Individual supreme? Or country and community come first?

Extracts from Asiaweek Oct 31, 1997

….. human rights violations persist in Asia. Abuse of power, detention without trial, extrajudicial killings, forced labor and the persecution of minorities and dissidents continue to haunt the region. Still, there is no doubt that, overall, the current situation marks a significant improvement over what had gone on before. As democratic ideals spread and newly prosperous Asians become less tolerant of past excesses, egregious instances of human rights abuses are increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule. Many dictatorial regimes have given way to more open systems, while some of the extant authoritarian governments have shown signs of relaxing their grip.

There has also been a parallel trend. With greater wealth has come greater confidence and assertiveness -- and the region's leaders have become more outspoken in their criticism of what they view as the West's attempt to impose its human rights values on Asia. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad caused a stir recently when he called for a review of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an all-encompassing document that calls for an individual's right to everything from free expression and movement to meaningful education and work. It's hard to fault, except that it articulates an ideal -- and so probably un-achievable -- world.

But the Declaration, Mahathir said, was "formulated by the superpowers, which did not understand the needs of poor countries" -- hence, it may not be applicable to this part of the world. Mahathir echoed what his government's chief economic adviser, Daim Zainuddin, had said earlier: that the Declaration was drafted at a time when there were only about 56 countries in the UN, against some 185 today.

Mahathir's comments predictably drew criticism -- and not just from the U.S. and Europe either. For many Asian dissidents and human rights activists, talk of a different set of values for the region is simply a convenient veil for repressive regimes to hide behind. "The Asian value cliché is a poor rearguard defense rhetoric regurgitated by our politicians when our human rights record is being examined internationally," charges Hishamuddin Rais, a Malaysian film-maker who spent 20 years in exile for participating in a hunger strike.

"This whole debate on Asian human rights values is a red herring drawn up by authoritarian Asian leaders," says Ravi Nair, executive director of New Delhi-based South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre. "Anyone who says that human rights is a Western concept is ignorant of Asian mythology, folklore and history." Nair points out that India's Mauryan emperor Ashoka outlawed torture, while 12th-century Sri Lankan and Nepalese rulers abolished capital punishment because it was contrary to Buddhist and Hindu teachings.

Mahathir does have his supporters of course. Chinese Premier Li Peng lauded Mahathir's proposition as "reasonable, far-reaching and courageous." Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas maintained that calling for a review did not necessarily equate to a rejection of the Declaration's principles. "What we in Asia have argued is not a separate Asian set of human rights," he said. "Neither have we proposed a so-called cultural relativism." Yet that is precisely what Chinese President Jiang Zemin is suggesting. In an interview with The Washington Post before his landmark visit to the US, where human rights would be on the agenda, he said: "Democracy and human rights are relative concepts and not absolute."

Plainly, there are no slick definitions or easy answers. What Asian leaders like the above do agree about is that Asia has more pressing concerns than political freedom and civil liberties. Beijing has always maintained that the foremost human right is the right to subsistence -- or, as a government document published earlier this year put it, "feeding and clothing its 1.2 billion people." On a similar note, Alatas said: "We are not saying political and civil rights are not important, only economic, social and cultural rights. We say give them equal status."

For proponents of this view, there was a boost of sorts recently from the InterAction Council, composed of such international notables as former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Last month the group unveiled the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Obligations. Essentially, it says responsibilities go hand in hand with freedoms, and it places a greater stress on the community. "We believe this is necessary to complement the 1948 Declaration," explains former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser, who heads the council. "If a person or a government seeks to maximise freedom but does it at the expense of others, a large number of people may suffer."

In many parts of the region, though, people's suffering is derived not from too much freedom but too little….

It's probably near-impossible to do enough to protect the rights of the individual. And even if it is, Asia certainly has not reached that point. The arbitrary killing of one's son strikes every human being the same way. As one Beijing university professor says: "Don't we feel anguish when we see a friend or relative being arrested for simply expressing his opinions? Don't we feel pain and bleed when we are tortured or beaten?" And no amount of talk about economic and community rights is going to change that.