Le Monde des religions, September-October 2008 —
As its name suggests, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights aims to be universal, meaning that it seeks to be based on a natural and rational foundation that transcends all particular cultural considerations: regardless of their place of birth, sex, or religion, all human beings have the right to respect for their physical integrity, to freely express their beliefs, to live decently, to work, to be educated, and to receive healthcare. This universalist vision, which emerged in the 18th century within the European Enlightenment, has, for the past twenty years or so, led some countries to express serious reservations about the universal nature of human rights. These are primarily countries in Asia and Africa that were victims of colonization and that equate the universality of human rights with a colonialist stance: having imposed its political and economic domination, the West intends to impose its values on the rest of the world. These states rely on the notion of cultural diversity to defend the idea of a relativism of human rights. These vary according to the traditions or culture of each country. Such reasoning is understandable, but we mustn't be fooled. It conveniently suits dictatorships and allows for the perpetuation of traditional practices that dominate the individual: domination of women in countless forms (female genital mutilation, execution for adultery, guardianship by the father or husband), early child labor, prohibitions on changing religion, and so on. Those who reject the universality of human rights understand this well: it is indeed the emancipation of the individual from the group that the application of these rights enables. And what individual doesn't aspire to respect for their physical and moral integrity? The interest of the collective is not always that of the individual, and it is here that a fundamental choice of civilization is at stake.
On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to criticize Western governments for not always practicing what they preach! The legitimacy of human rights would be infinitely stronger if democracies were exemplary. Yet, to take just one example, the way the American army treated Iraqi prisoners or those at Guantanamo (torture, lack of trials, rape, humiliation) has caused the West to lose all moral credibility in the eyes of many populations to whom we lecture on human rights. We are rightly criticized for invading Iraq in the name of defending values like democracy, when only economic reasons mattered. We can also criticize our current Western societies, which suffer from excessive individualism. The sense of the common good has largely disappeared, which poses problems for social cohesion. But between this flaw and that of a society where the individual is entirely subject to the authority of the group and tradition, who would truly choose the latter? Respect for fundamental human rights seems to me an essential achievement, and its universal scope legitimate. The challenge then becomes finding a harmonious application of these rights in cultures still deeply marked by tradition, particularly religious tradition, which is not always easy. Yet, upon closer examination, every culture possesses an intrinsic foundation for human rights, if only through the famous Golden Rule, written by Confucius 2,500 years ago and inscribed in one way or another at the heart of all human civilizations: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself. "