Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 21, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 3:18 p.m. to examine and report on the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region for Canada (human rights in Asia).
Senator John B. Stewart (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this afternoon we resume our hearings on the importance of the Asia-Pacific region. This afternoon we are focusing on human rights in Asia.
To assist us with this topic -- a very important topic -- is Margaret Huber, the Director General of the North Asia and Pacific Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. She has served in the region and is familiar with the economic and social conditions there.
Ms Ingrid Hall has had extensive experience in Asia, having been Counsellor/Consul in the Philippines and the Ambassador to Indonesia. She is now the Director General, South and South East Asia Bureau, Asia, Pacific and Africa, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Mr. Mario Renaud is the Director General, Strategic Planning and Policy Division, Asia Branch, Canadian International Development Agency. He, too, has had extensive experience. He was posted at one time with the Canadian Embassy in Jakarta and from 1989 to 1991 was Counsellor for Development there. He has worked in South America with the Canadian Embassy in Peru, and then as Regional Director for the Andres Region, with a Montreal-based NGO, le Centre Canadien d'etudes et de cooperation internationale. He started his career in international development in 1970 as a CUSO volunteer in Mawai and Madagascar. He has been with CIDA since 1974.
Mr. Earl Drake is the some time Ambassador of Canada to the People's Republic of China, some time assistant deputy minister for Asia Pacific in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and now promoted to adjunct professor at the David Lamb Centre for International Communication, Simon Fraser University.
Professor Errol P. Mendes is a member of the Human Rights Tribunal Panel. Professor Mendes was born in Kenya. He did undergraduate work at the University of Exeter in England. He then went on to do graduate work in law at the University of Illinois. He was called to the bar of Ontario in 1986.
We have a rich array of expertise. I will call first on the people from the department and from CIDA. Then I will ask Professor Mendes to speak, because I understand he has another commitment later this afternoon. We will ask Professor Drake to provide us with the culmination of the initial part, the first act of this afternoon's performance.
Miss Huber, will you lead off.
Ms Margaret Huber, Director General, North Asia and Pacific Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: I am honoured to be invited to participate in discussions on human rights in Asia, particularly during this, the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration on human rights.
Since adherence to human rights within North Asia and the Pacific varies considerably and since time is limited, I will be focusing most of my remarks on two areas: One is North Korea and the other is China.
In the context not of North Korea but of Korea, I might note that at last week's meeting on human rights that has begun in Geneva, one Asian leader, President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea, was among four prominent individuals invited to send video messages -- this being a recognition of President Kim Dae-jung's own work on behalf of human rights.
Turning to North Korea's human rights record, North Korea has a regime that is a single-party dictatorship whose ruling ideology is dominated by concepts of self-reliance and by the supremacy of the Korean Workers' Party. The structure is enshrined in a constitution which, on paper, protects and promotes human rights, but in actuality promotes the pre-eminence of the regime.
North Korean human rights policy is more concerned with responsibilities than rights, and the limited human rights provided under the constitution are guaranteed only insofar as the individual fulfils his or her responsibilities to the state. This has led many, within the international community, to condemn North Korea for what are deemed to be draconian human rights policies and oppressive law enforcement practices.
In August of 1997, North Korea announced that it would withdraw from the international covenant on civil and political rights. Canada issued, at that time, a formal statement criticizing North Korea's withdrawal from the covenant during the subsequent General Assembly on Human Rights. We have reiterated this position at the Human Rights Commission, which is presently ongoing in Geneva.
Under virtually every criteria, whether it is interference with privacy, family, home, arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, denial of fair public trial, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, North Korea denies human rights.
Canada does not have normal diplomatic relations with North Korea, but nevertheless in recognition of the plight of the North Korean people, Canada has been active in humanitarian assistance.
Turning to human rights in China, this is an entirely different case from that of North Korea but one where Canada has been and is concerned about the human rights situation, particularly about issues of political dissent, religious freedom, administrative detention and the use of the death penalty. A central goal of our policy towards China is to promote a greater respect for human rights by both supporting and initiating positive change. We are engaged in a number of initiatives that promote human rights, good governance and the respect for law in China.
In April of 1997, Minister Axworthy announced a package of human rights initiatives between Canada and China. This is, in essence, a road map of where we wanted to go in terms of policy initiatives and programs. Major components included the establishment of a joint committee on human rights and also a plural-plurilateral symposium on human rights, to be co-hosted by Canada and China. The joint committee did meet twice in 1997; in Ottawa in July and in Beijing in October. Very frank discussions were held on a range of issues, including children's rights, women's rights, minority rights, and the rights of the accused.
Based on the progress of those bilateral dialogues, we were successful in convening a Canada-China joint symposium on human rights that took place in British Columbia at the beginning of March and in which Professor Mendes also participated.
I will speak about that milestone event in further detail in a moment, but I should also note that Canada is assisting with the review of China's criminal procedure law, the development of an evidence law, an adversarial trial system, a legal aid system, and with the implementation of China's obligation under the UN Convention Against Torture.
With regard to the multilateral symposium on human rights, this was the first time that China had undertaken a leadership role in a multinational forum on human rights. The discussions were very frank and open and advanced discussions on human rights in China. The agenda, which was agreed upon in advance by the co-hosts, focused on the legal dimensions of human rights, including the interrelationship between economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights. It also focused on limitations on freedom of opinion and expression, on the role of the judiciary in promoting and protecting human rights, and the role of non-governmental organizations in society and policy development.
In addition to participation by Canada and China, the co-hosts, there were representatives from nine other countries, as well as Canada's Chief Commissioner for Human Rights, Madam Falardeau-Ramsay, and Human Rights Commission representatives from the countries participating, where those countries had such human rights panels. Also, Norway's ombudsman for human rights participated, showing yet another way that a country can protect and maintain or advance human rights.
We were very heartened shortly after the symposium by China's announcement that it intends to sign the international covenant on civil and political rights. We have urged China to sign as soon as possible and to follow through with a timely ratification. We are also pleased that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, has been invited to visit China and has accepted. I understand this will likely take place in June.
We have also welcomed the release of some prominent dissidents, notably Wei Jingsheng and, just last weekend, Wang Dan. We would hope that other individuals that are being held for their political belief will be freed and hopefully allowed to live freely in China.
Canada also engages China on human rights issues through CIDA-funded development projects. Mario Renaud will be commenting on these, as well as other related issues.
During high-level visits, such as the visits of Minister Axworthy or recently by Trade Minister Marchi, our human rights concerns are raised with Chinese interlocutors. We are also concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, and have taken opportunities to press for greater respect for human rights in China in general and Tibet in particular. In May of 1997, our Ambassador to Beijing, Howard Balloch, visited the Tibetan capital to study the conditions of human rights and religious freedom in Tibet.
The Canada-China Joint Committee on Human Rights will be meeting again and we hope to build on the successes on the progress to date. We will use all available fora to help improve the human rights situation in China. We fully realize it is not an overnight or short-term effort. The wide range of initiatives, however, is a clear indication of Canada's commitment to promoting changes from within through cooperation with the government and, to the extent possible, by reaching into the society.
I would like to conclude my remarks there. Mario Renaud will be speaking very briefly after my remarks and then again after Ingrid Hall's remarks on South Asia. I very much look forward to your questions later on during the questions-and-answer session. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Mr. Renaud, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Renaud, Director General, Strategic Planning and Policy Division, Asia Branch, Canadian International Development Agency: I would like to take this opportunity to tell you how CIDA's programs tie in with the policies that affect us and to comment briefly on Margaret Huber's presentation.
