Balancing views on human rights

In commemoration of Human Rights Day on Dec. 10, noted political scientist Juwono Sudarsono underlines the importance of the Bangalore Declaration, which reminds nations that economic, social and cultural dimensions of human rights are just as urgent as civil and political rights.

JAKARTA (JP): The end of the Cold War five years ago refocused the world's attention on human rights. In the absence of communism as an adversarial focus, advanced industrialized countries redirected their fixation toward Asian "authoritarianism" and "repression". In addition, "social clause" and "corruption" issues are added to their campaign in applying pressure through international media, non-governmental organizations and international foundations.

In fact, human rights has become a thriving "conscience industry", binding the interests of thousands of politicians, lobbyists, academics, civic groups and media celebrities through intricate and well-financed networks. Given the socioeconomic deprivation and weak state-building institutions in most developing countries, human rights concerns have become a gold mine for a wide variety of pressure group activists in industrialized nations.

In this light, the principles and practices of human rights need to be affirmed in a more balanced and proportionate manner. First and foremost, in conceptual terms, the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights calls for the advancement of civil, political, economic, social and cultural dimensions. Yet, following adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966, more than 80 percent of advanced industrialized countries focus their concern on civil and political issues in communist and developing countries.

In 1986, the United Nations General Assembly broadened the conceptual definition of human rights to encompass "the right to development", in which all states are ensured "access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income".

Even after the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna affirmed that "all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated", industrialized countries relentlessly focused attention on civil and political rights. Leaders in developing countries who remind them of the need for balance and the indivisibility of all five dimensions of human rights are accused of justifying "authoritarianism" and "political repression". To deflect attention away from their own systems' inner economic, social and cultural failings, politicians and rights advocates in advanced industrialized nations introduced the notion that "political democracy should be made a precondition for economic development".

In sum, human rights should not be hijacked by advanced industrialized countries through the unbalanced and disproportionate emphasis to civil and political liberties issues. At the same time, it is the moral obligation of all developing nations to provide tangible evidence, however demanding, to accept civil and political liberties as an integral part of the overall commitment to advance economic, social and cultural progress.

Secondly, in the realm of practical application, there must be more balanced acknowledgment of successes as well as shortcomings in all countries, irrespective of political system or level of economic advancement. With the demise of communism in Europe and apartheid in South Africa, far too much attention has been addressed to the emerging competitive economies of Asia.

Concern about a prominent political dissenter in Asian countries must be balanced by equal attention to the economically deprived and culturally discriminated non-celebrities in industrialized countries, whose names hardly ever get placed on the "watch lists" of advocacy groups. A balanced view to the practical application of human rights would help avert two distinct dangers. One is the cynical view, which claims that human rights is nothing more than an ideological cover for the realpolitik of states. The other is the naive view, in which human rights is seen as a universally shared value towards which all members of the international community naturally aspire.

No nation, not even the most advanced industrialized country, can achieve a perfect score in human rights as broadly defined. But the hypocrisy of governments and rights advocates in industrialized countries is particularly stark in their misguided assumption that civil and political rights in their countries are fully adhered to, and thus become the benchmark by which other countries are judged.

It is worth remembering that the Bangalore Declaration of Oct. 25, 1995 reminds human rights commissions and advocacy groups all over the world that economic, social and cultural dimensions of human rights are just as urgent and vital as civil and political rights. There must be less vehement insistence on immediate rectification of civil and political rights flaws and more humility based on the reality that there can be gradual and deliberate speeds to progress based on a balanced view encompassing all categories of human rights.

Finally, it would help if mutual verbal bashing between rich and poor nations was less frequently carried out through international media reporting. By their very nature, civil and political rights issues have more dramatic news value than economic, social or cultural rights.

But addressing human rights issues through pugnacious print journalism, rabble radio and tabloid television serves no purpose other than exacerbating sterile debates about "Western" as against "Asian" values. The very notion of pitting the West against Asia undermines the commitment made in the Universal Declaration of 1948 that all five rights -- civil, political, economic, social and cultural -- be made truly universal and humanitarian commitments.

Juwono Sudarsono is vice governor of the National Resilience Institute, Jakarta.