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.