HURIGHTS OSAKA

NEWSLETTER of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)
December 2002 Volume 30

Editorial

Questions about Development
The 1986 United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development states that “…development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims
at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development andin the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom...”As a standard, this definition deserves closer attention in today’s continuing drive
towards increased economic growth. Governments and international agencies are still
pouring billions of dollars to accelerate economic growth by harnessing natural
resources from forests to bodies of water. But there are questions that have remained
unsatisfactorily answered. Are these development projects promoting sustainable use of
the affected natural resources? How are people who are directly, and adversely, affectedby these projects protected? Aren’t the projects promoting bias in favor of the urban at
the expense of the rural? Did affected people actively, freely and meaningfully participate in these projects? Are these projects the only means of attaining economic
development? There are many more questions to raise.
Stories of displacement and even death of people affected by these projects in the rural
areas still come out every now and then. Some stories may unfortunately remain
unknown outside the affected communities.
These are the reasons why there are many questions about development.

FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to humanrights in the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA
for inclusion in the next editions of the newsletter.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is edited by Yoshio Kawashima, Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA.

"Development" in the Mekong Region
Dave Hubbel

W

ith an area of more than 800,000 square kilometers and home to more than 60 million people,
the Mekong River Basin is one of the largest and most
biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth.
More than 1,200 species of fish have evolved in the
Mekong River Basin over the past million years. But it
was only in the mid-1970s that a group of fisheriesscientists began the first basin-wide survey of the distribution of fish species in the basin. The major
finding of the team was not reported until the mid1980s, according to Dr. Walter Rainboth,1In the mid-1970s, [we] discovered a completechange in fish species between the dry season andwet season. As physical conditions changed, theentire dry season fauna of the main channel of the
Mekong migrated to numerous other parts of thebasin, and a completely different wet season faunamigrated into the area. The effect was so stunningand unexpected we had no idea what we had wit nessed, or how to test and report it…At that time, forfish species in general, short-term breeding migra tions were known, but the possibility of long-term
multi-species trophic [feeding] migrations (as in the
Mekong) were beyond the conceptual framework ofmost re s e a rchers, ourselves included. (emphasis
mine)

While the seasonal migrations of the fishes of the
Mekong River Basin may have come as a surprise toWestern scientists, had anyone thought to ask the
women and men of the thousands of fishing communities in the countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand
and Vietnam, the Mekong fish migrations would havebeen recognized decades before the 1980s. In fact, it
was not until the early-1990s that research of the fisheries-related local ecological knowledge ofcommunities in the Mekong River Basin began. It was
this research that formed the basis for an emerging
movement of fishers, scientists, researchers andactivists that documents and supports the efforts oflocal fishing communities in the Mekong River Basinto manage their fisheries, and their locally-developed
systems for managing, using and conserving theirforests, fields and common lands, their rivers, wetlands and lakes.

Erosion along the Mekong River (Chiang Khong
district, Chiang Rai province, Thailand)
Photo: Project for River and Community

Reflecting on “development” in the MekongRiver Basin
A casual reading of events in the Mekong River Basinover the past five to ten years would indicate thatcooperation and “sustainable development” is making
progress in the countries of Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Thailand and Vietnam. The international agreement
between the four countries is called the Agreement on
the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of
the Mekong River Basin. The “mission” of the
Mekong River Commission (MRC), the regional planning institution, is “[T]o promote and coordinate
sustainable management and development of waterand related resources” in the Mekong River Basin.
The Asian Development Bank-initiated regional
infrastructure planning and implementation program iscalled the “Greater Mekong Subregion Economic
Cooperation” program.
H o w e v e r, all of this “cooperation for sustainable
development” is cooperation between governments,
international financial institutions like the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), bilateral ‘development
assistance’ agencies such as the Japan Bank forInternational Cooperation, and transnational corporations. As such, this cooperation includes bankers,
economists, engineers, politicians, bureaucrats, ‘expert
consultants’, and the employees of inter-governmental
institutions like the MRC.

-2-

such biological values. Put plainly, the EIA is manifestly totally inadequate.”2

Thus, “sustainable development” in the Mekong
Region is large-scale hydroelectric dams, logging of
the region’s ancient forests, road-building and anemphasis on increasing transportation of commodities,
massive irrigation and electricity-transmission systems, chemical intensive mono-crop agriculture,
aquaculture of exotic (non-native to the MekongRiver) fish species, etc.

The academics sent their reports to the MRC. The
MRC sent the reports to the governments of Laos andThailand. Both governments rejected the opinions of
the academics and committed themselves to the project.

Clearly, the “sustainable development” being implemented in the Mekong Region is nothing new. Rather,a few examples of “sustainable development” in the
Mekong Region indicate that this is nothing but theold, discredited model of development that has victimized hundreds of millions of people in the Majority
World, the South, the ‘Third World’, for decades.

For whatever reason they support the Mekong rapids
blasting project, these governments are willingly
endangering the lives of thousands of families living
along the stretch of the Mekong River that will bedamaged by the project. These rapids are important
habitat for fish, other aquatic animals and plants that
contribute to the food security of these families. Noneof this was considered by the EIA for the project.

The ‘Mekong rapids blasting project’

EIA: Project Justification

The Navigation Channel Improvement Project on theUpper Mekong River, known locally in Thailand andLaos as the ‘Mekong rapids blasting project’, would
dynamite and excavate a navigation channel through21 rapids and shoals in the Mekong River along the
Burma-Laos border and the Thai-Laos border.

Unfortunately, the EIA for the Mekong rapids blasting
project continues a long-established tradition of using
EIAs to justify the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects, rather than as an exercise indetermining the potential environmental and social
impacts of a proposed project.

According to the Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA), a joint Environmental Impact Assessment
Team and a Detailed Survey Team “went to the working sites [10 rapids and one shoal] along the Upper
River on April 18 and April 29, 2001 respectively forthe purpose of a detailed survey and hydrological datacollection.” In other words, the project EIA was basedon two days of field investigations.

The EIA for the infamous World Bank-funded Pak
Mun dam on the Mun River in northeast Thailand
ignored the importance of the Mun-Mekong fisheries
to the economies and food security of fishing communities along the Mun River. More than 5,000 families
have witnessed the destruction of their fisheries andlivelihoods by this dam.

