risk to democratic principles of governance and general 

openness are greatest. For instance, examination of post-Cold War trends reveals relatively precise 

international trends in literary and other forms of cultural repression in a particular historical period 

(de Baets, 2001; Jones, 2001). These issues surface strongly in open societies as much as 

totalitarian and repressive regimes; but the amount of freedom of expression citizens are allowed is 

a perennial question for all forms of governance; yet today the tension between freedom of 

expression and freedom of religion or belief is at the heart of open governance itself (cf. Harpviken 

and Eggen Roislien, 2005). 

Social Justice 

Arguably the widest of all tensions that exist in our contemporary world calling for more dissent 

than tolerance is the tension between a stated universality of rights and factual, generic 

inequalities, often across a broad sphere of social justice issues such as poverty and resulting poor 

access to education, employment, food and health. Thus, the 1993 World Conference on Human 

Rights resulted in the Vienna Plan of Action. Priorities for the global implementation of human 

rights were listed and, as with the majority of recent UN world conferences, a five-year review was 

planned. The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna (1993) expressed ‘its dismay and 

condemnation that gross and systematic violations and situations that constitute serious obstacles 

to the full enjoyment of all human rights continue to occur in different parts of the world’. It is this 

most fundamental sense of inequality - over and above differences between religious traditions and 

secular notions of human rights - that arguably presents the greatest cause of conflict the world 

over. Such thinking is reiterated by the end of the International Decade of Human Rights Education 

and the (2005-2007) World Programme for Human Rights Education. 

Conclusion 

The suppression of freedom of public religion in Cold War states coincided with the resurgence of 

religion in global governance in a post-Cold War world. Trends in post-Cold War and post-9/11 

and (and in the UK post-7/7) are thus closely interrelated, but in ways which are still being 

outplayed (Boulden and Weiss, 2004; Bennett and Finnemore, Martha, 2004). Heightened 

emphasis upon religion and culture in international relations shows that we live in a world that 

continues to reflect, then, considerable tensions between worldviews. It is these tensions which 

necessitate the increased attention to and strain upon notions of tolerance within both political and 

pedagogical contexts. These tensions or ambivalences are most often found between cultural, 

especially religious, traditions and ideas of open democracy and universal human rights. In terms 

of pedagogy and educational research, one of the most pressing current-day needs is to examine 

ways in which religious, citizenship and human rights education may interact constructively to 


make some contribution to the pressing political questions of our time. While the religious 

educator would never wish to relinquish sight of the existential and the metaphysical, in the 

context of public religion, in settings of religion in global governance, the religious educator will 

inevitably find him or herself on contentious ground, playing a key role in adjudicating and 

facilitating critical judgements which may, on occasion, necessitate not tolerance but dissent. 

As the critical contexts and critical tensions outlined in this paper would seem to suggest, the role 

of religion in relation to global governance and world politics is evolving constantly. The 

relationship between religious education and citizenship education - as differently as these might 

be conceived in various countries - represents an ideal forum for the exchange of ideas between 

the two subjects that tend increasingly to reflect both the tensions and possibilities of a wider 

world. Human rights education presents a model of and for a particular form of moral and ethical 

standards (‘universal human rights’) developed through the contingencies of contemporary 

history - in the UN era in particular and specifically as a response to the atrocities of genocide and 

the absolute repressions of totalitarianism. Yet human rights, as an essentially secular formulation, 

are themselves contested standards; and in regard to them we thus find in religious traditions a 

range of responses to them, from wholehearted support to ambivalence or even hostility, just as 

secular authorities may react to religious traditions with a mixture of tolerance and or dissent 

(Gearon, 2002). Human rights and human rights education are presented here then as a contested 

middle ground, a focus for pedagogical and wider educational enquiry, between citizenship 

education and religious education, contested ground that is at the heart of the struggles and 

aspirations of the contemporary world. 

Notes 

1. The legal framework for international human rights builds on and incorporates the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights and is itself incorporated within the International Bill of Human 

Rights, consisting of five documents: 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 

Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 

aiming at the abolition of the death penalty 

The major office for human rights is the UN High Commission for Human Rights, based in Geneva, 

Switzerland, with a specially appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights - operational 

details can be found at www.unhchr.ch or through the UN’s home page at www.un.org (see also 

Ghandhi, 2004; Mertus, 2005; Smith, 2005). With the UN’s headquarters in New York and its 

operating centre for human rights in Geneva, these locations in wealthy nations are often cited as 

reasons why developing nations especially consider the UN to have a western bias (Weiss, 

126 


Forsythe and Coate, 2004; Ziring, Riggs and Plano, 2005). 

2. Cf. the International Decade for Human Rights Education and the World Programme for Human 

Rights (UN and UNESCO related) at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents (and follow links), and 

relevant links at www.unesco.org 

3. For the full text of The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance 

and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981) follow links at www.un.org. There are 

numerous related educational sources that might be used for the teaching tolerance, and which use 

the links between religion and global governance. The United Nations’hub is at www.un.org and 

follow links to human rights, and an entire host of issues in international relations, including the 

full documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (several hundred languages 

available). Especially relevant is United Nations High Commission for Human Rights at 

http://www.unhchr.ch and follow links, especially to the ‘International Consultative Conference 

on School Education in relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non- 

Discrimination’Also, follow links at the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights at 

http://www.unhchr.ch to the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on Freedom 

of Religion or Belief, including the Rapporteur’s mandate. 

Also see the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs funded international consultancy on the role of 

religion in international diplomacy at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo; follow links 

at www.prio.no; the International Association for Religious Freedom at www.iarf.net and follow 

links; the International Association for Religious Freedom presents some useful and accessible case 

studies at www.iarf.net and follow links. Also Norway-based is the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of 

Religion or Belief is a UNESCO)-commended source for ‘Teaching for Tolerance and Freedom of 

Religion or Belief’, available at www.hri.ca and follow links. 

4. Amongst the oldest established networks for scholarly research on religion and politics is the 

Journal of Church and State (since 1949) and its regular updates on the relationship between 

religion and the national authorities worldwide, especially conflict zones, is most useful, visit the 

links at www.baylor.edu to ‘Church-State Notes’. See also the charitable foundation PEW’s Forum 

on Religion in Public Life http://pweforum.org/religion-human-rights. 


References 

Amor, A. (2001) ‘The Role of Religious Education in the Pursuit of Tolerance and Non- 

Discrimination’, study prepared under the guidance of Prof. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur 

on Freedom of Religion of Belief, for the International Consultative Conference on School 

Education in Relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non- 

Discrimination, Madrid, 23-25 November 2001). Retrieved 1 August 2005 from the UN 

website: 

www.un.org and links through to http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspxm=86 

Askin, K. D. and Keonig, D. M. (eds.) (2001). Women and International Rights Law. 

New York: Transnational Publishers. 

Ayton-Shenker, D. (1995). ‘The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity’. Geneva: 

United Nations Department of Public Information. 

Bailey, R. (2000). Education in the Open Society: Karl Popper and Schooling. Aldershot: Ashgate. 

Baratta, J. P. (2004). The Politics of World Federation. Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger. 

Bartov, O. and Mack, P. (eds.) (2001). In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth 

Century. Oxford: Berghahn Books. 

Bennett, M. N. and Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in 

Global Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. 

Boulden, J. and Weiss, T. G. (eds.) (2004). Terrorism and the UN: Before and After September 11. 

Bloomington Indiana: Indiana University Press. 

Bowles, N. R. (2004). The Diplomacy of Hope: The United Nations Since the Cold War. London: 

I.B. Tauris. 

Casanova, J. (1994). Religion and Public Governance. Chicago. Chicago: University Press. 

EPPI (2005). An International Review of Citizenship Education Research. The Evidence for Policy 

and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. London: EPPI. 

Fasulo, L. M. (2004). An Insider’s Guide to the UN. New Haven, Connecticut; London: Yale 

University Press. 

Forsythe, D. P. (2000). Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Gearon, L. (ed.) (2002). Religion and Human Rights: A Reader. Brighton and Portland: Sussex 

Academic Press. 

Gearon, L. (2004). Citizenship through Religious Education. London and New York: Routledge. 

Gearon, L. (2006). Freedom of Expression and Human Rights: Historical, Literary and Political 

Contexts. Sussex Academic Press. 

Gandhi, P.R. (eds.) (2004). Blackstone’s Statutes International Human Rights Documents, 4th ed. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Grimmitt, M. (2000) Pedagogies of Religious Education. Great Wakering: McCrimmons. 

Harpviken, K. B. and Eggen Roislien, H. (2005). ‘Mapping the Terrain: The Role of Religion in 

Peacemaking’, Oslo: International Peace Research Institute, for the Norwegian Ministry of 

128 


Foreign Affairs. 

HRW (2001). ‘Anti-Racism Summit Ends on Hopeful Note’. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

IBE/ UNESCO (2003). ‘Religion and Education’in Prospects. Geneva: International Bureau of 

Education, UNESCO. 

Krasno, J. E. (ed.) (2004) The United Nations: Confronting the Challenges of a Global Society. 

Boulder Colorado; London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 

Lerner, N. (2000). Religion, Beliefs, and Human Rights. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis. 

Larson, R. and Gustavsson, C. (eds.) (2004). Towards A European Perspective on Religious 

Education. Skelleftea, Denmark: Artos and Norma. 

Lindholm, T., Durham, W.C. and Tahzib-Lies, B. G. (eds) (2003). Facilitating Freedom of Religion 

or Belief. The Hague: Kluwer. 

Magee, B. (1985). Karl Popper. New York: Viking. 

Marshall, P. (ed.) (2000). Religious Freedom in the World: A Global Report on Freedom and 

Persecution. London: Broadman and Holman. 

Mertus, J. (2005). The United Nations and Human Rights. London: Routledge. 

Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2006) Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Review of Research, 

Policy and Practice. Nottingham: BERA. 

Osmer, R. R. (2003). Religious Education between Modernization and Globalization: New 

Perspectives on the United States and Germany. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans. 

Popper, K. (1946) The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge. 

Power, S. (2003). A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (London: Famingo). 

Runzo, J., Nancy, M. M. and Arvind, S. (eds.) (2004). Human Rights and Responsibilities in the 

World’s Religions. Oxford: Oneworld. 

Rushton, R. (2004). Human Rights and the Image of God. London: SCM. 

Ryan, S. (2000). The United Nations and International Politics. London: Macmillan. 

Schlesinger, S. C. (2004). Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations. Boulder, Colorado: 

Westview Press. 

Sellars, K. (2002). The Rise and Rise of Human Rights. London: Sutton. 

Shattuck, J. (2003). ‘Religion, Rights and Terrorism’, Harvard University conference on Religion, 

Democracy and Human Rights, keynote at www.law.harvard.edu (and links). 

Smith, R. K.M. (2005). Textbook on International Human Rights, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

United Nations (1993). World Conference on Human Rights: The Vienna Declaration and 

Programme of Action. New York: United Nations. 

Weiss, T. G., Forsythe, D. P., and Coate, R. A. (2004). The United Nations and Changing World 

Politics. Boulder, Colorado; Oxford: Westview Press. 

Wellman, C. (2000). The Proliferation of Rights: Moral Progress or Empty Rhetoric- Oxford: 

Westview. 

Woodhead, L. et. al (ed.) (2002). Religions in the Modern World. London: Routledge. 

United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and related documents. Retrieved 


1 August 2006, from UN Web site: www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 

UNESCO (2003). Citizenship Education, and related documents. Retrieved 1 August 2006 from 

UNESCO Web site: 

www.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=4233&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL=201.html 

US Department of State (2005). Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. Retrieved 30 

July 2005 from US Department of State Web site: www.house.gov/international_relations/ 

and www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/. 

Ziring, L., Riggs, R. E. and Plano, J. C. (2005) The United Nations: International Organization and 

World Politics, 4th ed. Australia; UK: Thomson/ Wadsworth. 

130 


Presentation Papers on Session Ⅲ 

Can a Universal Culture of Human Rights and Peace Exist in 

Multi-Cultural Societies 

Kristi Rudelius-Palmer 

Co- director 

Human Rigths Center, University of Minnesota, USA 

“Where after all do universal rights begin In small places, close to home so close and so small that 

they cannot be seen on any map of the world… such are the places where every man, woman, and 

child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.”Eleanor 

Roosevelt, The Great Question, 1958 

Introduction 

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin In small places, close to home . . .” 1 Those are 

the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the principal architects of the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. 2 As First Lady during the Second World War, Roosevelt was keenly 

aware of the role universal human rights standards stood to play in promoting international peace 

and security. But Roosevelt also understood that international human rights would only have 

* * Kristi Rudelius-Palmer is a human rights educator and activist in the United States. She has been involved in the 

field of human rights education since 1986 in various capacities. In 1989, Rudelius-Palmer became a founding Co- 

Director of the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota. In 1997 she helped found Human Rights USA 

and launch its Human Rights Resource Center websitean online tool central to promoting and disseminating 

human rights education resources in the United States. More recently, Rudelius-Palmer has been instrumental in 

developing This is My Home, a human rights education curriculum for primary and secondary students in 

Minnesota schools. She continues to direct the publishing of The Human Rights Education Series, produced by the 

Human Rights Resource Center. 

** I would like to thank Kevin Chin and Eve Lotter for their important research and editing assistance on this paper. 

1 See “In Your Hands: A Guide for Community Action for the Tenth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights,”presented by Eleanor Roosevelt on 27 March, 1958 at the United Nations in New York. (Online at: 

http://www.udhr.org/history/inyour.htm) All URLs last visited 26 November 2006. 

2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, hereinafter UDHR. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 

GA res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (10 December 1948). (Online at: http://www1.umn. 

edu/humanrts/instree/b1udhr.htm) Although the UDHR is not, strictly speaking, a legally binding treaty, it is 

generally considered customary international law. 


meaning if they were upheld at the local level. As an American, she recognized the applicability of 

human rights norms to problems plaguing her own country. Those problems-such as inequality 

and discrimination-stubbornly persist more than half a century on. Nevertheless, the majority of 

Americans today remain functionally illiterate about human rights. 3 American public schools have a 

long track record of imparting students with a clear appreciation of the rights delineated in the U.S. 

Constitution and Bill of Rights. In contrast, most Americans have, at best, a foggy understanding of 

human rights. 4 One problem with such a large focus on the U.S. Constitution is that many 

Americans are familiar with civil and political rights and, therefore, erroneously think that human 

rights and civil rights are the same thing. Students also study the Civil Rights Movement, which had 

the same focus and excluded attention to social, economic, and cultural rights. One study 

conducted in 1997 showed that more than 90% of the adult American public was unaware of the 

existence of the UDHR 5 -the document considered the foundation of modern human rights. 

Moreover, those Americans that do know about human rights tend to perceive them as a concern 

for war-torn foreign countries, not as a set of principles to embrace at home. Such a state of affairs 

begs the question: Does this gap in our “rights education”need to be filled- More and more 

people recognize this gap and are using HRE as a tool and method for promoting and protecting 

human rights. However, what is the role for Human Rights Education (HRE) in multi-cultural 

societies- How can HRE make sure it is not used as a means for maintaining systems of oppression- 

How can we share our different stories and cultural systems of oppression- Can we acknowledge 

our different roles as perpetrators, victims, bystanders, and actors- How can HRE be a bridge for 

diverse races, ethnicities, and other cultural identity groups to learn and work together to promote 

a universal culture of human rights and peace- Can we work to develop effective accountability 

and transparency processes to accept our pasts, diminish fears and mistrust in our present human 

rights and peace work, and develop important foundations to build a universal culture of human 

rights and peace for the next generations- This paper attempts to respond to these questions, 

encountered while working with HRE in multi-cultural societies. Through the contextual lens of 

concrete U.S. challenges and methodologies used in HRE work, I hope that the reader may 

recognize similar struggles to build a universal culture of human rights and peace in his or her 

local community contexts in other parts of the world. Every multi-cultural society has a unique 

narrative of its past, present, and future stories of working to promote and protect human rights. 

By providing a window into HRE work in the U.S., my intension is that we may discover common 

3 Flowers, Nancy (2002) “Human Rights Education in the USA”Issues of Democracy 7(1): 18-22 (March 2002) at 18. (Online at: 

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0302/ijde/ijde0302.htm) 

4 For more on this topic, see e.g., Ross, Loretta (1998) “Bringing Human Rights Home: Human Rights Education in the 21st Century” 

Social Education 62(6): 377-80 (October 1998). 

5 The study was conducted by Peter D. Hart Associates for Human Rights USA (Online at: 

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/adultsur.htm) 

132 


threads that weave our stories together while also recognizing our different cultural fabrics. 

What is Culture- 

What is “culture”- A few decades ago, one definition described “culture”as “the integrated pattern 

of human behavior that includes thought, speech, action, and artifacts and depends on man’s 

capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations 6 ”. As an HRE 

facilitator, I often begin workshops by having participants look at the question in today’s context 

of “what is culture-”Through a participatory exercise, “Cultural Lifeboats” 7 , participants divide 

themselves in different cultural indicators. For example, participants may first group themselves 

according to the number of languages they speak. Next, they may divide themselves according to 

the number of their brothers and sisters, birth order, or where they were born. Participants also 

define “culture”as food, music, and dance and may divide themselves according to these 

preferences. Undoubtedly, the category of religion or belief or non-believe and ethnic 

identification also arise. Participants are able to look at “culture”through a new lens and also 

recognize the need to discuss are diverse culturally identities to really understand each other’s 

experiences. Without discussing culture, people place each other in “Cultural Lifeboats”by their 

appearances, which can be based on many untrue assumptions. Often, we think about “culture”as 

being homogeneous and that everyone falls into only one specific cultural group. However, 

participants in this exercise learn the complexity of “culture.”When we discuss the diverse number 

of languages spoken, we also talk about specific languages of professions or work. We are able to 

acknowledge the different vocabulary and terminology used by each work environment. 

One’s culture embodies language (voice), food (taste), norms or beliefs (attitudes), artifacts and 

artistic expression and transmittal of knowledge to the next generations (sight and sound, e.g., 

dance, music, paintings, stories), and family/community rituals, and traditions (touch, e.g., 

practices, spatial context, conflict resolution styles, learning styles). After examining the cultural 

identities of participants, the group then turns its attention to critiquing “a universal culture of 

human rights and peace.”The facilitator introduces the participants to the core principles of 

human rights and peace as shared norms and values. These principles include equality, human 

dignity, justice, non-discrimination, peace, and responsibility as well as inalienability, indivisibility, 

and interconnectivity. Participants also begin to learn a universal language of human rights, 

connecting to the foundational tool of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Participants also 

describe common developmental skills needed for communities to practice a respect for human 

rights and peace. The notion of “culture”and how cultures and societies transform is at the heart 

of whether we can truly build a universal culture of human rights and peace. The ways in which 

diverse cultural groups are included in the narratives of their multi-cultural societies is reflective of 

6 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1973) Merriam-Webster Inc: Springfield, Massachusetts, USA. 

7 Chris Cavanaugh of the Catalyst Center developed this interactive exercise. 


the degree HRE can be used as an effective tool. If specific cultural groups have been omitted from 

history books or believe that the narrative told in the history books is inaccurate, communities 

need to create space to discuss and dialogue about the past and have their historical narratives and 

experiences be acknowledged. 

What is the Power of Human Rights Education- 

HRE is essentially about empowerment. It moves beyond passive learning about human rights and 

embraces learning that is actively for human rights. That is to say, HRE aims to not only impart 

knowledge, but to link the learning process to the actual use of the knowledge. 8 This distinction is 

best elucidated when Human Rights Education is viewed from the perspective of critical pedagogy. 

As explained by Abraham Magendzo, critical pedagogy is closely related to critical social theory, 

stemming primarily from the Frankfurt School. 9 Critical theorists were concerned with revealing 

structures of power in society and questioning how to empower oppressed individuals to 

overcome or subvert those expressions of power. Critical pedagogy employs the same principles. 

For example, Paulo Freire’s ground-breaking efforts to link literacy to the development of political 

consciousness are often cited as a foundation of critical pedagogy. 10 In a similar fashion human 

rights education “empowers people to become the subjects of rights.” 11 It educates students about 

their rights and responsibilities as individuals while teaching them to demand and employ those 

rights as tools of social change. For these reasons, Magendzo argues that human rights education is 

one of the most concrete and tangible expressions of critical pedagogy today. 

HRE is an incubator for: 

1. A universal human rights language, principles, and values. 

2. A storytelling circle to learn from the strategies and tactics of our past human rights 

leaders within our families and local, national, and global contexts, enabling us to 

continually reflect on our history from diverse perspectives. 

3. A critical thinking and problem-solving lens to develop skills to share our diverse voices 

through the use of our five senses. 

4. A participatory methodology to engage diverse community members in developing 

innovative practices working to promote and protect human rights. 

5. An accountability process to hold oneself and the community responsible for sharing 

emerging practices and learning so all members can be a part of the human rights 

8 Magendzo, Abraham K. (2002) “Human Rights Education as Critical Pedagogy”Santiago, Chile 

(unpublished paper on file with the author). 

9 Id. The “Frankfurt School”refers to members of the Institute for Social Research at the University of 

Frankfurt, such as Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin, and those they influenced. The term is often used 

as shorthand to refer to radical social theory. 

10 For more on critical pedagogy, also see, e.g., the work of Henry Giroux, Michael Apple, and Howard 

Zinn. 

11 Magendzo (2002) (see note #8) 

134 


movement with a constant eye on how our actions affect the next generations. 

HRE is not an end, but rather a means through and by which we can transform systems of 

oppression, institutionalized racism, and discrimination. HRE can be both a barrier and a bridge for 

this cultural transformation. HRE is not a stagnant or “one-size fits all”process. The civil, cultural, 

economic, political, and social power of HRE comes from a community’s ability to sustain and 

grow a culture of human rights and responsibilities. 

How Can We Share Our Different Stories and Roles in Discrimination and Oppression- 

Every society has a unique history of diverse cultural backgrounds including language, family 

traditions, religion or belief rituals and customs, food, dance, and song. At the same time, each 

society has a history of how it embraces or oppresses peoples with diverse cultural, racial, and 

ethnic backgrounds. Does one main group attempt to assimilate less powerful groups- Or does a 

community welcome a new group to acculturate, hence, celebrating its unique traditions while 

becoming an active participant in the evolving policies and practices of the larger community- 

Systems and acts of racial and ethnic discrimination and oppression in the United States are still 

prevalent. Although many U.S. residents may want to forget the past and move on, this denial of 

our past violations of human rights is not the answer. If we omit the past oppression of diverse 

peoples, such as the genocide against the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, the theft and 

slavery of Africans brought to the Americas, and the Japanese internment in U.S. camps during 

World War II, we are denying our children and future generations to uncover and share the truths 

of our past. These past truths need to be uncovered through narratives. However, change is slow 

as is evidenced by the fact that many classrooms in the U.S. still teach about Columbus’s 

“discovery of America”with limited teaching about the Indigenous Peoples whose lands were 

taken and families were killed. Rarely are children taught about the Indigenous Peoples whose rich 

cultures were erased from existence centuries ago or those Indigenous Peoples who continue to 

thrive today, working hard to reclaim their native languages, lands, and cultural traditions. 

