Are 'Asian values' 'universal' : international discourses on human rights policies

This thesis focuses on the international discourses between Southeast Asian governments and the international community regarding domestic human rights policies. It argues that the assumption that this discourse is only based on the politically-motivated rhetoric of certain authoritarian Southeast Asian governments is misleading. Certainly, the discourse is mostly political in nature but it does also include legal and philosophical aspects. Moreover, it is not a regionally-confined discourse but appears also outside the Southeast Asian context. A range of particular policies on human rights advocated at certain times by some Southeast Asian governments in attempts to restrict the application of international human rights standards are usually summarised as 'Asian Values', suggesting that a unique 'Asian' approach to human rights exists. In particular, Southeast Asian governments of the 1990s are seen as typically utilising three distinct arguments to justify these policies: state sovereignty, cultural relativism and prioritisation of economic development. At the centre of this thesis lies the question of whether 'Asian Values' is a regional or, if indeed, it is a 'universal' phenomenon. The obvious answer would be that a regional phenomenon cannot be 'universal'; the phenomenon has to be one or the other but it cannot be both. In order to demonstrate that 'Asian Values' are both, the characteristics of 'Asian Values', that is the historical context, content and development of 'Asian Values' will be analysed in the Asian context. Selected geographical and historical contexts outside modern Southeast Asia will then be explored. If these different discourses have elements in common, then it is possible to argue plausibly that 'Asian Values' are 'universal'. The 'Asian Values' debate has usually been considered a monolithic and static debate, while it is, in fact, a multi-faceted and evolving discourse. In reality, 'Asian Values' are not, and have never been, a unified concept shared by all Southeast Asian governments. 'Asian Values' have also never been an idea exclusive to state actors. Therefore, to assume that the 'Asian Values' discourse is only political rhetoric employed by authoritarian governments seeking to consolidate their power in that region ignores aspects of the discourses whereby Asians outside government who criticise authoritarian accounts of 'Asian Values' nonetheless attempt to infuse international human rights discourses with an 'Asian' flavour. Moreover, the development of the three main arguments, mentioned above - state sovereignty, cultural relativism and prioritisation of economic development - shows that the discourse was never exclusive to the 1990s but started at a much earlier time - and, indeed, continues to develop and change today. The difficulty will be whether the cultural relativism as advocated by 'Asian Values' proponents can be found outside Southeast Asia. It is in the nature of cultural relativism that its essence cannot always be entirely the same in different cultural settings, as cultural relativism argues that due to cultural diversity, universally applicable rules are difficult to find. However, the cultural relativism argument could be reframed in a way that would allow for differences in specific discourses, thus becoming a shell that can be filled with different conceptualisations of cultural preferences of human rights. This has implications for international discourses of human rights, because it challenges the common perception of a dichotomised debate between universalism and cultural relativism. 'Asian Values' have been perceived as an archetypical example of the discourse of cultural relativity of human rights. However, if 'Asian Values' policies are 'universally' employed, it no longer makes sense to frame the international human rights discourse in these simplistic juxtaposed terms. In fact, the condensing and dichotomising of human rights discourse as seen in the case of `Asian Values' can obscure potentially constructive dialogues