Asia Pacific and Human Rights

A Global Political Economy Perspective

Paul Close, David Askew

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351956833
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Derecho
• Subtopic: Derechos civiles en la legislación

Human rights are acquiring an increasingly prominent role on the world stage. Interest in, concern about and action on human rights are widespread and rising, albeit in a far from globally even, uniform and untroubled fashion. Human rights have generated a booming global industry while having become, not unconnectedly, highly controversial and deeply contested. Human rights matters have emerged as a major source of disagreement, dispute and discord at and between the local, regional and global levels of social, cultural, political and economic life. These developments are addressed in the book by an examination of the links between the evolving global human rights regime (GHRR) and the character and course of human rights in the world's most dynamic, complex and problematic region, that of the Asia Pacific. The authors argue that although the Asia Pacific and human rights nexus is influenced by cultural clashes, it is largely shaped by power distributions and struggles rooted in the global political economy (GPE). The prevailing GHRR reflects the way in which globalization processes have been Western led, but its future is far from certain given the current shift in the balance of GPE power towards the Asia Pacific, and especially East Asia.

Chapter One
Setting the Scene

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew has suggested that the 'Western concepts' of democracy and human rights will not work in Asia. This is false: Asia has its own venerable traditions of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for the people. Asia's destiny is to improve Western concepts, not ignore them.

This is the opening summary to Kim Dae Jung's 1994 Foreign Affairs article on Is Culture Destiny? (Kim, 1994; cf. Sen, 1997a). It touches on some of the principal themes, issues and debates surrounding the tasks of studying, analyzing and making sense of Asia Pacific and human rights, not least that of 'which, if any, human rights suit the Asia Pacific region in view of the somewhat distinctive social and cultural context and complexities involved?' It draws attention to the deep divisions of opinion over this issue then and since, in particular within the political arena, including between governments. It alludes to the global political economy perspective on the Asia Pacific and human rights nexus.

Kim Dae Jung is a leading political figure in East Asia. He was introduced for the purpose of the Foreign Affairs article as having been 'a dissident, human rights activist, and presidential candidate during a political career of more than four decades in the Republic of [South] Korea', and as being at the time the 'Chairman of the Kim Dae Jung Peace Foundation for the Asia-Pacific Region' (Kim, 1994). Later, he became not only President of South Korea, but also the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 2000:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2000 to Kim Dae-jung for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular. In the course of South Korea's decades of authoritarian rule, despite repeated threats on his life and long periods in exile, Kim Dae-jung gradually emerged as his country's leading spokesman for democracy. His election in 1997 as the republic's president marked South Korea's definitive entry among the world's democracies. As president, Kim Dae-jung has sought to consolidate democratic government and to promote internal reconciliation within South Korea. With great moral strength, Kim Dae-jung has stood out in East Asia as a leading defender of universal human rights against attempts to limit the relevance of those rights in Asia. His commitment in favour of democracy in Burma and against repression in East Timor has been considerable (Norwegian Nobel Committee, 13 October 2000).¹

In December 1997, Kim Dae Jung was elected by an impressive popular vote to the office of President of South Korea. However, this occurred 'in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis' (Nobel Foundation, 9 January 2004), afflicting a swathe of countries across East Asia. In response to this so-called 'Asian economic crisis' (Conference Secretariat, 1999a), President Kim 'devoted himself to the task of economic recovery' for badly hit South Korea, and is credited with managing 'to pull the country back from the brink of bankruptcy' (Nobel Foundation, 9 January 2004). Just over a year later, as the crisis subsided, and with the aim of taking stock, learning lessons and moving forward, the Korean government co-sponsored a major conference at which Kim gave an Opening Address. Lee Kyu-sung, Chairman of the Conference Organizing Committee and Minister of Finance and Economy of the Republic of (South) Korea explained:

In response to the recent financial crisis in Asia, many countries in the region are reconsidering the development frameworks and governance structures prevailing in the region. To meet this challenge and seek opportunities to pursue and share a fuller and wider understanding of the role of governance in development, the Korean government and the World Bank are co-hosting an international conference on 'Democracy, Market Economy and Development' on [26-27 February] 1999 [...] in Seoul (Lee Kyu-sung, 1999).

The background to the conference was clarified further by the Conference Secretariat:

Faced with an economic crisis of unprecedented scope, Korea has embarked upon a new strategy of socioeconomic development based on deepening democratization in the political arena and enhancing market orientation in the economic arena, guided by President Kim Dae-jung's 'principle of a parallel development of democracy and market economy'. Korea's approach [...] constitutes a new strategy to promote sustainable socioeconomic development rather than merely an expedient policy measure to overcome the current economic difficulties. In recent years, the World Bank has given greater prominence to the link between political governance and socioeconomic development in its programmatic initiatives and has begun to explore a 'Comprehensive Development Framework' which encompasses and emphasizes consideration of social institutions and governance structures (Conference Secretariat, 1999a).

