Different places different standards

 Dr Tatjana Zdanoka

I have twice - in 2006 and 2007 - called upon European policy makers, through the pages of 'New Europe', to end their blatant use of double standards in addressing human rights violations in different countries. Moreover, even the European Parliament takes sometimes a selective approach in these matters - on occasions choosing to give a clear signal on a particular human rights issue, whilst at certain other times abstaining from doing so.

Recent developments make it all the more urgent to examine this further and to ask whether the European Union continues to be guilty of applying double standards in this area.

These days, clashes between police and civilian demonstrators seem to be taking place all the more frequently. And in the current political climate, there is certainly no indication that such protests are set to fade away any time soon.

That's why I believe that as members of the European Parliament we should send a clear message that brutality by law enforcement authorities, the excessive use of force and the application of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment will absolutely not be tolerated in the European Union or indeed anywhere.

The police and other law and order enforcement agencies, have a responsibility to deal with riots and civil disobedience without violating people's fundamental rights, beginning with the right to free assembly and peaceful protest in this instance.
Eastern Europe is a region that I know very well.

In this context let's take as an example the reaction of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee to various cases of the use of force against demonstrators in four former Soviet countries, namely Estonia, Georgia, Belarus and Russia.

Most recently we read in the European Parliament's resolution of 9 June 2011 concerning the EU-Russia summit that "[Parliament] regrets that contrary to Russia’s obligations as a Member of the Council of Europe to uphold the freedom of assembly, peaceful citizen’s gatherings continue to be banned and violently dispersed...”

Earlier, in the European Parliament's resolution of 12 January 2011 on the situation in Belarus, we heard that the institution “condemns the use of brutal force by the police and KGB services against the protesters on the Election Day...”.

Let us compare these sentences with the following choice of words used in the European Parliament's resolution of 24 May 2007 on Estonia: "Whereas police were seen using force only in extreme situations, and the Estonian Chancellor of Justice has not identified any mismanagement of the actions of the police,... [Parliament] expresses its support for, and solidarity with, the democratically elected Estonian Government in its efforts to guarantee order, stability and the rule of law for all residents of Estonia".

The wording of this last resolution is quite noticeably much gentler than others dealing with similar situations in neighbouring, though non-EU, countries. The European Parliament seemed afraid to speak out and condemn the violence used by Estonian police against demonstrators who opposed the removal of the WWII Soviet Army monument in Tallinn - a level of violence which sparked condemnation from a number of human rights NGOs, including the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and the European Network Against Racism.

The cases of police brutality were documented in TV broadcasts and cell phone recordings. People were reportedly hit with batons, beaten and mistreated after being taken into custody in a temporary detention facility established in a terminal at the port in Tallinn.

Recently - on 19 April 2011 - the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment published its report on the issue based on an investigative visit to the country on May 2007. This report concludes: "The information gathered during the visit demonstrated that many of the persons detained by the police in connection with the April 2007 events in Tallinn were not granted the fundamental safeguards... from the outset of their deprivation of liberty".

Seven individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights of persons detained in Estonia in connection with April 2007 events have been declared admissible as of September 14, 2010 and are awaiting the Court decision.

One may say that the difference in the European Parliament’s approach to Russia and Belarus on the one hand and to Estonia on the other stems from the simple reality that the latter is a member of the “club” of EU member states.

In fact, one could argue that EU membership is one of the best ways for a state to avoid criticism for human rights violations. But why then should the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee remain silent on cases of police brutality against demonstrators in Georgia in May this year?

As in the Estonian case, a number of local and international human rights NGOs immediately expressed their concerns at police ill-treatment of the detained demonstrators.

Amnesty International in its public statement of 1 June 2011 declared that “Georgia must immediately investigate all allegations of ill-treatment and police violence that occurred during and after the dispersal of protests in central Tbilisi on May 26. The authorities must also ensure that all of these people who were reportedly detained are afforded their rights in accordance with international standards”. The statement also refers to the earlier incidences of clashes in Georgia: “Amnesty International regrets that until now no effective open and transparent investigation has been carried out in the instances of alleged excessive use of force by the law enforcement officials into the incidents of violent dispersals of demonstrators that took place in 2009 and 2007”.

We see the blatant and shameless application of double standards continuing.

Each and every example of this double standard further undermines the credibility of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee.
We cannot go on tolerating such hypocrisy in institutions seemingly more interested in geopolitical considerations than the core values and principles on which the European Union is based.

Ultimately of course this approach can only be counter-productive, robbing the EU of its moral authority to intervene with third countries, at a time when a beacon of hope for democracy in the world is needed more than ever.

This is the greatest tragedy of this wrong-headed approach, which I am certain is ultimately doomed to fail. As Molière memorably put it 'one should examine oneself for a long time before thinking of condemning others' - sage advice which the EU would be wise to heed.

*Dr Math. Tatjana Ždanoka is a Member of the European Parliament from Latvia, from the Greens/European Free Alliance group, and is a member of its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs