The rights agenda to self-determination – Counterproductive Western imposition to Third World nations

Commentary: The ‘rights agenda’ is a Western imposition and counterproductive to self-determination for most developing countries. The place of ‘rights’ in fostering development, including for those are most disadvantaged, either groups or individuals; particularly in developing countries and communities.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

The world of development has never become more delighted than this era since the process of de-colonialization and especially over the past few decades. When many more non-state actors or NGOs have massively engaged and participated in the international development community, those are in the role of influencers and dramatically changing the perception of development in the international civil society.

Besides, at the international stage, this change creates a premise for the future of the development criteria, and it is seemingly becoming demanding respect and a handful platform for countries pursuing development.

However, the epistemology of development has been varied distinctively and far from the elaborate structure of development globally. Rather than reforming the standard of development to produce a homogenous kind of development routine for fellow vulnerable and marginalized populations, this has been considered as theoretical approaches.

Therefore, most disadvantaged or developing countries and communities argue that the process of development created by those developed countries has ignored the voice of other nations. It is rather prerogative and complacent than ethnographic because of the local elites and different sets of values, which are both natural and nurtured to inherent rightness.

This concerns the imposition of Western development criteria over the right to choose the own development method amongst those developing countries and communities in parallel to the preservation of inherent rightness, or in other words, it is so-called the right to self-determination in development.

By that right, this paper will discuss the significance of understanding the definition of self-determination right in development, the universal application of the right to self-determination in development, and how the Western counterproductive imposition in terms of the development right agenda will be detrimental with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

At the 40^th United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, “the representatives of both Bolivia and Jordan echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that respect for the principle of self-determination was a precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights, and no other right could be fully enjoyed without it.” (United Nations 2013, para. 3)

It is known that Bolivia and Jordan are the two countries located on the earth map with historical geographical position and ancient monuments despite being small countries with few natural resources and having endured long invasions from other foreign Powers in the history.

Why do those small countries have such sentiments? What are the pivotal elements of fairness amongst other nations in the modern world? It is, as emancipation, the self-determination right– the respect to development. According to Sara (2003, p. 327), “the right of self-determination has been applied to the rights of countries as a whole in advocating their freedom from colonial rule, and to the rights of individuals with countries, particularly in the context of minority and ethnic rights.”

In addition, at Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976 (ICCPR) and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights 1976 (ICESCR), the self-determination right contained “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” However, because of the birth of the UN and amongst its controversies of the power norms after the World War II and the Cold War, it was thus the conception of the right of self-determination to development seemingly misidentified globally. It continued with The Right to Development as established in the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development (widespread known and recognized now), and finally reaffirmed through an international consensus in Vienna in 1993 that the significance of the human rights lied in the right to development “as a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.” (Sengupta 2001, p. 2527)

So, this statement globally clearly acknowledged the right to development or the right of self-determination to all the peoples of all nations, from which everyone has the right to be active participants and beneficiary to the right to development as fundamental rights like what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) proclaimed as the nature of the right to development.

However, when it comes to the universal application, the right to development has been now seeing more challenging and often open to conflicting interpretations. Why could this be? Besides the success of The Right to Development Declaration, there are two problems with its practical meaning, which considered as an explanation for the idea of “the Western imposition” in development.

Primarily, it is the concept of the capitalist idea. If the UDHR had 58 member states participated in with 50 ratified the document and 8 abstained, the Right to Development Declaration had representatives of 171 states adopted by consensus the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Since people questioned the universality of the UDHR because of its applicability when it was drafted and constructed and declared just three years later (1948) after the end of the WWII, which powers were mostly handled in the West.

Therefore, it concerned human rights as “a western construct with limited applicability”. Nearly one century later, in 1993, the ‘right agenda’ had been continued to discuss but upheld to ‘development agenda’. Nonetheless, although there were more member states approved this declaration, the ratifications were still predominant in the West and left the unrest to most of the Third World countries. Then this posed tremendous ideological questions.

For instance, if the marginalized populations or individual states are unable to fulfil the development requirements, the international community can intervene and assist them, other developed nations can use ODA other different aid performance to assist too. In return, the role of national players such as the government, NGOs, social entrepreneurs and other development organizations can be encountered with the responsibility to the self-control system and the accountability to their citizens. Another aspect is that it can be causing fear to those countries.