Legitimate governance, democratization and human rights activities are relatively recent to the field of international development. The OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, has only recently made governance and human rights issues a standard priority.
In the world of international development, it is now a legitimate practice to use development assistance programs to promote the cause of good governance and human rights.
This does not mean that CIDA, or the Canadian government acting through CIDA, was never involved in this area in the past. You may recall that during the 1970s, participative development was the buzzword at CIDA.
The Canadian government subsequently made major contributions through CIDA to women's causes, to the work of NGOs, and more recently, to environmental issues with a view to striking up a dialogue with developing countries on the subject of social and economic reforms.
CIDA activities are carried out within the framework of Canada's foreign policy. These activities emphasize the importance of good governance and respect for human rights in that they project Canadian values and promote global security.
Last week, we sent you several background documents, notably the Government of Canada Policy for CIDA on Human Rights, Democratization and Good Governance. I would like to outline for you the broad policy governing CIDA activities in this area.
Basically, through the development cooperation program, the Canadian government seeks to strengthen both the will and the ability of developing nations to act so as to ensure that the rights of children, women and men are respected and to bring about effective, democratic government.
By intervening in a number of areas, CIDA works to strengthen civil society, whether non-governmental agencies, institutions or universities, in order to increase public participation in decision-making, to promote democratic institutions, whether legal, judicial or executive, and to promote the ability of the public sector to exercise power effectively and honorably.
Through the development cooperation program, we support these types of organizations and the will of leaders to uphold these rights.
As I mentioned earlier, only recently have activities associated with international development cooperation programs gained legitimacy.
Admittedly, Canada is uniquely positioned through its cooperation program to carry out activities of this nature. More and more countries are urging their international cooperation agencies to get involved in this field. Given the nature of the relations that we have established with government authorities as well as with NGOs, most notably in Asia, we find ourselves uniquely positioned to strike up a constructive, effective dialogue in this area.
Obviously, CIDA cannot work alone, hence the importance of forging partnerships with Canadian institutions, particularly when it comes to supporting the establishment of national human rights commissions, electoral commissions or even ombudsmen offices. With us here today are people like Professor Drake who represent institutions with which CIDA is involved.
CIDA prefers not to export the Canadian institutional model. At the outset, we try to support local efforts by identifying local experts and by engaging in a constructive dialogue to further debate.
As Ms Huber mentioned earlier, in China, we are working very closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs to implement Canadian policy in this field. You have received background information on CIDA's various activities in Asia as well as in China and South East Asia. This background paper was written in 1997 in conjunction with the Year of Asia Pacific. This year, we are in the process of completing information booklets on South Asia.
Getting back to China, I would like to draw your attention to three projects in which CIDA is closely involved.
[English]
A program to support the implementation of China's women's law is being put in place through the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, which is a program devoted to the development of mechanisms for the implementation of China's women's law. It includes assistance to establish legal aid clinics, general training for the judiciary and also the police.
Ms Huber mentioned the criminal law reform project that was put in place with the institute in British Columbia. That project is continuing. A second phase is being designed and it involves the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedures.
As well, the Canada-China senior judges training project is being implemented, the focus of which is to establish a dialogue with the senior judge training institution so that they can become familiar with Western judicial and legal theory and practice and fundamental aspects of the rule of law.
I will continue later after Ms Hall.
Ms Ingrid Hall, Director General, South and South East Asia Bureau, Asia, Pacific and Africa, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: In our geographic presentations, we have already addressed the situation in North Korea and China. I plan to proceed country by country through South and South East Asia, where the human rights situation is driven in part by poverty, in part by internal civil strife, and in part by political and economic systems.
I will concentrate on those countries where there are, in Canada, significant communities of Canadians of Asian origin, on countries where Canadian NGOs have recently raised issues with us, and on countries where we have very deep human rights concerns. The key item to note is that no two countries are alike. In some countries, the situation is deteriorating, and I name in particular Afghanistan and Burma. In other countries, there are very definite improvements, such as in Thailand and Indonesia, but not particularly in East Timor.
Let me start with Afghanistan. The human rights situation in Afghanistan is simply among the world's worst. The war between the Taliban and the fractious Northern Alliance continues with disastrous effects on both human rights and humanitarian efforts. Deterioration of women's rights in Taliban-controlled areas, now 75 per cent of Afghanistan, are of growing concern both in Canada and internationally. Severe restrictions have been placed on women's and girl's access to their very essence of life -- to education, to employment, to health care and to the basic freedom of movement.
New edicts have been imposed, placing restrictions on expatriate women of the Muslim faith who, in recent years, have constituted the essential staff in most humanitarian projects in Afghanistan. As a result, relations between the Taliban and UN agencies and NGOs continue to deteriorate, and many UN agencies are beginning to pull out.
The Canadian objectives are basically three-fold: One, to raise the international profile of human rights and women's rights, and to influence the Taliban to change its ways; two, to ensure that humanitarian aid is provided to the most vulnerable and that delivery of this aid takes into account international human rights standards; and, three, to support the search for a peaceful settlement through the UN Special Mission.
Minister Axworthy expressed his grave concern about the situation of women in Afghanistan in his address to the UN General Assembly in New York this past fall. He did so again in March of this year in his keynote address to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Minister Axworthy met with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and specifically raised the situation in Afghanistan and advocated that Mary Robinson play a more active role.
We highlighted in our country's situation statement at the commission the "abysmal" -- and that is the adjective we used -- state of women in Afghanistan. We are working with other countries on a strong resolution on Afghanistan. Most of the country's resolutions are coming up for consideration today and tomorrow, so this hearing is very timely. Unfortunately, we cannot give you the results of the various votes because they are taking place now, tomorrow and the next day.
In March of this year, the Canadian delegation to the Commission on the Status of Woman at the meeting in New York strengthened and then cosponsored the resolution focusing on the violation of human rights and women's rights in Afghanistan. We have raised our concerns directly with the Taliban and have urged Pakistan to use its influence with the Taliban. This was done by Minister Chan in his recent visit; it was done by myself as the head of the delegation of senior officials in December.
We continue to maintain a dialogue with all NGOs in this country that have indicated that they have a very strong and deep concern for the women in Afghanistan. On the multilateral front, we are providing humanitarian assistance. It focuses on the vulnerable sectors of the Afghan population, not only women but also children, and particularly girl children. We focus on demining, health care, assistance to displaced persons, repatriation and food aid. We are working closely with the European Union and the USA on the UN strategic framework for relief activities to ensure that the delivery of aid conforms to international human rights standards and is still available to most women and children.
But with the latest Taliban edict that requires an ex-expatriate Muslim woman to be accompanied by a close male relative in any of her activities in Afghanistan, the potential for humanitarian relief work in Afghanistan is dim. Women in Afghanistan will not permit a male Muslim to enter their homes.
I will now deal with Bangladesh. Although in June, 1996 the Awami League, headed by Sheikh Hasina won the general election and this election was deemed to be free and fair by domestic and international observers, political instability remains a problem. Political violence continues to be used by both main parties. Corruption is present and respect for human rights at the societal level is deteriorating, with an evident increase in crime, violence and political polarization, and some rise in fundamentalism. Police brutality and apparent impunity of the security forces are a concern. The government has not repealed the Special Power Act which allows for arbitrary arrest and preventative detention.
The extensive and often extreme poverty works against virtually any substantial improvement, especially for women and children. The incidence of violence against women is, unfortunately, increasing, and it is sometimes perpetrated by law enforcement officials. We have concerns about the rights of children in Bangladesh <#0107>- there are problems in the areas of child trafficking, prostitution and child labour.
