The Nation, March 18, Editorial & O

[suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Editorial & Opinion 

      Asem must deal with
      human rights head on

      A key challenge facing the Asia-Europe
      Meeting in London next month is to what
      extent human rights will be addressed,
      writes Vitit Muntarbhorn. 

      The Asia-Europe Meeting's (Asem)
      dealings with human rights so far has been
      to explore the issue only in a very nascent
      and guarded manner. In the first Asem in
      Bangkok, human rights were only referred
      to fleetingly. In the chairman's statement of
      the 1996 Asem, the term ''human rights''
      was actually avoided. The term
      ''fundamental rights'' was used instead as a
      kind of euphemism for human rights. 

      The term was also set against the
      backdrop of the phrase ''non-intervention,
      whether direct or indirect, in each other's
      internal affairs''. The latter is a favourite
      among some Asian governments that seek
      to classify human rights violations as only
      internal matters, thereby aiming to exclude
      the advocacy of human rights at the
      international level. 

      However, the parochial and nationalistic
      approach was dampened in the chairman's
      statement by a more internationalist phrase
      -- that the advocacy of non-intervention
      must be seen in the light of that which is ''in
      accordance with the rules of international
      law and obligations''. As international law
      advocates that human rights are
      international concerns under international
      jurisdiction, the advocacy of human rights
      cannot and should not be thus seen as
      meddling in the internal affairs of another
      state. 

      Interestingly, the scope of international
      human rights standards referred to in the
      chairman's statement includes the ''strong
      commitment'' to the ''United Nations
      Charter, the Universal Declaration of
      Human Rights, the 1986 Declaration on the
      Right to Development, the 1992 Rio
      Declaration on Environment and
      Development, the 1993 Declaration of
      Vienna and Programme of Action of the
      World Conference on Human Rights, the
      1994 Cairo Programme of Action of the
      International Conference on Population and
      Development, the 1995 Copenhagen
      Declaration on Social Development and
      Programme, and the 1995 Beijing
      Declaration and Platform of Action for the
      Fourth World Conference on Women''. 

      Initially, reference to the 1993 Vienna
      Declaration and its Programme of Action
      was almost omitted. It was inserted at the
      last minute, indicating some reticence,
      particularly among Asian countries, to refer
      to it in view of the measures suggested by
      the Vienna document at the national level,
      such as an effective framework for
      redressing human rights grievances. 

      It should not pass unnoticed that several
      Asian countries are still not parties to the
      1996 international covenants on human
      rights and other key human rights
      instruments. Nor is there a regional treaty or
      mechanism on human rights for the Asian
      region. However, all countries in Asia and
      Europe are now parties to the 1989
      Convention on the Rights of the Child
      (CRC) and an increasing number are
      parties to the 1979 Convention on the
      Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
      against Women (Cedaw). 

      At the national level, a welcomed
      development is the growing number of
      national human rights commissions. In
      particular, among the Asian Asem
      countries, there are such commissions or
      committees in the Philippines, Indonesia
      and Thailand which have often acted very
      bravely in the face of tremendous political
      pressures. 

      In regard to the measures proposed in the
      government forum between Asia and
      Europe, a variety of cooperative
      programmes were noted in the chairman's
      statement, principally concerning trade,
      technical/technological help, the
      environment, and university and youth
      exchange. No projects specifically on
      access to justice and human rights were
      expressly singled out. 

      By contrast, the NGO forum, organised
      parallel to the Asem summit, was much
      more explicit in its demands based upon a
      people-centred vision which is ''socially just,
      economically equitable, ecologically
      sustainable and politically participatory''.
      They included the following: 

      - withdrawal of France from French
      Polynesia and New Caledonia, and
      withdrawal of Indonesia from East Timor; 

      - rebuttal of the multilateral investment
      agreement linked with the World Trade
      Organisation which would open up national
      markets to foreign companies with little or
      no safeguards for local interests; 

      - reprimand of human rights violations in
      Northern Ireland, former Yugoslavia, East
      Timor and Burma; 

      - action against the discrimination of
      women; 

      - measures against racism; 

      - action against the trafficking in women
      and children; 

      - protection of migrant workers; 

      - disarmament and banning of nuclear
      weapons; 

      - banning of anti-personnel landmines; 

      - release of political prisoners in East Timor
      and Burma. 

