e972627

FROM UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE EARTH CHARTER:

Where is This All Going?

The compulsion to speak on behalf of other people is strong. When others appear (by our own judgement) to have no voice, it is tempting to become a voice for the voiceless. However, anyone who has even the smallest awareness of cross-cultural and development issues will recognize the fine and dangerous line between helping others and paternalism or colonialism.

In this article, I'd like to question the value of a "universalist" approach to addressing social and environmental issues, by discussing both the UN Charter on Human Rights, and more specifically, the “Earth Charter” which is being proposed for ratification at the Rio+10 conference in Johannesburg in 2002.

I am hesitant about making an argument against "universalism" in this article, due to the demonstrated usefulness of the concept of universal human rights – in a practical sense. However, I have real concerns regarding the paradigm of "universalism" and its potential to be an instrument of power and oppression in itself. In my view, to question "universalism" is to question one of the foundations of the western industrial/ideological complex.

The Problem of Universalism
There is an argument, commonly dismissed as “cultural relativism”, that people are different and that there may not be any "universal rights". For some peoples in the world, the whole concept that they have "rights" at all is relatively new. Many cultures operate with concepts of "responsibilities" rather than "rights", responsibilities which are defined by their local communities and not by a global administrative body.

The UN Charter on Human Rights has undoubtedly been useful – more than useful in fact. It has helped many individuals, communities and organizations to more effectively resist oppression, and it has provided a moral basis for international law. This level of political effectiveness can be beguiling. But in a world with as many problems as ours, we need to be cautious about latching on to and placing excessive faith in small examples of "justice" or commonsense. In this context it is particularly important to be critical because the negative impacts of universalism may be masked as we clamour to institute and protect "human rights".

As a concept, I would argue that "universalism" is politically dangerous because it cannot help but exclude different peoples and cultures. The "view from nowhere" does not exist, so any document of universal values, no matter how inclusive the drafting process, is going to reflect particular cultural values and will exclude others. To then claim that the document speaks for the whole of humanity is an act of power because it operationalizes certain paradigms, rationalities and procedures such as those at play in the case of the bushman cited below. At a basic level, it seems to me that what is a "right", and therefore what is a violation of a "right", varies from culture to culture. Consider for example:

The tale of the bushman who killed a goat belonging to a herd. He did so after properly asking the goat's permission – in full accord with his tribe's customs. Following these tribal customs, he could not even conceive the idea that the herd had an “owner” with “rights”, as legitimized by the laws of the state. Tried in a court of the state after his capture, he unhesitatingly accepted what he did without guilt. In fact the words “guilty” and “not guilty” do not exist in his culture and customs. But the arbiters of “impartial law” could not take into account his customs, which ignore the very notion of “rights” or “private ownership”. Put into jail he was unable to understand where he was and why. What was the meaning of the law, or the legal and legitimate reasons of the sentence imposed upon him after an impeccable trial by a fair judge?

Article 10 of the Charter of Human Rights states that: " Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. " (www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

But is not the very concept of an independent and impartial trial based on a particular, culturally specific legal system? While it is difficult to argue against such a "commonsense" legal paradigm, it is important to remember that this is not the only way that human communities have structured (and continue to structure) effective systems of justice. The problems of "universalizing" an essentially western model become evident in the story of the bushman:

“How was the trial?" asked the absent-minded white researcher. "They gave him the death sentence," answered his assistant, well acquainted with the bushman's kinship. “For killing a goat,” asked the puzzled white man. “No, Three months in jail. Same thing. He will die for sure. He has never seen a wall in his life. Now he has walls all around him. He refuses to eat or drink, for life in a cell is inconceivable to him.
Source: Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash, Grassroots Postmodernism, , Zed Books, 1998.

Prison is not classified as “violence”, “torture” or “the violation of human rights” in many modern societies – in so far as the sentence stems from a "legal trial". For other cultures, however, jails (and for that matter school classrooms) are considered inhumane places, subjecting people to torment and torture.

The Earth Charter – Another Universalist Project
Many people will be familiar with the development of the “Earth Charter”. The mission of the current phase of the Earth Charter initiative is to "establish a sound ethical foundation for the emerging global society and to help build a sustainable world based on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace." (www.earthcharter.org/welcome/program_en.htm).

Efforts to develop a set of principles for ecological security began at the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. Since then, many groups and coalitions have made contributions to the articulation of principles and values needed for sustainable development. The Earth Charter was one of the expected outcomes of the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It was to have formed the ethical foundation upon which Agenda 21 and the other Rio documents were to have been based. The Earth Charter is not proposed as a basis for "hard" law, but rather as a "soft" legal instrument for applying moral pressure.

The concerns that I have regarding the Earth Charter are based on the above mentioned criticisms of "universalism". These concerns are reinforced and validated by the some of problems inherent in the current draft of the Earth Charter (and I am arguing that such problems will always exist in any "universalist" project). For example, the Draft Charter (www.earthcharter.org/draft/charter.htm) states: Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.

In whose values and ways of living? Who is to say that fundamental changes are needed in the values and ways of living of the Penan people of Sarawak for example? The Draft Charter also states: Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people .

Are the concepts of “ownership” and the "right to own" not particular constructs of particular cultures? Is it reasonable or respectful to impose this (arguably problematic) concept on the whole of humanity – somehow enshrining it? Maybe it would be more fruitful for us to spend our time questioning our very concept of "ownership" of natural resources and understanding its historical trajectory.

These are only two of numerous possible examples that demonstrate that the Earth Charter does not stand the test of cultural impartiality. For such a document to be accepted as an "ethical foundation for the emerging global society" is clearly problematic.

At a practical level, the proponents of the Earth Charter argue that it can be used as a document to hold corporations accountable to some sort of environmental standards. However, national or indeed international standards could be equally as effective (or ineffective?) without the problems associated with "universalism".

Surely we have learned that we don't need any more lofty statements of goodwill and intent. How effective have other such "global" agreements, statements and charters been? The World Heritage Convention doesn't even effectively protect World Heritage Areas from uranium mining. It is not clear why people think that an Earth Charter could achieve much more than looking nice on the wall of some corporate headquarters somewhere.

My view is that we don't need to keep imposing western constructs on other cultures, we don't need another "toothless" charter to remind us to be nice to each other, and we certainly don't need an Earth Charter.

John Hepburn, FoE Australia

John works on issues of sustainability with FoE in Brisbane, Australia. Contact: foebrisbane@uq.net.au. Thanks to Morgan Brigg for ideas and editing.