The concept of capitalism is to lift the position of individualism up rather than collectivism, competition rather than community cohesion, and self-interest rather than community role. In terms of the nature of rights, this fear is reasonable and understandable. Hence, the ratification is still the ratification on papers but not in reality.

Secondly, any subsequent benefits from development aid packs can cause harm to other human rights such as social, humanitarian and cultural norms. “It is only through the realization of this very basic right of people to determine, with no compulsion or coercion, their own future, political status and independence that we can begin to address others such as dignity, justice, progress and equity,” said the representative of Maldives. (United Nations 2013, para. 2) From this perspective and mentioned analysis, it is irrefutable that every nation needs development but realizing the right to development from national to international level must be addressed wherever the term development is called.

To achieve this, one of the most basic precondition is listening to the voice of developing and disadvantaged countries and communities globally. A design of fair share of benefits needs to have really cared when delivering any supply of means or resources because it will facilitate the enjoyment of other rights and help to exercise the rights and equate the right to development as the whole gamut of development, which should decently cover human rights as well. So that the universality of the true self-determination to the development concept can be precisely interpreted and understood to practice.

By understanding the importance of the practical values in fostering development, it is necessary to illustrate some case studies which seems to be failed in terms of imposition sanctions in development from this country to another.

Thanks to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), people can decode some of the underlying goals in development from the colonial period to decolonial period and modern theory of development. In terms of colonialism, the British or the Portuguese brought the Christian missionaries and the imposition of colonial rule over the African continent, especially in West African.

One of the best-known aspects is the teaching methodology. There were no elite local or values taught by the British or Portuguese, which of course they were European languages from eurocentrism of culture, religion, and curriculum. Beside prohibition of local interventions, cultural assimilation and civilization are the two main themes of the colonial period, ‘hidden curriculum’ was massively discovered. It surrounded the notion of rich or poor colonies.

Later, Said supposed that this was ‘Orient’ and colonial considered as an integral part of European material civilization and culture; and postcolonial phase was imperialistic. (Orientalism 1979) In terms of SDGs, this was absolutely wrong. Whilst the West with great powers became richer and richer, the East was left behind with vestiges of a colonial civilization with nothing rather than elaborate accounts of Orient that strongly ruined the core values of society, humanity and culture of colonized countries, and took away material values and resources that benefited economic values and financial development for invaders.

Thus, if the self-determination right appeared earlier in history, this issue could be seen as crimes against humanity and lacked respect to human rights tremendously.

In addition, by investigating the modern theory of development, the interrelationship between national and international aspects of development may not always be feasible.

On the one side, developing countries have their right to fear and kind of sovereignty like what they did experience from the past – a great lesson. On the other hand, the self-determination in development theory is not often necessarily interpreted as a nation can make their own efforts to promoting development.

However, because pertaining development purely needs great efforts than just any agreements. In specific, investment and resources, bilateral and multilateral aid programme, or any kind of development projects and solutions should be legalized by [first and foremost/prioritizing] the self-realization from one another and eventually ways of “making an agreement binding among different duty holders.” (Sengupta 2013, p. 67) This, henceforth, requires no manifesto right at all rather than respecting, promoting, and helping by understanding and sharing responsibility in the general development of the prosperity within each nation by their people’s most resilient strength.

Reference

Colonial and Postcolonial Literary Dialogues, Orientalism, viewed 30 October 2017, <https://wmich.edu/dialogues/sitepages/home.html&gt;

United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases 2013, Self-Determination Integral to Basic Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms, Third Committee Told as It Concludes General Discussion, viewed 29 October 2017, <https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/gashc4085.doc.htm>

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, viewed 29 October 2017, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx>

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commission, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, viewed 29 October 2017, <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx>

Sengupta, Arjun 2001. ‘Right to Development as a Human Right’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 36, no. 27, pp. 2527-2536, viewed 29 October 2017, <https://leo.acu.edu.au/pluginfile.php/2388771/mod_resource/content/3/Right%20to%20Development.pdf>