Asian Human Rights body – the pill and the diaphragm, a tale of two contraceptives

“In a final, desperate push to lobby for an ASEAN Human Rights Body (AHRB) with teeth, over 200 civil society organisations, activists and academics have dispatched a letter to the high-profile committee drafting the terms of reference (ToR) of the rights body to make it an "effective" mechanism.”

IPSnews

“ 

When we seek to integrate the good, the bad and the ugly, as it is in the ‘Asian’ context, compromise becomes the greater good that in effect evicts good and leads to the rule of the compromise that is ‘bad’.  This is the dark side of inclusivity.

~ ed

“

On the one hand, ‘in respect of the differences in culture’, one might think it reasonable to say to the west, this is our culture, so we’ll handle it with our own human rights body.  Once this rationale is accepted, one could then say to the west and their own, that ‘in respect of differences in culture’, we have our own version of human rights to complement our version of the human being, so we’ll handle it our way. 

In the acceptance of the former, the latter is validated.

~ ed

“

Differences in culture have as much to do with human rights as the attempt by a culture to train the people to forgo it with a ‘different’ conception of themselves.

~ ed

.

The idea of an ‘Asian Human Rights body’ is a remarkable move indeed!  I cannot but admire its initiators for thinking up, albeit unwitting, one of these final and decisive steps toward the initiation of the phenomenon of the ‘Asian Democracy’ that has been a few decades in the making.  Whilst some activists are quite thrilled about this and are seeking to critique and improve it, I’d say that this step, instead of being one toward democracy, is yet another decisive step away from it.

I’ll explain.

As I have already stated in previous articles on the phenomenon of the ‘Asian democracy’, it is a movement that,

Firstly, seeks to distinguish itself from the western idea of a democracy and the kind of human, and human development, that it takes to appreciate it - for the purpose of protecting the interests of the elite which are always under scrutiny in the west due to the populace’s understanding of their humanity and ensuing human rights. 

Secondly, it seeks to protect itself from western critique by way of having it viewed on both sides of the divide as a critique of their culture and hence, nothing less than a cultural imposition.  In other words, the basic thesis is, ‘you have your brand of human nature, and we have ours, so don’t get colonial on me and bugger off’.

Thirdly, to indicate that an ‘Asian democracy’ is not antipathetic to human rights - as this will certainly stir up empathetic concern and ire in the west - in the course of redefining what it means to ‘be an asian human’ amongst its populace, it will have to put in place an ‘Asian human rights body’ to protect the rights of the ‘Asian democratic’ version of the human – just as we might have the SPCA for non-human animals. (one could say that whilst the SPCA was formed to protect animals, it was also based on, and served to perpetuate, the notion that we are ‘different’ from them and thus left alone the basis upon which arose problems that environmentalists are now attempting to resolve.)  In this, they are saying, ‘your version of humanity has its version of rights, and our version has its own. So don’t talk to me about your western brand of ‘concern’ and bugger off.’

Regionalising Disaffection

“According to the draft document, the long-standing tradition of non-interference will stand. Some of the stated principles in the document called for "non-interference in the internal affairs of Asean member states", as well as respecting "the right of every member state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion and coercion".” – The Nation

This situation is not unlike the attempt to represent the workers via a ‘union’ that is more in union with the government than with the workers, and to develop the workers to think and feel that it is union enough given their culturally unique persona.  I suspect that it as an attempt to redirect local disaffection from ‘western’ human rights bodies to localised ones, whilst hoping to keep the west silent on these issues as ‘we Asians’ are already doing something to address the concerns of ‘our brand of humanity’.  To enable local disaffection to flow to the west would surely keep alive the notion that there is no difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ and thus lead to the demands for conformity to their standards of human rights.  Hence, localization would be a significant step toward regionalising human rights and the type of human it takes to confuse little for much.  If this isn’t the case, then there should be no plausible reason for a localised body – unless the intent is to localise human nature given the ‘us vs. them’ discourse that has been quite pervasive the past two decades.

Additionally, the existence of nations such as Myanmar, amongst others, within this scheme of things is most opportune as it will enable the ASEAN ministers to seek a ‘compromise’ in its human rights constitution that will further weaken the standing of the regional body and strengthen their own positions.  When we seek to integrate the good, the bad and the ugly, as it is in the ‘Asian’ context, compromise becomes the greater good that in effect evicts good and leads to the rule of the compromise that is ‘bad’.  This is the dark side of inclusivity.  This will only serve to further the distinction between the ‘Asian’ and the ‘western’ because in the latter, the trend is generally in terms of assimilating ‘the bad’ and ‘the ugly’ as opposed to seeking a compromise between them. And unlike the west, in much of s.e.Asia, we are not mediating between extremely human rights conscious states and those that aren't, or extremely empathetic people and apathetic ones.  Rather, the inverse is true as people and governments generally mirror each other in their self-absorption and racialised view of reality.  Hence, what we're going to get can be something that is essentially very different from what was produced in the west. But as western critique in this matter might again be alleged to be a cultural imposition of colonial proportions, the different character of the AHRB that is thus created will further found the ‘we are we and the west is the west’ argument.   

