by Kanae Doi
Published in: English-Speaking Union of Japan
August 2, 2010
Now that the Upper House elections are over, Prime Minister Kan Naoto can at last concentrate on governing and making good on his pledge to build a "society with the minimum level of unhappiness." One way Prime Minister Kan could carry out this pledge would be to declare a commitment to "human rights diplomacy" and begin by formulating a vision for eliminating "unhappiness" not just in Japan, but also elsewhere in Asia and around the world.
Looking at only our nearest neighbors in Asia, it is easy to find many people suffering horrendous "unhappiness" - massacres, rape as a weapon of war, arbitrary arrest and torture in detention, the criminalization of free expression, association and assembly, and other forms of political oppression. While non-state actors such as armed insurgents are responsible for some of these horrors, many others are caused by abusive governments.
As a major aid donor to many Asian countries, the Japanese government is in a unique position to assert its leadership to stop these governments from inflicting "grave unhappiness." Japan should be using its membership on various important international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council to raise its voice against these rights abuses. Instead, Japan has been reticent to speak out publicly on behalf of victims of human rights abuses.
China's fast rise presents a special challenge to the world in this area. China claims to be a "responsible power," yet it is also a major human rights abuser. It censors its own people, oppresses ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang, and imprisons many people for exercising their rights to free expression.
China also faces strong international criticism for its core policy of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other states. That approach translates into providing considerable quantities of unconditional economic aid to governments regardless of their rights records, and maintaining close bilateral relations with abusive governments such as Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe.
Since our neighbor China is making such strides in its efforts to emerge as a world power, it becomes all the more important for Japan to revive its profile in the world as a leader, not only in terms of its "hard" power of economic might but also its "soft" power, by strongly promoting a diplomacy based on human rights and the rule of law. However, in reality, Japan has been extremely hesitant in publicly raising human rights issues with its counterparts, including China. Defending its position, Japanese diplomats refer to variety of obstacles including Japan's past abuses in China and elsewhere during the Second World War. While it goes without saying that the Kan administration must be mindful of Japan's past with China, the past abuses should not be a reason to be less vigorous in its support for universal human rights standards. Rather, as a past abuser, Japan has a moral responsibility to protect the victims of on-going abuses.
Further, promoting and protecting human rights in Asia is necessary from a pragmatic standpoint, and consistent with Japan's national interests. In its Manifesto, the Kan administration promised that, "for the creation of an East Asian Community, we will make our best efforts to forge relationships of trust with China, Korea and other Asian countries." But being able to truly trust China should mean pressing it to demonstrate its respect for human rights, instead of borrowing a page from China's strategy of turning a blind eye to abuse.
An independent judiciary and free media can help monitor and ultimately prevent corruption and injustice by government and corporations. Judges and reporters focused on accountability and upholding the rule of law can function as a self-cleansing mechanism for governance, such as doctors who drain the pus before a festering boil of corruption gets out of hand. However, there is neither an independent judiciary nor free media in today's China, leading to a creeping accumulation of dissatisfaction among its people that may explode at any time.
From a long-term strategic perspective, Japan should gradually press China to expand respect for human rights and political freedoms if we are to create an "East Asian Community" with genuine prosperity and stability. This is not only necessary for Japan, but would benefit China as well.
The fight against impunity is another issue on which Japan's principles are being tested. When there is evidence that a war crime may have been committed and the state concerned fails to fulfill its international obligation to investigate, an independent international inquiry is called for, led by a respected body such as the United Nations. Will Japan raise a principled voice in support of justice for the civilian victims of a conflict, or will it tolerate impunity for senior government officials and rebel leaders who abuse human rights? This issue confronts Japan at this very moment over Israel and the Palestinians, as well as Sri Lanka, and Burma.
Ending impunity is essential to prevent future atrocities. As a leading democracy in Asia, Japan should firmly uphold the principle of justice and accountability in its relations with other governments.
Human Rights diplomacy also comes into play with Japan's Official Development Assistance (ODA). It has been two decades since Japan pledged to pay full attention to "the situation regarding the protection of basic human rights and freedoms in the recipient country" as one of the four principles of its ODA Charter, but implementation of these principles has lacked transparency, and at times, disregarded the substance of the principles altogether. We have to remember that China is not the only country criticized for its unconditional financial support to abusive governments. Japan has been a long time major financial supporter to some of the governments with notorious human rights record, including countries such as Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Burma.
Japan should clearly state that non-humanitarian aid is conditional on the efforts of the recipient government to protect and promote basic human rights, as measured by a concrete set of indicators. If the government is found to be violating basic human rights, based on the indicators, Japan should postpone extending financial aid until the country meets the standards.
With its declining birthrate and aging population, Japan today is feeling increasingly that it is being eclipsed by China and is in need of a positive future vision. Precisely because Japan finds itself in this state, the Kan administration should present a vision of a Japan as a nation that used its diplomatic influence to put a stop to the serious human rights violations around the world. This is Japan's responsibility as a major Asian democracy and a sign that it truly has reached maturity.
The writer is Japan Director of Human Rights Watch.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Human Rights Should Be Kan's Foreign Policy Priority
UN ‘working behind the scenes’ on Burma
http://www.dvb.no/news/un-%e2%80%98working-behind-the-scenes%e2%80%99-on-burma/11073
By FRANCIS WADE
Published: 3 August 2010
The UN has been forced to defend its record on Burma in recent days with the fallout from a leaked memo that slated Ban Ki-moon’s impact on the pariah state showing no signs of easing.
