Asia, Europe must not lecture over rights<\/p>\n
By Arif Havas Ugroseno<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): With the summitry of the Asia-Europe Meeting
\n(ASEM) fast approaching, Amnesty International has launched yet
\nanother campaign, which it has called Human Rights, the Missing
\nLink in the Asia-Europe Meeting.<\/p>\n
Amnesty is proposing a five-point agenda to be discussed at
\nthe gathering; a) a strong rejection of calls for a review of the
\nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights --- even though everyone
\nknows it was formulated when its major drafters were violating
\nall kinds of human rights in their colonies --- and a call for
\nthe ratification of major international instruments; b) provision
\nof access to NGOs, especially in the work of the ASEM Vision
\nGroup; c) the creation of a so-called operational dialog on human
\nrights; d) the inclusion of human rights in regional security
\ntalks; e) the development of business codes of conduct to include
\nhuman rights.<\/p>\n
The human rights organization feels that the time is ripe and
\nopportune to bring such a loaded agenda to the summit -- it
\nrecently declared to the press in Brussels that \"the Asian crisis
\nprovides a unique opportunity to discuss human rights in concrete
\nterms\". An agenda with this mindset is opportunistic, shady,
\ninoperative, ill-informed and just plain wrong.<\/p>\n
To strike a foe while it is weak is called strategic, but to
\nclobber a weak friend is no more and no less than back-stabbing
\nopportunism. It is not clear whether Asia, in Amnesty's eyes, is
\na friend or foe of Europe. At any rate, Amnesty believes there is
\nno way to promote and protect human rights in Asia except by
\nwaiting for Asia to be weak enough to be dictated to.<\/p>\n
This is clearly a nonstarter and constitutes an erroneous and
\nweak basis on which to build strong and mutually beneficial
\ncooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights.<\/p>\n
Although leveled against a narrower target, the conviction of
\nJose Ramos-Horta and the president of Portugal that the current
\neconomic crisis provides the right opportunity to further coerce
\nIndonesia into yielding to their terms on the East Timor question
\nreveals the striking similarities of Amnesty's mindset with these
\nopportunists. The six-million-dollar question now is whether this
\nstate of mind is coincidental or conspiratorial.<\/p>\n
The proposition is inherently shady. The core objective is the
\ncreation of the so-called operational dialog and the inclusion of
\nhuman rights in regional security dialogs. If frank talks are so
\nsincerely desired, the blueprint of such dialog should not be a
\none-way approach where Asia violates and Europe dictates, as
\nproposed in Amnesty's proposal but should be a two-way street
\nwhere both sides should have the opportunity to address the human
\nrights problems of each other.<\/p>\n
As Mark Turner writes in Human Rights: EU Wrongs (European
\nVoice Jan. 8 to Jan. 14, 1998), if Europe is so squeaky clean,
\nsurely more scrutiny would only highlight the continent's claims
\nto moral superiority. However, it is doubtful that the EU will
\never willingly allow foreign parties to formally scrutinize or
\npublicize its human rights records and extend recommendations to
\nimprove their human rights performance.<\/p>\n
A statement akin to Article F of the Treaty of the EU
\nstatement explaining the EU's own human rights problems is not
\nlikely to be made during any international human rights debate.
\nAs a matter of fact, when German Green Party MEP Claudia Roth
\ncriticized member states' internal records in a controversial
\nreport, politicians lined up to condemn it as unwelcome and
\nillegitimate interference.<\/p>\n
The so-called operational dialog is simply inoperative. This
\ndialog, which would be conducted transparently and be publicly
\nreported, is no different than creating a human rights monitoring
\nmechanism outside the purview of the United Nations human rights
\nmechanisms or any other existing treaty bodies or regional human
\nrights mechanisms.<\/p>\n
Everybody in the human rights world knows all too well that
\nestablishing a new human rights mechanism is not an easy task,
\nespecially when it is built with the wrong approach and is not
\ncommissioned or mandated by any international or regional
\ntreatise on the establishment of such a human rights mechanism.<\/p>\n
The idea to inject human rights issues into broader regional
\nsecurity talks in Asia shows that Amnesty is ill-informed on the
\ncomplexity and fundamental necessities of establishing a regional
\nsecurity dialog or cooperation in Asia.<\/p>\n
Unlike Europe, this continent is huge and remarkably diverse.
\nNeedless to say, the establishment of any regional security
\ndialog should take into account the different competing interests
\nof various major powers both within and without the region such
\nas China, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and ASEAN.<\/p>\n
As is the case with the ASEAN Regional Forum, for instance,
\nthe process of establishing regional security cooperation moves
\nat a speed tolerable to its participants so as to facilitate the
\ndiscussion of all issues of common concern in a more open fashion
\nand to support collaboration and encourage positive behavior from
\nall participants.<\/p>\n
Judging from the strained human rights relations between the
\nU.S. and many other powers in Asia -- which are marked by the
\nAmericans' messianic approach or the EU's finger-pointing habit
\nas evidenced in its human rights commission -- Amnesty's
\nproposition will only jeopardize the process of developing mutual
\nunderstanding and trust and defeat the whole purpose of
\nestablishing such regional security talks.<\/p>\n
The campaign is just plain wrong. ASEM does not need such
\nunrealistic and misleading propositions. Asia and Europe need
\nhuman rights confidence-building measures. One cannot possibly
\nisolate the EU's attitude problem in human rights debates at the
\nUnited Nations fora in Geneva or New York from the rights talks
\nproposed to be held at ASEM.<\/p>\n
One cannot imagine what the atmosphere at ASEM would be if the
\nEU performs its ritual of making a long statement condemning
\nhuman rights violations in Asia. Furthermore, the existence of
\nrecalcitrant chauvinistic domestic agendas pursued by countries
\nsuch as Portugal will destroy the very confidence needed to
\ncommence constructive rights talks at ASEM.<\/p>\n
Should both Asia and Europe sense the urgent need to start
\nthis kind of dialog, they should arrive at an understanding to
\ndevise a concrete and acceptable design aimed at creating an
\natmosphere of human rights trust.<\/p>\n
Exchanges of human rights scholars, students, human rights
\nofficers, legislators and members of national commissions on a
\nfrequent and regular basis, frank talks aimed at developing
\nconvergent human rights views, finding ways and means to
\neliminate finger-pointing habits which trigger defensive
\npositions are a few initial steps that could be taken.<\/p>\n
Creating such confidence is not an overnight business. Any
\nsincere attempt to build strong and lasting cooperation entails
\nthe consequences of time-consuming measures since true
\nunderstanding grows slowly from within.<\/p>\n
The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and now works
\nat the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed here are
\npurely personal.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asia-europe-must-not-lecture-over-rights-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}