Power politics blurs rights debate

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.