WIDESPREAD HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS REVEAL GAP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES, FACTS OF LIFE FOR MANY, SAYS ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT
Press Release
GA/9195
HR/4316
WIDESPREAD HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS REVEAL GAP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES, FACTS OF LIFE FOR MANY, SAYS ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT
19961210 Following is the statement of the President of the General Assembly, Razali Ismail (Malaysia), on Human Rights Day, commemorated annually on 10 December:Today we commemorate the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The Declaration of 1948 marked the first time in history that we witnessed the emergence of a universal acceptance of minimum standards, expressing the fundamental rights and freedoms of the entire human community, without partitions or restrictions. This is a milestone anniversary.
Normally on such a day we gather to reaffirm the commitment of the international community to meet the aspirations of men, women and children for a world of peace, justice and freedom, and for equitable economic and social development. However, it is apparent from ongoing discussions in the United Nations, and even more so in the real world outside, that starvation, torture, killings, deprivation and discrimination are alive and thriving. All this, despite the more than 70 human rights legal instruments currently in force.
Widespread human rights violations in virtually all regions of the world reveal the wide gap between our international principles and the bare facts of life for so many of our fellow human beings. It also points to the quintessential dilemma of the intergovernmental process based on the sovereignty of States -- that the sophisticated codification of legal instruments and carefully constructed mechanisms to protect human rights are of little use if there is no political will on the part of those who govern to implement them effectively.
Recent events in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia testify to the moral impasse in which humanity finds itself today. Our repeated inability to guarantee the most basic of rights -- the right of the human person to security and to live free from terror -- should severely jolt the human conscience, and calls for much introspection on the whole human rights debate.
If universality is the central tenet of human rights, universal application of their principles is the guardian of human dignity for all. Since 1948, global events have demonstrated with increasing clarity that peace, democracy, development and human rights are intrinsically interdependent. We understand that peace and human rights are knitted together and the removal of one strand results in the unravelling of the other. We also know that sustained economic and social development and respect for human rights cannot be achieved without each safeguarding the other.
Why then does the dominant human rights paradigm continue to fail the majority of humanity? Maybe it is because human rights as reflected in the current United Nations Charter, say little about global injustices or the "rights of humanity" and does not provide a blueprint for a more just world order. Instead, human rights are posited in an exclusively individual context. This poses a difficult dichotomy between State and society by disregarding the political and social context of the rights situation, and by taking little notice of the communal moorings of the individual.
There is no doubt that ideas on human rights have contributed significantly to civilization by: endowing the individual with certain basic rights, such as the right to free speech and free association; strengthening the position of the ordinary citizen against the arbitrariness of power; and expanding the space for individual participation in public decision-making. However, these democratic principles have scarcely flowed in the opposite direction, and neither forced the State, nor authority in general, to be more accountable to the public.
This inherent weakness in the human rights paradigm has even allowed governments and powerful interest groups to repackage human rights, to discard all notions of universality and inalienability, and to use them selectively as political weapons against their opponents. Ironically, the politicization of human rights in this fashion is now practised by countries, North and South alike, whenever politically expedient, each pointing a finger at the other.
It has long been argued that human rights-talk is inflated power-talk. Though colonial rule has ended, domination by countries in various spheres continues to impact upon the human rights of the vast majority of the developing world, admittedly in ways which are more subtle and sophisticated, but no less devastating.
Domination of global peace and security through power elitism, domination over the survival of life on our planet by possession of nuclear weapons, domination of global trade, finance and development through the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization and domination
- 3 - Press Release GA/9195 HR/4316 10 December 1996
over the global news and information networks, only elicits criticism for those who are in power and posturing on human rights. The scepticism has only increased since the progressive degeneration of human rights standards within developed societies.
At the same time, recourse to debates on differentiated cultural values also undermines the universality and justified moralities of human rights and may be used to excuse or defend autocratic practices. Whether one articulates rights or upholds responsibilities, these should be guided by a larger spiritual and moral world view, which endows human endeavour with meaning, purpose, coherence and unity.
After all, individual rights and liberties will only be meaningful if they can bring about fundamental changes to society by transforming values, attitudes and power structures. Ultimately, the bottom line is the role of governments and their accountability to those who are governed by them. As things are, there are many that have failed people, promising will-o'-the- wisp, doctrinal solutions as panaceas, but cloaking power perpetuation at any cost.
* *** *