However, history continues to evolve as more members of our multicultural societies are willing 

and interested in sharing their stories. Our pasts will uncover many human rights violations and 

abuses, but we need to hear the stories and acknowledge these realities even when they are 

shameful. Our current actions and inactions must also be acknowledged. These realities of pain 

and suffering are an important part of our history. We can also learn from our elders, who have 

come before us and worked to promote and protect human rights. These elders encountered many 

of the same challenges that we are faced with today. The context may be a bit different, but the 

quest for human dignity, justice, and being free from discrimination is the same. We need to learn 

from their actions and responses to rectify injustices and organize for survival. Our elders have 

provided us with many tools and paths, but we need to decide which are most appropriate for our 

current cultural contexts for promoting and protecting human rights. Many barriers exist for 

dominant and marginalized racial and ethnic groups to dialogue about building a universal culture 

of human rights and peace. The characteristics described below list potential conflicts encountered 

when sharing stories about past and present systems and acts of discrimination. 


Dominant racial and ethnic group members, who hold the economic, social, cultural, political, and 

civil power, often: 

1. Do not recognize the benefits and privilege they gain from the existing systems of 

institutionalized oppression. 

2. Do not have effective skills and will to address or challenge systems of oppression. When 

dominant power group do understand that institutionalized racism, xenophobia, or 

discrimination exists, they often do not effectively dialogue with those in the dominant 

power group who do not recognize this discrimination or their actions and inactions that 

support discrimination. Instead of having the dominant power group members see 

themselves as essential change agents, they do not take responsibility. Hence, 

marginalized or oppressed groups are alone in challenging the systems and acts of 

oppression. 

3. Do not have venues and will to dialogue with others in the dominant power group to 

examine their own privilege and develop effective ways to challenge systems of 

oppression in which they benefit and are complicit in perpetuating. 

4. Do not have the ability to respectfully hear someone’s story of oppression. Often, the 

person in the power role attempts to discredit the story by saying “How do you know the 

police stopped you because of the color of your skin- Maybe it was because of….” 

Challenging someone’s story with a “let’s think critically and analyze it”approach, 

leaves the storyteller with a need to justify his or her story of discrimination and a feeling 

of being discredited and disrespected. 

5. “Pulls the focus”from listening to stories of the marginalized individual or group to 

telling the dominant group member’s stories of guilt, shame, and other emotions 

encountered from being in the dominant power group. 

6. Do not understand subtle and covert acts of racism, xenophobia, and discrimination. 

7. Do not have the accountability systems and processes to hold themselves responsible for 

their own prejudice and complacency in institutional racism systems. 

Marginalized individuals and groups, who do not hold the economic, social, cultural, political, and 

civil power, often: 

1. Are angry toward the past colonizers or oppressors of the dominant power group and the 

oppressive systems - rooted in history, but witnessed in today’s struggle in society. 

2. Mistrust colonizers or oppressors of the dominant power group - rooted in history, but 

continuing to play out in today’s struggles. 

3. Do not acknowledge a group or individual’s story of the dominant group’s feelings of 

shame and guilt. 

4. Compare a group or individual’s stories of oppression to another group or individual’s 

story of oppression. The comparison can potentially be viewed in a competitive way and 

136 


esult in a group or individual feeling that “you believe your oppression is worse than 

mine.”We need to recognize a group or individual’s lived experience of oppression and 

also connect this story to another’s story of oppression without devaluing either story. 

5. Share and communicate stories through different methods, such as oral stories, song, 

spoken-word, poetry, music, visual arts, dance, and theater. The dominant power group 

often may not value these methods of sharing experiences as much as written texts, 

essays, books, and lectures. 

6. Share stories from the lived experience - from the heart and emotions - and the 

privileged, dominant power group listener often hears and analyzes the story from the 

head, not truly hearing and feeling the story from the heart. 

7. “Internalize oppression”and then begin to oppress other individuals within this same 

identity group. In the U.S. context of HRE, facilitators work to create space for crosscultural 

dialogues. Whether HRE facilitators are working with teachers, community 

organizers, human rights commissioners, or governmental officials, they attempt to 

provide an opportunity to share stories and experiences of the participants. HRE 

facilitators are encouraged to address the four roles played by every individual and 

institution on a daily basis. Those roles include: (1) Victim, (2) Perpetrator, (3) By- 

Stander, and (4) Actor. Individuals and institutions decide numerous times daily when 

they will act and when they will step aside. In a workshop setting, participants are asked 

to describe a time when they played each of these roles in connection to discrimination 

or human rights. For example, describe a time when you were discriminated against, a 

time when you discriminated against someone else, a time when you saw someone’s 

rights being violated and did nothing, and, finally, a time when you saw someone’s 

rights being violated and you intervened. This method of storytelling enables all 

participants to understand their roles in taking action for human rights or as a perpetrator 

of perpetuating a system or action of oppression. Whether multi-cultural societies are 

able to instill a core value of the importance of life-long learning- including a desire to 

learn from others without judgment and an openness to change based on new 

information- is at the center of a community being able to embrace its diverse races and 

ethnicities and nurture a universal culture of human rights and peace. 

Can HRE Be a Bridge for Multi-Cultural Societies to Learn and Work Together to Promote a 

Universal Culture of Human Rights and Peace 

As mentioned earlier, HRE moves beyond passive learning about human rights and embraces 

learning that is actively for human rights. One clear example of this is in the design and delivery of 

human rights workshops, led by facilitators who are committed to the goals and objectives of HRE. 

HRE can potentially serve to reinforce power dynamics that maintain a privileged status quo. 

Hence, HRE and its facilitators need to consistently challenge institutionalized forms of oppression 

both in terms of workshop design, delivery, and dissemination. During the past two decades, HRE 

has been used with diverse racial and ethnic audiences throughout the U.S. This section will define 


some methods that human rights educators have found to be effective. Five essential components 

of facilitating workshops in multicultural societies are: (1) to provide guidelines for an open, 

respectful learning experience; (2) to acknowledge assumptions of societal human rights myths, 

discrimination, and power and privilege differentials; (3) to link diverse peoples’movements with 

a human rights movement; (4) to foster an environment of trust and transparency; and (5) to 

examine different conflict resolution approaches and styles, including individual and collective 

responses. 

Guidelines for an Open, Respectful Learning Experience 

In setting the climate for an effective HRE workshop in multicultural societies, the facilitator should 

establish the workshop roles and responsibilities of engagement. These rules can be set by the 

facilitator if time is limited, but should ask the group to approve them and add others if desired. 

Enforcement of these rules becomes everyone’s responsibility, and often group pressure suffices 

to curb difficult situations. These guidelines may include: 

Respect of each other’s different opinions and agreeing to disagree. 

Enthusiasm and openness to learn from others. 

Participating actively. 

Empathize with others’experiences. 

Self-discipline such as sharing “air-time,”so one person is not doing all the talking. 

Trust-building environment. 

Acknowledgment of Assumptions about Societal 

Human Rights Myths, Stereotypes, and Discrimination 

Numerous human rights myths, stereotypes, and discrimination exist in the multi-cultural 

communities in the U.S. In order to introduce the foundation blocks of Human Rights Education, 

the facilitator should uncover existing myths about what human rights are. For example, in the U.S. 

context, individuals often believe: 

Human Rights and Civil Rights are the same. 

Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are privileges. 

Human Rights are only about violations. 

Human Rights can only be protected by lawyers in the court system. 

Human Rights are only about violations in poor countries outside the U.S. 

Human Rights are only about laws. 

These myths need to be dispelled. Through the workshop, participants should also continue to 

recognize this cultural context as they develop potential responses or design curriculum for other 

audiences. 

138 


Facilitators often cite a 1997 national survey 12 in the U.S. where 92% of adults did not know of the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After they were told of its existence, 83% said that 

Americans should be educated about these universal standards. In this same survey, participants 

identified a number of groups of peoples who were discriminated against in the U.S. Two-thirds of 

the people polled (63%) said that the poor were usually discriminated against in the U.S. They also 

felt that the following groups of peoples were routinely discriminated against: people with 

disabilities (61%), the elderly (54%), gays and lesbians (51%), Native Americans (50%), and African 

Americans (41%). Hence, between 40-50% of people polled in this U.S. survey recognized racial 

discrimination as a routine problem in U.S. societies. The acknowledgment of the existence of 

racial discrimination is an important foundation for creating a respectful learning environment. 

Facilitators also share the fact that the U.S. has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Racial 

Discrimination 13 and must submit ongoing reports. Yet, few U.S. citizens know about this tool or 

the commitment of the U.S. government to support its practices in a domestic setting. Currently, a 

new U.S. Human Rights Network 14 is working to submit a non-governmental shadow report to the 

appropriate U.N. treaty bodies. Shadow reports have been used as a mechanism for nongovernmental 

organizations to respond to the government’s report to U.N. treaty bodies and 

identify issues that the government may have omitted intentionally or unintentionally in its report 

to the specific treaty monitoring body. This tactic and other civil society strategies and tactics for 

raising awareness in the general public are being used in local communities in the U.S. as well as 

around the world. Over the past few decades, the U.S. public has become increasingly dependent 

on lawyers and the legal process as the main recourse for the protection of one’s rights. To this 

end, the public has become more voiceless and disempowered. Larry Cox, now executive director 

of Amnesty International USA, argues that these developments minimize the moral and universal 

dimensions of human rights, putting the subject in danger of losing its power and appeal. 15 Cox’s 

sentiments underscore the need for HRE to encompass more than merely lessons about 

international human rights treaties or U.N. human rights mechanisms. Indeed, HRE must 

continually strive to connect human rights principles to participants’daily lives. Only in this way 

does HRE serve to proactively prevent abuses of human rights, in addition to enabling participants 

to recognize and react to human rights abuses after the fact. 

12 The study was conducted by Peter D. Hart Associates for Human Rights USA (Online at: 

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/adultsur.htm) 

13 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, G.A. res. 2106 (XX), 

Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into 

force Jan. 4, 1969. (Online at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/d1cerd.htm) 

14 See U.S. Human Rights Network (Online at http://www.ushrnetwork.org/) 

15 Cox, Larry. (2000) “Reflections on Human Rights at Century’s End”Human Rights Dialogue 2(1): 5-6. 

(Online at: http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/index.html) 


Linking Diverse Peoples’Movements to a Human Rights Movement 

Loretta Ross, founder of the National Center for Human Rights Education, observes that a human 

rights approach to domestic issues helps break down the barriers of identity-based politics. 16 

Drawing on many years of experience working in HRE, Ross has seen U.S. residents empowered 

by HRE unite across societal divisions and advocate for change under a human rights banner. 

Echoing Paulo Friere’s work on critical pedagogy, Ross has likened the power of HRE to teaching 

slaves to read in 19th-century America, remarking that “teaching human rights in 21st century 

America is a far-reaching act that offers a rich vision of human possibilities.” 17 In the U.S., the use 

of the words “human rights”dates back to 18 58 when Fredrick Douglass protested the lynching of a 

Black man as a human rights violation. 18 This fact gives voice to our elders and legitimizes human 

rights struggles from our U.S. historical narrative. In addition, facilitators are encouraged to 

integrate historical U.S. social movements into the process of exploring the roots of human rights 

in the U.S. context. Examples include the Anti-Poverty Movement, Anti-Slavery Movement, Anti- 

War Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Disability Rights Movement, Environment Rights 

Movement, Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Trade Union Movement, Transgender Rights Movement, 

Indigenous Peoples’Movement, the Suffrage Movement, Women’s Movement, and the Youth 

Movement. Although human rights have been historically divided into separate movements, the 

power in the current context of HRE is to provide a way for communities to reunite under a 

common, connected human rights framework and movement. Activists, organizers, and educators 

have to build solidarity across these separate, but inter-connected areas of need. For example, a 

child advocate may work to end child abuse in the family. However, another education advocate 

may work to provide free and reduced lunches for children while another may work to ensure 

youth living on the streets have shelter. All three of these advocates need to understand the 

intersection of their work and not see themselves in competition or isolation. Often, different 

agencies can build adversarial relationships with others due to limited funding. The current 

challenge is to build alliances and find creative ways to look at the needs and best interests of the 

“whole child.” 

Environment of Trust and Transparency 

Facilitators need to create an environment of trust and transparency from the onset of the 

workshop. Key components of building this trust and transparency are providing openness and 

clarity about the reasons for the workshop and the goals and intended outcomes. In an HRE 

16 Ross, Loretta. (2000) “Beyond Civil Rights: A Vision for Social Justice in the United States”Human Rights Dialogue 

2(1): 10-11. (Online at: http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/index.html) 

17 Ross, Loretta quoted in Flowers, Nancy (2002) “Human Rights Education in the USA”Issues of Democracy 7(1): 18-22 

(March 2002) at 21. (Online at: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0302/ijde/ijde0302.htm) 

18 The National Center for Human Rights Education’s poster on “An American History of Human Rights Movements” 

(Online at: http://www.nchre.org/resources/historyposter.pdf) 

140 


workshop, facilitators address issues such as: 

Why the workshop is being held in the specific location. 

Who is funding the workshop. 

What are the expectations of the workshop for both the hosts and participants. 

How will the workshop organizers document the workshop learning. 

How will participants give permission for photographs or other stories to be shared in 

written or electronic format for evaluation purposes. 

What are the post-workshop responsibilities for the facilitator(s), institutional sponsor(s), 

and participants. 

Workshop participants have diverse cultural backgrounds. As discussed earlier in defining some of 

the obstacles and fears for both dominant and marginalized power groups, facilitators should 

address these concerns and acknowledge the roots and existence of systems of oppression and 

discrimination both in historical and current contexts. 

Examination of Different Conflict Resolution Approaches and Styles 

Facilitators may not assume that they are walking into either a friendly or confrontational 

workshop setting. They must be prepared to train themselves to handle diverse conflict styles as 

well as recognize their own limitations and strengths in handling conflicts. Difficulties will 

inevitably arise, especially when dealing with sensitive subject matter like human rights. Some 

problems are unique, but others occur with predictable regularity. Remember that in a genuinely 

participatory setting, these are not necessarily the facilitator’s difficulties alone - in many cases 

problems can and should be dealt with by the group. As a result of the facilitator’s sincere efforts 

to address participants’concerns, some controversial and sensitive subject matter may emerge. 

The group may be able to accept all the issues that are brought up. However, the facilitator needs 

to acknowledge openly that some topics will cause discomfort or offence and seek the group’s 

opinion about how they want to deal with them. Participants may decide to have a separate 

session on the issue, discuss the issue in small groups, or find some other solution. The facilitator 

may suggest that postponing such topics until they have established mutual trust and 

understanding. 19 The important principle here is that the session belongs to the participants, and 

they should determine what is discussed. The facilitator’s role is to keep the discussion relevant to 

human rights, avoid argumentation, maintain a safe environment for everyone including her or 

himself, and provide a non-judgemental forum for interactive learning. Different tools and methods 

for conflict resolution and providing feedback should be provided and discussed. 

Conclusion: Do Accountability and Transparency Processes Exist to Foster a Universal Culture of 

Human Rights and Peace in Multi-Cultural Soeties- 

19 Flowers, Nancy, ed. (2000) Human Rights Education Handbook: Tools for Learning, Action, and Change, 

University of Minnesota Human Rights Resource Center: Minneapolis, MN. (Online at: 

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/hrhandbook/toc.html) 


We need to maintain the integrity of HRE and subvert systems of oppression. This inherent tension 

between human rights reinforcing a status quo or transforming the dynamics of oppression is the 

essence of the power of HRE. Hence, HRE can provide the tools, vehicles, and accountability 

processes to build our individual and collective cross-checking system as well as to foster a 

universal culture of human rights and peace. The University of Minnesota Human Rights Center’s 

newly launched This is My Home 20 website provides a cross-cultural learning environment to bring 

communities from all over the world into a shared, universal culture of human rights and peace. 

The online tools have visitors developing a universal language, principles, and skills for nurturing 

and teaching for and about human rights and peace. Specifically, the Online Community Action 

Plan Tool 21 has attempted to develop a cross-checking, accountability system. This exciting new 

development provides a flexible means for students, teachers, human rights educators, and other 

community members to build a human rights work plan for organizational, individual research, or 

classroom purposes and then share the action plans with the global community. The Action Plan 

Tool attempts to integrate a human rights learning methodology, consisting of seven steps. The 

Process Model incorporates the need to look at historical human rights injustices, learn from 

individuals who can share their lived experiences through stories, be accountable to the 

community both in defining the human rights research and action, as well as communicate the 

learning in the process. The Action Plan Tool tries to engage communities and schools in a shared 

human rights learning process. 

The specific 7-Step Process Model include: 

(1) Observing and Identifying the Human Rights Issue 

(2) Describing and Sharing Stories 

(3) Generating Human Rights Responses and Making Predictions about Their Impact on the 

Community 

(4) Selecting a Human Rights Response and Taking Action 

(5) Interviewing Community Members and Collecting Information about the Impact of your 

Human Rights Action 

(6) Reflecting on What you Have Learned about Promoting and Protecting Human Rights 

and Draw Conclusions 

(7) Communicating and Demonstrating Human Rights learning 

20 See This is My Home. (Online at: http://www.thisismyhome.org) 

21 See the This is My Home Online Community Action Planning Tool. (Online at: http://www.hrusa.org/hrmaterials/actionmodel/) 

142 


By using the Action Plan Tool and following the 7-Step Process Model, individuals and 

organizations are supported in their desire to learn and think about human rights in a meaningful 

and authentic manner. The steps support and promote HRE through the use of universal human 

rights language, principles, and values; storytelling; critical thinking and problem-solving; 

encouraging participatory methodology; and accountability through evaluation processes. This is a 

hopeful example - in a small place, close to home - where HRE can help overcome barriers of 

oppression and act as a bridge between diverse races and ethnicities in a multi-cultural society. 


Human Rights Education and the Practices in Korea 

Young-Sun Chung 

Director 

Human Rights Research Team, National Human Rights Commission of Korea 

144 



146 



148 



150 



152 



Presentation Papers on Session Ⅳ 

GLOBALIZATION, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR MIGRATION 

AND RIGHTS OF MIGRANT WORKERS 

Piyasiri Wickramasekara 

Senior Migration Specialist 

International Migration Programme International Labour Office, Geneva 

I. Introduction 

It is indeed a privilege and honour for me to deliver the theme speech in Session Plenary Session 

IV at this International Symposium on a Culture of Peace 2006: “Intercultural Understanding and 

Human Rights Education”. On behalf of the ILO’s International Migration Programme, and on my 

own personal behalf, I wish to thank the organizers - UNESCO-Asia Pacific Centre of Education for 

International Understanding (APCEIU) and the Director - for the invitation extended to the ILO to 

this important and topical Symposium. 

At the outset itself, let me highlight the relevance of the theme of this Symposium to the theme of 

the panel discussion. Migration of human beings across borders and nations results in cultural 

diversity and interaction between cultures. A source of major tension in the present world is the 

lack of understanding or appreciation of the value of this cultural diversity or lack of respect for 

different cultures and beliefs that migrants bring into host societies. Human rights education can 

thus play a major role in promoting intercultural understanding and appreciation of different 

cultures in multicultural societies. 

International migration has been high on the global agenda in the past few years with increasing 

emphasis on migration and development linkages. The UN High Level Dialogue on International 

Migration and Development (New York, 14-15 September 2006) is a landmark event reflecting this 

trend. As I remarked in 2001, the ILO is happy that the global migration debate has shifted from its 

earlier narrow focus on asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migration to one of recognition of 

contribution of migration to growth and prosperity in both source and destination countries, and 

improved welfare of migrant workers themselves 1 . The UN Secretary-General’s Report to the High 

Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development has described this as ‘triple wins’ 2 . 

The recent discourse on migration and development has highlighted the role of remittances, return 

154 


migration and circulation, and transitional communities as major factors in promoting development 

in countries of origin. 3 In this paper, I will mostly deal with globalization and its implications for 

international labour migration and protection of workers’rights. 

II. Trends in international migration 

The full global magnitude of migration flows is hard to ascertain because not all countries monitor, and 

fewer still report on, labour migration flows, but the phenomenon is undoubtedly significant and growing. 

According to the UN Population Division , there were 191 million migrants in the world: 115 

million in developed countries and 75 million in developing countries. These figures reflect the 

number of foreign-born persons, that is, persons living outside their country of birth. In 2005, 61 

per cent of all international migrants lived in developed countries: 34 per cent in Europe, 23 per 

cent in Northern America, and 28 percent in Asia. Africa had only 9 per cent and Latin America and 

the Caribbean, 4 per cent. It also noted that one third of all international migrants moved South to 

South while one third represented a movement from the South to the North. In 2005, female 

migrants constituted about half of the migrant stock (49.6 per cent), and their share has not 

changed much between 1965-2005 (Table 1). 

Table 1: Estimates of World Migrants 

Year 

Migrants World Population Migrant share of Women 

(Millions) (Billions) population % % of total migrants 

1965 78 3.3 2.4 47.1 

1975 87 4.1 2.1 47.4 

1985 111 4.8 2.3 47.2 

1990 154 5.3 2.3 49.0 

1995 165 5.7 2.9 49.3 

2000 177 6.0 2.9 49.7 

2005 191 6.5 3.0 49.6 

Source: United Nations Population Division, Trends in 

Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision. 

1 Presentation by Piyasiri Wickramasekara at the Panel discussion on Migration management in the Mediterranean: Migratory pressure 

vs. manpower needs, IOM and CNEL (National Council for Economy and Labour) Conference on Immigration: International and 

European framework, labour and social integration, Rome, 29 - 30 October 2001 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/new/rome1001.htm 

2 United Nations (2006). International migration and development: Report of the Secretary-General. New York, Sixtieth session: 

Agenda item 54 (c)- Globalization and interdependence: international migration and development, A/60/871, United Nations 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/hldmigration/Text/Report%20of%20the%20SG%28June%2006%29_English.pdf 

3 Issues Paper by ILO for Roundtable 3 on Globalization and labour migration, 2006 ECOSOC High-Level Segment, “Creating an 

environment at the national and international levels conducive to generating full and productive employment and decent work for all, 

and its impact on sustainable development”, Geneva, 5 July 2006. 


