Human Rights II

(April 27 - May 4, 2003)
by Joed Alcid

Joed Alcid

This report aims to provide insights on the just-concluded seminar entitled “Human Rights II: A Liberal Response to Major Current Issues," held at the International Academy for Leadership, Gummersbach, Germany,  on 27 April to 4 May 2003.

The Human Rights II seminar focused on human rights issues that surfaced during past Human Rights I seminars. Probably because of lack of material time and the coverage of the past seminars, these topics and issues did not really undergo in-depth discussions and analyses.

In this report, the basic questions that must be asked would be: “Was the seminar relevant?”  “Did the seminar facilitate for new learnings?”  “Did the seminar provide inputs that may be used in the participants current line of work?”

Objectively speaking, the answers to the questions are YES! 

The following topics were covered during the seminar: 

Antidotes to Ethnic and Cultural Prejudice and Hate Campaigns. 

The issue of racial discrimination may not be very pronounced in the Philippines, but is a major concern in other parts of the world where human rights violations are committed because of persons’ displeasure over the ethnic and cultural differences of others.  The cases of Macedonia and South Africa were presented to illustrate the extent of the problem.  In the case of South Africa, the long history of colonization of the Blacks by the Whites has shown how a minority group can subjugate the majority if the former wields political and economic powers.  Slavery can be said as the most inhuman expression of ethnic prejudice.

But a major discovery I made was that cultural and regional slurs are somewhat related to the issue of migrants being integrated into the economic mainstream of a certain society where they become major players.  In the early 70s in the United States, Filipino doctors and nurses migrated there to work precisely because there was a shortage for such professions.  Later on, these hardworking and patient Filipino nurses and doctors managed to climb up the socio-economic ladder.  Although there were no formal studies conducted on American perceptions on Filipino migrants, first-hand accounts of resentment of Americans against the families of nurses and doctors have passed through word-of-mouth.

The same thing happened in 1980s to the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese who excelled in mathematics subjects in school and in computers. Movies, TV series and jokes that depicted these nationalities as nuisance, cheats and idiots became a trend in the 1980s.

The anti-Chinese jokes and sentiments of Filipinos probably manifest the envy that poor Filipinos have over the rich Chinese.  Thus aside from perceiving ethnic and cultural prejudice as a form of human rights violation, these situations must also be placed within the context of the inability of the State to improve socio-economic conditions and promote the equal distribution of wealth and opportunities.

Finally, the polarization of Filipino Christians and Muslims had its roots as early as the Spanish regime.  However, the negative perception of Christians against the Muslims have been reinforced every time the military and the Muslim engage in an on and off war. Furthermore, the banditry and terrorist activities of the Abu Sayaff all the more paints a bad picture of the Muslims.

New Standards for Combating Crime – Avoiding Injustice Whilst Increasing Effectiveness. The inclusion of this topic to the seminar is very timely.  The aftermath of 911 and the recent US-Iraq war served as the backdrop of interesting discussions among the participants. It is however shocking that some participants who are supposedly human rights advocates, seem to agree that the use of force against Iraq was necessary no matter the costs even if it meant loss of innocent lives.  To my mind, the hysteria that 911 and the United States created is similar to the Cold War paranoia they engineered.

It is nice to know that although the participants are divided over the necessity of force, there is a general consensus that efforts must always be exerted to avoid injustice and protect the rights of the people.  But then again, the practice of maintaining peace and order, violations human rights are committed.

The discussions became useful inputs to my work in Congress as it provided me with different views that can be used in studying the Anti-Terrorism bill scheduled for floor deliberations.  The enactment of anti-terrorism and security laws is becoming a trend worldwide. For instance, some countries like Indonesia already enacted Internal Security Acts that while intending to combat terrorism, also threatens the basic human and civil rights of persons. 

However, what brought a very chilling feeling to most of the participants was the lecture of Mr. Ulrich Neef, the judge at the Gummersbach magistrate.  Initially, his report on the low crime rate Gummersbach and Germany in general was impressive. But when he enumerated the measures that the local police employed to collect evidences from suspected criminals,  one can’t help but be alarmed.  Methods such as wiretapping, installing microphones that can allow the police to snoop on conversations, and the like, actually invade upon the privacy of individuals.  His lecture actually negated whatever chances there were for coming up with non-intrusive solutions to combat crime. 

Eliminating Worldwide Discrimination Against Women – Priorities and Strategies.

It has been observed that advocacy of women’s issues in the Philippines have become more progressive.  In comparison to countries like Egypt, Pakistan and India, social and cultural impediments do not dampen the spirit of women’s groups to organize themselves.