Accordingly, Kim Dae Jung and James Wolfensohn, the President of the World Bank² 'found themselves in agreement with regard to the desirability of reform based on the principles of democracy and market orientation and their relevance as part of a comprehensive development strategy'; and consequently, the South Korean government and the World Bank 'agreed to jointly hold an international conference' on 'Democracy, Market Economy and Development' (ibid.). Apart from President Kim and James Wolfensohn, the conference attracted a number of other 'distinguished speakers', including 'political leaders, [eminent] academics and development practitioners', as well as 'participation from the international civil community, including diplomats, businessmen and non-government organizations (Lee Kyu-sung, 1999).³ Prominent among the political leaders were Felipe Gonzalez, the former Prime Minister of Spain and described as 'a driving force behind the country's democratization and economic reform'; Oscar Arias Sanchez, the former President of Costa Rica and the winner of the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for 'his leading role in bringing peace to Central America'; Yasuhiro Nakasone, 'former Prime Minister of Japan who served as a catalyst for [political economy] reform'; Fidel Ramos, the former President of the Philippines 'who consolidated its democratization process'; Poul Schluter, the former Prime Minister of Denmark 'who helped to make his country one of the least corrupt in the world' (Conference Secretariat, 1999a). President Kim and James Wolfensohn joined the 'political leaders' symposium' at the conference to 'explore the role of leadership in achieving good governance and sustainable development' (ibid.).

The conference was treated to 'special lectures' by Amartya Sen, the 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and Joseph Stiglitz, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank Group (ibid.). In his presentation on 'Democracy and Social Justice', Sen argued that 'it is important to include social justice as an essential objective of development strategy [Sen, 1999b]' (Conference Secretariat, 1999a).⁴ In his, Joseph Stiglitz proposed 'that democratic political governance is a prerequisite for sustainable development [Stiglitz, 1999b]' (Conference, 1999a).⁵ Other notable participants were Francis Fukuyama, best known for The End of History and the Last Man (Fukuyama, 1992),⁶ who gave a paper on 'Asian Values in the Wake of the Asian Crisis' (ibid.; see Fukuyama, 1999) in the conference session on Values, Governance and Development; and William Witherall, Director of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).⁷ Under the title 'Democracy, Market Economy and Civic Participation', there was a panel on 'Workers' Stake in Restructuring and Growth', the panelists of which included Vinod Thomas, Director of the Economic Development Institute (EDI) of the World Bank Group, and Kari Tapiola, Deputy Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO).⁸ There was another panel on 'Economic and Political Role of Women in Development', with Shaha Aliriza, the Gender and Civil Society Coordinator of the World Bank Group, and Lisa Veneklasen of the Asia Foundation's Women's Programs. The Asia Foundation (the headquarters of which are in San Francisco, California) introduces itself as follows:

The Asia Foundation is a non-profit, non-governmental organization committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, and open Asia-Pacific region. The Foundation supports programs in Asia that help improve governance and law, economic reform and development, women's participation, and international relations. Drawing on 50 years of experience in Asia, the Foundation collaborates with private and public partners to support leadership and institutional development, exchanges, and policy research (Asia Foundation, April 2004).⁹

The Democracy, Market Economy and Development conference was well supported when judged in terms of the breadth and depth of its participants and, in particular, its speakers. Collectively, the scholars, policy-makers and practitioners involved possessed considerable expertise in and influence over the political and economic spheres of social life at the local, regional and global levels, as well as the relationships between these spheres. The organizing theme of the conference was about these relationships, and so was about the political economy. The political economy can be defined as that area of social life where the political and economic spheres not only relate, but also overlap. Somewhat more radically, the political economy can be regarded as that area of social life where the political and the economic are indistinguishable other than, that is, analytically. According to this view, the political economy is that area of social life where, in practice, the political, on the one hand, and the economic, on the other, are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. Within the political economy, political activity will also be economic activity and vice versa. The so-called political economy perspective, discourse or ideology then assumes that the political economy is the pivotal social area around which all the others revolve; is largely responsible for shaping and reshaping all the other areas of social life; and crucially, is the main source of power, or distributions of power, within the broad sweep of social life, affairs and relationships.¹⁰

At the same time, the conference theme was clearly relevant to human rights matters. It was, after all, about democracy, at least in part, and democracy would seem to be an important human rights issue. For instance, according to Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948:

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his [sic] country, directly or through freely chosen representatives; everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country; and the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

It is of interest to note, therefore, that there was no mention of human rights in the Opening Ceremony speeches, although President Kim Dae Jung got close to doing so in what he said (Kim, 1999). The conference was opened with 'keynote addresses' by President Kim and James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank Group, who presented 'his ideas on the role of the World Bank in the global economy' (Conference Secretariat, 1999a). Wolfensohn outlined 'the World Bank's vision for promoting sustainable development and the Comprehensive Development Framework that will underpin its future programmatic initiatives to reduce global poverty' (ibid.). President Kim outlined 'the historical and philosophical basis for the principle of a parallel development of democracy and market economy', and explained 'both the Korean context and the wider applicability of this principle' (ibid.). In his Presidential Address, Kim recalled:

Upon assuming the presidency a year ago, I presented the concept of the parallel development of democracy and a market economy as the governing philosophy of my administration [...]. My analysis of the fundamental cause of Korea's economic crisis led me to this position [...]. The most serious of the problems, I thought, lay in neglecting the development of democracy alongside economic development. Without democracy, we cannot expect development of a genuine market economy under fair and transparent rules of competition. I have long believed economic growth achieved under conditions of political repression and market distortion is neither sound nor sustainable. I believe democracy and a market economy are like two wheels of a cart, and that both must move together and depend on each other for forward motion (Kim, 1999).

