WATCH NOW

Or click here to listen

Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Dr Bertrand Ramcharan was the guest in our global phone-in programme Talking Point.

Commenting on the Madrid train bombs Dr Ramcharan said terrorists all over the world had in common an utter disregard for life and human rights.

He was speaking on the eve on the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting next week in Geneva.

Does security take precedence over human rights in the post 9/11, post Madrid, world?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

Human rights are important, but not as important as the right of society at large. The greater good must prevail over any individual.
Bill Potter, Telford, England

I can understand a poor woman stealing fruit to feed her kids, but I can't understand the goal of terrorists Omar Alcalá, Mexico City

As long as human rights are not respected, there will be violence somewhere. Certainly they're not the same, but they're correlated. What's the ultimate goal of terrorists? I'm quite sure it's not food, but money? Power? I can understand a poor woman stealing fruit to feed her kids, but I can't understand the goal of terrorists. So, as long as security is not granted, I'll be grateful if some strict laws are applied to minimize our vulnerabilities. If somebody doesn't respect other's universal human rights, that somebody cannot have the rights to injure us and can't be granted freedom because he or she is making a bad use of it.
Omar Alcalá, Mexico City, Mexico

The so-called war against terrorism is just an excuse to reduce individual liberty. Bush is a dictator who is slowly reducing freedom and that is a thing I will never admit. "To be free or to die" is a better slogan than all reference to "evil axes".
N. Gibert, Paris, France

The only solution in the fighting terrorism and securing human rights of the victims is to adopt strict laws and to spread the use of death penalty.
Sasha, Minsk Belarus

A number of contributors are claiming that because terrorists have no regard for human rights we should disregard them too. If we continue to erode our own civil liberties, locking innocent people up without charge, having secret trials etc. then surely, by definition we have become as bad as the terrorists.
Rich, UK

Security has got to take precedence over human rights if not you are threatening my human rights by leaving me in danger of terrorism.
Dianne Brown, Canterbury, Kent

Today we see that it is very hard to find the balance between the human rights & state security& personally I think that according to the latest events in the world, the human rights will be broken in the name of security.
Kiren, Belarus, Minsk

I think there is a very thin line that divides human rights and terrorism Jim Wood, Larkhall

I think there is a very thin line that divides human rights and terrorism. In this country the police have their hands tied with paperwork which protects the terrorists. Liberalism has gone too far and the criminals have more protection than the victims. What are we to do to get back to human rights for the victims of these horrendous crimes we are faced in our day to day lives?
Jim Wood, Larkhall, UK

Security and human rights are separate issues. They don't coincide. First and foremost, the developed and civilised countries are in the vanguard of human rights. Are the 9/11 and Madrid events aftermath of disregarding human rights and international laws?
Nhu Truc Le, Danang City, Vietnam

It should be noted that it is possible to have legitimate concerns over the human rights of those who are being held in Guantanamo and also to be concerned about those innocents who have become victims to the terrorists. The two are not mutually exclusive. If we start sidelining the human rights of anyone who has not been conclusively proven to have forfeited those rights (like the perpetrators of the Madrid bombings), then we do the work of the terrorists for them. Our respect for human rights is one of the things that makes us better than the terrorist groups.
Keith, Edinburgh, Scotland

Everybody is asking about the rights of those held by the USA, in Cuba. Do these groups stop to think about the human rights of the innocent people slaughtered, the children and women that Saddam has murdered? I agree with Tony Blair and President Bush. The war must go on until the terrorist are wiped out no matter what!
Tony McKenna, Liverpool

Human rights include liberty. Life, liberty and security should be obtained together. The articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations declaration of 1948 are very clear: Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Humans rights are being violated permanently everywhere despite the existence of the UN declaration.
Santiago Medina Vaughan, Vancouver, Canada

We cannot react to those who wish to frighten us by living in fear Katherine, London, UK

We cannot react to those who wish to frighten us by living in fear. We cannot react to threats against our human rights by curtailing our own human rights. We can fight terrorism by refusing to be terrorised and by fighting for our human rights instead of giving them up. If we start giving up our own rights in the name of security, we will start to fear our own security forces rather than the real enemy. And yes, if we start respecting the rights of those in the rest of the world, terrorists motivated by hatred are less likely to arise.
Katherine, London, UK

We talk glibly about Human Rights while more than half the world's peoples are hungry and live in poverty. While hunger persists throughout the third, and second, worlds we in the west destroy food and pay our farmers large salaries to take land out of production. The two industries that have the largest subsides in the UK are agriculture and arms manufacture. Subsides in agriculture are, in part, used to produce less food, food that could have been used to save lives, subsides in arms production result in the loss of life. Remarkable consistency in government policy, we export death across the world.
Glen, Ware, England

Human rights has far too often suffered for reasons of security. If as much effort was spent worldwide on establishing legal standards and enforcement mechanisms regarding human rights as is spent on building militaries and developing greater and more deadly weapons, the need for such expenditures would be eliminated.
Carie, USA

