Understanding Russia and Traditional Values

Although it is just over 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, Russia now seeks to undermine one of humanity’s greatest works, a document that transcends boundaries and spells out the inherent dignity of all people regardless of race, sex or class. Russia’s push for traditional values in the Human Rights Council (the Council) is part of a broader assertion of Russian power on the international stage and draws strong parallels to the USSR’s “different concepts” approach to the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights.

Russia’s foreign policies in the 1990s, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, were defined by deference to the United States and the EU. This deference arose from considerations in Russia’s political and economic climate. Politically, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to position Russia as an ally to the West and brought about democratic changes to the country. Economically, Russia with its economy in a mess as a result of the failure of Perestroika and the move towards a free-market economy was dependent on the United States and the West for a resuscitation of the Russian economy. This submissiveness was reflected in Russia’s stance in the various UN bodies.

The picture today stands in stark contrast. Russia’s foreign policy is in a resurgent mode in a bid to regain its traditional influence. There are a number of key factors that have made this possible.

Firstly, President Putin’s resolute leadership stands in marked contrast to his two predecessors. Russian citizens have been appreciative of this strong central government. In recent Levada polls, respondents consistently show that “order” in the country is more important than human rights.

Secondly, the Russian economy witnessed a revival with the inflow of growing financial revenues from gas and oil, and Russia has been able to use this to amass US$500 billion in foreign exchange reserves.

A resurgence in Russian foreign policy was only a matter of time. That has taken place and the power change is evident.

As the newly emboldened Russian state has asserted itself increasingly on the international stage, the conservative political elite has sought to flesh out an ideology that justifies the rejection of the Western interpretation of Human Rights as natural laws. The revival of Moscow has emboldened the Kremlin to criticize the European Court of Human Rights and has taken steps to make it more difficult for Russian citizens to take complaints to Strasbourg. In 2007 Putin signed a decree designed to "enhance the protection of Russia's rights" at the court.

Russia’s push to include traditional values is a move to create an alternative philosophy for interpreting international human rights. "I am deeply convinced that the conception of human rights varies from one culture to another, from one society to another, inasmuch as the very concept of the person varies," says political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, who heads the Center for Conservative Studies at Moscow State University and is a leading public proponent of the new Russian conservatism.

This is not an inherently new idea.  Throughout the second half of the 20^th century the USSR argued that human rights should be interpreted through the lens of “different concepts”. They argued that there are different interpretations of human rights depending upon the socio-political system concerned. The idea of “traditional values” fulfills the same role as “different concepts” and provides a screen behind which countries can evade their obligations to human rights.

Russia’s interpretation of human rights draws parallels with the Soviet concept that the state is the source of human rights. This stands in contrast to Western theory where ‘it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights are to asserted against the government’ says Doraine Lambelet, a Professor of Law at Duke University.

The traditional values argument, if accepted, would bar the Human Rights Council from questioning the domestic practices of member states. Russia and the 28 sponsors of the original resolution in 2009 refused to reaffirm that no state has the right to invoke traditional values to counter, limit or avoid their obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The resolution could set up a loophole that allows any discrepancies that become apparent to be excused by ‘traditional values’.

Russia’s ’traditional values‘ resolution continues the worrying trend of politicized resolutions established by Pakistan with their stance against the “defamation” of religion. This trend has the potential to discredit the Council as an international moral compass, and raises the same concerns that led to the disbandment of its predecessor the Human Rights Commission.

Increasingly, Russian can be expected to challenge the existing Western human rights ideology. Russia has been systematically tailoring its resurgence into various international spheres according to the circumstances and the Council is not exempt. This has not been quick or easy for Moscow and the backlash against the resolution on traditional values is reflective of what is at stake.

Even if universal human rights standards are at odds with particular traditional values, that does not make them invalid. Human rights are designed to give a voice to the voiceless and to set boundaries beyond which the powerful may not go in their treatment of the less powerful. This resolution never belonged in the Council and has the potential to undermine the stated goal of impartiality that is meant to underscore the Council’s role.