To: Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade Select Committee
New Zealand
Parliament
Parliament
Buildings
Wellington
Attn:
Clerk of the Committee
From: Student Christian Movement Aotearoa
(Prepared by the Canterbury-Lincoln Unit).
Address for
service
PO Box 22-652
Christchurch
Attn: Mark
Murphy Phone: (03) 355 1893
or
Michael Perkins Phone: (03) 366 9274 or 021 805 941
Full Human Rights for All
A submission to the Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade
Select Committee inquiry into New Zealand’s part in the promotion and
implementation of international human rights.
Prepared by:
Mark Murphy, Ellen Murray, Geoff Keey, Fiona Dalton and Michael Perkins
We wish to make an oral
submission and request
that the committee comes to Christchurch.
Outline of Submission
A. The
Student Christian Movement and Human Rights
Getting our own house in order
B. The
interpretation of human rights – an integrated approach
Are human rights standards
universal, or culturally relative?
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
Human rights and human development
– an integrated approach
C. New
Zealand’s Foreign Policy
United States- Deterring Democracy
Iraq: Sacrificing the Vulnerable
D. New
Zealand’s struggle for realizing human rights in the 21st century
1. Freedom from discrimination –
for equality
Getting our own house in order
2. Freedom from want – for a decent
standard of living
3. Freedom for the realization of
one’s human potential
Getting our own house in order
4. Freedom from fear – with no
threats to personal security
Authoritarianism in New Zealand
6. Freedom of participation,
expression and association
Getting our own house in order
Constraints on the NGO Sector.
7. Freedom for decent work –
without exploitation
Getting our own house in order
G. Appendix
A – SCMs in the Asia-Pacific Region of WSCF
A. The Student Christian Movement and Human Rights
1. “The liberal mainline Protestants have been very engaged in human rights as an issue, believing it to be a main concern of the Lord Jesus himself. Church leaders have used their pulpits to advocate human rights for a long time. Their work in the World Council of Churches, an international ecumenical association of churches founded in 1948 in which liberal Protestants have maintained a very strong position, was instrumental in bringing the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights into being.” [1]
2. The Student Christian Movement (SCM) is New Zealand’s oldest Christian organised student body and has been in existence since 1896. SCM has a long-standing commitment to the promotion of human rights. SCM Aotearoa is part of a global network of student Christian organisations and is affiliated to the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF).
- There
are 15 SCMs in the Asia-Pacific region of WSCF, and over 90 in all the regions
of WSCF combined. Every year SCM sends members to countries where human
rights are abused as a matter of course. A map highlighting the SCMs of
the region is attached.
- In
the last 3 years, we have sent members to programmes and exposures in the following
countries:
Indonesia (three times),
Thailand (three times),
Cambodia (once),
The Philippines (twice)
Beirut (once),
Malaysia (twice),
Mexico (once),
Fiji (once)
5. The establishment of the World Council of Churches was a direct result of the traditions of WSCF. When the WCC was instituted in 1948, Philip Potter, the WSCF Historian, said, “the roll-call was like a WSCF school reunion”.[2] SCMA is part of Conference of Churches of Aotearoa New Zealand, Christian Conference of Asia, World Student Christian Federation Asia-Pacific Region. WSCF also has consultative status with the UN.
Getting our own house in order
- SCM
is taking part in the World Council of Churches Ecumenical Decade to
overcome Violence (WCC-DOV). One of
the key realisations in WCC-DOV is that the church has promoted violence
through violent ideas in theology and through violent suppression of
diversity of thought. Our part in WCC-DOV is to reverse this. For this
reason we use the same ‘getting our own house in order’ approach to human
rights and foreign policy issues. We believe that as a Christian group it
is not appropriate for us to ignore human rights in New Zealand whilst
discussing human rights overseas, any more than it is appropriate for New
Zealand foreign policy to discuss overseas trade issues while ignoring
human rights issues overseas.
7. “Among Christians there are many who make a distinction between compassionate ministries, such as meeting the needs of the victims of human rights violations, and advocacy ministries, such as addressing the governments and social systems that bring about the oppression.
“Both are certainly works that can be guided by God’s love. Some, particularly the more conservative evangelical Christians, are more comfortable with the compassion side of human rights concerns but question the utility of advocacy, being perhaps either blind to the more systemic sources of oppression, or simply pessimistic about the outcome of political engagement. Some of them would agree with a friend of mine who once said that trying to influence the political realm “is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.” In other words, the world is a sinking ship and the real kingdom work is spreading the gospel, to see as many saved as possible before it goes down.
