Many countries became concerned with the US-led Nato's recent declaration that human rights are more important than national sovereignty. What are the differences between Eastern and Western societies in human rights and other values？ On June 28, Prof Tommy Koh spoke on “Differences in Asian and American values”。 The following is the second part of his paper.
On personal values, Asians emphasised the importance of respect for learning, honesty and self-discipline, whereas Americans emphasised achieving success in life, personal achievement and helping others.
On societal values, there were three differences. First, 71% of the Asians compared to 11% of the Americans emphasised the importance of orderly society.
Second, 82% of the Americans compared to 32% of the Asians emphasised the importance of personal freedom.
Third, 78% of the Americans compared to 29% of the Asians emphasised the importance of individual rights.
Hitchcock's survey findings confirm my impression that there are significant differences between the personal and societal values of Asians and Americans.
To recapitulate, Asians emphasise the importance of orderly society whereas Americans emphasise the importance of personal freedom and individual rights.
Asians emphasise the importance of respect for learning and self-discipline whereas Americans emphasise the importance of success, personal achievement and helping others.
Given the above differences, it is therefore not surprising that East Asia and the West do not always hold identical views on human rights.
In November 1998, the Asia-Europe Foundation co-organised a colloquium on Human Rights and Human Responsibilities, with the German newspaper, Die Zeit, in Hamburg. The colloquium agreed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has helped to make the world a more humane place. However, there were two disagreements among some Asian and European participants at the colloquium.
The first disagreement was over whether, given the diversity of the world in which we live, we could agree that“different places should be allowed to progress at different paces” towards the achievement of the universal standards.
The second disagreement was on whether, in judging the human rights situation of a country, one should take into account its history and context.
Let us take China as an example. Should we judge China by the standards of, for example, contemporary Sweden, or should China be judged in the context of the dramatic progress it has made since the beginning of the Deng era？
A former US Ambassador to China, J Stapleton-Roy, had written that no government in human history has done so much for so many people in such a short time as the government of China.
At the Hamburg colloquium, we agreed that our record of achievements in the field of human rights, over the past 50 years, contained at least three flaws. First, we acknowledged that we are all guilty of double standards. We tend to criticise states with which we have little or no national interests and which are not in a position to retaliate against us.
There is an inescapable tension faced by all governments in reconciling their commitment to principles and the interests of the state.
Second, the development of international human rights law, during the past 50 years, has been driven by a dominant West. The views, concerns and interests of the non-Western world are often ignored or inadequately considered.
A case in point is the current campaign by Europe to impose its opposition to capital punishment on the rest of the world as a new universal norm.
Is it right for Europe to do so when the facts are that there are 118 countries which retain capital punishment in their laws as against 67 which have legally abolished the death penalty？
Third, because of its ignorance of the conditions in some developing countries, the good intentions of the West sometimes do more harm than good. Let me give you an example.
Last October, I co-chaired a colloquium on labour relations at the Hague, in the Netherlands. A representative of an European non-governmental organisation told us that it had succeeded in closing down a factory in Bangladesh which employed child labour. Later, it found to its horror that because of the poverty of the families, some of the girls had been forced into prostitution.
The moral of the story is that in order to wipe out child labour we need a positive agenda of poverty alleviation as well as an agenda of targeting the evil people who exploit children.
I want to conclude on a positive note. Because of globalisation, information technology and human mobility, we are truly the citizens of one world. We must therefore evolve a global consensus on what is good and evil and what is right and wrong. Asians and Europeans can make important contributions towards the evolution of such a consensus.
In our dialogue, we should be diligent in seeking understanding and be slow to judge. We should avoid confrontation as much as possible. We should treat each other with mutual respect. With such an attitude, I am confident that we will succeed in increasing our points of convergence and reducing our points of divergence. And, when we disagree, we should agree to disagree agreeably.
