Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

227
In reality, the two techniques are complementary. While ICRC tends to
be more effective in improving prison conditions, the Amnesty International
pressure does sometimes result in releases.
Through the years there have been a number of attempts to bargain for
the release of prisoners or for them to be allowed to leave their country. In
the former East Germany, this developed into a business via a well connected
East German lawyer who, against payment, organized exit visas. The
US government and private US initiatives have managed to organize the
release of some few Chinese prisoners on condition that they left the country
(for the US). Earlier, some of the Russian dissidents were exiled under
similar circumstances.
Human rights organizations have been hesitant about such deals. The
minimum requirement, of course, should be that the prisoner him/herself is
in agreement: to be barred from living in one’s own country, and perhaps
even be deprived of your citizenship, is a heavy punishment. If such deals
become common, there might even be a risk that people are kept as hostages
in preparation for a deal.
The ‘buying out’ of prisoners is of course totally different from the heroic
efforts made by Raoul Wallenberg when rescuing Jews in Budapest in
1945 or Ambassador Harald Edelstam protecting left wing activists and refugees
in Santiago de Chile in 1973. They used their diplomatic status to the
utmost in order to save lives. They stood up against brutal military forces
and entered negotiations in order to give time and space for persecuted
people to escape.
It happens that governments raise individual cases during high level visits
or aid or trade negotiations; this is usually done as a confidential side issue.
The initiating side may present the approach as a matter of good will. The
implied message would be that agreements on the main agenda would be
facilitated if the other side demonstrated generosity regarding the individual
cases raised. It is not easy to know how often this happens, but there is an
impression that this technique could have an effect not least when business
deals are the ‘real’ agenda.
Conclusion
To sum up, dialogues on human rights are not only possible, they are necessary
and important as one method of enhancing the understanding of the
rights and the importance of their realization. The perception that such
exchanges result in a sell-out of the standards is a simplistic one.
The atmosphere of confrontation – with moral overtones – which has
developed in the field of human rights, does not make such dialogues easy.
In principle, however, human rights representatives should be prepared to
talk even with the ‘devil’, if that could help.