On the basis of this two-day-long “environmental
assessment” of probably the least-studied and leastknown ecosystems of the Mekong River, the EIA
concluded that there would be no long-term impacts
on the fisheries and fishing-based livelihoods of communities living along the Mekong River in Laos andThailand. The fact is, the EIA does not assess thesepotential impacts.

The EIA for the Yali Falls hydroelectric dam on the
Sesan River in Vietnam considered the potential
impacts on the river and its fisheries on an eight kilometer-stretch of the Sesan below the dam. Now, morethat 50,000 people living along a 200 kilometerstretch of the Sesan River in northeast Cambodia havewitnessed deaths by drowning, abnormal flooding, andsevere damage to their fisheries; all as the result of theoperation of the Yali Falls dam located upstream in
Vietnam.

As a result of a request from the Government of Laos,
the MRC contracted academics in Australia and New
Zealand to review the EIA. All of the academics condemned the EIA as fraudulent.

The EIA for the proposed World Bank-funded Nam
Theun 2 hydroelectric dam in central Lao PDR completely ignores the potential impacts of this project on
the Xe Bang Fai River’s fisheries and fishing communities. The dam would divert millions of cubic metersof water from the Theun River into the Xe Bang Fai.
This diversion would completely alter the natural flowof the Xe Bang Fai River, potentially destroying thefisheries and riverbank vegetable gardens of morethan 100,000 people living along the Xe Bang Fai andits tributaries. This is how poverty is created by

To cite just one of these independent analysts,
Professor R.M. McDowall of the National Institute of
Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand,“Reading of the EIA makes it clear that no explicit
effort has been made to determine the fish fauna andits ecology in the development zone nor to measure
the potential impacts of channelization [the navigation channel improvement/rapids blasting project] on-3-

“development”.

governments of countries in the region have refused tolisten to the concerns of their people, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academics, and fisheries
experts. International financial institutions like the
Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, andagencies like the Japan Bank for International
Cooperation and dozens of other foreign ‘off i c i a ldevelopment assistance’ agencies, apparently prefer tocontinue investing millions of dollars into these socalled “development” projects rather than think about
the potentially fatal impacts of these projects on thepeople of the Mekong River.

Yet the single most important threat to the economies
and livelihoods of millions of people living in northand northeast Thailand, Laos and Cambodia are themassive hydroelectric dams being built on the MekongRiver in Yunnan province of the People’s Republic ofChina (PRC). Two dams, Manwan and Dachaoshan,
have already been built, and local communities in theimmediate downstream countries of Laos andThailand have reported significant alterations in the
Mekong River’s natural flow during the past five
years. But early this year, the Government of the PRC
announced the beginning of the construction of the
Xiaowan dam. At a height of 300 meters, this monstrous dam will be able to capture some 25 per cent of
the Mekong’s total annual volume of water flowing
from Yunnan province so as to fill the dam’s reservoir
and begin generating electricity. The potential impacts
on the natural flow of the Mekong River all the way
down to Cambodia and its Great Lake are potentiallycatastrophic. The massive fish migrations of the
Mekong River Basin could be disrupted, preventing
the reproduction and feeding cycles of the fish. The
productivity of the fisheries – and the food supply of
millions of people – may decline dramatically. No EIA
has been done that considers these potential impacts,
which threaten the food security of millions of families living along the Mekong River and its tributaries
in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.

The people of the Mekong River are emerging fromdecades of violence and social disruption. They are
beginning to re-establish the social and cultural institutions of their communities. Many communities areworking together to try to manage and conserve theirlands and forests, their rivers and wetlands, so as toensure their food security and ways of life. They wantrights to their lands, they want to work with their governments and NGOs to manage their natural resources
and to develop according to their own needs and aspirations. These communities also need the help ofconcerned citizens in countries like Japan, Australia
and the European Union to monitor and actively influence the actions of their own governments and of theinternational financial institutions their governments
fund – the very institutions that are laying the groundwork for the “sustainable development” of the
Mekong Region, and for the impoverishment of themillions of people who live with the natural wealth of
the forests, lands and rivers of the Mekong River
Basin.
Dave Hubbel has been researching issues relating todevelopment and the environment in the Mekong
Region for the past 12 years. He is presently connect ed with TERRA.

For further information, please contact: To w a rd s
Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance (TERRA),
409 Soi Rohitsuk, Pracharat-bamphen Road, Huay
Khwang, Bangkok 10320; ph (662) 6910718 to 20; fax(662) 6910714, e-mail: terraper@comnet.ksc.net.th;
Residents along the Pakmoon (Pak Mun) river inThailand protesting in Bangkok the dam built on itwww.terraper.org
Endnotes

From “Development” to the People

1. Walter Rainboth, Some basic information about the Mekong
fishes, unpublished manuscript (1992).
2. R.M. McDowell, Evaluation of Report on Environmental
Impact Assessment of the Navigation Channel Improvement
Project of the Lancang-Mekong River from China-Myanmar
Boundary Marker 243 to Ban Houei Sai of Laos: The fisheries
impacts reviewed , National Institute of Water andAtmospheric Research, New Zealand (January 2002), p.6.

The people of the Mekong River Basin are facing
huge challenges in their efforts to manage and conserve their natural fisheries, and indeed all of theirnatural resources, from narrow-minded development
like the large hydroelectric dams described above. The-4-

ILO Standards in Asia
Kozo Kagawa

Compliance with the Core Labor Standards

T

he ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work (1998) addresses the issue of“social clause,” which links labor standards to international trade. According to the ILO, a ”universal
consensus now exists that all countries, regardless oflevel of economic development, cultural values, or
number of ILO Conventions ratified, have an obligation to respect, promote, and realize the following
fundamental principles and rights:

Ratification by a country of an international treaty
gives rise, as a matter of course, to the responsibilityof bringing its domestic laws in line with the provisions of the ratified instrument. There are countries,
h o w e v e r, which fail to do so. Indonesia andCambodia, for example, have ratified all eight ILO
Conventions. Compared with Japan’s ratification of
only six ILO Conventions, the two countries seem to
be model countries regarding subscription to international labor standards. And yet, it is questionable
whether both countries have taken steps to comply
with the provisions of the conventions. Indonesia, still
beset by the problem of slow democratization process
after the fall of the Soeharto regime, is still deliberating on a bill on labor law. Strong conflicting interests
seem to be delaying the enactment of the law.
Cambodia, on the other hand, has enacted a labor law
but is not implementing it rigorously. It seems that
Cambodia ratified the ILO Conventions because it
hoped to receive financial and technical assistancefrom ILO.