This shows that world’s migrants account for only three per cent of the global population - only a 

small proportion actually migrate. In contrast, China’s internal migrants have been estimated at 

125-150 million. 

It is also interesting to note that the distribution of migrants by source of origin is more or less 

equally divided between three types of movements involving North (developed countries) and 

South (developing countries) as shown in Figure 1. In other words, it is a mistake to think that 

international migration occurs mainly from poor developing countries to rich countries. Such 

movements are only one third of the global total. South-South movement or migration from 

developing to countries to other developing countries is 32 % and North-North movements are 

28%. 

This global estimate includes migrants for employment, their families, asylum seekers and 

refugees. The number of refugees in the world has decreased from 18.5 million in 1990 to 13.5 

million in 2005. Contrary to public perceptions, the main refugee burden is borne by developing 

countries who host 10.8 million refugees, with Asia having 7.8 million and Africa 3 million 

refugees. 

Figure 1 

14 

(7%) 

Distribution of International 

Migrants 2005 

(numbers in millions & percent) 

63 

63 

(33%) 

(33%) 

61 

(32%) 

53 

(28%) 

North - 

South 

South- 

North 

South- 

South 

North- 

North 

156 


For the ILO, the more relevant indicator is the number of migrant workers - the economically 

active population among the estimated migrants. The ILO convention Migration for Employment , 

1949 (No.97) defines a migrant workers as a person “a person who migrates from one country to 

another with a view to being employed otherwise than on his own account and includes any 

person regularly admitted as a migrant for employment”. The ILO estimated the total number of 

migrant workers in the world to be around 81 million for the year 2000. The number may have 

increased to about 90 million by 2005. Thus the bulk of migrants in the world are migrant workers 

and their families (roughly about 170 million). 

III.Challenges posed by globalization and contradictions in international migration 

It is well known that globalization per se has had important implications for international labour 

migration. It has facilitated the linkages of international labour markets through vast improvements 

in information and communications technology. The demand for high tech skills has expanded 

opportunities for mobility of skilled labour. At the same time, expanded trade would reduce the 

need for migration by creating jobs in source countries. Virtual mobility enabled by ICT will 

similarly promote outsourcing and more jobs in source regions. 

Yet, there are many contradictions in the current process of globalization as it relates to mobility of 

people across borders. 

Professor Stephen Castles in a keynote address to the UNESCO MOST Intergovernmental Council 

in 1997 mentioned nine pressing contradictions of globalization and migration 4 . These are 

between: inclusion and exclusion; market and state; growing wealth and impoverishment; the Net 

and the Self; the global and the local; the economy and the environment; modernity and postmodernity; 

the citizen as a national and the global citizen; globalization from above and 

globalization from below. While my focus is different, I have to admit that most of these 

contradictions still persist. Castles rightly pointed out that migration played a key part in most 

contemporary social transformations. 

While there has been greater integration of global markets for goods, services and capital across 

borders, we all know that its impact on the cross border movement of people and labour remains 

much more restricted, regulated by a complex web of immigration laws and policies that uphold 

the principle of state sovereignty. Some have described international mobility and migration of 

4 See for detailed explanation of these contradictions, Castles, S. (1997). Globalisation and migration: Some pressing 

contradictions: Keynote Address. Paris, UNESCO-MOST Intergovernmental Council, 16 June 1997 

http://www.unesco.org/most/igc97cas.htm 

5 ILO (2004a). A fair globalization: Creating opportunities for all, Report of the World Commission on the Social 

Dimension of Globalization. Geneva, International Labour Office 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/wcsdg/docs/report.pdf 


persons as the missing link or unfinished business of globalization. The Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1990 International 

Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families recognize the 

right of every person to leave any country including his/her own country and the right of every 

person to return to the home country except under exceptional circumstances. But there is no 

corresponding right of entry or admission to or remain in a third country since no state has 

surrendered that right under any international treaty. This makes the mobility of persons from one 

state to another quite restricted, and vastly reduces the scope of the above human rights. 

While the international community has devised rules for trade and capital flows across borders, 

progress on labour mobility front has been extremely limited. The report of the World Commission 

on the Social Dimension of Globalization - A fair globalization: Creating opportunities for all 5 - 

pointed out that, “Fair rules for trade and capital flows need to be complemented by fair rules for 

the cross-border movement of people.”It noted that the lack of such a framework has led to a 

number of serious collateral problems such as intensified brain drain, trafficking and irregular 

migration, and exploitation of migrants. 

Globalization appears to be accelerating migration pressures by widening disparities in incomes, 

security and rights among countries. In 2005, the overall global unemployment rate was at 6.3 per 

cent. According to ILO estimates, despite intense globalization, there has hardly been any change 

in the numbers of the poor over the last ten years. “Given that unemployment is just the tip of the 

iceberg, the focus in developing economies should not be solely based on unemployment alone, 

but also on the conditions of work of those who are employed. In 2005, of the over 2.8 billion 

workers in the world, nearly 1.4 billion still did not earn enough to lift themselves and their 

families above the US$2 a day poverty line - just as many as ten years ago. Among these working 

poor, 520 million lived with their families in extreme poverty on less than US$1 a day. Even though 

this is less than ten years ago it still means that nearly every fifth worker in the world has to face 

the almost impossible situation of surviving with less than US$1 a day for each family member.” 6 

According to Mr. Juan Somavia, Director-General of the ILO, the greatest failure of globalization 

has been its failure to create job opportunities where people live. To quote from another ILO 

study 7 : “”In a world of winners and losers, the losers do not simply disappear; they seek 

somewhere else to go”. 

At the same time, demographic trends and structural changes in developed countries increase the 

demand for migrant workers of all categories. While receiving countries have liberalized 

6 ILO, Global Employment Trends-: Brief, January 2006, Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/global.htm 

7 ILO (2000). Workers Without Frontiers: The Impact of Globalization on International Migration, By Peter Stalker, Geneva, 

International labour Office, 2000. 

158 


admissions for skilled persons, doors remain closed for low and semi skilled persons, where 

developing countries have a surplus. Yet the trend in developed countries is for native workers to 

often shun low-skilled occupations in agriculture, construction, food-processing, construction, 

manufacturing, and services such as domestic work, home health care and hotel and tourism. This 

often coincides with the informal sector including the black economy where both national and 

migrant workers may be employed. It has created a major demand for migrant labour, often in 

irregular status since legal avenues may often remain closed. The Global Commission on 

International Migration (GCIM) recommended the term ‘essential workers’to include both 8 . ILO 

and other research have shown that the absence of regular and legal opportunities for labour 

migration is a prime factor in growth of irregular migration and trafficking and smuggling of 

persons resulting in gross violations of human rights. The UN OHCHR also confirms: “Another 

important cause for migration is the demand for migrant labour in destination countries. This 

demand is often not sufficiently recognized by destination countries and this denial of the 

existence of demand is one of the main factors leading to irregular migration with its ensuing risk 

of serious human rights violations.” 9 Yet most admission policies including those in receiving 

countries of Asia are built on the myth that the demand for migrant workers is a temporary 

phenomenon, and not a structural feature of the labour markets. 

Exodus of critical skills from developing countries or brain drain is one of the main collateral 

problems associated with the process of globalization as noted by the World Commission on the 

Social Dimension of Globalization 10 . This has been called ‘cherry picking’in the sense of attracting 

the ‘best and brightest’from poor countries, thereby depriving them of heavy investments made 

in education and human capital often at public expense. A World Bank study found that 77 

countries experienced a loss amounting 10% or more their skilled persons in 2000. 11 The problem 

is best illustrated in the case of health worker migration. 12 The cumulative impact of the medical 

brain drain is that foreign-trained health professionals now represent more than a quarter of the 

medical and nursing workforces of Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. Another telling example 

is that Jamaica has to produce 5 doctors to retain one doctor at home (ILO 2004a). The worst 

affected region is the African continent. The unethical nature of African health worker recruitment 

is highlighted by the fact that Africa’s share of global diseases is 25 per cent while its share of the 

8 GCIM (2005). Migration in an Interconnected World: New Directions for Action., Report of the Global Commission on 

International Migration, Geneva 

http://www.gcim.org/attachements/gcim-complete-report-2005.pdf 

9 Migration d Development-: a Human Rights Approach, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 

Rights, Geneva, 2006. 

http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/HLMigration/MigrationDevelopmentHC’spaper.pdf 

10 ILO (2004a). A fair globalization, op. cit. 

11 Docquier, F. and A. Marfouk (2005). International migration by educational attainment, 1990-2000. International 

migration, remittances, and the brain drain. C. Ozden and M. Shiff. Washington, D.C., The World Bank & Palgrave 

Mcmillan: 151-199.- 

12 Piyasiri Wickramasekara (2006). Skilled labour mobility: the resurgence of the ‘brain drain’debate, forthcoming paper, 

ILO, Geneva. 


global health workforce is only 3 per cent according to the WHO World Health Report 2006. A 

comparison with the Americas (South and North America combined) 13 based on WHO data shows 

(Figure 2) that the former has only 10 per cent of global diseases but commands 37% of the global 

health work force as well as 60% of global health expenditures. Africa’s share in global health 

expenditure is only one per cent. The migration flows of doctors to rich countries from Sub- 

Saharan Africa have therefore been described as “fatal flows”because poor people are left 

vulnerable to devastating diseases and avoidable death 14 . The Report of the Global Commission on 

International Migration stated: “Countries that are active supporters of the health and education 

objectives included in the UN’s Millennium Development Goals are nevertheless recruiting 

personnel from hospitals and schools in low-income countries that are unable to offer basic health 

and education services to their own citizens.” 15 

Figure 2 

Global shares-America 

and Africa regions 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Share of 

diseases 

Share of 

health 

workforce 

Share of 

health 

expenditure 

America region 

Africa region 

Exploitation and abuse of migrant workers continues unabated as highlighted in the ILO report- A 

fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy. 16 Despite the positive experiences of some 

migrant workers, a significant number face undue hardships and abuse in the form of low wages, 

poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom of association and 

workers’rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Women migrant 

workers, trafficked persons and migrant workers in irregular status are among the most vulnerable 

to abuse and exploitation. 

13 The regions are administrative regions of the World Health Organization. 

14 Fatal flows, doctors on the move, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 353 (1850-1852), October 27, 2005. 

15 GCIM (2005), op. ict., p.2, para 6. 

16 ILO (2004b). A fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy, Report VI, International Labour Conference 2004, 92nd 

Session. Geneva, International Labour Office 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc92/pdf/rep-vi.pdf 

160 


Globalization has also led to the emergence of global productions chains initiated by multinational 

corporations involving various levels of subcontracting and outsourcing to different suppliers. In 

the process, ‘labour’brokers have emerged who supply the needs of different enterprises. This 

has had important implications for employer-employee relationships. The employment relationship 

is the legal link between employers and employees when a person performs work or services 

under certain conditions in return for remuneration. “It has been, and continues to be, the main 

vehicle through which workers gain access to the rights and benefits associated with employment 

in the areas of labour law and social security. The existence of an employment relationship is the 

condition that determines the application of the labour and social security law provisions 

addressed to employees. It is the key point of reference for determining the nature and extent of 

employers’rights and obligations towards their workers.” 17 The surge in subcontracting and a 

high level of privatization has had profound effects on the labour market generally. Studies of 

foreign workers in Japan show disturbing tends in that increasing indirect employment through 

brokerage companies is placing many foreign workers of Japanese descent from Latin America in 

precarious employment situations violating Japanese labour law 18 . 

“… foreigners caught in this sort of a system continue to go from one job to the next without ever 

receiving health insurance, welfare pension insurance or employment insurance…... However, 

every two or three months they are fired by the company to which they were “dispatched” 

(actually, it is an illegal subcontracting relationship) and have no choice but to keep changing 

jobs.” 

Migrant workers are particularly vulnerable as victims of disguised employment relationships, and 

therefore they may enjoy hardly any protection. Migrant workers are victims of this phenomenon 

by multinational corporations as discussed by Pranom Somwong in her paper to this panel. 19 This 

can lead to serious exploitation of workers because the workers are not clear who is responsible 

for their terms and conditions of employment. 

Migrant integration policies have lagged far behind immigration policies in Europe and elsewhere. 

There is widespread discrimination and xenophobia of migrants including the second generation. 

They are disproportionately affected by high unemployment and underemployment rates, 

concentrated in secondary labour markets with poor quality and precarious jobs, experiencing 

higher layoffs during recessions, and having lengthy catching up processes with natives in some 

cases extending to more than 15-20 years. 20 ILO research shows significant and disturbing levels of 

17 The employment relationship, Report V(1), International Labour Conference, 95th Session, 2006. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc95/pdf/rep-v-1.pdf 

18 Tezuka, K. (2005). “Foreign Workers in Japan: Reality and Challenges.”Japan Labor Review, Autumn 2005 2(4): 48-71. 

19 Pranom Somwong, How Multinational Corporations Affect Migrant Workers, Presentation at APCEIU Symposium on a 

Culture of the Peace 2006, Seoul, 25-27 October 2006. 


discrimination in access to employment - a 35% rate of discrimination meaning that in more than 

one out of three application procedures regular immigrant workers were discriminated against. 21 As 

the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated; “Our goal should be spawning a virtuous 

cycle, instead, whereby the human rights of migrants are respected; migrants are integrated in host 

societies and can fully contribute to the development both of the host countries and of their 

countries of origin.” 22 

There are serious problems with the state of integration of the second generation into schooling 

systems in developed countries as revealed by the OECD’s Programme for International Student 

Assessment (PISA) study, which tested 15-year-old students in 41 countries in mathematics, reading 

comprehension, science and problem-solving skills. 23 The results show that many developed 

countries are failing to help children of immigrant families integrate into society through education. 

According to this study, immigrant children in some OECD countries lag more than two years 

behind their native counterparts in school performance, and a sizeable gap remained often even 

after accounting for socio-economic factors. The report adds: “Indeed, in many countries, the odds 

are weighted against students from immigrant families right from the start. They tend to be directed 

to schools with lower performance expectations, often characterised by disadvantaged student 

intakes and, in some countries, disruptive class-room conditions.”OECD research clearly shows 

that migrant youth lag far behind local youth in terms of access to jobs, and education and 

vocational training opportunities in European countries 24 . The recent French immigrant youth riots 

were a wake-up call to policy makers in this respect. 

Asia with its concentration on temporary labour migration regimes has serious problems in relation 

to integration of migrants in host societies. 25 There is hardly any family unification for low skilled 

migrant workers either in the Middle East or in Asian countries. When mothers emigrate for work, 

the adverse social impact on families left behind is often quite high. There is also increasing 

settlement of temporary workers of Latin American descent in Japan, but their integration into host 

society is still limited. 26 

20 Piyasiri Wickramasekara, 2006. “Fighting Discrimination: How Can Migrants Be Given Better Access to the Labour Markets of 

their host Countries-”,. Closing keynote address, International Seminar for Experts in the series ‘Great Debates’- Integrating 

migrants in Europe: Comparing the different national approaches Cicero Foundation, Paris, 15-16 June, 2006. 

21 See summary in: ILO (2004c). Labour market discrimination against migrant workers in Italy 

by E. Allasino, E. Reyneri, A. Venturini, G. Zincone, IMP 67, ILO, Geneva. 

22 Link between migration, development and human rights, Remarks of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, High Level 

Panel in Geneva in preparation of the High Level Dialogue of the General Assembly on Migration and Development, April 2006. 

23 See OECD Press Release 15/05/06-: OECD education systems leave many immigrant children floundering, report shows; OECD 

(2006). Where immigrant students succeed - A comparative review of performance and engagement in PISA 2003, Programme for 

International Student Assessment, OECD, Paris OECD, Paris, May 2006. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/38/36664934.pdf 

24 Georges Lema-tre (2006). Some Lessons on Economic Integration of Immigrants from OECD Country Reviews and Other Studies, 

Seminar on the economic integration of immigrants, 29 May 2006, OECD, Paris. 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/45/36805447.pdf 

25 See William Gois’s contribution to this panel discussion. 

26 See Japan Labor Review, Autumn 2005 2(4), special issue on foreign workers in Japan. 

162 


Another unsavoury aspect of the brain drain is what is described as “brain waste”. A ‘brain waste’ 

can occur at the international level through migration when qualifications acquired overseas are 

not recognized in receiving countries. 27 When developing country economies cannot fully employ 

their skilled workers, a “brain waste”may result internally as well. Yet brain waste often occurs in 

the receiving countries when qualified emigrants cannot find employment commensurate with 

their specialized skills and previous experience. The basic irony is that these migrants have often 

been selected through a rigorous talent and skill assessment process by the host country. The 

situation is directly related to monopolistic practices of host country professional associations 

(medical councils and engineering bodies, accounting professional associations, etc.) which often 

refuse to recognize qualifications acquired abroad by emigrant workers - a recurrent problem faced 

by emigrants to Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as in many European countries. For 

example, migrant doctors and engineers may be compelled to work as taxi drivers, pizza delivery 

workers, or other low-skilled jobs to support their families, while there are shortages of doctors 

and engineers in the host economy. . Reitz observed: “Canada is moving into the knowledge 

economy, yet there has been a ‘brain waste’of immigrant professionals because we are not 

putting their skills into practice”. 28 This type of situation involves a triple loss - to source countries 

who lose valuable skills, to destination countries which cannot benefit from migrant skills and to 

migrant workers who cannot make full use of their potential and integrate. This is an area where 

many international agencies including ILO, UNESCO and regional entities such as the European 

Commission are active in finding solutions. 

Mode 4 - movement of natural persons under of the General Agreement in Trade in Services 

(GATS) provides for the movement of temporary service providers to other countries for the 

provision of specific services, and has been highlighted by some as an already existing multilateral 

framework with large potential for liberalisation of migration from developing to developed 

nations. But the achievements under this are very limited, mostly confined to highly skilled 

professional movements. At the same time, it is causing concern among many parties including 

workers 29 and civil society who view it as a gateway to exploitation of workers. At the recent 

ECOSOC High Level Segment Round Table on globalization and Migration in Geneva, the ILO 

Director-General highlighted the basic contradiction in negotiating movement of service providers 

27 Piyasiri Wickramasekara (2003), Policy Responses to Skilled migration-: Retention, return and circulation, Perspectives on 

Migration No.5E, ILO, Geneva 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/pom/pom5e.pdf . 

28 Reitz, J. (2001). Immigrant Skill Utilization in the Canadian Labour Market: Implications of Human Capital Research, Toronto, 

Center for Industrial Relations and Department of Sociology, University of Toronto. http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/ 

Reitz_Skill.pdf 

29 Presentation by Ms. Sharan Burrow to the Roundtable 3 on Globalization and labour migration, 2006 ECOSOC High-Level 

Segment, “Creating an environment at the national and international levels conducive to generating full and productive employment 

and decent work for all, and its impact on sustainable development”, Geneva, 5 July 2006. 


as a WTO trade issue, thereby treating workers as commodities, with scant attention to their 

rights. 30 

Another contradiction is the approach to the issue of irregular migration. There is tacit tolerance of 

the presence of migrant workers in irregular status on the part of many governments to sustain 

large informal sectors in their economies, while officially seen to be ‘combating’or ‘fighting’ 

irregular migration. Madame Ramphele, the Co-Chair of the Global Commission on International 

Migration, pointed out: “the world’s more prosperous states bear a significant degree of 

responsibility for the forces which have prompted and sustained the movement of irregular 

migrants from one country and continent to another” 31 One extreme response has been the attempt 

at criminalization of undocumented migrants in the US legislation, and making almost estimated 

10-12 million migrant workers active in the US labour market criminals at one stroke of the pen. 32 

Security concerns and the so-called war on terror have made migrants convenient scapegoats. 

Intensified controls and militarised borders have led to gross human rights violations. According to 

Professor Cornelius Wayne of San Diego University (California), the fortified US-Mexican border 

during nine years of operation has been ten times deadlier to migrants (with 2750 reported deaths 

crossing the border) than the Berlin Wall was to East Germans during 28 years (with only 239 

deaths crossing the wall). 33 According to him, the main consequences of 10 years of tighter border 

control have been: redistribution of illegal entries; increased cost of illegal entry; more permanent 

settlement in U.S; higher mortality among illegal entrants; and increase in anti-immigrant vigilante 

activity. Yet the US House and Senate recently approved the $1.2 billion Secure Fence Act in 

September 2006, which calls for 700 more miles of 15-foot high double-layered fencing along the 

U.S.-Mexico border in addition to the existing 100 miles of fencing 34 . 

Closer to home, a recent study on unauthorised migration in Southeast Asia reached similar 

conclusions: 

‘..experience shows that this approach {keeping our borders tightly guarded} has not succeeded in 

keeping all unwanted persons out. It does succeed in rendering many unauthorized persons - who 

form the backbone in some sectors - without protection from insecurity and abuse’. 35 

30 Concluding summary by the Director-General of the International Labour Office, Roundtable 3 on Globalization and labour 

migration, 2006 ECOSOC High-Level Segment, Geneva, 5 July 2006. 

31 Ramphele, M. (2004). Presentation. 88th Session of the IOM Council: International Dialogue on 

Migration: Valuing Migration - The costs, benefits, opportunities and challenges of migration. Geneva, 

32 HR 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 passed by the US House of 

Representatives. 

33 Wayne Cornelius, Controlling ‘Unwanted’Immigration: Lessons from the US, Public Lecture, COMPAS (Centre on Migration, 

Policy and Society, Oxford University), 10 June 2004. 

34 Congress: Senate, House, CBO, Migration News Vol. 13 No. 4, October 2006 

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php-id=3221_0_2_0 

35 Battistella G. and Asis Maruja M.B., Eds. (2003). Unauthorized Migration in Southeast Asia. Quezon City, Philippines, Scalabrini 

Migration Center 

164 


Many developed host countries fail to recognize that migrant workers in irregular status also have 

fundamental rights as human beings as well as rights as workers, recognised in ILO and Un 

international instruments. The debates that took place in the ILO tripartite meeting of experts on 

the Multilateral framework on labour migration amply illustrate this situation. 36 

In this context, I like to quote what the UN Secretary-General in his address to the European 

Parliament in 2004 described as an essential truth, often lost in these misplaced debates and 

policies on irregular migration: 

“The vast majority of migrants are industrious, courageous, and determined. They don’t want a 

free ride. They want a fair opportunity. They are not criminals or terrorists. They are law-abiding. 

They don’t want to live apart. They want to integrate, while retaining their identity”. 37 

IV. Some ILO Perspectives on international labour migration 

This section highlights a few key messages from the ILO point of view. 

Migration is as old as history, and by no means a new phenomenon. Similarly the current 

discourse on migration and development which tries to project it as a new issue is misplaced 

because the whole history of migration is one about migration and development. The economies 

of the new world - Untied States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are good examples of 

societies built on immigration. 

Benefits of international migration are never one sided. All migrant workers (irrespective of their 

status) contribute to growth and prosperity in both countries of destination and countries of origin. 

They are by no means free riders as commonly assumed. Unfortunately “the positive contribution 

that migrant workers and their families can make to the economic, social, cultural and political 

development of countries of employment receives relatively little attention in contrast to the 

extensive discussion on the impact of international labour migration on development in countries 

of origin.” 38 In the words of the ILO Director-General: “Migrant workers an asset to every country 

where they bring their labour” 39 

Given global demographic trends, and widening disparities in incomes, human security, and rights 

36 ILO (2006). Note on the proceedings: Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, 

Geneva, 31 October-2 November 2005 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb295/pdf/tmmflm-2.pdf 

37 Annan, K. (2004). United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s Address to the European Parliament upon receipt of the Andrei 

Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, Brussels, 29 January 2004. 

http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/sk/article_3178_sk.htm 

38 Ryszard Cholewinski, Protection of the Human Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families under the UN Migrant 

Workers Convention as a Tool to Enhance Development in the Country of Employment, Keynote paper, Committee on Migrant 

Workers, 15 December 2005, Geneva. http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/cholewinski.doc 

39 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/ 


across countries, international migration is likely to increase in the future, not decrease. As long as 

there are nations and borders, there will be migrants. Thus there is an emerging consensus that the 

challenge is not on how to stop or prevent migration - but on how to manage it for the benefit of 

all concerned - source countries, destination countries and migrant workers themselves through 

international cooperation. We need more and better policies, not more policing, and intensified 

border controls. 

The ILO views international migration as a labour market and decent work issue within the 

overarching framework of the Decent Work for All agenda - not as a security issue. Most of the 

world’s migrants (estimated at 191 million in 2005 by the United Nations) are migrant workers - 

tentatively estimated at about 90 million by the ILO - and their dependants. Therefore, creation of 

decent work in source countries is the key to reduction of poverty and migration pressures, and as 

the ILO Director-General mentioned at the Asian Regional Meeting two weeks back, ‘the best 

social programme is a decent job’. 40 Similarly, migrant workers in receiving countries should enjoy 

access to decent work so that they can make their best contribution to host and origin societies and 

their families. 

Respect for migrant rights is essential for realizing and sharing benefits from migration. There is a 

risk that the current discourse on migration and development tends to shift the attention away from 

the central role of rights in development by focusing on issues such as remittances, skill and 

technology transfers and transnational communities. Development encompasses economic, social 

and cultural aspects and cannot be measured by increases in per capita GDP alone. Mr. Juan 

Somavia, ILO Director-General stated: “… gains from migration and protection of migrant rights 

are indeed inseparable. Migrant workers can make their best contribution to economic and social 

development in host and source countries when they enjoy decent working conditions, and when 

their fundamental human and labour rights are respected”. 41 The UN Committee on Migrant 

Workers has also pointed out that “where migration is seen only in economic terms, migrants may 

come to be regarded as commodities, rather than as individuals entitled to the full enjoyment of 

their human rights”(Press release, 15 December 2005). The Un High Level Dialogue on 

International Migration and Development recognized that, “Respect for the fundamental rights and 

freedoms of all migrants was considered essential for reaping the full benefits of international 

migration.” 42 

International instruments provide a solid foundation for formulation of migration policies. The ILO 

has pioneered the development of international instruments for the governance of labour 

40 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2006/41.htm 

41 Statement by the Director-General of the International Labour Office, Roundtable 3 on Globalization and labour migration, 2006 

ECOSOC High-Level Segment, Geneva, 5 July 2006 

http://www.ilo.org/pubcgi/links_ext.pl-http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/meetings/2006/hls2006/documents/DG%20ILO-RT3.pdf 

42 United Nations (2006). Summary of the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development: Note by the President of 

the General Assembly. New York, United Nations, Sixty-first session, A/61/515 http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get- 

Open&DS=A/61/515&Lang=E 

166 


migration and protection of migrant workers since the 1930s. In our view, a rights based approach 

to migration is necessary to maximize positive effects and minimize negative effects of international 

migration. At the same time, the emphasis should not only be on the human rights of migrants as 

human beings, but also on their labour rights as workers. Universal human rights are applicable to 

all human beings irrespective of nationality. Moreover, the core labour rights - fundamental 

Conventions of the ILO enshrined in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at 

Work - are applicable to all workers including migrant workers, without distinction of nationality, 

and regardless of migration status. Next the ILO Conventions on migrant workers - Migration for 

Employment No. 97, (1949) and the Migrant Workers Convention No. 143, (1975) spell out labour 

rights of migrant workers. The 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All 

Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - has expanded on these rights. These three 

Conventions together define a comprehensive charter of migrant rights and provide a legal basis 

for national policy and practice on migrant workers, and serve as tools to encourage States to 

establish or improve national legislation in harmony with international standards. Despite alleged 

claims of low ratifications, a total of 76 different States have ratified one or more of these three 

complementary standards in mid-2006. Even where they have not been ratified, labour and 

migration legislation in many countries has been influenced by these standards. 43 Last but not least, 

the ILO position is that all international labour standards apply to migrant workers in the 

workplace unless otherwise stated. There are particularly relevant Conventions relating to private 

employment agencies, social security, protection of wages, labour inspection, occupational safety 

and health, and those covering sectors such as agriculture, hotels and tourism and construction 

where migrant workers are often lover-represented. 

Social dialogue is essential to the development of sound labour migration policy and should be 

promoted and implemented. The ILO’s unique tripartite structure distinguishes itself from the 

work of many other agencies working on issues of labour migration. Consultative processes 

involving the two parties most affected by migration - the employers and workers - are a major 

pillar of the ILO approach. It is also important to involve NGOs, other civil society groups and 

migrant workers themselves in broad-based consultative process. This approach ensures that 

labour migration policies will be based on national consensus to the extent possible. Structures and 

regular mechanisms for social dialogue on migration policy are necessary for meaningful 

involvement of representative employers’and workers’organizations and civil society and 

migrant groups as recognized in the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration. 

Cooperation and partnerships at all levels are essential because International migration is a very 

43 ILO (1999). Migrant workers, Report III (1B). International Labour Conference, 87th Session. Geneva, International 

Labour Office. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/r3-1b.htm 


complex issue involving many dimensions ranging from employment, labour markets, integration, 

politics, human rights, and development. It would indeed be naive to think that one single agency 

can address all these intricate issues. This is why we need to build partnerships and many actors 

should come together. There is enough work for all parties according to their mandates and 

competencies - and I would even say ‘the more the merrier’. This also highlights the role of 

educators in advancing human rights and intercultural understanding - the theme of this 

Symposium. 

V. ILO responses 

How is the International Labour Organization responding to these challenges 

The ILO has been for many years attempting to forge an international consensus on labour 

migration as a positive economic and social force in the global economy. It has promoted an 

extensive wide-ranging tripartite debate in the past decade or so on international labour migration, 

starting with the 1997 Tripartite Meeting of Experts on future activities in the field of migration. 44 

The International Labour Conference of 1999 undertook an extensive review of the situation of 

ratification of migrant worker instruments. 45 More recently, the World Commission on the Social 

Dimension of Globalization called for a fully inclusive and equitable process of globalization and 

highlighted the need for a multilateral framework to govern cross border labour mobility. 46 

The General Discussion on Migrant Workers at the 92nd session of the International Labour 

Conference in June 2004 was a watershed in this respect. It was designed to review current issues 

and challenges of labour migration with a view to guiding ILO action. The Committee on Migrant 

Workers (CMW) which debated on the issue and framed the Resolution was concerned that a new 

age of mass migration was already upon us for which we may not be fully prepared. The ILC 

adopted the outcome of the General Discussion - the ‘Resolution and Conclusions concerning a 

fair deal for migrant workers in a global economy’ 47 by consensus. The ILC Resolution noted that: 

“The ILO’s mandate in the world of work as well as its competencies and unique tripartite 

structure entrust it with special responsibilities regarding migrant workers. Decent work is at the 

heart of this. The ILO can play a central role in promoting policies to maximize the benefits and 

minimize the risks of work-based migration”. 

44 ILO (1997). Protecting the most vulnerable of today’s migrant workers: Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Future International 

Labour Office Activities in the Field of Migration, April 1997, Geneva, International Labour Office 

45 International Labour Office (1999). Migrant workers, Report III (1B). International Labour Conference, 87th Session. Geneva, 

International Labour Office. 

46 ILO (2004a). A fair globalization, op.cit. 

47 ILO (2004). Resolution concerning a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy, adopted at the 92nd session of the 

International Labour Conference. Geneva, in: Report of the Committee on Migrant Workers, Provisional Record 22, International 

Labour Conference, Ninety-second Session, International Labour Office, pp.55-64 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc92/pdf/pr-22-pdf 

168 


The Conclusions recognized the positive contribution of international labour migration and called 

for maximizing its benefits for employment, growth and development in both countries of origin 

and destination. At the same time, it highlighted a number of problems related to labour migration: 

growth of irregular migration, exploitation of migrant workers and violation of their basic rights, 

poor working conditions, lack of social protection, labour market discrimination, brain drain from 

developing countries, and smuggling and trafficking of persons, especially of women and children. 

The Conclusions identified the limited rights and multiple disadvantages often faced by temporary 

workers, migrant domestic workers and migrant workers in irregular status as special problem 

areas. 

To address these challenges, the Committee on Migrant Workers called upon the ILO and its 

constituents to carry out a Plan of Action, in partnership with other international organizations. The 

components of this Plan of Action are: 

Development of a non-binding multilateral framework for a rights-based approach to labour 

migration, which takes account labour market needs, proposing guidelines and principles for 

policies based on best practices and international standards; 

wider application of international labour standards and other relevant instruments; 

Support for implementation of the ILO Global Employment Agenda at national level; 

Capacity building, awareness raising and technical assistance; 

Strengthening social dialogue; 

Improving the information and knowledge base. 

ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration 

The most innovative element and centrepiece of the Action Plan was the “ILO Multilateral 

Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based 

approach to labour migration”. 48 The ILO’s efforts were focussed on the development of this 

Framework in the greater part of 2005, and a Tripartite Meeting of Experts finalised the framework 

in November 2005. I shall be brief on the multilateral framework because this will be taken up in 

another session here. The Framework is a comprehensive collection of principles, guidelines and 

best practices on labour migration policy, providing practical guidance to constituents on the 

development and improvement of labour migration policies. It is a considered response to 

constituent demands for assistance, and addresses the major issues faced by migration policy 

48 ILO (2006). The ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights-based 

approach to labour migration. Geneva, International Labour Office 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/tmmflm-en.pdf 


makers at national and international levels. The objectives of the Framework are better governance 

and management of migration, protection and promotion of migrant rights, and promoting greater 

linkages between migration, decent work and development. It respects the sovereign right of all 

nations to determine their own migration policies. The Framework recognizes the crucial role of 

social partners, civil society, social dialogue and tripartism in migration policy. It advocates gendersensitive 

migration policies that address the special problems faced by women migrant workers. 

The ILO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific has adapted the ILO Action Plan for the Asian 

region, and intends to promote capacity building and cooperation with all constituents in 

implementing the principles of the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration. The 

Conclusions of the Asian Regional Meeting (Busan, Republic of Korea) recently concluded has 

identified “improving dialogue and the management of labour migration so as to benefit both 

sending and receiving countries and better protect the rights and equal treatment of migrant 

workers”as one of the priorities for national action for decent work. It has also highlighted the ILO 

multilateral framework on labour migration as a priority in regional cooperation frameworks. 49 The 

Office is now mainstreaming labour migration into its decent work country programming. 

VI. Some observations on labour migration in Asia 

I have dealt extensively with issues and challenges in Asia in two previous papers, and therefore 

shall only highlight a few features here. 50 The three panellists have also dealt with issues relating to 

women migrant workers, integration and multinational corporations and protection of migrant 

workers. 

Some of the largest source countries (Indonesia and the Philippines) and destination countries 

(Malaysia and Thailand) are found in Southeast Asia. The migration regime that has evolved in Asia 

- to the Gulf as well as within Asia - is primarily a system of temporary migration of largely of lowskilled 

and semi-skilled workers on the basis of fixed term contracts. The short duration of 

contracts does not provide much scope for the full recognition of migrant rights and their 

economic and social integration in receiving countries. An increasing number of female workers 

migrate for low wage occupations such as domestic work. The treatment and conditions of migrant 

workers leave much to be desired with poor conditions of work, frequent abuse and exploitation, 

49 ILO, Realizing decent work in Asia-: Conclusions, ILO 14th Asian regional meeting, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 October- 1 

September 2006. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/rgmeet/14asrm/conclusions.pdf 

50 Wickramasekara, Piyasiri. (2002). Asian Labour Migration: Issues and Challenges in an Era of Globalization, International 

Migration Papers No 57, International Migration Programme, Geneva, International Labour Office. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/imp/imp57e.pdf 

Wickramasekara, Piyasiri. (2005). Rights of migrant workers in Asia: Any light at the end of the tunnel, International Migration 

Papers No 75, International Migration Programme, Geneva, International Labour Office. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/imp/imp57e.pdf 

170 


and gross violations of their basic human rights 51 . Women domestic workers trafficked and 

smuggled persons, and migrants in irregular status are especially vulnerable. 

The migration flows are dominated by a highly commercialised private recruitment industry 

leading to governance concerns. Recruitment malpractices, fraud and abuses are widespread in 

many Asian countries adding to the vulnerability of workers abroad. 

One of the most disturbing developments from the viewpoint of protection of migrants’rights in 

Asia is the growth of ‘irregular migration’. 52 Malaysia and Thailand are host to large populations of 

workers in irregular status. Structural labour market needs are filled by workers in irregular status 

year after year, which is hardly a sustainable option. Since these workers have no legal status in 

the host countries, their rights are subject to frequent abuse. Some countries are resorting to mass 

detentions and deportations in violation of accepted international norms. 

Only a few countries in Asia have ratified ILO and UN Conventions relating to migrant workers 

compared to other regions. New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR (under British administration in 1952) 

and Sabah State of Malaysia have ratified ILO Convention Migration for Employment No. 97 (1949) 

while Philippines has ratified the Convention on Migrant Workers No. 143 (1975). The 

International Convention on the Protection of all Migrant Workers and their Families has been 

ratified by the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Timor Leste only. The Philippines has deposited the 

ratifications of both two ILO migrant worker Conventions with the ILO, and ratification of C143 has 

already been registered while the ILO has sought a clarification regarding C97 which may be 

resolved soon. Thus the Philippines will be a shining example to Asian countries as the only 

country in Asia and third country in the world (after Bosnia-Herzegovina and Burkina Faso) - 

perhaps the most important country from the point of view of labour migration - to ratify all three 

international migrant worker Conventions. 

There exist poor linkages between migration and home country development in many laboursending 

countries. Some researchers have commented on the emergence of a migration culture 

and dependency syndrome based on large inflows of remittances, which detract from much 

needed economic reforms for development to create more rewarding opportunities for people to 

stay at home. 53 

51 ILO (2003). Summary of Conclusions, ILO Regional Tripartite Meeting on Challenges to Labour Migration Policy and 

Management in Asia (June 30 - July 2, 2003), Bangkok. 

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrat/download/bngkk04.pdf 

52 Battistella G. and Asis Maruja M.B., Eds. (2003). Unauthorized Migration in Southeast Asia. Quezon City, Philippines, 

Scalabrini Migration Center. 


Governments in the region have provided very limited opportunities and mechanisms for 

involvement of social partners (workers’and employers’organizations) or civil society 

stakeholders in the formulation of migration policies. 

Cooperation between states through bilateral and multilateral agreements is considered a good 

means of insuring effective management of migration and for achieving positive outcomes. But 

there have been few genuine bilateral labour agreements, the preferred mode being looser MOUs. 

These are not very transparent and often imposed on weaker source countries by dominant 

receiving countries. 54 They are also known to exclude highly vulnerable categories of migrant 

workers such as domestic workers. 

Regional Consultative Processes such as the Bali Process are mainly security-driven with the 

overriding objective of curbing trafficking and irregular migration. Social partners and NGOs are 

not a party to these often non-transparent processes. 

One positive trend in the Asian region has been the continuous engagement of trade unions and 

NGOs in migrant worker issues. The Asian Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) and the Asian Migrant 

Centre (AMC) are continuing to play a crucial role in this respect through advocacy and 

coordinating the work of NGOs concerned with migrant issues in the region. The flagship 

publication of the Asian Migrant Centre and the Migrant Forum in Asia - the Asian Migrant 

Yearbook - has documented many NGO and other initiatives. 55 Both trade unions and NGOs share 

a common agenda of protecting rights of migrant workers. There have been a number of initiatives 

by both groups individually and jointly to empower migrant workers. 

An informal division of labour is seen in unions advocating and lobbying for ratification of ILO 

migrant worker conventions while the NGO movement has been promoting the 1990 UN 

Convention. NGOs have a better record in reaching out to vulnerable groups such as domestic 

workers and migrant workers in irregular status. The Hong Kong SAR wage cut on domestic 

workers saw fruitful collaboration between the trade union movement and the NGO movement in 

organising a protest campaign and a formal complaint to the ILO. Both are at the forefront of 

fighting discrimination and xenophobia against migrant workers. 

53 Submission by the International Labour Office, Regional Hearing for Asia and the Pacific Global Commission on International 

Migration, 17-18 May 2004, Manila, Philippines 

54 Piyasiri Wickramasekara (2006). Labour Migration in Asia: Role of Bilateral Agreements and MOUs, Presentation at the 2006 

Workshop on International Migration and Labour Market in Asia, Tokyo, 17 February 2006, organized by the Japan Institute of 

Labour Policy and Training in cooperation with ILO and OECD. 

http://www.jil.go.jp/foreign/event_r/event/documents/2006sopemi/keynotereport1.pdf 

55 Asian Migrant Centre and Migrant Forum in Asia (2005). Asian Migrant Yearbook-: Migration facts, analysis and issues in 2003, 

Hong Kong SAR, December 2005. 

172 


VII. Concluding remarks 

There are obvious gaps in the international institutional architecture governing labour migration 

with no single agency having a comprehensive mandate on issues of migrant workers. A number 

of developed countries have expressed strong reservations for any move to create a new UN 

agency such as a World Migration Organization to fulfill the above need. The Global Commission 

on International Migration has not moved us closer to defining a multilateral approach or 

framework acceptable to both developed and developing world. The recently concluded United 

Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development has only succeeded in 

the establishment of a Global Migration Forum, which is due to meet next year with Belgium as the 

host government 56 . But it may evolve to be mainly a consultative body of member states without 

any decision making powers and does not formally involve other bodies - particularly NGOs and 

trade unions who are the strongest defenders of migrant rights. 

There is however, broad convergence of ILO perspectives with other recent global initiatives 

including the report of the Global Commission on International Migration, the report of the UN 

Secretary-General on International Migration and Development and to some extent the 

International Agenda for Migration Management of the Berne Initiative. All recognise the need for 

promotion of multilateral approaches and international cooperation, for expanding legal avenues 

for migration to reduce irregular migration concerns, for protection and promotion of migrant 

rights, for gender sensitive migration policies and for the creation of decent work opportunities in 

home countries to reduce migration pressures. 

Yet we have to recognize the large unfinished agenda before us in making migration work for 

development and in providing a fair deal to migrant workers. While there has been no poverty of 

fine words and lip service to the issues by many countries at global and regional summits and 

forums, there is indeed poverty of action and genuine commitment. There is an African proverb 

that states: “Fine words do not produce food”, which is highly relevant to the current state of 

policies on migrant workers. 

The ILO Plan of Action contained in the Resolution for a fair deal concerning migrant workers in a 

global economy made a case for creation of decent job opportunities at home to reduce migration 

pressures. The Global Commission on International Migration also argued for creating a situation in 

which people migrate out of choice, rather than necessity. This echoes a conclusion of the 1994 

Cairo World Conference on Population and Development that governments should make the 

56 See Non paper on Global Forum on Migration and Development, Government of Belgium 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/fifthcoord2006/fifthcoord2006.htm 


option of not migrating - ‘remaining in one’s country’- a viable one for ‘all people’. 

The non-binding ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration offers a comprehensive toolkit 

for all concerned to improve migration policies and defend rights of migrant workers following a 

rights-based approach. It is essential to educate all stakeholders, especially policy makers and 

officials in all concerned spheres - labour, justice, immigration, law enforcement, education, 

development - about human and labour rights of migrant workers enshrined in international 

instruments and good practices as summarized in the above Multilateral Framework. 

Thus the theme of this seminar is indeed highly topical, timely and relevant. All stakeholders need 

to work together - governments, employers, workers, NGOs and other civil society, academics, the 

mass media, ILO, UNESCO and other concerned international organizations - in promoting 

migration by choice and defending the rights of all migrant workers in the new millennium. 

174 


Women Migrant Workers 

Chin-sung Chung 

Professor 

College of Sociology 

Seoul National University, Korea 


176 



178 



180 



182 



184 



186 



188 



190 



192 



194 



196 



198 



200 



Social and Cultural Integration:Issues, Myths, Challenges 

Ashley Willian Gois 

Regional coordinator 

Migrant Forum in Asia, Philippines 

202 



204 



206 



208 



210 



212 



214 



216 



How Multinational Corporations Affect Migrant Workers 

Pranom Somwong 

Coordinator 

Migrant Assistance Programme Foundation, Thailand 

Introduction 

Migrant workers come face to face with the realities of globalization on a day- to-day basis. They 

work side-by-side with migrants from other areas, work under foremen or women from the local 

population, have foreign employers, sew labels into garments in languages they don’t understand, 

and pack garments into crates to send off to countries that they have only read about in books. But 

when they want to improve the conditions that they work in, migrant workers find that they have 

to deal with these various multi-national levels of their work. Who they are able to bargain with is 

unclear. Do they address their grievances to the foremen The employer in the head office The 

local government that has made the deal with the multi-national corporation that allows them to be 

there To deal with multi-national corporations, I argue that multi-workers are needed. 

