Asian Human Rights Records and Western Criticism - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION West has always been accusing Asia of depriving its people from the basic human rights and freedom. This has been the major concern of the whole world recently. The paper discusses this issue and comes to the point whether or not the west justified in criticizing the Asian countries. It also provides a cursory glance into the Asian and west conflict regarding human rights and their activities contributing to this issue in a practical manner. It discusses the human right practices by United States within its own territory and also outside the boundaries. It describes the human rights record of United States and Western Community as whole and their role towards peace, security and human rights. ASIAN HUMAN RIGHT RECORDS AND WESTERN CRITICISM Asia is a country of splendid ancestry of philosophies and customs based on people. There has been great effort and progress from Asian countries towards the transformation of its policies with a pace even faster than the Western countries. The factor that hinders this progress is not the culture itself but it is the rulers and key players who abstain from such a progress. The point here is that it is not culture but democracy that sets the nation's fate (Kim Dae-jung, 1994) It is not true to say that the Asian countries lack humanitarian activities through and through. Such a perception about Asia is publicised all over the world by western media and authorities and people sometimes fail to see the real picture behind the scene. Most of the world's population inhabit in Asia. The condemnation of such a land covered by huge population from different origins, colors and creed entirely on the basis of human rights even before realising the real truth is not at all just. For much elaboration of this point, according to Sen Amartya (1994), every nation and society bears a right of personal independence for its people. Every country has a right to think and make arrangements to provide its people with basic human rights without any intrusions from the outsiders or externals. Although it is sometimes right for an outsider to object on a severe disrespect of human right by a state but it not at all just to keep on pinpointing the others' mistakes while thoroughly overlooking its own wrong doings that continuously hamper the way to the achievement of a peaceful global village. The distinction pertaining to traditions and norms does exist between Asian and Western countries but according to Weil Robert (1994) the major problem today's world faces is the problem of setting dual-criterion for West and Asia. If we consider the practices of United States itself, as claiming to be the greatest advocator of peace and human rights for everyone in this world, we would see that it has itself been disregarding the concept of human rights and been creating and backing the severe disrupters of human rights. The examples could be the Guatemalan military regime, Tiananmen, Panama City, Tibet, Puerto Rico and above all constant refusal to abide by the global international standards for implementation of world peace and security. One could also illustrate the event when the United States itself rejected and denied the World Court judgment to play a role in the reconstruction of Nicaragua, the time of police coercion, the incidence of Rodney King tortured on TV and the occurrence of a series of devastating circumstances as the aftermath of the event, the political agitations in United States. A short list for the United States would have to include Leonard Peltier, Puerto Rican incidence, and the black prey of cointelpro imprisoned, murdered, or forced to exile, the case of prison labor and it has even been reported in China by the press that the US government has enhanced its existing exports of goods manufactured by the prisoners. United States itself conceals its acts of disregard to human rights under the mask of world peace regulator. China is among those Asian countries that has been continuously criticised by the West, especially United States for its so-called inhuman practices. But here, the differences between these two nations and their approached become much evident. To China, its national supremacy has the same importance as the concept of civil and constitutional rights. Thus whenever the United States endeavours to charge its decision on the Chinese, it is regarded as disrespect to their freedom of self-government, self-reliance and rights of citizenship. China has an extensive heritage of ancient and dignified traditions and customs, is willing and struggling to attain its stance as a universal power. West has always been pressurising China on the prevailing human rights and liberties practices with a view to make Chinese much disciplined, just next to the missionaries, narcotics, and gunboats of ancient times. Thus, these Western pressures seem to be as an arm for Western countries to hamper the recent remarkable progress of China and to obtrude the Chinese self-reliance. The Chinese regard it to the same as the refusal of the proposal of Chinese Olympics and the unexpected demand of the Hong Kong government for rights of citizenship for its people at the time when Hong Kong was about to be rejoined to China and that too after 150 years of appointed colonial government. An illustration for this claim can be the instance, taking place a few years back when China was wrongly accused by the United States that they were transferring military aids to Iran, the Chinese condemn United States self-acclaimed stance as universal regulator for human rights and peace (Weil Robert, 1994). United States is seemingly much concerned about the supremacy of government in China. But if someone investigates and peeps into the liberalism and social conditions in United States, it will be evident that for those citizens living and working in United States, the conception that United States is a rich and affluent nation with numerous millionaires and billionaires is much illuminated in the world than the people who live as unemployed in United States even without the facilities of medical care while millions of people live without shelters on the streets, the youth killing each other for minor issues, the citizens with advanced arms disputing and quarreling over narcotics and above all the issue of primary school going children carrying guns. It is also well known to the world that United States is a country where more people are imprisoned for criminal practices than even in South Africa and thousands of people stand in line to wait for their deaths in prison. Even after that the criminal practices are so beyond their control that the whole nation cringes with fear behind the security measures