• Freedom of association and the effective recognitionof the right to collective bargaining;• Elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory
labour;• Effective abolition of child labour; and• Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.”1

The Declaration does not cover two other areas
regarding minimum wage, and safety and health standards of workplaces. The exclusion of these areas was
a compromise between developed and developing
countries.

Asian countries under the so-called “development
authoritarianism” often limit freedom of association.
The policy of discouraging the establishment of labor
unions within “development zones” as a means of
attracting foreign investment is an example of thisrestriction. The governments in these countries would
consider labor unions established against the policy asillegal entities. And foreign companies are likely to bepunished if they recognize these labor unions.

The Declaration is significant because countries whichhave not ratified or acceded to all eight ILO
Conventions2 have agreed to comply with the principles contained in these instruments. Although thesecountries will not be sanctioned for non-compliance,
they are duty-bound to make the effort to comply
through technical cooperation from the ILO. The
Declaration seeks to promote the observance of thecore labor principles with a “soft approach.”

ILO views freedom of association as one of the mostimportant labor standards of universal value. ILO
Conventions No. 87 and No. 98 (both on freedom of
association), are given special place in its system.
Even if a country has not ratified the two Conventions,complaints of violations of its provisions could be
brought before the ILO Committee on Freedom of
Association. Japan has used this system in the past,
while developing countries in the region are doing so
now. The ILO Committee, however, can only makerecommendations to governments, and whether or not

Not all developing countries in Asia voted for the
adoption of the Declaration, but since it has been
adopted, it cannot be ignored. Private companies are
obligated to subscribe to the provisions of the
Declaration as one of the three voting-members of
ILO – governments, labor, and employers. ILO provides a system where responsibility arises not only
from the governments but also from labor andemployers.

-5-governmental policies will be revised is discretionary
on their part. In some cases, governments refuse to
adopt the recommendations on the ground that they
constitute an interference in their domestic affairs. The
ILO Declaration does not have the authority to force
governments to comply.

Does the promotion of union members to management
position in their overseas assignment make them lose
their conscience and dismiss local employees for setting up labor unions? Can attitudes change according
to the situation at hand regarding respect for universal
labor principles? How would the international community assess Japan with such conduct of thecompanies? These companies would not be facing thisdifficult choice, of course, if Asian developing countries adopt policies that respect universal labor
principles.

Foreign companies and the ILO standards
Japanese companies operating outside Japan face theissue of applying local labor laws. Whether they set up
100% owned subsidiaries or joint venture companies
with local capital, and whether or not local employees
are given the task of dealing with local labor issues,
Japanese companies are not exempt from the responsibilities arising from local labor laws.

Last comment
Japanese labor unions should play a big role in resolving this problem. This is especially true for labor
unions that have adopted a policy of respecting universal labor principles. Japanese companies likewise
have the role of promoting the observance universal
labor principles.

In following local labor laws to acquire quality laborfor the local subsidiaries, Japanese employees
assigned from their head offices are bound to facesome problems.
When domestic legislation infringes the provisions of
the eight ILO Conventions, problems arise. Japanesecompanies are bound to comply with the laws of thecountries where they operate. But they face the dilemma of deciding which laws to follow in case local laws
do not subscribe to the ILO Conventions. In general,treaty laws take precedence over domestic laws. Thus
the companies have to follow the provisions of thetreaties as long as the countries have ratified them.

Kozo Kagawa is a professor in Kobe University teach ing labor law.
For further information, please contact: Professor
Kozo Kagawa, Graduate School of International
Cooperation Studies, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501
Japan, ph/fax: (8178) 803 7125, e-mail:kagawa@kobe-u.ac.jp

What happens if the countries where the companies
operate have not ratified the ILO Conventions, orbound only by declarations, which have lesser binding
force? Do these companies have no alternative but tofollow a government policy that violates freedom of
association?

Endnote1. See www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/decl/declaration/index.htm
2. Following are the eight ILO Conventions (all have enteredinto force):

Foreign companies that have corporate codes of conduct, which include respect for the freedom of
association, would be placed in a difficult position.

• Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)• Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
• Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right toOrganise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)

Employees sent from the Japanese head offices to therelated companies in developing countries in Asia,
would find themselves likewise in a difficult position.
Many of them are probably labor union members
themselves. Their overseas assignment may put theminto managerial positions. Some Japanese unions letthem retain their union membership despite the change
in their employment position. Larger unions have various measures to alleviate the anxiety of members
working abroad who find themselves in this situation.

• Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,
1949 (No. 98)• Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100)
• Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. 111)
• Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
• Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)

-6-

Dalits in Nepal: Story of Discrimination
Anita ShresthaNepal retains its centuries-old caste system. Dalits,
the discriminated people under this system, sufferfrom restriction on the use public amenities, deprivation of economic opportunities, and general neglect by
the state and society.

More than twenty Dalit caste groups exist in the country at present. Identifying a caste group is problematic.
It requires a study of diverse cultures of different ethnic groups and geographical areas. Thus even thegovernment classification system is open to question.
In view of the still unsettled system of classifying
Dalit caste groups, estimating the Dalit population isdifficult. One estimate puts the number of Dalit people
at 13.09 % out of the total population of 23,151,423.1
This means that the total Dalit population is3,030,067, with Kami the largest group with 29.57%
and Halkhar the smallest group with 0.12 %. Dalit
women comprise 51% of the total Dalit population.