There must be a balance between security and human rights. If security is placed too high, then human rights are harmed about people revolt (hence terrorism). If human rights are placed to high, then people have less security and then are more vulnerable to attack by those that have some desire to do harm to somebody (hence terrorism). Either way, if you cannot find a median, then you will encounter a form of terrorism.
C. Krailo, Houston, United States

I'm so sick of people excusing terrorism by blaming an unfair world Nate, Wichita

If every nation respected Human Rights, security would be taken care of. I'm so sick of people excusing terrorism by blaming an unfair world. The world is unfair for everyone. Many have it far worse than terrorists and still manage to lead a dignified life that doesn't include homicide.
Nate, Wichita, USA

The world's too complicated for an exact definition of Human Rights. For example the US doesn't consider that the sanctions they have imposed upon Myanmar (Burma) as a violation of Human Rights, but the people who have no job as a direct result of the sanctions certainly think it is!
Gerald Haines, Pattaya, Thailand

The Human Rights act is a farce. No one will prosecute terrorists under the Human Rights act - why hasn't Huntley in the UK been prosecuted under the Human Rights act, did those little girls not have any rights? The only people who appear to benefit from the act are criminals and fat cat lawyers on legal aid expenses.
Phil Kelley, UK

Terrorism attacks are the physical displays of inner bitterness created by this unfair world system. I think human rights have become more vulnerable since the events of September 11th, that is why terrorism attacks are increasing daily. If human rights are well observed and respect for everyone is kept, terrorism will decline for sure. Hence security is obtained.
Aikande Kwayu, Tanzania

We would better honouring those who died in Spain this week by strengthening civil freedoms wherever we can Tom, London

Whoever may have been responsible for their murder, we would better honouring those who died in Spain this week by strengthening civil freedoms wherever we can - not handing them over to scaremongering opportunists who want to win elections. This smokescreen of a 'war on terror' will demean the victims' memory if it is successfully used to justify further restrictions. And as we observe our private mourning, let's also reflect on the real resentment much of the world still feels at Europe's and America's central role in its own unresolved grievances.
Tom, London

No. Security should not take precedence over human rights. If security is put before human rights then what are we securing?
Kevin, USA

Yes, it is a sad and unfortunate reality in today's post 9/11 world that security has become more important than human rights. However, it is my belief that human rights organisations should become more diligent in their scrutiny of any alleged abuses and keep this issue in the forefront to prevent utter disregard of human rights.
Dustin Jones, Houston, USA

The world is definitely not doing enough for human rights Jeff Lobo, NY, USA

If people were treated equally and fairly we would see a lot of those issues change for the better. The world is definitely not doing enough for human rights, especially the richer countries.
Jeff Lobo, NY, USA

The focus of the world has changed to only one thing in the recent past, namely the respect of money. There is a proverb in Tamil language that 'Money derived out of selling dog won't bark' so, human rights which depend on value-based life is fast disappearing even in countries like India.
Dr SS Hanmugam, Tirunelveli, India

Sadly human rights are used on the international stage as a rationalisation for decisions made on other grounds. We need human rights to be more important than economical and power games. Another threat to human rights is the 'war on terror'. Human rights are easily forgotten when a society is in a state of fear and hatred. Blair, Bush, Aznar et al are consistently invoking these emotions in their nations, police and, military.
Oscar Dahlsten, London

The first human right is the right to live. Please read some of the stories on the Madrid bombing page. No more sympathy for the Devil from the liberal elitist who seem to be in a state of denial over the war against terror.
John Karran, Merseyside, UK

Some of these rights are not precisely defined and some of them may be in conflict with other well recognised ones MA Siddiqi, Derby

The so called Human Rights, recognised in the West are not the only rights that human beings should have. Some of these rights are not precisely defined and some of them may be in conflict with other well recognised ones. The right of freedom of speech may be in conflict with somebody's right not to be defamed. There are rights which other societies may recognise while the West may ignore them. The sad story is that the rights recognised in the West are also totally ignored by it, in camp X-ray, in Britain and many other places.
MA Siddiqi, Derby, UK

Human rights fluctuate and need to be constantly defended. There are always powerful forces trying to lower the acceptable standards. Wishing others well helps improve things. The media, in large part, sets the stage for human and civil rights by choosing what they present and how it's done.
Dale Lanan, Longmont, Colorado, USA

The only reason that there has been anything known about Zimbabwe is because the people of the country won't sit back - not because some Governing body decided that the people are getting hurt. Pressure from the nationals, not some big headed organisational decision. If there was action from some countries- the problems would be sorted and then other countries abuses would be sorted out too. Human rights are a fairy tale to those where I come from ... where you are - it's a fact of life.
Tsitsi, UK - ex Zimbabwe

As long as China can veto UN action on Tibet, or the US and UK to protect their brutal allies (c.f. Rwanda), the UN will not be a credible organisation, as not only will it be seen by poorer countries to be ruled by the richer, it will be seen by 'democratic' countries to be ruled by dictatorships, as these larger powers protect their abusive friends.
Alex, Edinburgh

