Human rights have a long way to go

Upon learning that the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe _ a United States government agency consisting of nine members from the US Senate, nine from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the departments of State, Defence and Commerce _ had extended an invitation to Thaksin Shinawatra to testify at a briefing titled ''Thailand: Democracy, Governance and Human Rights'' in Washington on Dec 16, many people in Thailand were perplexed. This is not only because Thailand might reasonably hope that the US would respect the fact that Thaksin is a fugitive from the Thai justice system, but also because it is assumed that the commission's main agenda concerns the demonstrations that resulted in more than 90 deaths in April and May this year, long after Thaksin had left the country.

It is also curious that a US agency comprising mostly representatives of Congress is looking into internal political struggles in Thailand when there are home-grown issues relating to the war on terror that are not being investigated by Congress.

These points notwithstanding, the US committee's invitation to Thaksin does raise another question well worth asking: What is the appropriate forum to address human rights issues if they are not addressed in the country of origin? There are several logical answers, but none are quite satisfying, because the truth is that not a single human rights commission in the world has real ''teeth'', and they are all manipulated by political considerations to varying extents.

The United Nations Human Rights Council, created by the UN General Assembly in March 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights, has the mandate to look into allegations of human rights violations around the globe and make recommendations on them. The new council has made some admirable efforts, but it is constrained by its diversity as its membership consists of representatives from 47 countries, some of them with dismal records on human rights.

The formation of the International Criminal Court on July 1, 2002, has been called the most significant reform of international law since 1945. It is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship have filed a case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajjiva for crimes against humanity committed in the crackdown on red shirt protesters. It is highly unlikely that the ICC would ever take up this case, for several reasons. In the first place, as tragic as the violence on the streets of Bangkok was, especially for loved ones of the victims, it pales in comparison to a great number of other international incidents which the court has yet to take up.

But aside from this, it isn't likely the ICC would take the case because of Thailand's relatively good standing in the world community.

All of the five situations the court has investigated are in Africa, and all five of the countries concerned, with the exception of Kenya, were under the control or influence of brutal regimes at the time of the alleged violations.

There has been talk of the ICC investigating North Korea for acts of aggression against the South. This is well and good, but it reinforces the notion that the ICC is only willing to take action against countries that are looked upon as pariah states. Despite this perception, China, Russia, and the US are among the more than 30 countries that have refused to participate in the ICC. The US has campaigned actively to have its citizens exempted from the court's jurisdiction.

The UN's International Court of Justice, which exclusively hears disputes between states, has had some notable successes, as in the genocide trials relating to the Bosnian War, but again, the prosecutions have been against defendants without any powerful friends.

That leaves regional rights groups such as the newly formed Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. As noted in an analysis in Spectrum this week, the rights body has yet to really get on track, with the main obstacle being the longstanding policy of non-interference among Asean members.

In a nutshell, it is this philosophy of non-interference between nations that keeps human rights on the back burner throughout the world, not just in Southeast Asia, and overcoming it will be extremely difficult.


(2010-12-12/Bangkok Post)