Discrimination against Dalits
Dalits are discriminated against on the basis of casteand “untouchability.” They are not only discriminatedby the so-called higher caste people in the Hindu system, but also by people within the same caste. Dalit
women suffer much more than Dalit men.
Two studies2 show that most Dalits suffer from discriminatory practices involving food and drink(38.9%) and prohibition of entry into houses, temples
and other public places (28.3%). Both studies showthat incidence of caste–based discrimination is higher
in the western region than in the eastern region of thecountry. It means that the form and extent of discrimination against Dalits are positively correlated with theextent of development of the area where they reside.
a. Social and cultural discrimination
Dalits are discriminated in the religious and cultural
spheres. They are not allowed to practice Hindu rituals, norms and values in the same manner as othercastes. To escape from this discrimination, they converted into Christianity. And yet even within their
Christian communities only those belonging to higher

castes can become religious leaders or occupy key
positions in the church.
b. Traditional caste-based occupation and forc e dlaborDalits have been relegated to do caste-based work as-7-

black/goldsmith, tailors, shoemakers and street cleaners, all are considered of low social status. Poverty andlack of other means of livelihood force the Dalits tocontinue their traditional occupations. Dalit womenand children are also forced to work in the householdsof their landlords. They do not get justifiable wage for
their labor. If they do not work for others, they work
as help of their husbands in the traditional jobs ofDalits. Those working in Haliya Pratha ( b o n d e dlabor) or Khala Pratha (forced labor) are not evenearning from their work. They may get food grains.

people extends to their cowsheds in the case of the far
western Nepal. They have a belief that if a Dalit enters
the cowsheds and touches the rope of cows or buffaloes and the water pot, the animals will die or will
give less quantity of milk.
The prohibition on entering temples prevents theDalits from participating in the religious activities
inside the temples. They have to be content with worshipping outside the temple building. Dalit women
who enter the temple are humiliated by the temple
priests as well as by higher-caste people.

Dalits who are able to get a wage-earning job sufferfrom unfair wage system. They get much less thantheir non-Dalit counterparts. Dalit women, on theother hand, get lesser wage than Dalit men.

A Dalit who drinks tea in a teashop has to wash thecup used otherwise the proprietor will beat him/her up.
e. Low participation in activities of the government,
non–governmental organizations and donors
Government officials generally ignore, and at times
ill-treat, Dalits seeking services from the government.
Treated like second-class citizens, services are generally delayed. They are also abused by addressing themwith disrespectful words (such as using the word tan
instead of Hajur or Tapain).

Lack of modern technology skills and financial
resources prevent them from getting employed in new
industries or trade in the market.
Dalits who change from traditional occupation to
wage labor do not therefore necessarily improve theireconomic conditions.
c. Discrimination in education
Untouchability is practiced in schools, be they government- or NGO- supported schools. Teachers do nottake care of their Dalit students. In remote areas of
Nepal, Dalit students could not sit beside the so-called
high-caste students. There are documented cases inNGO-supported schools of isolating Dalit students
when eating school-supplied food, and treating them
badly. Scholarships for Dalit students are inadequate if
not irregular.

Dalit women development programs of the government or donor agencies are elaborated without theparticipation of the Dalit women themselves. This
leads to the implementation of development programs
that are not applicable to the Dalits.

Likewise, the so-called high-caste teachers do notwant Dalits to become teachers because they do notwant to do the traditional gesture of giving respect tothem. They also do not want to eat and drink together
with them as is the custom among teachers.

i) Inter-caste marriages, where a higher-caste man
marries a lower-caste woman. It also happens when
non-Dalit women marry Dalit men. In both cases,
the women bear the brunt of the disapproval of themarriage;f. Social boycott
The so-called “social boycott,” a practice of exclusionof people from their families and group, is normallyresorted to in cases ofii) Failure to follow traditional norms and values(applicable to Dalits and non-Dalits);

Competent Dalit teachers are discouraged from occupying higher executive positions in schools.

iii) Refusal of the Dalits to undertake their traditional
caste-based occupation, such as disposal of deadanimals.

d. Denial of entry
Dalits are denied entry into the houses of higher
castes, temples, hotels/restaurants, teashops, food factories, dairy farms and milk collection centers, among
others. They can go to schools, offices and work
places. However, there are newspaper reports that insome schools in Jumla region, Dalit students sit outside the classrooms.

g. Weak exercise of political rights
Key positions in political parties are mostly held byhigher-caste people. Dalits, prevented from holding
these positions, are always discouraged from exercising their political rights. Political leaders pay “lipservice” to Dalit communities in order to collect votes.
Political parties mobilize the Dalits only to serve the

The denial of entry into private houses of higher caste-8-interest of the party. Political parties, like Nepal Dalit
Sang (Nepali Congress) and Nepal Dalit Jatiyal Mukti
S a m a j of the Communist Party of Nepal/United
Marxist League, are considered pro-Dalits. But theseparties never encourage Dalits to become candidates
themselves, resulting in few Dalit representatives in
the National Assembly. There are only four Dalit representatives nominated in the parliament. The voicesof the Dalits are hardly heard, and the representatives
are instead used by different political parties.

The 1990 Constitution of Nepal prohibits any form of
discrimination on the basis of caste, race, sex and religion. Such forms of discrimination are punishable bylaw. But the reality is that all these forms of discrimination are still in practice. Ex-Minister Padma
Narayan Chaudhary’s adverse reaction in the case of
the Chamar social boycott in the Terai district regarding the Chamars’ collective decision to stop disposing
animal carcasses, a dirty and stigmatized occupation,is an example. If the leaders or policymakers themselves prevent the implementation of laws, how canthey make proper laws with appropriate punishment incase of violations?

Representation of Dalit women in party politics isalmost negligible. Though the constitution of Nepal
has reserved seats for women, which is limited to 5%of the total seats for national and local elections, political parties deny any seat to Dalit women. At the sametime, Dalit women are not empowered to use theopportunity granted by the Constitution.

Conclusion
The Dalit problem cannot be resolved overnight. Its
solution requires a combination of action on the partof the Dalit communities, the government, and thepolitical parties. The Dalit issues should now be treated as political issues that deserve the attention of
government bureaucrats and politicians. Laws against
the discrimination of the Dalits should be properly
enforced, and government programs for uplifting the
economic and social status of the Dalits should befully implemented.

h. Atrocities against Dalits
Dalits suffer from a number of atrocities such as battering, mental torture, rape, break-up of inter-caste
marriage, false allegations, etc. Higher-caste people do
not hesitate to beat Dalit women in public places, if
they are found to break laws, or norms and values ofthe Hindu tradition.