亞洲人與美國(guó)人價(jià)值觀的差別
以美國(guó)為首的北約最近提出“人權(quán)高于主權(quán)”的主張。東西方社會(huì)在人權(quán)和其他價(jià)值觀方面有何差別呢？許通美教授于本星期一在北京舉行的一個(gè)會(huì)議上,以《亞洲與美國(guó)價(jià)值觀之間的不同》為題,發(fā)表他的看法。以下是他講演的要點(diǎn)。
在個(gè)人價(jià)值觀方面,亞洲人注重教育、誠(chéng)實(shí)和自律,而美國(guó)人則注重生活中所取得的成功、個(gè)人的成就和幫助他人。
在社會(huì)價(jià)值觀方面,有三個(gè)差別。第一、有71%的亞洲人注重社會(huì)秩序,相比之下有11%的美國(guó)人注重這一點(diǎn)。
第二、有82%的美國(guó)人認(rèn)為個(gè)人自由重要,相比之下有32%的亞洲人認(rèn)為這一點(diǎn)重要。
第三、有78%的美國(guó)人注重個(gè)人權(quán)利,相比之下有29%的亞洲人注重這一點(diǎn)。
美國(guó)人大衛(wèi)。希治閣的調(diào)查結(jié)果證實(shí)了我向來(lái)所持有的印象,即亞洲人和美國(guó)人的個(gè)人和社會(huì)價(jià)值觀,之間存在著很大的分歧。
讓我們來(lái)重述幾個(gè)要點(diǎn)：亞洲人注重社會(huì)秩序,而美國(guó)人則注重個(gè)人自由和個(gè)人權(quán)利。
亞洲人注重教育和自律,而美國(guó)人則注重生活中所取得的成功、個(gè)人的成就和幫助他人。
基于以上的差別,東亞和西方之間對(duì)人權(quán)的看法有所分歧,是不足為奇的。
1998年11月,亞歐基金會(huì)和德國(guó)《時(shí)代》周刊在漢堡聯(lián)合主辦了一個(gè)關(guān)于人權(quán)和人類責(zé)任的大型研討會(huì)。大會(huì)一致同意《環(huán)球人權(quán)宣言》的確使世界變成一個(gè)更人道的地方。然而,與會(huì)的亞洲和歐洲代表在兩方面出現(xiàn)意見分歧。
第一、在這個(gè)多元化的世界中,是否應(yīng)該允許不同地方以不同的進(jìn)度來(lái)達(dá)到全球接受的人權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
第二、在評(píng)估某個(gè)國(guó)家的人權(quán)狀況時(shí),是否應(yīng)該考慮到該國(guó)的歷史背景？
以中國(guó)為例,我們應(yīng)該以當(dāng)代先進(jìn)國(guó)家如瑞典的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)評(píng)估它,還是以鄧小平時(shí)代以來(lái)中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)所發(fā)生的巨變作為評(píng)估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？
曾經(jīng)是駐中國(guó)的美國(guó)大使芮孝儉就曾為文指出,人類從未有過(guò)一個(gè)政府像中國(guó)政府一般,在那么短的時(shí)間內(nèi)為那么多人民做了那么多事。
在漢堡大會(huì)上,我們都同意這50年來(lái)我們爭(zhēng)取人權(quán)的記錄中有至少三項(xiàng)缺點(diǎn)。第一、我們承認(rèn)我們都使用雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我們通常都批評(píng)那些對(duì)本國(guó)利益沒多大影響,或者根本就沒有影響的國(guó)家。我們也批評(píng)那些無(wú)法對(duì)我們作出反擊的國(guó)家。
這是各國(guó)政府都必須面對(duì)的問題,如何在國(guó)家原則和國(guó)家利益之間作出取舍。
第二、國(guó)際人權(quán)法的發(fā)展,這50年來(lái)一直被西方支配。非西方世界的觀點(diǎn)、憂慮和利益通常都被忽略,就算有把它們考慮在內(nèi),也考慮得不夠透徹。
譬如,目前歐洲正向全世界鼓吹廢除死刑,要求將此定為一項(xiàng)新的國(guó)際準(zhǔn)則。
世界上還有118個(gè)國(guó)家保留死刑,相比之下有67個(gè)國(guó)家立法廢除死刑,歐洲這樣做是對(duì)的嗎？
第三、由于西方國(guó)家不了解一些發(fā)展中國(guó)家的情況,它們的好意往往弄巧反拙。
讓我舉一個(gè)例子。去年10月我在荷蘭海牙聯(lián)合主持了一個(gè)關(guān)于勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的研討會(huì)。歐洲某個(gè)非政府組織的一名代表向我們匯報(bào),該組織成功地在孟加拉關(guān)閉一家雇用孩童勞工的工廠。但該組織后來(lái)無(wú)限震驚地發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些小女孩因家中的貧困而被逼賣*。
我們?nèi)粢沤^孩童勞工的話,不單要對(duì)付那些剝削孩子們的惡人,還要擬定一項(xiàng)減輕貧困的計(jì)劃。這就是這個(gè)事件所給我們的教訓(xùn)。
讓我從樂觀的角度作個(gè)總結(jié)。全球化趨勢(shì)、資訊科技和人類的流動(dòng)性,使我們真正成為同一個(gè)世界的公民。因此我們必須達(dá)致一個(gè)辯明是非善惡的共同準(zhǔn)則。亞洲人和歐洲人能夠?yàn)檫_(dá)致這個(gè)共識(shí)作出重大貢獻(xiàn)。在互相交流對(duì)話時(shí),我們應(yīng)該力求彼此諒解,不要一味批判他人。我們應(yīng)該盡量避免正面沖突。我們應(yīng)該互相尊敬。有了這樣的態(tài)度,我有信心我們今后的共同點(diǎn)將越來(lái)越多,而分歧則越來(lái)越少。