Towards the end of his address, Kim anticipates the twenty first century being 'the century of the greatest revolution in human history' (ibid.). Already, Kim explains, the 'scale of the world economy has [...] become too great to be supported solely by individual nations' (ibid.). What is taking place is 'a transition from a system of national economies to a single, global economy' (ibid.). That is:

In many ways, there are no longer national boundaries when it comes to economic issues. The recent financial [crisis,] which originated locally in a few countries and spread quickly to surrounding regions and then to the whole world, is a case in point. No single nation can be safe or free from the vicissitudes of the world economy. A globalized economy has emerged. In [this] globalized economy, it is necessary for nations to cooperate as well as compete. Such globalization has been made possible through revolutionary developments in communication and transportation technologies. Of particular significance is the sharing of knowledge and ideas the world over, facilitated by the capacity for almost instantaneous exchange of information (ibid.).

The revolution Kim has in mind entails the transition from a 'world [of] old national boundaries' to a globalized world brought about by the processes of globalization. But, Kim emphasizes:

Globalization is by no means restricted to the economy. It is happening in the areas of transportation, communication and culture. It is happening everywhere. Korea, for its part, should not shy away from the challenge of adapting to this global trend [...]. The only way for our nation to move forward is to participate actively in the world's trend toward 'globalization' and to embrace the challenges of the new millennium. I believe that, in the 21st century, all nations of the world will be able to enjoy the benefits of democracy. In order to participate fully in globalization, I believe, it is necessary to practice genuine democracy and allow a free exchange of ideas and information. Korea will follow this path [...]. I propose each of us become an advocate of democracy and a market economy – not only by advocating these concepts as ideals, but by practicing them so as to achieve the ultimate objectives of democracy and a market economy, namely, individual freedom and social justice (ibid.).

Kim's enthusiasm for globalization is far from universally shared.¹¹ None the less, his notion of globalization is similar to those articulated by a range of specialist writers, including Steve Smith and John Baylis:

By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away. A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural, and social events become more and more interconnected, and also one in which they have more impact. In other words, societies are affected more and more extensively and more and more deeply by events of other societies. These events can be conveniently divided into three types, social, economic, and political. In each case, the world seems to be 'shrinking' (Smith and Baylis, 2001).

We prefer to view globalization as a set of processes which belong to three basic (analytically distinct) categories, the economic, the political and the cultural (see Axford, 1995; Berger and Huntington, 2002; and Held et al., 1999); and for Jan Aart Scholte's definition of globalization as follows:

Globalization refers to processes whereby many social relations become relatively delinked from territorial geography, so that human lives are increasingly played out in a world as a single place. Social relations – that is, the countless and complex ways that people interact and affect each other – are more and more being conducted and organized on the basis of a planetary unit. By the same token, country locations and in particular the boundaries between territorial states are in some important senses becoming less central to our lives. Globalization is thus an ongoing trend whereby the world has – in many respects and at a generally accelerating rate –become one relatively borderless social sphere. Territorial spaces remain significant [...], but the geography of world politics is now no longer reducible to territoriality (Scholte, 2001, pp. 14-15).

Scholte's notion echoes those of Anthony Giddens and David Field: 'Globalization can [...] be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vive versa' (Giddens, 1990); and 'Globalization can be thought of as a process (or processes) which embodies a transformation of the spatial organization of social relations and transactions' (Held et al., 1999). In Scholte's representation of globalization, the emphasis is on the world becoming a relatively borderless social sphere in a manner resembling the image otherwise conveyed by Kenichi Ohmae in his accounts of the Borderless World (1990) and the End of the Nation State (1995), and inferred by Kim Dae Jung in his opening address to the Democracy, Market Economy and Development conference. It is consistent with Roland Robertson's interpretation of globalization as the 'processes by which the world is being made into a single place with systemic qualities' (Rober...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Acronyms
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• Introduction
• 1 Setting the Scene
• 2 Power, Politics and the Idea of Human Rights
• 3 Asian Ways
• 4 The Asia Pacific Game of Human Rights
• 5 Asia Pacific Realism and Human Rights
• 6 Asia Pacific Regionalism and Human Rights
• 7 The Meaning of Human Rights and the Uncertainty of Death
• 8 Political Rights of Non-nationals: The Constitutional Debate in Japan
• 9 Indigenous Peoples of the Asia Pacific: A Case Study of the Ainu
• 10 Globalization, Sovereignty, International Law and Human Rights
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index