Anita Shrestha is a staff of the Feminist Dalit
Organization (FEDO).

Obstacles
The struggle of the Dalits in Nepal against discrimination suffers from a number of obstacles.

For further information, please contact: Feminist
Dalit Organization, P.O.Box 4366, Kathmandu, Nepal,
ph 0977-01-520982or 543986, fax 0977-01-520982, email dms@fedo.wlink.com.np

Unity among the Dalit organizations is a big obstacle.
They all share a common vision: equitable and justsociety for the Dalits. But with Dalit caste hierarchy
and intra-caste discrimination, they lack unity to beable to achieve the goal.
Coordination between the Dalit movement and othermovements like women’s movement and the indigenous people's movement is lacking. Without solidarity
among them, the Dalit movement cannot be strengthened.

Endnotes
1. This is based on an estimate using the official 2001
Census made by the Feminist Dalit Or g a n i z a t i o n(FEDO). This estimate does not include the Newars.
They are considered to be part of the indigenous population.
2. See Sharma, Khagendra, Gyanu Chetri and Sita Rana, A
Modest Study of the Current Socio–Ecomonic Situationof the Lowest Status Caste and Tribal Communities in
N e p a l, Save the Children (Kathmandu: Save theChildren-US, 1994), and Bhattachan, Krishna B.,
Kamala Hemchuri, Yogendra B. Gurung, Chakraman M.
Bishwokarma, Existing Practices of Caste–Based
Untouchability in Nepal and Strategy for a Campaign
for its Elimination (Final Report), Action–Aid Nepal(Kathmandu: Action–Aid Nepal, 2001).

Communication gap between local communities andcentral government is another obstacle. The eightpoint program, launched by the previous Prime
Minister in June 2001 supposedly meant to eliminate
untouchability by helping the empowerment and economic upliftment of the Dalits, is an example.
Punishment for caste-based discrimination is highlighted in this program. But since the Dalit
communities are unaware of this program, the Dalits
do not benefit from it.

-9-The 7th Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of
National Human Rights Institutions
Kimiko Okada

T

he Seventh Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific
Forum of National Human Rights Institutions(Forum) was held in New Delhi on 11-13 November
2002. The first day was a closed meeting attended
only by representatives of Forum Members from
Australia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal,
New Zealand, Philippines and Sri Lanka. In the 12-13
November meeting, representatives of new Forum
Members from Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea,
other human rights commissions from the region, theForum’s Advisory Council of Jurists, NGOs, government's and UN specialized agencies were inattendance.

The Forum’s Advisory Council of Jurists had a separate meeting from 11-12 November also in New Delhi.
The NGOs, on the other hand, had a two-day meetingon 10-11 November.
There were representatives from the human rights
commissions of Afghanistan, Iran and Palestine. The
Afghan and Iranian commissions are considering
applying for membership while the membership application of the Palestinian Independent Commission for
Citizen’s Rights is pending approval. The representative of Timor Leste government announced the plan toestablish a commission in the country in 2003.

Discussions
The Forum Members reported on their activities, anddiscussed the issues of trafficking in women and children, the proposed convention on the rights of persons
with disabilities, death penalty, and child pornography.
They also reported on their activities on death penalty
and child pornography in response to the recommendations contained in the interim report by theAdvisory Council of Jurists on these issues submitted
during last year’s Forum meeting.
The Advisory Council of Jurists submitted an interim
report on trafficking of women and children, which
included an analysis of the current state of international law regarding trafficking, and recommendations on

Opening ceremony of the Forummeasures human rights commissions should take. The
representatives from UNIFEM and the Joint Women’s
Programme, an NGO, reported activities in combating
and assisting victims of trafficking of women and children in South Asia. The human rights commissions ofIndia and Nepal spoke on their cross-border cooperation activities.
The Forum members discussed the proposed convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and the
New Zealand Commission proposal recommending,among others, the involvement of the human rights
commissions in the process of drafting the convention.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights Special Advisor on National Institutions, Mr.
Brian Burdekin, also emphasized the importance ofhuman rights commissions taking part in the process
on their own, or as a region, or as the Forum, notingthat there were very few human rights commissions
present at the first UN Ad Hoc Committee meeting on
the convention. The Forum members expressed theirinterest in considering the matter.
They also discussed the operations and functions ofhuman rights commissions. They reviewed theForum’s workshops for commission staff and the staff
exchange programs, as well the assistance program forother national institutions by the New Zealand andAustralian commissions.

-10-To address the issue of cooperation and assistanceamong the Forum Members, one of the objectives of
the Forum, their Senior Executive Officers met for the
first time on 10 November 2002.

Asian Civil Society
Forum 2002

NGO representatives
The NGOs held a pre-Forum meeting to prepare recommendations and proposals to the Forum. They
made oral presentations on the issue of trafficking of
women and children and the convention on the rightsof persons with disabilities. They also proposed torefer the issue of anti-terrorism laws and human rights
to the Advisory Council of Jurists. The emergency andanti-terrorism legislation, being enacted and strengthened in many parts of the region, came up frequently
in the discussions, including the Opening Ceremony
speeches. Some speakers voiced concern about therespect for human rights under these legislations. The
Forum Members decided to refer to the Advisory
Council the issue of primacy of the rule of law incountering terrorism worldwide while protecting
human rights.
There were very few NGOs present in the meeting,perhaps because of the short notice due to the suddenchange in venue. There were 15 organizations listed,compared with the 36 out of 100 observer organizations, as quoted from the previous meeting’s
Concluding Statement. The NGOs were given an
opportunity to make oral presentations, but NGOs
were sometimes critical of the limits that were occasionally placed on their time to speak. On the other
hand, when information and comments from NGOs
were specifically asked for, such as on the issue oftrafficking in women and children, there were times,
when none of the NGOs present could respond. Thiswas regrettable, considering the numerous NGOs
working on this issue in India and in other parts of theregion.
The Forum adopted the Concluding Statement summarizing the discussions during the meeting, anddecided to hold the next Annual Meeting in Nepal.
Kimiko Okada is a staff member of HURIGHTSOSAKA.