What about the human rights of those killed in Madrid today? All civilised people in the world will be shocked at the attack. We must fight terrorism with all the weapons available until the people who want bring the Dark Ages back again do more and even larger atrocities. Now is the time for strength NOT compassion. It is ironic that it occurred the same day that British authorities were releasing four more 'people' who 'just happened to be in Afghanistan' when the coalition forces liberated it.
John K, Liverpool

The world can never do enough for human rights, whether it is to protect them from multinational exploitation, or the overzealous self-interests of the major powers abusing those rights in the name of security.
Derek Shannon, Rochdale, UK

Does the EU think that human rights are hunky-dory in Iran? Azad, Iran

The EU is making the same mistake that the US used to make - appeasing tyrannical dictators, for economic and trade interests. Washington realised that it was wrong to be supportive of Saddam Hussein. The EU continues to ignore Washington's call for tough sanctions to be imposed on Iran. The EU continues to appease Iran solely for paving the way for business. Does the EU think that human rights are hunky-dory in Iran? From where I'm sitting, Brussels does probably think that.
Azad, Iran

No, "security" does not take precedence over human rights because, as we already see now, it becomes an excuse for everything and before you know it we live in a police state ruled by fear. I would rather be dead than to live in such a society.
Leen, Ghent, Belgium

Yes, human rights are not necessarily a 'Western idea'. Japan shares this 'Western Values'. However, many countries especially in Asia uses this argument as an excuse for their bad record on human rights. The UN itself recognises for example in its charter, that human rights are universal idea. All cannot agree on the details because we are living in different political system and at different economic development levels. Whatever abusers claim, this so called Western Values should be the goal.
F Nakamura, Japan

Who needs human rights when multinationals run the show? Look at Iraq, Saddam was our best buddy in the 80's, even after halabja, UK exports credits were doubled to him the next week. Until we get complete and total control of the multinationals there will be no human rights anywhere in the world.
Vish, UK

Human Rights go out of the window when Bush/Blair decide it is appropriate. Those that say that terrorists deserve no such rights fail to see it is violation of human rights that causes people to become 'terrorists'. Perhaps the atrocities against the US caused it to be seen as 'terrorists' by those countries who were invaded. Tony Blair cannot claim to speak for me, likewise me for him.
Paul, UK

Men of peace and compassion are ignored by the world and the UN Ron, Middlesbrough

The UN failed its human rights program when it turned its back on Tibet and the illegal occupancy by China. If the Dalai Lama was not a man of Peace but violence Tibet would be back in Tibetan hands, not abused by China. This shows men of peace and compassion are ignored by the world and the UN
Ron, Middlesbrough

The full and unbiased enforcement and respect for International Law anywhere in the world (including Guantanamo Bay, Israel/Palestine etc) would pave the way for better human rights.
Rik Leedale, Doncaster, UK

From a British passport-holder born of Southeast Asian parents: please always keep in mind that Western governments' "arrogant imperialist interventionist tendencies" are our only protection against repression from our own governments in this region.
Michael, Tokyo, Japan

Michael in Tokyo; you are only thinking of yourself...the usual Western disease. The well-being of society sometimes requires strong measures that upset individuals, but are the best for the biggest number of people. Asians are more interested in the society around them than in selfish wants.
Nguyen Kha, Beijing

Nguyen Kha, Beijing: And you're perpetuating an ethnocentric stereotype. Having lived in the region, I've found Asians to be every bit as self-interested. No one's denying that the needs of society and the individual must be balanced. But Western society is not as self-absorbed as you imply. Rather, it emphasizes individual responsibility as the root of social stability. And just because something's utilitarian doesn't mean it's good; the minority must still be protected.
Guy, USA

Guy, USA: You live in a different country than I do. America has become the definition of self absorption and consumerism. The culture is all about self and not about community. You are as out of touch as Bush, Inc. and largely ignore the social disasters that are going on here right now. In the US nothing is more important than the dollar. Not even life. I have worked hard my whole life and now the wealthy and their greed has sent my entire industry out of the country because a jillion dollars was not enough, they need more. Next month I will not be able to buy the medicine my child needs to stay alive. In ancient Rome there was only the super wealthy and the very poor.! That is the road America is on.
Michael, USA

Security and human rights have to be balanced enough not to make human life unnecessarily miserable. The UN should work even harder and find ways to have more volunteers than ever to tackle the growing percentage of several problems that the world is facing like AIDS, atrocities on people especially children. Also the world must work harder for making a 'baseline' for treating all the individuals equally in all countries which we don't see.
Vanaja Jaligam, USA

Corporations should not be responsible for the welfare of the people. Peter Vevang, Minneapolis, USA

In an equitable and free society human rights exist by definition because abuses and violations of people and their property will not be tolerated. Corporations should not be responsible for the welfare of the people. The people themselves should have that power through a democratic process. If that power is turned over to corporations or any other un-elected body, history has shown, it will only create a new kind of dictatorship.
Peter Vevang, Minneapolis, USA

Human rights? This global phone in would not be happening if 9/11 had not. A single citizen of the West has more human rights than the 100 or more Africans who have starved to death while you are reading this. The expenditure to date in the Iraq invasion (non "war-on-terror" related) could have eradicated famine in a number of these countries.
Pat, England

