|
RELEASED WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1996 10:00 AM EST To hear HRW Executive Director Ken Roth’s opening statement from the December 4th press conference and a follow-up interview, click HERE 
for the RealAudio files.
Human Rights Watch World Report 1997 (Washington, D.C., 4 Dec 96) Released in anticipation of Human Rights Day on December 10, Human Rights Watch concludes in its seventh survey of global human rights practices that in 1996, the world powers repeatedly deferred the immediate promotion of human rights in the name of often-dubious long-term strategies. Despite this abdication, a wide variety of governments worked at the national level to hold abusive officials accountable and a burgeoning human rights movement worldwide pressured their own governments to improve their human rights practices. 
In the
“Human Rights Watch World Report 1997,”
released today, Human Rights
Watch charges that although few governments overtly jettisoned human rights
concerns, the major powers argued that the immediate defense of human rights
must take a back seat to the creation of conditions that would supposedly,
some day in the future, guarantee respect for basic civil and political
rights. The subordination of human rights was thus dressed up as a human
rights policy. The language of human rights became a cover for their
abandonment. For example: In China, we were told, too much criticism of the arbitrary detention of
dissidents, religious activists or Tibetan nationalists must not be allowed to
jeopardize security and trade concerns. To justify this abdication of human
rights, the theory of “constructive engagement” was propounded, with the claim
that continued economic reform would expose the Chinese people to new ideas
and loosen the control of the Communist Party. Instead, this reluctance to
criticize Chinese repression emboldened Chinese authorities to new heights of
audacity, as they were given every reason to conclude that, for the rest of
the world, access to Chinese markets far outweighs the rights of Chinese
citizens. In Bosnia, we were cautioned, the arrest of war criminals, the safe return
of refugees and the displaced, and even the free press and open campaigning
needed for meaningful elections must await the creation of national
institutions that would assure basic rights. Instead, the U.S. government
certified severely compromised elections, which provided a cover of
respectability to rabid nationalists. They, in turn, while lending only token
endorsement to national institutions, are working closely with the indicted
war criminals who remain at large to pursue their vision of ethnic partition,
deny rights to minorities, and continue the forced displacement of hundreds of
thousands. In Russia, public protest over new atrocities in Chechnya could not be
allowed to jeopardize the Yeltsin candidacy or risk the emergence of an openly
repressive government. Instead, at the height of Russia’s renewed slaughter
of civilians in Chechnya, the Council of Europe ignored its own human rights
standards to admit Russia as a member, and the International Monetary Fund
awarded Russia a $10 billion loan. The major powers thus signaled
acquiescence in whatever ghastly steps Moscow takes to rein in its breakaway
republic. In the Middle East, the delicacy of the peace process was cited as
justification for silence in the face of abuses on all sides: the Palestinian
Authority’s arbitrary arrest and torture of suspected militants and “opponents
of peace,” Syria’s continued ruthless suppression of dissenting voices, and
Israel’s punitive closure of all Palestinian territory and indiscriminate
attacks on the civilian population of Lebanon. Meanwhile, the tension and
distrust bred by continuing human rights abuses pose a serious threat to the
peace process.This embrace of human rights justifications to excuse the abandonment of human rights presumes that respect for human rights can be bought on the cheap, that the inconvenience of upholding rights today can be dispensed with in the name of a pain-free deliverance tomorrow. It cannot. Until human rights become an integral and immediate part of the quest for peace, trade and democracy, the world will remain plagued with the intolerance, repression and violence that underlie many of today’s crises. THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE Fortunately, a more genuine commitment to promoting human rights could be found in many parts of the world, illustrated most dramatically by a growing clamor that human rights offenders be brought to justice and their crimes revealed. Victims insisted that they not be forgotten and that their tormentors not escape punishment. As a result a remarkable array of governments took steps to expose past atrocities and subject those responsible to the rule of law: South Africa’s National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation spent the
past year in a highly publicized effort to reveal abuses committed by the
apartheid government. With the power to subpoena testimony and amnesty those
who fully confessed their crimes, the commission was the most powerful of its
kind ever established, offering the prospect of a detailed and verifiable
accounting of apartheid’s violence. India took several important steps toward addressing its periodic communal
violence, including the first murder conviction stemming from attacks against
Sikhs in Delhi in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and a reinstated
investigation into the killing of more than 1,000 people, the majority of them
Muslim, in the 1992-93 Bombay riots.