However, there have been positive developments. Supported by the UNDP, Bangladesh has undertaken a three-year project to formulate a human rights plan, including the creation of an ombudsman and a human rights commission. We hope that this will result in the creation of an independent commission.
Turning to Bhutan, the Bhutanese form of government could best be described as an "enlightened despotism." There appears to be little overt repression in Bhutan, but I mention Bhutan here this afternoon because the government there is very protective of Bhutan's unique Tibetan Buddhist culture and is reluctant to expose that culture to outside influence or demographic pressure. This resulted in the expulsion of ethnic Nepalese refugees in the early 1990s. Most recently, approximately 220 public servants with relatives in the refugee camps in Nepal were forced to retire. Forty teachers, including two who had received training in Canada under WUSC auspices, were among the 220. Canada has expressed our concern to the government of Bhutan and we may reconsider phase two of an education project that CIDA has if Bhutan does not meet our concerns about the targeting of its population.
I will now deal with India. Although India is a parliamentary democracy and a secular state with an open society, communal and inter-religious tensions continue. The combination of poverty and communalism has a strong negative impact on the human rights situation, despite the protection established within India's legal framework.
Kashmir and, to a lesser extent, the northeast continue to see armed conflict and abuses of human rights committed by the police and security forces, as well as by opposition groups. In Punjab the situation has improved dramatically. Punjab police are now punished for human rights violations.
Although child labour is in violation of Indian constitutional provisions, 44 million children work in India. There is an obvious gap between legislation and implementation. India has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and has promised to eliminate child labour in hazardous industries by the year 2000 and all forms of exploiting child labour by 2010.
In September, 1996, Minister Axworthy discussed the issue with the then Indian External Affairs Minister Mr. Gujral in Ottawa. The meeting resulted in the establishment of the Child Development Fund to combat child labour in India.
The status of women in India does not meet international standards, notwithstanding extensive legal guarantees. This is a deep-rooted social rather than institutional problem. India's national Human Rights Commission was established in 1993. It has demonstrated a willingness to take up controversial cases and has focused on critical human rights issues, including those in Kashmir.
Bilaterally, Canada continues to support a dialogue on human rights with Indian authorities, both at the national and state levels, including during high-level visits and at the level of our Prime Minister. CIDA has undertaken a wide variety of projects that address various government and human rights issues. I will leave that subject to Mario Renaud.
Nepal now has a democratic government. We used to be concerned about human rights abuses in that country. It has, however, positively and successfully weathered four peaceful transitions of government in the past several years. Yet, in the past two years, there has been a violent insurrection carried out by a group known as the "Maoists." There have been atrocities, including assassinations of over 100 persons by both the militants and the government.
The status of women and girl children continues to be a concern to the Canadian government, as does their exploitation and abuse.
In Pakistan, there are three issues of major concern to us: Religious discrimination, women's rights, and child labour. Ahmadis are targets of religious vilification and systemic discrimination. The issue is the definition of who is a Muslim. Blasphemy laws create an atmosphere of intolerance and have been used against both Ahmadis and Christians. Certain ordinances effectively discriminate against women. The question of the right to choose the husband remains legally contentious. However, the right to divorce has been established as a legal right. Pakistan ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in 1996, but the cultural context limits progress. The ILO study on Pakistan indicated that there were 3.3 million child labourers; others claim at least 5 million. It is a complex issue rooted largely in poverty, but very much influenced by culture and traditional social practices.
Pakistan has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child with reservations, including the caveat that provisions would not apply where Islamic values and law prevailed.
The civil war in Sri Lanka continues to remain the main cause of human rights violations in that country. There is little to suggest that these abuses will cease until the war is brought to an end. The ongoing war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam continues to be accompanied by serious human rights abuses by the security forces. According to most observers, the government generally respects the human rights of its citizens in areas not affected by the conflict. Implementation of human rights policy continues to be predominantly based on political considerations, rather than a strong commitment to strengthening the human rights machinery and making that machinery accessible and effective. In the past year the security forces reportedly committed as many as 100 extra-judicial killings. Disappearances and torture remain problems.
In August, 1995, the Sri Lankan penal code was amended, and laws relating to rape were changed to include wider definitions and heavier penalties. However, these are often ignored in the war zone where sexual assault and harassment of women are regular events. For its part, the LTTE continues attacks on civilians, especially in sensitive border regions. Executions of people deemed to be traitors or collaborators also continues, as does hostage taking, extortion and threats. There are growing indications that the LTTE is even less concerned than previously about innocent Tamil civilians getting caught in LTTE ambushes of government armed forces.
Canada has repeatedly addressed concern for the loss of civilian lives due to the conflict. We have called on all parties to respect and protect the human rights of all citizens. We have also encouraged the warring parties to work toward a peaceful solution and have offered our support, if invited, by all parties. A commitment from the warring parties for a peaceful resolution of the conflict is required for any third-party involvement.
We have frequently and strongly condemned both human rights abuses and acts of terrorism. Our High Commissioner in Colombo takes a leading role on these issues. At the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva and in Colombo, Canada is the lead country among like-minded states interested in the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. This year we have encouraged the Sri Lankan authorities to make a public commitment to improve Sri Lankan's human rights records. The Sri Lankan statement on April 15 responded to our major concerns. This included a commitment to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms.
I will now touch on Burma, a country about which we have all heard a lot. It has one of the worst human rights records in Asia. The name change to the State Peace and Development Council has not changed the regime's repressive policies. It will not negotiate with Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy which won the 1990 elections. Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom of movement is severely restricted and her supporters are regularly harassed.
Violations of human rights, we continue to think, occur on a very wide scale. The Burmese military has negotiated cease fires with 15 ethnic groups, but these cease fires have become fragile. The Burmese army offensive against the Karen National Union forced tens of thousands of refugees into Thailand. Recent cross-border raids on refugee camps in Thailand have heightened tensions.
Opium production continues, with increasing Burmese government complicity. Burma remains the largest source of illegal heroin entering North America. The Burmese regime's actions have been condemned through repeated UN resolutions. The European Union and the United States underscored their condemnation with selective sanctions.
At Canada's initiative, the foreign ministers at the Denver Summit in June last year issued a strongly worded statement on Burma, calling on ASEAN to use its influence to encourage a return to democracy in Burma, pressuring the Burmese regime to enter a meaningful dialogue with leaders of the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities, and stressed that the international community holds the Burmese regime responsible for the physical safety of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Last July, Minister Axworthy presented the Burmese Foreign Minister with a list of eight suggested actions that the military regime could take to improve the human rights situation in Burma. The Burmese Foreign Minister did not respond. On the August 7, therefore, Minister Axworthy announced economic measures against Burma. These included the withdrawal of Burma's general preferential tariff eligibility and the placement of Burma on the area control list, thereby requiring all exports from Canada to Burma to have an export permit. The minister also called on the Canadian private sector to refrain from entering into investment agreements or commercial ventures in Burma.
Last month, Minister Axworthy issued a statement condemning the cross-border attacks on Burmese refugee camps in Thailand as an unacceptable violation of basic human rights. Canada is cosponsoring a tough resolution on Burma in Geneva at the ongoing UN Commission on Human Rights.
I will now turn to Indonesia.
The Chairman: We may be running into a time problem. Would it be possible to highlight the difficulties in Indonesia and the other countries to which you wish to refer? I am most anxious to hear from, particularly, Professor Drake, who has come a long way to attend this meeting this afternoon.