“Others, particularly the more liberal, mainline-denomination Christians, emphasize the advocacy side of the work, saying that the real source of the problem is the political systems and the institutions of injustice that oppress, and that simply meeting the needs of the victims is like treating victims’ gun-shot wounds while failing to take the gun away from the killer.” [3]
8. We are not only qualified to discuss this issue because of our long history of study, education and activism in the area. We hold this approach to Christianity, Human Rights and foreign policy, not only because we believe that it is an a essential part of our faith, but also because we have direct contact with students and churches in most parts of the world, and we hear directly from them the situation in their countries.
B. The interpretation of human rights – an integrated approach
Are human rights standards universal, or culturally relative?
- SCM
professes belief in a common
humanity and recognizes this as the experience of the victims of human
wrongs and those who struggle on their behalf. Against cultural
relativism, we affirm human rights from pragmatic and idealistic
perspectives. That is, human rights – as specified in the UDHR and
subsequent covenants – although broad, are not an all encompassing
morality, but a minimum ethical
consensus supported and
ratified by a remarkable majority of the international community.
10. It should be noted that while New Zealand and our key allies such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia claim to be proponents of the UDHR, the sad reality is that we have all done much to undermine its application. We have willingly participated in deliberate efforts to sabotage the development of human rights throughout the Asia Pacific region where it has been expedient for economic or political reasons. It would be fair to say that not only are human rights a universal standard, but that abuse of the human rights outlined in the UDHR are fairly universal too.
- Indeed
there is a certain irony that we shake our heads when monstrous figures
like Suharto claim that human rights are a Western construct and do not
apply to Asia, while quietly forgetting that we and our friends helped
create him, arm him and provide his armies with the necessary skills to
torture and kill his own citizenry.
Are human rights of secondary importance to socio-economic development? How much does socio-economic development provide a foundation for human rights?
12. As the terms of reference allude to, there has and continues to be a long-standing debate regarding the relationship between human rights and socio-economic development. Parties on both sides of the political spectrum use this tension to deny the fullness and indivisibility of human rights.
- On the
one hand, communist, post-communist, and some ‘developing’ nations, such
as China and Malaysia, have used this tension to justify their failure to
provide civil and political rights. They must first, it is claimed, secure
the socio-economic foundation that will allow them the luxury of human
rights. For this to be achieved many democratic rights of individuals may
be suspended to enable a strong developmental state to pursue the
long-term interests of the people.
- In
the language of human rights, socio-economic rights – basic rights of
subsistence and security of life – are claimed to be prior to civil and
political rights. The irony is that many have moved away from their
claimed goal and instituted free market reforms, which have impoverished
their people, while finding the old state power systems useful in this
task.
- On
the opposite end of the Cold War political spectrum a similar reasoning is
used to subordinate ‘human rights’ to economic interests. Free-market
liberals have applied an economic framework as the basis for human rights.
This has encouraged the suspension of human rights standards in developing
nations, exploited consequent cheap labour while polluting the environment
in the stated hope that economic liberalization will lead to political
liberalization and ‘human rights’. From this perspective human rights are
seen primarily as civil and political rights.
- However,
the evidence from China, Southeast Asia and South America is that such an
approach has been inconsistent with the development of human rights, has
resulted in the intensive form of political repression that is on-going in
the Philippines and Colombia. It has often been carried out with debt
repayment as a lever to overturn popular opposition to free-market
economic reforms.
- SCM
contends that this debate – regarding the relationship between human
rights and socio-economic development – is predicated on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the nature of human rights, and a fundamental denial
of the central principle of their indivisibility.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- From
its inception the UDHR has upheld both positive rights (which
require states to provide certain enabling conditions to improve the
quality of life of its citizens) and negative rights (which
limit the state’s use of force against individuals) as the necessary twin
pillars to meaningful securing human freedom. Any approaches which
emphasize one approach at the expense of the other, perpetuate an
illegitimate, obsolete, and artificial distinction between the
civil-political and the social-economic.
- Theoretically,
this threatens to tear apart human rights from within. Actually, it
provides justifications for the continued denial of human rights and
limits our vision and promotion of human dignity. Both approaches
necessarily go hand in hand.
- SCM therefore
recommends an integrated approach that considers and promotes all of the
rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and argues
that the UDHR and subsequent agreements should be the primary basis for
foreign policy in New Zealand
Human rights and human development – an integrated approach
- SCM
submits the Human Development Report 2000 to the Select Committee, and
encourages Parliament to adopt its ethos and approach to human rights.
This report integrates the human rights and human development traditions
in an attempt to secure full human
rights for all.
