Can Human Rights Be Universal - Essay Example

CAN HUMAN RIGHTS BE UNIVERSAL The relatively new yet strong agreement in the West that human rights can actually be universal or rather they are universal is being hotly contested by other nations of the world especially the Asian countries. This consensus raises more questions than it answers. In our world with cultures and societies as diverse as they can be, and with histories, ethnicities and traditions poles apart, could we even hope to call anything universal especially something as contentious as human rights On the one hand we have countries like the United States and France which are basically consumption oriented societies, where goods are abundant and economies work on how much each person spends. And on the other, we have poor countries like India and Bangladesh where people do not even have enough to consume. How can these two different types of societies develop similar definitions of human rights or implement similar human right laws Human rights for someone in India may be having enough to eat and a place to keep oneself warm, while it has an entirely different meaning for someone in the United States. But human rights can and should be universal in nature as we shall discover from our discussion in this paper. Cultures were integrated into human right declaration in 1993 when United Nations adopted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action at the World Conference on Human Rights and it was stated that: All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. (United Nations 1993) But West may not be trying to integrate cultures into human rights definition for the sake of stamping its superiority but the main aim was to counter human rights violation in traditionalist Asian societies. The reality of an interdependent world has only recently dawned upon us and this has brought cultures and societies closer accentuating their differences. But these differences and the resulting furor over the concept of human rights being universal should not undermine the idea that world is interdependent and more closely linked than we previously assumed. The Declaration's provision of basic civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights for "all members of the human family" has helped the world understand that we need "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations."(UN, 1948) The fact that United Nations chose to develop a new definition of human rights which it believes can be universally applies show its faith in human beings' "substantial capacity for moral understanding and progress." (Nickel: p. 41) The concept of human rights is not something new and can be traced back to philosophies of antiquity but it was in the last few centuries that they began taking their present form. However the inclusion of universalism in human rights is one concept which is not even a few decades old. Many events, declarations and globalization later we can summarize fundamental tenets of human rights law as follows: Every human being has certain rights that are inherent. Such rights can be enumerated or deduced; they are not earned or acquired but inhere in all people by virtue of their humanity alone. Every human being's basic rights are indefeasible or inalienable--that is, such rights can never be annulled or denied by outside parties or even by the affected individuals themselves. Conflicts between different rights must be resolved in accordance with just and impartial laws and procedures. (Sieghart, p.8) Human rights proponents offer some fair definitions of human rights which are however not always comprehensive. This accentuates the difference in attitude people have towards the concept of human rights. Philosophers have mostly focused on individual freedom, property rights and claims to state sovereignty in their definitions- sometimes leaving out other important rights such as that of equality. John Rawls can be accused of having made that error when he included in his list of human rights only the following: "the right to life (to the means of subsistence and security); to liberty (to freedom from slavery, serfdom, and forced occupation, and to a sufficient measure of liberty of conscience to ensure freedom of religion and thought); to property (personal property); and to formal equality as pressed by the rules of natural justice (that is, that similar cases be treated similarly)" (Rawls 1999, 65) auspiciously leaving out equality and democracy. However he was among the first few people to come up with the concept of universal human rights though at that time, his concept appeared ambiguous. He said that human rights: "specify limits to a regime's internal autonomy" and that "their fulfillment is sufficient to exclude justified and forceful intervention by other peoples, for example, by diplomatic and economic sanctions, or in grave cases by military force" (Rawls 1999, 79-80). Immanuel Kant on the other hand was more concerned about morality and this is what forms his basis of human rights. The basic treatise of his work is based on the notion that every man and woman must treat his/her fellow beings as moral persons and should not use them to meet their ends. He maintained that "we ought to realize our humanity by developing our talents and powers, our rational capacities. We ought to acknowledge that others are sources of value by treating their chosen ends as good, and pursuing their happiness as they see it." (Kant Political Writings, p.223) Kant's moral philosophy is the foundation on which his idea of human rights rests. He firmly believed that man was an autonomous agent who could choose his behavior and it was thus up to him to extend respect to his fellow beings and treat them with moral uprightness. Commenting of Kant's law of humanity, Beiner and Booth write: [s]tanding at the center of Kant's political thought is the notion that persons are free in what he terms the "positive" sense, free because they are or are capable of being the legislators of the maxims of their own conduct. (Kant and Political Philosophy, p.2) Kant's law of humanity or his moral philosophy can thus be summarized as containing the following: (1) Universality is the form of the moral law. (2) Humanity as an end in itself, i.e. man's rational nature, is the material of the law. (3) Autonomous legislation is the way to enact moral law and in the process to a complete determination of ends. (Kant Political Writings p.122) Kant's concept of human rights thus comes from the notion that man's "highest possible expression . . . [is] based on the concepts of human right". He sees human rights in the context of international rights which he defines as "not only the relationship between one state and another [state] within a larger whole, but also the relationship between individual persons in one state and individuals in the other [state] or between such individuals and the other state as a whole". (Kant Political Writings, p.165) Again, we shall see that just like Rawls, Kant also extended the idea of universalism in human rights. He said that since