In this presentation, I will explain what I mean by multi-workers, and will offer the reasons why 

they, and the space for their emergence, are necessary in order to advance the human rights of 

migrant workers and migrants’human rights defenders. Therefore, I will begin by discussing 

corporate globalization, the specific behaviors of multinational corporations, and the risks they 

pose to migrant workers’lives. Then I will consider the specific rights violations both perpetuated 

by migrant multinational corporations and the rights violations experienced by migrant workers at 

the hands of multinationals. In my analysis I will draw on the actions of Daewoo International and 

Total Oil Company in Burma, as well as the experiences of Burmese migrant workers on the Thai 

side of the Thai-Burma border, particularly in the garment industry. Next I will offer a proposal for 

safe migration, safe working conditions, and the emergence of multi-workers. Although it is 

unlikely that there is any way that we can create the conditions for migrant workers to work 

completely safely with multi-national corporations, I will talk about how we can support migrant 

workers as they struggle to exercise their rights, organize and unite to fight multinational 

corporations. 

218 


Multinational Corporations: A Danger to Society 

In 2001, Corpwatch created a fact sheet on corporate globalization with astounding statistics about 

the global reach of private companies. Fifty-one of the world’s top 100 economies are 

corporations. For example, Royal Dutch Shell’s revenues are greater than Venezuela’s Gross 

Domestic Product. Using this measurement, Wal-Mart is bigger than Indonesia in other words, 

Wal-Mart’s sales are higher than Indonesia’s GDP. Similarly, General Motors, Wal-mart, Exxon 

Mobil and Ford Motor are richer than Thailand. Mitsubishi, Toyota Motor, General Electric, Royal 

Dutch Shell, Marubeni, IBM, Citigroup, and Volkswagen are richer than the Philippines. Hitachi, 

AT&T, Philip Morris, and Sony are richer than Pakistan. Honda, Toshiba, Nissan, Nestle, Hewlett- 

Packard, and Fujitsu are richer than Bangladesh. 

The list goes on. There are 63,000 transnational corporations worldwide, with 690,000 foreign 

affiliates. Notably, ownership of multinational corporations is concentrated in the global north 

with three quarters of all transnational corporations being based in North America, Western Europe 

and Japan. Looking at this another way, ninety-nine of the 100 largest transnational corporations 

are from the industrialized countries. 

So what does this mean for people inside Burma and Burmese migrant workers in Thailand It has 

been well-known for a long time around the world the people of Burma have been politically 

repressed, first by the State Law and Order Reconciliation Commission (SLORC), and now under 

the new name of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). It is well-known that Nobel 

Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of the National League for Democracy, who won a 

landslide election in 1990, has been under nearly continuous house arrest for the last seventeen 

years. Yet the repression in Burma is not only political. Under the SPDC, Burmese people have 

faced life insecurity and human rights violations in addition to severe poverty due to the SPDC’s 

mismanagement of the economy. By mismanagement of the economy I mean that while the SPDC 

has enough foreign revenue to continue to buy arms and other military supplies, many people 

living inside Burma cannot meet their basic needs. 

One of the sources of the SPDC’s foreign revenue is investment by multinational corporations. I 

turn first to the case of Daewoo International. Daewoo International (DI) is South Korea’s leading 

export trading company, and trades primarily in chemicals, textiles, metals and steel. In 2002, the 

corporation claimed sales of US$5,340.6 million, a one-year sales growth of 11.4%, and a net 

income of US$65.4 million. [1] Moreover, Daewoo is becoming increasingly involved in developing 

energy resources overseas. Daewoo International holds shares in several Exploration and 

Production, or E&P, projects, such as oil production in Peru, off-shore gas development in 

Vietnam, a LNG plant in Oman and natural gas development in Eastern Russia. [2] Its E&P 

investment in Burma, however, could prove to be extremely profitable for the South Korea-based 

company. 


Daewoo is the biggest investor, at 60% of the total, in the A-1 “Shwe”exploration of natural gas off 

the coast of western Burma’s Arakan State near Bangladesh. Although the development of cleaner 

energy alternatives such as natural gas is urgently needed, the “Shwe”project is different from 

others. In the words of a recent protest letter to Daewoo sent by the SHWE Gas Movement, which 

is working to end the project: 

“Infrastructure development projects such as “Shwe”do not help the people of Burma. 

Two Burmese natural gas pipeline projects in the 1990s -Yadana and Yetagun- made it 

devastatingly clear that large-scale gas pipeline projects in Burma are not only detrimental 

to the cultural life and environmental integrity of the pipeline areas, but also lead to the 

entrenchment of one of the world’s most brutal military regimes.” 

How does this happen Drawing on information about the construction of previous Burmese gas 

pipelines, SHWE Gas Movement notes that villagers were forcibly relocated from their homes 

without adequate compensation. The SHWE Gas Movement’s report is corrobated by the Network 

of Migrant and Refugee Women from Burma, who note that “the building of gas pipe-lines and 

other development projects”is one of the factors causing people to migrate both internally and 

externally. In addition, many villagers were forced to work to construct SPDC military outposts, 

clear pipeline routes or porter crops and goods that the SPDC confiscated from villagers’homes. 

In prior gas pipeline construction cases, the incidence of rape in these areas also rose dramatically. 

According to the SHWE Gas Movement, reports from Arakan State indicate that similar events are 

happening around the construction of this new natural gas pipeline. 

The issue of forced labor in development projects deserves to be addressed separately. Do 

multinational corporations themselves force villagers to work for them Perhaps not exactly and 

this is what the corporations would say. However, our experience with the French company Total 

Oil shows that multinational corporations often use forced labor for their own purposes, while 

attempting to keep their own hands clean. In the case of Total Oil, after criticism by MAP 

Foundation that they used forced labor, they issued a background paragraph in which they stated 

that forced labour and human rights abuses were organized by the Burmese authorities for their 

own purposes, without the knowledge or acceptance of Total Oil. However, Total continued to 

invest and work in Burma despite knowing of the organized abuses by the regime. The perspective 

of MAP is that such investment fuels the military government of Burma, gives credibility to an 

illegitimate regime and contributes to the continuation of abuses against the citizens of Burma. 

Further, recent reports suggest additional collaboration between Daewoo and the SPDC. On 11 

September 2006, the Democratic Voice of Burma reported that on 8 September, South Korea’s 

special investigation department revealed that Daewoo has been selling military equipment to the 

SPDC. Yan Naing Tun, a Burmese pro-democracy activist based in Korea told Democratic Voice of 

Burma that 

220 


“What the news said was Daewoo International company based in Korea has been selling 

auxiliary military equipment and materials needed to make military weapons. With that, the 

special investigation department in Korea also found out with strong evidences that (the 

company has been) teaching (the Burmese) how to use the technology, it was announced 

thus.” 

It is extremely concerning that not only is Daewoo investing in a natural gas project which has 

been fraught with human rights violations, but even more disconcerting that there are reports of 

military equipment sales and advice being exchanged. This report raises the question of why 

Daewoo International would be interested in selling military equipment to the SPDC and giving 

them military advice. What benefits does this bring to Daewoo 

Thus far I’ve addressed human rights violations by corporations operating inside Burma. Now I 

would like to cross the border and examine the violations perpetuated by multi-national 

corporations using Burmese migrant workers inside Thailand. I will do so by discussing the case of 

the Deeta Garment Company factory, which is located in Mae Sot, Thailand, across from 

Myawaddy, Burma. 

There are several hundred thousand migrant workers working in factories, including 

manufacturing, food processing and garment factories throughout Thailand. In most factories 

around 70% of the workers are women. There are large concentrations of factories in Mae Sot 

(garment, knitting, other manufacturing). In Mahachai and Ranong (seafood processing) there are 

between 100 to 500 workers per factory and there are smaller factories (handicrafts, ice, etc) all 

over Thailand. 

The workers in the Deeta Garment factory produce children’s clothes for K-Mart, and the brands 

Skechers and Wonderkids. As of April 2006, 500 Burmese female migrant workers had been 

working at the Deeta Garment Company Ltd factory for 3 years. The women worked from 8:00 am 

to 1:00 am everyday-a total of 17 hours per day. They were paid 50-60 baht per day (1.25US$- 

2US$) for 8 hours, and then overtime of 7 baht per hour. They have one day off per month, after 

the day they are paid. The workers all live in the top floor of the factory. The workers are not 

allowed to keep snacks in their rooms. If the factory management finds any snacks in the workers’ 

room, the workers are fined 500 baht as punishment. 

The workers face many insecurities and rights violations. For example, on 7 March 2006, the line 

leader Ma Pa Pa cursed at one of the worker leaders, Ma Shu Ma Wa, and they had an argument. 

The factory management called the police, who arrested Ma Shu Ma Wa. As a result, the other 

workers went to the Labor Protection and Welfare Office in Mae Sot and requested their assistance. 

One of the labor office staff persons and 7 workers went to the police station. Finally, the police 

released Ma Shu Ma Wa. The workers also requested that the Labor Protection and Welfare Office 

inspect their working and living conditions in the factory because they had felt that they were 


unacceptable for a long time. The workers also made the following demands: 

1. No overtime on Sunday 

2. Fair wages according to Thai law - which are 143 baht a day, and overtime of 18 baht per 

hour. This is significantly higher than the amount they were being paid. 

3. To regularly receive their salary on the 10th day of every month 

4. A day off for religious holidays. 

5. To be allowed to take sick leave when they are sick. 

The labor protection officials told the workers that they would investigate the factory and would 

facilitate negotiations between the employer and employees on 4 May 2006. As a result, the 

workers returned to the factory and their work as usual. 

In honor of Buddhist New Year, the factory was closed for 3 days (14, 15, and 16 April). On 17 

April 2006, the factory management asked the workers go to work. However, the workers refused 

to do so because it was the Burmese New Year day when they traditionally visit temples. 

On 18 April, the workers returned to work. However, the factory management would not allow 

them to print their time cards and asked them to work without them. The workers refused to work 

without being able to print out their time cards. An argument ensued. The end result of the 

argument was that the factory management called the police and immigration forces. 

At 2:00 pm, immigration personnel tried to arrest 8 worker leaders. When the other workers 

inquired about the reason for the arrest, the officials replied that the workers could be arrested 

along with their leaders if they did not agree with the situation. As a result, 107 workers went 

along with them. Upon arrival to the police station, however, the 107 workers and the 8 worker 

leaders were separately detained. Moreover, the immigration officials confiscated their work 

permits, which entitled them to work in Thailand until June 2006. 

On 19 April at 2:00 pm, the workers were deported back to Burma where they did not have any 

assistance. Although they were deported, their belongings were kept in the factory in Mae Sot. In 

addition, approximately 300 other Deeta workers quit their positions and left the factory to show 

solidarity with the deported workers. After the mass quitting, only approximately 100 

undocumented workers remained in the factory. 

On 20 April, the deported workers returned across the border. They negotiated with the employer 

to go back to factory to collect their personal belongings. However, the employer would only 

allow 17 workers back into the factory to collect their belongings. On 21 April, the rest of workers 

wanted to go back to the factory to collect their personal belongings. However, the employer said 

that if they took their personal belongings from the factory, then they must sign a statement, accept 

222 


some money, and promise not to take any legal action against the factory. The workers decided 

not to go back to factory to collect their belonging and instead decided to file another complaint 

with the Labour Protection Office. 

As some of the workers returned to Burma, only around 200 workers remained in Thailand. They 

stayed in a temporary safe shelter provided by NGOs. While they were staying in the shelter, they 

were threatened by people on motorcycles who drove around the temple and yelled at them. A 

group of authorities led by the Mae Sot district officer and local police came to the shelter and 

threatened to arrest the workers. The authorities asked them to accept money from the factory and 

then return to Burma. The workers were told that it was no use for them to complain to the Labour 

Protection Officer because the officers there were supposedly corrupt. Despite their initial threats, 

the district officer and police left without making any arrests. 

At the same time, MAP Foundation sent a letter to the National Human Rights Commission of 

Thailand requesting them to investigate the situation and cooperate with relevant authorities to 

provide security protection for workers. MAP sent another letter to the Human Rights Committee of 

the Lawyers’Council of Thailand to request legal assistance for this case. Workers planned to 

complain to the Labor Protection Office for back wages, and also to file a civil suit against the 

employer, police and immigration officers who illegal arrested and deported them back to Burma. 

In May, an officer from the Mae Sot Labour Protection Office took the workers to the factory to 

collect their personal belongings. 

Then, on 4 August, the Mae Sot Labour Protection officer told workers that they did not have the 

right to collect back wages from their employer because they signed a statement when they began 

working in the factory agreeing to receive low wages. But women workers had already informed 

the officer that they were forced to sign-the employer threatened to dismiss them if they did not 

sign the agreement. 

There are many observations that we can make from this case. MAP sent out information about this 

case to many different human rights and workers’rights outlets, and included information about 

the brand name clothing, notably including K-Mart, being produced in this factory. However, the 

women workers have not heard from-let alone been supported by the corporations. This is 

surprising given that K-Mart views itself as a leader in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility. I 

want to ask the question-what does Corporate Social Responsibility mean Are the K-Mart 

executives waiting in their U.S. offices for Burmese women workers to come to them to demand 

their rights and compensation These women workers do not even have a passport from the 

Burmese government-so they cannot go to the U.S. to lodge a complaint. The Thai government 

will not allow them to form a trade union, because they don’t have Thai nationality. This means 

that the women workers cannot be supported by the ILO, because they do not have the status of 

being in a trade union. When questioned about why K-Mart has not taken action regarding this 


case, even once they learned about the violations in a factory where workers were subcontracted 

to produce for them, a K-Mart representative cited the difficulty of taking action. They asked for 

additional information about the case even though we had already provided it for them. What are 

they waiting for It seems as though one important element of Corporate Social Responsibility 

should be to recognize the difficulty workers face in contacting them directly-and to take proactive 

action to protect subcontracted workers. 

It is my suggestion that when we discuss the supply chain, transparency is the key. For example, 

the Workers’Rights Consortium was the first to publish information about their factory suppliers, 

and now Nike, Reebok, Puma and Levis have followed suit. This is important because knowing the 

names and addresses of the primary suppliers is the first step. Otherwise how can outsiders such as 

NGOs ever have a chance to check how the brands are doing with regards to the rights of workers, 

migrant and local The same need applies to the supplier’s supplier. This information about also 

be publicized. It will take more effect, but it is possible. 

The key oversight of the codes of conduct compliance is FOA, without a doubt. Not only does it 

not feature deeply when the brands are monitoring, but also many times brands move away from 

unionised factories because they become more expensive as workers are able to bargain for higher 

wages. 

Business models often go against the codes of conduct, especially with regards to pricing. For the 

last ten years, brands have demanded factories to cut prices. This makes it impossible for factories 

pay living wages to their workers. It also forces factories to relocate part of their production to 

cheaper places. This is the key reason for the attraction of Mae Sot as a site of subcontracting when 

factories in Bangkok face price cuts, they are able to save production costs by subcontracting part 

of their orders to sweatshops on the Thai-Burma border). 

Though discount brands do drag down the standard, it is not by much. Actually luxury brands do 

not pay significantly higher prices to their suppliers in comparison to discount brands. 

Mindful of the issues raised by the Deeta Garment case that I have just discussed, I want to suggest 

the following recommendations with regards to the roles of states, multilateral organizations, and 

other interested parties in mitigating the effects of TNCs on workers: 

1. The state has an important role to play. Although many people talk about the inclusion 

of civil society in the drawing up of FTAs, monitoring the environmental impact of TNCs 

and human rights etc, in many countries migrant workers are not considered part of civil 

society, and they often lack political, social and civil rights in their host countries. This 

means their input is often not taken into account as part of consulting civil society. 

Therefore a first step must be for states to recognize migrant workers as part of their civil 

society and afford them the rights to participate in civil society. 

224 


2. In addition, states must protect the rights of workers rights defenders, and must include 

migrant workers’rights defenders within this category. Most often, migrant workers’ 

rights defenders are migrant workers themselves. This means that they are vulnerable to 

particular abuses, including deliberate deportation by states who want to shut them up. 

Particular attention is needed for the case of women migrant workers rights defenders’. 

In many cases across Asia, women who work in factories and have tried to unionize 

were dismissed literally overnight-with no compensation and no remedy given to them. 

3. As regards the International Labour Organization - the ILO already recognizes migrant 

workers and the importance of their collective bargaining. However, where are the rights 

mechanism to enforce this- Because migrant workers cannot form trade unions, there is 

really no space within the ILO for them. 

4. As for other interested parties: Chatham House is looking into the legal possibilities of 

transnational enforcement, which is an important possibility. If it is not possible to take a 

case in the host country (due to bad governance, lack of political will, dangers etc), they 

are investigating whether it might be possible to bring a case in the home country of the 

TNC. Such research also needs to take into account the precarious situation of millions of 

workers in TNCs who face huge challenges in taking a case in the country in which they 

work, and who would face problems including harassment and the confiscation of 

documents. 

5. A key question which we face is how can we develop a process and legal channel for 

workers to be able to bring a case in the home country of the TNCs or multi-national 

corporations- The activities of corporations should ordinarily be governed by the state on 

whose territory they pursue their activities. However, when the territorial State is unable 

or unwilling to hold corporations in its territory accountable for violations of human 

rights, the State of incorporation, or any other State in which the corporation has a 

presence, should have the jurisdiction and the obligation to enforce human rights norms 

and codes of conduct. Therefore, a right to a remedy for human rights abuses should 

exist in both the host and home state of a corporation. 

6. Finally, in the absence of action by either the territorial State or the home State, or where 

national courts and domestic mechanisms fail to provide a remedy for corporate 

violations of human rights abuses, the existence of an international mechanism would be 

useful. A provision of the standards to be developed would allow corporations to submit 

to the jurisdiction of an international arbitration tribunal or court. An international 

mechanism should be used to enforce these universal norms regardless of where a 

corporation is headquartered. 


Conclusion: Strategies for Education and Change 

According to the ILO, “decent work”includes the following dimensions: 

employment creation 

rights at work 

social dialogue 

social protection 

Decent work is decent work is decent work -- whoever is doing it. But no work can be called 

decent when there are sectors within the workforce that do not get decent work. And no work can 

be called decent while those doing it live in indecent housing, have to eat indecent food, and 

receive indecent health care. As an exemplary instance of this, I noted earlier the experience of the 

Deeta Garment workers who were both forced to sleep on the top floor of the factory. 

Decent work for all will never be achieved without all workers joining together to achieve safe and 

good working conditions. All corporations, but particularly MNCs, aim to divide workers -- by subcontracting 

work, by making work temporary and unstable, by pitting permanent workers against 

temporary workers, and local workers against migrant workers. Migrant workers face the 

additional difficulties of having to deal with government officials who may be hostile, in their host 

countries and their own countries. How are we trying to support migrant workers in their struggle 

for decent work 

What are some of the major policy challenges 

First, respect, promote and realise fundamental principles and rights at work, namely freedom of 

association and the effective recognition of the right to organise and bargain collectively, the 

elimination of all forms of forced and/or compulsory labour, and the effective elimination of child 

labour and discrimination in respect of employment and occupations, including the promotion of 

gender equality of migrant worker. 

Second, extend social protection and increase its effectiveness, particularly for workers in informal 

economy who are in practice often not covered by labour legislation. As an example, work like 

domestic work must be protected. 

Third, support institutions and systems that strengthen labour market governance, including 

frameworks that encourage social dialogue and help resolve workplace disputes. But again, how 

can migrant workers be involved in social dialogue- Social dialogue, involving strong and 

independent workers’and employers’organizations, plays a pivotal role in increasing productivity 

and building cohesive societies. 

226 


Safe Migration -- this is the safe migration model which MAP Foundation proposes: 

SAFE MIGRATION AND FAIR WORK 

LABOUR HEALTH GOVERNANCE 

Labour rights/laws/policy HIV/AIDS Civil rights 

Workers associations Reproductive health Life skills 

Forced labour Access to health Migration policy, MOUs 

Labour inspectors Violence Access to services 

Women workers Women’s health More services 

Access to legal recourse Forced migration ←Occupational health and safety→ 

Drop-in centres 

/ Community spaces 

←Sanitation→ 

Women’s rights 

Workers need to be multi-workers, in other words, to be able to move like the corporations with safety. 

How are migrant workers calling for decent work and safe migration 

Migrant and refugee women from Burma who have been forced to migrate out of their country call 

on the international community to recognize the root causes of their migration, to strongly 

denounce the policies of the SPDC which deliberately cause forced migration. 

Migrant and refugee women from Burma call on the ILO to make public the situation of forced 

labour in Burma and sanction the SPDC for its systematic use of forced labour. 

Migrant and refugee women from Burma call on the international community to stop collaborating 

with the SPDC on anti-trafficking projects while the regime still contributes to forced migration and 

forced labour. 

Migrant women from Burma, ask for their rights as workers to be respected and for the Royal Thai 

government to ensure that the labour laws are properly enforced to protect them in their work 

places. 

Migrants and refugee women from Burma ask for their rights as refugees to be respected and for 

the Royal Thai Government to grant them permission to work and travel with documents in 

Thailand. 

Forced migration, forced labour and trafficking are inter-connected and they therefore call on the 

UNCHR to take the lead in firmly addressing these human rights violations as a package and in a 

holistic manner for the survival and dignity of the people of Burma. 


Supporting migrant human rights defenders 

Who are they They are migrant workers themselves and other people working to defend the 

human rights of migrant workers. In addition, migrant human right defenders need space for 

networking to strength in numbers of solidarity. They need support to link migrant workers’ 

movements to workers’movements. They need to be supported in working together to improve 

the status of migrant workers under labour law and to create mechanisms which ensure migrant 

workers have the right to legal protection and access to justice. 

We need to put pro-active strategies in places. We can no longer wait for people to be arrested, 

abused, disappeared, and ridiculed before we take action. We need to prevent these things from 

happening in the first place. In order to do this, we need to build the collective capacity and action 

among migrant workers; provide enabling environments to empower migrant worker to defend 

their rights. In short, we need to work to make sure that when migrant workers get together, they 

have the right to organize and unionize. 

What obstacles are they facing How can migrant worker defend their rights collectively In most 

countries in Asia, migrant workers, especially women workers, are denied the right to form unions. 

Much of the work they do is not even recognized by labour laws - such as domestic work, sex 

work, and homework. 

Appendix 

At the ASEAN level we have a proposal to formulate an ASEAN Social Charter. This was the subject 

of three consultations involving national, regional and global trade union leaders supported by 

academics, think-tanks and government representatives from the ASEAN region.- These meetings 

discussed the impacts of globalization and regional trade agreements including the ASEAN Free 

Trade Area (AFTA) on workers. 

A consensus emerged among ASEAN trade union and civil society leaders that workers in the 

region were being confronted with a social and economic ‘race to the bottom’, a phenomenon 

that has serious implications for wages, job security, decent work and social protection.- It is 

evident that an industrial policy anchored on low wages, creates a downward wage spiral and a 

permanent job loss in the ASEAN region. 

The ASEAN Social Charter requires ASEAN member nations to respect, ratify and promote the ILO’ 

s Core Labour Standards1 as a minimum requirement. The ASEAN Social Charter further calls on 

all development oriented governments, socially responsible employers, trade unions and civil 

society organizations to respect, realize and promote: 

Core ILO Labour Standards; 

Employment Stability; 

Health and Safety; 

Wages and Salaries for a Just Living; 

228 


Social Security; 

Human Resource Development 

(Sources www.asean-socialcharter.net) 

The goals of MAP Foundation’s work in Thailand: 

We work towards a vision of the future where people from Burma will have the right to stay and 

the right to migrate, where migration will be facilitated by formal agreements and with support 

from trade unions, NGOs and GOs and where migrant workers rights will be respected. 

Our overall objectives are the following: 

1. For policies on migrant workers to be formulated and implemented from a human rights 

and labour rights perspective 

2. To facilitate local migrant worker communities to identify and respond to challenges 

3. To increase understanding of migrant workers situation in the host country and to reduce 

discrimination 

One of MAP’s focuses is promoting physical, social and emotional well-being in migrant 

communities. Teams of outreach workers visit migrant workers at their work-places or at gathering 

areas to provide health education, distribute materials on health, life-skills and other issues in the 

languages of the migrants (Shan, Karen, Burmese, and Lahu). MAP particularly focuses on 

HIV/AIDS, women’s health, family planning, malaria and TB. In each area, MAP works with the 

local health services to facilitate interpretation services. 

Migrant workers set up community resource centres according to their needs in each area. These 

resource centres include libraries, literacy classes, and basic education for children of migrants, 

training rooms and special activities. They are spaces where migrant workers can relax, learn, 

share with their community and have fun. 

During periods of registration for migrants, MAP runs a “Migrant-line”which migrants can call for 

information and clarification on the procedure to register. 

The emphases of Community Health and Education Project are as follows: 

a) Health and Education Radio 

b) Occupational Health and Safety 

c) Community Resource Center 

d) Emergency Care 

e) Youth and Children 

f) Outreach 

MAP supports migrant workers in addressing violations of their rights, whether it be exploitation at 


work or sexual violence. Migrant women come together as women, in monthly meetings called 

“Women Exchange”and migrant men and women come together as workers in meetings called 

“Labour Exchange”to share their experiences, skills and find ways to tackle the challenges they 

face. 

Through the Women Exchange meetings women have devised a set of 10-step guidelines for what 

to do in cases of sexual or physical violence. The guideline is called ARM, Automatic Response 

Mechanism and provides suggestions of how to support women who have been abused and how 

to access health and legal services (The ARM in 5 languages is available on our website, http:// 

www.mapfoundationcm.org) 

Finally, migrant workers have tried to use collective bargaining and where that fails, they use legal 

mechanisms to seek recourse in cases of labour exploitation. Workers have taken their cases to 

Labour Protection Offices and to the Labour Court in Thailand. MAP informs migrants about the 

Thai legal system and mechanisms and coordinates with the Lawyer’s Council of Thailand to 

provide legal representation. 

More information please visit www.mapfoundationcm.org 

230 



I. Programme 

II. Opening, Welcoming and Congratulatory Remarks 

III. Congratulatory Message from Director-General, UNESCO 

IV. Results of Round Table Discussions 

V. Participants’list 

ANNEX

I. Programme 

9:30 - 10:00 Registration 

10:00 - 11:00 Opening Ceremony 

Day 1. Wednesday, 25 October 2006 

Opening Remarks 

Mr. Dai-Geun Kang 

(Director, APCEIU) 

Welcoming Speech 

Mr. Lee, Byong-Hyun 

(Director General, International Education and IT Bureau, Ministry of Education and Human Resources 

Development, Korea) 

Congratulatory Remarks 

Mr. Koichiro Matsuura (Congratulatory Message) 

(Director-General, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris ) 

Ms. Young-Ae Choi 

(Acting President, National Human Rights Commission, Korea) 

Dr. Samuel Lee 

(Secretary-General, Korean National Commission for UNESCO, Korea) 

Cultural Performance 

Haegeum-Guitar Duo, “Sea of Cloud” 

Ms. Eun-Il Kang (Haegeum) & Mr. Kwang-Suk Kim (Guitar) 

11:00 - 11:20 Break 

11:20-11:50 Keynote Speech 

“Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education: Where we are now and where we are heading for” 

Dr. Hugh Starkey (Course Leader for MA Citizenship/History Education by Distance Learning, University of London, 

UK) 

11:50 - 12:00 Group Photo 

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch 

14:00 - 15:00 Plenary Session I: Intercultural Education towards a Culture of Peace 

15:00-15:20 Discussion 

Session Facilitator: Dr. Seung-mi Lee (Chief, Research and Development Team, APCEIU, Korea) 

Theme Speech 

“UNESCO Guidelines on Intercultural Education” 

Dr. Liam Gearon (Professor, Roehampton University, United Kingdom) 

Panelists 

“Transcultural Approaches in Peace Education: A European Experience” 

Dr. Werner Wintersteiner (Professor and Teacher Trainer, Institute for German, Klagenfurt University, Austria) 

“Education for Peace: Illusion or Essential Investment in the Future of Humanity” 

Mr. Georges Tsai (Vice Rector and Secretary of the Council, University for Peace, Costa Rica) 


15:20 -15:40 Break 

15:40-16:20 Special Session : Human Rights Education through the Arts 

“Arts Approaches to Peace Building and Conflict Transformation” 

Mr. Babu Ayindo (Coordinator, Ubuntu Arts, Kenya) 

16:20-17:20 Open Forum 

19:00 Banquet 

Session I 

“Understanding the Activities under the UNESCO’s Streamline 

Moderator: Mr. Doo-Yong Chung, President, Korean Society of EIU 

Presentations: 

1. Intercultural Understanding in the Perspective of EIU 

Dr. Sook-Hee Kwak, Chief, Education and Training Team, APCEIU 

Session II 

The Endeavors to Advocate the Human Rights and Peace 

Moderator: Ms. Ji-Hyang Lee, Programme Officer, APCEIU 


1. Introduction and Activities of KOCUN 

Ms. Giyeon Kim, Executive Director, Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights Policy 

2. Transformative Peace Education 

Ms. Cheryl Woelk, Education Coordinator & Ms. Lauren Sauer, Peace Program Associate, Korea Anabaptist Center 

Session III 

Intercultural Understanding and a Culture of Peace 

Moderator: Dr. Seung-Mi Lee, Chief of R&D Team, APCEIU 


1. Intercultural Understanding and Peace Education-An Oriental Approach 

: Dr. Durgadas Mukhopadhyay, Professorial Fellow, Korea Foundation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 

2. Developing the concept of Peace and Harmony of the Student Teachers through Interactive Activities 

: Mr. Shirley Patrick Nayananda JAYAMAHA, Technical Advisor 2nd National Language & Unit Coordinator, 

National Institute of Education Unit 

3. Learners in Transition: Education and Identity Formation of North Korean Refugees 

: Ms. Candice Kay Lee, D. Phil Candidate, University of Oxford, 

Day 2. Thursday, 26 October 2006 


9:30 - 10:50 Plenary Session II : Human Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education 

Session Facilitator: Dr. Hee-Soo Lee (Professor, Hanyang University, Korea) 

Theme Speech 

“Education for Interfaith Dialogue in the Context of Human Rights: A Multicultural Perspective°” 

Dr. Toh Swee-Hin (Director, Muti-Faith Centre, Griffith University, Australia) 

Panelists 

“Islam and Human Rights: At a Crossroads” 

Dr. Ichsan Malik (Professor, School of Psychology, University of Indonesia, Indonesia ) 

234 


“Human rights and Buddhist Culture” 

Dr. Aasulv Lande (Professor, Center for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University, Sweden) 

10:50 - 11:10 Discussion 

11:10 - 11:30 Break 

“Between Tolerance and Dissent: Religious, Citizenship and Human Rights Education” 

Dr. Liam Gearon (Professor, Roehampton University, United Kingdom) 

11:30 - 12:30 Round Table Discussion I 

12:30 -14:00 Lunch 

Taking Action: Guidelines on Education for Promoting Human Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education 

Group 1 

How to actively promote human rights sensitive intercultural education in school 

Group 2 

How to strengthen the national policy of government to promote human rights sensitive intercultural education 

Group 3 

How to reinforce the role of civil society in implementing programmes for human rights sensitive intercultural 

education 

14:00 - 15:20 Plenary Session III : Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education 

Session Facilitator: Ms. Young hee Na (Director General, National Human Rights Commission of Korea) 

Theme Speech 


15:50 -16:00 Break 

“Ethnicity and Race in a Multi-cultural Society in the Context of Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education” 

Ms. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer (Co-director, University of Minnesota Human Rights Centre, USA) 

Panelists 

“Human Rights Education and Practices in Korea” 

Dr. Young-Sun Chung (Director, Human Rights Research Team, National Human Rights Commission of Korea) 

“Minorities and Indigenous Cultures in a Multi-cultural Society” 

Dr. Kenneth Sumbuk (Executive Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences ,University of Papua New 

Guinea, PNG) 

16:00 - 17:00 Round Table Discussion II 

Taking Action: Guidelines on Education for Promoting Culture Sensitive Human Rights Education 

Group 1 

How to actively promote culture sensitive human rights education in school 

Group 2 

How to strengthen the national policy of government to promote culture sensitive human rights education 


17:00 Free time 

Group 3 

How to reinforce the role of civil society in implementing programmes for culture sensitive human rights 

education 


Day 3. Friday, 27 October 2006 

9:30 - 10:50 Plenary Session IV : Migration via Globalization: Challenges to Human Rights Defenders 

Session Facilitator: Dr. Sook-hee Kwak (Chief , Education and Training Team, APCEIU, Korea) 

Theme Speech 


11:10 - 11:30 Break 

“Globalization and International Labour Migration: the Case for a Rights-Based Approach” 

Dr. Piyasiri Wickramasekara (Senior Specialist, International Labour Office, Geneva) 

Panelists 

“Women migrant workers” 

Dr. Chin-Sung Chung (Professor, College of Sociology, Seoul National University, Korea ) 

“Social and cultural integration” 

Mr. William Gois (Regional Coordinator, Migrant Forum in Asia, Philippines) 

“How Multinational Corporations affect migrant workers” 

Ms. Pranom Somwong (Coordinator, Migrant Assistance Programme Foundation, Thailand) 

11:30 - 12:30 Round Table Discussion II 

12:30 -14:00 Lunch 

Taking Action: Guidelines on Education in Response to Migration Issues 

Group 1 

How can the school facilitate the awareness about migration 

Group 2 

How can the government educational policy be responsive to the needs of the migrant workers and internally 

displaced people 

Group 3 

How to reinforce the role of civil society in their advocacy for migrant workers and internally displaced 

people 

14: 00 - 15:00 Plenary Session V : 

15:00 - 15:30 Closing Ceremony 

Rethinking Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education towards a Culture of Peace 

236 


II. Opening, Welcoming and Congratulatory Remarks 

Opening remarks 

Opening remarks 

Mr. Dai-Geun KANG, Director 


Dr. Hugh STARKEY, Course Leader for MA Citizenship Education by Distance Learning at 

the University of London, 

Mr. Byong-Hyun LEE, Director General of International Education & IT Bureau, Ministry of 

Education & Human Resources Development, 

Ms. Young-Ae CHOI, Acting President of National Human Rights Commission, Korea 

Dr. Chin-Sung Chung, Coordinator, Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights Policy. 

Dr. Kwon Tai-Joon, Chairperson of APCEIU Advisory Committee 

Dr. Samuel LEE, Secretary-General of Korean National Commission for UNESCO, 

Ms. Susan PASCOE, Chairperson of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, 

Mr. Norov URTNASAN, Secretary General of the Mongolian National Commission for 

UNESCO, 

Distinguished guests from embassies and civil organizations, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

The world is changing rapidly. Changes in the human history have been paralleled with crisis and 

challenges. The globalizations of population, culture, market economy, terrorism, and 


environmental problems become major challenges of the 21st century for the peaceful and 

prosperous future of the human kind. Just recently, because of nuclear test by the North Korea, 

tensions erupt in the Korean peninsula and the peace and security of the region is facing another 

challenge. Even though those challenges are enormous and it is deplorable to see peoples still 

living in the culture of fear, terror, and war, we can not stop our efforts to promote a Culture of 

Peace for the next generation to come. 

Today I take the pleasure and dare to open the 6th International Symposium on a Culture of Peace 

under the theme of Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education in the Ear of 

Globalization. This event will not be made possible without our sponsors, the National Human 

Rights Commission of Korea and Asiana airlines, and the cooperation of Korea Center for United 

Nations Human Rights Policy. 

My warmest gratitude should go to renowned experts and participants in the field of intercultural 

understanding and human rights education traveled from different parts of the world Australia, 

Austria, China, Costa Rica, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, 

Philippines, United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and USA including Korea, 

taking the time and joining us to share their expertise and experiences. With the speakers’ 

invaluable experience in cultural education and human rights education at the personal, 

community and global level, there is no doubt that we will have a truly rich exchange of insights 

and experiences. 

Ladies and gentlemen, 

For the past five years, Asia Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEIU) 

has been holding International Symposiums on a Culture of Peace. For this year, the theme was 

selected in line with the UN World Programme of Human Rights Education (2005-2014), 

Declaration and Programme of Action for a Culture of Peace related to the International Decade for 

the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010), UNESCO 

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity(2001), and, of course, based on the Recommendation 

Concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education 

Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974) and the Integrated Framework of 

Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy(1995). 

The theme of this symposium is imperative as the dawning of the new millennium is characterized 

by the globalization of cultures and exodus of migration. Multiculturalism becomes inevitable 

concerns as the world now becomes culturally “borderless.”The unstoppable feature of 

multiculturalism around the globe calls for an increasing awareness of an multicultural education 

that promotes cross-cultural awareness through intercultural understanding. 

238 


Here in Korea, the influx of people from different countries is unavoidable. The rise in number of 

mixed marriages and migrant workers changes the nation’s demographics. Now, there is the 

pressing need to formulate an institutional framework that would allow for diversity and tolerance 

in order to eliminate unfair practices and discrimination among peoples with different cultures. We 

should act now to make a society in which cultural differences are not only tolerated but respected 

and all peoples live together in peace and harmony. 

We need to cultivate and put into practice the values and attitudes that enable the peoples of 

diverse races, cultures and religions to live together in justice and peace. APCEIU would like to 

contribute by formulating educational guidelines for intercultural understanding and human rights 

education. 

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage participants to take the floor during the 

round table discussion and share views and experiences with us. Your inputs and contributions 

will bring us to our goal through the output of this symposium, which is the educational guidelines 

on intercultural understanding and human rights. 

Through this symposium, I hope APCEIU can reaffirm its commitment to promulgate Education for 

International Understanding. I sincerely hope that this event could find meanings in our dedicated 

efforts to promote a Culture of Peace not only in the Asia Pacific region but in the world. 

I thank you very much again for your participation and wish all foreign participants have a 

wonderful stay and make a good memory in Korea. 


Welcome speech 

Welcome Speech 

Mr. LEE, Byong-Hyun, Director General 

International Education & IT Bureau 

Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development 

Dr. Hugh STARKEY, Course Leader for MA Citizenship Education by Distance Learning at 

the University of London, 

Ms. Susan PASCOE, Chairperson of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO, 

Mr. Norov URTNASAN, Secretary General of the Mongolian National Commission for 

UNESCO, 

Distinguished speakers and guests, ladies and gentlemen, 

On behalf of the Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, I extend a 

very warm welcome to all distinguished participants at the 6th International Symposium on a 

Culture of Peace in Seoul, organized by the Asia Pacific Centre of Education for International 

Understanding. 

I was impressed by the strong line-up of speakers who have traveled far from different parts of the 

world to share their expertise with us today. Given the multicultural background of the 

participants, I believe that we will be able to achieve many far-reaching outcomes at this year’s 

gathering. 

Over the three-day symposium, we will be exchanging inter-regional experiences in order to 

identify effective strategies to promote Education for Intercultural Understanding. Through lively 

discussions, I look forward to formulating viable education guidelines that will help strengthen 

human rights sensitive intercultural education. The results will provide great assistance to the 

education sector, civil society, and also policymakers. 

Considering the era’s rapid growth of multiculturalism and migration, this year’s symposium 

theme is highly relevant and well timed. Intercultural understanding and human rights education 

constitutes vital tools for conflict prevention and peace building. As you will agree, what we are 

240 


trying to develop is not just a set of principles. It is about basic attitudes and behavior towards one 

another. It is about taking strong steps towards peaceful societal transformation. 

This mandate of peace and human rights advancement has been steadily implemented since 1999, 

thanks to the establishment of the Asia Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding. 

This was the first international organization of its kind to be founded in Korea, following the 

resolution of the 30th UNESCO General Conference. Over the past six years, the Centre has 

spearheaded valuable initiatives to bring sustainable development to the Asia-Pacific region. 

I take this opportunity to convey my appreciation for the Centre’s devoted endeavors, and hope to 

see even more achievements in the years to come. I especially look forward to a stronger tie with 

all member states of UNESCO in bringing success to the Centre. 

Once again, I deliver my deep gratitude for all present today, especially the international 

participants who have joined us in celebration of this significant juncture. I seek your continued 

encouragement and support for future activities of the Centre. 

Thank you very much. 




Dr. Samuel Lee, Secretary-General 

Korean National Commission for UNESCO 

Dr. Shin-Il Kim, Deputy Prime Minister of Education and Human Resources, 

Mr. Dai-Geun Kang, Director of the Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International 

Understanding, 

Ms. Young-Ae Choi, Acting President of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, 

Distinguished participants, 

Ladies and gentlemen, 

Education for a Culture of Peace has been a core purpose of UNESCO’s educational activities, 

since its inception 60 years ago. And it continues to be UNESCO’s most important educational 

mission in the 21st century. I would like to express my heartfelt congratulations to APCEIU on its 

endeavors to develop a deeper understanding, and to facilitate the sharing of expertise on 

education for a Culture of Peace in this region of the world. I take particular pleasure in joining this 

symposium, which has gathered many internationally renowned experts in the fields of education 

for intercultural understanding, and human rights. 

“Learning to live together,”is one of the four pillars in education for the 21st century that was 

proposed in the Jacques Delors Report. However this idea needs to be incorporated into the 

current context of a globalized world, which is characterized by the diversity of multi-cultural 

societies. Korea is no exception to this trend. Korean society is starting to become more 

multicultural due to the number of immigrants, such as migrant workers. And due to an increase in 

international marriages. This makes the need for understanding diverse cultural values, and 

beliefs, more urgent, as a previously homogeneous Korean society endeavors to grow and 

change. This need for understanding can be met through education. APCEIU has a key role to play 

as a focal point for education for international understanding in Asia and the Pacific region, by 

facilitating cooperation amongst educational organizations, and developing educational materials 

for a Culture of Peace. 

242 


One of the most pressing issues we are facing today regarding intercultural understanding and 

dialogue amongst civilizations is the conflict between cultural relativism and universal values. In 

particular, how can human rights, as a core set of universal values, be realized in different cultures 

The answer to this question must be explored in order to promote world peace and development, 

and to realize the dignified coexistence of all peoples. The recent riots in France remind us of the 

frustration felt by marginalized groups of migrant workers, and how lack of attention to integration 

can be an obstruction to world peace. Education for intercultural understanding must stand side by 

side human rights education to address these pressing issues. 

Once again I would like to express my sincere congratulations on the opening of this important 

symposium, and wish the event every success as a cornerstone for promoting a Culture of Peace. 

Thank you. 


III. Congratulatory Message from Director-General, UNESCO 

Message from Mr. Koïchiro Matsuura, 

Director-General of UNESCO on the occasion of the opening 

of the International Symposium on a Culture of Peace 

"Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education 

in the Era of Globalization" 

Seoul, Republic of Korea, 25-27 October 2006 

I am delighted to address you here today on this auspicious occasion.For six years now, the Asia- 

Pacific Centre of Education for International Understanding (APCEUI) has gathered together 

experts and stakeholders to exchange experiences in support of a culture of peace. UNESCO is 

proud to collaborate once again with the Centre, and with the Government of Korea, in holding 

this year's special symposium. The theme of the coming days' debate - "intercultural understanding 

and human rights education in the era of globalization" - resonates strongly with UNESCO's 

concerns and mandate. 

I would like to welcome the speakers and participants who have come from near and far to join 

this important debate. Your presence will further bolster international efforts to strengthen 

intercultural understanding and respect for human rights throughout the world. 

Let me also congratulate the Centre - its Director, chiefs and staff - for their hard work and 

commitment. You have all contributed to making the APCEUI the international seat of excellence 

that it is today. 

Since its inception, the Centre has devoted itself to promoting a culture of peace and to building 

the capacities of UNESCO Member States in education for international understanding. It has done 

so through organizing symposia and conferences, through training teachers, administrators and 

other education professionals from the Asia-Pacific region, through publishing educational 

materials, and through strengthening networks between educators, experts, civil leaders and other 

stakeholders. 

The subject of this year's symposium is of crucial importance in our present era of globalization. In 

today's increasingly multicultural societies, it is imperative that schools and other learning 

environments act as forces for integration and dialogue. Quality education has a fundamental role 

to play in eliminating cultural stereotypes, in promoting tolerance and social cohesion, and in 

244 


fostering intercultural understanding and respect for human rights. 

UNESCO is deeply committed to these objectives, and has developed considerable expertise in 

such critical areas as curriculum reform and adaptation, multilingualism, and the development of 

national book policies. UNESCO has also drafted guidelines on intercultural education, which will 

be presented here this week as part of the symposium's initiative to formulate a comprehensive set 

of guidelines promoting intercultural understanding and human rights. 

I wish you every success in your work. The Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for International 

Understanding stands at the forefront of efforts to promote a culture of peace in the region. Let me 

assure you that UNESCO strongly supports, and will continue to support, the Centre in this noble 

endeavour. 

Koïchiro Matsuura 


Round Table Discussion 1: 

Guidelines on Education for Promoting Human Rights Sensitive 

Intercultural Education 

Group 1. How to actively promote human rights sensitive intercultural education in school 

Moderator : Lee Hee-Soo 

Rapporteur : In-Hae Choi 

Participants : M.H.F Maheeza, Tak-joon Jung, M.S.Pelpola, N.A.U.C. Munasinghe, K.G. Ajith 

Rupalena, P.A. Dayawathie, Ge Siying, A.L.A. Rasool, Supranee Khamywy, Sirikarn 

Taweekeaw, Ichsan Malik, Wan Raisuha Wan Ali, Samuel Lee 

The discussion was carried out in the following processes: first, specific cases of each 

country were presented: second, participants found similarities and differences amongst 

themselves: finally, a suggestion to promote human rights sensitive intercultural education 

in schools was drawn. The participants represented countries such as Indonesia, Sri Lanka, 

Malaysia, Taiwan, China and Australia. 