- “
Human rights and human development share a common vision and common
purpose – to secure, for every human being, freedom, well-being, and
dignity. Divided by the cold war, the rights agenda and the development
agenda followed parallel tracks. Now converging, their distinct strategies
and traditions can bring new strength to the struggle for human freedom…
Human rights can add value to the agenda of development. They draw attention to the accountability to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all people. The tradition of human rights brings legal tools and institutions – laws, the judiciary and the process of litigation – as means to secure human freedoms and human development.
Rights also add moral legitimacy and the principle of social justice to the objectives of human development. The rights perspective helps shift the priority to the most deprived and excluded. It also directs attention to the need for information and political voice for all people as a development issue – and to civil and political rights as integral parts of the development process.
Human development, in turn, brings a dynamic long-term perspective to the fulfilment of rights. It directs attention to the socio-economic context in which rights can be realized – or threatened. The concepts and tools of human development provide a systematic assessment of economic and institutional constraints to the realization of rights – as well as the resources and policies available to overcome them. Human development thus contributes to building a long-run strategy for the realization of rights.
In short, human development is essential for realizing human rights, and human rights are essential for full human development.”[4]
- This
conceptual integration of human rights and human development provides many
advantages. Principally these include:
A coherent
and integrated approach to foreign
policy.
A framework that is sufficiently broad
to coherently address our various international challenges, from
democratisation to global poverty.
A principled, compelling, global moral
approach through which to promote human rights, condemn human wrongs, and
create a culture of obligation for
the fulfilment of human rights.
A practical approach that utilizes the
specific tools, measures, policies and statistics of human development
economics to create a culture of
accountability for human rights.
An interdisciplinary approach, offering the insights of philosophy,
law, economics, and social science.
A multi-dimensional
approach to the securing of human rights, combining norms, institutions,
legal recognition and enforcement, and an enabling economic environment.
An approach that is consistent with and does full justice to
the UDHR and other major human rights instruments which New Zealand has
strongly supported, that recognizes the full implications of the these rights
and duties.
24. SCM recognizes and affirms the consequences of adopting such an integrated approach. These include:
An
affirmation that social justice
and individual freedom are both
integral to the human rights vision. Through such a framework, “poverty is as
much a human rights issue as is arbitrary arrest” and both can lead to an untimely
death.[5]
A recognition of the breadth and indivisibility of human rights. As the Human Development Report
makes clear, “Every country needs to
strengthen its social arrangements for securing human freedoms – with norms,
institutions, legal frameworks and an enabling economic environment.
Legislation alone is not enough.”[6]
i.
This entails a critique
of human rights discourse and practice in New Zealand. Human rights have
been defined too narrowly and implemented too inconsistently. Even this select
committee inquiry, as the terms of reference illustrate, reconsiders New
Zealand’s role in the promotion and implementation of international human
rights only within the confines of ‘foreign policy’. It is a principal theme of
this submission that human rights is an
issue of both national and international policy and that New Zealand needs to
ensure that our own house is in order. Only such an admission enables us to
counter accusations of human rights hypocrisy
and inconsistency. SCM acknowledges
that securing human rights is a most desperate crisis in developing nations and
that developed countries are some of the key drivers behind much of the abuse
of human rights that occurs in developing countries.
ii.
We also acknowledge that New Zealand has failed in its
obligations to properly implement the UDHR both in terms of domestic and
foreign policy.
iii.
Historical domestic examples of these failures include;
compromises of the rights of Maori as tangata whenua, the treatment of
asylum-seekers, and inadequate protection of the right to protest.
C. New Zealand’s Foreign Policy
- SCM
submits that aspects of New Zealand’s foreign policy record are
instructive in understanding how our policy decisions contribute to
violations of human rights. In the past New Zealand has far too often
allowed the strategic and economic needs of our allies to override our
avowed commitments to human rights.
- We
have been guilty, time and time again, of remaining silent in the face of
gross abuse of human rights. New Zealand has also been involved in
assisting the perpetration of these abuses.
- This
part of the submission focuses heavily on the actions of Australia and the
United States. The purpose of this is that Australia is the country with which
we have the closest foreign policy relationship while the United States is
the most powerful state in the World, one that we have generally friendly
relations with and one that is popularly supposed to be a champion of
human rights.
- It
is important that the committee recognises the impact of New Zealand
foreign policy on the personal safety of others through our support for
human rights abusers or direct involvement with known human rights abuses.
This is not a matter that New Zealanders readily wish to acknowledge, but
it is a fact of New Zealand foreign policy decision-making. In doing so it
is important that we dispel important myths about the foreign policy
actions of states which we may consider allies in human rights promotion.
