Asian Perspectives On Human Rights

Claude Welch

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9780367003814
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429710322
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Studi regionali

Analyzes Asian perspectives on human rights in terms of cultural traditions, grassroots and regional organizations, and economic constraints on the expression of rights. The book asks: are human rights western in their inception, are they universal or do they differ by region and culture.

PART ONE
International Perspectives

1
Global Change and Human Rights: Asian Perspectives in Comparative Context

Claude E. Welch, Jr.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429033674-2

A half-century of change has left South and Southeast Asia—like much of the rest of the world—profoundly altered. Among the most important changes, analysts would readily agree, have been: (1) the shift over time from world war to cold war and then to localized and civil war, all under a shadow of unparalleled destructive power held by the United States and the Soviet Union; (2) the tripling of the number of states belonging to the United Nations, the overwhelming majority of them situated in formerly colonized parts of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Oceania; (3) the massive resurgence of world trade, fueled by the post-War vitality of the United States, recovery and economic integration in Western Europe, and the recent rise of Pacific Rim states, notably Japan and the “four tigers”; and (4) the instantaneous electronic links possible with modern mass communications.

The world of the early 1940s was tom by global conflict; now it is marked by a combination of relative peace among the militarily most powerful, and uneasy peace within and between many countries of the “Third World.” The map differs markedly, comparing 1940 and 1990. Western empires crumbled in waves after the war. Colonies from Aden to Zanzibar have gained their independence—and often new names and boundaries. The term “Third World” is itself a post-World War II term, coined to reflect the dramatic changes of decolonization. The United Nations shifted from a chummy, 50-member club dominated by countries bordering the Atlantic to a sprawling, 160-member conglomerate of micro-, mini- and maxi-states from all reaches of the globe. The links of international commerce now reach even more deeply into societies. Trade among nations, its spread interrupted in the early 1940s by Germany’s and Japan’s efforts at military conquest, grew exponentially after the war under American leadership; then, in the early 1970s, witnessed the resurgence of Japan’s and Germany’s economic might, now through peaceful means. Revolutions in communications technology influenced political change at an increasing pace, as dramatically shown in 1989. TV minicameras, portable telephones, VCRs, fax machines and communications satellites spread news around the world in milliseconds of dictatorships under assault. Tanks in Tiananmen Square briefly halted by a lone man; thousands of Germans chipping away at the Berlin Wall or marching for democracy in candle-lit silence; the bloodied corpse of a slain dictator: all these flashed across television screens almost instantaneously. Truly then, basic transformations have occurred within this half-century.

The tumultuous events of 1989 owed much to a fifth revolution in global politics, as profound as the changes already noted. This revolution involves growing awareness and practice of human rights. International peace, decolonization, global commerce, and the surge of democratization bear witness to what Chandra Muzaffar, in a later chapter, calls “human rights consciousness.” A rapidly evolving system of international human rights law had clearly emerged by the early 1990s. Its presence necessitates rethinking of our basic conceptions of international relations.

International politics in the 1940s—and for decades thereafter—was almost totally dominated by “realist” views. United States foreign policy was marked by “containment,” military alliances, and belief in the “immorality” of “neutralism.” American concerns focused on East-West conflict, considering differences between the industrialized North and the decolonized, agricultural South as peripheral to “real” issues. American foreign policy retreated from immediate post-World War II enthusiasm for human rights on the global level to Cold War-inspired confrontation and a narrow focus on coercive might. As Hans Morgenthau, the most influential theorist of “power politics,” thundered, “the purpose of [American] foreign policy is not to bring … happiness to the rest of the world but to take care of the life, liberty and happiness of the American people.”¹

The “realist” perspective was and remains a classic, state-centered view. The world was composed of independent countries with different levels of coercive and economic strength. They exercised almost unchallengeable powers within their boundaries. In the absence of agreement by the Security Council, action by the United Nations would be limited to minor issues, excluding matters that were (in the words of the UN Charter) “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”—especially if that state were one of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council. The sovereign state was the model and the dominant reality of global politics.

By the mid-1970s, however, cracks had started to appear in the monolith of “domestic jurisdiction.” The theoretically untrammeled powers of governments within their own frontiers was being eroded. Some of the erosion resulted from improved global communications, some from growing economic independence, some from the transfer of formal political control from the capitals of far-flung empires, and some from reining in the incredible destructive power of modern weapons, as noted earlier. Promotion and protection of human rights was a further contributor. I do not intend to argue that international human rights consciousness has supplanted the perspectives of Realpolitik. Nevertheless, impressive changes in patterns of world politics have occurred through this combination of factors, and notably through the growing prominence of international human rights.

Analysts of international human rights law customarily cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as its most important document. Drafted in the immediate aftermath of World War II and adopted without negative vote by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, the UDHR was proclaimed “as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations….” In a preamble asserting that “All human beings are bom free and equal in dignity and rights…. [and are entitled to these rights] without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,” the UDHR then went on, in 30 succinct articles, to list a series of rights.

The UDHR was followed by more detailed documents. Numerous other international declarations (which are not legally binding), international conventions (which are legally binding on those states ratifying them, unless specific reservations are entered) and regional agreements bearing on human rights have been drafted and adopted in the 40-plus years since the Universal Declaration was adopted. Examples include the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In short, a significant body of international human rights law has developed within a relatively brief period. In political and legal terms, globally accepted definitions of human rights can be said to exist.