If you could provide us with written material, that would be most helpful. However, at this point, highlighting the major points you wish to make would be expedient at this point, if you can do that. If not, please proceed as before.
Ms Hall: In recent years there has been a general improvement in the human rights situation in Indonesia. The government, however, has yet to ratify such basic UN human rights instruments as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The current financial crisis has had a severe impact on the poor. Unemployment is surging, and concentration is upon food security and basic essential needs. There is very little discussion these days on human rights in Indonesia.
In the course of the last year, the human rights situation in East Timor deteriorated. There is a discussion ongoing in Geneva right now on the East Timor situation, and it is our hope that a consensus chairman's statement with Indonesian undertakings will emerge tomorrow. Both foreign ministers have agreed to a bilateral consultative forum, where human rights issues will be discussed. Last October, a human rights colloquium was held in Jakarta.
We consider the human rights records of Thailand and the Philippines to be very much improved. They have become partners of cooperation.
As to Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, we will raise individual issues as appropriate.
The human rights record of Cambodia continues to be a matter of concern. There will be an election at the end of July. We wish to see a free and fair election. We are supporting the electoral process through the provision of technical assistance to the National Electoral Commission. We hope to see a credible election. We equally hope that this will be the first of many elections held by the Government of Cambodia for the Cambodian people, and not the last of two elections, the first having been the UNTAC elections in 1993.
Vietnam's human rights performance is mixed. Internationally there has been less interest in Vietnam. There have been no resolutions since 1994. We continue to raise issues with the Vietnamese government over particular cases, and particularly prisoners of conscience.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Professor Mendes, please proceed.
Professor Errol P. Mendes, Director, Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa: I want to present a different angle to the whole issue of human rights in Asia. In particular, I will focus on the issue that keeps on coming up in international fora on Asian values in human rights. I will also deal with the relationship of the human rights situation in several of these countries with the recent so-called "financial crisis" that we have heard so much about recently.
In terms of the historical perspective, the roots of some of the present human rights situations date back to the decolonization period which coincided with the height of the Cold War. My thoughts in this area can be found in the last Canada Among Nations published by the Norman Paterson School for International Affairs, and the article is called "Asia Pacific Face-Off". I will not give you the details; I will just give you the thesis.
The relationship between the height of the Cold War and the decolonization period lead to, in my view, a situation where the West ignored much of the root causes of some of the human rights situations in the world today. Take Indonesia as an example. Because Indonesia was a strong ally against communism, some would argue, myself included, that the West turned a blind eye to the massive human rights abuses that created the present regime in Indonesia. Suharto, in 1965, lead a purge in which over 500,000 people died, and created an authoritarian capitalist regime which later presented some of the root causes of the human rights abuses.
I will explain what I mean by what is called "authoritarian capitalism." It is, essentially, where you have bureaucratic technocrats allying themselves with private capital to create, if you like, a top-down structure of the economy and of society at large where, in effect, you have a form of governmental and economic structures which is primarily focused on what is called "rent seeking and gatekeeping." In essence, you have powerful technocratic and economical leads controlling the major levers of economic power through rent seeking and through gatekeeping by having discretion over major areas of the economy.
However, to sustain that type of economy, you need to have suppression of some of the forces which would naturally arise against it, such as independent trade unions, independent political parties, and strong civil society groups. I focus on Indonesia, but this model could be found in many other Southeast Asian countries around the decolonization period. You saw that in Thailand; and you saw it to a much lesser extent in Malaysia. Malaysia and Singapore are anomalies because many of the ruling elites are actually trained in the west and are very western, very British in some respects. Likewise, you see these sort of authoritarian structures coming into place in South Korea.
Moving from those roots to the present situation, which has been adequately described by my colleagues from Foreign Affairs, and going to the relationship between the human rights situation and the present financial crisis, let me put forward a thesis. I know some of my colleagues in Foreign Affairs and CIDA would agree that it is as much a governance crisis as it is a financial crisis. The governance crisis goes back to the very same issues I have just discussed. Essentially, what you had was the establishment of socio-economic and political structures which were never sustainable. Despite the fact that the World Bank said it was an economic miracle, if you look at how these structures were set up at that time, through this form of hegemony between bureaucratic, political and economic elites, the structures that were put in place were never sustainable. When the economy is being governed by economic rent seeking, by gatekeeping, and by speculative capital inflows while, at the same time, you have repression of the democratic forces such as independent trade unions through civil society groups, you have a recipe, in my view, for ultimate disaster.
Much attention has been focused on the financial crisis. I do not think sufficient attention has been focused on the governance crisis. I do not think that sufficient attention has been focused on what the international financial institutions and what leadership countries like Canada can do in terms of refocusing on the governance issues.
Again, my colleagues from Foreign Affairs and CIDA have very well described how Canada has contributed at the micro level and at the macro level to some of the governance issues. The time has come, though, to have a truly multilateral discussion on how the governance issues relate to the economic issues and, indeed, relate to the human rights issues. Ultimately, unless all these issues are dealt with, you may have very piecemeal solutions to the human rights situation in a certain country or to the economic crisis in a certain country but, ultimately, I do not think you will have a very effective and sustainable solution to the interlocking bits between the economic, the social and the human rights puzzles.
I would welcome is a discussion on whether Canada should take a leadership role, as it already has in certain domains as has been discussed, in refocusing the international attention not just on the financial crisis but the governance crisis that now exists in many parts of South Asia.
The Chairman: Could you explain two terms so that when I am asked, "What does rent seeking and gatekeeping mean in this context?" I will have an answer?
Mr. Mendes: "Rent seeking" is a polite term used in World Bank circles and others for corruption. There can be legal forms of rent seeking where, in essence, you have the ability to give a licence to do certain things but you expect very high rents for the granting of that licence. Until very recently, it was used as a synonym for "corruption."
"Gatekeeping" is where you concentrate a discretionary power in the hands of very few people and very little economic or political activity can go forward without the active consent of those people. In fact, a classic example of that was the Bre-X situation where we saw, for example, before the fraud was discovered very little could go forward without the active gatekeeping of certain very powerful figures in the Indonesian establishment as to who got the licence to go ahead and exploit the Bre-X when they thought there was gold there. That is a good example where you have gatekeeping concentrated in the hands of very few individuals and the democratic forces are kept at bay by the rent seeking and the gatekeeping. There is tremendous lack of accountability, tremendous lack of transparency.
You now have suggestions, including suggestions by our own Finance Minister, Paul Minister, that there should be some form of multilateral supervision of some of the financial sectors. That debate has only just begun. I gather the IMF and the World Bank have agreed to some sort of code of good practices. The question is whether or not that is going to get us to the root causes of some of the governance issues which are intimately tied to the human rights issues and a host of other issues.
There is a lot on the table and it would take a lifetime to explore all those issues, but I thought I should make a start.
The Chairman: You have made a very good start and I, personally, am most appreciative. That is very perceptive.
Professor Drake, would you proceed, please?
Professor Earl Drake, Adjunct Professor, Simon Fraser University: May I say at the outset that, as a Western Canadian, I was appalled to hear what Preston Manning said about the Senate yesterday. I want you to know that I am one Western Canadian who feels honoured to appear before this august body.
I will group my remarks around two questions: First, do Asians naturally see Canadians as exemplars of human rights and regard our political and legal system as relevant for their cultures; and, second, what are the best ways for Canada to promote human rights in Asia?