Nobuki FujimotoT

he “Asian Civil Society Forum 2002” (ACSF
2002) was held from 9 to 13 December 2002 in
Bangkok. The conference, convened by the
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationshipwith the United Nations (CONGO), had the theme“UN/NGO Partnership for Democratic Governance inAsia.” More than 500 people attended ACSF 2002,
representing 200 NGOs from 33 countries, and several
UN agencies including the Office of HighCommissioner for Human Rights, UNDP, UNESCO,UNICEF, and UNIFEM.
The discussions (in plenary and workshops) focusedon several issues such as the UN system and NGOs,
role of civil society in global governance, impact ofSeptember 11 on human rights in Asia, gender equality, migration, and national human rights institutions.

The participants adopted a Statement stressing theimportance of implementing the commitments made at
the recent UN conferences, such as Millennium
Development Goals of the UN Millennium Assembly(2000), Declarations and Programmes of Action ofWorld Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance(2001) and World Summit on Sustainable
Development (2002).
They also adopted a General Guidelines for Actionthat calls on the UN, governments and civil society
actors in Asia to take action on the issues discussed. It
encourages civil society, in particular, to develop genuine partnership with the UN and governments, inaddition to building coalitions across sectors. It also
advises civil society actors to maintain their independence from governments and private corporations.
Korean NGO representatives participating in the conference proposed the setting up of a ‘Northeast Asian
Civil Society Forum.’ A meeting on this idea was tentatively set in November 2003 in Seoul.
(See the next page for the excerpt of the General
Guidelines for Action.)
For more information, please visit: Asian Civil Society
Forum 2002 http://www.acsf.net/-11-

Asian Civil Society
Forum 2002*

based on international human rights and environmental
standards with the appropriate monitoring mechanisms
for transnational corporations;10. integrate into school curricula the nurturing of values
related to human rights, peace and human security, sustainable development and gender justice.

UNCC, Bangkok / December 9 to 13,
2002

We request the ESCAP and UN bodies’ regional offices in
Asia to:

UN/NGO Partnerships for Democratic Governance:
Building Capacities and Networks for
Human Rights and Sustainable Development

10. provide more resources, political space and access forgrassroots organisations and all NGOs, particularly thoseworking in the fields of human rights, sustainable development and women’s empowerment, to participate intheir meetings and programmes;
11. integrate a holistic and values-based approach in theplanning and implementation of their policies and programmes in accordance with the principles of humanrights, human security, sustainable development and gender equality;
12. take the necessary steps towards the creation of aregional mechanism for human rights.

General Guidelines for Action1
Special call from the Youth Workshop
We call upon all the governments, inter-governmental organizations and civil society to acknowledge the necessity ofyouth participation and interventions in decision-making
processes that affect the life of youth at local, national,
regional and global levels.
To All Governments in Asia

To Civil Society Actors in Asia

Democratic Global Governance begins at home

Democratic participation is a prerequisite for genuine global governance.

We urge all governments in Asia to:
1. ratify the core human rights treaties, optional protocols,and other relevant conventions, and multilateral environmental agreements, and especially, the UN convention on
migrant workers and the Rome Statutes of theInternational Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol,
without any reservation, where they have not done so, assoon as possible;
2. support draft treaties such as the draft Convention on theProtection of all Persons from Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances, or the draft Declaration on the rights ofIndigenous peoples as adopted by the UN SubCommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights;3. promote cooperation within the region in the realizationof the Millennium Development Goals and other majorcommitments made at all UN world conferences;
4. ensure that their line ministries and decision-making bodies, in particular those dealing with trade, finance, justiceand security, act in coherence with UN human rights,
health, labour and environmental standards and obligations;5. reverse the current growing militarization of our region
and, in the process, ensure the full protection of humanrights and the environment in and around military bases
and sites related to military activities;
6. repeal national security and anti-terror laws and policies
that undermine human rights in the region;
7. respect and be more open to partnerships with NGOs in
pursuing the ideals of democratic governance based on
the principles of human rights, human security, sustainable development and gender equality;
8. make more efforts to integrate a gender perspective at alllevels from policy formulation, budgeting, implementation to monitoring and evaluation;
9. collaborate actively in promoting the development oflegally-binding corporate accountability agreements

We invite all civil society actors in Asia to:
1. make more efforts in developing genuine partnerships
with the UN and governments in implementing the
MDGs, based on mutual respect and trust and with acommon commitment to upholding human rights;
2. be more active in making use of UN instruments andmechanisms in advocating the cause of human rights,
human security, sustainable development and genderequality and, towards this end, undertake training andcapacity building programmes to enhance our advocacy
skills;
3. be more active in building coalitions and alliances acrosssectors towards democratic global governance in solidarity with the people, particularly the most marginalized
and vulnerable groups and sectors;
4. be more vigilant about our own values, practices andbehaviours, and our independence from governments andthe corporate sector, in order to ensure transparency andaccountability of our organizations to our people whom
we serve.
We commit ourselves to undertake the tasks we have set
before us at this Forum. We believe it has provided a spacefor building networks and capacities for upholding humanrights and working for sustainable development, peace, justice and human security with a commitment to genderjustice and equality. We are convinced that the organizationof this Forum is one step to the realization of the vision ofcreating a Global Civil Society Forum, as agreed at the
NGO Millennium Forum which took place at UN
Headquarters in New York in May 2000.
Bangkok, 13 December 2002
[Adopted by acclamation at the final plenary session of
ACSF2002, further to amendments proposed by the floor]*This is an excerpt of the document.
1. The more specific recommendations coming from the various sessions will be included in the final report of the meeting which isdue in January or February in 2003.

-12-

The National Human Rights Education Programin Japan: Some Notes
Kenzo TomonagaOn 15 December 1995, in response to the UN
Decade for Human Rights Education (19952004), the Japanese government established thePromotion Headquarters for the Decade (HQ). The
HQ is chaired by the Prime Minister, vice-chaired by
the Cabinet Chief Secretary and 4 other Cabinet ministers.1 It also designated the vice-ministers of 22 2
ministries and government agencies as senior staff.
The HQ Secretariat is stationed at the Cabinet
Councilors' Office on Internal Affairs.

