Analyzing the speeches at the 65th & 66th meetings of the General Assembly- December 2008
Introduction
On the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the 63rd General Assembly of the United Nations held meetings in December 2008 in commemoration of the achievement. As part of the ceremony, statements were given by fourteen member countries representing different regions of the world. The aim of this article is to analyze these speeches from the perspective of developing vs. developed countries and to highlight the similarities, and more importantly, the different approaches these nations take with regard to human rights issues.
The Divide Between Developing and Developed Countries
The divide between developing and developed countries has its roots in both political and economic factors. 19th and 20th century colonialism was the major political cause of this schism, leaving deep scars on the relations between colonial powers and the territories they occupied that lingered well after the series of independences in the 1950s and 1960s. Economically, this divide was manifested in the division of the world economy between producers of primary products in the labor intensive developing world, and secondary products in the capital intensive developed world. Developing countries attempted to change the terms of trade and adopted economic policies that moved away from the neo-classical economic model championed by the developed countries. Their last attempts to institute a change to the world economy through their fight for a New International Economic Order failed and after the debt crisis of the 1980s, the developing world was ultimately obliged to play by the rules of the developed countries. The divide was also manifested in the adoption of two covenants for the UDHR one for Civil and Political Rights supported by the developed countries of the West, and the other for Economical, Social and Cultural Rights, supported by the Soviet Union and other developing countries. Even after the end of the cold war and the integration of the developing countries into a new world economy through globalization, that divide remained and the analysis of the speeches, during the 65th & 66th meetings of the General Assembly, clearly illustrate this reality.
Analysis of the Statements of the Representatives
The developing countries were represented by 8 members coming from: African, Asian, Latin American and Caribbean and Non-Aligned Movement states, the Rio Group and MERCOSUR and the Caribbean Community. The developed countries were represented by 5 members coming from: Eastern, Western European and Other States, United States as the host country, the European Union, the Nordic States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. [1]
Similarities
The similarities between the speakers from these disparate are striking. The declaration that human rights are “universal, interdependent indivisible and interrelated” was stated by at least 5 of the speakers. Words like “freedom”, “justice” and dignity” were repeated in every speech. While most speakers reaffirmed in one way or another their commitment to the UDHR and to protect “all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, one asks the questions: if there is a unanimous worldwide commitment to human rights, why human rights are still abused and not fully respected after 60 years of the declaration? Are these speeches just human rights rhetoric posed by governments unwilling and unable to fulfill their promises or the mechanism of implementing human rights is not functioning efficiently?
Differences
A further review of these commemorative addresses, however, reveals a litany of differences, many hidden between the lines, that exemplify the true nature of the relationship between these groups of nations. The words “right to development” and “underdevelopment” were not mentioned by a single representative of the developed countries; a stark contrast to the seven speakers from developing countries who mentioned these phrases at least once. This shows that, twenty four years after the adoption of the Declaration to the Right of Development, the debate lives on. Though some developed countries recognize development as an important global issue and contribute to aid programs, any attempts at resource allocation are usually met with defeat.
The significant divide between these two groups with developed countries supporting Civil & Political Rights and developing countries supporting Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can be easily seen in the rhetoric of their representatives. Developed countries regularly used terms like “tyranny”, tribunals”, “International Criminal Court”, “prisoners of conscience”, fraudulent elections” and “democracy” etc. while developing countries used terms like “poverty”, “marginalization” and “social and economic exclusion”. While the importance of each of these rights is inarguable, doesn’t the lobby for selective rights agendas by each of these two groups betray one of the main principles of the UDHR and violate the indivisibility that is the foundation of the Declaration?
Also notable is the sentence “right to self determination” that was used by five of the eight speakers of the developing countries which shows that issues of occupation and self determination are key to the developing world and represent the response to the Political Rights agenda pushed by the developed world. It also shows that human rights can be, and often is, highly politicized.
The subject, seen mainly in the speeches of the developing countries, of the need for further investments in human rights education and training as a tool to increase awareness and help in reducing human right abuses is surprising, as it was not used by the developed countries. If the developed world is committed to financially and technically advancing the cause of human rights through education and training, wouldn’t the sixtieth anniversary commemoration be a prime moment to reiterate that vow?
Most developing countries raised the need to address human rights issues taking into consideration religious, social and cultural specifics of each country, and respecting national sovereignty. This brings us back to the politicization of human rights with developing countries fearing developed countries’ interference in their internal politics under the cover of human rights, and developed countries fearing states that use national sovereignty as a cover to abuse human rights. While religion, and its stress on the human being helps in most cases to support human rights, it is debatable if societal and cultural specifics are always supportive of human rights, especially in issues of women rights. This being said, all human rights work has to take into consideration, though not necessarily agree with, local traditions and cultures.
Conclusion
The positive conclusion from the above is in spite of the differences, it is an achievement solely to have all of these countries reading from the same book; that of the UDHR and its covenants. Differences still remain, and become exacerbated when they are politicized. Though we all want a swift and speedy move into full respect and implementation of human rights, this is something hard to reach and so the way forward should be based on progressive change with long term consequences driven by consistent dialogue between the governments of these different nations..
[1] Note: Within each group above there are differences between countries in per capita income, level of development and even approach to human rights. However, for the sake of this analysis, the above division is a good approximation of the divide between developing and developed countries.
© 2010, Bernard Zaarour. All rights reserved.