WHILE the democratic West never misses a chance to raise issues of human rights violations and democracy, when dealing with the developing world, the track record of these western countries has time and again shown that they prefer to deal with undemocratic regimes, as it is easier to convince a single person rather than having to convince an entire parliament — usually comprising hundreds of individuals. There is a lot of weight behind the emerging sentiment in the developing countries that Western democracies usually raise such issues only when a regime refuses to follow the dictates of the West.
Various examples could be given from the recent past, as the West did not pay any attention to the atrocities committed by the Marcos regime in Philippines, or the support that it gave to the Shah of Iran where the Savak had let loose a reign of terror on those raising a voice of dissent. Similar is the case with various countries of Africa and the Middle East where the attitude of respective regimes towards democratic principles and respect for human rights is far from being ideal.
Numerous other examples could be quoted from around the globe regarding the hypocrisy of the western countries. But probably the example of our country would be unmatchable as Western countries have taken many U-turns in their policies exposing their hypocrisy and double standards in a short span of time.
Western governments, international donors and industrialized countries had stopped all kinds of assistance — financial as well as defence — immediately when the military wrapped up the democratic set up in 1977 and demands for restoration of democracy were repeatedly made by the international community. But a couple of years later, as soon as Soviet troops moved into Afghanistan, all calls for restoration of democracy and respect for the human rights were forgotten by the industrialized countries, whose strategic and political goals had changed over night. Then the military regime became an apple of the eye of these champions of the democracy and human rights. F-16s were provided under aid/loans. But when the Soviets left Afghanistan, the United States did not give another batch of F-16s for which even the cash payment — totalling to over $600 million — was made. Even the money paid has not yet been returned in full despite a passage of over a decade.
Again, when the military wrapped up the democratic government in 1999 once again the hue and cry was made by the international community and all the assistance was immediately stopped, which led to serious financial crisis, and demands for restoration of democracy and respect for the human rights were made. Even the military government had to make hectic efforts to arrange just a few-hour-long stay of the United States President, Bill Clinton, in Islamabad while returning to the US after concluding his over five-day-stay in India. But a little while later, after the Sept 11, terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre in New York, everything changed and all kinds of assistance have since been made available, and loans have been rescheduled and the country’s financial condition has changed.
Keeping these realities in mind, it came as a pleasant surprise when Germany — an industrially developed country with established democracy — recently organized an international dialogue on Human Rights in Developing Countries: How can development cooperation contribute to furthering their advancement. It was organized jointly by the German Federal Government, represented by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Development Policy Forum of InWent, Capacity Building International, Germany. The conference, which was held recently at Cologne, Germany was attended by over 50 representatives of civil society organizations from around the globe and various industrially developed countries of the West which are also big donors to the developing countries and the international financial institutions.
The civil society representatives were of the view that the donors while giving aid to the developing countries should ask the undemocratic regimes there to respect and ensure that their citizens’ basic human rights were not violated and governments take steps to restore and, wherever it was already present, to strengthen the democratic process. Pointing out that some of the developing countries had initiated some sort of selective accountability process — usually aimed at the opponents of the government while those supporting the regimes were not touched — they urged the Western countries not to provide safe heavens to the corrupt leaders and officials of the developing countries to keep their ill-gotten wealth in their financial system, and once it was proved that the funds were stolen from the poor countries these should be repatriated soon. They even requested that if possible some amendments be also made in the developed countries’ judicial process to expedite such cases. They, however, regretted that the Western countries gave importance to the democracy and human rights only when it suited them, but the developed world always gave priority to its political and strategic goals while deciding who would get what and how much.
Representatives of the developed countries and the international financial institutions, majority of which are also heavily influenced and guided by the developed countries, on their part said that the public opinion in the West was also gaining momentum that respect for human rights and democracy be given its due priority while deciding which country would get how much of the aid. They, however, regretted that so far only Holland and Sweden gave some priority to the democracy and human rights while deciding whom to give aid, but the amount of the aid being passed through this filter (human rights and democracy) was also very little. Whereas majority of the other developed countries still gave priority to their strategic and political goals while deciding to give aid. They said that the fact that such a conference was being organized by and in a country of the developed world was a proof that the public opinion, which supported respect for human rights and democracy in the developing countries, has started to be noticed and probably influence the decision making bodies in the developed countries.
However, there are no shortcuts to getting the respect for human rights established in society and have a true democratic process in the country and no matter how much moral support Western democracies give or how many strings or conditions they apply, the masses of the developing countries, overwhelming majority of whom are under unrepresentative and suppressive regimes, will have to wage a long struggle to secure their basic human rights and to ensure that they have democratic and representative governments.
The support from the West is welcome, but a struggle will have to be waged, and sacrifices will have to be given by the masses of the developing countries themselves. The citizens of the Western democracies had also waged long struggles and had given many sacrifices before they could get their rights from their earlier exploitative governments of the Kings and the Queens.
WHILE the democratic West never misses a chance to raise issues of human rights violations and democracy, when dealing with the developing world, the track record of these western countries has time and again shown that they prefer to deal with undemocratic regimes, as it is easier to convince a single person rather than having to convince an entire parliament — usually comprising hundreds of individuals. There is a lot of weight behind the emerging sentiment in the developing countries that Western democracies usually raise such issues only when a regime refuses to follow the dictates of the West.
