15 Asian values critique of human rights

Dr. Y S R Murthy

Table of Contents

1. Learning Outcomes

2. Introduction

3. Universality of Human Rights

4. Main Proponents of Asian Values

5. Main arguments of Asian Values

6. Loopholes in the Asian Value Arguments

7. A quest for Reconciliation of Asian Values with Human Rights

8. Summary

9. Further Reading

1. Learning Outcomes

• To understand the origin and universality of human rights.
• To understand the emergence and development of Asian Values.
• To understand the Asian Value critique to the universality of human rights.
• To inquire about the various possibilities of reconciliation between Asian Values and the universality of human rights.

2. Introduction

After the end of World War-II, the UN Charter was adopted and it was followed by the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and other important Conventions relating to human rights. However during the cold war era, the progress of human rights was affected by different positions taken by powerful countries. On the one hand, the United States of America and other powerful countries in the West prioritized civil and political rights, while the former Soviet Union argued in favour of economic, social and cultural rights. There are some countries which held that human rights are relative to culture. The Asian Values critique is one strand of cultural relativism argument against the universality of human rights, which we will study in this chapter.

3. Universality of Human Rights

The United Nations Charter was adopted in 1945. In its Preamble, there is a clear reference to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 1 of the UN Charter which deals with the aims of United Nations also lists protection of human rights as an important objective. All countries of the world have accepted it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 has also attained such a status that it is binding on all countries of the world. Today, there is no country of the world which has not signed at least single core human rights treaty. If one looks at the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, one finds that virtually all countries of the world barring a few exceptions have signed and ratified them. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have been signed by more than two thirds of the world’s countries.

4. Main Proponents of Asian Values:

4.1. Singapore

In 1990s, the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, launched this concept to “justify Singapore’s paternalistic and illiberal system of government”.1 He was an ardent advocate of illiberal democracy and called for a strong State for the necessity of taking “strong measures to achieve economic growth, and routinely bolstered his case with references to the multitude of failed democracies in post-war Asia, Africa, and republics in the former Soviet Union…”.2 He also advocated for ‘Confucian Values’, by showing the importance of Confucian ethics of education, thrift and a disciplined work ethics as essential postulates for economic growth.3 He was of the view that political rights correlate negatively with economic growth.

“The Singapore diplomat, Kishore Mahbubani argued that Asian values included “attachment to family as institution, deference to societal interests, thrift, conservatism in social life, respect for authority4”. In addition to the above list, some argue that Asian countries favour consensus over confrontation and accord a higher place for education. Referring to the prevention of genocide and torture, Singapore argued that there are a very few rights in the list of universal human rights and observed that many of the remaining internationally recognized human rights reflected Western imperialism.

4.2. Malaysia

Further, Malaysian Prime Ministers Mahathir Mohamad also advocated for Asian Values for propelling Asia’s growth. He saw the Asian crisis of economic growth as an opportunity to reassert Asian values and unity.6 He blamed the capitalism of the West for hampering the Asian economic growth, but he held that the solution was in Asian Values and collaboration.7 In 1996, he observed that “Asian values are universal values. European values are European values.” This short quote captures the then sentiment.

4.3. South Korea

The Korean culture is rooted in Chinese Confucian tradition and considered as a part of East – Asian culture. The experience of family centered Confucian tradition led Korea to accord a higher place to family values. South Korea broadly shares Asian Values as the human rights culture was not a part of pre-modern Korean legal culture and more stress was given on the compliance of duty as per one’s socio-political hierarchy.

4.4. China

In China, the theories of rights are developed on Confucian ethics. In China, scholars have been focusing upon the fulfilment of substantive rights to food, clothing, and accommodation and alike, and they opposed the individual rights in favour of community rights. China believed in economic prosperity and paid little attention to protect fundamental freedoms.9 And the same has been asserted by the 1995 Chinese White Paper declaring the conception and State policy on human rights. “That it is necessary for Asian people to forgo, or at least tolerate the temporary suspension of Civil and Political Rights in order to ensure economic and social development. Political and civil rights are not primary concerns of those who are destitute. As the Chinese White Paper on Human Rights puts it, “to eat their fill and dress warmly were the fundamental demands of the Chinese people who had long suffered cold and hunger”.

