An Interview with our New President

... con't

ICPC – So you believe that all these issues are linked together?

RD – Of course they are! You can’t solve one problem without addressing all the others.  However, at the very least, we should be able to live in a society where everyone can flourish.  This sounds utopian of course, but it is a real challenge and we still have a lot to do.

ICPC – How were these issues debated and addressed at the European Parliament?

RD – The European Parliament is the democratic expression of the European Union.  The EU was born of a very simple idea, namely, that society cannot prosper without peace and cooperation.

Of course, the EU was initially developed for economic and trade reasons, but the issues of peace and cooperation have always found their way into the very heart of parliamentary debate because society is not based purely on economics, just like man is not just a worker.  Man is a human being with certain needs, for example, the preservation of health, and access to justice. Therefore, the questions that arose for the EU were: “What is European justice? What kind of society do we want in Europe?” These questions lead to economic, and later, legal jurisdiction.  And even though education and health do not come under European jurisdiction, these topics are now debated far more frequently at the European Parliament.

ICPC – With respects to security, and more specifically human security, what do you see as its positive aspects - in the sense that security contributes to individual and social development – compared with its less positive aspects - given that the very word security has many different meanings and is  ideologically loaded?

RD – There are various levels of personal safety and security.  The first level is physical, moral and mental integrity.  In other words, the right of the individual to live in a society, free from the fear of assault.  Individuals can be assaulted by environmental problems, by neighbourhood crime, family violence, violence from the opposite sex, etc.  So this first level of safety is essential.  Then there is the second level - the relational level - that is, the individual’s relations with others, within the workplace, within the family, etc., and society also has a role to play at this level.  Combating violence against children and promoting workplace safety are essential aspects of social development. The third level of personal safety and security is more general, as it relates to sustainable development.  This manifests itself in broader issues, such as drug abuse, major crime, etc.  As you can see, security is front and centre at all three levels of personal safety. We must look at it in a positive light, because it forces us to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in.  Violence is not inevitable and there is no reason to accept it passively.  On the contrary, we must all reflect and act upon it. 

ICPC – It’s very interesting that you talk about security as an integral part of sustainable development.  Could you elaborate on this point?

RD – Well, let’s take an example from current events.  As you know, the WHO World Forum on Trauma Prevention and Health Promotion has just wrapped up in Vienna. The conference discussions were based on two reports.  The first was an economic analysis of violence. By sustainable development, I mean asking ourselves how we can work on social development and public welfare, when a significant part of the resources that we should be dedicating to education, health, culture, and infrastructure is spent instead on fighting problems related to violence.  Of course, this must be considered from an economic perspective, but the WHO report shows how all these issues are linked.  It is unacceptable that a country such as the United States spends 1% of its wealth on violence-related problems.  This figure is probably even higher in some countries in Latin America or Africa.  Violence is therefore a vital issue in development. 

The second report which informed the WHO conference discussions dealt with violence and health.  Here again, it was demonstrated that violence is linked to every aspect of society, it must be combated, and that this must be achieved through prevention. This is definitely an issue for future development because the resources dedicated to prevention incidentally improve every other aspect of social life. So you could say that we are starting from an economic perspective and arriving at a genuine development perspective in critical areas such as intelligence, health, labour, access to infrastructure, and so forth. I believe that development is intimately linked to security and the struggle against violence.

ICPC – It can be argued that there is a current trend towards more stringent controls, especially in the wake of the terrorist attacks, or, to put it bluntly, towards increased repression.

RD – Yes, it is true that the war against new forms of violence, for example large-scale terrorism, is invariably and implacably waged through restricting individual rights and freedoms. I think that so far, we haven’t given sufficient thought to the ways we can effectively fight terrorism while protecting individual freedoms: finding the right balance between liberty and security.  We must find a happy medium. We cannot be naive, but neither should we use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to deprive individuals of their basic rights and freedoms. I believe that the scales are currently tipping towards restricting freedom, but that’s because there has not yet been a broad, democratic, public debate on the issue, especially at the international level.  It did take place at the European Parliament, but what we need is a broad public understanding of the issues at stake.  Like I said, we must not be naive, but we must also reflect on the ways to protect freedom while preserving peace and security.

ICPC – You are touching on a fundamental issue that has been at the heart of prevention policies since their inception.  All of the international studies, including those of ICPC, have concluded that there is a very fragile and precarious balance between prevention and repression, as Gilbert BONNEMAISON said, and between freedom and security, as you have just said.

RD – I am very happy to be on the same wavelength as ICPC.  I do not have the same level of expertise as Mme. EZRATTY, who was an exceptional Chair for ICPC, nor as the founder of prevention policy, M. BONNEMAISON, but I do believe that this issue is still worth debating, and I believe that organizations such as ICPC are eminently qualified to do so soberly and apolitically. But we must also provide alternatives.  It’s one thing to point out threats to individual rights, and quite another to find alternatives and answers to the questions posed by threats to security.  This is why structures such as the ICPC, the Council of Europe, and so on, are so important.

