Oleh/By : DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : THE LEGEND HOTEL, KUALA LUMPUR
Tarikh/Date : 06/12/94
Tajuk/Title : THE JUST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON RETHINKING HUMAN RIGHTS
If I may be permitted I would like to go back in
history a little. It is well known that ever since men
began to live in groups or communities, the concept of their
rights and obligations to the community had always bothered
the members. No sooner had they devised a set of values to
protect the members of the community from each other and
from those empowered to enforce the rules of communal living
when they found that they were either unenforceable or that
abuses could be perpetrated by the members and by the very
people elevated to positions of authority.
2. And so concepts and rules were revised and revised
again and again. And so in any community the rules and
values differed as between different periods of its
development. While a society may consider hanging a man for
the crime of stealing a sheep in one period as the natural
and just thing to do, in another day and age it may consider
that hanging to death as a punishment, even for blatant
murder of a fellow man, as being too barbaric and inhuman.
3. As the world has numerous communities and the state of
their development differs widely, it is natural to expect
that their concepts of human rights, of justice, and of
obligation to the community to differ and differ widely. 4.
Perhaps the focus on human rights as being universal
crystallised during the Second World War. Prior to that the
Europeans who had nicely divided up the world into their
empires where they were free to do what they liked with
their colonial inhabitants, did not believe in the
universality of human rights. The rights of the white man
was to rule the non-whites, to civilise them, and to spread
their particular religion. This was the White man`s burden
and it was glorified as a God-given task.
5. The non-white colonial people must accept white rule
totally. If there were abuses of authority or position by
the whites, the colonial people had to accept this as a part
of the process of civilising them, of bringing order and a
modicum of development to them. They may not question their
colonial masters and certainly they may not strive to free
themselves. For them human rights practically did not
exist. For the imperial nations of Europe, human rights
were only for their own people. They were not universal and
did not apply to colonial people.
6. But World War II saw the horrors of the German
concentration camps where six million European Jews were
killed after unbelievable cruelty was perpetrated against
them. In the East, the Japanese ran prisoners-of-war camps
for surrendered Europeans. Although they were never as
systematic in meting out cruel treatments, they nevertheless
cruelly misused their prisoners.
7. Shocked by these brutalities, the Allied powers decided
that such cruelties must never happen again. They decided
to spell out universal human rights which were to be
enforced by a new organisation, the United Nations
Organisation (UNO). Ignoring totally and unembarassed by
the horrors they brought to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they
blithely enunciated their version of universal human rights.
8. The preamble to the United Nations Charter among other
things, reads thus;
"We the peoples of the U.N., determined to reaffirm
faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men
and women and of nations large and small, and to
promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom".
9. Almost immediately the victorious allied founders of
the U.N. ran into trouble with their universal human rights.
They had thought that their victory would bring about a
restoration of their empires in Asia, Africa and the
Caribbeans. They thought they were to be the ones to
enforce their codes among their native subjects. That this
was their view was made clear by the great Winston Churchill
who grandly declared that he was not elected to preside over
the dissolution of the British Empire.
10. But in the event, the colonial territories struck back
by demanding independence based on the very universality of
human rights which was spelt out in the U.N. Charter. To
cut a long story short, the erstwhile colonies gained
independence one by one. Mostly the imperial powers gave up
with little grace, frequently fighting against the granting
of independence with the kind of cruelty which makes
nonsense of their subscription to human rights principles.
11. But old imperialistic ways do not die. They merely
metamorphose. Almost as soon as the colonies became
independent colonialism by other means was initiated.
12. Economic forces, the western media and Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGO) carried on where the colonial
governments left off. The U.N. may talk of the "... equal
rights... of nations, large and small," but it became clear
that large nations, or rather powerful nations, were more
equal than small nations. Neo-colonialism perpetuated the
old hegemony.
13. But the major Allied powers which created the U.N. and
drafted its charter split up into East and West, i.e. the
Soviet bloc and the Western bloc. Fearful of the
possibility of the new states switching over to the Eastern
bloc, the governments of the Western Allies were careful
when applying pressure on the new nations.
14. Much later the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union
collapsed leaving a unipolar world. All pretense at
non-inteference in the affairs of independent nations was
dropped. A new international order was enunciated in which
the powerful countries claim a right to impose their system
of Government, their free market and their concept of human
rights on every country.
15. All countries must convert to the multi-party system of
government and practise the liberal views on human rights as
conceived by the Europeans and the North Americans.