Complex issues concerning women were raised such as reproductive rights. The struggle for the recognition of women’s reproductive rights is a burning issue today that pits civil society groups and the Church.

Another issue raised was the trafficking of women and children. It is worth mentioning that in both chambers of Congress, efforts are being exerted in order to hasten the passage of a law that will respond to the trafficking of women and children.

It is interesting to note that during the discussions on the commercialization of sex through advertising, it was agreed upon by the participants that the human rights of both women and men are violated. In this manner, there was a fair treatment of genders, and that human rights violations are not exclusive only to a single group.

The role play on the job interview was a disappointment because it failed to relate well the issue of women being discriminated especially when they compete with men in applying for job positions. 

War Crimes and Tribunals – Who is to Judge and Why?

Again, this discussion became very relevant because there was a general feeling among the participants that institutions such as international tribunals would act as a deterrent for leaders who commit grave abuse of human rights against their people. There was a counter-argument however, that a tribunal will be ineffective because an abusive leader will still insist that he is not covered by international law.  In our working group, there was a consensus that an international court should have far-reaching powers to supersede domestic laws.  This will oblige governments to turn over an abusive leader before an international court once it has been proven that he has committed widespread human rights violations.  The said argument was however met with apprehensions, because of the perception that international courts will only intervene with the internal affairs of a State.

The existence of an International Criminal Court as it seems hold promise especially for prosecuting leaders who committed genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.  But recent developments that started in September 11, 2001 and the more recent US invasion of Iraq poses lots of questions.  For instance, the US’ invasion of Iraq that went against the UN Security Council raises uncertainty over the legitimacy of international bodies created to enforce the rule of law in an international setting. 

In order to strengthen the role of the ICC, our working group on this topic expressed the need for the cooperation of international NGOs such as the Amnesty International to serve as watchdog for the performance of governments in their preservation of human rights.

The International Human Rights Regime: The Ethics of Instrumentalizing Human Rights

This topic was also referred to as “the recent work of intergovernmental human rights organizations seen from the perspective of an NGO activist – with specific reference to the situation in Asia.” It was presented by a participant from Indonesia who presented his involvement in the human rights and democracy movement after the Suharto Regime. He admitted though that his presentation is falls short of presenting “a good and comprehensive overview over the international and regional human rights debate.” Thus his presentation limits its context to home-grown issues.

Judging from the presentation, it is quite obvious that the human rights and democracy movement in Indonesia is in its infantile stage compared to the Philippines that started in the early 1970s. Both experienced repressive regimes but we Filipinos managed to form groups and organized ourselves to advocate for human rights protection no matter what the risks were. But what the presentor tried to explain was that human rights protection is international in nature hence necessitating more international intergovernmental responses.

But there are some views presented that should be taken into consideration:

1. International/intergovernmental institutions are gaining strength and they have a role in promoting global governance in the advent of global problems. Thus, the WTO responded to the need to address to poverty through liberalized trading. Also, climate change could have been addressed by the Rio Declaration, etc. But as is the case in Indonesia and other parts of the world considered as newly-restored democracies, the focus of human rights violations stem from conflicts related to civil/separatist wars – Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Chechnya and East Timor.  But I also tried to figure out and came to the conclusion that the conflict and crisis in Mindanao could fall under this category.  Is it possible for the Mindanao crisis to be solved through international intergovernmental collaboration such as through the Organization of Islamic Countries?
    

2. The role of NGOs, both local and international is seen as powerful enough to push mechanisms on the UN level. Also on the regional and international level, human rights measures that will improve situations/conditions will necessitate UN action.  But alongside is the argument that the UN lacks teeth especially if its statutes are not ratified and implemented by governments. Furthermore with the US disregarding the ruling of the UN Security Council, there is a perception that the US undermined its functions.  Thus the UN Security Council has been rendered useless?
    

3. The Indonesian presentation seems to propose that in the ASEAN region, there is a need for “an enforcement agency for human rights violations/crimes committed by individuals that are not being duly prosecuted in their home countries.  However, it also states that while it is desirable, “its creation in the near future is highly unlikely.” Among the reasons cited are the following;

1. Generally poor human rights records of the past and present Asian governments thus necessitating a mechanisms that monitors and controls governments and promotes human rights in the region such as the America and European regional systems;

2. Some Asian countries still reject the concept of human rights nad nearly none consider human rights as a political priority;

3. Most Asian nations try to accentuate their differences rather than their common interests; and,

4. Prioritization of economic development as priority over human rights.

In this topic, a breakthrough was gained: that of proposing human rights as a tool for diplomacy and international relations

However, it is surprising that one of the moderators verbalized his disappointment that for the FNF’s presence in Asia for the last 13 years, “things have not been moving towards the vision of establishing a human rights mechanism.” GRANTED THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A GRAIN OF TRUTH IN THIS STATEMENT, WAS THE SEMINAR THE PROPER VENUE TO RAISE THIS?  Isn’t this a matter that could be best discussed by the FNF office in Germany and their counterparts in Asia?

