Rights declaration needs revision<\/p>\n
By A. Havas Ugroseno and P.L.E. Priatna<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The statement by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that the
\nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 needs to be
\nrevised has shocked many, including Indonesian experts on human
\nrights and U.S. State Secretary Madeline Albright, while the EU
\nridicules the statement as being no more than a defense mechanism
\nof Asian values against the universality of human rights.<\/p>\n
However, Dr. Mahathir's opinion was echoed by a group of
\ninternational statesmen who have drawn up the Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Responsibilities in an attempt to balance
\nthe UDHR (Jakarta Post, Sept. 3, 1997). Members of this prominent
\ngroup include Lee Kuan Yew, Jimmy Carter and Helmut Schmidt.<\/p>\n
The statement that the UDHR was a document adopted unanimously
\nby 48 states in 1948 is indeed misleading. The fact of the matter
\nis the draft UDHR was put before the 56 member states of the
\nUnited Nations and voted on 1,400 times on practically every word
\nand every clause. Eventually, the whole draft was adopted with 48
\nin favor and 8 abstentions. Had the majority of the members of
\nthe international community in that era been from developing
\ncountries, the result of the voting would have been different.
\nClearly, since its inception, there have been a number of
\nsubstantial reservations against the UDHR.<\/p>\n
The main drafters of the UDHR were not only the victors of
\nWWII but also colonial powers. As these powers deliberated over
\nthe draft of UDHR during the period of 1945 to 1948, they were
\nsystematically pillaging the resources of their subjects across
\nthe world and violating many aspects of their subjects' human
\nrights.<\/p>\n
While the delegates of the allied forces sat righteously
\nduring the drafting of the UDHR in 1945, Surabaya was being
\nshelled and rocketed from sea, land and air. No less
\nhorrifically, the Dutch were conducting their so-called police
\naction in Indonesia and killing hundreds of thousands of
\nIndonesians on a genocidal scale. It is ironic and
\nincomprehensible to see such nets of bigotry, hypocrisy and
\ndouble standards.<\/p>\n
These are the cruel facts which mar the UDHR document.
\nThe UDHR does not deal at all with the right to self-
\ndetermination. For countries like Indonesia, once subjected to
\nover 300 years of colonialism, the right to self-determination is
\nthe most fundamental right of all, this right is the source of
\nrespect for all basic freedoms. Without the right to self-
\ndetermination, the promotion and protection of all human rights
\nsimply cannot be guaranteed.<\/p>\n
The inability of the UDHR to recognize the right to self-
\ndetermination has made it a contradictory document of rights. The
\nUDHR is proclaimed as a (not the) common standard of achievement
\nfor all peoples and all nations. It goes further by saying that
\nto achieve this, every individual and organ of society shall
\nstrive to secure the universal and effective recognition and
\nobservance of its standards by both the peoples of the member
\nstates themselves (read: independent people of independent states
\nand\/or colonial powers) and the peoples of territories under
\ntheir jurisdiction (read: dependent people or people under
\nsubjugation).<\/p>\n
Clearly from a freedom point of view, the UDHR classifies
\nhuman beings into those who are free and those who are not free,
\nand yet the UDHR proudly and daringly stipulates in article 1
\nthat all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
\nrights. It is not surprising that the Asia-Africa Conference in
\nBandung in 1955 did not give political support to the UDHR. The
\nconference merely took note of the UDHR.<\/p>\n
The UDHR also suffers from another fundamental weakness,
\nnamely a lack of broad-based international participation. Broad-
\nbased participation is one of the dimensions of democracy and any
\ninstrument lacking in democratic process will always be
\nchallenged and questioned. Daniel Bell in \"The East Asian
\nChallenge to Human Rights: Reflections on an East West Dialogue\"
\n(HR Quarterly, August 1996) states that the UDHR's standards
\npromotion of human rights is not wholly appropriate in Asia.<\/p>\n
As the UDHR was not formulated with input from Asia, it is not
\nclear to Asians as to why the UDHR should become their norm on
\nhuman rights. The establishment of human rights practices from
\ntraditional cultural sources would better guarantee long term
\ncommitment on human rights practices.<\/p>\n
These are possible underlying factors that could have been
\nbehind the idea of naming the Declaration the \"Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights\", instead of the \"Declaration of
\nUniversal Human Rights\". The difference is crystal clear. The
\nformer suggests that it is the declaration or proclamation that
\nis universal, not its content. It is not surprising to note that
\nthis nomenclature is probably the most sophisticated escape
\nclause ever concocted to deny the right to self-determination, a
\nright which is held by oppressed and subjugated people across the
\nworld to be the main universal human right.<\/p>\n
The argument that the value of the UDHR is very much Western
\nis recognized by Western thinkers. Geoffrey Best, a senior member
\nof St. Antony's College, Oxford, argues that the main problem
\nwith the UDHR lies in the model of the human being used in
\nforming the UDHR was Western, individualistic, secular, morally
\nautonomous and materialistic.<\/p>\n
Recently it has been argued that revision is not needed as it
\nhas been covered by two human rights covenants, i.e. the
\nInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
