Review of rights declaration a defense mechanism?

Review of rights declaration a defense mechanism?

Is there really a need to review the UN human rights
declaration? J. Soedjati Djiwandono, a political scientist at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that
the issue could be exploited to retain the status quo.

JAKARTA (JP): The recent suggestion for a review of the UN
Declaration of Human Rights is just another case of long-standing
differences between the western powers and the developing
nations.

One of the grounds for review was that the declaration was
formulated by the great (mostly western) powers when most of the
developing nations had not even attained independence.

It has also been prompted by the continuing emphasis on civil
and political rights by the West. Developing nations tend to
regard economic and cultural rights as a higher priority and do
not like to have the issue of human rights linked to economic
aid, investment and trade.

Some of the nations, including Indonesia, which have signed
the declaration but not yet ratified it even claim to have their
own concepts of human rights.

It has been stated that the western concept is individualistic
and ignores the rights of the society, the nation, and the state.
But human rights must go hand in hand with social
responsibilities.

The society exists only because human beings have created it.
Its communal rights can hardly be called inalienable. A society's
rights have been derived from nature and human beings.

By contrast, human rights are inalienable and inherent. They
are to be exercised by human beings and enjoyed equally.

The emphasis on economic and cultural rights by developing
nations gives the impression that people must "sacrifice" their
civil and political rights for development. The reward for such a
sacrifice is economic prosperity.

But this is not the case in many developing nations where
civil and political rights continue to be curtailed. A large
majority of people from these nations have not yet shared the
fruits of development with the few who get richer and richer.

Without civil and political rights, the poor and
underprivileged have to turn to the government to improve their
lot. They must rely on the kindness and generosity of this
government.

But history will show that it is rare to find a government
that is greatly concerned with the welfare of its people. And, if
such a government exists, it tends to last forever and become
increasingly corrupted by power.

With civil and political rights, on the other hand, people can
take an active part, directly or otherwise, in improving their
welfare. They can demand accountability from their government or
replace it with a new regime if they find it incompetent.

Without such rights they cannot even criticize their
government, except at great personal risks.

Who is able to say that economic development has been
successful? When and by what criteria do we judge such a success,
which allows people to begin enjoying those rights? And without
those rights, on whose behalf would that kind of statement be
made?

Are the arguments in support of a different concept of human
rights, and the priority supposedly given to economic and
cultural rights, a defense mechanism against criticism on a poor
record of human rights?

Such arguments may also be used primarily to maintain the
power of the regimes concerned. But launching similar criticisms
against western nations would not serve to deny the validity and
verity of the criticisms against developing nations and their
poor records.

Linking human rights issues to aid, investment and trade may
indeed give the impression that the western nations are not
sincere in their criticism. Are they simply using the issue as a
diplomatic gambit to serve their own national interests?

Will this phenomenon then form part of the political power
play in the classical sense, which has always characterized
international relations?

What is needed, perhaps, is continuous dialog between nations
on human rights and other related issues. They should be debated
on their own merit as they are the common concern of humankind.

This would be a step toward common understanding on such
issues and common acceptance of certain values and principle of
universal validity. But such dialog should be restructured to
ensure human rights are seen as a separate issue from questions
of aid, investment and trade.