Current Situation 

The discussion commenced with each participant briefly introducing his/her nation’s 

educational system and the current level of intercultural education. 

Sri Lanka’s educational system encompasses integration of every subject into religion or 

culture, from primary to secondary schools. In terms of language, they have Singhali and 

Tamil cultures. This division applies to intercultural education in Sri Lanka. In another 

perspective, they mainly have religious separation into Muslim, Buddhism in their 

education. It is a “national”curriculum in broad medium whose subjects are all interrelated. 

It is significant to not only gain the knowledge of each country’s cultures but also 

let students experience. 

Malaysia has three educational systems: public schools, Chinese private schools, and Tamil 

private school. The difference is in the curriculum; the public schools employ a curriculum 

organized by Malaysia’s Ministry of Education, while private schools design and teach their 

own curriculum. Being an open nation to diverse cultures and values, Malaysia backs up 

private schools equally, therefore considered a semi-government organization. 

246 


Indonesia’s education has two main objectives: first, bringing “real”values and principles 

and second, harmonizing Muslim and Christian. Indonesia suffers from occasional societal 

conflicts due to the existence of diverse religions and beliefs. To conquer the hostility 

amongst people and to harmonize its citizens, Indonesia is careful to emphasize value and 

moral education and not only literal or symbolic values. 

In China, respect for the others is integrated into the curriculum, taught throughout primary 

and secondary schools. In the case of language class, Chinese and English are mandatory 

and minority ethnic groups are allowed to be taught their own languages. Especially 

Southwest region of China is diversified in ethnicity. Schools from this area have trained 

teachers with each of the ethnicity’s languages. Although schools do not teach about 

religion, they provide moral education through which students learn to respect other 

cultures. 

Taiwan has eight core subjects. Even though no major subject is directly linked with the 

topic of human rights, English is mandatorily taught in primary schools, which shows that 

Taiwan is also a country promoting harmony between different religions and cultures. 

Australia has multi-cultures in their country. Accordingly, they have Catholic schools, 

independent Christian schools and so forth. In terms of education, it promotes respect for 

women and other cultures. Participation in worship places is open to everyone to show that 

Australia is a liberalized country to accept different religions and cultures. 

Despite minor differences, most national educational systems of the discussed countries 

were similarly open and accepting to different cultures. Several Asian countries, such as 

Indonesia and Sri Lanka, consist of various religious/ethnic schools. They have curriculums 

to teach students to respect each other’s different cultures such as religions and languages. 

Nations were putting the best efforts into developing intercultural education; however, the 

initial aim was often tainted in the process of application. Since the necessity of human 

rights sensitive intercultural education was already established, the need for the focus shift 

to developing a system which concentrates on methodologies and detailed curricula readily 

applicable in schools was recognized. 

Role of Formal Education 

The school teachers should realize the important role they play since they are the ones who 

educate the students on how to view diversity and differences found in various cultures. 

Furthermore, there’s a growing need for the national educational system to progress even 


further from teaching mere facts and strive to draw understanding, acceptance and 

eventually harmony amongst different subcultures existing within a society, and cultures 

worldwide. 

Recommendations for Further Action 

Specific suggestions are as follows: Teachers should encourage students to join in 

experience program to learn how the marginalized people become victims to the human 

rights violation and how they struggle and finally overcome these circumstances. Next, 

religious groups must join in; formal education should continually encourage religious 

groups to communicate with the national government and participate by becoming 

involved in the formal curriculum, hence join hands together in strengthening the 

intercultural education. 

Lastly, teaching ‘acceptance and tolerance’is the key in building human rights sensitive 

intercultural education. Inter-religion talks are advised to engage everyone regardless of 

personal religious backgrounds. Education should carry the message that no religion is 

superior over the others and only differences exist. There should be no ‘right’and 

‘wrong’. Specific model cases of education of cultural (religious) tolerance are as follows: 

in Indonesia, religious diversity is successfully harmonized without scarring the personal 

uniqueness or the right of choice. Instances such as a Muslim teacher teaching at Christian 

schools and Muslim students participating in Christian services are not rare. In Istanbul, 

Jewish students join in Ramadan with their Muslim friends, instead of resorting to a conflict. 

248 


Group 2. How to strengthen the national policy of government to promote the human rights 

sensitive intercultural education 

Moderator : Aasulv Lande 

Rapporteur : Jihong Kim 

Participants : Akiko Ito, Hugh Starkey, Susan Pascoe, Suhana MD. Saleh, Norov Urtnasan, Shirley 

Jayamaha, S. Muralitharan, D.D.Nandasiri, Mariko Katsura, Jinsung Jeon, Seo Eunsung, 

Liam Gearon, Michele Milner, Werner Wintersteiner, William Gois, Park 

Juyeon, Young-jae Lee, Samuel Lee, Kristi Rudelius Palmer 

The discussion was preceded in the following order: first, the definition of sensitive 

intercultural education was discussed: then, the discussion of government’s past 

accomplishments regarding the issue: finally, methods to strengthen government policies to 

promote “human rights sensitive intercultural education”was discussed. 

Definition of Human Rights Sensitive Intercultural Education 

Before starting the discussion, the participants saw it necessary to clearly define the term, 

“human rights sensitive intercultural education”, and discuss its role. As anticipated, 

different definitions were given, as diverse were the language, culture and nationality of the 

participants. One participant said it is basically a religious education, while another 

participant accentuated on the importance to separate intercultural education from interfaith 

education. The notion of “intercultural citizens within multicultural state”under the concept 

of democracy was linked to “human rights sensitive intercultural education”. 

Lastly, intercultural education was said to encompass not only the religion of the majority 

but also the minority groups. “Human rights sensitive intercultural education”should be a 

method which the disadvantageous group of the society, such as disabled, can utilize to 

become assimilated and become one with the mainstream. 

The French Education System exemplifies the concept of education acting as a means to 

bring citizens together as global-citizens and assist building stronger and more unified 

nation. Even though it might seem contradictory, a national education system includes 

intercultural education in it. 

Korea is experiencing growing demands for the education-for-globalized-citizens, but at the 

same time the education to conceptualize and instill healthy national identity. Other 

participants agreed that “human rights sensitive intercultural education”should include not 

only learning about the others, but also learning about one’s own national, racial, and 


cultural identity. 

Participants discussed the origins of the construction of national identity and how it was 

conceived originally. The concept of nation state is in transition, from the traditional to the 

modern concept, more open to intercultural and multiculturalism, hence more acceptable 

in tackling these issues. The national identity should not necessarily be stigmatized with 

intercultural issues. The concept varies with who defined national culture. The case for UK 

on the recognition of multiculturalism was discussed. In Canada, multiculturalism is already 

well structured into the society, it is natural for the national identity to embed 

multiculturalism 


Discussions on specific cases in each countries and the national government’s stance on 

the issue followed. 

Korean education system is homogenous and contains the problem of racial discrimination. 

Korean government’s main policy on intercultural education is the establishment of 

alternative schools. The problem is that these guardian schools are not legitimately 

recognized educational institutions; therefore the graduates of such schools do not acquire 

a qualified certificate to prove their attendance. Furthermore, public education in Korea is 

not favorable to multiculturalism. 

Sri Lanka is witnessing a formation of a completely new culture of private education and 

has attempted to establish mixed schools. In Australia, as well as in Canada, nongovernmental 

schools are prominent. Mongolia is experiencing a hardship in considering 

for minority since the number is just small. Singapore is a country which is unwilling to 

discuss intercultural issues in schools to avoid conflicts. Malaysian government policies are 

more focused on integration and tolerance as the country was established under 

multiculturalism. Malaysian government does not enforce faith in education and purely 

focuses on the integration of races. With the experience of 1969 riots, the aim of the 

government is to focus more on integration and acceptance creating the balance. In 

addition, expert groups need to be appointed in handling these issues. 

In Germany and the countries of European Union, national identity is a much more 

complex problem, and the prejudice on minorities is always present in the society. UK’s 

faith schools are attempting to focus on integration of multi-faith all new faith schools are 

required to include 25% students from other faiths that this movement is providing a good 

example. 

250 



In preparation for the multicultural society, the government should first enact Antidiscrimination 

legislation, second, support minorities in education, and lastly, embed 

multicultural ideas in the national curriculum. 

The government should keep in mind other interest groups, such as international institutes, 

and teachers’union. International institutions often set out to influence the individual 

countries in policies, however these legislative initiatives can be a problem, removing the 

ambiguity. The teachers’union influences to raise the awareness of multicultural society 

which then influences the wider media and thus avoid racial stereotypes. 

The most important is to discuss the issue and face the challenges in a careful and sensitive 

manner, rather than refusing to talk at all. Expertise, which “the 2005 Guidelines in 

Preserving Teachers’Training”published by APCEIU clearly explains, is needed in 

effectively teaching controversial issues. Also, people at the decision making level should 

be aware of intercultural education in order to maximize the opportunity for teachers to 

pursue it. 


Group 3. How to reinforce the role of civil society in implementing activities / programme for 

human rights sensitive intercultural education 

Moderator : Jae Young Lee 

Rapporteur : Kah-Ul Kim 

Participants : Babu Ayindo, Tong Hyun Lee, Jiin Lee, Taikwhi Lee, Jeongsoo Jeong, Pranom 

Somwong, Seon-ok Lee, Bhaskaran Nair, Jimin Gu, You Ra Park, Kevin Leeder 

The discussion was carried out in three separate sub-groups: four to five participants with 

one rapporteur and one mediator. Each participant’s specific experiences and examples 

from their countries were shared within the sub-group, after which the mediators from each 

of the three sub-groups presented a summary of their discussion to the rest of the group as 

a whole. This was followed by discussions of action plans to address the issues that were 

raised. 


One topic that was discussed was the lack of distinction between “multi-culturalism”and 

“assimilation”in government policy for foreigners in Korea. A Korean NGO speaker 

explained that the government has a policy of “promoting multi-cultural society”by 

funding the “integration”of migrant workers and international marriages into the Korean 

society. However, this was criticized as problematic by another participant who pointed out 

that instead of appreciating and valuing the various minority cultures brought by migrants 

and international marriages, the government’s policy is aimed at assimilating and 

“Koreanising”them into the so-called “homogeneous society”of the host country. For 

example, instead of providing aid and educational materials in the language of their origin 

and educating other Koreans about coexistence of multiple cultures in Korea, only the 

Korean version is distributed with the expectation that the foreign migrants will learn to 

adjust to them. This was contrasted with Thailand’s example, where the NGOs pressured 

the government to provide guides and educational materials in the language of the 

refugees, along with radio shows, community theatre, and women’s discussion groups and 

so on to engage the minorities in their own communities. 

Another group presented on their discussion about the general tendency to equate the 

economic prosperity of one country with the superiority of its culture. It was pointed out 

that valuing the most economically developed nations as culturally superior to theirs is 

problematic in that it creates a substantial threat on the identity and culture of people in the 

least developed countries. This leads them to down-grade and underestimate their own 

history. They also talked about the problem of religious groups that blame each other of 

252 


“de-humanizing”the “other.”Even though there may be dialogue between leaders of the 

different religious Civil Society Organizations (hereafter referred to as CSOs), there is still a 

lack of opportunity for the religious congregations to have individual-level discussion and 

dialogue with the congregations of other religion. 

In addition, It was observed that displaced people were not able to use the abstract concept 

of human rights when advocating their basic needs. For example, when refugees needed 

food, water, and housing they simply were not able to make the argument that this was a 

matter of their rights. The methods and ideas that CSOs are utilizing is often ambiguous and 

abstract so that the concept of human rights came to be a difficult terminology for ordinary 

people to comprehend. Making the concept of human rights accessible to the general 

public needs creative methods other than simply conveying information. Thailand’s 

experience of teaching refugees to critically think, make persuasive arguments and carry 

out informed discussions so that they themselves could utilize the concept of human rights 

to advocate their own was explained and discussed. 


Recommendations were as follows: CSOs must support the passing of legislations that 

enables migrants to work in NGOs as staff. The migrants could create the programs for 

themselves or their minority community. CSOs should also advocate the government 

creation of educational materials and facilities in the languages of the migrants. 

In order to combat “assimilation”and “threat to identity”, CSOs must promote unique 

cultures and values of the minorities, as well as encouraging them to appreciate their own 

history. In addition CSOs should increase the host people’s exposure to differing views of 

history, that is, there is more than one way of understanding the historical events. Because 

solidarity is needed not just among the different religious leaders, but among the 

individuals within the religious group, CSOs should advocate the increase of dialogue in 

the lower levels. 

It was also recommended that human rights education tackling this problem should focus 

on teaching the displaced people to critically think and to develop the debating skills to 

formulate their argument using the concept of human rights. Before, the commonly 

understood idea was that building and providing basic needs was the infrastructure needed 

to start talking about human rights education. However, it was suggested during the 

discussion that this does not necessarily have to take place in such order, and that 

educating people about their rights and teaching them to use it in critical thinking can help 

them attain their basic needs. 


Finally, diverse methods of education such as ones that emphasize traditional art should be 

facillitated, not only to appreciate its beauty but to use it as a channel or medium to reach 

the local people with ideas of human rights. It was also recommended that parent-and-child 

programs are explored because quite often bias about other culture is handed down from 

parent to child and it is more effective and even necessary to educate both. First-hand 

experiential learning such as field trips and associated dialogue has also been suggested. 

The CSOs in Thailand where there are many refugees and displaced people across the 

border from Burma, uses the following methods to Increase the accessibility of human 

rights education and to familiarize the concept of rights into the local people’s daily lives: 

community theatre, radio shows, and forum for domestic workers. 

254 



Guidelines on Education for Promoting Culture Sensitive Human 

Rights Education 

Group 1. How to actively promote culture sensitive human rights education in school 

Moderator : Kristi RUDELIUS-PALMER 

Rapporteur : Jung-Min Gang 

Participants : Kenneth Sumbuk, Ichsan Malik, Eung-Sook Yeon, Toh Swee-Hin, A.L.A. Rasool, P.A 

Daywathie, K.G.A. Rupaseuc, N.A. Upali C. Munasinghe, M.S.Pelpola, M.H.F. 

Maheeza, Johanna Encabo 

In the beginning, the discussion constituted mainly on how globalization and the influx of 

cultures to a formerly conservative society were affecting schools and educators. Then the 

participants suggested for more fundamental and systematical changes, as well as holistic 

approaches in schools to promote culture sensitive human rights education. 


In this globalized society where diversity is a popular topic of the conversation, students 

continue to be a victim of prejudices and remnants of traditional education such as colonial 

education, racism in teachers, and violent and discriminatory environment. To fight off this 

situation, educators worldwide are learning about multi-cultures within various ethnics and 

Pluralism is often mentioned as the solution to all the social problems. The reality is that the 

teachers are not knowledgeable about ‘culture sensitive human rights education’, which 

calls for the teacher training programs. In Asia’s hierarchical society, the imbalance of 

power between different groups on the social ladder, such as teachers and students, often 

resort to human rights violation, even though many governmental and non-governmental 

organizations and systems are present to deal with it. 


Educators can form a network through an online platform, which will serve as an arena 

where they can share information and materials, therefore creating synergy. Teachers 

themselves should be educated again about ‘culture sensitive human rights’, with more 

dynamic and interesting textbooks for teachers. Cyber education center can be good 


panacea which can provide teachers with distance learning, teaching resources and a venue 

to share and discuss pedagogy, which will enhance the cooperation among them. Teaching 

materials need to be produced to develop more feasible, clear and attractive programs. 

Lastly, the most critical precept for pursuing culture sensitive human rights education would 

be democratizing education. School education should reflect the uniqueness and 

differences present amongst students such as gender-sensitivity and culture-sensitivity. 

Students should be encouraged to be aware of their rights in schools and in communities, 

and have the means and will-power to fight and overcome obstacles, which will require the 

aid of non-educational sectors as well. 

256 


Group 2. How to strengthen the national policy of government to promote culture sensitive 

human rights education 

Moderator : Chung Young Sun 

Rapporteur : Jihong Kim 

Participants : Rasulie Haudl, Norov Urtnasan, Nandasiri, S. Muralithaan, Seung-mi Lee, Heesoo 

Lee, Susan Pascoe 

As the most basic principle for human rights, the significance of providing proper education 

about human rights in schools cannot be stressed enough. This discussion started broad 

from the concept of ‘culture sensitive human rights’, to individual cases of education, and 

finally a suggestion to strengthen the national governmental policy. 


First, the participants discussed the definition of the term ‘culture sensitive human rights’. 

“Human rights”is a widely used concept which is commonly accompanied by words such 

as ‘violation’or ‘protection’. In Australia, where the co-existence of multi-cultures has 

been custom for years, we often hear about the ‘human rights’of aborigines, indigenous 

people who lived in remote areas and form their own community. We casually talk about 

the ‘human rights’of North Koreans and Chinese people not only in politics, but business 

deals as well. However, human rights has progressed as the society has come a long way to 

catch up with the development of intellectuals, and now we are looking at a totally new 

term with another condition attached to it, culture. For instance, in the traditional sense of 

human rights, ‘religion’would always be looked as a personal value to be protected, 

however, the new concept of culture sensitive human rights say religion is double edged 

sword which can proliferate but also limit human rights. Therefore, ‘education for culture 

sensitive human rights’cannot rely on religion alone, and should seek for a holistic 

approach to diffuse informal education system. 

Governments worldwide do put forward best efforts into protecting human rights, and the 

most fundamental step is by promoting education about human rights, as seen in the case 

of Mongolia. Mongolian government guards the basic rights of people by not only 

recognizing the existence of sub-groups and relevant sub-cultures, but by identifying, 

studying and preserving cultural heritage, especially intangible ones of the minorities. 

Mongolian government finds a growing need to promote and protect these ethnic 

minorities. 

In many countries, the importance of human rights education is already acknowledged, and 

pursued in various ways. Korea created National Action Plan for Human Rights Education, 


which is in the process of being reviewed by the United Nations. Sri Lanka utilized NGOs 

by involving them in school education to assimilate the principles of human right into the 

students. 


In designing ‘culture sensitive human rights education’, governments should not just 

import developed systems and guidelines from Europe and United States, but focus on 

customizing a system by incorporating unique cultural traits of their own to fully satisfy the 

idea behind human rights in the curriculum. Also, governments should make sure that the 

nationality should not be considered divine but suggested as one of many characteristics 

we have, that regionalism be the way to maintain plurality of cultures. 

The government should input desired values into the school curriculum by revising 

textbooks. The publication of textbooks is not simple, for the ‘culture sensitive human 

rights education’will be defined and conceptualized differently according to the national 

characteristics of each country. Therefore, what can be discussed now are not the details of 

the textbook, but the ways to make certain the production of quality products. In some 

countries including Australia, there are no single national textbook, instead the government 

sets out a standard in which textbook publishers are required to. In this light, devising 

legislation on publication, rather than screening the textbooks when they are ready-made, 

may be a better way to embed ‘cultural sensitive human rights education’into national 

textbooks in the initial phase. Furthermore, de-globalization to support the minorities and 

suppressed cultures are necessary to maintain the plurality of culture. 

258 


Group 3. How to reinforce the role of civil society in implementing activities / programme for 

culture sensitive human rights education 

Moderator : Kim Giyoun 

Rapporteur : You Ra Park 

Participants : Babu Ayindo, Lauren Sauer, Piyasiri Wickramasekara, William Gois, Shirley 

Jayamaka, Bhaskaran Nair 

The discussion was carried out by each participant taking turns and sharing their countries 

examples. Some topics were narrowed down to be discussed more in depth. Finally 

recommendation for action by Civil Society Organizations (hereafter referred as CSOs) and 

specific recommendation for APCEIU were proposed. 


Current mainstream media was criticized by being inflammatory and creating an 

atmosphere of fear and adversity on controversial issues i.e. WTO protest held in Hongkong 

last year. CSOs was projected and aired worldwide often with lopsided or even 

distorted images. Although these powerful media exaggerate the situation and in turn 

exacerbate problems, it is difficult for alternative voices to be heard. Besides, even though 

the need and importance of alternative voices being reflected in the mainstream media is 

increasing, no concrete initiative has been taken place so far. 

In addition, the human rights problems faced by migrant workers in Korea illustrate the 

institutional laps of memory, causing the lack of sensitivity toward the migrant worker’s 

rights. Korea has undergone a transition from the sending country of migrant workers to a 

receiving country, and has forgotten what efforts were made by the receiving country of 

their own migrant workers decades ago, citing the example of Germany’s acceptance of 

many Korean workers. 


What CSOs could do in order to improve the current situation was discussed and one of the 

suggestions was small group discussion that could give rise to a movement in a different 

dynamic. CSOs such as APCEIU holding meetings with journalist regarding the human 

rights sensitivity in their publications was recommended as well. In addition, all participants 

agreed upon that media should be influenced to highlight human rights issues. 

Another situation that was discussed is the need to talk about history in the context of 


changing global events. The speaker argued that the fear of increased tension brought 

about by discussing history is deterring people from addressing the sensitive issues. It was 

noted that efforts could be made to examine how our understanding of history has changed 

post 9/11 and find what new methods of human rights education has been developed 

thereafter. Because history is most often written by the dominant social group, we must 

revisit these events in the interest of minority. There was also the recommendation that 

continuance of the already existing or on-going efforts for a balanced portrayal of history, 

particularly human rights issues, such as the Korea-Japan text book issues, is important. 

In handling the migrant issue, host country CSOs and labor unions should make actual 

long-term exchanges with the sending country so they can have first-hand working 

experience and solidarity with migrant workers. 

260 



Guidelines on Education in response to Migration Issues 

Group 1. How can the school facilitate the awareness about migration 

Moderator : Sook-Hee Kwak 

Rapporteur : Won-Jin Lim 

Participants : Candice Lee, Ki-in Son, Won-kee Kim, Heung-sook Yeon, A.L.A. Rasool, N.A.U.C. 

Munasinghe, P.A. Dayawathie, M.S. Pelpola, M.H.F.Maheeza, Seon-ok Lee 

The participants began with explaining the basic nature of migrant issues and have shared 

information about how their countries are responding to the migration issues. Naturally, the 

discussion flew into the ideal role of education in dealing with this problem. 


Many Asian countries, such as Sri Lanka, do not have enough facilities in the formal 

education system to raise awareness about the issue of migration. In contrast, Western 

European countries and U.S have experienced migrant issues much earlier and have 

developed various programs. For years, educators in U.S. have been addressing the topic of 

human right violation, such as human-trafficking, in classrooms by utilizing feasible 

materials such as text, photos and videos. 