當(dāng)我們不同意對(duì)方的意見時(shí),我們也應(yīng)該處之泰然。
On personal values, Asians emphasised the importance of respect for learning, honesty and self-discipline, whereas Americans emphasised achieving success in life, personal achievement and helping others.
On societal values, there were three differences. First, 71% of the Asians compared to 11% of the Americans emphasised the importance of orderly society.
Second, 82% of the Americans compared to 32% of the Asians emphasised the importance of personal freedom.
Third, 78% of the Americans compared to 29% of the Asians emphasised the importance of individual rights.
Hitchcock's survey findings confirm my impression that there are significant differences between the personal and societal values of Asians and Americans.
To recapitulate, Asians emphasise the importance of orderly society whereas Americans emphasise the importance of personal freedom and individual rights.
Asians emphasise the importance of respect for learning and self-discipline whereas Americans emphasise the importance of success, personal achievement and helping others.
Given the above differences, it is therefore not surprising that East Asia and the West do not always hold identical views on human rights.
In November 1998, the Asia-Europe Foundation co-organised a colloquium on Human Rights and Human Responsibilities, with the German newspaper, Die Zeit, in Hamburg. The colloquium agreed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has helped to make the world a more humane place. However, there were two disagreements among some Asian and European participants at the colloquium.
The first disagreement was over whether, given the diversity of the world in which we live, we could agree that“different places should be allowed to progress at different paces” towards the achievement of the universal standards.
The second disagreement was on whether, in judging the human rights situation of a country, one should take into account its history and context.
Let us take China as an example. Should we judge China by the standards of, for example, contemporary Sweden, or should China be judged in the context of the dramatic progress it has made since the beginning of the Deng era？
A former US Ambassador to China, J Stapleton-Roy, had written that no government in human history has done so much for so many people in such a short time as the government of China.
