Stepping Backwards in Promoting Human Rights

By Valeriu Nicolae  

"I am blighted by the Foreign Office at present. Earlier today, a creepy official, who is 'in charge' (heaven help us) of South America, came over to brief me ahead of my trip to Chile . All crap about Human Rights. Not one word about the UK interest; how we saw the balance, prospects, pitfalls, opportunities in the Hemisphere." 

Allan Clark - British Minister

 

 

Since 1993, and the adoption of Copenhagen criteria, few people genuinely believe that human rights can be ignored or ridiculed in countries trying to join the European Union. The cold shower in the second part of 1990s which led to an almost Nazi government in Austria opened the opportunity for Europe to adopt, arguably, the best anti-discrimination legal framework in the world. Alan Clark’s declaration from the 1980s would be seen today as unacceptable in most cases, but perhaps not in the case of Roma.

 

The last EU accession which brought in ten new members in May 2004 saw a clear “bending” of the Copenhagen criteria as some of the new members had serious problems with human rights issues and the environment. In fact, numerous reports show that even the old EU members have similar problems, as well demonstrated by the riots in France .

 

EU Commission reports for Bulgaria and Romania in 2005 included a strong and similar phrase in both documents: “The Bulgarian/Romanian authorities should demonstrate, at all levels, that the country applies a zero-tolerance policy on racism against Roma or against any other minority or group and that this policy is effectively implemented.” At that time, this strong stance was well received by NGOs dealing with human rights. They felt that finally the Commission was sending a strong and clear signal about the rampant and widely accepted anti-Gypsyism in those countries.

 

However, at the end of 2005 and in early 2006 we witnessed tens of incidents demonstrating that a zero-tolerance policy is far from being implemented by the government in either Bucharest and Sofia . Such a policy has been flagrantly violated in the stadiums, on the political scene and in mass media.

 

Last week’s reports on Romania and Bulgaria were written in rather ambiguous language, and showed a strange point of view from the side of the Commission in relation to Roma-related issues.  In the report on Romania , the Commission writes: “Institutional discrimination and violence against Roma is decreasing.”

 

It is unlikely that a country which could only claim that: ”institutional racism/anti-semitism and violence against Hungarians/Jews is decreasing” (both minorities live in Romania ) would be a candidate to join the European Union.

 

Amnesty International’s report on Romania of May 23 underlines serious discrimination against Roma and other disadvantaged groups. On the website of one of the most read newspapers in Romania , Gandul[1], the reactions to an article on the report of the Amnesty International lead to a number of extreme written answers against Roma. Burning, shooting, killing, expelling or isolating Roma are proposed solutions for better dealing with the discriminated Roma.

 

Just a few days after the release of the reports during the game Steaua –Sportul Studentesc the entire Steaua Bucharest’s team went to their supporters and together happily yelled their hate for the Gypsyies (video available here). This happens after an important number of reactions against anti-Gypsy chanting on stadiums mainly from the international organisations and the Romanian press.

 

Considering the very mild language of the Commission, the very limited progress in addressing the situation of Roma by the governments of Romania and Bulgaria, and the results of recent polls showing that over 50% of Romanians living in villages support the idea of sterilization of Roma and 75% prefer not to live close to Roma, it is hard to understand what the Commission is trying to achieve.

 

Mockery of the Copenhagen criteria could very well be one of the targets.