As UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mrs Mary Robinson will be charged with taking an "active role" in preventing "the continuation of human rights violations throughout the world". But when it comes to taking initiatives in Asia, Mrs Robinson will be confronted with the fact that the definition of human rights itself is a matter of hot debate, both within Asia and between East and West.
Brecht's proverb from The Threepenny Opera, "First comes food, then comes morality", finds resonance in those Asian countries whose leaders believe in a political model with Asian characteristics, one which offers the best prospects for economic prosperity and places the common good above individual freedoms.
Western criticism of human rights abuses in Asia are aimed mainly at Communist China, which argues that stability, and feeding 1.2 billion people, are paramount, and Myanmar (Burma), which has a repressive military dictatorship. But more democratic Asian countries also restrict political freedoms: Singapore to protect the prosperity and order resulting from what some would see as a benign despotism; Malaysia to guard against ethnic divisions, and Indonesia to maintain territorial integrity.
These countries argue that the UN's 49-year-old Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects the philosophical and cultural bias of its Western sponsors and does not take into account the special circumstances of evolving Asian economies.
The human rights issue dominated a tour of south-east Asia last month by the British Foreign Minister, Mr Robin Cook. In calling for a respecting of the human rights declaration, he was supported only by the Philippines Foreign Minister, whereas Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore argued the merits of economic improvements over individual political freedoms.
With the prospect of establishing dynamic new post-colonial economies, these countries are less defensive about the handling of domestic affairs, and increasingly assertive about "Asian values".
They are also quick to cry hypocrisy, saying the West raised little fuss in 1992 when Algeria cancelled elections which would have given power to an Islamic movement, and that the human rights record of Saudi Arabia is not a barrier to good relations with the UK and US.
South-east Asian governments remembered that Britain fought wars to force narcotics on the Chinese, and partly financed Straits Settlements before the second World War by selling opium to registered addicts. When Mr Cook attacked Myanmar, the world's largest opium producer, for its drugs and human rights record, and ruled out its participation in next year's AsiaEurope summit on the grounds that the military junta was profiting from the drugs trade, Malaysia retorted that if Myanmar was not invited to the meeting, no one would come.
The strongest challenge to international intervention on human rights in Asia has come from Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, the most outspoken critic of Western intervention of any kind. In August, he proposed a review of the 1948 human rights declaration, not, he said, to dilute it, but to redress the unsympathetic view of human rights problems in developing countries.
Dr Mahathir has enthusiastic backing from China, Indonesia and the Philippines, and from Hong Kong's chief executive, Mr Tung Chee-hwa, who said: "Fifty years ago, most of the nations of the world were colonies. Now they are independent, prosperous and proud." He said human rights was not a monopoly of the West and different historical processes and different stages of development had to be taken into account.
During a visit to Malaysia last month, Mr Li Peng, the Chinese Prime Minister, joined with Dr Mahathir in criticising some developed nations for making human rights a requirement for enhancing bilateral relations with small and developing countries. The Chinese Prime Minister also said the world had undergone dramatic changes in 50 years and the declaration had some "historical restrictions".
This issue will be a particularly thorny problem for Mrs Robinson. The European Union and the US are determined to resist any attempt to dilute the declaration, which US Secretary of State, Ms Madeleine Albright, has called a universal benchmark for protecting human rights. In Washington, the debate on "Asian values" is seen as a cover for tolerating human rights abuses and denying the need for openness and democracy.
But there are contradictions in Western policies towards human rights in Asia, particularly China. During the 1990s, leading Western governments one by one abandoned tough human rights policies on China. Germany and France gave priority to trade over human rights in 1993, and the US followed in 1994. Earlier this year, when the Netherlands, as EU President, sought to table the annual (since 1989) motion condemning China for human rights violations, several EU members, led by France and Germany, refused to continue their support, preferring dialogue.
Denmark proposed a resolution on its own and was supported by several countries, including Ireland, the US and Britain. As the holder of the EU Presidency in the first half of 1998, London will have to decide whether to table a similar motion next year, with the inevitable result of splitting the EU again and in the end losing the vote once more in the Human Rights Commission.
Radical moves are required.
Clearly, human rights has lost out in the aggressive trade penetration of Asia. As Prof Francois Godement says in his book, The New Asian Renaissance (Routledge 1997): "Human rights policies may now only be applied to states devoid of all economic appeal, such as North Korea and Burma." Investment and market priorities mean that human rights disagreements are now being articulated more tactfully and as part of a dialogue with Asian countries. This is how Beijing wants it.
Singapore recently hosted a conference of eminent elder statesmen who drew up a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities and called on the UN and world leaders to adopt it in parallel with the Universal Declaration. The declaration's 19 articles spell out responsibilities for individuals and governments, and the just and proper use of wealth and power. It also lays down norms for showing respect to the needy, the disadvantaged, the disabled and victims of discrimination.
The document of this "Inter-Action Council" emphasised the Confucian values of duties and obligations. Former Australian prime minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, said: "If we have a world in which everyone demands his rights and nobody exercises his obligations, it will be a lopsided and unequal world. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities."
What the Asian values formula sidesteps is the inescapable fact that some dissidents in China are in prison simply for saying what they think and that there is brutal suppression of human rights in places like East Timor. The Chinese Communist leadership perceives freedom of speech to be as dangerous as the man in the cinema who shouts "fire!" Does this mean that as with human rights, the philosophical underpinnings of human responsibilities are not also universal? This question lies at the heart of the debate over which Mrs Robinson will now preside.
Asian Governments would clearly like the new Human Rights Commissioner to be as reticent about speaking out on human rights abuses as her predecessor, Jose Ayala Lasso. But this would be inconsistent with her record, with the Secretary General's declared intent of raising the profile of the job, and with taking an "active role" in "preventing the continuance of human rights violations throughout the world".
She will meet her toughest test in Asia.
Tomorrow: Kevin Boyle examines Mrs Robinson's legal expertise in the human rights field