This will serve to further strengthen the s.e.Asian stance against the west in their calls to ‘not interfere in internal affairs’.  We thus have two levels of internal protection here – the local and regional, aka, the pill and the diaphragm.  So we have a whole barrage of arguments against western ‘interference’ such as, ‘it is our internal affair’(the pill), and now, ‘it is our internal regional affair’ (the diaphragm), complemented by, ‘your critique of us is cultural imposition’, ‘we Asians are different’, ‘we need to be inclusive and therefore need to compromise between the Good, the Bad and the Ugly in our region which leads to the difference in our human rights constitutions’, etc, etc.  All these different perspectives are mutually supportive and seeks to cover various loopholes that might be used by the west to ‘impose their culture’.  I would really be interested to see how the west is going to counter this given their desire to appear culturally magnanimous as a compensation for their cultural fascism in the colonial era.

Asianspeak

We must keep in mind that the west is quite cowed by the argument of s.e.Asian ‘intellectuals’ that their views are a cultural and racist imposition.  With the addition of a localised human rights body, they will also be able to reinforce the former by implying that there is a difference, not only between the western idea of the human and ensuing human rights, but due to this difference, an ensuing difference when it comes to the idea of ‘concern’, ‘compassion’ and ‘empathy’.  A whole vocabulary is being redefined to fit this new brand of humanity that is emerging in this part of the world.  And in this, it is most probably going to serve to found similar exclusive sentiments in other parts of the world.  If language is an aid to imagination, then in this, it can serve to incorporate it.  This, by the way, is not the first of the attempts to split the human atom but a latter attempt to find one half of it a new host.  The issue is close to conclusion.

Globalising Empathy

For myself, instead of seeking to improve-via-critique the ‘Asian human rights body’, I would be completely against its formation.  When you localise a human rights body, it can be because the local culture needs consideration of its cultural milieu in the implementation of a singular universal perspective.  However, when it is set up within an overarching milieu wherein the divisive ‘Asian democratic’ discourse and perspective is becoming increasingly pervasive in the polity and popular, it can be perceived as nothing more than an attempt to contradistinguish the ‘Asian’ persona from the ‘west’ and then bring about an ‘appropriate’ rule.  In this, the ‘Asian’ persona will generally include the Chinese and Muslim personas – both, traditionally, have been quite exclusive – and it must be noted that the inclusive Indian mindset has been left out in both cultural milieux as it would be generally difficult to contend with or integrate the product of an antithetical 2000 year old democratic culture. (i.e. Indians ‘talk to much’, ‘question too much’, ‘complain too much’, ‘argue too much’ with ‘too much’ being determined by it being valued against a subservient or traditionalist status quo.)  Thus, this exclusive tendency could be exploited by anyone in this region to push forth the ‘Asian democratic’ project.  However, it must be stated that the Muslim persona is not, in its most essential form, exclusive, as their faith embodies a universalism that is not as pronounced in other faiths.  However, given the siege mentality that has been brought about amongst the global Muslim population, thanks to the agenda of the western elite, division would not be too far from the thus created Muslim imagination – though I personally believe that the purpose of Islam is to teach humanity the virtue of global unity…but that is another topic.

In activists’ attempts to improve this body, what will happen is that whilst they are at it over the years to come, much will be done to continue the redefinition of the ‘Asian’ persona to the point that these ‘activists’ popular support will wane in tandem with the ‘Asianising’ of their own views – especially since it is already the case with many ‘activists’ being verifiably monocultural populists themselves.  In this, we can say that the incorporation of the Asian oppositional movements into this mindset is that which now sees the founding of an Asian Human Rights body.  There are no significant movements of thought that contradict this mindset in this region.  We must not forget that many of these ‘activists’ are strongly acculturalised to identify with ‘their own race’ and ‘their own culture’ and would naturally fall for this ploy as it is founded on the selfsame perspectival basis which they themselves are products of.  (India is one of the few states in this region that is relatively further from cultural fascism than most.)  And with economic success, its value is attached to the culture and race thus further grounding such notions.

Hence, we could plausibly argue that all the ‘activists’ whom are attempting to improve this body are illustrating their own subconscious appreciation of the illusory difference between the west and themselves when it comes to human rights even whilst attempting to make it similar to that of the west.  What a remarkable paradox that, in its root, has the acute potential of undoing the best of intentions.  With this foundational perspectival flaw in place, all other victories will be enjoyed in the shadow of their own gradually and graduated underdeveloped ignorance and ‘difference’.  If not, like myself, they would be unequivocally against its formation as this is a significant milestone in the general effort to distinguish between ‘them’ and ‘us’ when it comes to the fundamentals of human identity, potentials, self-perceptions and rights.  These ‘activists’ are thus a part of an attempt to create two universes when it comes to human identity, and all that it takes to make the most out of the human being for the interests of the few as opposed to the interests of all.  I’m not saying that we should simply follow the west, we could, for instance, have Asian representatives in western human rights bodies so firstly, we can recognise and impart the recognition that we are one when it comes to our humanity and ensuing rights.  Secondly, in such a union, we would be able to impart our culturally learnt perspectives to the west for the improvement of human rights bodies located in the west.  If we take a divisive course, this will further the ‘Asian democratic’ project whose consequences ‘activists’ here are fond of bemoaning on the one hand, but constantly and ignorantly reinforce on the other.

If racialism recognises that though we are equal, we must be separate because of differences, than this ‘culturalism’ implies as much.  Amongst others, this is founded on the fascist undertones of just about all anti-colonial movements in the past century or so.  When the west fell for that, they set the stage for the emergence of, amongst others, the ‘Asian democratic’ phenomenon.  But that is another, albeit related, topic.

Ed