'Review on UN rights declaration not needed'<\/p>\n
The debate on whether the United Nations declaration on human
\nrights needs a review surfaced during the ASEAN Post Ministerial
\nConference in Malaysia last week and has wide repercussions.
\nHuman rights observer Todung Mulya Lubis, shares his view with
\nThe Jakarta Post.<\/p>\n
Question: How do you see the problem?<\/p>\n
Answer: First of all, the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights
\nis a historical document which is considered a milestone in world
\nhistory. It is the common standard of achievement for all nations
\nin the world.<\/p>\n
It's true that developed countries, especially the victors of
\nWorld War II, dominated the declaration's drafting process. There
\nwere almost no representatives from African, Asian or the
\nAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Only the
\nPhilippines government was represented at that time.<\/p>\n
Yet, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and others
\nhave become members of the UN organization in subsequent years.
\nThis has, ethically and morally, shown that they accepted the
\ndeclaration.<\/p>\n
Critical remarks have been made about the declaration
\nincluding that it is too individualistic. It ignores existing
\ncultural and local values and it doesn't respect collectivity.<\/p>\n
Q: What do you think about those remarks?<\/p>\n
A: It's an exaggeration of the problem. The declaration, in fact,
\ndoesn't distinguish individual and collective rights. We cannot
\nsee it outside the historical context. The declaration has
\nundergone changes and enrichments.<\/p>\n
In nearly 50 years it has matured to an almost perfect stage
\nof development. It covers almost everything from civil to
\npolitical, economical to social and cultural rights. All are put
\ninto a holistic perspective.<\/p>\n
That's why human rights are always considered individual,
\nindivisible and inalienable. In this case, the collective rights
\nare recognized and follow the individual ones.<\/p>\n
Q: Could you elaborate?<\/p>\n
A: The right to have a healthy environment, for example, is an
\nindividual as well as a collective right. And so is the right to
\nhave peace on earth. We cannot, therefore, put a line between the
\ntwo rights. Of course we cannot deny that some individual rights
\nare given special recognition. For example, the right to live and
\nthe right not to be subjected to torture. No modern independent
\ncountry will admit that torture is something they can do.
\nRegardless of cultural values, torture is torture.<\/p>\n
It's true that in some traditional societies, torturing or
\neven killing people was acceptable as a defense of one's dignity.
\nBut, we can no longer do that. That's why I said that it's an
\nexaggeration to say that the UN declaration on human rights is
\ntoo individualistic and that it ignores cultural as well as local
\nvalues.<\/p>\n
Historically, it's true that ASEAN and African representatives
\nwere not involved in the first drafting process of the
\ndeclaration. Nevertheless, during the development and enrichment
\nprocess of the declaration after 1948 up until now, they are all
\nactively involved. There is no reason, therefore, to review the
\nUN declaration.<\/p>\n
Q: Some say that the declaration is sometimes used by the U.S.
\nand other developed countries to pressure the developing ones...<\/p>\n
A: In some cases we can see why such an accusation arises. We
\ncannot deny that the U.S., for example, applies a double
\nstandard. When it deals with certain countries, like China where
\nhuman rights abuses are very obvious, the U.S. becomes more
\n\"lenient\" in its human rights evaluation because it has a great
\ninterest in that country.<\/p>\n
In other words, the U.S. has made use of human rights-related
\nmatters to create economical non-tariff barriers for developing
\ncountries. That is what most Asian and African countries feel
\nabout it.<\/p>\n
Yet, even if this is true, it doesn't give ASEAN a moral,
\nethical as well as historical legitimacy to review the UN
\ndeclaration on human rights.<\/p>\n
Q: If that is the case, what should they do then?<\/p>\n
A: The best thing to do is make a priority list which best suits
\ntheir own national interests. There is no need to change the
\ndeclaration.<\/p>\n
All countries agree that they won't be able to talk about
\nindividual rights without taking into account the collective one.
\nWe cannot just say, for example, that Singapore, Malaysia and
\nIndonesia are more secure than the U.S. because of their
\ncollective security approaches. People also begin to think that a
\ncollective approach can sometimes disturb the individual one.<\/p>\n
Q: Some people see ASEAN's call for a review on the UN
\ndeclaration on human rights as an example of these nations trying
\nto make themselves different from the U.S. and other developed
\ncountries...<\/p>\n
A: The fact that some Asian countries are getting more and more
\ndeveloped economically gives them a newly found clout which
\nshould be taken into account by developed countries like the U.S.
\nWe, developing countries, can no longer be dictated by developed
\nones in many fields including the application of human rights.<\/p>\n
This progress will eventually lead us to differences in
\nopinion. Problems will emerge once we fail to handle the
\ndifferences wisely. That's why we have to be able to manage those
\nmatters carefully.<\/p>\n
However, I don't think there will be many leaders in these
\ndeveloping countries who share Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
\nMohamad's idea to review the declaration.<\/p>\n
Q: Or perhaps the Malaysian PM was only trying to show that ASEAN
\ncountries can no longer be dictated by others?<\/p>\n
A: Definitely yes. It's quite obvious. (swa)<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/review-on-un-rights-declaration-not-needed-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }