Interaction Council, the association of former presidents and heads of governments all over the world, following long standing preparations with counsellors from different circles, on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Charter on Human Rights, proposed the Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities in 1998. In remembrance of the Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities, excerpts from the said address by Helmut Schmidt (right), former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and honourable chair of the InterAction Council, published on 3 October 1997 are contained herewith. (07-FEB-07)

Edited and written by Muhamed Dzemidzic, Executive Director of the BH Helsinki Committee. Published by HRH / Mirsad Pandzic

We citizens cannot only exercise our rights in order to protect ourselves from despotism of others, we must also have duties and responsibilities towards people with live with. There is no democracy that can survive without the dual principle of duties and responsibilities. 

Interaction Council, The association of former presidents and heads of governments all over the world, following long standing preparations with counsellors from different circles, on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Charter on Human Rights, proposed the Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities in 1998. This catalogue of duties should render support and complement the Universal Charter on Human Rights of 1948. This initiative, prior to the adoption of the Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities, incited a fervent debate on human rights. Helmut Schmidt, former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and honourable chair of the InterAction Council, named his presentation paper “Violent confrontation of cultures can be avoided”. Many elements of his presentation of almost ten years ago have gained topical importance. In remembrance of the Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities, excerpts from the said address by Helmut Schmidt published on 3 October 1997 are contained herewith.

Ethic standards for intercontinental co-existence
“It is quite understandable that after a fall of dictatorship, a nation should deem its most important duty to ensure fundamental rights – in UN terms “the human rights”. Thus, following the parallel collapse of Hitler’s dictatorship in Europe and Japanese military dictatorship in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, the Universal Charter on Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, as a natural, necessary decision of good will. Creation of a democratic state organisation goes hand in hand with promotion of fundamental rights of individuals. Thanks God, this happened after Mussolini and Hitler and in Eastern Europe after the break-up of Communist dictatorships. Contrary to this, experiences from the past decades regretfully indicate that democracy and human rights may remain the dead letter on paper when some government does not go beyond the understanding and omits to insist on and ensure in every day life, and especially in exceptional situations, democracy and enjoyment of human rights. This turns into misunderstanding that this concerns personal freedom and rights only, and requests to be met without underlying responsibility of others. If everyone were to go after his own rights only, without acceptance of duties and responsibilities, then a nation, a state – or the whole mankind – would be in the state of hostility, leading to conflicts, until chaos would prevail. Without awareness about responsibility of an individual, freedom may become the dominance of the stronger and more powerful ones. Therefore, it is the permanent duty of politicians and all citizens to keep rights and duties in balance.

Today, almost half a century after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this document remains an imperative for endangered mankind, and two hundred sovereign states. Because, on one hand, the leading principle of the Declaration, the “Human Rights”, is used by politicians of the West, and in the USA, as a concept for fighting and an aggressive instrument of foreign policy pressure. It is usually used selectively against the People´s Republic of China, Iran or Libya, but by no means against Saudi Arabia, Israel or Nigeria.  Reasons for this kind of one-sidedness lie with economic and strategic interests. On the other hand, again, “Human Rights” are considered by some Muslims, Hindu and Confucians as a typically western concept, and partly as an instrument to extend Western rule. With regard to this, and especially in Asia, justified objections are made, which should be taken seriously, that the concept of human rights neglects or even fails to recognise the need for assuming responsibilities for one’s family, municipality, society and state. Some Asian men claim that there is a principal difference between Western and Asian understanding of man’s dignity.

Understanding of dignity
There is no doubt that concepts about man and his dignity differ inside every society and culture – in religious, philosophical or ideological terms. However, there are considerable differences between prevailing European and North American conceptions, and Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Confucian concepts spread out in Asia mostly, and all the way to extreme Communist concepts, i.e. its most severe forms.  Hence it is quite conceivable that clash of civilisations à la Samuel Huntington may take place in the 21st century. The demographic explosion on the Earth – the number of population having quadrupled – in the course of the 20th century and the concentration of population in large cities is going to continue well into the end of the next century; this will cause continuation of conflicts for power and rule in the 21st century, not counting the end of the bipolar conflict between the USSR and the West. We can hope that these conflicts will be resolved more cautiously than was the case in the 20th century. But at the same time we must fear that such conflicts may end up as actual confrontation between essentially different, even antagonistic cultures. Fundamentalists on both sides, who play a marginal role today in global aspects, may become leaders and the cause of a mass hysteria. Today’s expansion and intensifying of world economic interrelations – called the globalisation – will by no means be a counterbalance to this hysteria, but instead may cause new economic conflicts of interests.

After the breakdown of the Soviet Bloc and opening of the People´s Republic of China, the number of participants in competitive world economy has almost doubled. This is coupled with huge technological progress – primarily in the area of telecommunications, air and marine transportation – and historically relevant increase in liberalisation of trade, most of all in exchange of money and capital. At the beginning of the century almost all nations of the world and their national economies will grow more dependant on each other than ever before.  However, globalisation has been creating until now non-existent forms of competition. Instances of political manipulations and frauds in competition aimed at gaining advantage will be increasingly present.

