A Strange
Attempt to Turn Back the Clock
on Human Rights
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- Do we so quickly have to
repeat history, the first time as a near tragedy, the second
as what would be farce, if it didn't emanate from such a
serious source? Last week, the Malaysian prime minister,
Mahathir Mohamad, speaking at the annual forum of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations, called for a review
and possible re-write of the United Nations Declaration on
Human Rights. The Declaration, he declared, "was formulated
by superpowers which did not understand the needs of poor
countries."
But he's had his attempt at a
re-write. It was a tragedy in the making, only averted by
the relentless efforts of the human rights lobby, not least
from the Asian non-governmental groups.
It's only a mere four years since
the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna fought
off an attempt by Malaysia, Singapore, China, Syria, Iran
and Iraq to drastically water down the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, approved in 1948.
The spectacular thing about the
Vienna conference was that at one time, early on, they
seemed to have as many as 50 nations on their side. But, one
by one, they all had second thoughts and by the end of the
conference there was an unanimous vote in favor of the new
text that was in many ways stronger than the original 1948
version. In 1948 the vote in favor was 57. This time it was
171, almost every country in the world.
If the final tally itself was
remarkable so too were some of the explanations given by
countries for their vote. The Russian foreign minister
observed that "when violations of individual rights and
freedom are involved Russia no longer accepts that the world
community does not have the right to interfere in another
country's sovereignty."
As for the so-called "Asian values"
lobby whose protagonists, such as Dr. Mahathir, contend are
very different from western values, the South Korean foreign
minister sounded a trumpet that put many doubters to flight.
"Lack of economic development," he said, "can never be used
as an excuse for any abuse of human rights. History shows
that special circumstances don't justify rights' abuses."
Here was the spokesman for a country Confucian to its
fingertips where family values and respect for authority
still run deep. Nevertheless, it is the country which
besides from going from rags to riches in a single
generation has made faster progress than any other country
in the world in achieving the full panoply of human rights,
as elaborated in the Universal Declaration.
There was one other good thing
about the Vienna conference. The mood of recalcitrance and
rebellion that the Asian opposition initially generated help
persuade the U.S. to finally change its long-standing
opposition to including as human rights key economic rights.
Until Vienna Washington had labelled them as "socialist" and
somehow, therefore, anathema to it. So into the final text,
alongside the right to free expression, democracy and habeas
corpus, went the right to employment, nutrition and
education.
Thus, the final document became not
just more widely accepted but also even more far-reaching
and demanding than the original one of 1948.
Neither Dr. Mahathir nor any of the
other Asian backwoodsmen, not least China, can, if they are
honest, any longer argue in their barefaced way that the
precepts of human rights are a western invention imposed
upon them. They are now accepted as universal values--as, by
the way, most people in Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Thailand, the Philippines and Sri
Lanka (all fully-fledged, open democracies) could easily
tell him.
The "Asian way" is not as uniquely
Asian or culturally driven as Mahathir contends. As Chris
Patten, the ex-governor of Hong Kong has put it, "Why is
anyone surprised as incomes grow, as the quality of life
improves, as levels of skill and education rise, people
start to expect to have more of a say in running their
community's affairs? To make this simple point does not
amount to cultural imperialism."
Unfortunately, the mind-set of
authoritarian leaders is probably not shifted by any of the
above arguments. For them the vulnerabilities and
uncertainties of office make them cling to as many tools of
government they can lay their hands on. The autocrats of
South Korea, the Philippines or Thailand were not shifted
except after an immense popular struggle. Neither were those
in Argentina and Mexico or Rhodesia and South Africa. But
the reason that autocrats do bite the dust in the end is
because a powerful segment of the educated middle class and
many leaders of the working class and peasant movements have
realized one simple but telling point: all the world's
richest countries are free, and nearly all the poorest are
not. If dictatorship made countries rich, then Africa and
Latin America, by now, would be economic heavyweights.
Economic freedom and political freedom reinforce each other.
This is why over the next 20 years India is probably bound
to overtake China and why, as countries such as South Korea
and Taiwan have prospered, they have become ever more
democratic and self-critical. If there was a time when
authoritarianism gave economic progress a fillip it has long
past. Now openness and accountability, besides being a basic
human instinct, have been shown to be an absolute
prerequisite to permanent progress. This is not the time,
Dr. Mahathir, to wind back the clock, as you yourself, in
your own country, I suspect, will before too very long find
out.
August 6, 1997,
LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|