It may surprise some Canadians to know that we are not always seen by Asians as having an unblemished human rights record ourselves. In my time in China, we commissioned a study of how Canada was perceived by college students, not by the man in the street but by college students. We confidently expected that that record would give us back our own cherished self-image that we were exporters of the latest high-tech technology, that we were leaders in human rights, and that we had an unblemished boy scout record in the world. To our surprise, the answer was quite unsettling. Aside from the positive image as the home of Norman Bethune a long time ago -- a dubious character, in my view -- and of plentiful wheat and water, we were seen as having no cutting edge in science and technology and being racially biased because of our long record of discrimination against Chinese and Japanese which did not end until 1947. Luckily, these Chinese students did not know about our long record of unfair treatment of Jews, aboriginals and women.
Thus, Asians have found a few Canadian parliamentary visitors to be culturally insensitive and even hypocritical when they have told the inheritors of these ancient civilizations that young, brash Canada has all the answers on how to promote human dignity and social equity.
How relevant are Canadian political and legal systems to Asia? This is a complex question. I believe that the basic ideas of the rule of law, of democracy and certain individual rights and freedoms are universally valid, but not the institutions which each country has developed to give expression to them in its own environment. Canadian federalism, parliamentary democracy, and a legal system derived from British common law, French civil law and the recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms may suit us, but it is certainly not for everyone. Because of the history of our founding races, we give great emphasis to individual rights, to political and legal rights for the individual; and because of our great wealth, we place little emphasis on the collective right to basic needs like food and shelter because we take those for granted.
The history of Asia is quite different. Their philosophical and religious teachers over the centuries have stressed that an individual's first duty is to his or her collective group, the immediate family, the extended family, the state in the form of the Emperor or, more recently in China, to the commune, or to the work unit. It is to a collective group. That is how to provide basic necessities.
Even in today's more affluent circumstances and improved knowledge of Western law and democracy, most Asians still look to family and personal connections as the principal way to improve their lot in life, not to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Until now, many ordinary Asians also seemed to have accepted the absence of a political voice as long as their standard of living is rising and they have more personal freedom to choose where they work and live.
What are the best ways for Canada to promote human rights in Asia? Given that background, given our limited ability to influence old cultural attitudes and authoritarian governments by direct unilateral action, I believe that we should adopt a realistic program involving four strategies and four sequential steps.
(a) We should encourage and assist indigenous reform institutions rather than try to impose our ideas on Asian governments by threats or by hectoring. Canadian public scolding can sound quite sanctimonious and hollow in Asia. Imposing unilateral trade sanctions is an ineffective way to promote human rights because Canada does not dominate the international trade of any export which is essential to Asian Canadians. We simply do not have leverage to bring about change that way. The only result will be a stiffening of Asian resolve not to be seen to give in to foreign pressure and a loss of current and future markets for Canada.
Government trade sanctions are only effective, I believe, when the international community acts in concert; for example, under the UN resolution in Iraq. Trade sanctions can also have an impact when consumer groups boycott individual producers because of some misconduct or perceived misconduct, as we well know in British Columbia. Market pressures can get quicker results than most government actions. My first point is to encourage and assist, but do not scold or try to impose your views.
(b) Instead of acting alone, we should try to act in concert with other nations by presenting to Asian leaders a combination of quiet, high level pressure, human rights dialogue and technical assistance in specific areas like law reform, training judges -- the things Mario has been talking about.
In China, the country I know best -- not only was I there as Ambassador, but I go back three or four times a year, and I was there just a couple of weeks ago -- local reformers will soon have a powerful lever for human rights when they can call on their government to honour the letter and spirit of its recent promise to adhere to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and know that China will have to report regularly on the covenant, not to a political body, where they can line up support, but to an international panel of jurists. This is a successful result of the new policy by Canada and its Western friends, working in tandem to engage China in quiet discussion on human rights issues, rather than confront Beijing. In addition, the constructive use of targeted aid programs can help promote certain aspects of human rights.
(c) We should tailor our approach to local conditions and support whatever local elements of government or civil society are moving toward reform. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church and the non-government organizations were the best instruments to support during the autocratic rule of Marcos. However, we cannot generalize from that. These are ineffective in China, where the best hope for law reform resides in the emerging middle class and some Western influence from government officials, I believe.
(d) We must identify those aspects of human rights which are ripe for reform and not demand progress on every aspect simultaneously. In most cases, the best sequence is a four-step approach. Normally the sequence should be as I will outline. Again, there could be some exceptions, depending on individual cases, but the first aspect of human rights is to support the acceptance of the rule of law.
In China and in Indonesia, this may be the only front on which we can move now because government and army leaders are so frightened of widespread democracy. However, both the emerging middle class and government officials have shown a quick appreciation for the value of the rule of law in fostering a market-based economy. At this early stage of their political and economic evolution, they may not understand that the substitution of the rule of law for arbitrary authoritarian rule will also strengthen human rights. However, it does not matter if they do not understand that immediately, they will realize it eventually and embrace it. The reason I am so encouraged about the prospects there is that we have seen this process work in former authoritarian states like Taiwan and South Korea; not only authoritarian but also Confucian cultures. In those cases, it began with the introduction of the rule of law as a support for the movement toward a market economy. Now it is growing and taking over. It is becoming a real basis for human rights.
The second point, after pushing for the rule of law, should be to enhance the free flow of information. In the same way as the rule of law can be introduced as a necessary adjunct of a successful market economy, so can the right of businessmen, investors and consumers to uncensored facts. One can begin with full information about economic issues and later introduce other subjects. Again, I feel we can be encouraged by the precedents of Taiwan and South Korea and be confident that access to the truth will eventually set people free.
The third sequence should be to promote democracy but to do it gradually. It is hard for us, as Canadians, to appreciate that some thoughtful Asian leaders -- and I am not talking about the die-hard autocrats -- are genuinely afraid of introducing full scale democracy too quickly. They are now experimenting with democracy at the village level, even in China and Indonesia. This should be applauded. Even though the experiments are not completely democratic, at least they are beginning.
Asian leaders argue that in their countries, with low levels of education and little political experience, the sudden introduction of unfettered democracy at the national level, as distinct from the village level, may be manipulated by demagogues into the tyranny of the majority. These are countries which remember vividly that, when power is suddenly given to the masses, it can deteriorate into mob violence against whole classes and minorities. It happened in Indonesia when mobs massacred hundreds of thousands of Chinese during the anti-Communist frenzy in the 1960s, which Errol Mendes mentioned, and in China when mobs persecuted similar numbers of intellectuals and so-called "capitalist roaders" during the cultural revolution. Even in Hong Kong, with its long exposure to Western institutions, we have been surprised to see that most people are far more concerned about preserving the rule of law than their fledging democracy.
We should not press too hard for rapid movement toward our form of democracy, but let Asians work out their own institutions gradually, starting at the village level, moving up, so that they can gain confidence that it will not create chaos and widespread demagoguery.
My last point is to be prudent about pressing too quickly and too sweepingly for freedom of religion. That may surprise you. This is an important freedom, of course, but it is a very sensitive one in some Asian countries because, as we have heard, religion, particularly militant Islam, has often been an excuse for rebellion, for demagoguery and for suppression of women's rights. It is probably best for outsiders like us to let local reformers take the lead on this delicate matter.
I believe that we should concentrate on working with indigenous allies on the first three aspects of human rights -- rule of law, free flow of information, democracy -- and not undermine their credibility by getting too involved in domestic, religious, and political structures and looking as if we are taking the side of the Christians against others and fermenting religious quarrels.
The Chairman: Mr. Renaud, did you wish to sum up? Please proceed.
