By Raoul Marc JENNAR
(FN), Dec. 8 –75 years ago, on December 10, 1948, 48 of the 58 States then represented at the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1947, at the time this document was drafted, all of Africa (except for white South-Africa) was still colonized, as were South and Southeast Asia (except for Thailand). We are in the aftermath of the Second World War, which was the scene of numerous mass crimes and mass violation of individual freedoms. This little historical reminder is important to understand the context of the writing of this text.

The Declaration was prepared mainly by personalities from the Western world (Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Lebanon, United Kingdom, USA) and by one representative of the USSR and one representative of nationalist China. There is no doubt that the Declaration was strongly influenced by the individualist ideas of philosophers from the European Age of Enlightenment, although the Chinese representative was famous for insisting that “the Declaration should reflect more than just Western ideas and for suggesting studying the foundations of Confucianism”.

The ambition of this Declaration is to proclaim the values which must be those of all human beings whatever their culture, their philosophical or religious convictions, their political opinions, their origins. It is a document whose scope is intended to be universal. However, the legal status of this document is not binding. As the name suggests, it is a "declaration". In 1966, two international pacts specifying civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights will require signatory states to be held accountable for respecting these rights.

The fundamental idea of the Declaration is the respect for the dignity that every human being carries within himself. And the freedom he enjoys demonstrating this dignity. As stated in the preamble of the Declaration, “the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people”. This highest aspiration of all peoples remains a hope, if we judge by the multiple violations of which a very large number of governments have been guilty since 1948, including those represented among the drafters of the Declaration.

There are three categories of rights in the Declaration. Among the first category, we find rights that I would describe as fundamental, directly linked to the primary dignity of each human being. It is about protecting the individual against the power of the State: right to life, liberty and security; recognition of the legal personality of each individual; men and women equality; prohibition of slavery, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; full equal right to independent justice and a fair trial; right to property (art. 1 to 17). These rights can only be guaranteed within the framework of a rule of law, that is to say a state where public power guarantees the separation of powers and submits to the law. We know that in many countries, including in so-called advanced democracies with an old democratic tradition, this rule of law remains an objective. The temptation of the executive power to intervene within the judicial power is a universal phenomenon difficult to stop. Which does not justify giving up efforts to combat and to stop this temptation.

The second category of human rights are those that concern human beings not only as individuals, but also as members of a group, of a nation. These are the rights listed in articles 22 to 27. I will summarize them as follows: the rights to food, health, housing, work, education, culture, well-being, human dignity. These rights are the most difficult to realize because they presuppose peace, political stability and development. But also, because they are sometimes used by certain governments to put pressure on others.

This is the sad fate that Cambodia experienced between 1979 and 1991 when an international coalition decided to punish the Cambodian people for having been liberated by Vietnam from the terror, tyranny and genocide imposed by Pol Pot and his gang. With what legitimacy can we credit these Western countries which present themselves today as uncompromising defenders of human rights, while they deprived totally a population of survivors of the right to food, to health, to education, to culture, to work, to rebuild and develop a country totally devastated in terms of its equipment and human resources? For 12 years! I am one of those who think that these countries of Europe and the Americas today simply have the right to remain silent about human rights.

In the 1948 Declaration, we find a third category of human rights that can be described as political rights. These are the ones that are most often discussed. Which allows to forget others. This mainly concerns freedom of opinion and religion (art.18), freedom of expression (art.19), freedom of assembly and association (art.20), the right to participate in public life, particularly through elections (art.21).

The implementation and respect of these rights presuppose, in each country, a sufficient degree of national consensus on fundamental points linked to recent history and the desire to live together which is the essential condition for making peaceful democratic debate possible. The spectacle of the world confirms how difficult this condition is to satisfy. In Cambodia too.

The implementation of these rights sometimes meets the strength of local culture and traditions. So, for example, the European Court of Human Rights in matters of freedom of expression tolerates almost no restriction of freedom of expression in political speech or the debate of questions of public interest. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has established that a public authority cannot restrict freedom of expression based on whether it agrees or disagrees with the message expressed. Such a restriction is unacceptable under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. On the contrary, in Asia, generally and in particular in Cambodia, freedom of expression does not tolerate insult, defamation, lies (fake news), contempt, outrage, blasphemy, calls for racial hatred. But Western human rights ngos follow the US Supreme Court and the European Court and all accuse Cambodia when it condemns the offenses against our King and the politicians who build their popularity on fake news and calls to racial hatred. Perfect example of Western cultural imperialism.

The freedom of opinion and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom to participate in the public life are fundamental rights that the State must protect. But protecting these rights also means prohibiting and punishing those who abuse them and thus violate the law. There is no freedom without limits.