At the Hamburg colloquium, we agreed that our record of achievements in the field of human rights, over the past 50 years, contained at least three flaws. First, we acknowledged that we are all guilty of double standards. We tend to criticise states with which we have little or no national interests and which are not in a position to retaliate against us.
There is an inescapable tension faced by all governments in reconciling their commitment to principles and the interests of the state.
Second, the development of international human rights law, during the past 50 years, has been driven by a dominant West. The views, concerns and interests of the non-Western world are often ignored or inadequately considered.
A case in point is the current campaign by Europe to impose its opposition to capital punishment on the rest of the world as a new universal norm.
Is it right for Europe to do so when the facts are that there are 118 countries which retain capital punishment in their laws as against 67 which have legally abolished the death penalty？
Third, because of its ignorance of the conditions in some developing countries, the good intentions of the West sometimes do more harm than good. Let me give you an example.
Last October, I co-chaired a colloquium on labour relations at the Hague, in the Netherlands. A representative of an European non-governmental organisation told us that it had succeeded in closing down a factory in Bangladesh which employed child labour. Later, it found to its horror that because of the poverty of the families, some of the girls had been forced into prostitution.
The moral of the story is that in order to wipe out child labour we need a positive agenda of poverty alleviation as well as an agenda of targeting the evil people who exploit children.
I want to conclude on a positive note. Because of globalisation, information technology and human mobility, we are truly the citizens of one world. We must therefore evolve a global consensus on what is good and evil and what is right and wrong. Asians and Europeans can make important contributions towards the evolution of such a consensus.
In our dialogue, we should be diligent in seeking understanding and be slow to judge. We should avoid confrontation as much as possible. We should treat each other with mutual respect. With such an attitude, I am confident that we will succeed in increasing our points of convergence and reducing our points of divergence. And, when we disagree, we should agree to disagree agreeably.
亞洲人與美國(guó)人價(jià)值觀的差別
