I take for my theme Mutual Respect - an essential in human rights development. At a time of tension in international relations it is apparent that there are various efforts being made to ‘weaponise’ the human rights debate. This is seen in the claims that there is a failure on one party to uphold human rights, sometimes to justify sanctions and generally to attack the standing or the legitimacy of party criticized. The implication of course is that the party doing the criticising stands in a morally superior position to the party criticised. Certain sections in the UK’s political parties have been particularly vocal in their use of human rights criticisms to attack other states parties. As a side observation these critics are often the same persons who have argued that the UK must exit from the European Convention on Human Rights apparently seeing no irony in demanding adherence by others to a universal view of human rights while rejecting adherence to a European perception of human rights.
In the case of the UK one does not require to be steeped in history to reflect that the history of the British Empire reveals case after case of the destruction of the human rights of peoples across the world. And even today there are domestic examples of less than perfect conduct in matters engaging human rights. Such reflection should, one might think, encourage a degree of humility and a reluctance to lecture other nations on their conduct in the area. Mutual respect might certainly suggest concern should be directed domestically rather than internationally.
While I am not here for the purpose of offering advice to UK politicians nonetheless some observations may be drawn from the political arguments that have emerged. Perhaps the first point is that each nation has evolved, quite often over centuries, its own history, institutions, traditions, ways of living, philosophies. True it is such evolution has not taken place in a vacuum but through a process of exchange and learning from other parts of the world. Evolution arises by that process where the new issue - whether it is a new manufacturing process, a new philosophy or even a new cuisine - is accepted out of respect for the contribution the new makes. But each nation develops its own characteristics. In borrowing the Chinese system of meritocracy in selection of civil servants, British civil servants were not required to adopt the red button - rather they traditionally wore bowler hats.
Mutual learning has over the centuries has enabled societies to develop and flourish. European societies learned mathematics from the Arab world which had previously adopted the numeral system from Hindu society. The magnetic compass appears to have arrived in Europe from China. More recently Marxist philosophy spread from Europe to China. But in these and many other transpositions between societies the receiving society retained its own characteristics - innovation and integration certainly often creating new achievements but without one society being dominated by the other.
Where mutual respect was absent history reveals a tendency to produce harsh outcomes. The enslavement of African peoples, the Holocaust, the Opium Wars all display one commonality - an aggressive lack of respect based on an assumption of a superiority of one set of people over others. None of these horrors endured. The contrast is with the enduring benefits arising out of exchanges and learning based on a recognition of the worth of the other.
When it comes to a discussion of human rights and the different approaches adopted by different societies there is no discernible benefit from confrontation. Turning the discussion into an argument over which approach is the superior seems to go against the whole idea of human rights. A discussion based on mutual respect permits understanding of why different approaches may have been adopted in different societies. The considerable diversity in the governance of human affairs suggests that policy for one society is unlikely to apply to another society with different priorities, different traditions, different history, different cultures. The purpose of discussion should be to learn from one another, to share experiences and to understand one another, not to promote division between peoples.
In a world where tensions are on the increase there remains a strong need to avoid war where possible. Building mutual respect is one step towards reducing tensions. Discussions on human rights with the objective of mutual understanding between countries can only serve to improve relations. Differing ideologies and differing cultures are a given in today’s world but an acceptance that mutual understanding makes for a safer world for all is hardly a controversial proposition. Mutual respect - a sincere mutual respect between nations - whether it arises from respect for sovereignty, respect for fellow human beings or respect for the diversity of the human experience - it is the responsible, essential basis for the development of a modern human rights philosophy.