Balance of freedom and responsibility
If in the light of this, endangered nations and their states, politicians and protectors of religions do not learn how to respect religious, cultural and civilisation-related inheritance of others, if people do not learn to make and maintain balance between both categorical imperatives – freedom and responsibility – then indeed peace between them will be endangered.  The political world’s order and social-economic well-being of people may be thoroughly destroyed. This is why the end of the old century – 50 years after the Declaration of Human Rights – is the last moment to discuss Human Responsibilities. Minimal ethic standards need to be jointly recognised and are urgently needed for intercontinental co-existence – applying not only to individual action, but also to political authorities, religious communities, churches, nations. There should be standards not only for governments, but also for international producers, commercial businessmen or concerns. The latter are today in danger of surrendering to a new, untamed beast speculating all around the World – the capitalism. The necessity of having awareness about one’s own responsibility is also relevant for electronic media operating at the international level, which may indoctrinate/intoxicate people with excessive broadcasts of murders, shooting and all kinds of abuse.

The necessity to prevent clash of civilizations made a large number of statesmen (former president of states and heads of government) from all five continents come up with a draft of the Universal Declaration on Human Responsibilities. It rests on long standing preparations of spiritual, philosophical and political leaders from all over the world. The objective is to incite discussions with the aspiration that a charter similar to the UN Charter will be devised. Upon an initiative by Eleanor Roosevelt, the Universal Charter on Human Rights was adopted by the UN in 1948.

Similarly to the situation with the Charter on Human Rights at the time, the Charter on Responsibilities should have a character of ethic appeal, and not of nationally binding document. However, based on ethical aspects of the Charter on Human Rights, regional packages on human rights, which have a character of national-legal binding documents, such as the European Convention on Human Rights or establishment of the Court of Human Rights, have emerged in the meantime. Let us be reminded of enormous influence of the Helsinki Final Charter and its part titled “Basket III”, and of internal development of European communism. Similarly hope remains that the Charter on Human Responsibilities will achieve legal and political results. 

Social sins
Who ever holds that the stated authors and signatories to the Universal Charter of Human Responsibilities are sheer idealists without grounds, he does not have insight into historical effects of the Universal Charter on Human Rights which was at first not legally binding document, nor does he have a clear perception of dangers threatening mankind in the future: he therefore may remain the supporter of morally unprincipled and wrongly named “real politik”.
 
Our draft in Article 4 reiterates “the golden rule” which plays an important rule in all religions (and which Immanuel Kant called in a finely tuned formulation “categorical imperative”):
“What you do not wish others to inflict upon you, you should not inflict upon others”. Article 9 reads: All people have the duty to… prevent poverty, malnutrition, ignorance and inequality. Everywhere in the world they have to support development, as to ensure dignity, freedom, security and justice for all men. Article 15 states that religious representatives have the responsibility to prevent prejudices and discrimination against members of other religions, enhance tolerance and mutual respect between men. And lastly, Article 19 reads: “Not one provision of the Charter should be interpreted as rendering any right which would annul rights and freedoms contained in the Universal Charter on Human Rights of 1948”.

(..) The discussion on the Draft Universal Charter on Human Responsibilities is going to provoke at least two kinds of protests. On one hand, the so-called realistic politicians will say that it relates to idealism which does not stand a chance to be widely accepted, or to win over many followers. On the other hand, human rights advocates will say that if the Universal Charter Draft on Human Responsibilities is perceived as a counterpart of the Charter on Human Rights, there is a danger that human rights be reduced to a mere moral). Some will again say in Asia that the draft corresponds with important principles of Asian cultural tradition and therefore should be welcomed, but that at the same time its relying on the Charter on Human Rights is redundant and should be condemned.

Mahatma Gandhi enumerated “seven social sins”, whereas “politics without principles” and “commerce without morality” were placed at the very top. Who can object to that? Recently Financial Times discussed the Charter on Human Responsibilities and said the following: “True. We do need general rules for proper business conduct. The Universal Declaration of Business Responsibilities should be in-calculated into the heads of those who are running companies for general benefit”. This could be fruitful if the Draft Charter on Human Responsibilities were to be discussed all over the world. In any case it will be the topic of discussion at the UN and therefore amongst the governments of UN member states. In view of all the above, a public debate could contribute to the cause considerably. Just to be reminded, we citizens cannot only enjoy the rights to protect ourselves from despotism of others, but instead we have to assume responsibilities for people who we live with. There is no democracy that can survive without the dual principle of rights and duties. Nations, states and governments taking part in the process of economic globalisation have to force themselves jointly to the minimum code of ethics. Otherwise, the new century may be burdened with new conflicts, as was the case with the one nearing its end. However, conflicts in the future will not remain limited to parts of continents, but they may spread throughout the world. Conflicts may be caused on account of different convictions – and actors in conflicts will invoke religious and cultural interpretations. Who wishes to prevent threatening confrontation between cultures does not need at all military or economic capacities: it is ethics acceptable to everyone that is needed “. Die Zeit of 03 October 1997.