Asian human rights versus the West (2)<\/p>\n
______________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles examining the different
\nperception of human rights between the West and Asia.
\n______________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
1 col 8 pt<\/p>\n
By Bilveer Singh<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE (JP): While the West has tended to pay greater
\nattention to rights, countries in the Third World consider duty
\nas important, or even more important than rights.<\/p>\n
In the Third World, a citizen's duty and obligations to his
\ncommunity and society is an important aspect of one's
\nresponsibilities. While this should not derogate one's individual
\nrights, one's duties should not be overlooked.<\/p>\n
This is especially important in times of national crisis. It
\nis then that a citizen's sense of duty will be able to help the
\nstate put off its problems. The citizens then serve to relieve
\ngovernment pressure, rather than bringing greater pressure to
\nbear on the political system for failing to deliver the goods --
\na likely scenario if emphasis were paid to rights rather than
\nduties.<\/p>\n
Thus, we see that a more constructive approach towards
\ngovernment is to have one that is founded on duties rather than
\nthe rights of the individual.<\/p>\n
Another debate concerns timing and emphasis. While the West
\ntends to argue for immediate implementation of these rights,
\ncountries in the Third World tend to be more cautious. They would
\nlike to nurture a society where these rights can be appreciated
\nfully and where its implementation would not bring about
\npolitical instability, thereby derogating other rights or the
\nrights of other people.<\/p>\n
The same is with regard to emphasis. It is not that countries
\nin the Third World believe in denying human rights to its
\ncitizens. Rather, they object to emphasizing certain type of
\nrights too early.<\/p>\n
The Third World want rights to be fully implemented at a time
\nwhen the society is ready to accept them. It is useless to give
\nall rights to all citizens at one time if they cannot be
\nappreciated or exercised. A worse possibility is that the
\nimplementation of those rights undermines the very state in which
\nthey are being exercised.<\/p>\n
This brings us to the consideration of the well being of the
\nstate. There is also the need to address what is most urgent at
\nany one time, especially those countries facing law and order
\nproblem; emphasizing human rights can worsen the security
\nsituation during a state of crisis rather than help to alleviate
\nit.<\/p>\n
Finally, the issue of conditionality needs to be looked at.
\nIncreasingly, The West has arrogated itself as the overseer of
\nhuman rights, being its prosecutor, judge and jury at once. They
\nhave also attempted to link economic assistance and favorable
\ntrading relations to the improvement of human rights conditions
\nin different countries of the world.<\/p>\n
This is the policy of blackmail and punishment that a number
\nof Western countries have adopted, thereby creating a new
\nmorality divide in the post-Cold War era. This is unfortunate as
\nit has soured relations further, and has not resolved the
\nproblems.<\/p>\n
Interfering in the internal affairs of state is not an
\nacceptable principle of international relations. Even though
\ncountries in the Third World do not have the right to abuse its
\npeople on grounds of domestic jurisdiction, the West does not
\nhave a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to human rights.<\/p>\n
Worse still is their hypocrisy where they themselves undertake
\nabuses of human rights and yet attempt to extort the Third World
\nto abide by universal human rights standards.<\/p>\n
Of course, the West's double standard is not a license for the
\nThird World to engage in human rights abuses or to stall the
\npromotion of human rights practices in their respective
\nsocieties.<\/p>\n
Ironically, during the Cold War era, the West, especially the
\nUnited States, supported all types of regimes with questionable
\nhuman rights records as long as they were anti-communist and
\naligned with the West. Yet today, they carry the banner of human
\nrights in its most extreme form.<\/p>\n
For the Third World, imposing human rights values and
\nprinciples which are derived from the Judeo-Christian principles
\nis unacceptable and needs to be altered somewhat.<\/p>\n
Thus, when conditionality is practiced, it amounts to imposing
\nWestern cultural values which are basically unpalatable in the
\nThird World setting, which create more problems in the process.<\/p>\n
This issue needs to be understood. Otherwise it amount to
\n\"Cultural colonialism\" by the West. The West also practices
\nselectivity where some countries are targeted for \"special
\ntreatment\" and not others.<\/p>\n
If human rights are to become global norms and mores, then
\nthey should be practiced across-the-board on a non-selective
\nbasis.<\/p>\n
Thus, while all societies, including in the Third World should
\naspire towards human rights and should move forward on this
\nscore, the peculiarities of each society should also be taken
\ninto consideration. Otherwise, emphasis on human rights can lead
\nto a political problems.<\/p>\n
At the same time, no country should use its peculiarities to
\nundermine the rights of its citizen to life, liberty and well-
\nbeing.<\/p>\n
What is needed is the correct balance and this must be decided
\njointly by the people and government so that a consensus can be
\nreached on this very sensitive issue.<\/p>\n
Due to the different settings and peculiarities of all states,
\nthe best guarantee of human rights can only be obtained through a
\nsocial contract and this would also deny impositions from
\noutside.<\/p>\n
Dr. Bilveer Singh is a senior lecturer in political science at
\nthe National University of Singapore.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asian-human-rights-versus-the-west-2-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}