Human rights are a one-way street f

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Human rights are a one-way street for EU 

Electronic Wire to IntelAsia from Brussels,Belgique

          Human rights are a one-way street for EU 
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 



                                                                        THE
latest ministerial talks between the Commission of the
                                                                        Euro
pean Union (EU) and the Association of South-East Asian
                                                                        Nati
ons went well, with a full and useful exchange of views and
                                                            both sides
growing in confidence in expressing difficult issues. 

Or so we are told. I do not mean to disbelieve the press statements and
reports from officials. But isn't it
time that some of us who were elected in Europe (and Asean, too), as opposed
to appointed like the EU
Commissioner, were included in the dialogue? 

Unless we are, there is a strong chance of considerable friction when, as
widely anticipated, Asean opens
its doors to the last three entrants, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. The bone
of contention will be of
course "human rights", with particular reference to Myanmar. 

I believe, as a fully paid-up democrat, that the wider the discussion, the
better the chance of avoiding a
clash. However, I fear that on both sides, important voices will argue
persuasively the opposite -- that the
less said in public, the better. 

First, consider the present position. Since 1988, the EU Commission has
submitted no trade and
co-operation agreement to the European Parliament for ratification or
approval without a "human rights"
clause. Over recent years, this instrument has been sharpened from a vague
reference of hope to a clear
commitment to suspending an agreement where there are human rights
violations. The latest country to
find this annoying is Australia, where there is resentment at being reduced
to the ranks of the rest of Asia,
an ironic complaint for a government eager to have itself regarded as an
Asian country. 

However, the last entrant into Asean, Vietnam, eagerly signed an agreement
with the EU which did contain
a suspension clause in the case of human rights abuses in Vietnam. It has
not passed without comment
that the EU could be in trouble should any third country insist on a human
rights conditionality relating to
the internal situation in the EU. Human rights are strictly a one-way street
as far as the EU is concerned. 

When Vietnam entered Asean, all three sides, the EU, Asean and Vietnam,
agreed that the suspension
clause would be carried over, although the EU-Asean agreement has no such
clause. Indeed, Asean
resistance to such conditionality is one reason why a much-needed improved
agreement has been delayed.

Certainly, human rights activists in Europe will seek to explore the
potential of this carry-over of
Vietnam's suspension clause as a Trojan Horse to pressurise Asean countries,
particularly in the event of
the admission of Myanmar, into admitting a general rights conditionality. I
have no truck with the Slorc
regime, but Myanmar is a suitable soft target for Western liberals. Myanmar
has no oil, unlike some
Euro-friendly despotic Middle Eastern states. It has no significant consumer
potential, immediate or
long-term, unlike China, so no corresponding export lobby in the West is
going to advocate "a realistic,
positive engagement". 

Finally, the opposition there did actually win the election, which makes
Aung San Suu Ky very different
from other "dissidents" the West has adopted (and often later abandoned) in
the past. Myanmar is a safe
subject to get indignant about. 

I do have some sympathy with Asians complaining about neo-colonialism and
Western hypocrisy but all
too often this resentment is expressed as a truculent whining of "mind your
own business". It could well
be that there is a case for drawing Myanmar into progressive change by
including it in international,
regional arrangements, rather than excluding it. But that case is not being
made openly, and Europe is not
helping create the atmosphere by finger-wagging posturing. 

I think there is not enough time to create confidence by the date of entry
of Myanmar, but I think equally
that we must make a start. The stark reality is that if Myanmar is admitted,
then the EU-Asean agreement
will have to be amended and that will have to be approved by the directly
elected European Parliament --
that is extremely unlikely given the justifiably hostile press which the
Slorc regime receives. 

It is not so much "confidence-building" between leaders that is needed, but
"trust" among a far broader
section of the community. Sadly, there is an abiding mistrust of intention
still between East and West.
Which brings me back to my starting point. I am sure ministers and
bureaucrats will say: "But that is not
true, our recent talks show the opposite." Do they? How are the people to
know, if their representatives
are excluded from the dialogue? 

The writer is a Member of the European Parliament