Human rights are not western values. When we go to other cultures and try to bring our values to their society that becomes a violation of the indigenous people's human rights. Our society allows business to exploit 3rd world labour yet insists that we must bring the American political and social system to these countries and call that supporting human rights. It is the opposite.
Bill Hamilton, 100 Mile House BC Canada

If China wasn't a nuclear power and a huge trading partner(as well as providing huge numbers of cheap workers) do you think it might be criticised a bit more for its human rights?
Adam, London

The victims in any one country are no less deserving of media attention and reaction of the world community than the victims in any other Mark, USA

By ignoring some very serious human rights abuses such as those in China, The Sudan, and Cuba while focusing on others such as in Palestine, Zimbabwe, and Chechnya, politicians and the media the world over cynically use their bully pulpit not to genuinely advance the cause of universal human rights but to advance their own private political agendas. The victims in any one country are no less deserving of media attention and reaction of the world community than the victims in any other.
Mark, USA

If you are talking about human rights please start first with Guantanamo bay, then shame Wall of Israel and US occupation of Iraq. Only British or European Guantanamo prisoners have right to be sent back home. And the rest who are kept there illegally are not humans? People have to be objective when applying human rights.
Boran, Cyprus

Start working on Human Wrongs and the Rights will follow through pretty well.
Simhesvara Dasa, Malaysia

Who are we to preach human rights? Of 19 executions of child offenders since 1998 - 13 were in the US! We often put evil dictators in power. We got rid of an elected leader (Allende) to destroy democracy in a country with one of the longest histories of democratic government - Chile. We killed two million Vietnamese and 1.5 million Koreans - Korea has not recovered. Hundreds of thousands were killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima by our nuclear bombs.

In Kosovo, Belgrade, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan we don't keep count of those we kill or starve - and let's not think about Cambodia. We don't help people, we rob their oil and other resources, we use them as cheap labour and if they don't do what we order them to do, we go there and kill them - it is who we are.
Marian Walls, Huntingdon, Cambs

Whenever we are talking of human rights globally, to be realistic, America is trying all she could, more than any other nation. The developing countries too are not sincerely helping the matter. The worst is the African continent, where cheating and injustice has become order of the day just for selfish ambitions. Though America as a nation has her own short comings, she is still leading any other country when we are talking of human rights individually and globally. Basically, the world is not doing enough at all.
Tolani, Lagos, Nigeria

MNCs need to recognize that human rights standards do exist Peter Bolton, US

I think human rights need to be respected in all spheres of life, not just by MNCs and governments. MNCs need to recognize that human rights standards do exist, and abide by them.
Peter Bolton, US

With the Afghanistan war, the world saw the crashing of all rules, laws and principles previously accepted by the world. Now, it is the 'law of the jungle' in force, with the US as the mightiest. Being in a third world country, we have been bullied, beaten and abused by other countries, forced at war with our neighbours under the guise of terrorism, and had perfectly innocent people plucked out of our midst and sent for illegal detention without so much as a murmur. Already, living with ghastly human rights violations virtually everyday of our lives, this is the last straw on the camel's back.
Salimah, Pakistan

To Salimah, Pakistan: The Afghanistan War is what crushed of all human rights around the world? The former Afghani government assisted Al Qaeda in murdering 3,000 people. Is murdering Americans a human right? It is also a well documented fact that the human rights situation in Afghanistan was horrific before the war.
Jim , NJ, USA

"Human rights" is a modern western religion; they are ready to kill thousand people for the sake of "human rights", like they did it before for the sake of some abstract Christianity. Human rights are rather expensive thing and they are not worth death, starvation and chaos some countries bring to the others for the sake of human rights.
Mikhail Kononov, St.Petersburg, Russia

The UN's primary mandate should be the promotion of free democratic governments. There should be no totalitarian states allowed in the new world order.
Les, Houston, USA

The UN was once a dream come true in pursuit of world peace Janet Paulin, Philippines/Australia

Tony Blair accuses the UN of being reluctant to enforce human rights, but by invading Iraq, the US and Britain practically signed the UN's death sentence. The two most powerful nations in the world are treating the UN like janitors assigned to clean up after their mess. The war in Iraq came with no unanimous support from the UN Security Council, and now it is expected that the UN jump into the wagon because they have no choice? The UN was once a dream come true in pursuit of world peace. Now clearly, that dream is over.
Janet Paulin, Philippines/Australia

There's no such thing as human rights. Rights of any sort are simply social conventions that can be altered at the whim of the society that sets them.
Paul, Gloucester, England

Rights lost can never be regained Martin Edwards, London, UK

A dark shroud of authoritarianism is wrapping itself around western democracies woven from the thread of fear. Which is the greater threat? The acts of misguided religious fundamentalists with their suicide bombers or the systematic and deliberate erosion of civil liberties by repressive politicians on the pretence of a global terrorist threat? In the end we all lose. Rights lost can never be regained.
Martin Edwards, London UK

Human Rights for Terrorists?? They should have the right to choose their last meal and that's about it!
Dave S, Houston, USA

