Since the end of the Cold War, politicians and international relations scholars have found themselves in the middle with a new, sometimes controversial mission: protecting human rights and establishing democracy all around the world. The most discussed idea was “the humanitarian intervention concept,” or "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which meant military intervention in a foreign territory in order to protect the lives of the citizens of another country. Even though many interventions have been carried out since the beginning of 1990s, this issue is still controversial.
After the events of the Arab Spring, this concept has become a hot debate point again, currently mostly focused on the latest events in Syria. Rebel forces are fighting against President Bashir al-Assad's government, and Assad's forces are trying to suppress this uprising in this small Middle Eastern country. Now the question: Is a military intervention necessary?
This question brings us to a more specific notion called “the universality of human rights”. Some argue that because each country has its own values, a universal humanitarian approach can’t be applied throughout the world. In this case, the argument is that social and cultural conditions are different in Syria, so a humanitarian intervention will not be a fair and legitimate act because Western-style of human rights can not be applied in everywhere.
Are the human rights values which were created in the West valid for the whole world, or should every community or society form its own humanitarian values, human rights ideology and regime?
First of all, it should be considered that the east and west are very different worlds. Even for the societies which are geographically close to each other, great differences in social, political, and economic life are observed. Especially today, it is impossible to ignore the great dissimilarities between these civilizations. There are major gaps between various ethnic groups and peoples, and it is very difficult to create a consensus especially on moral cultural values among different nations. Different perspectives on the issues of human rights and democracy can not be ignored.
On this topic, the head of the Chinese delegation at the 1993 United Nations World Human Rights Conference said: “The fact of human rights is a consequence of historical evolution. It is related to a nation’s specific social, cultural, political, and economic conditions and specific history, culture, and values. Different historical evolutionary stages have different human rights necessities. Countries which are on different developmental stages or which have different traditional, historical, and cultural backgrounds have different concepts and practices of human rights. So, it is not possible to say that human rights models or standards of definite nations are the only valid standards and all the nations must be compatible to these standards.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan also asserted that, “The issue of human rights is...an internal affair of a country, and should be addressed mainly by the government of that country through its own efforts.”
The same perspective is argued by Turkish Islamic intellectual Ali Bulaç, who believes that the Islamic world perceives the world from a different point of view than the west, and it is not possible to create a consensus on the issue of human rights.
These comments give a negative perspective on idea of the universality of human rights. This objection depends on the thesis which suggests that Western ideologies damage the East’s moral identity and spiritual core. According to this thesis, the idea of universality of human rights is a tool of imperialism; it is at the same time malicious and dangerous for the East. The main aim of this ideology is to impose the harmful elements of the West to degenerate the East’s morality and character under the mask of human rights.
The opposition to the universality of human rights depends on these kinds of arguments. But does this negative logic or perception have solid fundamentals? And what can be its consequences?”
First, each society has its own values and other societies should respect these principles; however, criticizing human rights from the universality perspective as hegemonic does not have solid fundamentals. The Western concept of human rights can be criticized from many different angles, but saying only that “our conditions are different” brings great problems into the argument.
Putting human rights into local blocks or giving it a religious dimension may lead to dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, or enslavement by religiously fundamentalist governments. Evidence can be found on this issue by observing fundamentalist Islamic administrations in the Middle East and Central Asia who defend a human rights ideology coming from the Qur'an, but do not reflect the fundamental principles of human rights. The cruel punishments for infidelity, the obligation of women to wear headscarves or burqa, the absolute hegemony of men in the society, strict prohibitions over different sexual choices, and discriminatory approaches in the civil law show the dangerous results of subverting human rights to local or religions traditions.
For example in his declaration on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, claimed that they look at the Qur'an when they need to separate the right and wrong; they do not consider the principles of United Nations, and they recognize Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a collection of the followers of the Satan. Another example is the attitude of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and asserted that the declaration reflected only Western culture and was not compatible with their culture. Saudis defended their assertion by saying the main principles of the declaration was contradictory to Islamic law, and that they had reservations over the ideal of freedom of belief. Little headway has been made in the debate over what to do in Syria's ongoing crisis because several nations, including Russia, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, have rejected any Western intervention based on the argument that the West's standards cannot be applied to the "traditional values" being raised in the conflict.
It is impossible and unwise to define a “one” and “true” civilization or set of beliefs, but this fact does not mean that there should be no consensus on the basic principles of human rights. Even though every nation has its own historical and cultural facts, this does not constitute an obstruction on definite principles of human rights. Torture, discrimination against women, systematized patriarchy, poverty, are relevant problems for all societies. No one can be immune from these problems, and no state or nation has the right to ignore these violations by claiming that their traditions are different. This is a dangerous approach and has the potential to justify oppression and persecution of innocent people.
There should be agreement on fundamental humanitarian values, and the universality principle has to be applied in both the East and the West. We know that sometimes Western governments manipulate notions like human rights and democracy in order to preserve their national interests in international conflicts, but criticizing the manipulation of human rights or democracy should not be interpreted as opposing against the rule of human rights and the exercises of democracy throughout the world. The effort to point out the hypocrisy and double standards of Western governments should not be used to legitimize abuses of human rights.
For governments in the East, including the Middle East and Asia, to ignore basic human rights under the banner of their unique cultural and traditional values is wrong both morally and strategically. Such an approach leaves ground to Westerners in defining human rights and democracy and allows them to create a monopoly on these values, but it also has the potential of enforcing despotism and governmental oppression.
Gönenç Ünaldı is an independent researcher and writer living in Istanbul, Turkey. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Communication Sciences from Eskişehir Anadolu University in Turkey, and his Master’s degree in International Relations from Istanbul Kültür University in Turkey.
Photo: Africa Renewal (cc).
a global affairs media network
Syria and the Universality of Human Rights
January 26, 2013
Since the end of the Cold War, politicians and international relations scholars have found themselves in the middle with a new, sometimes controversial mission: protecting human rights and establishing democracy all around the world. The most discussed idea was “the humanitarian intervention concept,” or "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which meant military intervention in a foreign territory in order to protect the lives of the citizens of another country. Even though many interventions have been carried out since the beginning of 1990s, this issue is still controversial.
After the events of the Arab Spring, this concept has become a hot debate point again, currently mostly focused on the latest events in Syria. Rebel forces are fighting against President Bashir al-Assad's government, and Assad's forces are trying to suppress this uprising in this small Middle Eastern country. Now the question: Is a military intervention necessary?
This question brings us to a more specific notion called “the universality of human rights”. Some argue that because each country has its own values, a universal humanitarian approach can’t be applied throughout the world. In this case, the argument is that social and cultural conditions are different in Syria, so a humanitarian intervention will not be a fair and legitimate act because Western-style of human rights can not be applied in everywhere.
Are the human rights values which were created in the West valid for the whole world, or should every community or society form its own humanitarian values, human rights ideology and regime?
First of all, it should be considered that the east and west are very different worlds. Even for the societies which are geographically close to each other, great differences in social, political, and economic life are observed. Especially today, it is impossible to ignore the great dissimilarities between these civilizations. There are major gaps between various ethnic groups and peoples, and it is very difficult to create a consensus especially on moral cultural values among different nations. Different perspectives on the issues of human rights and democracy can not be ignored.
On this topic, the head of the Chinese delegation at the 1993 United Nations World Human Rights Conference said: “The fact of human rights is a consequence of historical evolution. It is related to a nation’s specific social, cultural, political, and economic conditions and specific history, culture, and values. Different historical evolutionary stages have different human rights necessities. Countries which are on different developmental stages or which have different traditional, historical, and cultural backgrounds have different concepts and practices of human rights. So, it is not possible to say that human rights models or standards of definite nations are the only valid standards and all the nations must be compatible to these standards.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan also asserted that, “The issue of human rights is...an internal affair of a country, and should be addressed mainly by the government of that country through its own efforts.”