The circumstances that led to the emergence and institutionalization of human rights in Western Europe and North America do not exist in Asia. The Chinese White paper observed, “owing to tremendous differences in historical background, social system, cultural tradition and economic development, countries differ in their understanding and practice of human rights.” One party system is necessary to maintain order, prosperity and stability.

5. Main arguments of Asian Values

The conception of Asian Values question the universality of human rights. It advocates the negation of individual freedom for the sake of community welfare. In this system, the government itself create the visible intervention for the greater good of the society and the individuality of human being, their rights and liberty is made subject to the governmental mandate of social and economic prosperity of the nation. The advocates of Asian Values consider huge cultural differences between east and west, and reject the consideration of human rights compliance in order to pursue political and economic motives, even at the cost of human rights violations. Order and prosperity are incompatible with a high degree of personal freedom Asian Values argument is a strand of cultural relativism. Many cultural relativist critiques say that human rights is a western construct in which individual is prioritized too much over family, community or society. In addition, rights are prioritized over duties. They argue that human rights is a manifestation of a new imperialism that links into globalization. Very often the cultural relativist argument is employed vociferously by ruling elites who seek to protect and preserve their own power and privileges. The debate on Asian values has been used by ruling regimes to cover up their human rights violations and abuses. The proponents of Asian values argue that development requires significante conomic growth and social stability. Such growth and stability often require limiting civil and political rights. Therefore, development often requires the limitation of civil liberties.

Basically the conception of Asian Values was mainly developed in response to the rejection of universality of human rights by the several East-Asian countries. Further Asian Values were used to justify the governments’ restrictions upon the press and the media in China, Malaysia and Singapore.10 The main argument advanced for such restriction was to protect the ignorant children from the harmful material, to maintain internal peace and stability and the alike.11 The prevalent justification for prioritizing social and economic rights in Asia, particularly in Singapore and China, is the `Soft Authoritarian’ view of governance. This argument has many aspects in common with the view that the prevalence of civil and political rights is a Euro centric invention and incompatible non- Western values.

These counties did not want to surrender themselves to the ideological domination of the West.12 In short this conception of Asian Values asserts four claims:

• “First, human rights are not universal and neither can they be globalized. They emerge differently according to the context of particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions.
• Second, Asian societies are not centered on the individual but on the family. The nation is like a big family. It supposedly comes naturally for Asians to let the combined interests of the family and the nation go before the interests of each individual.
• Third, Asian societies rank social and economic rights over individual’s political rights.
• Finally, the right of a nation to self-determination includes a government’s domestic jurisdiction over human rights. This implies that other nations should not interfere with the internal affairs of a State, including its human rights policy.”

6. Loopholes in the Asian Value Arguments

The proponents of Asian Values have been using Confucian argument to benefit their “authoritarian position”.14 There is no doubt in holding that the Confucianism does not advocate for human rights but “its basic tents are compatible with human rights principles.15 Further several Confucian ethics-frugality, dedication to work and competitiveness, and alike- are universal in nature and can be found in Western societies as well,16 and hence cannot be limited only to Asian Values. Further it is time to appreciate the fact that Asian Values are not fully embraced by the whole of Asia, instead they are severely criticised by Dalai Lama, Lee Teng Hui, Aung San Suu Kyi and Abdurrahman Wahid.17 Even former Malaysia’s former Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim said: “it is altogether shameful to cite Asian values as an excuse for autocratic practices and denial of basic rights and civil liberties.18 Later on he was convicted with sodomy and corruption charges. These cases show that there is discomfort within Asian regimes.

