-
33. Promoting Human Rights
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Promoting Human Rights 159 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville 33. PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS SIDNEY JONES Reprinted in abridged form from Sidney Jones, “Promoting Human Rights: The Optimal Way”, in The Making of a Security Community in the Asia-Pacific, edited by Bunn Nagara and K.S. Balakrishnan (Kuala Lumpur: Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia, 1994), pp. 335–47, by permission of the author and the publisher. The fact remains that two key planks of the ASEAN governments’ position on human rights — non-selectivity and “situational uniqueness” (the need to take cultural , political and economic differences into account) — are mutually exclusive. Non-selectivity, which means that political and civil rights should not be stressed over economic and social rights, can only have meaning as a principle if there is general agreement on the content of both sets of rights. By espousing the importance of non-selectivity, the ASEAN governments implicitly recognise an international standard which one group of countries, in their view, is distorting. But there is no point in complaining about the West’s selectivity if ASEAN is demanding that each country or region be permitted to select which rights to promote according to level of economic development or type of political system. Suggesting that political, cultural and economic differences need to be taken into account in setting new, or applying existing international standards, has its risks. Who is to be the cultural arbiter? When ASEAN governments stress the importance in Asian culture of communal, collective or commentarian rights as opposed to individual rights, they have to face the fact that their definitions are not shared by many in the ASEAN region, ASEAN governments tend to define the community as co-terminous with the state, which may have less to do with culture than with political self-interest. NGOs in the ASEAN region see their governments not protecting collective rights but too often violating them, particularly with regard to the traditional land and resource rights of indigenous peoples. If the ASEAN countries wish to promote collective rights, how do they resolve conflict or competition between different communities — Indonesia and East Timor; ethnic Chinese and Malays in Malaysia; the T’boli clans and Visayan settlers in Mindanao, for example? It may turn out that an impartial and independent court system offers a better chance for resolution than a vague appeal to “Asian culture.” 033 AR Ch 33 22/9/03, 12:45 PM 159 160 Sidney Jones By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville Then too, any definition of collective rights has to embrace the rights of national and ethnic minorities, and one quickly gets into the quicksand of human rights and nationalism. In Bosnia, the assertion by the Serbs of their collective rights has resulted in some of the worst carnage the world has seen in half a century. The unfortunate truth is that Asian culture , or “situational uniqueness” for that matter, can be used to justify any position that governments of the region wish to take. At the Asian regional meeting on human rights in Bangkok in early April, Japan did not share the ASEAN countries’ rejection of aid conditionality, and it stressed that human rights should not be sacrificed to economic development — is it then rejecting its Asian heritage? The Chinese delegate at the Bangkok meeting claimed that Asian culture “has played an important role in maintaining the stability of the state and promoting the steady development of economy and society.” Where was “Asian culture” during the Cultural Revolution? Protection of human rights is simply not possible when every country interprets international standards as it sees fit, whether that country is the US or Singapore. The only solution is to take the international standards that exist, and figure out how best to apply them. 033 AR Ch 33 22/9/03, 12:45 PM 160 ...