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.