Unlike the West, says the white paper, Asian societies weight the interests of the community above those of the individual. These challenges raise three different sorts of problem about human rights and human rights policy. Let us consider and respond in order to some representative examples of these problems. My suggestion is, that when the setting and the logic of human rights language is taken into account, the force of the Asian challenge to the universality of human rights is reduced. Above all, it must be remembered that universal protection of the individual against abuses like torture, extrajudicial killing, enslavement, racial, ethnic and religious discrimination became the foundation of the human rights movement after World War II in reaction to rampant theories of national, cultural, and racial superiority associated with fascism.
Individuals are subordinate to collective ends.
Racial, religious, ethnic and national identity take priority over the conscience and well-being of the individual. The self-evident lesson of World War II is how unspeakable are the consequences of leaving individuals defenseless before the doctrine of communal domination. The historical setting of human rights language, then, gives reason for deep and legitimate apprehension in face of assertions about the superiority of collective ends and identity above the physical and moral integrity of the individual. Nor will familiar appeals to emergency or to special provisions for protecting public order, health and safety do very much to alleviate legitimate worry. It is of course inevitable that human rights will be interpreted and applied in specific historical and cultural circumstances, and that allowance will undoubtedly have to be made for severe threats to the public welfare.