Opposing points of view on human rights

By Arif Havas Ugroseno

This is the second of two articles on the global human rights debate.

JAKARTA (JP): Enriching as it may be, the human rights debate over the universalist and cultural relativist approaches has to be put to rest. A more constructive approach is needed to promote and protect all human rights in the most effective and meaningful way.

Since the recognition of pluralism is one of the most essential themes of human rights, the recognition of cultural diversity is therefore a must in the human rights debate.

In looking at cultural diversity, culture should not be seen as static, divided only by geographical boundaries. Globalization has had economic, political and social effects resulting in the overlapping of cultural ideas and ways of life. Several cultural traditions may coexist in a given area -- flourishing due to media and transportation technologies, travel and tourism. Culture is increasingly seen as a network of perspectives or as an ongoing debate.

A frank and sincere dialog among members of different cultures, if conducted in good faith and open-mindedness, could lead to exchanges of ideas and even a modification of practices and attitudes. Such dialog could provide a clear understanding that cultural relativism is universal.

Cultural relativism is not an invention of Asian or other developing countries. As a matter of fact, long before Asian government officials and scholars spoke about cultural relativism, Western thinkers and human rights theorists developed cultural relativism in their approach to human rights (for instance, Adamantia Pollis & Peter Schwab, Human Rights: A Western Construct with Limited Applicability, 1980).

Furthermore, Asian countries are contributing positively to the standard-setting process in various gatherings such as the Commission on Human Rights and through the implementation of international norms.

Clearly, the Asian challenge to the human rights debate is not about the ideal of promoting human rights or about alternative cultural outlooks, but about prioritizing these two ideas. Analogously, the American government cannot be said to have neglected the rights of American children because it has not given priority in ratifying the 1990 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Cultural relativism is an everyday fact of human life. Even in Western societies, cultural particularities exist and are guaranteed. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was influenced by Western thinking, leaves some principles open to further local cultural scrutiny.

Article 19 states that "the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions...these shall only be such as...are necessary...for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals".

There is obviously room for a reasonable difference of judgment -- intraculturally and even more so interculturally -- concerning the interpretation of "public morals".

A highly individualistic society like the United States tends to see public morals one way, while a more community-oriented society like Canada tends to see them at least somewhat differently -- maybe very differently.

Another example of cultural relativist reality in the West is the issue of minority rights. The cultural rights of a minority in Western societies are not defended as short term concessions to be voided once socio-political circumstances allow it. Instead, these rights are seen as forward-looking measures to preserve flourishing cultural communities in a potentially hostile environment where the majority shares a different language and cultural outlook.

Will Kymlika, in Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (1995), goes further by stating that a rich cultural context is a crucial precondition for the exercise of individual freedom.

Philip Alston, a prominent human rights philosopher as well as the chairman of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has argued that even within the Common Law tradition, American and English law has functioned very differently, in large part because of the different legal, political and institutional cultures in which the law operates.

Stephen J. Toope, dean of McGill University Law School, contends that in the area of freedom of expression, the failure to impose significant limits within the United States upon violent pornography and hate propaganda is not mirrored in all other Western societies.

The varying attitudes toward capital punishment is another example of how human rights ideas differ throughout Western societies.

Western values which are often attacked by non-Westerners are not necessarily exclusively Western -- some of these same values exist in non-Western societies.

Civil liberties and human rights have flourished in Latin America and South Africa has taken a leading role in the promotion and protection of civil and political rights. On the other hand, different societies in developing nations, such as Singapore, Nigeria and Malaysia, have highly appreciated individual achievement, both academic and financial.

Human rights action cannot be derived in any straightforward manner. Even within the universalist community, such an approach is not feasible. Political histories, cultural legacies, economic conditions and human rights problems differ, not only between the West and the rest of the world, but within each region as well. In order to practically uphold universal human rights, this fact needs to be kept in mind.

Internationally recognized human rights provide a general direction. They do not provide a plan of implementation that can be applied mechanically, irrespective of political, economic and cultural diversity.

In the spirit of Dean Toope, one should move beyond the clash of cultures by listening to the diverse voices of Asian, African and Western societies. We need to put ourselves in positions where a plurality of perspectives can be heard.

Only with appropriate humility and self-doubt can true dialog be encouraged.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School.