Mr. Renaud: I do not want to add too much to the very good presentations that were given by my colleagues here. It is quite clear, when you look at the problems exposed by Ingrid and the various approaches that Errol and Earl have been mentioning, that it makes our job, in terms of international cooperation, very complex.
I would like to mention a few examples that you will find in the documentation that has been provided to you that exemplifies some of the strategic approaches that Professor Drake has mentioned.
It is quite evident that CIDA, at least in Asia, is building on a lot of success of establishing working relationships with the local NGOs, at least in the countries where they are working. Building on this, and through the establishment of local funds, people in the embassies, either from Foreign Affairs or CIDA, have mechanisms in place to promote and support local organizations, whether they are NGOs or universities, in promoting human rights education, the role of the media, public awareness of human rights, and even the rights of specific groups, whether we are talking about children, minorities, or migrants. There are numerous examples throughout the region, whether you are talking about the child development fund that Ingrid mentioned in India or a specific Canadian fund in East Timor where these have been applied.
We also have, at least with Southeast Asia, a regional perspective and approach through the establishment of the Southeast Asia Fund for Institutional and Legal Development that was established a couple of years ago. We have supported and sponsored a regional meeting in Indo-China -- meaning Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand -- and China to discuss the issue of illegal trafficking of women and children. This is an example of what Professor Drake was mentioning, that is, quiet diplomacy, where you bring together the champions and experts to look at an issue of interest to all these societies.
As well, through the East Asia Fund we have promoted and supported the establishment of highly reputed institutions for alternative dispute resolution in Thailand and Cambodia. In these countries, we have built on prior successes in working in the area of environmental management, where it was quite evident that rural communities are facing very important situations that arise from the use of natural resources.
I would like to touch on the area of establishing partnerships. It has been quite evident in the last couple of years that we have been supporting organizations in Canada, such as the Parliamentary Centre, the Institute of Governance and even the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to establish linkages with similar organizations in the region, whether they are fully functioning or in the process of being established. We are doing it in Indonesia. There are discussions about doing it in India and Bangladesh.
These are examples highlighted from the documentation that you have, especially in reference to Professor Drake's strategic approaches.
Senator Bolduc: I was looking at your CIDA document. There are at least 20 types of interventions. You have mentioned a few of them, but there are many.
When we try to be activists at the local level, in some countries are we not perceived as spies? After all, we try to change them. Authoritarian regimes must not like that. I know that we had some problems in Latin America. Maybe it is more direct in Latin America. The police just keep the people inside.
Have you have a bad experience with that kind of grass roots intervention?
[Translation]
CIDA's progress in this area has not come about overnight. Consider Indonesia. Canada, through its international development cooperation program, has been present in the region since 1968. Professor Drake is quite familiar with the country having served as Canada's ambassador to Indonesia. Through our large-scale cooperation program, we have succeeded over the years in establishing a very close working relationship with Indonesian authorities. Canada was probably one of the first countries, along with the Netherlands and nordic countries, to support the emergence of a non-governmental organization movement in Indonesia. We have never hidden our activities from Indonesian authorities. Relations between the Indonesian government and Indonesian NGOs have not always been easy, but CIDA has been there every step of the way.
Therefore, to go from promoting equitable and sustainable economic and social development which involves the participation of NGOs in the decision-making process to initiating a dialogue on institutional development...
[English]
...the rule of law or institutional and legal development leading to a better governance.
[Translation]
As far as we are concerned, this is a natural evolutionary process. Take, for example, a country like Bangladesh where the majority of CIDA's program activities have been carried out through NGOs. The professionalism of the country's NGOs is now recognized worldwide. Therefore, it has been easy for us in recent years to foster a constructive dialogue between NGOs and Bangladeshi government officials on such wide-ranging subjects as women's rights, children's rights and the status of minorities.
[English]
Ms Hall: In quite a number of countries of Asia there is now universal primary education, and increasing secondary and tertiary education. The young population is large, and the countries do not produce enough jobs to accommodate the high school and university graduates. In countries such as India -- Mario mentioned Bangladesh <#0107> Indonesia and Cambodia, civil society has been able to play a very helpful role in that it provides to young graduates alternate employment opportunities, apart from being a government bureaucrat.
As this has happened in the last five years in many countries where we did not see a flourishing system of civil society, we have seen NGOs grow exponentially. Nowadays, in Cambodia, NGOs tend to be the principal employer outside of very high risk industries owned by Malaysians and Thais and quick investment opportunities.
It is not a question of spying. It is a very useful role that can be played in cooperation with the governments.
Senator Bolduc: As I was listening to all of you, I was thinking of an emerging war between the Christians and the Muslims. Is there a worldwide strategy to have an encounter between those religious authorities or maybe a compromise that would be liveable either in Ontario or Pakistan or anywhere else? How do you see that, Professor Drake?
Mr. Drake: Let me first address your original question, senator, because it is a very valid question. Of course we are seen not so much as spies, but sometimes "as agent provocateurs." We are working to change the system of government. We are working with NGOs from within to change established values. It is true -- and we should recognize this <#0107> that when the Chinese were busy promoting revolution and talking about their communist ideals, we were horrified. They have no business interfering with other governments and other ways of life and promoting this new system. This is unbecoming conduct. We condemned them. In our own subtle way -- we do not stop to think about it -- we are doing just that. One of the virtues of being a Canadian is that we can get away with it much more than others because we are not seen as a threat; we are not seen as a big power that has a vested interest. I was in China during Tiananmen and, in my view, the Americans did encourage or egg on the students. That is part of the big power role. However, Canadians are among the least suspect.
Again, in China you have to hire local Chinese to work in the embassy. We got to know them quite well and they admitted to us privately that one of their jobs was to report on what we are doing and what we are saying. They said, "We have a terrible time working in the Canadian Embassy and the Canadian residence because there is nothing we can report. We cannot find anything nefarious. You are so open and honest about everything that we have a hard job making up things to keep our people happy." We are not seen as having a heavy agenda. We really are seen by many as the sort of boy scouts of the world. That means we can get away with promoting these ideas, as long as we work with locals to promote something, much more easily than the Americans can because they are a big power. The same applies to ex-colonial powers like the British or the French. I do not think we are seen as spies, although some of our allies are.
As far as the prospect of a war between the Christians and the Muslims, I do not think that will happen. The fundamental question is which form of Islam will eventually triumph, because there is no such thing as one form of Islam. There is a militant form of Islam, which is being promoted largely by Iran and, to some extent, by Libya, and there are a number of Islamic modernists who are trying to promote a very humane type of religion. We should not get involved in that. I certainly know which side I am on, and we are doing good work in places like the McGill Institute for Islamic Studies in helping to train modernists who can go back and help in that modern Islamic movement. We do not want to get involved in the question of Christians versus Muslims.
The Chairman: I have a follow-up question on Senator Bolduc's question about religion. Is there anything in the notion that Islamic fundamentalism, to some extent, is a result of a feeling that the local societies are besieged by Western values?
Take Ireland, which was being suppressed by England, we find that the church became extraordinarily powerful there. In Western Europe, the same might be said in relation to Poland. Is there any parallel in the case of Islamic fundamentalism, Professor Drake?
Mr. Drake: There are advantages in no longer being with the department and being a professor, but there are also times when one wishes one could take refuge and say, "I am a departmental official and can't comment on that."