ICPC – What motivated you to accept the presidency of ICPC?

RD – Well, I was extremely flattered that ICPC luminaries such as Yves van DE VLOET, even thought of me. Also, taking over from Mme. EZRATTY was a great honour for me, as I know her by reputation.  She has an outstanding record as a magistrate and as a public figure in the field of justice and prevention.  But my personal interest for public affairs was also a part of the equation.  Working elsewhere than in the private sector is new for me, and it’s fascinating, but working in public affairs in addition to that is ideal, and that was a major factor in my decision.

Lastly, ICPC is an international organization.  I grew up immersed in a European and international atmosphere, and this is a wonderful opportunity for me to come back to this environment.  This is an open-ended challenge and I can’t wait to see where it will take me.

ICPC – When we think of the international role of organizations such as ICPC, we understand the importance of international standards, which are in effect goals that each country must strive for.  But there’s also the necessary and inevitable issue of the distinctiveness of each country.  What do you think is the role of comparative analysis of security and prevention internationally?

RD – Well, take the WHO meeting, for example, on the economic dimension of interpersonal violence.  What strikes me is the analysis of national distinctiveness. Since this work is done in the field, we must acknowledge differences and allow for them through tailored solutions.  We must remember that problems are not necessarily the same everywhere.  However, what really astounds me is the interest for comparing solutions that have been tried elsewhere as well as the importance given to evaluation. First, let’s talk about comparison.  The problems are not easy to deal with and there are no straightforward solutions, because the situations are very complex.  This is why comparison is so crucial.  Knowledge must be shared amongst stakeholders because these problems are so critical that we cannot afford to ignore the experiences and lessons learned by other stakeholders. With regards to evaluation, what strikes me - and I believe this is an excellent field of expertise for ICPC - is the premise that everyone knows how to evaluate.  Statistics on the increase or decrease in crime rates do not constitute an evaluation.  Of course, they are an important measurement tool, but they are not an evaluation of prevention policy in and of themselves. I believe that any examination of evaluation criteria also must be conducted at the international level and that countries must work together to improve evaluation processes.  If we are to achieve this, we need international support such as that given by ICPC.  This is essential.

ICPC – When you were asked to become Chair of ICPC, you must have looked at our Web site, our publications, and you must have talked about it with certain people.  What were your impressions from these early contacts?

RD – First of all, my research on ICPC led to admire the work which has already been accomplished.  But what I liked the most was that it is an international organization, and the international scene is where I feel most comfortable.

ICPC is truly international in scope because it is made up of various governments, national and international organizations, and the UN. This aspect of ICPC is what led me to believe that I would feel very comfortable working there. Having said that, I do realize that there is going to be a steep learning curve!

ICPC – Yes, let’s talk about this strange entity, ICPC, an NGO that was created and is supported by governments all over the world.  It has its own Board of Directors composed of other NGOs and UN organizations.  How do you feel, chairing this Board of Directors in a two-headed structure?

RD – I believe that the structure of ICPC is crucial.  If governments are to be involved, they must be able to give some direction and specify what their needs are.  An organization of this type is only justified if it is useful to its creators.  But it’s not such a strange entity.  I’ve seen international organizations that were far more complex.  It’s precisely the way these entities complement each other that I find interesting.  The challenge - because I can see where you are heading here -  is to broaden the field now, in order to become more geographically diverse.  I think Asia is underrepresented, and African countries are starting to be better represented, but they have financial constraints. We can succeed. We have the tools needed to ensure a wider representation, and this is precisely due to the fact that there is a good balance between governments and NGOs.

ICPC – Yes, you saw me coming, I was going to ask you about challenges.  Apart from diversity, what do you think are the main challenges for ICPC over the next few years?

RD – I believe that this structural issue is essential. ICPC will have to develop its geographic representation and find new ways of fostering new partnerships.  But there is also the challenge of the scope of our work, which is very broad and important.  For example, you spoke of terrorism a few minutes ago, large-scale crime linked to terrorism is directly linked to issues of personal safety and various forms of trafficking. ICPC will have to study these issues because they are intrinsically linked to personal safety and public security.

ICPC – As far as you’re concerned, what are your priorities?

RD – In the short term, to become better acquainted with the ICPC team, and to prepare for the 10th Anniversary Conference scheduled for December 1-2, 2004 in Paris.  These two projects will enable me to define my medium and long-term priorities much better.

ICPC- Thank you for your time.

Interview conducted by: Daniel Sansfacon, Deputy Director, ICPC.