Globalization as an Opportunity for Human Rights

Finally, this topic was also very useful as it placed the arguments for and against globalization in the context of social, cultural and economic rights. In this particular session, discussions that ensued revolved around the following questions:

1. Uncontrolled globalization impoverishes the poor;
2. Free trade fosters globalization and gives poorer countries a chance;
3. Globalization thrives on autocratic efficiency, not on democracy; and,
4. The technology of globalization is technology for human rights

The first three arguments are possibly not new to the Philippine situation. These were the very issues that I and my former superior, Senator Wigberto E. Tanada, advocated for when we campaigned for the Senate’s rejection of the GATT-WTO Treaty in 1995.  Globalization vis-à-vis free trade remains a very debatable issue especially since the North-South debate doesn’t seem to fade away. And these anti-globalization stances have been reiterated among the participants. But it is interesting to note that among some Latin Americans, they are now expressing an open mind about free trade.

In this session, a role play was introduced wherein some participants were chosen to defend the above-mentioned arguments.  I was chosen as a substitute to an Israeli who declined to defend argument letter d) “The technology of globalization is technology for human rights.”

I must say, this argument was easier to defend not because I am blind about the disadvantages of globalization.  But for me, there is no denying that an advantage of globalization is the access to information technology and technology in education. As the argument points out, the technology of globalization is technology for human rights.  Indeed, nobody can take for granted the benefits that technology particularly internet and electronic mail have created in terms of promoting a world wide consciousness for the protection of human rights.

International groups espousing different causes make their messages clear and they garner support.  The issues and advocacies we come across the internet are unlimited: environment, natural resources, health, human rights, justice and even donations for poor people in need of assistance for expensive surgeries are pledged.

But of course, there is also that side of globalized technology that is made out of issues such as affordability, access by the really marginalized sectors, intellectual property rights and standardized technologies, should still be answered.

Other Comments and Suggestions to the Seminar:

During the seminar, there were informal talks done off-session between the moderator and some participants. It seems that the moderator lamented the “low” quality of the participants’ discussions and contributions during plenary and reporting of workshop results. While this could be a normal reaction by the facilitator, I firmly believe that the participants were not the sole problem. Maybe the Academy should also look into why the handling of the sessions and discussions failed to evoke and cull out relevant inputs from the participants. It could also depend on how the moderator steered the discussions. I personally observed that the moderator does everything, the talking and sometimes even deciding for the participants how they should analyze the points being raised in the discussions. 

In the evaluation activity conducted during the last day of the seminar, there were some points raised that may or may not have been taken well by the Academy.  Some of which were the following:

1. too many topics, too little time;
2. trip to the Parliament not really that necessary;
3. moderator tends to monopolize discussions;
4. the seminar fell short in providing concrete solutions to the human rights issues discussed; and,
5. comprehensive summary of all lectures and points discussed lacking.

As far as I can remember, some of these matters have been raised already in other seminars and batches.  However, this type of evaluation may be good but a more comprehensive post-training evaluation should be done. In this light, it is being suggested that the IAF conducts an internal evaluation of the seminars they have been conducting.  They can formulate questionnaires that may be mailed to selected participants. The results will then help in deciding whether follow-up sessions would be necessary.

I for one can vouch for the relevance of these seminars, and I was glad I was invited for the second time because the format was very encouraging.  In fact, I felt that Human Rights II was better in terms of content and depth.  As an advanced course, it was appropriate for participants who have gained a long track record and involvement in human rights advocacy.  However, some details should go through a thorough evaluation process so that the resources of the FNF and the IAF will not be wasted. It may also help if some former participants be included in a team to evaluate the seminar concerning the choice of participants, content, etc. Finally, in order to facilitate for better evaluation of improvement of up-coming seminars, it is being suggested that a more systematic method for documenting the exchange of ideas be done.  While the kit distributed at the end of the seminar may be helpful, it is being recommended that a summary of proceedings be distributed to the participants.