Power politics blurs rights debate<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Even though the universality of human rights was
\ndeclared 50 years ago through the Universal Declaration of Human
\nRights (UDHR), there is still a heated debate between Western and
\nAsian leaders regarding the application of that principle in real
\nlife.<\/p>\n
For instance, article 8 of The Bangkok Declaration holds that
\nAsian governments \"recognize that while human rights are
\nuniversal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a
\ndynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting,
\nbearing in mind the significance of national and regional
\nparticularities and various historical, cultural and religious
\nbackground\" (James T. H. Tang, 1995).<\/p>\n
What will happen to the global promotion of human rights if
\nleaders on both sides continue to stick to their respective
\napproaches?<\/p>\n
Debates on human rights issues in the post-Cold War
\ninternational relations literature have been characterized by a
\nclash between two main approaches: the post-colonial approach and
\nthe neo-colonial approach. The first approach, which is proposed
\nby Western industrialized countries, emphasizes certain liberal
\nprinciples such as the universality of human rights, the primacy
\nof civil and political rights, and the interdependence of states.
\nWith this approach in mind Western leaders often criticize the
\npoor human rights record of governments in the Third World
\nincluding Southeast Asia.<\/p>\n
The second approach is proposed by Asian countries. According
\nto this approach, the way Western industrialized countries deal
\nwith global human rights issues reflects a continuum from the
\ncolonial era to the present. They want to perpetuate their
\ndomination and exploitation at the expense of the interests and
\naspirations of the Third World countries.<\/p>\n
ASEAN leaders, for instance, defend this approach by using
\nthree important concepts, namely, cultural relativism,
\ncommunitarianism, and developmentalism.<\/p>\n
Cultural relativism can be defined as an argument in human
\nrights debates which emphasizes the importance of the distinctive
\ncharacteristics of each culture in analyzing and judging human
\nrights issues. Thus, Western yardsticks cannot be used to
\nunderstand and evaluate human rights conditions in non-Western
\ncultures.<\/p>\n
Communitarianism stresses the idea that the fulfillment of
\nindividual rights in Asian societies cannot be separated from the
\ninterests of the community as a whole. There is a suspicion among
\nAsian leaders that Western countries want to impose their
\nindividualistic approach to human rights.<\/p>\n
The idea of developmentalism in human rights debates
\nemphasizes the equal importance of political and economic rights.
\nAccording to Asian leaders there is no justification why civil
\nand political rights should be more important than the rights or
\naccess of the people to economic development. Moreover, economic
\npoverty or backwardness is seen as the main enemy of human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that both the post-colonial approach and
\nthe neo-colonial approach have their own shortcomings. The
\nproponents of these approaches may have sound arguments to defend
\ntheir positions but their real actions tell us whether they are
\ngenuinely committed to human rights or playing power politics. It
\nis naive to believe that human rights diplomacy is always guided
\nby political morality.<\/p>\n
The advancement of political goals other than human rights
\nconcern often dominates nations' human rights diplomacy. The US
\nsecurity objectives during the Cold War were said to take
\nprecedence over human rights concerns. In fact the US government
\nstrongly supported the right-wing military regimes in Latin
\nAmerica which suppressed the human rights of their own citizens.<\/p>\n
The fact that some Western industrialized countries tend to be
\nindifferent to human rights issues when their economic interests
\nare at stake has led many in Asian capitals to regard their human
\nrights diplomacy as at best \"power politics in disguise\".<\/p>\n
Joseph Chan from the University of Hong Kong has defined the
\ndefensible and the indefensible arguments in the Asian
\nperspective of human rights.<\/p>\n
According to Chan arguments used by Asian states \"are often
\nweak, not well-supported by normative arguments and empirical
\nevidence, and sometimes even mutually inconsistent\" (Joseph Chan,
\n1995).<\/p>\n
Chan mentioned two contradictions in their arguments. Firstly,
\nthe formulation of the role of particularities by Asian states
\ncontradicts their explicit recognition that human rights are
\nuniversal. Secondly, the fact that Asian states (especially in
\nthe Asia Pacific region) give a strong preference for economic
\ndevelopment is inconsistent with Article 10 of the Bangkok
\nDeclaration which holds that Asian states 'reaffirm the
\ninterdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, cultural,
\ncivil and political rights, and the need to give equal emphasis
\nto all categories of human rights'.<\/p>\n
Thus, if Asian states criticize the primacy of civil and
\npolitical rights in the Western perspective of human rights the
\nsame criticism should also apply to their preference for economic
\nrights.<\/p>\n
The ambiguity and vagueness of the arguments put forward by
\nAsian states have led many to question the real commitment of
\nthese governments to the promotion of and protection of the human
\nrights of their citizens. No wonder if the human rights diplomacy
\nof Asian states (especially Southeast Asian) is regarded as an
\ninstrument of the political elite to perpetuate their
\nauthoritarianism and other vested interests.<\/p>\n
Since the positions defended by governments of developed and
\ndeveloping countries are equally vulnerable to outside criticisms
\nand often used as a pretext for power politics, there is a need
\nto reemphasize the nations' common responsibility to the
\nprevention of violations of human rights at all levels.<\/p>\n
For Third World countries like Indonesia building a more
\ndemocratic and human rights-friendly political system through the
\ncurrent political and economic reform will be a first good step
\ntowards that goal.<\/p>\n
The misuse of human rights diplomacy as a pretext for power
\npolitics by any party will create a serious obstacle to the
\nsincere and genuine promotion of such rights. Neither self-
\nrighteousness nor excessive self-defense will make a meaningful
\ncontribution to the improvement of human rights conditions
\nworldwide. After all, respecting human rights of other people has
\nmuch to do with a pure and truthful conscience and less to do
\nwith sophisticated political rationalizations.<\/p>\n
The writer is the head of the school of international
\nrelations at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He is also a
\nresearcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies at
\nthe same university.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/power-politics-blurs-rights-debate-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}