[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
THE NATION: ASIAN VALUES: Rethinki
- Subject: THE NATION: ASIAN VALUES: Rethinki
- From: suriya@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 07:17:00
Editorial & Opinion
ASIAN VALUES:
Rethinking human rights
education
More needs to be done if the promotion of
human rights is to become part of the
mainstream and not remain on the fringe.
WHY is it that many of the governments of
Asian countries do not show much
enthusiasm when the topic of human rights
is brought up for discussion? The present
situation in most of these countries
concerning the monitoring of human rights
violations is one where non-governmental
organisations have an adversarial
relationship with governments. It has almost
reached the point where this adversarial
relationship is accepted as normal.
One indication of this is that instead of
being puzzled, the lack of enthusiasm for
human rights by these governments is
taken as a given. This situation does not
help the long-term alleviation of the
suffering resulting from such violations, and
must be addressed. The promotion of
human rights must become part of the
mainstream, and not remain on the fringe.
When children prepare their rooms for
inspection by their parents, clothes, toys
and books are often placed under the bed
or hidden from view in some other manner.
If our governments do not become
enthusiastic about the respect for human
rights, violations will continue to be ''swept
under the rug'', out of view, and instead of
the welfare of the people being the
supreme concern, ''passing'' the monitoring
checks will become the objective of the
different agencies involved.
Though this is, of course, better than some
of the terrible situations existing in certain
countries today, it should not be the
long-term objective. Besides being a step
towards a permanent positive attitude to
human rights, solving this problem of a
''lack of enthusiasm'' might lead towards a
softening of the hardline stances of some of
our governments as well.
To find a solution to this problem we need
first to discover the cause of this state of
affairs. So why are our governments not
enthusiastic about the protection of human
rights? Some immediate answers that
come to mind are: the people in power in
these various governments are greedy, or
are power hungry, or are insensitive to the
suffering of others, or have a warped idea
of ''right'' and ''wrong''.
Though there certainly are such people in
our government, at a deeper level this is not
the fundamental reason behind the lack of
enthusiasm we are talking about. After all,
the idea of government (theoretically) is to
find a way for society to live in peace and
harmony, and so the concern for human
rights -- that people are treated in a way
which promotes a peaceful and harmonious
society -- should be at the very centre of
what is important to governments.
Not that there are easy answers acceptable
to everyone, but at least there should be an
agreement on the importance of searching
for these answers. Unless, of course, these
governments do not associate the search
for these answers with the idea of human
rights. This is exactly what seems to be the
real reasons behind the current reluctance
to wholeheartedly embrace human rights.
Most of the governments of Asia do not see
any connection between the idea of human
rights and the search for a way to live in
peace and harmony. Questions raised
about violations of human rights thus are
perceived to be questions alien to the basic
questions these societies are trying to
answer.
One way to become clearer as to why there
is this perceived difference is to see that
the search for the answers to how we
should treat each other is kept alive; this
means debate and discussion (in forms
corresponding to the culture in which they
occur) about concrete steps to be taken. An
idea that is alive for a society is an idea
which needs the members of that society to
discuss the idea's concrete manifestations.
On the other side, the idea of human rights
is treated as a dead idea, namely, an idea
with no normative questions which need
new answers. Steps to be taken in
connection with this idea are presented in
concrete. What this creates is a feeling that
the idea of human rights is someone else's
idea, in particular an idea belonging to the
West, since those who introduce ideas are
often understood to be the owners of the
ideas introduced. And it is very difficult to
become committed to an imposed idea.
But why is the idea of human rights
perceived this way? To answer this we
must look at how this idea is presented in
many of our countries. The proper starting
point, I think, is the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, and other similar
conventions. Being introduced to the idea
of human rights through these declarations
and covenants, which is the usual way,
immediately creates two problems.
First, these documents talk about not only
how people should be treated but also why
they should be treated that way. In this
sense the documents mix together the
ethics of human rights with the metaphysics
of human rights, and it is the metaphysics
that are usually the cause of the sense of
strangeness that results. A very specific
explanation as to why people should be
treated as stated is affirmed, rather than
advancing the general idea that there are
ways that people should treat each other
which stem from something beyond
''individual preferences towards such
treatments''.
Secondly, the various articles in these
documents are usually presented as
something fixed in stone, to be followed
and not thought about, often times justified
by citing ratification by numerous countries,
leaving out the historical development of
these conventions and how they came to
be. If more time is given to discussing the
historical development, it would be clear
that the idea of human rights can no more
be considered a Western concept than an
Asian concept. The debate over human
rights and Asian values would then be
carried out in a more enlightened manner.
What we forget is that the idea of human
rights is much greater than any particular
concrete understanding we have of this
idea at any point in time and space. The
idea of human rights is about a dream
which all humanity has had throughout time
about being able to live together in peace
in a just society, and the search for
concrete steps which will take us to the
fulfilment of his dream.
The universality of human rights is the
universality of this yearning, which stems
from our common humanity, rather than the
universality of our expression of this
yearning at any particular time. The
declarations in humanity's pursuit of this
dream, as solidarity pacts between fellow
searchers, not as the final destination which
then cuts off all those who come after from
participating in this search.
If it is accepted that these are the main
causes of our governments' lack of
enthusiasm for the idea of human rights,
what could be some solutions to the
problem?
In general terms, what needs to be done is
to create a sense of ownership where the
idea of human rights is concerned. This
ought to be one of the primary goals of the
decade of human rights education that we
are presently in the middle of. Education is
the lighting of fires in the mind rather than
the filling of vessels.
What our governments and our societies
need to be presented with are questions,
not just answers. But like all learning, we
also build upon familiarity with previous
answers. Not only is this practical in the
sense that it saves time, but it also enables
us to share the wisdom of those who have
come before us.
What does this mean in the case of human
rights education? It does not mean
memorising the different articles in the
various documents, nor does it mean
dismissing all previous understanding of
human rights as something tainted with
Western values. What it does mean is
presenting the familiar declarations and
covenants as documents to be discussed
and wrestled with.
Though this process might seem risky in
that it might provide an excuse for those
who would just as soon ignore these
various existing declarations, out of this
struggle will come the sense of ownership
that is needed to keep the idea of human
rights alive and sustainable in our societies.
Mark Tamthai is lecturer at the department
of philosophy, Chulalongkorn University.