Yes, there are some parallels. In both of the cases that you cite of Ireland and Poland, the church became very strong because it was seen as the rallying point against a number of outside forces and outside movements which people did not like. They chose whatever was the strongest rallying force. We are seeing something similar in many parts of the world where Islam is a key force and where people look to it to bolster local values and family values. They see that Western ideas are eroding a number of values. They may not be correct, but the simplified view is that Western values mean abortion and divorce and all of these social evils for which they think the only refuge is religion. Therefore, that tends to strengthen the local religious people and they sometimes take extreme positions.
We should be aware of that, but I do not think that we as Canadians or we as the Government of Canada can do much about it. They have to sort that out themselves. I am reasonably optimistic, except in the case of Afghanistan, that the moderate modern Muslims will eventually win out.
Senator Chalifoux: I would like to compliment Professor Drake on a very good common-sense approach to community development, which is really what we are talking about here.
I have been a Metis activist and a community development worker and organizer for approximately 30 years. In the early days when I was organizing in northern Alberta, I was interrogated every three months by the RCMP. I was field staff for the Company of Young Canadians.
When listening to each and every one of you, I drew a parallel with what you described to what has happened to aboriginal people, particularly the Metis, in Canada. It is still happening today. It took the English about 300 years to go through their industrial revolution. The aboriginal people in Canada were expected to go through it in about 25 years, with no social support services. This is what worries me when you go into the Asian countries.
Just before my appointment I was working in northern Alberta. Government departments were set up to establish certain programs but, when they left, everything died. The people were left bitter and confused. I chose to take a different path. I helped to organize and train the people. When I left, all the programs were still intact because the people had control.
As far as the religious aspect is concerned, it is very important because that is part of the basic value system of each society. The further you stay away from that, the better off you will be, because the people will change once they learn and once they know that they can do it.
I am very encouraged by what I hear, but perhaps you can learn from some good old basic Company-of-Young-Canadians philosophy -- not the part where they were militant, but the second approach where I was involved. I did not write down what I did, although I have been asked to. It is unfortunate that a case study was not undertaken. In Canada there are very few case studies of this type of silent revolution. We have a long way to go.
You talked about the lack of appropriate employment. Our aboriginal people still face that because in some areas they are not accepted. White people parachuted in, and there is still 90 per cent unemployment in those northern communities. That is something you would have to be very careful of, I would think, when you are doing all this wonderful work, which is really needed.
What is an NGO?
Ms Hall: A non-governmental organization.
Senator Chalifoux: That is what I am talking about, then. I did not realize it.
The Chairman: Would anyone at the table like to respond? There was only one question, but I thought that the statement might have elicited some reaction. There tends to be agreement, I gather.
Ms Huber: I would like to comment on two of the questions that were raised earlier. One related to how we are regarded and how can we can be effective if we are outsiders. I want to emphasize or underscore, since those points have already been made by Mario Renaud and Earl Drake, the importance of working in consultation with the local authorities, whether they be the central authorities or the grass roots organizations locally.
One phrase that I have heard so very often from the Chinese, for example, is the importance of working "in the spirit of cooperation and mutual respect." One reason is that they have their hawks and doves. They have those who see the benefits for their own society of making both changes in attitude and changes in program. It is only by working with them so that those views can become more widespread -- and it is a gradual process -- that we can be effective.
My other brief comment is with regard to the rise of fundamentalism and how this can be so seductive and appealing in a world that is increasingly complex and where the pace of change keeps speeding up. A very fundamentalist system that offers eternal answers or very black and white answers to complex questions can, to some people and to some societies that are in crisis and in change, be extremely appealing. That must be recognized.
What is encouraging is that, sometimes, within those societies there is recognition and activity. For example, I understand that women in some Islamic societies have been studying the Koran very assiduously, recognizing that many of the arguments that are used to promulgate policies that are not in their interests are in fact not in accordance with the Koran and using this study to put forward a more balanced point of view.
Those are the comments I wanted to make.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to put Professor Drake on the spot. You seem to project the idea that we are not seen very well in our support of human rights, and you gave the example of China. You then went on to say that you supported this move of civil society and our strengthening of it.
Following up on what Senator Bolduc asked you, when did Canada's perception change? Certainly many studies show that Canada was an honest broker overseas and that Canada did not push its own point of view but was always there supporting multilateral points of view -- in other words, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
I know we ran afoul in Africa when we started pushing Canadian opinion on women's rights, and we had to step back. We had to go back to the Universal Declaration and talk about human rights as opposed to women's rights per se.
When, in your opinion, did we change our foreign policy to talk about Canadian values overseas as opposed to universal values?
You seem to say on the one hand that we should not push our values because our values do not fit elsewhere, but you seem to feel it is acceptable if we infiltrate it by the civil society and that if we gave them enough information they would choose our point of view. You used the example of Western-influenced officials.
If our values do not suit them why would mere information sharing and training in our country cause them to change? I found you inconsistent on that point.
You also mentioned that they will make their choices, but sometimes it is difficult to determine who "they" are. Having served in Africa, I know that we sent election monitoring officials and that we supported an election. We listened to officials at certain levels who told us that things were in order. Later, however, villagers told us that it had not been a fair election.
I would remind Senator Chalifoux that we have examples here where we have supported native leaders. I am mindful of a number of northern cases where judges accepted what native leaders said only to have native women say, "We do not accept the status quo within our own cultures, and you are supporting repression rather than allowing our culture to grow."
I see some inconsistencies in what you have said. Can you help me with that?
Mr. Drake: I am sure there are many inconsistencies in what I said. Let me try to deal with this. Here are two ex-members of the department doing a little friendly sparring, so we must put this in perspective. Incidentally, we are both from Saskatchewan.
When did Canada change? I do not know, but I do sense a bit of a change. We always used to try to talk about multilateral, internationally agreed standards. I find that, lately, we have been more active by saying that, for example, we can help train judges, et cetera. I do not want to be partisan. Under Mr. Axworthy, we have become more involved than we were. We are pushing the Canadian approach more. When you become involved in training, you are bound to train the Canadian way.
If you simply attend the Human Rights Commission, then you make your pitch on the basis of agreed UN standards. As long as we held people accountable at the Human Rights Commission, that was the appropriate standard. However, when you have specific training programs on dealing with women, legal aid, training of judges, et cetera, it is bound to have a more Canadian aspect to it.
On the question of why I am saying that Canadian values systems are not always relevant to Asian cultures and then advocate infiltrating quietly through local institutions, I tried to say, and apparently was not very clear, that I think we should be emphasizing what I call "universal values" such as the acceptance of the rule of law, the free flow of information, and certain basic rights such as the right to a fair trial. However, we should not try to say the Canadian system of laws is perfect. The principle of the rule of law is important, but you must have laws which suit your own country and culture. The principle of everyone being equal before the law is universally valid, and that is quite legitimate to propagate, but you cannot say that you must have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because that is not appropriate. To say that you should not be subject to the arbitrary rule of some official is quite legitimate. Similar comments would apply to the flow of information. Everyone should be able to make decisions on the basis of free access to information, but they should not be told precisely how to do it. The Canadian way of doing something is not necessarily the way Indonesia should choose.
There is a difference between the essential right and the institution to protect it, and that is the distinction we must make. That is why I stress working with local people and not saying, "Here is how we do it in Canada," and setting it down. Some of our American cousins are very good at saying, "This is the American way, and this is the way you should do it or it will be no good." We should be more subtle, more open to saying, "We want to concentrate on the principle involved, but the way you implement it and the value system which is part of that should reflect your own culture and your own past."