The now-infamous 50-page report, written by Inga-Britt Ahlenius and leaked to the Washington Post in mid-July, said that the UN secretariat is in a “process of decay” after three years of “absence of strategic guidance and leadership” under Ban.
The comments were a parting shot from Ahlenius, who recently finished her post as chief of the UN’s anti-corruption agency, the Office of Internal Oversight (UNOIOS).
“We seem to be seen less and less as a relevant partner in the resolution of world problems,” she said, questioning the UN’s “capacity to protect civilians in conflict and distress…What relevance do we have in disarmament, in Myanmar [Burma], Darfur, Afghanistan, Cyprus, G20…?”
The secretary general used one of his first speeches as UN chief in January 2007 to urge for the release of Burma’s political prisoners, but since his last, and widely criticised, visit to Burma in June last year, he has barely mentioned the country in public.
Moreover, the UN is yet to appoint a successor to Ibrahim Gambari, the equally maligned UN special envoy to Burma who was reassigned to Sudan in late 2009. In January this year it defended the hiatus on reappointing an envoy by claiming that UN Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar was temporarily filling the role.
But it has again been forced to defend accusations in the wake of the leaked report that it has been lax on pressuring the Burmese junta to reform. One reporter asked Ban’s spokesperson, Martin Nesirky, on 23 July whether the UN had indeed accomplished anything on Burma, which is heading towards widely-criticised elections this year.
“We continue to work, as I also said to you before; the good offices [team] is not one individual, if you like, it’s people working behind the scenes,” he said. “Not everything that happens is in the public eye…Sometimes you see those results quickly, sometimes it takes longer. Certainly we’ve been very public about the need for credible elections in Myanmar.
Nambiar also responded to the Ahlenius report by saying that Ban’s work as secretary general had been “visionary” and that he had balanced his UN role with “providing truly global leadership.”
But critics have argued that his method of dealing in “soft power” has reinforced the growing influence of China within the UN, at a time when Western nations are in a face-off over China’s support for the Burmese junta. Ahlenius said that Ban was “spineless and charmless” and was “struggling to show leadership”, an accusation that has apparently rattled his office.
Author: FRANCIS WADE Category: News, Politics
Burma Turns a Cold Shoulder to the US
Burma Turns a Cold Shoulder to the US
Written by Adam Selene
TUESDAY, 03 AUGUST 2010
'Diplomacy by Stealth' Needed in West's Approach
The renewed dialogue between the US and the Burmese regime has attracted quite a bit of publicity. But these talks have yet to produce any tangible results.
This shouldn't surprise anybody. Off the record, even American diplomats admit that the talks with the ruling State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) are about little more than the dialogue itself. There are no offers on the table. The US is sticking to its policy of demanding democratic change.
In the meantime, President Barack Obama has renewed the US sanctions against Burma. So, in reality, there is no real news on the "Western Front."
What the West needs to realize is that the Burmese regime is not going to bow down publicly. The army in Burma stays in power mainly because it projects a strong image of unity and ruthlessness. Internally, this serves the regime well, because it keeps the Burmese people afraid and off the streets. In the psychological framework of the generals there is no chance they will ever voluntarily show signs of weakness. Junta chief Snr-Gen Than Shwe would lose face and his strongman image would crumble if he granted the US the concessions it wants.
There is another factor undermining the Burma policies of the West. The generals are not only politicians, they are businessmen, too. The SPDC doesn't operate on a basis of trust. It wants rock-solid proof. In its dealings with China and India, the SPDC is used to operating on a tit-for-tat basis. Both parties are clear about what they want and what they will supply.
This deal-making aspect is lacking in the dialogue with the US. The Americans want something but they are vague about what reward, if any, awaits an agreement. This irritates the regime instead of softening it up.
The European Union is also lost in a counter-productive Burma policy. Like the US, the European countries have installed rigid diplomatic and economic sanctions. But to what avail? Hardly anybody believes nowadays that the sanctions have produced anything positive.
A couple of weeks ago, even the Dutch Foreign Secretary Maxime Verhagen – known to be a hardliner on Burma issues – admitted in a speech that the sanctions haven't delivered. But he added quickly that he thought it was not an option to remove the sanctions, probably because it would rob the EU of the only card it has in its poker game with the regime.
It looks as if the EU has painted itself into a corner, too.
The counterproductive policies of the EU and the US are all the more sad since important processes are well underway in Burma. Exiled opposition forces may dismiss the elections as a sham, but the fact remains that the new constitution and the elections offer some freedoms and a level of participation that was sorely missing in recent decades.
Instead of marginalizing itself, the West should do everything within its powers to improve the democratic nature of the elections. The old approach hasn't worked out, so a new one is needed. And quickly.
Two things are important. First, there should be a willingness to deal with the regime. Yes, the SPDC is a rogue government. But currently it is the only government in town. If anybody is sincere in the need to achieve anything in Burma, deals are inevitable. The sanctions can still be used as bargaining chips. Better still is to make the first move. Offer something and be clear about the nature of the "reward" — and build on that.
Of course, this is shaky ground because for the West, with all its democratic checks and balances and a past of morally inspired Burma policies, it is hard to start whistling a completely new tune. But time is running out. The elections are casting their shadow ahead, despite the regime being unwilling to announce a date yet. So better hurry.
The second important thing is not to publicly make a numbers game out of it. Let the regime have its deal and receive the credit for the softer line it takes. It's the result that counts. The minute the West makes it seem as if the generals have bowed down, trust will be shattered and it will be back to square one.
What the West needs now is deal-making and diplomacy by stealth. If that means taking flak and biting the bullet so be it.
The Irrawaddy
Adam Selene is a journalist based in Bangkok.
Posts
