AZRIL Mohd Amin of CENTHRA wrote an article entitled “The Rights are not universal” (NST, Dec 14, 2018), in which he argues using historical, cultural relativism and inconsistencies in practice as evidences in building a case for why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is not universal. Are his arguments factual? Is it a selective reading? Is he getting it wrong and misleading the Malaysian Muslim community?
Listed below are my reflections on this theme.
A COLONIAL DOCUMENT?
Azril claims that the UDHR is a “colonial document reflecting a colonialist philosophy”. This is because the main signatories were still practising racial segregation, or were still colonialist nations.
In response to Azril’s interpretation, we need to review the historical circumstances in 1945 when the United Nations was established and the need for the International Court of Jurist (1946) and the UDHR (1948). It was at the end of a second world war and the nations made a commitment to peace and the dismantling of colonial lands. The horrors and devastation of two world wars saw the need for global governance and a place for all nations of the world, especially the new nations. In this context, we must note that Indonesia, the Philippines and India obtained independence in 1945, 1946 and 1947 respectively, and became UN members soon after. Malaya got independence in 1957.
At the founding of the UN in 1945, there were 51 member states with three Asian countries, namely China, India and the Philippines and eight Muslim nations, namely Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. It was not all Western and all these nations became members of a global governing body. There were the five nations, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, which became permanent members of the Security Council.
The UN set up a drafting committee to formulate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The drafting committee had nine members who were from Australia, Chile, France, the Soviet Union, the UK, China, France,
Lebanon and the US. The chairperson was Eleanor Roosevelt (the US). The composition of the drafting team was reflective of wider representation of the nations and not just western nations or colonialists.
When the UDHR was finally tabled at the United Nations for adoption in 1948, there were 58 members. 48 members voted in favour. Eight countries abstained and two were absent. Of the 48 which voted in favour, 10 were Muslim countries. Of the eight which abstained, seven were Soviet Union-related and the other was Saudi Arabia. None voted against.
Therefore, it is not very helpful to deem the UDHR a colonialist document and a re-emergence of the ghost or hantu to torment us.
The UDHR became a global standard by which all countries including the west would be judged if they violate the basic principles of the UDHR. All have a moral obligation to abide by it.
UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OR WESTERN?
Azri, in his article, is challenging this universal claim with cultural relativism arguments.
There are some arguments for application for culture specific aspects. However, the global community in 1945, after a devastating world war, sought to identify key values and principles which would serve as minimum standards for all countries to abide by as a global community.
Therefore, the core principles of human rights first set out in “the UDHR, such as universality, interdependence and indivisibility, equality and non-discrimination, and that human rights simultaneously entail both rights and obligations from duty bearers and rights owners, have been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions”.
“Today, all UN member states have ratified at least one of the nine core international human rights treaties, and 80 per cent have ratified four or more, giving concrete expression to the universality of the UDHR and international human rights.”
Malaysia has already ratified three convent ions and has served in the Human Rights Commission. It has also adopted the SDG Global 2030 agenda and has incorporated into the 11th Malaysia Plan to deliver the 17 goals, including the democratic governance aspects.
The UDHR is today part of the UN Charter document which all members of the UN have accepted. It has become the foundation of international human rights law.
“The UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies that suffer repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.
“It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on Dec 10, 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us.”
BEING HUMAN
No one can deny that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. This is at the heart of UDHR. This core principle is basic to our common humanity. The concerns of communities facing human rights violations are also our concern, based not on cultural relativism but universality of human rights — be they Palestinians or Rohingya, or any ethnic minorities.
The legal instruments and institutions seek to establish justice for all and check for human rights abuses around the world. How countries of the world fulfil human rights obligations or violate them is another question, but it is the core value which is foundational to all of us — that we are equal.
Denison Jayasooria is the principal research fellow at the UKM Institute of Ethnic Studies and co-chair of the Malaysian CSO-SDG Alliance