The same perspective is argued by Turkish Islamic intellectual Ali Bulaç, who believes that the Islamic world perceives the world from a different point of view than the west, and it is not possible to create a consensus on the issue of human rights.
These comments give a negative perspective on idea of the universality of human rights. This objection depends on the thesis which suggests that Western ideologies damage the East’s moral identity and spiritual core. According to this thesis, the idea of universality of human rights is a tool of imperialism; it is at the same time malicious and dangerous for the East. The main aim of this ideology is to impose the harmful elements of the West to degenerate the East’s morality and character under the mask of human rights.
The opposition to the universality of human rights depends on these kinds of arguments. But does this negative logic or perception have solid fundamentals? And what can be its consequences?”
First, each society has its own values and other societies should respect these principles; however, criticizing human rights from the universality perspective as hegemonic does not have solid fundamentals. The Western concept of human rights can be criticized from many different angles, but saying only that “our conditions are different” brings great problems into the argument.
Putting human rights into local blocks or giving it a religious dimension may lead to dictatorships, totalitarian regimes, or enslavement by religiously fundamentalist governments. Evidence can be found on this issue by observing fundamentalist Islamic administrations in the Middle East and Central Asia who defend a human rights ideology coming from the Qur'an, but do not reflect the fundamental principles of human rights. The cruel punishments for infidelity, the obligation of women to wear headscarves or burqa, the absolute hegemony of men in the society, strict prohibitions over different sexual choices, and discriminatory approaches in the civil law show the dangerous results of subverting human rights to local or religions traditions.
For example in his declaration on Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, claimed that they look at the Qur'an when they need to separate the right and wrong; they do not consider the principles of United Nations, and they recognize Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a collection of the followers of the Satan. Another example is the attitude of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia did not sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and asserted that the declaration reflected only Western culture and was not compatible with their culture. Saudis defended their assertion by saying the main principles of the declaration was contradictory to Islamic law, and that they had reservations over the ideal of freedom of belief. Little headway has been made in the debate over what to do in Syria's ongoing crisis because several nations, including Russia, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, have rejected any Western intervention based on the argument that the West's standards cannot be applied to the "traditional values" being raised in the conflict.
It is impossible and unwise to define a “one” and “true” civilization or set of beliefs, but this fact does not mean that there should be no consensus on the basic principles of human rights. Even though every nation has its own historical and cultural facts, this does not constitute an obstruction on definite principles of human rights. Torture, discrimination against women, systematized patriarchy, poverty, are relevant problems for all societies. No one can be immune from these problems, and no state or nation has the right to ignore these violations by claiming that their traditions are different. This is a dangerous approach and has the potential to justify oppression and persecution of innocent people.
There should be agreement on fundamental humanitarian values, and the universality principle has to be applied in both the East and the West. We know that sometimes Western governments manipulate notions like human rights and democracy in order to preserve their national interests in international conflicts, but criticizing the manipulation of human rights or democracy should not be interpreted as opposing against the rule of human rights and the exercises of democracy throughout the world. The effort to point out the hypocrisy and double standards of Western governments should not be used to legitimize abuses of human rights.
For governments in the East, including the Middle East and Asia, to ignore basic human rights under the banner of their unique cultural and traditional values is wrong both morally and strategically. Such an approach leaves ground to Westerners in defining human rights and democracy and allows them to create a monopoly on these values, but it also has the potential of enforcing despotism and governmental oppression.
Gönenç Ünaldı is an independent researcher and writer living in Istanbul, Turkey. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Communication Sciences from Eskişehir Anadolu University in Turkey, and his Master’s degree in International Relations from Istanbul Kültür University in Turkey.
Photo: Africa Renewal (cc).