President Alvaro Arzú
of Guatemala acknowledged that gross violations of
human rights had persisted for decades with complete impunity. Bold actions
that purged abusive members of the army and the police were part of a campaign
that brought a significant reduction in forced disappearances and political
assassinations. Two former presidents of South Korea were convicted of mutiny, treason and
corruption, in part for their role in the 1980 Kwangju massacre in which the
army killed hundreds. In Malawi, former president Hastings Banda and his leading henchmen were
tried, though acquitted, for the 1984 murder of three ministers and a member
of parliament.In several other cases, governments have recognized the need to seek justice, but progress has been slow. Trials, for instance, have yet to begin for some 83,000 detainees in Rwanda, even though the judicial system, shattered by the genocide, has been substantially rebuilt. Haiti’s slow progress in prosecuting military and paramilitary forces responsible for violent abuses under the 1991-94 military government — in part because of obstruction by the U.S. government — encouraged continued violence both by the new police force and by apparent armed sympathizers of the former military government. In contrast to significant national advances in the quest for justice, a historic opportunity to create an international system of justice for the most culpable human rights abusers was largely squandered over the past year. The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia promised to end the impunity that lies behind the most horrendous atrocities of our time. But Western governments, obsessed with minimizing risks to their troops in Bosnia, betrayed that promise by allowing the masterminds of the Bosnian genocide to remain at large. The massive international troop presence in Bosnia has largely stopped the slaughter for the moment, but the failure to arrest the architects of “ethnic cleansing” makes it likely that the halt will be only temporary, and that, in the end, revenge will triumph over reconciliation. Particularly at a time when the international community is reluctant to deploy troops to stop, let alone prevent, mass killing, a functioning international system of justice would be a powerful deterrent to those contemplating atrocities. Yet in their fixation on avoiding casualties among their troops today, international leaders only increase the likelihood of far more costly and dangerous interventions tomorrow. There is little time for salvaging this effort. With plans for a reduction of international troops in Bosnia at the end of 1996, the window of opportunity for arresting war criminals is closing. Popular pressure is urgently needed, lest the remaining chance also be squandered. Momentum picked up dramatically in 1996 for the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) , as traditional northern supporters of international justice, mainly in Europe, were joined by a contingent of states from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and the Pacific. These ICC proponents are urging that the treaty establishing the court be finalized by mid-1998. Opposition has come from the permanent members of the Security Council, particularly the United States, Britain, France and China. Human Rights Watch believes that the ICC could provide a bulwark for international security by dissuading would-be tyrants from resorting to the violent abuse that underlies many of today’s armed conflicts and humanitarian emergencies. Yet the permanent members of the Security Council are willing to sacrifice this powerful tool for the maintenance of international peace and security to their desire to preserve a monopoly of power within the U.N. PROFITS BEFORE HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES For a number of years, an important tool in promoting human rights has been the linkage of international assistance to the recipient’s human rights record. With a rapidly expanding global economy, however, trade and investment, in many cases, have overtaken in importance bilateral or even multilateral assistance. But many industrialized countries are reluctant to use this new form of economic leverage for human rights purposes as they fear a loss of investment opportunities as a result. While quite willing to exert economic pressure on poor states like Burundi, Cuba, Libya or Sudan, they remain silent on abuses by economically attractive countries like China, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. A few examples: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) opted for “constructive
engagement” with Burma — where Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia
have growing investments — despite mass arrests of over 1,000 opposition
activists in 1996 and the ongoing use of forced labor. Despite demands from around the world to cancel his visit to Indonesia to
protest assaults on the pro-democracy movement, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl
proceeded to Jakarta in October with a delegation of over fifty business
leaders. In the case of China, governments around the world downplayed human rights
in their quest for warm relations with Chinese leaders and lucrative business
deals in the world’s largest market. Nigeria, with its substantial oil reserves, escaped with only modest
sanctions after its shocking execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni
activists in November 1995. In the case of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, there was not even the pretense of a
dialogue to improve human rights.LABOR RIGHTS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Despite the willingness of the indutrialized nations to forsake human rights when business opportunities beckoned, the global economy produced a surprising new source of support for the human rights cause. Because the goods produced in one country may be produced by the victims of repression in another, the very act of consumption can be seen as complicity in that repression unless steps are taken to ensure that manufacturing is free of labor rights abuse. The result has been a rapid rise in consumer and press interest in labor rights in parts of the world that have been ignored. Both governments and multinational corporations have had to respond to this new interest in labor rights: During the past year, campaigns in the United States and Europe led
Heineken, Carlsberg, British Homes Stores and Liz Claiborne to leave Burma.