The presence of documents does not, of course, mean that human rights are effectively protected within individual societies. Enforcement remains uncertain. The international community and many national governments lack the resolve and resources to rectify violations of human rights in much, and perhaps most, of the world. For example, “untouchable” laborers in India, or teen-age girls in special export zones in Bangladesh, suffer daily indignities. Because they were born into societies riven by caste or gender differentiations, these men and women are far from equal with other citizens of their states. Legal stipulations at the international level have not been translated into meaningful protection at the local level.

Marked contrasts exist among regions of the world with respect to awareness, practice and protection of human rights. In Western Europe, supranational protection offered through the European Convention on Human Rights “is the most effective that has yet been introduced anywhere in the world.”² In the Western hemisphere, the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights offer opportunities for individuals to utilize regional complaint mechanisms when human rights are abridged. Increasing numbers of citizens are availing themselves of this opportunity.³ In Africa, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights entered into force in 1986. Despite problems in the wording of the Charter,⁴ the African Commission established by it started to work in the late 1980s. On three continents, thus, significant steps have been taken in drafting, approving and implementing legally-binding texts on human rights.

Far less progress in defining and protecting human rights through supranational steps has been made in Asia. Indeed, what progress has occurred has been largely the result of conferences organized by nongovernmental organizations, rather than in elaboration of a charter. The reasons can be sought, in large measure, in the cultural diversity of Asia as a whole. As Hiroko Yamane observed, “Asia is a conglomeration of countries with radically different social structures, and diverse religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions; their political ideologies, legal systems, and degrees of economic development vary greatly; and, above all, there is no shared historical past even from the times of colonialism.”⁵ The rate of technological and political change has outpaced the rate of cultural change; the need for protection of human rights has increased, but the readiness of governments to bind themselves remains limited.

That Asia appears to lag behind other continents in the delineation and protection of human rights is unfortunate. Six of the world’s nine most populous states are Asian: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In the pages that follow, four of them receive closer scrutiny. Although recent events in China and Taiwan (in one, the repression of workers and students pressing for democracy; in the other, the lifting of martial law and relatively open elections) merit close attention, Asian Perspectives on Human Rights does not examine these. In our judgment, the size and complexity of Asia make separate treatments of its regions appropriate. The states of East Asia—China, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan—are characterized by a Confucian heritage, discussed in other books.⁶ The Confucian heritage has (with the possible exception of Vietnam) little direct impact in South and Southeast Asia; by contrast, the effects of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam can be readily traced there. Hence, Asian Perspectives on Human Rights focuses on South and Southeast Asia, rather than the entire continent.

The two chapters in Part One, of which this is the first, start from a global point of view. Human rights in South and Southeast Asia can be assessed in terms of their international definitions. These definitions are themselves shaped by those who participate, when they participate, and what they believe. The political culture of Western parliamentary democracies dominated the United Nations in its early years, when the UDHR was drafted and approved. For example, Article 17 granted to all the right to own property—a right central to the Western liberal political tradition. Subsequent wrangling over this right meant the International Conventions did not mention property (although the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights did so). Post-UDHR documents have expressed new trends in international human rights. For example, the African Charter, drafted in 1981, put major stress on duties of social solidarity, as a complement to civil and political rights. Other examples could be provided, but the point is obvious: the “common standard of achievement,” in being translated into legal language, must take account of cultural perspectives. In what ways, then, have cultural factors influenced the definition of human rights in South and Southeast Asia?

Human rights scholars and activists have pressed for many years for a “made-in-Asia” regional agreement, with limited response from their governments. The vigor and long history of the European system for protecting human rights, the growing significance of the Inter-American system, and the recent initiation of the African system of human rights, throw a spotlight on the gap in Asia. The seeming silence does not betoken a lack of effort, however. As Virginia Leary shows in the following chapter, promise exists for the eventual development of a regional (continent-wide) or series of sub-regional systems to promote and protect human rights. Asia’s diversity and complexity complicate the task: the Babel of languages, the richness of its many religious heritages, Asia’s ethnic fragmentation, the immense contrasts in levels of economic development, and its variety of governments (from highly authoritarian, military-dominated systems to relatively open, civilian-controlled systems) strike all observers of the continent. Widespread economic deprivations in South and Southeast Asia mean impoverishment and lack of empowerment of victimized groups. Should we anticipate a unique “Asian” approach to human rights? “Social justice” may emerge as a hallmark, in keeping with Asian traditions of group solidarity.

The chapters of Part Two take us inside several societies of South and Southeast Asia. The three great religions of the region strongly influence perceptions of human rights.

Americans tend to view Islam as a religion largely confined to the Middle East. Untrue! The majority of the world’s Muslims live in South and Southeast Asia-, the most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Abdullahi A. An-Na’im examines Islamic beliefs from his dual perspectives as a Muslim and as a professor of international law. Conflict exists between universal and culturally relative or particularist points of view. This conflict cannot be resolved by imposition of a single set of standards. Human rights requir...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Part One International Perspectives
• Part Two Asian Cultural Traditions and Human Rights
• Part Three Group Conflict and Human Rights
• Part Four For Further Research
• About the Editors and Contributors
• Index