East Timor: Our Shame
- One
example of this is the history of New Zealand’s involvement with East
Timor and New Zealand’s allies’ contribution to human rights abuses in
Indonesia. It should be noted that New Zealand has provided military
training in counter-insurgency to the Indonesians, training which
primarily would be used for the exercise of Indonesian government control
against dissent, and until recently, to maintain control of East Timor.
- During
the period when New Zealand trained the Indonesian military in counter-insurgency,
the military was organised down to the village level with local military
commanders sitting alongside civilian leaders at the local level.
Between 1975 and 1979 an estimated
200,000 East Timorese – a third of the population – lost their lives
because of war-related starvation and disease or because of massacres and
atrocities[7].
- Furthermore,
New Zealand has consistently turned a blind eye to Australian support for
the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, irrespective of the tremendous loss
of human life that was involved. That the Australians sought to profit
from this situation through an oil access deal with Indonesia (that they
considered would not have been possible with the East Timorese), was
particularly sickening.
33. Under the 1974 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty which violates international law is void. The Indonesia-East Timor Gap treaty which enabled the Australians to access East Timorese oil was signed in 1989. It recognised Indonesian Sovereignty over East Timor, in direct contradictions to declarations of the United Nations General Assembly which had condemned the invasion of East Timor. This action by Australia was a gross breach of the Friendly Relations Convention and the founding document of the United Nations.
- The official
Australian attitude to the invasion of East Timor was expressed by the
ambassador in Jakarta, Richard Woolcott, who in July 1975 cabled Canberra:
“[We should] leave events to take their course... and act in a way which
would be designed to minimize the public impact in Australia and show
private understanding to Indonesia of their problems... I know I am
recommending a pragmatic rather than a principled stand but that is what
national interest and foreign policy is all about.”[8]
- SCM questions
whether the present Australian intervention in East Timor has any moral
basis or whether it was based on the analysis that to not support the
independence process would have been to invite international opprobrium
and the likely loss access to East Timorese oil reserves. Australia has now signed an agreement
with East Timor in order to retain access to the oil that Australia
accessed previously through its unlawful treaty with Indonesia.
United States- Deterring Democracy
- In
an approach, that has been a common pattern of US involvement in - and escalation of - some of the worst
human rights abuses in the last century, the US provided the resources,
training and encouragement for the Indonesian military takeover in 1965.
Even the CIA records the mass slaughter following the 1965 coup as one of
the worst mass murders of the 20th century along with the
purges of Stalin and Mao and the mass murders of the Nazis. Unlike the
other three atrocities, the West worked to ensure that this came
about. This resulted in the
massacre of over half a million Indonesian citizens at the time and
systematic human rights abuses throughout the Suharto era- not just in
East Timor, but throughout the Indonesian archipelago.[9]
This pattern was repeated throughout the Asia Pacific region including
Central and South America.
- Academic
Noam Chomsky has unearthed reports by policy analysts in the United States
prior to and after the military takeover in Indonesia. Prior to the invasion, policy analysts
expressed concern that the Indonesian military would lack the ruthlessness
of the Nazis (as they also did for the South Vietnamese state forces),
concerns which at least one analyst later said, were misplaced. In most cases, mass slaughter did not
break out until elite military units arrived on the scene.
- It
should be remembered that the military were armed and trained by the
United States.
39. The United States was also determined that the invasion of East Timor come about. UN Ambassador at the time, Patrick Moynihan explained in his memoirs, “The United States wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United States prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.” Remarkably, he wrote this in the open knowledge that within a few months 60,000 people had died, or 10% of the population. Surely such people should be put on trial.
- Even
as late as 1993, when the ghastly extent of human rights abuse and the use
of terror and domestic repression by the Indonesian military had been
known for almost thirty years, the United States Commerce Department
licensed the export of thousands of electroshock guns to Indonesia. In February 1998, Pius Lustrilanang, an
Indonesian political activist spoke of torture with these weapons “I had
electric shocks applied to my feet and hands for so long that they had to
change the batteries, and I became weak so I told them what they wanted.” [10]All
this despite the fact that the Indonesian military has primarily engaged
in combat with civilians of their own country, and of East Timor. All this
despite the fact that an electroshock gun is clearly not a combat weapon
but a torture weapon.
It is also clear that the United States
government was instrumental in the overthrow of the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile and the installation of General Pinochet’s regime.
The US government then attempted to downplay and dismiss the subsequent
violence of torture, kidnappings, rape and murder while increasing
military aid and training, largely used for domestic terror and supplied
for that purpose as happened in Indonesia.
Iraq: Sacrificing the Vulnerable