[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
BKK POST,February 6, 1998. Human ri
- Subject: BKK POST,February 6, 1998. Human ri
- From: suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 08:31:00
February 6, 1998. Human rights are a concern to all
Hardly had the presses cooled than several of our neighbours
were again in full cry against the annual US report on human
rights. Beijing said the section on China could hurt US-China
relations. Vietnam was indignant to be criticised in a report
written in a country which still has racial discrimination and a high
crime rate. Burma was outraged that Washington failed to
understand how effective the country?s transition to democracy
has been.
The cries of outrage from such countries have become
predictable in the 20-plus years that the US State Department
has been compiling them. It is tempting, in fact, to say that a
country?s human rights problem is in direct proportion to its
pretended paroxysm against the report. That wouldn?t be quite
true, though. Some nations with horrendous records are smart
enough Ñ or cynical enough Ñ to stay quiet when the annual
report is released.
Nevertheless, the bluster against the State Department tome is
almost as important as the book itself. A favourite cry of
dictators is that criticism by foreigners is an intrusion into
domestic affairs. This is nonsense of the first order. A military
invasion such as Burma?s occupation of the Moei River island is
an intrusion. But criticism is nothing more than a sign of concern.
Criticism of Burma?s human rights violations, for example, is no
more an intrusion into its domestic affairs than trading with
Burma.
If truth be known, most academics and journalists have come to
value the US human rights reports. The annual book has flaws,
to be certain. For one thing, US law forbids the reports from
carrying a section on the United States. For another, it is
ruthlessly ethno-centric in many of its sections on racial
discrimination, women?s rights and other areas.
The point is that the report is consistent, and uses the same
standards for every nation.
This year?s report on Thailand is tough, and fair. It begins by
summarising the worst human rights problems in the country last
year.
According to the State Department, these are extrajudicial
killings by police, lack of government transparency, and failure to
close the economic gap between urban and rural people. The
report says that violence against women and children, illegal and
child labour and prostitution remain serious problems.
These are the issues that human rights advocates talked about
last year.
The report discusses these and other issues in excruciating detail
Ñ 7,200 words, or 10 times the length of this article. Nit-pickers
can have their fill in places. The country is implicitly criticised for
not having juries decide criminal trials, for example, an obvious
American bias. But the lengthy report contains deep insight
without a single major clanger.
One must wonder, again, about the noise from Rangoon, Hanoi
and elsewhere. The dry, factual reports on the way things are
done in each country contain no rhetoric, no direct criticism. The
reader is left to draw his own conclusions. Burma?s leaders claim
they are moving towards democracy. If so, a comparison of
human rights during each of the past few years will help gauge
the progress.
Burma is not alone in dealing with its human rights abuses by
denial and stonewalling. But it is of particular concern to Thailand
that it does so. Last week?s extremely tense standoff between
Thai and Burmese forces at Tak province again exposed the
dangers of dealing with a dictatorship that need not consult its
people. The annual US human rights reports are a good measure
of rights around the world and here at home.