On 4 July 1997, the HQ announced the adoption of a
National Plan of Action on Human Rights Education(1997-2004). This plan was finalized after gettingcomments from the public, though not all comments
were incorporated in the final version. The plan pays
special attention to the promotion of human rights
education not only in schools but also in private corporations and the civil society in general. It provides
for the development of human rights programs for
professional groups such as public servants, teachers,
members of the police, personnel of the Self-Defense
Forces, medical professionals, social care workers,
and journalists. It highlights the rights of women, children, the aged, persons with disabilities, Buraku
people, Ainu people, foreigners, persons with
HIV/AIDS, and former convicts. It also emphasizes
the need to support the work of the UN in assisting thedevelopment of human rights education programs indeveloping countries.
In December 2000, the Japanese parliament enacted“The Law on the Promotion of Human Rights
Education and Human Rights Aw a r e n e s s - r a i s i n g . ”
This law defines human rights education as educational activities aimed at nurturing the “spirit of respecting
human rights,” and human rights awareness-raising as
public relations and other activities aimed at popularizing and deepening respect for and understanding of
human rights. This law makes the national and local
governments responsible for carrying out humanrights education/awareness-raising activities. As
required by this law, the “Basic Plan for the Law on
the Promotion of Human Rights Education and
Human Rights Awareness-Raising” was adopted in
March 2002. This new plan is meant to supplement

the 1997 plan.
While these developments are laudable, the Japanese
government has to deal with the following issues:a. inadequate dissemination of information to the general public using the mass media (television,
newspapers and magazines) about the Decade;b. lack of provision in the national plan about humanrights education program for members of national
and local assemblies, judges and lawyers, and members of the religious sector;
c. lack of textbooks on human rights specifically for
professional groups and non-integration of humanrights education into their training courses;
d. lack of national focal point for human rights education as suggested in the Decade guidelines. The
seriously understaffed HQ Secretariat cannot fully
implement a national plan;e. non-incorporation of human rights into the policies
and programs of all the Ministries and Agencies;
f. lack of explicit statement on inclusion of humanrights education in the "Integrated Learning
Program" subject under the new school curriculum(April 2002).

It is also necessary to keep the momentum started by
the Decade to continuously increase at the international level. For this purpose, a second Decade is highly
recommended. The existing national plan of Japan canbe further improved in the context of the second
Decade.
Kenzo Tomonaga is the Director of Buraku
Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute(BLHRRI).
For further information, please contact: BLHRRI, 16-12 Kuboyoshi, Naniwa-ku, Osaka, 556-0028 Japan,
ph (816) 6568-7337, fax (816) 6568-0714, e-mail:udhr@blhrri.org, URL http://blhrri.org
Endnotes
1. Under the January 2001 Cabinet reorganization, the four
Cabinet Ministers are from the Ministries of Education,
Culture, Sports and Technology; Justice; Foreign Affairs;
and the Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts andTelecommunications.
2. The number of Ministries since January 2001 has been
reduced to 15.

-13-

Human Rights
Education Study Tour:
Delegation from ChinaThe UN Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) organized on 16-24
September 2002 a study tour to the Philippines for a
Chinese delegation. This study tour is part of the technical assistance of OHCHR to the People’s Republicof China for the development of human rights education programs for the police, judges, teachers andother professionals. This is also a follow-up to the recommendations made by Chinese educators for primaryand secondary schools in a human rights education
seminar held in Beijing on 8-9 November 2001.

The recommendations for primary and secondary
schools include the development of a national humanrights education in schools program by adding theinternational human rights standards to the existing
curriculums on legal education and moral education;
review of human rights curriculum, textbooks, andteaching methodologies in other countries; development of materials; and strengthening of teacher
training.

Study tour program
A ten-member Chinese delegation went to thePhilippines for the study tour. It was composed of four
officials from the Ministry of Education, one officialfrom the Ministry of Justice, two officials from the
Ministry of Public Security, two officials from the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Vice Dean of auniversity law school.
The nine-day study tour consisted of the following:a. Briefing on government programs on humanrights education in schools by officials of thePhilippine Department of Education, and theCommission on Higher Education (for the teacher
training curriculum);b. Briefing on programs on human rights educationin schools of other institutions - the Philippine
Normal University (with observation of two classes
on human rights), and the Institute of Governmentand Law Reform (in the University of thePhilippines’ Law Center) on Popularizing the Law
Program which includes teaching of human rights
to school children;

Chinese delegation members talking with students
at the Aurora Quezon Elementary School in Manilac. School visits to observe human rights classes in a
primary school (Aurora Quezon Elementary
School), and a high school (Manila Science HighSchool) in Manila city. An additional demonstration class with Grade Six students was held in the
University of the Philippines’ College of
Education;d. Workshop with education officials from Thailand,
Indonesia and Sri Lanka.
e. Session on the synthesis of the Chinese delegation’s learnings from the study tour program, as
well as ideas on how to develop a program on
human rights education in Chinese schools.

The Chinese delegation presented China’s program on
legal governance and moral education subjects, aswell as the general school curriculum which contains
subjects mentioning human rights principles. A soonto-be published teaching material for secondary
school, containing discussions on the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, was also presented. The delegation also mentioned that other publications forprimary school, teachers, and school administrators
will be developed soon.

Last note
The recommendations of the Chinese educators in the2001 Beijing seminar regarding human rights education in Chinese primary and secondary schools
deserve support. Since the study tour to thePhilippines is a follow-up to the Beijing seminar, themembers of the Chinese delegation who joined thestudy tour to the Philippines have the responsibility of
supporting the fulfillment of the recommendations.
How they will carry out this responsibility is still to be
seen. The most awaited development, in any case, isthe final form of the Chinese national human rights
education program in primary and secondary schools.

