All the conflicts and tragedies of last year remained unresolved and were carried over into Year 2009: The tragedy of Darfur, the Congo-Rwanda dispute, the egregious conditions under the military junta regime of Burma, the humanitarian disaster of Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and the longest unresolved conflict of all, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Some of them have faded away from the spotlight of international media, but they are still on the list of unresolved cases, even though they were overshadowed by other later crises. As we have started a new year, I would like to re-affirm the protection and promotion of the values of human dignity as a guiding policy goal of our conduct.
In the absence of centralised sanctioning authority of the world community, international relations are governed by mutual tolerance, reciprocity and a threat of retaliation. As previously discussed in this column ("The Regime of Negative Reciprocity," July 9, 2008), the notions of "mutual tolerance" and "reciprocity" create a lot of leeway or latitude, if you will, for decision-making among countries in the region.
The closer the countries are in their relationship with each other, the more acute their need for special consideration not to offend their neighbours in the region. When these neighbours are organised as a regional organisation, "mutual tolerance" and "reciprocity" become institutionalised and embedded in decision-making processes. Consider, for example, the modus operandi of the African Union, the Arab League, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Their decisions or non-decisions reflect the inability of the leadership of their respective organisations to deal with the internal political crisis situation of their member state. They expect the same "reciprocal treatment" when misfortune falls on them next time, resulting in the high level of tolerance of, and acquiescence in, the member government's abuse and repressive practices.
We have to uphold the values of human dignity as the universally valid principles to comply with, so that any decision-making process will not be reduced to be liable for the lowest common denominator of negative reciprocity. What we think of as our own independent standards of conduct and achievement are in reality the product of outside influences.
Take the bolts and batteries manufactured for local use by local factories for example. As Professors Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Lasswell mentioned, they may seem firmly embedded in the local scene, but if you reflect on them more carefully, it may become evident that the basic idea of bolt or battery is an import from non-local culture; so, too, for every aspect of the entire process of production and sales of such products, ranging from the design of specific products, the choice of raw materials, and the machinery of production through the sequencing of production to the modes of financing and the techniques of providing incentives to the market.
They were all developed and refined through many relevant cultural patterns over time. The concept of "zero," fundamental to scientific discovery, was discovered by Aryabhatta, a man from India. We are all irrevocably locked in the process of inter-determination throughout the globe, which has no corner, no east nor west, unlike a "flat world."
The same applies to the notion of human dignity. Even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, at the initiative of leading western states, these values were preferred, demanded, conceptualised, developed and refined over time through many cultures.
That demands for human dignity are products of western civilisation not only defies the historical process of inter-determination, but also ignores the human-being's innate desire. It is, therefore, flawed by perspectives of ethnocentricity about one's achievements. On the contrary, the General Assembly proclaims the Declaration as a "common standard of achievement" for "all peoples and all nations."
THE PREAMBLE ENUMERATES THE REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE DECLARATION: The first paragraph simply states "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."
The second paragraph observes that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in the barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind" and that the enjoyment of "freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people."
The third paragraph considers it "essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law." The fourth paragraph states that it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations."
The fifth paragraph places the Declaration in the context of the United Nations Charter, which reaffirms "faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women." The sixth paragraph notes that all member states of the United Nations "have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance o f human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The seventh paragraph notes "a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realisation of this pledge." Let me quote some of the values of human dignity presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the universal "standard of achievement":
ARTICLE 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, 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.
ARTICLE 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
ARTICLE 16(1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
ARTICLE 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
ARTICLE 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
ARTICLE 20(1): Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2): No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
ARTICLE 21(3): The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
ARTICLE 26(2): Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
ARTICLE 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
There are different sets of operational policies, procedures, and practices that have been separately developed, espoused and applied over time by their respective institutions and cultures under different historical circumstances. Diversity is the norm of human society as evidenced by Antonio Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony.
The fundamental premise for such diversity is respect for the autonomy of the individual human being, ie, the reciprocal honouring of freedom of choice. Marshall McLuhan's notion of social changes as "the effect of new technologies (self-amputations of our own being)" applies to everyone who is locked in the global process of inter-determination.
Hence, we speak of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. It is customary international law binding on all participants on the international plane. Respect for the individual's freedom of choice is the fundamental tenet of democracy. The world is much safer and more democratic with diversity and pluralism. A plural society is the reality of human existence.
Comments
Comments are closed.