Royal Dutch/Shell faced strong pressure for its activities in Nigeria;
Freeport McMoRan and Nike were challenged on their role in Indonesia; Disney
for its activities in Haiti; and Zenith and General Motors for gender
discrimination in their facilities in Mexico. Canadian Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien was compelled to mention publicly the
possibility of Canadian restrictions on the import of goods made with child
labor. South Korea was admitted in October to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), but only after the OECD had set up an
unprecedented committee to monitor Korea’s labor practices for rights
violations. UNICEF announced that it would henceforth not purchase material made with
child labor. The World Bank, in response to a Human Rights Watch report, worked out an
agreement with the Indian government to initiate a pilot project aimed at
eradicating bonded child labor. Pakistan improved implementation of its child labor laws, including 2,500
prosecutions and 395 convictions of employers.Perhaps the most potent force in support of labor rights is the growing consumer interest on guarantees that the goods being purchased are not the products of abusive labor conditions. Greater access to information regarding labor conditions in the global economy has created a new arena for human rights activism for those who do not wish to be complicit in violations against workers. THE ABANDONMENT OF REFUGEES This past year saw a serious erosion in the protection of refugees from persecution. Western countries shirked their responsibilities under international law. European countries threatened to repatriate Bosnian refugees without ensuring that they would be safe on their return; in addition, many refugees fleeing to Western Europe now face a series of entry barriers, and the E.U.’s narrow definition of refugees. The United States adopted a new law, which authorizes the use of summary procedures to review asylum claims and imposes arbitrary deadlines for filing asylum claims. Perhaps the greatest threat to refugees is an increased emphasis on the management of population flows with less attention to the principle of nonrefoulement. Concern with resources and an eroding willingness to host refugees drive a new commitment to repatriation, even though refugees face serious threats to their safety at home. Human Rights Watch calls on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the major powers not to allow their desire to repatriate refugees to supersede their obligations under international law. ATTACKS ON HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS It is a sad but useful measure of the effectiveness of the human rights movement in generating pressure against abusive governments that those governments so often retaliate with violence or repression aimed at the monitors of human rights themselves. In the past year, seven human rights monitors were killed or forcibly disappeared. India and Colombia remained two of the most dangerous places for human rights monitoring, with two monitors killed in each country. Human rights monitors were also murdered or forcibly disappeared in Bangladesh, Brazil and the Philippines. The “Human Rights Watch World Report 1997” reviews human rights practices in seventy-four countries. Most chapters examine significant human rights developments in a particular country and the response of global actors, such as the United States, Japan, the European Union, the United Nations and the World Bank, as well as restrictions on human rights monitoring. Other chapters address thematic issues. The countries and issues treated reflect the main focus of Human Rights Watch's work in 1996, which in turn was determined by the severity of abuses, our access to information about them, our ability to influence abusive practices, and the need to balance our work across various political and regional divides and to address certain key concerns, such as women's rights, children's rights and arms transfers to abusive governments. Additional copies of “Human Rights Watch World Report 1997” are available from the Publications Department, Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA, Telephone: 1-212-290-4700, Fax: 1-212-736-1300 for $30.00 (domestic) and $35.00 (international). Visa/MasterCard accepted. Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental organization established in 1978 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and among the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It is supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. Kenneth Roth is the executive and Robert L. Bernstein is the chair of the board. Website Address: http://www.hrw.org Gopher Address: gopher://gopher.humanrights.org:5000/11/int/hrw Listserv instructions: To subscribe to the general HRW e-mail list (to receive press releases and public letters concerning all areas of the world), send an e-mail message to majordomo@igc.apc.org with “subscribe hrw-news” in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). Human Rights Watch 485 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017-6104 TEL: 212/972-8400 FAX: 212/972-0905 E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org 1522 K Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005 TEL: 202/371-6592 FAX: 202/371-0124 E-mail: hrwdc@hrw.org To hear the RealAudio files from the press conference for the 1997 World Report click HERE.  To view the introduction of the 1997 World Report click HERE. To order the full text of this report click HERE. For the full index of Human Rights Watch reports click HERE. Or, to return to the Human Rights Watch homepage click HERE. 
|