-14-Events
Events Held
1. The Third Asia-Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress
was held in New Delhi from the 8-10 November 2002. The
congress’ member-NGOs took up the following agenda: a.
Regional arrangement for the protection and promotion ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms; b. Human rights
and anti-terrorist legislation; c. Re-examining the Paris
Principles on National Human Rights Institutions; d.
Mainstreaming human rights in development programs;
and e. Follow up to the World Conference Against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance. For further information, please contact: South
Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), B6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110029,
India; ph (9111) 619 1120; 619 2717, 619 2706, fax (9111)
619 1120; e-mail: secretariat@aphrn.org
2. The Global Alliance for Justice Education (GAJE) held aregional conference entitled "Social Justice in the AsiaPacific: Refugees, HIV/AIDS and Indigenous Peoples" at
the University of Sydney on 9 -11 December 2002. The
first GAJE Australasia regional conference brought together legal academics, law students, jurists, community
workers, advocates and legal practitioners from around theworld with the common goal of achieving justice throughlegal education. It discussed the following issues: a.
Asylum seekers and refugees; b. HIV/AIDS and access tojustice in developing countries; and c. Indigenous justice.
This regional conference was organized by members of
GAJE Australasia, in partnership with Kingsford Legal
Centre, staff and students at the Law Faculties of the
University of Sydney and University of New South Wales,
and the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning,
University of Technology, Sydney. For further information,please contact: Edwina Kobus, GAJE Regional Conference
c/o Faculty of Law, University of Sydney,173-175 Phillip
Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia, email:gaje@law.usyd.edu.au; www.gaje.net.au

Events to be Held
1. The Asian Social Forum, a follow up to the World Social
Forum held in Porto Alegre, will be held in Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh on 2-7 January 2003. Representatives ofNGOs from India, other Asian countries, and other regions
will be attending the event. The Human Rights Law
Network (HRLN) / India Centre for Human Rights andLaw/ Socio-Legal Information Center (SLIC) is organizing
a series of meetings on the following topics: a. Rights ofwomen, labor, disabled people, and refugees; b. Housing
rights; and c. Criminal justice. The Forum will have seminars, workshops, testimonials, “open spaces” formobilizations, youth camp, cultural events and film festival. For further information please contact: Ms. Deepika
D'Souza, Director, Human Rights Law Network (HRLN),
e-mail: huright <huright@vsnl.com>-15-

2. The 11th Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asianand Pacific Region will be held in Islamabad on 25-27
February 2003. The workshop will review the activities
held during the preceding 12 months, the activities underthe 4 pillars of the Tehran Framework, and updates on thenext activities. The workshop organizers would like to havethe participation of relevant senior government officials
and policymakers, members of the national human rights
institutions, NGO workers, and representatives of the UN
specialized agencies and subregional organizations. For
further information, please contact: Ms. Sandra Shibata,
OHCHR (Geneva), ph (4122) 917-9118; fax (4122) 9179014.
3. YUVA Centre, in partnership with the People’s
Movement for Human Rights Education (PDHRE), is organizing the Human Rights Educators’ Training Programmefrom 24 February to 5 April 2003. The program aims at
developing a comprehensive experience by equipping
potential human rights educators with the skill and understanding to: a. Integrate knowledge in the fields of politics,
economics, socio-psychology and cultural diversity in thecontext of human rights; b. Strategize the training andmethodology required in promoting human rights education in various South Asian countries. For further
information, please contact: South Asian Learning
Institution for Human Rights Education (SALIHRE),YUVA Center Plot no 23, Sector 7, Kharghar Sector 7,
K h a rg h a r, Navi Mumbai- 410210, India, ph (9122)
2 4 116393 to 94, 2756-0990 to 99; fax (9122)
24135314/2756-0970;
e-mail:hreducatorstraining@yuvaindia.org; www.yuvaindia.org
4. The Indian Social Institute (New Delhi) is organizing the“South Asia Convention on Human Rights Concerns –Today and Tomorrow” in New Delhi in mid-2003. The
subregional convention will discuss a number of issues
such as a. State, Law and Human Rights: Revisiting SouthAsia; b. Societal violations and human rights movements inSouth Asian countries; c. Globalization and its impact on
the basic rights of the people of the region; d. Politicalinstitutions, political parties and human rights : Focus on
South Asia; e. Enforcement of United Nations resolutions
and international human rights laws in South Asia:
Constraints and Prospects; f. Militarization and nuclearization in South Asia and threat to right to life; g. Traditionsof dissent and their changing pattern in South Asia; h.
Challenges for South Asia in achieving a human rights
regime. Participants, coming mainly from South Asian
countries, will include academics, human rights lawyers,
activists, researchers, representatives of the social movements, and representatives of state institutions. For further
information, please contact: Mr. Prakash Louis, Executive
Director, Indian Social Institute, 10, Institutional Area,
Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003 India, ph (9111) 4625015,
4622379, 4611745, fax: (9111) 4690660, e-mail:prakash@unv.ernet.in; prakashlouis@hotmail.com

HURIGHTS OSAKA ACTIVITIESOn 11 October 2002, a seminar on labor issues and laws in Asia was held in HURIGHTS OSAKA. Prof. Kozo Kagawa of the Kobe
University gave a presentation in the seminar based on the proceedings of the recent Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF) workshop.
On 14 October 2002, a study meeting on Dalits in Nepal (with a major focus on women) was held with Ms. Anita Shrestha of the
Feminist Dalit Organization (FEDO) as the speaker.
On 9 November 2002, a human rights education seminar on gender equality education in Japan and south Korea was held in
HURIGHTS OSAKA. Three panelists, a researcher and a teacher from south Korea and a teacher in Osaka, gave presentations. The seminar is related to the publication by HURIGHTS OSAKA of a booklet entitled Gender-equal Education in East Asia (Japanese language).
On 11 December 2002, Dr. Suthin Nophaket, commissioner in the Human Rights Commission of Thailand, and Prof. Dong Hoon
Kim, former Director of HURIGHTS OSAKA, gave presentations in a study meeting about national human rights commissions inThailand and south Korea.
On 18 December 2002, HURIGHTS OSAKA and the Osaka prefectural and city governments held the fourth human rights public
symposium. Mr. Jiro Hirano, a well-known media personality in Japan, was the featured speaker.

PRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights in the AsiaPacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international community; 3) toensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raisehuman rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order toachieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study,
Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.

HURIGHTS OSAKA

HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
1-2-1-1500, Benten, Minato-ku, Osaka 552-0007 Japan
Phone: (816) 6577-3578 Fax: (816) 6577-3583
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp
Web site: http://www.hurights.or.jp