'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Answer: First of all, the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights is a historical document which is considered a milestone in world history.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)