From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Asian states push for changes in UN HR principles
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:29:37 GMT

/** reg.easttimor: 350.0 **/
** Topic: Asian States and human rights **
** Written 11:18 pm  Dec 20, 1992 by gn:tapol in cdp:reg.easttimor **
Subject: Asian States and human rights

/* Written 11:18 pm  Dec 20, 1992 by tapol in gn:reg.indonesia */
/* ---------- "Asian States and human rights" ---------- */
Asian States and human rights
 
Asian countries are actively engaged in a campaign to redraft
the human rights principles drawn up over the years within the
UN. The Non-Aligned Summit in Jakarta last September was used
for this purpose, with Indonesia and Malaysia very much to the
fore. It is clear that the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Workshop
to be held in Jakarta next month is another step towards the
realisation of their objectives.
 
The issue led to a bitter clash during the Third Preparatory
Meeting of the World Human Rights Conference in Geneva from
16-18 September. The controversy was between the Asia Group on
the one hand and virtually all the other regional groups over
two issues, the participation of NGOs at the regional
preparatory meetings to be held in advance of the World
Conference and the World Conference agenda. [The World
Conference is due to take place in Vienna next June.] 
 
The dispute is reported in the September 1992 issue of 'Human
Rights Monitor', the publication of the International Service
for Human Rights, in an article by ISHR director Adrien-Claude
Zoller entitled, "World Conference: Third Preparatory Meeting
ends in failure". We offer here a short summary of the
article. For a copy of the publication, write to the ISHR, 1
rue de Varembe, PO Box 16, CH-1211 Geneva cic.
 
On NGO participation, the Asian group sought to limit NGO
participation at regional preparatory meetings to NGOs with
headquarters in the region only and those having competence in
human rights and development. They argued that the majority of
NGOs that might want to attend regional preparatory meetings
are based in western countries. NGOs lobbied hard to point out
that governments from the South, particularly from Asia, had
been most obstructionist in preventing NGOs obtaining UN
consultative status, and were therefore themselves responsible
for the situation they professed to deplore. Chile, the
Netherlands and Sweden pushed through an amendment modifying
the wording from 'human rights and development' to 'human
rights and/or development', and questioned the right of any
government to question an NGO's competence, since the
conferral of consultative status had already dealt with the
question of competence.
 
Finally, agreement was reached taking on board the above
proposals from non-Asian governments, and broadening
participation to include other NGOs without consultative
status which are active in the field of human rights and/or
development and have their headquarters in the region
concerned, in prior consultation with the countries of the
region. 
 
Even so, Zoller points out, although arrangements are
proceeding well for preparatory meetings in most regions of
the world, "the Asian meeting remains uncertain and the
possibility of NGO participation even more so. No date has yet
been fixed for (this) session."
 
However, no consensus was reached on the crucial question of
the World Conference agenda. The Asian group's draft agenda
placed the emphasis on occupied territories (meaning Israel,
of course), foreign occupation, the elimination of racial
discrimination, colonialism, terrorism, national peculiarities
and traditions, respect for differing judicial systems,
respect for national sovereignty, and so. It was a far cry
from the agenda proposed by the African and Latin American
groups. On several occasions, it seemed that consensus was
within reach but each time the Asian Group met to formulate
new requirements to wring out more concessions. In the end
despite strenuous efforts, the meeting ended many hours late,
without agreement on the agenda.
 
Zoller concludes: "In the present situation, the Asian States
must be firmly reminded of their responsibilities. It is
obvious that the hardline States only want to attend the World
Conference if it provides an opportunity to dismantle the
system and mechanisms that can bring them to book. The Asian
hardliners should be forced to show their hand and admit if
necessary that they are fundamentally opposed to human
rights."
 
He also points out that those who launched the idea of this
World Conference did not know that they were opening Pandora's
box.
 
It is no coincidence that while the Asian States are dragging
their feet over convening the Asian regional preparatory
meeting for the World Conference, they are pressing ahead with
the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Workshop in cooperation with the
UN Human Rights Centre, in Jakarta next month. A fundamental
difference lies in the fact that whereas the regional
preparatory meeting would have to conform with the
requirements set internationally about NGO participation, the
Workshop can ignore such matters and press ahead unhampered in
this move to dismantle the well-established UN system of human
rights advocacy and protection.
 
This suggests that the Asia-Pacific Workshop should be
criticised not only because it is being held in Jakarta but
also because it poses a grave threat to the very basis of UN
human rights advocacy and protection.
 
TAPOL
** End of text from cdp:reg.easttimor **

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive