A rift on rights

No one disputes the general recognition that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted on December 10, 1948, constitutes a major peak in man's ceaseless efforts to build a better world for himself, for his fellow humans and for their offspring. Never before in the history of mankind had representatives of so many nations gathered to put their signatures on a document on such an ethereal subject as human rights.

Certainly, the history of people suffering at the hands of fellow humans is as old as humanity itself. For ages, the strong have imposed their will on the weak -- by persuasion if possible, but by brutal force if necessary. And except for a few enlightened individuals, nobody objected or opposed such conduct. Many of us in Asia and Africa, for example, can easily cite out of our colonial history books more than a few examples of forceful subjugation and exploitation of man by man.

Having pointed a finger at colonialism, it must be said in fairness that the rise of enlightened ideas made life in the colonies somewhat better during the early part of this century. But it was the Second World War -- and particularly the grim human experiences in parts of Europe at the time -- that shocked the world into realizing both the urgency and importance of protecting the basic rights of people everywhere. A worldwide concern for human rights had to be promoted if the world, and mankind, was to be spared the same experiences in the future.

It is therefore no coincidence that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights saw the light only three years after the war's end. Not surprising either, considering the prevailing global mood, is the unanimous support which the document received from the representatives of various nations, from the United States and the countries of Europe to China. As for the spirit of the document, it should be realized that the charter was born at a time when Western powers and the Western culture were predominant in the world.

But nearly fifty years have passed since then. During those years, new nations were born, new ideas have risen to prominence and new needs have come to be felt. In what is now known as the developing world, a special need is felt for the alleviation of the gross poverty that has held generations of people under its grip, sometimes for hundreds of years.

For these nations, clearly, priorities have to be set. In many cases, individual freedoms and rights must take a backseat to make room for the rapid development that is required to raise the living standards of the community as a whole.

This, in essence, is at the core of the stance taken by many countries of the developing world that no single standard can be set for what is and what is not proper in the practice of human rights. A no less important factor, of course, and perhaps one that is less widely understood, is that in many non-Western societies, community interests precede those of the individual. It is in this light that the proposal for a review of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be understood.

Nevertheless, it must also be realized that in the present world no country and no nation exists in isolation. Ideas and interests intermingle as national boundaries blur. Additionally, in the developing world many of the old traditional ways are not suited to modern development. Clearly, adjustments to modernity must be made.

What all this signifies in the context of human rights is that rather than argue, the parties involved in the current international human rights debate would do much better to sit down together and try to find a formulation that can narrow the gap between the two opposing views. After all, elevated as it may be, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like any other man-made accord, is no gospel, no divine revelation that cannot be adjusted to time and circumstances.