By detaining people without access to legal representation, the UK and the USA have lost their credibility and their moral authority on human rights and given a green light to regimes around the world to crack down on legitimate protest and internal dissidence in the name of fighting "terrorism". This is a tragedy for all of us, but particularly for people like Tenzin Delek, a Tibetan Buddhist leader, who faces execution on trumped up charges in China.
Simon Cook, Stratford England

It is our moral duty to stop human rights violations and to intervene in the affairs of other countries to do so.
Mark L. Balaam, Cheadle, UK

What can you tell me about my human rights to be able to go out in the street and not be blown up by a suicidal maniac?
Angeles Camoiras-Martinez, London England

I think the Guantanamo Bay prisoners create a new perspective on this Jocelyn Godbold, Bristol, UK

I think the Guantanamo Bay prisoners create a new perspective on this. Held for over two years (and still being held) for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No lawyers, no evidence, no reason. That kind of treatment could happen to any of us, and the sooner we realise this, the sooner the human rights issue will be tackled.
Jocelyn Godbold, Bristol, UK

Human Rights? What about the human rights of the people the terrorists would kill on a large scale? Get real, please don't start all this 'do gooder' stuff. It will be the end of society as we know it if they get their way.
John K, Merseyside, UK

The gap between the rich and the poor is widening day after day. Not much has been done to bridge the gap in any of the developing countries. In many Asian and African countries millions of people are below the poverty line and the governments in those countries don't' seem to worry about the plight of the poor. So much money is spent on arms in many developing countries and some developed countries sell arms to those poor countries. Rich countries seem to pay only lip service to maintaining human rights.
Albert P'Rayana, Kigali, Rwanda

The world can't actually agree on what fundamental human rights are, so what hope is there of making progress in this area? For example, we see that the influence of Islam is growing in the world, but Islam does not share a 'western' view of human rights e.g. equality of the sexes, equality before the law etc. Ultimately whoever is strongest imposes their view of human rights on others. Despite all its failings and problems, let's hope that western ascendancy continues.
Andrew Brown, Derby UK

Requiring the Security Council to focus on human rights is not going to work - it was not set up for that, it was set up, supposedly, for security Katherine, London, UK

The UN is the sum of its parts, and the most important part is the Security Council. If the UN is to do something about human rights abuses, then that means the Security Council must do something. Requiring the Security Council to focus on human rights is not going to work - it was not set up for that, it was set up, supposedly, for security. If western countries want to do something about human rights abuses across the world independently, they would do better to examine their own culpability.
Katherine, London, UK

The thing with human rights is that you either believe in them or you don't. If you do you cannot defend what the US is doing in Cuba.
Peter Higgins, Colchester

The issue of Human Rights and whether we're doing enough really hinges on a few key countries. It seems that the US is happy to step in for the reason of Human Rights only if it knows it can overpower any opposition. Nothing is done about Korea and China except for rhetoric and there is a suspicious (but predictable) silence when it comes to Israel and Saudi Arabia. How can we respect the US and UK commitment to addressing Human Rights abuses when they make a lot of noise about the 'usual suspects' but look the other way when it comes to countries they are friends with. Sadly, I think 'Human Rights' has lost it's true meaning and is simply used as an excuse to start wars or reduce competition.
Nik, Reading, UK.

Human's rights are the right to life, the right to work, the right to your own beliefs. However I believe Human rights campaigners twists this to allow criminal anonymity and terrorists' freedom of movement. The definition of what constitutes human rights needs to be fixed first.
Mark, Zurich, Switzerland

Security is a basic element of human rights, but we are living in a time when we have to consider giving priority to security against human rights. The most debatable part of the problem is that Western politicians use the phrase "human rights" as an excuse for their controversial acts in the name of security. On the other hand, in least developed parts of the world, where human rights abuse has a long history, is often forgotten or even neglected due to local security is not under immediate threat.
Mary McCannon, Budapest, Hungary

One country and its sidekicks making arbitrary rulings on good or evil is not a recipe for a long-term solution to the world's problems JohnM, LyneMeads, UK

9/11 changed the US. The invasion of Iraq changed the rest of the world. The current UN may now be irrelevant but once thing is certain and that is that the world needs a UN. Our future can only be secure and human rights protected if we all work together. A world organisation working for the common good is a necessity. The current situation with one country and its sidekicks making arbitrary rulings on good or evil is not a recipe for a long-term solution to the world's problems.
JohnM, LyneMeads, UK

The world is loosing battle on human rights. Individual countries under UN charter and the UN must insist on human rights. There is no excuse and 9/11 takes no precedence at all. The UN is a toothless tiger, and is reactive, not pro active in this area. The world does not learn at all.
Jevans, Brighton, UK

The notion of human rights comes naturally with good government, education and above all wealth.
Christian Tiburtius, Reading UK

How does Mr Blair suggest that the UN "enforce" human rights? There is no UN army, or police, and the Americans don't even bother to pay their contribution towards its upkeep. Let's face it, if the UN is inadequate, it is because people like Blair and Bush want it that way. Security should never take precedence over human rights. That is the road to Stalinism.
Tom, Burnley, UK

