3
MONDAY, NOVEMPER 22, 1993
THIS SAME ARGUMENT WAS SERIOUSLY ADVANCED AT THE BANGKOK CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS EARLIER THIS YEAR, WHERE A NUMBER OF ASIAN GOVERNMENTS MET TO FORGE A COMMON VIEW IN THE RUN-UP TO THE VIENNA WORLD CONFERENCE. THEIR MESSAGE WAS CLEAR: ALL THIS, ALLEGEDLY, WESTERN TALK OF HUMAN RIGHTS AMOUNTED TO LITTLE MORE THAN A NEO- COLONIAL INCURSION INTO ASIAN AFFAIRS. THE FREE-MARKET, WELL THAT WAS FINE. BUT ITS POLITICAL BEDFELLOWS - FREE SPEECH, THE RULE OF LAW, MULTI-PARTY POLITICS THEY COULD STAY OUT OF THE BED FOR THE TIME- BEING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IF DECENCY AND DECORUM WERE TO PRESERVED.
←
BE
P
THE WORDING OF THE BANGKOK DECLARATION IS CAREFULLY OPAQUE. IT DOESN'T QUITE SAY 'GO HOME DEMOCRACY' OR 'DOWN WITH HUMAN RIGHTS' BUT BEHIND THE WALL-TO-WALL RHETORICAL LINOLEUM, THE GIST IS CLEAR. LET ME QUOTE:
"WHILE HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL IN NATURE, THEY MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF A DYNAMIC AND EVOLVING PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL NORM-SETTING, BEARING IN MIND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PECULIARITIES AND VARIOUS HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS.
NORM-SETTING.
IN OTHER WORDS, HUMAN RIGHTS AREN'T REALLY UNIVERSAL AS UNIVERSAL AS MARKET FORCES OR THE WEATHER THEY VARY, APPARENTLY, FROM PLACE TO PLACE, FROM CONTINENT TO CONTINENT.
I FIND THIS AN ASTONISHING ARGUMENT. OF COURSE, THERE ARE NATURALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES, DIFFERENT RELIGIONS, DIFFERENT TRADITIONS. WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE CERTAINLY NO MORE PERFECT THAN ASIAN OR AFRICAN SOCIETIES. WE CAN ALL LEARN FROM EACH
OTHER, FROM ADAM SMITH AND FROM CONFUCIUS.
EXCLUSIVELY
-
A POINT NON-GOVERNMENTAL
BUT THERE IS SURELY NOTHING SPECIFICALLY OR EUROPEAN OR NORTH AMERICAN ABOUT RESPECTING HUMAN DIGNITY MADE EXTREMELY PERSUASIVELY BY 110 ASIAN ORGANISATIONS WHO ALSO MET IN BANGKOK AND WHO PUT THE CASE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASIA AS WELL AS EVERYWHERE ELSE. JUST IMAGINE IF THE ARGUMENT WAS PUT THE OTHER WAY ROUND IF IT WERE ARGUED THAT HUMAN RIGHTS WEREN'T REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR ASIA, FOR LATIN AMERICA, FOR AFRICA. WE WOULD RIGHTLY BE REGARDED AS SANCTIMONIOUS DOWNRIGHT RACIST AT WORST, IF WE WERE TO SAY THAT.
―
AT BEST,
IF YOU'RE A JOURNALIST LOCKED UP FOR MONTHS FOR TELLING THE TRUTH, IF YOU'RE A TRADE UNIONIST INCARCERATED FOR CHAMPIONING WORKERS' RIGHTS, IF YOU'RE THROWN OUT OF YOUR COUNTRY AND DEPRIVED OF YOUR RIGHTS, IF YOU'RE BEATEN OVER THE HEAD (OR WORSE) BY A POLICEMAN, THE BRUTAL RESULT IS THE SAME, FOR YOU AND FOR THE COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT HAPPENS IN EUROPE, OR ASIA OR AMERICA OR AFRICA. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE INDIVISIBLE AND INTERDEPENDENT, "BE THEY CIVIL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL OR CULTURAL RIGHTS", AS THOSE ASIAN NGOS IN BANGKOK RIGHTLY ARGUED.
UNDER THE BUT OTHER INEFFICIENT
THE MAIN REASON FOR WANTING TO SWEEP HUMAN RIGHTS CARPET IS TO RETAIN POLITICAL POWER OR CRUSH OPPOSITION. EXCUSES ARE PUT FORWARD - THAT DEMOCRACY IS TOO WEAK AND AS A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, THAT WORRYING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS HOLDS BACK THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, ABOVE ALL, THAT IT SOMEHOW ECONOMIC SUCCESS. FREEDOM FROM WANT MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE, SO IT IS SAID, OVER WANT FOR FREEDOM.
CONSTRAINS
/PITT THE