      Political convergence? 

      In such a setting, it is tempting to ask
      whether, despite the various differences,
      some programmes or projects of mutual
      benefit to both Asia and Europe are
      possible, granted that there is both a
      governmental approach and a
      non-governmental approach. 

      The political field is probably the most
      difficult in terms of trying to identify a
      degree of convergence, especially where it
      is related to political conditions in Asia
      where undemocratic government or
      ''opaque'' governance prevails over
      transparency and accountability. However,
      other political areas for cooperation are
      possible, for instance in regard to the
      banning of landmines. 

      An easier entry point for cooperation may
      perhaps be found in the socio-economic,
      cultural and environmental fields, at times
      intermingling with the political and legal
      fields. They include the following: 

      - training of law enforcers and other officials
      on women's rights and child rights,
      especially in the context of the CRC and
      Cedaw; 

      - educational programmes to counter
      discrimination and to promote access to
      justice and respect for human rights; 

      - information and personnel exchange
      against criminal activities in relation to
      drugs, human trafficking, money-laundering
      and exploitation via the commercial sex
      sector; 

      - inter-varsity and inter-youth exchange on
      human rights education and access to
      justice; 

      - cross-cultural programmes to link law
      enforcers, community leaders and others
      who have direct impact on human rights
      and access to justice; 

      - development of mechanisms to promote
      access to justice in the legal/judicial
      system, such as channels to promote more
      public participation in the courts and more
      mobile courts with more legal aid and
      speedier services; 

      - development of mechanisms to monitor
      access to justice and human rights and to
      offer alternative dispute settlement, for
      instance mediation, arbitration, national
      ombudsmen, national human rights
      commissions, public hearings and
      inquiries; 

      - promotion of transparent processes to
      review and reform laws, policies and
      practices which hinder access to justice
      and human rights, such as various
      antiquated national security laws; 

      - interaction to amend judicial and other
      procedures which are not sensitive to
      victims and which may cause
      revictimisation, for example, the
      questioning of women and child-victims,
      and the need to evolve more sensitive
      procedures, such as videotaped evidence,
      admission of early depositions of
      witnesses, and reduction of the waiting
      period for trials; 

      - capacity-building for national human rights
      commissions and parallel mechanisms,
      and exchange of experiences between the
      regions on this issue; 

      - interchange of regional and sub-regional
      experiences in the promotion of access to
      justice and human rights, such as sharing
      information on the work of the Council of
      Europe and the European Union with
      counterparts in Asean, and analysis of the
      pros and cons of a regional human rights
      treaty, mechanism and/or programme for
      Asia; 

      - exchange of experiences on the
      accession of countries to human rights
      treaties and their effective implementation
      at the national level; 

      - scholarships for students and others to
      carry out field visits; 

      - increased dialogue and related
      programmes between governments, civil
      societies, NGOs, the business sector and
      others involved with access to justice and
      human rights. 

      If the first Asem seemed to tread rather
      lightly on the issue of access to justice and
      human rights, future meetings should not fail
      to deal with it more constructively and in a
      more sustainable manner. Where Asem
      1996 offered us a momentary pause for
      thought with a degree of hesitation towards
      that issue, the challenge for 1998 and
      thereafter will be to ensure that access to
      justice and human rights becomes a
      globalised cause, interlinking and
      transcending both regions. 

      ----------------- 

      Vitit Muntarbhorn is professor at the faculty
      of law, Chulalongkorn University. He was
      formerly special rapporteur for the United
      Nations Human Rights Commission (on the
      sale of children) and executive director of
      Child Rights Asianet. He is author of the
      forthcoming publication, ''Asem Summitry''.
      This is the final part of his series on ''Asem,
      Justice and Human Rights''.