Universality of Rights and in South East Asia As lengthily debated in Amstutz’s International Ethics, it is from a recent origin, thus it is a continuation of the thinkers in the years of enlightenment to evoke such revolutionary ideas. Even though there are a few emerging theories of human rights, it is hard to distinguish which one would be suitable to be implemented in the recent time.
One of the theory is the moral theory of human rights put the norm of unique society and states first for consideration as this theory relies heavily on the suitability of human rights according to geographical location.
Being raised in a fairly peaceful country and ever-revolving surrounding of Malaysia, I couldn’t help noticing how biased people have been in order to keep their view accounted for and couldn’t care less about other people. Debates has been raised on suitability issue to human rights in certain parts of the world, especially in Africa and South East Asia, the regions which still support traditional and cultural relativism over political agenda of international human rights.
So who are the people responsible behind the International Human Right Declaration of 1948? Why do they think we need a universal human law? What was the main incident that initiates the idea? After the World War II, the need to rebuilt nations was very demanding, thus efforts to make betterment in global economic system had been prompted alongside the war period, supporting nationalism and global depression. This was the emergence of the new world order and its visionary plan would ensure peace amongst national societies enjoying liberal and certain socialist rights, to be able to practice democracy and pluralistic government. The idea of a universal moral order was also supported by then elected U.S president in 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt in his speech “The Four Freedoms”:
In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world
founded upon fur essential human freedoms.
The first is free of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way –
everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – anywhere in the world.
The fourth is the freedom from fear - which, translated into world term, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and such a thorough fashion hat no nation will be in a position to commit and act of physical aggression against any neighbour – anywhere in the world.
With above short excerpt of his presidential speech, it was clear that one of the biggest powers in early 20th century was trying to make a change to the world, after the devastating World War II killed 72 million people, which 50 percent of the number was the death of civilians. The UN Charter meeting at San Francisco in 1945 have had these as the fundamental purpose of the United Nation organization:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and bring about by the peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjnustment and settlemtnet of international disputes or situation which might lead to a breach of the peace.
However important this treaty was, which eventually lead to the official United Nation Human Rights Declaration in 1948, this particular treaty was signed by the nations that favoured the benefit it will give to them. At this level, preambles were laid out in a very unspecific manner, keeping points that give benefit and missing out points that were equally vital to uphold the human rights moral values. At the aftermath of World War, it is understandable that the particular treaty was done to protect lives and dignity of nation, and also not long after, with certain reference to the Jews wipeout by the Nazis in East Europe, the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was ratified.
Finally with this, the UN Human Rights Declaration was being an official document for the world to follow. Somehow after so many years, the preamble of the Declaration needs to be revised to be fit into the current world society. When it was ratified in 1948, the document was clearly too ambiguous, leaving out details that need to be worked out by nations that would rely heavily on it.
Hence, universalism would be achieved, scholars like John Locke uphold the moral values in each one of us by his saying, “Anyone who would but consult their own Reason would conclude that behaviour threatening life, liberty or property was a danger against social protection was warranted…”
Meanwhile, this Declaration has totally alienated those who weren’t involved in 1948, meaning that the declaration wasn’t universal at all! Asian and African countries wish that their voices would be taken into account, wishing that the big powers would be more sensitive and caring. Drydyk has clearly stated in his paper, that moral understanding is not just satisfying the demanding parties by agreeing bluntly to their request but also to make justification to consider others’ entitlement to equal rights. He also states that we have to have strong moral principles and the knowledge of care, neglect and abuse to be able to open up to others. Yes, universalism and cultural relativism are abutting to each other, trying to win the biasness of the Human Rights Declaration.
The special thing about Asia and its members is that they represent specific culture and particularly religious in each country (Christianity in Philipines, Islam in Malaysia, Hinduism in Nepal and Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Thailand), thus making human rights perceived in a lot of perspective and opinion. Each country uphold different sets of beliefs, having their own cultural values and once in awhile making an uproar in the international scene when a tradition is considered “uncivilized”.
The thing about cultures would be complicated, it is said that in Asian values, extended family would be appreciated thus a society would strong as everyone takes care each member of the society. Don’t confuse this with someone being a nosy person, but it is norm to know what the neighbourhood is like and make sure everyone is happy. In order to make everyone happy, certain law or code has been put to practice and anyone who crosses the line would be considered an “outsider”. An “outsider” is simply someone who didn’t follow the norm or someone who likely to betray the traditional social order of a particular society. Not so long ago, a film about Mulan has been made in animated form, adhering to the actual legend of a girl of the same name in a traditional Chinese background, as this film has been made in the West, the view seemed confused and somehow mixed.
Let us not confuse ourselves with facts and legends. Just as a mere juxtaposition, it meant to be a cultural niche. Coming back to the Bangkok Declaration in April 1993, it was obvious that Asian countries priority was on economic development, rather than political and human rights.
In Tang’s essay compilation on human rights values in the Asia Pacific region, an article by Yash Ghai had openly concluded about the relativity of human rights in the West and its application in the Asia; before putting any judgment, he said to abandon the search for a set of features that explain the whole Asian context but to do such is impossible for every nation is unique and have their own traditional values, thus it is not fair even to generalize the idea of cultural relativism in this region. Therefore, the first statement was that human rights role in Asia is to fine-tune the administrative and judicial system and fortify rights and freedom that are largely controversial. This is to make sure that every citizen has the fair share of the political administration side although it would eventually proven disadvantage to certain communities, due to militarization and authoritarian power. The second point he made was about violations towards women and children that need attention and awareness. Also social conflicts, for those directly involved in social caste system, or ethnic biasness would caution us against over-romanticization of civil society. The third one is the social condition in Asia has directly denied the consciousness of human rights, especially due to labour violations and poverty.
Thus, above allegations are the results of insensitivity of the world towards social and cultural awareness.
Conclusion Firstly after a lengthy description and exasperation of making points in the essay above, and also heavily biased on cultural value, I still believe that everyone should be entitled to have their own basic four freedoms, as Roosevelt had mentioned in his 1941 speech. The basic four would be the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of practicing faith, the freedom for want and freedom from fear. This will ensure the universal right that everyone would be entitled to. However, it is not fair to apply new alien doctrine into my life, as it was always surrounded by cultural traits and norms. To make lament and honest comment is not an exclusive liberty; hence words must be chosen carefully to express what we feel inside.
Second, instead of the different cultures opening up to instill this universality, how about the big power organization opens up to new level of perspective of perceiving life, because in this way it is a two-way communication, not heavily biased on one side and later would have an outcry of injustice and cruelty. Each nation had its own national priority and goals, so its not fair to divert intentions to satisfy just a little fraction that wouldn’t give any impact of their set of goals.
Thirdly, religion has indeed played a big part in each country. Nevertheless, it is one of the reasons that made the world revolved as it is today. News about religious matters always sound compelling to us, especially of those about Islam, indirectly blaming the incident of 9/11 New York World Trade Center. Religion as an ideology has promoted the moderate way of living, but it is all back to its practitioner that gives such impression of a religion.