Though they called it Asian values, one finds in practice that it is essentially an `East Asian’ critique as many parts of West Asia or the Indian subcontinent did not fully subscribe to this understanding. Essentially, its appeal was limited to a few soft authoritarian States like China, Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea when this argument was initially made. Some of these countries have subsequently changed their positions.

It was argued that the “Asian culture has generated a much less rigorous sense of individuality than in the West and that Asians are therefore more willing to subordinate individual wishes to the desires of the wider community. Indeed the emphasis on rights and individualism is pointed to as destructive of social harmony, as evidenced by the rise of violent crime, family breakdown, and homelessness in Western societies, such as the US.” It was said that that Asians did not notice, or if they do, they do not mind, restrictions on individual liberty, despite what Western critics might say. This is a view of human rights as culturally specific.

Is it possible to justify the curtailment of civil and political rights in order to accelerate economic development?

The Relationship between civil, political rights and socio-economic rights is at the heart of East Asian critique: rights are suppressed to facilitate economic growth, but this argument also has roots in newly independent countries eg. Africa – Full belly thesis. The Full Belly thesis is that a man’s belly must be full before he can indulge in the luxury of worrying about his political freedoms. Singapore and China have argued that even after basic subsistence can be assured, it may continue to be necessary to restrict civil and political rights because their unrestrained exercise may lead to “social turmoil”.

In that context, the main critique of prioritization of these rights is that needs are important and not rights. Many developing countries, Asian scholars say, are treating symptoms rather than root causes.

6.1. Is Dictatorship a necessary and sufficient condition for development?

There are several strands to the argument for putting economic and social rights above civil and political rights. The first one of these is the `Growth First’ theory; that basic needs take precedence over anything else. Some Asian nations are the most vociferous proponents of this theory. The arguments made take the following lines:

• One man one vote is meaningless unless accompanied by one man one bread
• Economic growth is a prerequisite to political liberties
• In order to satisfy basic needs the state must be able to rule with unchallenged power
• Elimination of poverty and starvation paramount – if people are hungry, they aren’t too concerned with political rights
• Some political rights are costly and limited resources should go to provide basic needs, material needs to guarantee subsistence
• Political rights are luxury – why bother about the finesse of democracy faced with the over- powering grossness of material need?
• Civil and political rights can wait until basic economic conditions are secured

7. A quest for Reconciliation of Asian Values with Human Rights:

In the quest for reconciling the human rights concept with Asian Values must begin with the Vienna Declaration (1993) which declares for the rejection for any state or regional issues regarding the non- acceptance of universality of human rights. Section 5, Part I states that: “all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

8. Summary:

In this module we understood the origin and universality of human rights. In this module we analysed the arguments advanced by Asian Values critique. The thrust of these arguments revolves around the debate between universalism versus relativism and individualism versus communitarianism and provides the perspective of economic growth and Asian Values. But in spite of having many differences between them, the reconciliation is desired and attainable and a hope in this regard is shown in the Vienna Declaration.

Reference:

• Bangkok Declaration, Final Declaration of the Regional Meeting for Asia of the World Conference on Human Rights. Bangkok, Thailand, 1993.
• Neary, Ian, East Asian Values, Encyclopaedia of Human Rights, 2009.
• Jacobsen, Michael, and Ole Bruun, eds. Human Rights and Asian Values: Contesting National Identities and Cultural Representations in Asia. London: Routledge Curzon, 2000.
• Kausikan Bilhari, The Asian Values Debate: A View from Singapore. In Democracy in East Asia, edited by Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
• Sen, Amartya, Human Rights and Economic Achievements. In The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights, edited by Joanne R. Bauer and Danial A. Bell, pp.88-99. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• White Paper on Human Rights in China. In the Chinese Human Rights Reader: Documents and Commentary, edited by Stephen C. Angle and Marina Svensson. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2001.
• White Paper: China Progress in Human Rights in 2004. Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2005.