\nthe International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural
\nRights (ICESCR) as well as the Vienna Declaration 1993. However,
\nthe legislative history of ICCPR and ICESCR is complex and has
\nmuch to do with Cold War mentality.<\/p>\n
The main reason for the existence of these two documents,
\nwhich were adopted in 1966 and brought into force in 1976, 38
\nyears after the UDHR was adopted by vote, is the unwillingness of
\nthe West to recognize economic, social and cultural rights as
\nhuman rights.<\/p>\n
As the West faced more challenges from newly independent
\ncountries, they reluctantly accepted the idea but refused to
\njuxtapose economic, social and cultural rights with civil and
\npolitical rights in a single human rights instrument. The Vienna
\nDeclaration was not a revision of the UDHR. It was the result of
\na human rights conference proposed in the late 1970s by a human
\nrights expert from Morroco, Madame Warzazi, out of concern of
\npoliticization by the Super Powers.<\/p>\n
The Vienna conference took place after the Cold War, and if
\nthe premise is taken that it revises the UDHR, this fails to
\nexplain why the West always refers to the UDHR, instead of the
\nVienna declaration, when making lectures on human rights. The
\nanswer is obvious.<\/p>\n
The problem is not Asian values versus universal values on
\nhuman rights, but more the fact that the UDHR fails to recognize
\nany other values than Western ones. It is this lack of
\nrepresentation of other values that makes the UDHR merely
\nsanctimonious pronouncements and not the effective basis that was
\nplanned. Professor Stephen Young, former assistant dean of
\nHarvard Law School maintains that the best way to promote the
\nprotection of human rights is to create procedures and
\ninstitutions from traditional values. The task of human rights
\nfighters is to understand the dynamics of other cultures so that
\nprogressive development can be suggested, introduced and
\nsupported.<\/p>\n
As the West refers to its own creation, the UDHR, Asians and
\nthose of other developing countries always refer to a more
\ninclusive and broad-based instrument, namely the Vienna
\nDeclaration and Program of Action (VDPA 1993) that explicitly
\nrecognizes the Asian concept on human rights as enshrined in the
\nBangkok Declaration of 1993, which states that \"... the
\nsignificance of national and regional particularities and various
\nhistorical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in
\nmind ...\"<\/p>\n
While the UDHR contains abstract and contradictory language,
\nVDPA is clearly a balanced instrument which unequivocally
\ndeclares that, \"All human rights are universal, indivisible,
\ninterdependent and interrelated. The international community must
\ntreat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the
\nsame footing, and with the same emphasis.\"<\/p>\n
Naturally VDPA also carries the principle of self-
\ndetermination in its thoughts. It went even further by
\nrecognizing the right to development as \"a universal and
\nunalienable human right and an integral part of fundamental human
\nrights\".<\/p>\n
After Vienna, progress has been made. Many recommendations
\nfrom VDPA have become reality, including the establishment of the
\npost of High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1994. But recently
\nthe spirit of consensus has been replaced by unilateral sanctions
\nin contempt of the Charter of the United Nations. Links between
\nhuman rights and trade have been established.<\/p>\n
The West has attempted to link human rights with the World
\nTrade Organization and the labor standards of International Labor
\nOrganization. There is talk that the West is now moving into the
\ncreation of human rights-based ISO standards.<\/p>\n
Clearly, politicization is getting stronger and stronger.
\nSincere intent to promote and protect human rights is being
\noverwhelmed as demonstrated by the anti-Indonesian bill drafted
\nby Patrick Kennedy supported by the money and votes of American
\nPortuguese. Bigotry, hypocrisy and double standards which were
\nmasterfully orchestrated during the 1940s have reemerged in the
\nsame repulsive manner.<\/p>\n
It is up to developing countries to stand up and fight or to
\nshy away. For Indonesia, such unwarranted ways of promoting human
\nrights are simply unacceptable. Recent cancellation of the F16
\ndeal was a clear message to the West. Conditional aid is not an
\naccountable tool to promote and protect human rights.<\/p>\n
Dr. Mahathir's opinion is indeed a chastisement of Western
\narrogance on human rights. The yardstick to revise the UDHR is
\nthe Vienna Declaration thanks to its broad-based participation
\nand more representational values and conception.<\/p>\n
Daniel Bell concludes that if the ultimate aim is a world
\norder based on universal human rights, the West must recognize
\nthat human rights are in constant evolution and welcome the
\npossibility of a positive contribution by Asia in this process.<\/p>\n
The battle will be an uphill one as a universal declaration on
\nhuman rights is nothing but a clash between Western civilization
\nand the rest of the world.<\/p>\n
A. Havas Ugroseno is a graduate of Harvard Law School and
\nP.L.E. Priatna is a graduate of Monash University, Australia.<\/p>\n
Window A: For countries like Indonesia, once subjected to
\nover 300 years of colonialism, the right to self-determination is
\nthe most fundamental right of all, ...<\/p>\n
Window B: Recent cancellation of the F16 deal was a clear
\nmessage to the West. Conditional aid is not an accountable
\ntool to promote and protect human rights.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/rights-declaration-needs-revision-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}