Asia, Europe must not lecture over rights

Asia, Europe must not lecture over rights

By Arif Havas Ugroseno

JAKARTA (JP): With the summitry of the Asia-Europe Meeting
(ASEM) fast approaching, Amnesty International has launched yet
another campaign, which it has called Human Rights, the Missing
Link in the Asia-Europe Meeting.

Amnesty is proposing a five-point agenda to be discussed at
the gathering; a) a strong rejection of calls for a review of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights --- even though everyone
knows it was formulated when its major drafters were violating
all kinds of human rights in their colonies --- and a call for
the ratification of major international instruments; b) provision
of access to NGOs, especially in the work of the ASEM Vision
Group; c) the creation of a so-called operational dialog on human
rights; d) the inclusion of human rights in regional security
talks; e) the development of business codes of conduct to include
human rights.

The human rights organization feels that the time is ripe and
opportune to bring such a loaded agenda to the summit -- it
recently declared to the press in Brussels that "the Asian crisis
provides a unique opportunity to discuss human rights in concrete
terms". An agenda with this mindset is opportunistic, shady,
inoperative, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

To strike a foe while it is weak is called strategic, but to
clobber a weak friend is no more and no less than back-stabbing
opportunism. It is not clear whether Asia, in Amnesty's eyes, is
a friend or foe of Europe. At any rate, Amnesty believes there is
no way to promote and protect human rights in Asia except by
waiting for Asia to be weak enough to be dictated to.

This is clearly a nonstarter and constitutes an erroneous and
weak basis on which to build strong and mutually beneficial
cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Although leveled against a narrower target, the conviction of
Jose Ramos-Horta and the president of Portugal that the current
economic crisis provides the right opportunity to further coerce
Indonesia into yielding to their terms on the East Timor question
reveals the striking similarities of Amnesty's mindset with these
opportunists. The six-million-dollar question now is whether this
state of mind is coincidental or conspiratorial.

The proposition is inherently shady. The core objective is the
creation of the so-called operational dialog and the inclusion of
human rights in regional security dialogs. If frank talks are so
sincerely desired, the blueprint of such dialog should not be a
one-way approach where Asia violates and Europe dictates, as
proposed in Amnesty's proposal but should be a two-way street
where both sides should have the opportunity to address the human
rights problems of each other.

As Mark Turner writes in Human Rights: EU Wrongs (European
Voice Jan. 8 to Jan. 14, 1998), if Europe is so squeaky clean,
surely more scrutiny would only highlight the continent's claims
to moral superiority. However, it is doubtful that the EU will
ever willingly allow foreign parties to formally scrutinize or
publicize its human rights records and extend recommendations to
improve their human rights performance.

A statement akin to Article F of the Treaty of the EU
statement explaining the EU's own human rights problems is not
likely to be made during any international human rights debate.
As a matter of fact, when German Green Party MEP Claudia Roth
criticized member states' internal records in a controversial
report, politicians lined up to condemn it as unwelcome and
illegitimate interference.

The so-called operational dialog is simply inoperative. This
dialog, which would be conducted transparently and be publicly
reported, is no different than creating a human rights monitoring
mechanism outside the purview of the United Nations human rights
mechanisms or any other existing treaty bodies or regional human
rights mechanisms.

Everybody in the human rights world knows all too well that
establishing a new human rights mechanism is not an easy task,
especially when it is built with the wrong approach and is not
commissioned or mandated by any international or regional
treatise on the establishment of such a human rights mechanism.

The idea to inject human rights issues into broader regional
security talks in Asia shows that Amnesty is ill-informed on the
complexity and fundamental necessities of establishing a regional
security dialog or cooperation in Asia.

Unlike Europe, this continent is huge and remarkably diverse.
Needless to say, the establishment of any regional security
dialog should take into account the different competing interests
of various major powers both within and without the region such
as China, Japan, Russia, the U.S. and ASEAN.

As is the case with the ASEAN Regional Forum, for instance,
the process of establishing regional security cooperation moves
at a speed tolerable to its participants so as to facilitate the
discussion of all issues of common concern in a more open fashion
and to support collaboration and encourage positive behavior from
all participants.

Judging from the strained human rights relations between the
U.S. and many other powers in Asia -- which are marked by the
Americans' messianic approach or the EU's finger-pointing habit
as evidenced in its human rights commission -- Amnesty's
proposition will only jeopardize the process of developing mutual
understanding and trust and defeat the whole purpose of
establishing such regional security talks.

The campaign is just plain wrong. ASEM does not need such
unrealistic and misleading propositions. Asia and Europe need
human rights confidence-building measures. One cannot possibly
isolate the EU's attitude problem in human rights debates at the
United Nations fora in Geneva or New York from the rights talks
proposed to be held at ASEM.

One cannot imagine what the atmosphere at ASEM would be if the
EU performs its ritual of making a long statement condemning
human rights violations in Asia. Furthermore, the existence of
recalcitrant chauvinistic domestic agendas pursued by countries
such as Portugal will destroy the very confidence needed to
commence constructive rights talks at ASEM.

Should both Asia and Europe sense the urgent need to start
this kind of dialog, they should arrive at an understanding to
devise a concrete and acceptable design aimed at creating an
atmosphere of human rights trust.

Exchanges of human rights scholars, students, human rights
officers, legislators and members of national commissions on a
frequent and regular basis, frank talks aimed at developing
convergent human rights views, finding ways and means to
eliminate finger-pointing habits which trigger defensive
positions are a few initial steps that could be taken.

Creating such confidence is not an overnight business. Any
sincere attempt to build strong and lasting cooperation entails
the consequences of time-consuming measures since true
understanding grows slowly from within.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and now works
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed here are
purely personal.