Until every person in every corner of the planet is able to enjoy all their rights, then not enough is being done. Whilst some nations are able to flagrantly violate human rights without fear of reprisal the international system is far too weak.
Matt, Frome, UK

The first world is so steeped in legalism that we have lost sense of what is right & wrong Shanda Barker, USA

The first world is so steeped in legalism that we have lost sense of what is right & wrong. I don't think that the UN is relevant for today's society and I don't think it tries very hard to be. As times change, we need a restructured organization that better addresses the current world situation.
Shanda Barker, USA

It's a bit rich for US politicians to urge Bush to condemn China's record on human rights when America sits back and does nothing to prevent the human rights abuses in Israel/Palestine. Is this two sided policy acceptable? No. It is hypocrisy.
Isobel, UK

The UN has no right at all to demand that all countries follow western standards. Some societies have gotten along just fine without democracy; it shouldn't be forced on them. If people want democracy and individual freedom they can agitate for it, but not everyone does. Singaporeans are happy with fewer freedoms and more authoritarian controls, for instance.
Eberhard, Bonn, Germany

Either the UN can have moral standards, or it can be an all inclusive forum for debate. It can't both. The problem is that people have placed unrealistic expectations on the UN. It can't be the world's authority on morality while including every two-bit dictator. Obviously, it can't expel the dictators without losing its claim to represent the entire world.
Tony, USA

Most of the time I can only see the issue human rights as a tool for politicians.
Wu Yuan, Singapore

There is no war that can respect human rights Sebastian, Oxford, England

Both sides of the war against terror undermine human rights. This is war. There is no war that can respect human rights as well as no war. However, the war against terror is absolutely necessary because it threatens the very way of life of all societies that enshrine human rights.
Sebastian, Oxford, England

By all means change the (UN) International laws for pre-emptive strikes for terrorism. But only if the veto rule is scrapped, that way no country is above the law.
John Pye, Australia

What chutzpah Tony Blair has in blaming the United Nations for not enforcing Human Rights. Everyone knows it is the United States who sets the agenda for the UN. One example: the US funds programs investigating child labour abuses but only in industries whose imports to the US compete with American-made products so that it can undermine them and eliminate the competition.
Brendan Kolbay, Mew York

Imprisonment without trial and interrogation with legal representation are in themselves human rights abuses. Pulling finger nails is not the only form of torture. Will the Blair and Bush road show be looking to have acceptable levels of abuse written in to the new charter I wonder.
Paul, Belgium

The question one should ask is what are human rights before tackling who should be enforcing it. Every country has its own definition of human rights. Countries especially the major world powers should first and foremost respect the definition of human rights as defined by each country. Why the UK and US criticise developing countries for so-called violating human rights but close their eyes towards what they themselves do. For instance I have not heard of US or UK opposing to Australia's ill-treatment of aborigines especially in the handling of Redfern riots.
Leslie Chew, Singapore

To Leslie Chew of Singapore: Human rights are universal and countries do not have a right to a relativistic interpretation of them. In 1993, a group of Singaporean disgraced themselves by asserting there is no such thing as human right in the 1993 Human rights convention in Vienna, so confident they were that the propaganda that is "Asian values" can be made real by the mere act of repeating. It is one thing to create propaganda. It is another to believe you own propaganda.
Tan Bann Seng, Singapore

Bush and Blair are taking a very selective interpretation of human rights to suit their own narrow purposes, which may include strategic political and economic benefits, in full knowledge that the UN is not a world policeman - it operates as it has always done by permission and consensus of its membership. The UN has no mandate to fight wars against rogue nations, unless members empower it through votes, resources and armies. Giving the UN authority and means to carry out its charter will sadly never be deemed in the national interests of the US, UK, or indeed any other country.
Andy Millward, Broxbourne, UK

It is amazing how people blame Bush and Blair for every thing. Human Rights are abused in the east not because of Bush/Blair policies but because of the pathetic politicians and criminals who run these countries. If these people were honest the eastern side of the world would be a lot better.
Bharath, India

Human rights legislation is hurried, unclear and ambiguous Albert, UK

Human rights is a "good thing" like freedom of speech or clean energy. Anyone on Question Time can get a big cheer by claiming they stand for "human rights". However human rights legislation is hurried, unclear and ambiguous. The only people who really gain by it are lawyers who pretend any conviction is in contravention of their client's "human rights" and fight long-drawn-out court cases funded by the taxpayer.
Albert, UK

Perhaps the reason that the UN is powerless to enforce human rights is because of the selfishness of the most powerful and richest nations to expend money on such projects unless there is something in it for them. And also, perhaps, because sometimes the nations who are breaching these rights are too strong to be controlled by the weaker member states. I think it is a good thing that there is an international organisation such as the UN that at least exhorts these ideals and urges nations to aspire to them even if it is powerless to make all of its members fall into line.
Ozorek, Bradford, UK

