Asian human rights versus the West: A clash of cultures

---------------------------------------------------------------

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

1 col 8 pt

By Bilveer Singh

SINGAPORE (JP): Many developed countries are now putting human rights at the foremost of their national agendas. When some of these country try to impose their human rights values upon others and politicizing the issue in the process, problems start to occur.

Most countries in the world are aspiring to the universal respect for and observance of human right and fundamental freedoms. Yet, the lack of a common understanding of these rights and freedoms prevent as from realizing the universality of human rights.

Unfortunately, the West, especially under the leadership of the United States, has taken many countries in the Third World to task for their human rights record and have adopted a policy of imposing a "new morality" on other countries.

The West would like to see itself like knights in shining armor, coming to save the people and government of the Third World. This seems to be the new messianism and civilizing mission of the West with regard to the Third World.

This is unfortunate as a new bipolarization is emerging in the post-Cold War world. In this regard, Singapore has also suffered, largely through misunderstanding.

In the main, there are a number of premises on which the West has tried to promote human rights in general, especially in the Third World.

While by themselves human rights are noble in intent, the manner these are pursued often create more problems rather than solving them. Therein lies the biggest challenge for human rights proponents.

By definition, human rights are for all. This is granted and no government anywhere can deny this. The Singapore leadership has openly supported human rights and has worked towards their fulfillment. Singapore's endorsement for the recently established UN High Commissioner on Human Rights is testimony of this.

Yet, there are many differences in the way human rights are perceived and interpreted. Six differences are noteworthy: universality versus relativity; the issue of prioritization; collective versus individual rights; duties versus rights; the issue of timing and emphasis; and finally, the issue of conditionality.

That human rights are universal is widely accepted. The fact that all countries which joined the United Nations are also signatories of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights bind them to this universality.

There is, however, a problem as the contents of the Declaration are largely Western based with no participation from the majority of the states which became independent after 1945, most of whom are found in the Third World.

Inevitability, the question is raised as to who formulated the principles obtained in the Declaration? This has led to the call that a "a new universality" should be developed so that it reflects the majority of states found in the United Nations and world at large.

There is also the need to be sensitive to relativism as human rights cannot be uniformly applied to all countries. As the local situations are different, different parameters are needed. However, this does not mean that countries should use their social and cultural differences to negate and violate human rights.

While the universal standards are useful to be aspired towards, the problem with universality also needs to be understood and this can only be realized through compromise.

The second debate is over the issue of collective versus individual rights. While the West has tended to focus on the latter, countries in the Third World are more oriented towards the former. This different in emphasis is due more to cultural differences rather than any attempt to undermine the individual.

While the promotion and protection of individual rights are important, this should nevertheless not be undertaken at the expense of the community, especially in Third World societies where communitarianism is the key to societal organization.

The point must be noted that human beings are not just individuals. They are individuals who belong to a particular family, ethnic group and a country. Ignoring the plight of the family, community and count and focussing on the individual can be counterproductive.

Individual and communitarian rights are dialectically linked and the emphasis of one does not necessarily negate the other. Also, the extremism of individualism should not be emulated as it creates a self-centered political culture which is detrimental to the society's well-being.

It is, however, accepted that when rights are abused it is the individual who suffers. In view of this, the notion of communitarianism must not be allowed to develop to a point where it becomes nothing more than an excuse to repress one's people.

The third debate is over the issue of prioritization. While the West has tended to give priority to political and civil rights, countries in the Third World have put greater emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights.

Countries in the Third World have argued that pursuing economic growth and giving less emphasis to political rights does not mean that the latter are neglected. Rather an attempt is made to reconcile between the two.

Also, economic growth and development are important for the full implementation and realization of other rights in politics.

Achieving economic security is as much a right as political participation and just because the West has achieved a level of economic security, allowing them to focus on political rights, does not mean that their model should be emulated by all as all countries are at different stages of development.

It is also realized that economic growth and development are important prerequisites for the exercise and implementation of human rights. The rise in racism and sectarianism in Western Europe stems primarily from economic problems.

The setback in national economic growth has led to unemployment, deprivation and alienation, resulting in growing resentment against foreigners. Racism has been bred by this, as seen in Germans treatment of the Turkish migrant community in the country.

Thus, the development of the right economic strategy is important for the full realization of human rights anywhere. This is critical for political stability and growth, and seems to the approach adopted by most Third World countries.

30