Asian human rights versus the West (2)

Asian human rights versus the West (2)

______________________________________________________________

This is the second of two articles examining the different perception of human rights between the West and Asia. ______________________________________________________________

1 col 8 pt

By Bilveer Singh

SINGAPORE (JP): While the West has tended to pay greater attention to rights, countries in the Third World consider duty as important, or even more important than rights.

In the Third World, a citizen's duty and obligations to his community and society is an important aspect of one's responsibilities. While this should not derogate one's individual rights, one's duties should not be overlooked.

This is especially important in times of national crisis. It is then that a citizen's sense of duty will be able to help the state put off its problems. The citizens then serve to relieve government pressure, rather than bringing greater pressure to bear on the political system for failing to deliver the goods -- a likely scenario if emphasis were paid to rights rather than duties.

Thus, we see that a more constructive approach towards government is to have one that is founded on duties rather than the rights of the individual.

Another debate concerns timing and emphasis. While the West tends to argue for immediate implementation of these rights, countries in the Third World tend to be more cautious. They would like to nurture a society where these rights can be appreciated fully and where its implementation would not bring about political instability, thereby derogating other rights or the rights of other people.

The same is with regard to emphasis. It is not that countries in the Third World believe in denying human rights to its citizens. Rather, they object to emphasizing certain type of rights too early.

The Third World want rights to be fully implemented at a time when the society is ready to accept them. It is useless to give all rights to all citizens at one time if they cannot be appreciated or exercised. A worse possibility is that the implementation of those rights undermines the very state in which they are being exercised.

This brings us to the consideration of the well being of the state. There is also the need to address what is most urgent at any one time, especially those countries facing law and order problem; emphasizing human rights can worsen the security situation during a state of crisis rather than help to alleviate it.

Finally, the issue of conditionality needs to be looked at. Increasingly, The West has arrogated itself as the overseer of human rights, being its prosecutor, judge and jury at once. They have also attempted to link economic assistance and favorable trading relations to the improvement of human rights conditions in different countries of the world.

This is the policy of blackmail and punishment that a number of Western countries have adopted, thereby creating a new morality divide in the post-Cold War era. This is unfortunate as it has soured relations further, and has not resolved the problems.

Interfering in the internal affairs of state is not an acceptable principle of international relations. Even though countries in the Third World do not have the right to abuse its people on grounds of domestic jurisdiction, the West does not have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to human rights.

Worse still is their hypocrisy where they themselves undertake abuses of human rights and yet attempt to extort the Third World to abide by universal human rights standards.

Of course, the West's double standard is not a license for the Third World to engage in human rights abuses or to stall the promotion of human rights practices in their respective societies.

Ironically, during the Cold War era, the West, especially the United States, supported all types of regimes with questionable human rights records as long as they were anti-communist and aligned with the West. Yet today, they carry the banner of human rights in its most extreme form.

For the Third World, imposing human rights values and principles which are derived from the Judeo-Christian principles is unacceptable and needs to be altered somewhat.

Thus, when conditionality is practiced, it amounts to imposing Western cultural values which are basically unpalatable in the Third World setting, which create more problems in the process.

This issue needs to be understood. Otherwise it amount to "Cultural colonialism" by the West. The West also practices selectivity where some countries are targeted for "special treatment" and not others.

If human rights are to become global norms and mores, then they should be practiced across-the-board on a non-selective basis.

Thus, while all societies, including in the Third World should aspire towards human rights and should move forward on this score, the peculiarities of each society should also be taken into consideration. Otherwise, emphasis on human rights can lead to a political problems.

At the same time, no country should use its peculiarities to undermine the rights of its citizen to life, liberty and well- being.

What is needed is the correct balance and this must be decided jointly by the people and government so that a consensus can be reached on this very sensitive issue.

Due to the different settings and peculiarities of all states, the best guarantee of human rights can only be obtained through a social contract and this would also deny impositions from outside.

Dr. Bilveer Singh is a senior lecturer in political science at the National University of Singapore.