N.Z. world standing is on a peak at U.N., say returning Quakers

Press, 8 November 1984, Page 21

N.Z. world standing is on a peak at U.N., say returning Quakers

JACQUELINE STEINCAMP

New Zealand at the United Nations is today getting the respect and interest it had in the past as a result of the Lange Government’s stand on nuclear ships, according to Valerie and Kevin Clements, who have just returned from two years working with the United Nations in Geneva. “It was a really good feeling suddenly to be seen as part of an independently-minded country, with a clearly defined sense of national identity and purpose,” Kevin Clements says. The two years the Clements spent working with the Quaker united Nations Office have been a heady experience for them. You can sympathise with the withdrawal symptoms they are suffering away from the action — shaping the leading edge of international decision-making, rubbing shoulders with the world’s top diplomats, sweating it out with ambassadors in Swedish saunas. An addictive way of life — even if the pay is peanuts. Coming back was a painful decision for both. “We did it for the children. They wanted to come home, and we feared that if we stayed they would turn into cosmopolitan waifs and strays. “If we hadn’t had children, we’d probably be there for the rest of our lives,” Mrs Clements says. Mr Clements initial appointment in the Quaker office was that of programme officer in the fields of human rights and development. He ended up directing the office. Valerie, with three children under 10 to contend with, worked parttime as a programme officer for refugees and disasters. Kevin Clements, lanky, amiable, and very much to the point, is a Canterbury University lecturer in sociology. For some years he was a leading light in the Canterbury Council for Civil Liberties. The office, luxuriously housed in an ambassadorial-type mansion, has a pared-down permanent staff of four officers who beaver away on issues like disarmament, peace, East-West relations, human rights, development, refugees, and disasters. Acting as “go-betweens” to United Nations agencies and delegations, the Quaker staff inform, mediate, lobby, and facilitate. A

similar Quaker United Nations Office is situated in New York. The Quaker office is seen as a fundamental meeting place for East and West, according to the Clements. “This is because Quakers have a tradition for trying to ensure there are places where Eastern and Western block people can meet without putting up lots of barriers,” Kevin says. “Both sides have limited opportunities for meetings, so they appreciate a neutral territory. In fact, their level of appreciation was shown if we were to go for a week or so without having briefing sessions. Then we would have calls from delegations to ask what we were planning. “The office has an enormous reputation in . terms of neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity. It is one of the few places in Geneva where missions and delegations can fly kites and try out ideas without having to nail their flags to the mast.” During the Clements’ term, the Quaker office spearheaded successful efforts to establish a United Nations Convention against Torture. Hopefully, this will be passed by the General Assembly later this year. “I hope the New Zealand Government gives this Covention sympathetic treatment. It will be an international standard by which nations can judge other nations in relation to torture and treatment of prisoners. It will also provide for international control and extra-

dition of torturers,” Mr Clements says.

The Quaker office also examined the manufacture and shipment of instruments used for torture. As a result, shipment is now illegal. “A United Kingdom firm was manufacturing and shipping legirons to Africa and other places; also electric shock instruments — ostensibly for cattle. They were being used for torture in various Latin American countries,” he says. Another major effort during the Clements’ term was promotion of a universal right to conscientious objection to military service. “I co-ordinated that whole campaign at the Human Rights Commission, and it will come up for final treatment there next year. We did the same in relation to the abolition of capital punishment,” Mr Clements adds. The Clements were also involved in organising residential “colloquiums” for diplomats. One on NorthSouth negotiations was attended by heads of most of the key United Nations agencies, plus 23 ambassadors, a top official from the United States State Department, the Nobel prize-winning economist, James Meade, and other international experts. “We orgnaised a similar one in Stockholm on Common Security and Confidence Building between East and W'est, and had ambassadors from France and the Nether-

lands, Bulgaria and Russia, sweating away in a sauna talking their heads off in the middle of the night.” The Clements believe that the Lange Government’s independent stand on nuclear ships will give more weight to this country’s wider diplomatic efforts. “It will be a very important component of our being efective in a multi-lateral environment,” Kevin Clements says. “There was a marked change in the way that the United Nations viewed this country after the change of Government. New Zealand had tended to align itself with the basic Western—U.S./U.K. — positions on everything. “Before the election, the sort of instructions that were going from Wellington to our United Nations representatives were basically, ‘Be seen in good company, and keep your heads down’.” Mr Clements believes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee is very important in keeping nations up to the mark on human rights matters. “I think that Geoff Palmer (the Labour Party’s deputy leader) is absolutely right when he says that New Zealand should sign the optional protocol, because that means when a person has exhausted all the domestic possibilities for legal action in relations to a human rights complaint, they

then can make an individual complaint to the United Nations.” But would that not over-ride national sovereignty? Kevin Clements says: “Absolutely not.” It just means an international airing of a situation and the possibility that local jurists will think again. Regarding the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, Kevin Clements feels it is vital that women’s groups are mobilised and ready to take account of what had been agreed internationally. “There must be some linkage between the international agreements and what is happening on the national scene. It’s at this level that a lot of New Zealand groups are unprepared. They are not linked up at all with making national sense of an international agreement. That’s where a lot of United Nations declarations founder — on the national implementation.” Mr Clements does not believe that any New Zealand groups need be worried about too rapid progress in terms of eliminating discrimination against women. “Progress is going to be slow. And even if it were not slow, the way in which international agreements are implemented nationally always takes a long time.” The Quaker United Nations Office feared for the End-of-Decade Conference in Nairobi next July, and has been co-ordinating a series of discussion on the status of

women and of women in development

“There’s a lot of uncertainty both in Geneva and New York about that conference, what it’s going to achieve, and how it’s going to achieve it. There are real splits between radical women’s groups and former radical women’s groups who have now moved bck from their earlier positions in terms of women’s rights,” he says.

The biggest problems that the United Nations face at present, the Clements say, are the bureaucratic mentalities of many of its own staff members, and the malign influence of American intrasigence. American attitudes are today’s greatest obstacles to peace, disarmament and improved development policies. This is an allegation, they say, they do not make lightly. They have seen for themselves the way that American delegations conduct negotiations.

“By and large, the United States position regarding most international orgnaisations is a very negative one. On development issues, the Americans find themselves very often in a minority of one.

“At the U.N.1.D.0. (United Nations Industrial Development Organisation) conference at Vienna in July, the Americans found that all the nations of the world were lined up against them. They were the one dissenting voice in a consensus declaration on industrial development. “They managed to create a negative impact at the Belgrade U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference (which I attended) over the statement on the causes of the coming crisis.

“On issues relating to development, human rights, disarmament — even refugees — the Americans are creating a polarisation between East and West which is exerting a very malign influence.”

Mr Clements says it is recognised at the United Nations thatx the American position on arms control is much less flexible than that of the Socialist block.

“The Reagan view of the United Nations is epitomised by American attacks on U.N.E.S.C.O. and so forth. The Americans seem to be downgrading their levels of participation, and want to conduct international diplomacy on a bilateral basis rather than a multilateral one.

“These things mean that internnational organisations are in a very depressed state, and many discussions are ‘on hold’ pending the outcome of the American election.

“We can only hope that the Americans will adopt a more positive attitude after the election.

“If they don’t, then many of the United Nations organisations will have a hard row to hoe in the next few years.”