as the night approaches. People remain so frightened that they sometimes kill strangers out of misunderstandings for knocking on the wrong door. Now the question is that can such a country acclaim to be the one and only regulator of peace and human rights, even when millions of its own citizens are deprived of that (Weil Robert, 1994). Another point of consideration can be the background of United States as authorising the international treaties of civil rights and liberties. The US has been the exclusive nation in the world besides the disintegrated state of Somalia that has not approved the international conference on the Rights of the Child. The US has also been among those few countries that have not approved the conference on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. United States has also not accredited the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the American Convention on Human Rights. Even when the US does accredit the international agreements, the state advocates keep on finding the ways in every agreement so as to point out any rights that might empower the conditions already in place under the United States regulation, and then abolish them by introducing some resolutions and proclamations. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) disallows putting to death punishment a person who is less than 18 years old when he commits a legal offence. After accrediting this treaty, the United States again found a resolution in the law that occupies a right to punish the young and adolescent lawbreakers. In the same manner, as the United Stares law allows to keep a person within the restrictions of solitude for a long time and the several other punishments of imprisonment regarded as inhuman and abusive behaviour around the world do exist in United States, even when the ICCPR prohibits a country from doing these acts of inhumanity to its own citizens (Brody Reed, accessed 03.10.2005). The United States showed its disregard of human rights to the world in the year 2004, when its troops barbarically and inhumanly treated Iraqi prisoners of wars in a manner that trembled the whole world and everyone from international community criticised and denunciated it. Even after such an act, in the same year, the United States as usual took the self-acclaimed stance of universal human rights and peace regulator by issuing the findings on Human Rights Practices for 2004. And as ever, the reports pinpointed and questioned the civil rights and peace conditions in hundreds of countries and nations around the world (including of course the Asian countries) but took no notice of the malpractices by United States itself in this regard (The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2004, accessed 03.10.2005). The developing Asian countries also deserve to get rid of the distress, scarcity and dominion that are imposed to them by the Western countries. The people whose civil rights and liberties have been under discussion are the Asian citizens and not the Westerners. Even when if someone complains, with reason, that the Western countries and its leaders don't interfere much on the issue of freedom and human rights faced by the people of other countries, it is evident that the Western authorities have always privileged and preferred the rights of their own people to the interests of people from Asian countries and to the coercion and compulsion induced by business community to maintain better conditions with the governmental authorities in Asia. But even if it is supposed that Western countries honestly endeavour to enhance and improve the human right practices in the Asian countries, the status of the rights of Asian people cannot be overlooked. Therefore, in this regard, the theme behind the concept of human rights has to be comprehended appropriately. In the very comprehendible terms, the approach of human rights strengthens on our unified humanity. These rights and liberties are not snatched away from the people in any country or any nation in the world. They are considered as privileged naturally to every human creature. These rights are varied from the rights and liberties bestowed upon people by law. The human right of a person not to be abused should be considered separately for every country to which this person belongs, regardless of what should be done universally according to any country or any nation. However, a country can fight for any person's legal freedom being harmed, but this should not reach the extent to deciding on what should be considered as any person's freedom and rights, regardless of his own conviction. This does not illuminate that everyone has a right to interfere in others' business to defend their considered rights and privileges. That can consequently become useless and unfruitful. No country can avoid the necessity to apply reasons in this regard of human practices. Apparent interference neither work within a specific country, nor is it useful internationally (Sen Amartya, 1994) CONCLUSION Therefore, anyone having the slightest touch of common sense and an understanding of international behaviour can object to the Western criticism on the human rights practices of Asian countries, on the ground that they themselves have been involved in malpractice and maltreatment of human rights within the boundaries of their own countries and even in the outside world. As discussed above, what the United States did to Iraqi prisoners of war in 2004, which is too recent to forget, made clear the United States' stance on the performance of human rights practices. Not the United States alone, the whole Western Community can be blamed to have remained silent on any misdeeds done by United States or any developed country with respect to human rights practices. Thus, the western countries are not at all justified in accusing and blaming the developing and emerging Asian countries and imposing their will upon them on the unreasonable and absurd basis of what they consider to be inhuman and unjust to the people universally. References Brody Reed May 1999, "America's Problem with Human Rights", , retrieved October 3, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1893-cn.htm By the Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, March 3, 2005," The Human Rights Record of the United States" http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303_175406.html Kim Dae-jung, December 31, 1994, "Constitutional Values in Turbulent Asia," Beijing: China Weil Robert July-August 1994," Of Human Rights and Wrongs: China and the United States", Monthly Review Foundation, Inc, Vol. 46 Sen Amartya, July 14-July 21, 1997, "Human Rights and Asian Values," The New Republic , retrieved October 3, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sen.htm Read More