Opposing views on human rights

Opposing views on human rights

By Arif Havas Ugroseno

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

JAKARTA (JP): The global human rights debate between
universalism and cultural relativism continues and has reached a
stalemate.

In various intellectual circles, the issue of cultural
relativism is still deliberated even though the debate is many
decades old.

For example, in a recent human rights seminar at the Raoul
Wallenberg Institute University of Lund in Sweden between Dec. 11
and Dec. 13, 1997, the issue of regional and national
particularities in the issue of human rights was discussed.

But ideally, the tension between the two concepts should have
been considered settled once and for all with the adoption of the
Vienna Declaration and Program of Action in June 1993.

In the aftermath of the Vienna Declaration, developing
countries have continued to back their arguments for cultural
relativism by citing parts of the declaration conducive to their
position. The West has also been able to cite the declaration to
justify its universalist position.

Instead of creating a consensus, the Vienna Declaration has
become a springboard for diversion, bringing the human rights
debate back to square one. The practice of establishing a "human
rights record" of particular countries thus continues unabated
with inherent partiality, fragmentation and subjectiveness.

Many analysts observed that the June 1993 Vienna UN Conference
on human rights did not even attempt to reconcile the two sides
of the debate. Western countries went to Vienna accusing Asia of
trying to undermine the ideal of universality and determined to
blame Asia if the conference failed. Inevitably, Asia resisted.

The result, after weeks of wrangling, was a predictable
diplomatic compromise, ambiguous enough so all could live with
it. But it settled little.

Universalists still assert that human rights are a special
entitlement for every individual. They argue that the rights
incorporated in these international treatises are so fundamental
as to constitute natural law that is universal to human kind.

Cultural relativists see the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights as enumerating rights and freedoms which are culturally,
ideologically, and politically nonuniversal.

They argue that current human rights norms -- guided by the
universalist position -- possess a distinctively "Western" or
"judeo-Christian" bias, and hence are an ethnocentric construct
with limited applicability.

Cultural relativism, contrary to popular view, is not
exclusively held by Asian governments. Western scholars such as
Daniel A Bell, Michael J Perry, Melville Herskovitzs, Adamantia
Pollis and Peter Schwab also argue for cultural considerations
within the human rights debate.

The fiercely negotiated language in the Vienna Declaration
attempts to reconcile some of the tension. It acknowledges
cultural relativism through the recognition that "the
significance of national and regional particularities and various
historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in
mind".

It also maintains a universalist approach by proclaiming that
"it is the duty of states, regardless of their political,
economic, cultural systems, to promote and protect all human
rights and fundamental freedoms". It further states that "all
human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent and
interrelated" and "the promotion and protection of all human
rights is a legitimate concern of the international community".

The chief reasons for such an unfortunate conclusion to the
declaration are at least threefold. First, the human rights
approach has been largely overshadowed by a Cold War mentality in
which a zero-sum game maintained a tense balance of power -- a
perceived victory for either side could create unwanted open
conflict.

Second, the implementation of human rights has been wrapped in
political measures at bilateral and multilateral levels.
Perceived human rights abuses usually have brought on oral
condemnations through diplomatic channels. Political opposition
groups and human rights organizations have also been given
support if diplomatic channels were thought to bring no change.
In some cases, perceived human rights abuses have been surrounded
with what is termed as "sanction madness".

Third, there has been a continuing mutual suspicion between
the West and the rest of the world. The West, carrying
universalism's big stick, has been viewed by many countries to be
dishonest and entangled with a selective political agenda in the
promotion and protection of human rights. The West has been seen
as a crusader for its own cultural ideals or for concealed
hegemonic intentions.

On the other hand, the rest of the world, especially Asia, has
been regarded by the West as trying to justify human rights
violations by claiming special religious or cultural imperatives.

The writer is a graduate of Harvard Law School.