I believe that human rights undermines safety and security considerations. The UN certainly needs to update its thinking in this regard and come up with a treaty similar to the Geneva Convention (which seeks to strike a balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations) and draft some document that seeks to strike a balance between safety and security issues with human and sovereign rights.
Jabu, South Africa

The Human Rights movement needs more teeth to be enforced. The violators are too strong in getting away with whatever they do. Good sentiments are just not enough.
Buroshiva Dasgupta, Manipal, India

"Human rights" has become a meaningless phrase that is only trotted out when politically expedient to justify some action actually motivated by greed.
JB, Santa Fe, NM

Important quote to remember in these day's of danger: All you have to fear is fear itself. By embracing fear you lose valuable objectivity. How much security can any of us really have? Does stripping us of our human rights really make us more secure?
John Kassen, Shawnee, Ks

Yes the U.N. should do more about human rights and the five permanent members of the Security Council could start by stopping sales of arms to other countries. Between them they manufacture over 80% of the world's weaponry. The UK arms industry accounts for 20% of world weapon sales and after agriculture is the most heavily government subsided industry.
Glen, Hertfordshire England

I personally do not believe the world is doing enough, but I can definitely say that the world is trying Joanna, California

I personally do not believe the world is doing enough, but I can definitely say that the world is trying. We are all trying, for the majority, to make things better in the world, to create peace, and Tony Blair sees this and definitely wants to make a difference in the world, as we should respect him for all that he does. If we all just pitch in a little bit, think of the difference it would make. If one hundred people give a penny, you have one dollar. It's as simple as that.
Joanna, California, USA

The UN does need updating - it is too much of a talking shop - look at the endless resolutions over Iraq. Without the freeing of Iraq by the US and UK Saddam would still be murdering and torturing thousands of his own people.
David Morris, Brecon, UK

Why are Human Rights only an issue here in the west?
Anne Herbert, Croydon, Surrey

The War on Terror doesn't undermine human rights. If anything, the human rights brigade is undermining the War on Terror.
Carl Jackson, Chalfont St Giles, UK

As long as we attribute some of the human rights problems such as violence against women and children, to cultural differences instead of the crimes against humanity that they truly are, the world will never do enough. The UN has failed miserably at its chief responsibility.
Sherry Beth, USA

Perhaps Mr Blair could start by practicing in the UK Pauline Humphrey, Newcastle

Perhaps Mr Blair could start by practicing in the UK. Every day we read about people being exploited here. Is Mr Blair doing anything about the human rights of those who are smuggled in to work in appalling conditions akin to slavery, whether as child domestics, prostitutes or farm labourers etc?
Pauline Humphrey, Newcastle

Human Rights have to begin with Humans. Humans are the ones who have to practice it, and make enforcement of it by a world body unnecessary!
Thiru K, Sri Lanka/USA

As Tupac Shakur once said, "We have money for wars but can't feed the poor". Sadly, it is a true reality.
Adnan Moquit, New York, USA

Chechnya is an example - plain as day Andy, Grozny

The world is doing nothing; Chechnya is an example - plain as day. The most interesting thing is that everyone knows what's going on over there but no one takes any action. Neither UN nor the EU.
Andy, Grozny, Chechnya

Human rights changes from different societies at different times. Who are we to say what so-called "human rights" is?
William Ranford, Wendover, UK

This is a fine time for Blair to be making such statements. If he hadn't dragged us into war the terrorist threat this country faces wouldn't be as acute.
Tracey, London, UK

Open any newspaper today; clearly we are not doing enough about human rights. To date we have treated and thought of human rights as a self contained issue or problem to be dealt with. As we do with global terrorism, national security, etc. Perhaps we should be concentrating on the connections between them. These connections are harder to solve because they require a long term perspective.
Niki, Queensland, Australia

Should Human Rights be scrapped to reflect 21st century reality? Pat O'Shea, Ilford

Should the invasion of sovereign states under the pretext of WMD be incorporated in the UN charter to reflect 21st Century reality coalition style? Should Human Rights be scrapped to reflect 21st century reality?
Pat O'Shea, Ilford, Essex, England

Why on earth didn't we hear this speech in 1997 during his initial election campaign? Why didn't we hear it after 9/11?
Trevor, Colchester, UK

Amazing. Bush and Blair liberate 30 million Iraqis from a heinous dictator and also free the Afghan people from the terror of the Taliban and yet the do-nothing handwringers whine about their "failures" to fight for human rights. They've done more for human freedom than the UN and all these self-appoint "human rights" groups have done their entire existence.
Peter C. Kohler, Washington DC USA

The UN is a function of the members who belong to it. If individual countries have no desire to oversee human rights then how can we expect the UN to do it when it is merely an extension of these countries?
Charles, Montreal Canada

Security IS a human right (or at least, it should be). Utopian in it's simplicity perhaps, but true never the less.
Gil, Hawaii, USA

I don't think UN is capable of enforcing human rights at the moment. Its hands are tied in several conflicts and miseries all over the world. The defensive preparations against terrorism must be paid for. I wonder how this is done. The easiest way to do this is to diminish the human rights of those who already live in poverty, sickness and solitude. Their rights to reasonable income and a happy life are at stake. I don't think anything can be done revert this development. Unless there is tougher sanctions issued against those who don't respect the human rights.
Tommy, Helsinki, Finland

