Human rights: EU wrongs

Date: 08/01/1998

Half a century after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it may be time for the Union to take a long hard look at its conscience. By Mark Turner reports

IF THE European Union has a heart, this is the year to prove it.

Fifty years ago, on 10 December 1948, a fledgling organisation called the United Nations adopted a document which was to become a milestone of 20th century politics: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Half a century later, many will inevitably ask themselves a simple question: did its fine words make any difference?

Within the declaration's 30 articles are enshrined "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family", stretching from personal liberty and fair trials to work, leisure, education and religion.

The EU would do well to examine the fine print. In general, Europeans like to congratulate themselves on a practical and democratic liberalism that shines out in a repressive world.

While Asia remains wedded to autocracy, much of Africa is in the grip of warlords, the former Soviet Union is beset by corruption and even the United States condones state-sanctioned murder, Europe appears a haven of humanism and simple decency.

Its leaders claim this is so important that they have decided against including both Slovakia and Turkey in EU accession negotiations this year, inserted 'human rights clauses' into all their trade deals, and enshrined the pursuance of democratic values in the Maastricht Treaty in 1991.

Yet any efforts to scrutinise the Union's own human rights record are treated with disdain.

When German Green MEP Claudia Roth criticised member states' internal records in a controversial report a year ago, politicians lined up to condemn it as unwelcome and illegitimate interference.

The European Commission, tasked with encouraging human rights actions in the rest of the world, is forbidden from doing so within Union borders, and keeps its human rights officials at arm's length from geographical and economic desk officers.

It was revealing that when the head of a non-governmental organisation wrote a constructive but critical article about EU practice in European Voice last year, the Commission's main human rights official condemned him roundly for speaking out of turn.

Free discussion, it appears, should be encouraged abroad but kept on a tight rein within the walls of Brussels.

But what are EU governments afraid of? If Europe is so squeaky clean, surely more scrutiny would only highlight the continent's claims to moral superiority.

Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different.

EU leaders would not welcome, for example, too much publicity for Greece's record, given the rekindled political sensitivities over neighbouring Turkey. According to Human Rights Watch 1998 report, the country has "continued to experience persistent human rights abuses, especially related to ethnic minorities and migrants". It says Athens refuses to acknowledge the existence of its Macedonian and Turkish minorities, and imposes "restrictions on their freedom of expression and association".

Abdulhalim Dede, the director of a Turkish language radio station and newspaper, faced criminal charges on four occasions last year for "defamation" and "dissemination of false information", and was sentenced to six months in jail.

Migrant workers also "continued to suffer police abuse and discrimination", with sentences meted out to ethnic Albanians consistently exceeding similar sentences for Greeks.

Or perhaps EU leaders fear too much attention being drawn to the question marks over the UK's human rights track record in Northern Ireland while the British are in charge of Union business for the next six months.

There are, for example, widespread claims of harassment and intimidation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary during investigations into the murder of Catholic defence lawyer Patrick Finucane: so much so that a special UN report will be released on the subject in March.

It would also be embarrassing if too many people discovered that during 1997 - the Union's Year Against Racism - there was a continued "trend towards increased restrictions on the right to asylum in EU member states", as claimed by the Human Rights Watch report.

It says most asylum claims were given short shrift, either deemed "manifestly unfounded" or the responsibility of a "safe third country", forcing asylum seekers into a cycle of 'chain deportation' or affording them insufficient 'temporary protection'.

"Detention of rejected asylum seekers and illegal aliens awaiting deportation was particularly prevalent," notes the report, which claims many foreigners "languished in European detention centres for months".

Lotte Leicht, the organisation's Brussels director, was also extremely disappointed at the decision taken by EU leaders at their Amsterdam summit in June last year to remove the right of Union citizens to seek asylum in another EU state.

"This is an extremely dangerous precedent. What if the Organisation for African Unity or the North American Free Trade Association followed suit? Why is there need for this paragraph if no political oppression exists within the EU?" she asked.

The right to fair judicial treatment is also far from certain to be honoured in the Union.

Nationals from EU countries still find it extremely difficult to obtain bail when arrested in other Union countries, and are often afforded insufficient translation facilities. As a result, innocent people can be kept in jail for months without trial. "We are constantly seeing breaches of the right to a fair trial in the European Union," says Stephen Jakobi from Fair Trials Abroad, which is attempting to push the problem up the EU agenda.

Externally, European companies continue to sell thousands of weapons to repressive states - charted by organisations such as Oxfam - and in 1997 the EU did little beyond issuing statements condemning human rights atrocities in the Congo and Algeria.

The Union was also split over a UN human rights resolution against China last summer, with France and Germany abandoning the Netherlands and Denmark to Beijing trade sanctions. The EU looks even less likely to sponsor such a resolution this year, relying instead on an EU-China 'human rights dialogue' which is not made public, involves no non-governmental organisations and has no clear agenda.

The Commission's external human rights policy has also been strongly criticised by the European Parliament for lacking coherence, for its obscure and inconsistent project selection criteria, and a complete lack of impact assessment studies.

Furthermore, apart from a few controversial utterances by Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Emma Bonino, there has been a noticeable lack of Commission-level publicity of human rights abuses by potential trading partners.

Nevertheless, human rights groups hope that 1998 could see some important changes.

The self-professedly ethical UK government and a more tolerant Socialist administration in France - which has already repealed the country's hard-line Debré immigration laws - have promised to support an ethical EU arms code, which development organisations claim is a crucial next step after last year's Landmines Treaty.

The UK has also added its support to the creation of an International Court of Justice, which human rights groups say is essential if the international community really wants to discourage war crimes.

But France and the United States have declared their opposition to any body which could call into question the behaviour of their soldiers, and may yet ensure the human rights declaration's 50th birthday present is an empty parcel.

The Commission has joined in the fun by launching a European masters degree in human rights, and has commissioned an exhaustive study of the Union's human rights record which is due to be published in April.

But critics say the fact remains that when trade interests are brought into conflict with high ideals - which will increasingly happen in a global economy - there are still precious few mechanisms to support the latter.

Even the genuinely reformist British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who will chair meetings with his EU counterparts for the next six months, is finding it hard to resist the sheer weight of industrial interest.

While 1998 will see some far-reaching declarations, the 10 December celebration risks looking rather lame in practice. It will be interesting to watch EU leaders' faces as they crack open the champagne.

Major feature.