Review of UN rights 'counterproductive'

ASEAN's suggestion for a review of the United Nations declaration on human rights, which was sparked last week by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, seems to be finding little support. Political scientist Juwono Sudarsono discusses the issue.

Question: What do you think of the suggestion to review the UN declaration on human rights?

Answer: I don't think it's a good idea to propose a review of the UN declaration on human rights. It would be better for ASEAN and other developing countries to reemphasize that the five dimensions of the declaration -- namely the civil, social, political, economical, and cultural dimensions -- cannot be separated from one another and must stay as an integral unit.

Most developed countries, such as the U.S., tend to put emphasis on just political and civil rights. Unemployment and social disparity make them forget the other three aspects.

Since 1966, we have had two agreements -- governance on civil and political rights and governance on economic, social and cultural rights -- in which all countries agreed that the two governances must be applied equally and inseparably. Still, western countries treated them as if the civil and political rights are much more important than the other three.

Q: Don't these countries realize that they have practiced human rights in an unbalanced way?

A: That's the problem. They've never admitted it, although 90 percent of what they claim as human rights merely covers civil and political ones. They seem to forget that the agreement says that human rights are indivisible, comprehensive, and balanced. That's why we have to remind them that social, economical, and cultural rights are as important as civil and political ones.

I agree with Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen that the U.S. has been applying double standards, where it reports only on the human rights of other countries but not of its own. In fact, seen from how it practices civil and political rights, the U.S. is very weak indeed. It has taken 20,000 people into detention while delaying their cases. Another 20,000 are on death row.

The social and economical rights have the same problems. The way the U.S. government has reduced its social security budget is an example of human rights violations. There are many poor people suffering because of this, including immigrants entering the state before Aug. 20.

Every person is considered to have the right of a minimum chance to get a job. This means that everyone has the right to social security. If it is true that the U.S. social security budget for the past 20 years was a waste of budget, it doesn't give the country legitimacy to cut the budget in such a way. It makes poor people suffer.

With a US$7.2 trillion budget, such social disparity is a major scandal. This is something that U.S. spokesmen, and the world, seem to turn a blind eye to. Yet, if we say this, they will promptly say that we are only confirming the so-called Asian values. They will say that we use Asian values to validate what they considered as repression and authoritarianism.

Q: Values always seem to be something that makes Asia and the U.S. differ from each other. How do you see this? Is it appropriate to differentiate universal values from local ones?

A: I don't think so. Values are the same everywhere. I'm not with those who think that Asian values are different from the universal ones. In this case, accusing us of using the so-called Asian values to approve what they called authoritarianism is not relevant at all.

What we are saying is that in this world of so many poor people, the freedom level of civil and political rights could not be that big. Otherwise, we will only create anarchy.

Q: Are you saying that Asian countries are basically not differentiating the two values?

A: That's right. What we want is a harmony in the application of the five dimensions of human rights. That means that there should be a balance between individual and public interests. The U.S. always accuses us of overprotecting public interest in such a way that we forget the individual one.

In fact, in the U.S., what they claim as individual interest is indeed only of those from a particular society and not of those who do not have access to both media and the government circle.

Q: There are those who say that the UN declaration on human rights is often used by developed country to pressure developing ones...

A: The problem is we no longer want to keep reminding the U.S. and other western countries that all five dimensions of the declaration should be practiced simultaneously and equally...

Q: Does it mean that the remarks are not true?

A: They're true, especially when we see it from the way they put emphasis on only two dimensions: civil and political. They have even made use of it as a nontariff barrier. It's nothing but a way of keeping their market unharmed by our competitiveness level, which is getting better and better. In other words, they have made use of the civil and political rights as a tool of (economic) protection.

Q: Some say that Asia and the U.S. are prone to differences of opinion...

A: America's system is always looking for someone to blame, partly to cover its own wrong doing. They want to demonize others, such as Indonesia, China and other competitive countries. In doing so, they comfort themselves as having better social and economical conditions. It serves as an escape to distract themselves from their own internal economical, social and cultural discrimination.

This is certainly what ASEAN should struggle for. If you want to make human rights universal, you have to make it comprehensive, indivisible and balanced, as agreed. It also should reach not only the South but also the North countries.

Q: If that is the case, why should a proposal to review the UN declaration have been made, instead of reminding the developed countries to apply what has been agreed upon?

A: That's the problem. I'm not in favor to such a step, whose purpose is only showing the differences of ASEAN. It's counter- productive. (swa)