'Review on UN rights declaration not needed'

'Review on UN rights declaration not needed'

The debate on whether the United Nations declaration on human
rights needs a review surfaced during the ASEAN Post Ministerial
Conference in Malaysia last week and has wide repercussions.
Human rights observer Todung Mulya Lubis, shares his view with
The Jakarta Post.

Question: How do you see the problem?

Answer: First of all, the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights
is a historical document which is considered a milestone in world
history. It is the common standard of achievement for all nations
in the world.

It's true that developed countries, especially the victors of
World War II, dominated the declaration's drafting process. There
were almost no representatives from African, Asian or the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Only the
Philippines government was represented at that time.

Yet, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and others
have become members of the UN organization in subsequent years.
This has, ethically and morally, shown that they accepted the
declaration.

Critical remarks have been made about the declaration
including that it is too individualistic. It ignores existing
cultural and local values and it doesn't respect collectivity.

Q: What do you think about those remarks?

A: It's an exaggeration of the problem. The declaration, in fact,
doesn't distinguish individual and collective rights. We cannot
see it outside the historical context. The declaration has
undergone changes and enrichments.

In nearly 50 years it has matured to an almost perfect stage
of development. It covers almost everything from civil to
political, economical to social and cultural rights. All are put
into a holistic perspective.

That's why human rights are always considered individual,
indivisible and inalienable. In this case, the collective rights
are recognized and follow the individual ones.

Q: Could you elaborate?

A: The right to have a healthy environment, for example, is an
individual as well as a collective right. And so is the right to
have peace on earth. We cannot, therefore, put a line between the
two rights. Of course we cannot deny that some individual rights
are given special recognition. For example, the right to live and
the right not to be subjected to torture. No modern independent
country will admit that torture is something they can do.
Regardless of cultural values, torture is torture.

It's true that in some traditional societies, torturing or
even killing people was acceptable as a defense of one's dignity.
But, we can no longer do that. That's why I said that it's an
exaggeration to say that the UN declaration on human rights is
too individualistic and that it ignores cultural as well as local
values.

Historically, it's true that ASEAN and African representatives
were not involved in the first drafting process of the
declaration. Nevertheless, during the development and enrichment
process of the declaration after 1948 up until now, they are all
actively involved. There is no reason, therefore, to review the
UN declaration.

Q: Some say that the declaration is sometimes used by the U.S.
and other developed countries to pressure the developing ones...

A: In some cases we can see why such an accusation arises. We
cannot deny that the U.S., for example, applies a double
standard. When it deals with certain countries, like China where
human rights abuses are very obvious, the U.S. becomes more
"lenient" in its human rights evaluation because it has a great
interest in that country.

In other words, the U.S. has made use of human rights-related
matters to create economical non-tariff barriers for developing
countries. That is what most Asian and African countries feel
about it.

Yet, even if this is true, it doesn't give ASEAN a moral,
ethical as well as historical legitimacy to review the UN
declaration on human rights.

Q: If that is the case, what should they do then?

A: The best thing to do is make a priority list which best suits
their own national interests. There is no need to change the
declaration.

All countries agree that they won't be able to talk about
individual rights without taking into account the collective one.
We cannot just say, for example, that Singapore, Malaysia and
Indonesia are more secure than the U.S. because of their
collective security approaches. People also begin to think that a
collective approach can sometimes disturb the individual one.

Q: Some people see ASEAN's call for a review on the UN
declaration on human rights as an example of these nations trying
to make themselves different from the U.S. and other developed
countries...

A: The fact that some Asian countries are getting more and more
developed economically gives them a newly found clout which
should be taken into account by developed countries like the U.S.
We, developing countries, can no longer be dictated by developed
ones in many fields including the application of human rights.

This progress will eventually lead us to differences in
opinion. Problems will emerge once we fail to handle the
differences wisely. That's why we have to be able to manage those
matters carefully.

However, I don't think there will be many leaders in these
developing countries who share Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir
Mohamad's idea to review the declaration.

Q: Or perhaps the Malaysian PM was only trying to show that ASEAN
countries can no longer be dictated by others?

A: Definitely yes. It's quite obvious. (swa)