Who is the "they"? That is too complex a question. It is a valid question, but there is certainly no easy answer in the case of China, which is the country I now know best and to which I am closest. There is no good answer to that. I think we must begin at the village level where we are now seeing free elections. We are not seeing the nomination process handled very freely, but at least the elections are free. Therefore, we start by talking to people at the village level. That is where it all begins. You must go to the village and determine what the village says, not what is being imposed by Beijing.
They are now instituting a series of indirect elections. The village elders, who are trusted and elected, create a kind of electoral college from which they will send people to the provincial level and then from the provincial level to the national level. It is not perfect yet, but we must begin to work with that and ask questions of those people, the grassroots people, where at least we know there is a valid election process.
Senator Andreychuk: I have a technical question for Mr. Renaud. Are the CIDA programs in Asia operated on a country-by-country program basis? In other words, even the civil society programs must receive the concurrence of the government before they can go in. Can you place your money directly with the NGO with no reference to the governments in Asia? Perhaps this varies from country to country. If you cannot give that information to me now, perhaps we could get it later.
My other question would be to Ms Hall. In Indonesia, I think the crisis is yet to come. As the government, through an aging autocrat, attempts to continue to consolidate power in certain hands and the pressures from within and without are growing, will there be more civil unrest? How can that be avoided from an international perspective? What can we do beyond the IMF and the World Bank and some of the changes that those two institutions must make with respect to Indonesia?
Mr. Renaud: There are three principal mechanisms in CIDA. The first deals with multilateral institutions, such as international financial institutions and UN systems where Canada supports those multilateral institutions. Then you have the Canadian Partnership Program whereby the Government of Canada, through CIDA, supports Canadian organizations and activities overseas. Then you have the bilateral programs. These are government-to-government development assistance programs.
Government-to-government programs nowadays also include support for activities promoted by Canadian organizations. To give you an example, in the Philippines, very early after Corizon Aquino came to power, the government of the Philippines indicated to CIDA that it wanted a-third of the government-to-governmental allocation to be directed to non-governmental organizations and the private sector. This meant that, even within the envelope dedicated to the Philippines under the bilateral program, a-third of it was channelled through Canadian organizations working in partnership with Filipino organizations. This could not happen in China today because every activity that CIDA undertakes must be known by the government of China.
There are a wide variety of situations. In some cases, for example, under the memorandums of understanding we have with governments, it is possible to support activities promoted by Canadian organizations if they are the object of an exchange of letters with the local government.
Ms Hall: In October, the situation in Indonesia started as a financial crisis. It became an economic crisis. It then deepened into a political crisis. It is now a social crisis and is becoming both an educational and health crisis. What is foreseen is a steady and continuing erosion in the standard of living for a significant proportion of the population, an increase in the number of poor, as well as a deterioration in their health conditions and their supply of basic needs.
Will there be more civil unrest? Unfortunately, yes. It is very likely.
How can it be avoided? Most countries, as well as the World Bank and the ADB, in their consultations with various groups, suspect that we will see a continuing period of civil unrest for a number of years to come. Where there has been progress is that the military and police forces have benefited from considerable training from the British, the Germans and the French. Their performance, particularly in the city of Jakarta, is considerably improved over what it was four or five years ago.
There is very definitely a concern for multilateral and bilateral donors, should the food situation worsen. Right now it is not a crisis of supply but of price and distribution. The challenge very definitely will be what happens if there is civil unrest in quite a number of cities across the country, and that is an unknown. Indonesia is most definitely the country of most concern in Asia.
Senator Johnstone: My question concerns the statement that some governments are suspicious of democracy. Do these governments feel that our form of democracy undermines their position, or do they see weakness in our form of democracy?
Mr. Drake: It depends on the country and the level, but certainly in many countries they feel that any form of democracy would be a direct challenge to their authority and to their system.
The communist leaders of China, simply, are afraid of democracy. The theory of communism is that they represent the workers, and the workers have triumphed over others. They believe that they are the authentic spokesmen of workers and that they do not need another form of democracy. Of course, this is a lot of nonsense, but this is their theory. They are very suspicious of democracy. Those are the hard-line authoritarians. The same would be true in Burma or Indonesia. Hard-line authoritarians do not want any challenge to their authority.
Other, more thoughtful leaders, in my view, are concerned about two things. They are concerned about the pace at which democracy is introduced. They accept that their countries must change and, as their countries become part of the modern world and the market economy, that some form of democracy must be introduced. They believe that just sheer authoritarianism is not the answer, but they are worried about the pace at which change is introduced. What if it suddenly comes overnight and they are unprepared for it? What if the level of education is insufficient? What if their people have not had sufficient practice in operating it?
They are also worried about the form. They think that the form should be related to their culture and that what works in Canada or the U.S. will not necessarily work in their country. One must distinguish between people who are afraid of giving up any power and those who are worried about the exact form and pace at which change will be introduced.
There are different sorts of people in every country. There are some thoughtful people in China. There are probably thoughtful people in Burma, but they are probably in the jungle right now. I do not think anyone in the Government of Burma is a thoughtful leader. I have known Burmese in the past. There are many thoughtful Burmese in the world, but they are not in power these days.
The Chairman: I should like to tie the question of trade to the matter of human rights. I will take a specific example. What is and what ought to be our attitude toward the importation into Canada of goods produced with child labour?
Ms Huber: As with every question, it is very important to define your terms. What would constitute child labour? It is an extremely complex issue that needs to be examined in terms of the country and what the impact would be. For example, although this is not my area, if you are talking about making carpets in India or Pakistan, and if the child labourers of 14 or 15 years of age lose their jobs as a result of standards that we impose, the question becomes: Will this force them into prostitution or other ways of earning their money? It is a difficult issue.
Ms Hall: I can add that that is a fundamental principle. What we consider are the alternative sources of income to which a family unit has access. In many situations of child labour, I wish the age were 14 or 15; it can be as young as seven or eight, and often the family does not have any alternate source of income. There is often no education facility available for the child. Increasingly, what we look at is child labour in a small village, in a community, and we work with local NGOs and the local level of government to develop programs that are integrated in their approach and that do supply education for the child, health assistance, education for the mother usually, and an alternative means of income for the family as a whole.
The Chairman: Earlier, I believe, Ms Hall, you said that there is a fair number of reasonably well-educated, perhaps in many cases well-educated, people in India, and yet there were not enough jobs, although some of them were finding employment in NGOs. Could you give us an example or two of how that takes place?
Ms Hall: India has probably more NGOs than any other Asian country. They have them throughout the country. They have the Rotaries, et cetera. They could be human rights organizations, environmental organizations, program development organizations or community development organizations. High school graduates and graduates with a Bachelor's degree or equivalent very frequently find employment there rather than in the government or in the private sector.
The Chairman: I see.
Senator Andreychuk: Is the Canadian government using the Covenant on the Rights of Children as a basis for its stand on child labour, and, if so, how do you wrestle with the issue that the covenant starts out with a preamble giving all governments a way around the covenant through cultural values?
Ms Hall: We are encouraging as many governments as possible to adhere to whatever covenants they have signed. The problem of child labour is particularly serious is in South Asia, and the countries themselves have signed on to understandings under the SAARC whereby they will move away from hazardous industries as quickly as possible. They hope to move on to a system where there will not be child labour by 2010. We are working with them in a practical way at the SAARC level through individual bilateral programs and also in the multilateral set-up, the basic principle being if you have signed an agreement, kindly adhere to your signature.
The Chairman: We have had a very interesting discussion and I am sure that all the senators are most appreciative for the contribution that each and every one of you has made to our enlightenment. On their behalf, I express their appreciation. Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.