The world is once again going through a transition with the new-found topic of migrants. In 

Korea, many students pointed the ignorance of foreigners (migrants) out as the most 

serious obstacle for intercultural education, which many educators are currently trying to 

address. Austria is also renewing their perspective on education programs for migrants; 

traditionally, the main goal of the migrant education was to ‘educate migrants’about 

Austria, which included aiding migrants to learn the language as well as other societal 

aspects. Now, it has moved through the ‘intercultural education’phase and has finally 

reached at the ‘education for all’, targeting both migrants and the citizens with the goal of 

bringing understanding therefore harmony between them. 



In many cases, people have rather shallow, generalized, therefore misleading images of 

migrants. For instance, Chinese is a ‘Chink’and Japanese are ‘Jap’, usually judged by the 

socio-economic status of their mother-country. To overcome this kind of false 

generalization and blind prejudice, exposure to various cultures and cultural exchanges are 

important. 

The national curriculum should be re-considered to bring more of a culture-sensitive 

education. Surprisingly, participants pointed out the probability of teachers not being 

completely free from the discriminatory opinion towards migrants. Since teachers play such 

a great influence on the development of the students’opinion, it is absolutely necessary to 

first develop training programs for educators to open their eyes to the significance, the 

inevitability, and the effectiveness of intercultural education. 

Education should be accessible to local communities, and supported by formal education 

system. In the process, everyone’s voice, especially those of the marginalized people, need 

to be heard and incorporated. 

262 


Group 2. How can the government educational policy be responsive to the needs of the 

migrant workers and internally displaced people 

Moderator : Hugh Starkey 

Rapporteur : Aasulv Lande 

Participants : Kelly Mikyung Seo, Myung Sook Kang, Myoungshin Kim, Kenneth Sumbuk, Seungmi 

Lee, Pranom Somwong, Toh Swee-hin, Johanna Encabo, Seo Eun Sung, Wan Raisuha 

Wan Ali, Suhana Bi. MD. Saleh, Chinsung Chung, David Lee 

The discussion commenced by each participant sharing their own countries experiences 

and insights about the topic. 


Before giving recommendations it was acknowledged that there is a need to understand the 

reason why migrant workers go to other country to work. One of the major reasons is 

poverty. 

Majority of the migrant workers are not aware of their rights and responsibilities especially 

the human rights protection and fundamental freedoms which are guaranteed under 

international treaties. There is also the dilemma in integrating them socially and 

psychologically in the society. Reintegration programme should also be given emphasis. 

There is a joint responsibility between sending county, receiving country and the migrant 

worker. The right and responsibilities should apply to both sides, the receiving and host 

countries as well as the migrant workers. As migrant workers should respect the social and 

culture of their countries of residence, the host countries should also be willing to assist the 

migrant workers into the legal and social frameworks. 


It was also recognized that there is a special need for information dissemination to the 

worker about the rights and conditions when going to another country. For example, what 

they should expect to the country they are going to. Not only the weather, language, and 

other country information should be informed but the culture as well. The employer should 

also be given and be made aware of the responsibility to the migrant worker. Domestic 

workers rights should also be recognized. 

A pre-departure orientation seminar can be implemented by the government for the 


migrant workers. The government can also distribute UN treaties and handbook that can be 

useful and helpful for the migrant workers. 

All children have the right to education in the host country. Documented or undocumented 

status makes no difference. Children’s education needs a particular, intercultural 

curriculum. Teachers should be instructed about a sensitive and multicultural approach. 

It was also commented that “we should look at the wall in the eyes of the migrant workers 

and undocumented workers”in order to respond to their needs. 

264 


Group 3. How to reinforce the role of civil society in their advocacy for migrant workers and 

internally displaced people 

Moderator : William Gois 

Rapporteur : You Ra Park 

Participants : P. Wickramachan, Hyung-Chul Jang, Koo Jah-Hon, Bhaskaran, Susan Pascoe, Sylvia 

Kee, Norov Urtnasan, S. Muralitharan, D. D. Nandasiri, Babu Ayindo, Shirley 

Jayamaha 

In the course of discussion, current situation and different challenges that migrant workers 

are now facing was dealt focusing on five main issues; rights of migrant workers’family, 

treatment of illegal workers, a problem of pre-departure education, lack of legal protection 

and information and negative perspectives on migrants in host countries. Suggestions and 

policy recommendations tackling the existing problems followed. 


The Malaysian case discussed beyond the one-dimensional issue of migrant workers 

themselves and progressed to considering what comes with these migrant workers, their 

family. People are often not aware of the fact that migrants are usually accompanied by 

their families, who are not protected by the society and the rule of law. ASEAN’s 

Declaration on Migrant Workers already granted full privilege and rights to its beneficiaries; 

however, in many circumstances, migrants and their families are helplessly exposed to 

exploitation and discrimination. The civil society organization (hereafter referred to as CSO) 

level efforts are a must in devising the development of appropriate measures. 

In the case of illegal migrants, people are usually oblivious about where these offenders are 

placed and how they are treated by the government. Lack of information and attention from 

the public deters any improvement in the near future. This applies to women and children 

who are trafficked, abused then caught by the police as well. Obviously they are not 

criminals so that they should be put in shelters, not in jails when they are detained. 

However, the condition of life in shelters is unknown to the public. Most of the times, 

women and children are languished in poor conditions without knowing their innate rights. 

In Sri Lanka and Malaysia, a number of people go abroad every year to seek jobs, but they 

do not receive enough orientation or training before they departed in terms of time and 

contents. Some migrants have no access to pre-learning programs at all. Since many of the 

would-be-migrants go to places where they have no background information about the 


culture, social norms and languages, the early stage of their settlement and adaptation to 

the host county is not easy. 

Exploitation and abuse by immoral employers in receiving countries can happen to any 

migrants, such as holding workers’passport, monthly payment and intimidating employees 

with verbal and physical abuses. The basic problem lies on both how migrants can access 

the legal channel in foreign country and how CSOs find and reach them out in the case of 

violation of the basic human rights of migrants. To make things harder for migrant 

workers,the negotiation for working condition before their departure is utterly difficult 

and employers in power can easily disguise and manipulate contracts. 

Participants moved on to discuss regarding negative perspective of people in host country 

against migrant workers. It was pointed out that xenophobia was being used to 

discriminate migrants. Governments can use xenophobia to mobilize political action 

especially during election time. Even trade unions within the receiving county are under 

pressure from local workers to protect their nationals before the non-nationals. The 

argument of those who are adverse underlines that migrant workers are the main cause for 

threatening survival of local workers by replacing them with cheap wage and in turn, 

leading to comparative increase in the unemployment level of the host country. Moreover, 

usually people do not know how much of contributions migrant workers have been 

making to the host country’s development. It is very common for people in denial of 

migrants’contribution on the economic growth and a problem of the absence of relevant 

documentation and records is neglected. 


In the area of educating the public, the role of the media is significant, especially 

investigative journalism. CSOs and the media should work closely to change the negative 

perception of migrants. This can be done by researching and recognizing the contribution 

of the migrant workers in the economy of both receiving and sending countries. What’s 

more, job-training and education for migrants before and after they migrate to another 

country should be reconsidered. Pre-departure and post-departure education of the 

migrants by CSOs should include, along with the job and culture training programs of the 

receiving country, the training for awareness of their rights. 

APCEIU should joint efforts with the media. APCIEU should also consolidate its preeminent 

position in this region by providing high quality multi-stakeholder trainings. It is 

recommended that the topic of ‘understanding of international organization regarding the 

migrant workers’be included as a part of the training for teachers program. 

266 


The national governments should ratify the conventions of International Labor Organization 

(ILO) and allow both their citizens and migrants to be protected by the international 

standards. This is necessary since individuals cannot file a complaint directly to the ILO. If 

the ratification is not possible or practical in the domestic context, it is recommended that 

NGOs should pressure the government to draw up something similar with the same 

guidelines and frame work so that the migrants should be provided access to justice and be 

able to file complaints without the fear of retribution from the employers. 

UN Special Rapporteur is a very effective mechanism in putting pressure on the 

governments which fear bad reputation in the international community to protect the 

human rights of migrants. Furthermore, CSOs should promote counseling and legal 

services. 

In line with the aforementioned recommendations, joint resolution by Korea and Australia 

is scheduled to be submitted to the next UNESCO GA on the human rights education. 


V. Participants’list 

( the names are listed in alphabetical order) 

List of Participants 

Keynote Speaker 

Dr. Hugh Starkey 

Course Leader for MA Citizenship 

School of Arts and Humanities 

University of London, Institute of Education 

Tel: +440-207911-5507/ Fax: +440-207612-6741 

Email : h.starkey@ioe.ac.uk 

Panelists 

Mr. Joseph Babu Ayindo 

Coordinator, Ubuntu Arts, 

PO Box 3534, Kisumu 40100, Kenya 

Tel: +254-0572027-927/ Fax: +254-20332-544 

Email: comrades@africaonline.co.ke 

Dr. Chin-Sung Chung 

Professor, Department of Sociology 

Seoul National University 

Bldg 16 Room 537 San 56-1, Sillim-dong 

Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 151-742, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-880-6415/ Fax: +82-2-873-3799 

Email: chungcs@plaza.snu.ac.kr 

Dr. Young-Sun Chung 

Director, Human Rights Research Team 

National Human Rights Commission of Korea 

Korea 

Tel: +82-2-2125-9750 

Email: yschung@humanrights.go.kr 

Dr. Liam Gearon 

Reader and Director 

Roehampton University, Digby Stuart College 

London SW15 5PH 

Tel +020-83923661/ Fax: +020-83923231 

Email: L.Gearon@roehampton.ac.uk 

Mr. William Gois 

Regional Coordinator, Migrant Forum in Asia 

59-B Malumanay Street, Teacher’s Village 

West 

Quezon City 1104, Philippines 

Tel +632-433-3508/ Fax: +632-433-1292 

Email: mfa@pacific.net.hk 

Dr. Aasulv Lande 

Professor, Lund University 

Centre for Theology and Religious Studies 

Allhelgona Kyrkogata 8, 223 62 Lund, Sweden 

Tel +46-46222342/ Fax: +46462222644 

Email: Aasulv.Lande@teol.lu.se 

Dr. Ichsan Malik 

Professor, University of Indonesia 

Jl. Mendut No. 3 Jakarta Pusat, Jakarta, 

Indonesia 

Phone/Fax: 021- 3153-865 

Email: titiandamai@yahoo.com 

Ms. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer 

Co-director of the Human Rights Center 

University of Minnesota, Mondale Hall, N-120 

229-19th Avenue, South, Minneapolis, MN 55455 

Tel +612-6260-041 /Fax: +612-626-7592 

Email: krp@umn.edu 

268 


Ms. Pranom Somwong 

Coordinator, MAP Foundation 

63/30 suthep Road, Meaung, Chiang Mai, 

Thailand, 50200 

Tel +6653-811202/ Fax: +6653-811202 

Email:p_somwong@yahoo.com 

www.mapfoundationcm.org 

Dr. Kenneth M. Sumbuk 

Professor, University of Papua New Guinea 

Box 320, University Post Office, National 

Capital District, Papua New Guinea 

Tel: +675-3267-317/ Fax: +675-3260-230 

Email: sumbukkm@upng.ac.pg 

Dr. Toh Swee-Hin 

Director 

Multi-Faith Centre, Griffith University 

Mathan, Australia, Qld4111 

Tel: +617-373-57053/ Fax: +617-373 -57131 

Email: S.toh@griffith.edu.au 

Mr. Georges Tsai 

Vice Rector, University for Peace 

Apartado 138-6100 

San Jose, Costa Rica 

Tel: +506-205-9000/ Fax: +506-249-1929 

Email: gtsai@upeace.org 

Dr. Piyasiri Wickramasekara 

Senior Migration Specialist 

International Migration Programme 

International Labour Office, 4 route des 

Morillons 

CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland 

Tel: +41-22-799-6497 / Fax +41-22-799-8836 

Email: wickramasekara@ilo.org 

Dr. Werner Wintersteiner 

Professor, University of Klagenfurt 

A-9020 Klagenfurt, Austria 

Tel: +43-463-2700-2724/ Fax: +43-463-2700- 

6110 

Email: Werner.Wintersteiner@uni-klu.ac.at 

Facilitators 

Dr. Sook-Hee Kwak 

Chief 

Education and Training Team, APCEIU 

Korea 

Tel: +82-2-774-3956/Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Dr. Hee-Soo Lee 

Professor 

Department of Cultural Anthropology, 

Hanyang University 

Korea 

Tel: +8231-400-5375/Fax: +82-31-4165370 

Email: lee200@dreamwiz.com 

Dr. Seung-Mi Lee 

Chief 

Research and Development Team 

Asia-Pacific Centre of Education for 

International Understanding 

Tel: +82-2-774-3956/ Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Email: smlee@unescoapceiu.org 

Ms. Young-Hee Na 

Director General 

Human Rights Education Department, National 

Human Rights Commission of Korea 

Tel: +822-21259912/ Fax: +822-21259878 

Email: yhna21@humanrights.go.kr 


Participants 

Dr. Doo-Yong Chung 

President 

Korea Society of Education for International 

Understanding 

Korea 

Tel: +82-18-352-5737 

Ms. P. A Dayawathie 

Assistant Director 

Ministry of Education 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-2784818 

Dr. Akiko Ito 

Visiting Professor 

Ewha Womans University 

Korea 

Email: itoakiko@mac.com 

Mr. Young-Chul Jang 

Researcher 

Center for International Migration Studies in 

Korea 

4F Gisayeon Bld., 35 

Choongjungro 2-ga, Seodaemoon-gu, Seoul, 

120-012, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-10-9916-3679 

Email:janghyungchul@yahoo.co.uk 

Mr. Shirley Patrick Nayananda JAYAMAHA 

Technical Advisor 2nd National Language 

GTZ supported ESC Project 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-4308566/Fax: +94-11-4308565 

Email: esc-shirley@sltnet.lk 

Ms. Hyun-Young Ji 

The Youth Culture Group PUM 

Korea 

Tel:+82-2-999-9887 

Email: cactusor@hanmail.net 

Mr. Tak-Joon Jung 

Professor 

Mokpo National University 

Korea 

Email: Jungtj1@hanmail.net 

Ms. Ji-Ryang Kim 

Amnesty International South Korean Section 

Korea 

Tel:+82-16-346-9671 

Email:hre@amnesty.or.kr 

Ms. Bong-Hee Lee 

Nun 

Joy House, Korea 

Tel:+82-10-3909-8412 

Email:janlb@hanmail.net 

Mr. Bong-Hyun Lee 

Director General 

International Education and IT Bureau 

Ministry of Education and Human Resources 

Development 

Korea 

Ms. Candice Kay Lee 

D.Phil Candidate 

University of Oxford, UK 

King’s Garden Complex #2, Apt. 411 

Naesu-dong, Jongrogu, Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-10-3743-1899 

Email: candice.lee@greeen.ox.ac.uk 

270 


Mr. Dong-Wook Lee 

Soldier 

United States Army in Korea 

106-102 Jugong Apartment, 660-0 

Gaepo-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-19-9181-9301 

Email: flux2025@naver.com 

Mr. Jae-Young Lee 

Peace Program Coordinator 

Korea Anabaptist Center 

Korea 

Tel: +02-554-9615/ Fax: 02-501-1986 

Email: kojay99@hotmail.com 

Ms. Ji-In Lee 

Korea 

Tel:+82-10-6203-9918 

Email: Bless160@hotmail.com 

Ms. Myoung-Jin Lee 

Program Manager of Center in Cambodia 

Korean Pioneers in Overseas NGOs 

Tel:+82-11-9136-4284 

Email: gulcinlee@gmail.com 

Dr. Tae-Joo Lee 

Professor 

Continuing Education Center, Hansung 

University 

Korea 

Tel: +82-11-9258-4491, +82-2-760-4490-5780 

Email: tjlee@hansung.ac.kr 

Mr. Tong-Hyun Lee 

Korea 

Tel:+82-16-721-4643 

Email: liebfor@naver.com 

Mr. Kevin Leeder 


Email: k_leeder@hotmail.com 

Ms. Young-Shin Lim 

Iraqi Peace Network 

Korea 

Email: deepeace@sendu.com 

Ms. Mohamad Hammad FATHIMA MAHEEZA 

Assistant Project Officer 

National Institute of Education 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-2851301 Ext. 761/Fax: +94-11- 

2851300 

Email: fathima.maheeza@yahoo.com 

Ms. Loreta M. Medina 

Writer, Editor & Artist 

Yonsei University 

Muak Haksa, 4-Hak Sa B207, Seoul, Korea 

Email: jslmg@earthilink.net 

Ms. Michele W. Milner 

Professor 

Peace Education Center, Teacher’s College 

Japan 

Tel: +82-10-3141-7400 

Email: milnermw@tc-japan.edu 

Mr. Nammuni Arachchige Upali Chandrasiri 

MUNASINGHE 

Chief Project Officer 


Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-2859254/Fax: +94-11-2851300 


Mr. Subramaniam MURALITHARAN 

National Advisor, GTZ supported ESC Project - 

MoE 

Ministry of Education, Isurupaya, Battaramulla 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-4405056/Fax: +94-11-4405057 

Email:esc-moe@sltnet.lk, 

muralithar2002@yahoo.com 

Mr. Bhaskaran Achuthan Nair 

Principal Assistant Secretary 

International Relations Division, Ministry of 

Women, Family and Community Development 

Malaysia 

Tel: +603-26904027/Fax: +602-26943967 

Email: bhaskaran@kpwkm.gov.my 

Mr. Dapana Dolage NANDASIRI 

Director 

Ministry of Education 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-2785866/Fax: +94-11-2784863 

Ms. Susan Pascoe 

Chairperson 

Australia National Commission for UNESCO 

Australia 

Tel: +61396511148/ Fax: +612-62612272 

Email: les.humphies@dfat.gov.au 

Ms. Mahesha Subhashinee PELPOLA 

President 

Hapitigama NCOE Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-33-2273201/Fax: +94-33-2273292 

Dr. Ramachandran Ponan 

Head 

Research and Program Development, Radio 

Television Malaysia (RTM) 

Malaysia 

Tel: +603-2288-7950/Fax: +603-2282-4735 

Email: rama@rtm.net.my 

Mr. Ahamed Lebbe ABDUL RASOOL 

President 

Addalaichenai National College of Education 

Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-67-2278882/Fax: +94-67-2278883 

Mr. Keelle Gamage Ajith Rupasena 

Project Officer 


Sri Lanka 

Tel: +94-11-2851301-5/Fax: +94-11-2851300 

Email: libinFo@slt.lk 

Ms. Suhana Md. Saleh 

Principal Assistant Secretary 

Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister 

Department 

Malaysia 

Tel: +603-8888-2681/Fax: +603-8888-3689 

Email: suhana@epu.jpm.my 

Ms. Lauren Sauer 

Peace Program Associate 


Korea 

Tel: +82-2-16-254-4620 

Email: Lauren.e.sauer@gmail.com 

Mr. Norov Urtnasan 

Secretary General 

Mongolian National Commission for UNESCO 

Government Building XI, Post Office 38, 

Revolution Avenue 

Ulaanbatar, Mongolia 

Tel: +976-315652 /Fax: +976-322612 

Email: unesco@mongol.net 

272 


Ms. Kimberly Walsh 

Human Rights Fellowship Coordinator 

University of Minnesota Human Rights Center 

United States of America 

Tel: +612-626-226/ Fax: + 612-626-7592 

Email: hrfellow@umn.edu 

Ms. Heung-Sook Yeon 

Korean Foster Care Association 

Korea 

Tel:+82-11-470-7555 

Email: yeonsook@ gmail.com 

Ms. Cheryl Woelk 

Education Coordinator 


Korea 

Email: c_woelk@yahoo.ca 

Secretariat 

APCEIU 

Mr. Dai-Geun Kang 

Director 



Tel: +82-2-774-3936/ Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Email: dgkang@unescoapceiu.org 

Dr. Seung-Mi Lee 

Chief 




Tel: +82-2-774-3956/ Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Email: smlee@unescoapceiu.org 

Ms. Ma. Johanna C. Encabo 

Programme Officer 




Tel: +82-2-774-3956/ Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Email: johanna@unescoapceiu.org 

Ms. Ji-Hyang Lee 

Programme Officer 




Tel: +82-2-774-3956/ Fax: +82-2-774-3958 

Email:jhlee@unescoapceiu.org 

Ms. Min-Ju Kang 

Programme Assistant 





Tel: +82-2-774-3956/ Fax: +82-2-7743958 

Email: mjkang@unescoapceiu.org 

Ms. Ju-Hyun Park 

Interpreter 


Mr. Seung-Gi Hong 


Korea 

Tel:+82-16-9222-1498 

Email: novahong@humanrights.go.kr 

KOCUN 

Ms. Giyoun Kim 

Executive Director 

Korea Center for United Nations Human Rights 

Policy 

Korea 

Tel: +82-2-6287-1210 

Email: kocun@kocun.org 

Volunteers 

Ms. Inhae Choi 

Student 

Division of International Studies, Ewha 

Womans University 

Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-17-301-2616 

Email: 0173012616a@gmail.com 

Ms. Jimin Gu 

Student 

Graduate School of International Studies, 


Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-16-9667-5659 

Email: candy-_-a@hanmail.net 

Ms. Jung-Mi Jun 

Student 


Ewha Womans University 

Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-10-9288-4608 

Email: jungmi.jun@gmail.com 

Ms. So-Young Jung 

Student 

Department of French Literature, Chungnam 

National University 

Daejun, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-10-5775-9269 

Email: tndnjsdkd@hotmail.com 

Ms. Jung-Min Kang 

Student 

Department of Foreign Language, Yonsei 

University, 

Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-11-9976-6034 

Email: jmn0927@hanmail.net 

Ms. Kah-Ul Kim 

Student 

Division of International Studies, Ewha 

Womans University 

Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-19-624-4640 

Email: birdie1120@ewhain.net 

274 


Mr. Simon Ji-Hong Kim 

Staff 

Mobile Commerce Division, Danal Co. Ltd 

Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-11-9012-6416 

Email: sikim0406@naver.com 

Ms. Won-Jin Lim 

Student 

Graduate School of Lancaster University 

England 

Tel: +82-2-10-8411-7933 

Email: lim_won_jin@hotmail.com 

Ms. Youra Park 

Student 



Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-10-9770-8574 

Email: yura0509@gmail.com 

Ms. Hee-Kyung Son 

Student 



Seoul, Korea 

Tel: +82-2-11-1701-0320 

Email: wkjjang@hanmail.net

Intercultural Understanding and Human Rights Education ... - APCEIU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?