people have worked together to form a universal community, we have come closer and "it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere, the idea of a cosmopolitan right is therefore not fantastic and overestimated; it is a necessary complement to the unwritten code of political and international right, transforming it into a universal right of humanity". (Kant Political Writings, pp.107-8) Similarly Nietzsche also agreed on developing a universally accepted definition of human rights believing that: "When the exceptional human being treats the mediocre more tenderly than himself and his peers, this is not mere politeness of the heart-it is simply his duty". (The Portable Nietzsche, p.647) However while the concept of universal human rights is gaining popularity, it had not always been so- not even within the United States. Nearly fifty years ago that American Anthropological Association emphatically rejected "the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole." (Preis) Though Western thinkers may no longer accept the contention "that other people's truths are contained in their own classifications and understanding," and that no one culture offers a "self-evidently privileged standard of verity", Asian leaders still have a long way to go before they can accept that "relativism in no way precludes the possibility of cross-cultural universals discovered through empirical research." (Renteln, p. 540) Richard Beis maintains that there are many common moral grounds on which universal human rights could be based including "the prohibition of murder or maiming without justification; economic justice; reciprocity and restitution; provision for the poor; the right to own property; and priority for immaterial goods [such as freedom]." (Puchala, 1995) But Asian leaders with their traditionalist and basically feudalistic thinking are still not interested in universalism. Leaders like Dr. Mahathir, ex-President Suharto and some other Asian central figures still claim that human rights were "culturally relative" and had rejected the universality of human rights on the grounds that it was basically a Western imposition. While the leaders rejected it, the people in these countries have more than willingly accepted the notion. One Malaysian law lecturer, Rohimi Hj. Shapiee, for example, voiced the opinion of people on this issue saying: Human rights have always been an important issue on the Western agenda. Through their supremacy in the international relations, it has been used as a tool in checking the behaviour of the weaker nations" (1994:vii). But Shapiee also understands the "Asian values" argument when he says: "The overall modern concept of human rights has been insisted on the non-western societies, even though, fundamentally, it was in conflict with the cultures and religions of those societies"(ibid.). Shapiee maintains that China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore have refused to accept universality of human rights which is one reason they have often come under severe criticism for their human right practices and violations. China, Singapore and Malaysia argue in their defense saying that since their states are based on 'Asian values', the concept of universal human rights is unacceptable since it is based on fundamental values of liberal democracy (Tatsuo: 1999:28). But on closer study it appears that Asian values really do not offer a concrete argument against universality of human rights. Instead as Japanese scholar Inoue Tatsuo points out Asian values are nothing but "a rebuttal to the charges brought against Asia (sic) by Western human rights diplomacy" (ibid.: 30). Tatsuo has offered impressive analysis of Asian values discourse and frames a relevant question in this regard when he asks: "Is it [the Asian way] anything more than the ruling establishment's attempt to perpetuate its power by taking advantage of people's resentment against the Western world" (1999: 29) Tatsuo has closely studied history and structure of contemporary Asian societies to conclude that Asian values rhetoric is grounded in "traditionalists'" mindset of people. Claiming that such thinking is distorted, he further adds: "My purpose is to undermine the appeal of the Asian values discourse by demonstrating that its anti-West-centric stance is specious. Ironically enough, this discourse abuses Western normative language and is dominated by a West-centric perception, or misperception, of Asia" (ibid.: 30). From this discussion, we can safely conclude that human rights can and should be universal in nature. They must apply equally to all nations and societies because regardless of the religion one follows or the cultural traditions one nation practices, there is no denying the fact that basic human rights are preached by ever faith and culture. Thus we can use Devan Nair's words to conclude that: History bears irrefutable witness to the self-evident truth that no harmony is possible between the individual and society where either seeks aggrandizement at the expense of the other. The mutual need for each other is frustrated if one seeks to devour the other. Invariably, the end result is material and spiritual impoverishment, stagnation and death The equation is infallible, whether the nation concerned is eastern or western (Quoted Seow, 1994: xiii) BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Alison Dundes Renteln, "The Unanswered Challenge of Relativism and the Consequences for Human Rights," Human Rights Quarterly, 7.4, pp. 514-40. 2. Ann-Belinda S. Preis, "Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique," Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 286-315. 3. Beiner, Ronald and William James Booth, eds. Kant and Political Philosophy: The Contemporary Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993 4. Donald J. Puchala, "The Ethics of Globalism," The 1995 John W. Holmes Memorial Lecture: Reports and Papers, No. 3 (Academic Council on the United Nations System, 1995). 5. James W. Nickel, Making Sense of Human Rights: Philosophical Reflections on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), p. 41. 6. Kant, Immanuel. Political Writings. Edited by Hans Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 7. P. Sieghart, The International Law of Human Rights (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 8 8. Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 9. Seow, Francis T. "To Catch a Tartar: a Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew's Prison", Yale University South East Asia Studies, New Haven, Connecticut, 1994. 10. Shapiee, Rohimi Hj. "Third Generation Human Rights: Rights of the Third World -- conception and policy considerations", Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1994. 11. Tatsuo, Inoue Liberal Democracy and Asian Orientalism in Bauer and Bell, "The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights" 1999. 12. United Nations. 1993. Vienna Declaration on Human Rights. UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, paragraph 5. 13. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Read More