An interactional conference on human rights is being held later this month at Vienna. The conference has been made possible by the efforts of the United Nations und its secretary general. The initiative is welcome, such conferences should be made more purposeful and regular. Doubts are being expressed in diverse circles about the possible course of the conference. A U.S, department of state spokesperson Timothy E, Wirth has said that no specific charges and countercharges on human rights issues between countries would be discussed at Vienna, Indian media reports suggest that the U.S. government would not allow critics and human rights organizations to raise the question of human rights violations by India in Kashmir and Punjab, Human Rights Watch has accused U.N. secretary general Boutros Ghali of being soft on human rights issues for fear of clashing with member states of the U.N. The H.R.W. in a 173page report on U.N. operations in Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia and El Salvador called the U.N. human rights record as “misguided neutrality.” Kencth Roth, deputy director of the group, said that it ‘was not lack of authority, it was lack of political will that was responsible for the U.N. record. A different individual with a different interpretation of the mandate could have provided a more forceful U.N. rights agenda. This criticism comes in the wake of the U.N. barring a Chinese dissident from holding a Press briefing at U.N. headquarters following Chinese protest to Boutros Ghali. This U.N. performance pervades through the Vienna conference eve deliberations on human rights issues. That is why Amnesty International stated last week that the conference was shaping up as a slap on the face of the humanity with a rhetoric-strewen draft communique “acceptable even to repressive regimes,” The criticism by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International should serve as a warming to the organizers that mere rituals of holding conferences on human rights have no value if the violations have to continue unchecked. The Human Rights Watch’s criticism of the U.N. is also valid in relation to the U.S. approach to the Vienna conference, We have no hesitation m admitting that U.S. President Clinton appears to be much more sensitive about human rights than most of his predecessors, Butilis equally important to note that the world public Opinion’s expectations have also grown from democratic governments, The difficulty with the U.S, establishment is that it still thinks in the psychology of the cold war despite its near demise as signified by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Thus the U.S. policymakers are still busy in the old style protecting as holy cows the regimes under the U.N. umbrella, in respect or their record of the human rights front. That explains the U.S. concern about warding rights has been most unflattering. The effort appears to be aimed at making these countries realize that they may be subject to adverse criticisms but for the U.S. protection provided to them. Such an attitude was understandable in the era of power blocks and the cold war. But now the public opinion all over the world will not put up with such postures on the human rights issue. It is therefore necessary for the U.S. administration as well as the U.N. authorities to be more tolerant of the criticism against the repressive regimes. Abstract references to the need for upholding human rights will produce no results unless the critical areas of violations are identified and the regimes are warmed by the world public opinion against repetition of their nefarious practices, The appointment of a U.N, high commissioner for human rights will mean nothing at all to the existence of unacceptable laws in countries like India, which has had a history of frequent custody deaths and detention without trial for of thousands Of persons. The U.S. administration’s tendency to look down upon external Support to freedom movements in areas like Kashmir and Punjab and other Indian states actually encourages the governments like the Indian government to stop up repression. The Afghan President was entirely right when he said recently that freedom Struggles should not be dubbed as terrorism, The best way to make the Vienna conclave purposeful is to throw Open its debates to government and nongovernment representatives to air their views as freely as possible. This way the sensitive areas from the human rights angle would be identified for possible Solutions. True, free debates may lead to hurling of accusations and counteraccusations, It is also likely that solutions may not emerge Overnight. But the feast the conference could do is to force participant governments to permit international enquiries into allegations of violations of human rights. Such an approach is only logical if the assumption is correct that the days of the iron curtain are over, Abstract statements about human rights or the appointment of human rights commissioners will serve no purpose at all if the conference fails to introduce among the participant governments a minimum code of conduct namely that the issue of human rights is not governed by a country’s affiliation 10 a super power; that the human rights is not a nationalistic concept but is an issue of universal concern and that the member countries must not shut their doors to international investigations. Any other course such as: making abstract and vague statements and appointing commissioners will be regarded by the public opinion worldwide as a fraud) A big responsibility in this respect will have to be bore by President Clinton as well as Boutros Ghali.
Article extracted from this publication >> June 11, 1993
