Power politics blurs rights debate

By Aleksius Jemadu

BANDUNG (JP): Even though the universality of human rights was declared 50 years ago through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), there is still a heated debate between Western and Asian leaders regarding the application of that principle in real life.

For instance, article 8 of The Bangkok Declaration holds that Asian governments "recognize that while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious background" (James T. H. Tang, 1995).

What will happen to the global promotion of human rights if leaders on both sides continue to stick to their respective approaches?

Debates on human rights issues in the post-Cold War international relations literature have been characterized by a clash between two main approaches: the post-colonial approach and the neo-colonial approach. The first approach, which is proposed by Western industrialized countries, emphasizes certain liberal principles such as the universality of human rights, the primacy of civil and political rights, and the interdependence of states. With this approach in mind Western leaders often criticize the poor human rights record of governments in the Third World including Southeast Asia.

The second approach is proposed by Asian countries. According to this approach, the way Western industrialized countries deal with global human rights issues reflects a continuum from the colonial era to the present. They want to perpetuate their domination and exploitation at the expense of the interests and aspirations of the Third World countries.

ASEAN leaders, for instance, defend this approach by using three important concepts, namely, cultural relativism, communitarianism, and developmentalism.

Cultural relativism can be defined as an argument in human rights debates which emphasizes the importance of the distinctive characteristics of each culture in analyzing and judging human rights issues. Thus, Western yardsticks cannot be used to understand and evaluate human rights conditions in non-Western cultures.

Communitarianism stresses the idea that the fulfillment of individual rights in Asian societies cannot be separated from the interests of the community as a whole. There is a suspicion among Asian leaders that Western countries want to impose their individualistic approach to human rights.

The idea of developmentalism in human rights debates emphasizes the equal importance of political and economic rights. According to Asian leaders there is no justification why civil and political rights should be more important than the rights or access of the people to economic development. Moreover, economic poverty or backwardness is seen as the main enemy of human rights.

It should be noted that both the post-colonial approach and the neo-colonial approach have their own shortcomings. The proponents of these approaches may have sound arguments to defend their positions but their real actions tell us whether they are genuinely committed to human rights or playing power politics. It is naive to believe that human rights diplomacy is always guided by political morality.

The advancement of political goals other than human rights concern often dominates nations' human rights diplomacy. The US security objectives during the Cold War were said to take precedence over human rights concerns. In fact the US government strongly supported the right-wing military regimes in Latin America which suppressed the human rights of their own citizens.

The fact that some Western industrialized countries tend to be indifferent to human rights issues when their economic interests are at stake has led many in Asian capitals to regard their human rights diplomacy as at best "power politics in disguise".

Joseph Chan from the University of Hong Kong has defined the defensible and the indefensible arguments in the Asian perspective of human rights.

According to Chan arguments used by Asian states "are often weak, not well-supported by normative arguments and empirical evidence, and sometimes even mutually inconsistent" (Joseph Chan, 1995).

Chan mentioned two contradictions in their arguments. Firstly, the formulation of the role of particularities by Asian states contradicts their explicit recognition that human rights are universal. Secondly, the fact that Asian states (especially in the Asia Pacific region) give a strong preference for economic development is inconsistent with Article 10 of the Bangkok Declaration which holds that Asian states 'reaffirm the interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and the need to give equal emphasis to all categories of human rights'.

Thus, if Asian states criticize the primacy of civil and political rights in the Western perspective of human rights the same criticism should also apply to their preference for economic rights.

The ambiguity and vagueness of the arguments put forward by Asian states have led many to question the real commitment of these governments to the promotion of and protection of the human rights of their citizens. No wonder if the human rights diplomacy of Asian states (especially Southeast Asian) is regarded as an instrument of the political elite to perpetuate their authoritarianism and other vested interests.

Since the positions defended by governments of developed and developing countries are equally vulnerable to outside criticisms and often used as a pretext for power politics, there is a need to reemphasize the nations' common responsibility to the prevention of violations of human rights at all levels.

For Third World countries like Indonesia building a more democratic and human rights-friendly political system through the current political and economic reform will be a first good step towards that goal.

The misuse of human rights diplomacy as a pretext for power politics by any party will create a serious obstacle to the sincere and genuine promotion of such rights. Neither self- righteousness nor excessive self-defense will make a meaningful contribution to the improvement of human rights conditions worldwide. After all, respecting human rights of other people has much to do with a pure and truthful conscience and less to do with sophisticated political rationalizations.

The writer is the head of the school of international relations at the University of Parahyangan, Bandung. He is also a researcher at the Parahyangan Center for International Studies at the same university.