We should not allow a few to dictate how the world should go forward Arif Sayed, Dubai

This reflects the lopsided policy followed by Bush/Blair over the last few years. Their doctrine of the world should follow what we say is highlighted in this speech. If we follow this call we will be rolling back what we in the world achieved after two world wars and millions dead. We should not allow a few to dictate how the world should go forward be it Osama/Mullah Omar /Al-Qaeda/Sharon etc or Bush/Blair. Anyway, who has given Blair/Bush to talk on the worlds' behalf on these issues?
Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE

It seems each society has different views concerning human rights, these differences would have to be resolved before any international standard could be applied. Further, the UN cannot enforce these rights unless all nations agree to give a significant portion of there own sovereignty.
Chris Whiting, Calgary, Canada

The US is blocking all work on Human Rights, preferring instead to enslave and destroy the world for profit. All this talk is nothing until the US is made to leave the world's problem areas.
Ramesh, Calcutta

I think too many people obsess about the US's less than perfect record on human rights while ignoring the biggest violators. I'm afraid the human rights movement has lost all perspective and credibility by giving a free pass to every country that doesn't have the initials U.S.A.
Shawn, Washington, DC, USA

We need to end the hypocrisy. If we are to fight the breach of human rights in other countries then we must not breach those rights ourselves. Let those who are truly innocent cast the first stone¿ and we are far from innocent.
Adrian Bowley, Bracknell, UK

The international human rights movement has unfortunately been hijacked by the anti-American left John C, New York

The international human rights movement has unfortunately been hijacked by the anti-American left. While they protest against holding homicidal terrorists in detention in Guantanamo, they do nothing about tyrannical regimes in North Korea, Iraq, Iran, etc. The movement needs to be depoliticized and needs to speak with a non-partisan voice in support of human rights, democracy, and freedom everywhere.
John C, New York, USA

Half the time we've never even heard of the human rights abuses that are going on - look at Tibet and Burma. Surely raising public awareness in the West is a key thing to do in the near future.
Lena, Cambridge, UK

Security and human rights should be complementary items. However, as we have seen in Iraq, when the security threat (WMD) is found to be unjustified then the human rights situation is used as an excuse for an invasion. I'm curious to see when the USA will invade Haiti, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc. based on the human rights violations there. But I won't hold my breath.
Gareth, Bermuda

I wouldn't put much faith in what Mr Blair has to say on the subject of human rights. Try the human rights of prisoners at Guantanamo or for that matter the human rights of Iraqis destroyed by this pointless and unnecessary war.
Alan, Warsaw, Poland

The rational criticism I can make of Mr. Blair's comment is that he was stating the obvious Jim , NJ

9/11 and the "war on terror" have made a minimal difference in the quality of human rights around the world. The most harmful human rights violations occur in places that have been barely affected by these events, if at all. I'm sure people who have been fingerprinted unnecessarily or have been made to sit around an airport for two extra hours felt their rights were not being respected at the time.

But nobody is going to compare these small "abuses" to slavery, genital mutilation, honour killings, genocide, forced migration, torture, ritualized rape and political imprisonment. These are the kinds of abuses Blair is referring to when he says the UN isn't serious about protecting human rights. The rational criticism I can make of Mr. Blair's comment is that he was stating the obvious.
Jim , NJ, USA

No, the world is not doing enough to enforce human rights. However, when Blair or Bush raise the question of human rights, they risk opening a can of worms. The US especially has a long history of human rights abuse carried out by client states supported by the US. When human rights abuses are tolerated (or encouraged) in "friendly" states but denounced only when they occur by the hands of "enemy" states then the whole issue just becomes a political playing card.... And the torture, imprisonment and starvation continue.
Tom Hunsberger, Canadian in Mexico

I really don't think Tony Blair has a leg to stand on when it comes to Human Rights, after his support of an illegal invasion that caused thousands of deaths, and his support of Bush and Guantanamo Bay. Resign Mr Blair, your position is untenable.
Nat, London, UK

There are no rights, only privileges. Governments don't give a damn about human rights as they don't exist. Governments grant you privileges as they see fit and depending on where you live depends on how many privileges you have.
Martin, England

Security and human rights must be balanced, but they're not mutually exclusive Guy, USA

No, the world's not doing enough. Security and human rights must be balanced, but they're not mutually exclusive. The US could do more in the way of humanitarian/economic support; the UN/international community ought to help enforce those rights. But God forbid we take a unified (i.e. multilateral) and resolved stand against repressive regimes like North Korea. We should be ashamed by the way we've absconded from our responsibilities.
Guy, USA

I found the Prime Minister's remarks odd. Surely he knows that the UN can only recommend an action but cannot order one. That has always been the UN's strength and its weakness.
Inna Tysoe, Sacramento, CA USA

The Bush/Blair axis isn't much better than the people they say they're trying to combat ... after failing to find any WMD really see no reason to believe Blair's recent call to arms against "terrorists".
Phil, UK