Balancing views on human rights

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.