以美國(guó)為首的北約最近提出“人權(quán)高于主權(quán)”的主張。東西方社會(huì)在人權(quán)和其他價(jià)值觀方面有何差別呢？許通美教授于本星期一在北京舉行的一個(gè)會(huì)議上,以《亞洲與美國(guó)價(jià)值觀之間的不同》為題,發(fā)表他的看法。以下是他講演的要點(diǎn)。
在個(gè)人價(jià)值觀方面,亞洲人注重教育、誠(chéng)實(shí)和自律,而美國(guó)人則注重生活中所取得的成功、個(gè)人的成就和幫助他人。
在社會(huì)價(jià)值觀方面,有三個(gè)差別。第一、有71%的亞洲人注重社會(huì)秩序,相比之下有11%的美國(guó)人注重這一點(diǎn)。
第二、有82%的美國(guó)人認(rèn)為個(gè)人自由重要,相比之下有32%的亞洲人認(rèn)為這一點(diǎn)重要。
第三、有78%的美國(guó)人注重個(gè)人權(quán)利,相比之下有29%的亞洲人注重這一點(diǎn)。
美國(guó)人大衛(wèi)。希治閣的調(diào)查結(jié)果證實(shí)了我向來(lái)所持有的印象,即亞洲人和美國(guó)人的個(gè)人和社會(huì)價(jià)值觀,之間存在著很大的分歧。
讓我們來(lái)重述幾個(gè)要點(diǎn)：亞洲人注重社會(huì)秩序,而美國(guó)人則注重個(gè)人自由和個(gè)人權(quán)利。
亞洲人注重教育和自律,而美國(guó)人則注重生活中所取得的成功、個(gè)人的成就和幫助他人。
基于以上的差別,東亞和西方之間對(duì)人權(quán)的看法有所分歧,是不足為奇的。
1998年11月,亞歐基金會(huì)和德國(guó)《時(shí)代》周刊在漢堡聯(lián)合主辦了一個(gè)關(guān)于人權(quán)和人類責(zé)任的大型研討會(huì)。大會(huì)一致同意《環(huán)球人權(quán)宣言》的確使世界變成一個(gè)更人道的地方。然而,與會(huì)的亞洲和歐洲代表在兩方面出現(xiàn)意見分歧。
第一、在這個(gè)多元化的世界中,是否應(yīng)該允許不同地方以不同的進(jìn)度來(lái)達(dá)到全球接受的人權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
第二、在評(píng)估某個(gè)國(guó)家的人權(quán)狀況時(shí),是否應(yīng)該考慮到該國(guó)的歷史背景？
以中國(guó)為例,我們應(yīng)該以當(dāng)代先進(jìn)國(guó)家如瑞典的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)評(píng)估它,還是以鄧小平時(shí)代以來(lái)中國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)所發(fā)生的巨變作為評(píng)估標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？
曾經(jīng)是駐中國(guó)的美國(guó)大使芮孝儉就曾為文指出,人類從未有過(guò)一個(gè)政府像中國(guó)政府一般,在那么短的時(shí)間內(nèi)為那么多人民做了那么多事。
在漢堡大會(huì)上,我們都同意這50年來(lái)我們爭(zhēng)取人權(quán)的記錄中有至少三項(xiàng)缺點(diǎn)。第一、我們承認(rèn)我們都使用雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我們通常都批評(píng)那些對(duì)本國(guó)利益沒多大影響,或者根本就沒有影響的國(guó)家。我們也批評(píng)那些無(wú)法對(duì)我們作出反擊的國(guó)家。
這是各國(guó)政府都必須面對(duì)的問題,如何在國(guó)家原則和國(guó)家利益之間作出取舍。
第二、國(guó)際人權(quán)法的發(fā)展,這50年來(lái)一直被西方支配。非西方世界的觀點(diǎn)、憂慮和利益通常都被忽略,就算有把它們考慮在內(nèi),也考慮得不夠透徹。
譬如,目前歐洲正向全世界鼓吹廢除死刑,要求將此定為一項(xiàng)新的國(guó)際準(zhǔn)則。
世界上還有118個(gè)國(guó)家保留死刑,相比之下有67個(gè)國(guó)家立法廢除死刑,歐洲這樣做是對(duì)的嗎？
第三、由于西方國(guó)家不了解一些發(fā)展中國(guó)家的情況,它們的好意往往弄巧反拙。
讓我舉一個(gè)例子。去年10月我在荷蘭海牙聯(lián)合主持了一個(gè)關(guān)于勞動(dòng)關(guān)系的研討會(huì)。歐洲某個(gè)非政府組織的一名代表向我們匯報(bào),該組織成功地在孟加拉關(guān)閉一家雇用孩童勞工的工廠。但該組織后來(lái)無(wú)限震驚地發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些小女孩因家中的貧困而被逼賣*。
我們?nèi)粢沤^孩童勞工的話,不單要對(duì)付那些剝削孩子們的惡人,還要擬定一項(xiàng)減輕貧困的計(jì)劃。這就是這個(gè)事件所給我們的教訓(xùn)。
讓我從樂觀的角度作個(gè)總結(jié)。全球化趨勢(shì)、資訊科技和人類的流動(dòng)性,使我們真正成為同一個(gè)世界的公民。因此我們必須達(dá)致一個(gè)辯明是非善惡的共同準(zhǔn)則。亞洲人和歐洲人能夠?yàn)檫_(dá)致這個(gè)共識(shí)作出重大貢獻(xiàn)。在互相交流對(duì)話時(shí),我們應(yīng)該力求彼此諒解,不要一味批判他人。我們應(yīng)該盡量避免正面沖突。我們應(yīng)該互相尊敬。有了這樣的態(tài)度,我有信心我們今后的共同點(diǎn)將越來(lái)越多,而分歧則越來(lái)越少。
當(dāng)我們不同意對(duì)方的意見時(shí),我們也應(yīng)該處之泰然。