16. Most nations agree that the democratic form of
government is better than the feudal or totalitarian
systems. But even among the Western democracies, practices
differ. Thus, while the multi-party system is advocated,
many Western nations effectively allow only two parties to
function in their own countries.
17. The multi-party system can result in no party being
able to get a sufficient majority to form a government.
Proportional representation by parties will have the same
result. Even a two- party system can result in very weak
majorities which put the government at the mercy of their
more unscrupulous members and their threats to rebel or
cross over and bring down the government.
18. Developed countries can do with weak governments or no
government. But developing countries cannot function
without strong authority on the part of government.
Unstable and weak governments will result in chaos, and
chaos cannot contribute to the development and well-being of
developing countries. Divisive politics will occupy the
time and minds of everyone, as we can witness in many a
developing country today.
19. The developing countries, by and large, want to
practise democracy but must they practise only the liberal
forms prescribed by the West, forms which will retard their
development and continued independence? But they are
continuously being harassed through economic pressures
including withdrawal of aid and loans, by carping criticisms
and deliberate misinformation by the Western media and by
campaigns on the part of Western NGOs, who sometimes finance
pressure groups within the country to obstruct the
government which they label as undemocratic. Even if the
government is replaced, the new government would still be
harassed.
20. But that is not all. While the Western liberals would
badger people to opt for democracy and where they thought
fit to overthrow their `undemocratic' government, they can
expect no help if they get into trouble while attempting to
democratise their country. Thus the Kurds of Iraq were
urged to shake off the rule of Saddam Hussein and establish
their own country. When, after the Western countries had
forced the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the Kurds rebelled, they
were given no help except for gleeful reports by the Western
media regarding the problems posed by the Kurds against
Saddam Hussein`s government. The rebellion was mercilessly
put down while the Western democrats merely looked on.
21. In Yugoslavia the different states of the Federation
were encouraged to democratically strive for independence.
All the states had to face military opposition from the
dominant Serbs. In Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
Serbs mounted a savage attack and openly declared their
intention to carry out ethnic cleansing, an euphemism for
genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Croats and Bosnian
Muslims and non-Muslims were killed, tens of thousands of
women were raped and millions were rendered homeless and
forced to migrate. But the Western liberals did practically
nothing to ensure that democratic processes are respected by
the Serbs.
22. The record of the democratic governments of the West is
not very inspiring. Unless their own interest are at stake,
as in Kuwait, they would not risk anything in the cause of
democracy. Is it any wonder that many countries are leery
of the liberal system propounded by the Western democrats?
23. If the record of the Western democrats in propagating
their ideology is dismal, their own human rights records are
worse. The West`s interpretation of human rights is that
every individual can do what he likes, free from any
restraint by governments. It does not matter if the
government is elected democratically by the majority of the
people. Governments, according to the liberal democrats,
cannot in any way act against the personal wishes of the
individual in society.
24. The result is perhaps not quite what the original
liberal democrats expected. Individuals soon decided that
they should break every rule and code governing their
society. Beginning with simple things like dress codes,
they went on to discard marriage as an institution.
Extra-marital sex became the norm. The family was redefined
to mean co-habitation between a man and a woman, with
frequent changes of partners, or between a man and a man or
woman and woman. Children were begotten without known
fathers, which in time will lead to incest between brothers
and sisters and even father and daughter or mother and son.
But then incest to them is not wrong either, if that is what
is desired by the individuals.
25. Hedonism and total immorality are the norms of absolute
freedom for one and all. Yet women dressed and behaving
provocatively object to being sexually harassed, while
leaders are expected to have unblemished records on sex and
drugs. Clearly the Western society is confused as to what
it wants. It wants absolute freedom for everyone but no
freedom when individuals or society objects. If individuals
or society can object to sexual harassment or infidelity
among their leaders then there cannot be absolute freedom.
And yet the West insists that freedom must in no way be
fettered and that everyone must accept Western norms. They
see nothing contradictory in the contrary attitudes.
26. But it is with regard to freedom from oppression and
brutality that Western hypocrisy is at its worst. Western
governments, their media and their NGOs, are tireless in
their condemnation of non-Western countries for their human
rights records. They threaten sanctions, withdrawal of aid,
stoppage of loans, economic and trade union boycotts and
actual military strikes against those they accuse of
violating human rights. They even kidnap people in other
countries in order to try them in their courts under their
laws if they see fit to do so. They have no respect for
independence or territorial integrity in their zeal to
uphold their human rights principle.
27. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the much
vaunted victory over Iraq, the Western powers declared that
the independence of nations notwithstanding, they have a
right to interfere in the internal affairs of a country if
there is evidence of human rights violation. This is very
noble but the method is questionable. What qualifies the
Western liberal democrats to become both judge and executor
of the behaviour of nations and citizens of other countries?
If there is to be interference in the internal affairs of
nations, should not the U.N. be the right body to lay down
the rules and to act? But the mild objections by
insignificant nations were brushed aside. And so, among
other things, people in distant lands who unknowingly breach
the laws of powerful nations are tried in absentia and
sentenced. The implication of this is frightening. When
you can be tried under the laws of another country where you
have no rights, you have lost your freedom and your
independence. You have become colonised again.
28. And among the other things is Western hypocrisy in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. Having arrogated to themselves the
right to intervene anywhere where human rights are violated,
surely the champions of human rights are not going to allow
the Serbs to commit atrocities and genocide. Armed troops
were sent complete with sophisticated weapons, tanks and jet
fighters and bombers by the Western democratic champions of
human rights. To do what? To stand and watch as Serbs
butchered 200,000 Bosnian Muslims and Croats, raped tens of
thousands of women, operated concentration camps no less
hideous than the Nazis, and hounded millions from their
homes and their land. And still the Serbs went on with
their ethnic cleansing in full view of the soldiers and
generals of the countries which had vowed to put an end to
violation of human rights everywhere.
29. Every now and again the Serbs were threatened by these
so-called defenders of human rights. They, the Serbs,
would be bombed if they do not stop. After a brave display
of the prowess of Western air superiority and sophisticated
war planes, the whole NATO forces withdrew and whimpered.
The Serbs were again urged to negotiate. The Serbs shelled
and rocketed the Bosnians. People, innocent people, even
patients in hospitals, were killed and wounded. The
champions of human rights, worried that their soldiers might
be scratched, did nothing.
30. The Serbs have the weapons. The Bosnians have none.
The champions of human rights believe this is an ideal
situation. If the Bosnians are given weapons then instead
of the Bosnians alone being killed, the Serbs might be
wounded also. So there would be more casualties. Besides,
the Serbs will get angry with the U.N. for not keeping their
Bosnian victims unarmed, and they might turn their guns on
the NATO forces. This cannot be allowed to happen. The
U.N. is there to keep the peace not to enforce peace. If
the Serbs do not stop fighting then there is no peace to
keep. So there is nothing the NATO forces can do. The
Serbs can go on with their butchering of the Bosnians, their
conquest of territories. And now the Serbs are faced with
the fiercest threat. If they do not stop attacking the
Bosnians, NATO will withdraw its troops and let the Serbs
conquer Bosnia. Not only are the Western liberals cowards
but their logic is twisted as well.
31. This then is the reality and irony of Western human
rights. On the one hand other Governments are threatened
because of some minor breach of human rights; on the other
hand, when Western interest is not at stake they are
prepared to allow the most brutal violation of human rights
to take place before their very eyes.
32. It is rather difficult for us to agree and to accept
this double standards. And this unwillingness to accede has
brought on a tirade of accusations about Asian
recalcitrance. It would seem that Asians have no right to
define and practise their own sets of values about human
rights. What, we are asked, are Asian values? The question
is rhetorical because the implication is that Asians cannot
possibly understand human rights, much less set up their own
values.
33. This conference is about human rights. If, indeed,
human rights have already been determined and remain only to
be accepted, then I do not think a conference is necessary.
Obviously in holding your conference you believe that human
rights need to be discussed, to be defined or redefined and
to be propagated.
34. No one, no country, no people and no civilisation has a
right to claim that it has a monopoly of wisdom as to what
constitute human rights. Certainly from the records and the
performance of the Western liberals, they are least capable
of defining and preaching human rights. Indeed, at the
moment theyhave no right at all to talk of human rights,
much less judge others on this issue.
35. But admittedly Asians are not the best examples of the
protagonists of human rights, either. They have been guilty
in the past and, perhaps, lately too. But not as pictured
by the Western media.
36. I hope your conference will be able to examine human
rights not as Asians or Europeans but as members of the
human race. It is timely, for faith in modern civilisation
is fast diminishing. We can put a man on the moon. We can
examine stars light-years away, we can achieve instant
contact with every part of the world, we can build
intelligent machines and many more wonders. But we are
still quite uncivilised, for when it comes to killing each
other we are worse than animals. The liberal views of the
West on human rights and on other issues do not provide the
answers to the woes of today's world. Everyone including
"the bunch of Asians" must be allowed to make suggestions
and contribute towards devising new sets of values which may
help resolve some of the problems we face today. I hope you
can contribute.
|
|