Human and Civil Rights

(May 5 - 17, 2002)
by Ray Paolo J. Santiago

Ray Paolo J. Santiago

When I was informed that I would be going to Germany for a seminar on human rights, frankly, I was excited more of the thought of going out of the country and not more of the seminar since some people have already told me that the contents of the seminar would be “basic.” But I really was not able to think about the whole trip much since our office was busy preparing for a workshop this coming June.

When the day came for me to leave, I really didn’t know what to expect. All I thought was to contribute and participate as much as I could since some of my colleagues who were past participants in such seminar said that I should “shine” in the seminar as many of the past Philippine participants did. At first I thought of it as some sort of pressure, but I eventually resolved that I would just do my best.

I would agree that a lot of the topics covered were basic. But what I liked about the seminar, and which I didn’t expect, was its format. It was a dialogue among participants rather than direct inputs from speakers. I found it very much enriching because it gave me a wider perspective of how the other participants viewed human rights. The working groups facilitated discussions among participants from different countries on human rights concerns in their respective countries. Oftentimes, we would agree on the theoretical concepts of human rights. But it is very interesting when these concepts start to get concretized with each one’s inputs on its practicality and application in their respective countries’ experiences. I very well remember how majority of my groupmates (we were a total of seven) had a hard time explaining a certain concept to one who had a totally different idea of “the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing and the continuous improvement of living conditions.” For the majority, we taught that the right being discussed is clear and needs no further discussion. We were thinking that this right merely states that governments should provide safeguards or policies that would ensure this right. However, to our surprise, this one person was thinking that it was up to the government to provide for an adequate standard of living, adequate housing, adequate food, etc. He asked us, “what if a person does not meet the adequate standard, does it mean that the government will make sure that he does and that the government will be providing for these inadequacies?” “Because if this is the case, he continued, then no one will have the incentive to work and that everyone will just depend on the government.” 

We explained that we don’t want the government to be providing for anything except to set a just and reasonable playing field. It is like the government will just ensure that there are sufficient opportunities and chances to reach this goal, but it is up to the individual if he will indeed take advantage of these opportunities or not. Bottom line is that it is still up to the individual if he will indeed have the adequacies of life. The government will not provide him these adequacies. All that the government will do is to make sure that the playing field is conducive to meet these adequacies. We further explained that in many countries, the right in argument has been disregarded since, for example, the government does not protect its workers by setting a livable minimum wage that would be enough for a decent standard of living. Because the people cannot have a decent living, most often than not, they are also not able to provide themselves with decent housing, clothing, and even subsistence. At the end of the discussion, he finally understood what we meant by that right and why it seemed important to many of us. In retrospect, what I learned from that may not be something new about that right we discussed. Rather, I learned that sometimes, what right we think is so basic and important is not the case compared to a country which is besieged with different problems and would thus have other priorities. Since the country where he comes from has more of a security, because of this, the socio-economic aspect is given little emphasis or importance, although they are not really disregarded.

Another lesson that I learned is diplomacy and negotiation. I admit that I tried to give as much input as I could especially during the working groups. But I am sure that my colleagues did just the same. In the end, we would discover that we have too many ideas on the topic being discussed. It is no problem really if all these ideas were the same which could be easily reconciled. However, oftentimes, this is not the case. The problem now is how to come up with a presentation that would be acceptable to everyone. Although this is definitely not the first time that I encountered such a predicament, it is the first, however, that I am in such predicament with participants who are of different nationalities. Having different cultures, backgrounds, practices, and even sometimes having a language barrier have made the situation more complicated. I could not help but think how hard it is then when nations negotiate treatises and covenants. I also related this to the work I am involved in right now which is the initiative for a regional human rights mechanism in Southeast Asia. No wonder it has been years already since the initiative has started, yet it would seem that only few developments have happened. Though insubstantial these developments may seem, the fact is, what has been happening at present are already somewhat breakthroughs compared to how majority of the ASEAN nations regarded our work when it started.

Going back to the working group discussions, I learned that having different backgrounds and situations, it is indeed hard to convince others of your position or stand. They too have their own positions to stand on. Yet we know that standing pat on each and everyone’s own position will get us nowhere. Thus, we learned to be open-minded and to compromise some of what we believe in in order to have something to present. So in the end, what we have is, most of the times, something which we may not call what we really wanted, but something which is the most acceptable to everyone.

In general, I really enjoyed the working groups since I feel that I learned a lot from the discussions that we had. Again, maybe not more on the theoretical aspects of the topics, but more on the discussions and ideas shared by my colleagues and how each of our own ideas would fare in the discussions that would ensued.

Aside from the sessions at Gummersbach, I very much enjoyed the excursion to the former concentration camp, Buchenwald. Having only “Schindler’s List” which I watched many years back as my background in the Nazi atrocities, I really had no idea how dreadful and hideous these camps were until we were given a background of where we were going, and what it was. The feeling of being there cannot be certainly described especially since there seems to be an air of inner solemnity lurching within the place given its history. It made me think in awe and total disbelief when I was in the Crematorium at Buchenwald that a little more than fifty years ago, thousands of bodies laid there waiting for its turn to be charred, and that the whole area is actually a place of oppression. It just makes me think how this kind of inhumanity has existed before. And ironically, who knows that these conditions may still exist at present or may even exist again in the future, though isolated cases they may be. But I think the point is, how could some people think and do such abhorrent acts? I don’t know if anyone can really answer this question but at least we have exhibits and museums like the Buchenwald camp to serve as reminders to future generations of how cruel people can be, and hope that history would not repeat itself.

Another testimony to how governments could be oppressive is the museum in the former Stazi building in Leipzig. The tour of this place I also enjoyed as I found it very interesting and educational how there could be oppression through a systematically meddling in people’s lives.

I would say that the seminar was a success and that I learned many things which are of practical use to me rather than just being theoretical. I was also happy that during the last day, we discussed about the enforcement mechanisms of the international instruments governing human rights since this is the work which I am involved in at present. I was able to share what the Ateneo Human Rights Center does, and in particular, what the Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism is all about since I was chosen as one of four who will speak about their NGO. I was able to impart why our initiative is very important to us more so in the discussion on the enforcement of international instruments. Well in my own little way, I hope that my colleagues at the seminar learned something from me as much as I have learned a lot from them.