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.