The girl's story reads like a fairy tale.

There is the loving, protective father, who dies suddenly

hand at a young age. There is the villainous aunt, who banishes the girl's mother and "sells" the
17-year-old to a man three times her age to be his fourth wife. As part of the marriage, she is to
suffer the tribal rite of passage of female genital mutilation (FGM). Finally, there is the girl's
rescue by her mother and sister and her flight to asylum in the United States.
But this story is not fictional; it is the real-life drama of Fauziya Kasinga, a teenager from Togo,
West Africa. This story ended up on the front page of The New York Times, and its heroine was
interviewed by Ted Koppel on "Nightline."
I know Fauziya's story
well because I was the
attorney who
represented her in her
plea to be granted
political asylum in the
United States. That
plea was granted in
June 1996, setting the
precedent that women
Karen Musalo
refugees who flee
Photo by Charles Barry persecution related to
their gender-in this
case genital mutilation-are entitled to protection under U.S. immigration laws.
During the extensive publicity surrounding Fauziya's case, I was interviewed frequently by TV,
radio, and print journalists. On a number of occasions, I was asked what right I had to judge or
condemn the cultural practices of polygamy and FGM. I was sometimes accused of being a
"cultural imperialist" by imposing my Western concept of human rights on a very different
culture and country.
In the context of representing Fauziya in her request for asylum, I felt there was a relatively easy
response to these accusations of cultural imperialism: namely, that it was Fauziya herself who
had disagreed with and resisted the practices of her own culture. Once she had made this
decision, my role was simply to support her in her profound desire not to be subjected to FGM or
forced into a polygamous marriage.
But answering in the context of Fauziya's request for asylum does not resolve the broader
question. What is to be done when generally accepted international human rights standards
conflict with long-standing cultural practices?
Female genital mutilation has been condemned as a violation of internationally protected human
rights, yet it continues to be an integral part of many African, Asian, and Middle Eastern cultures.
More generally, equality for women is an internationally proclaimed human right and is set forth
in many treaties, including the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women, which
prohibits distinctions made on the basis of gender. However, many cultures continue to deny
women equal rights.
For example, in many countries, Islam is interpreted to restrict the rights of women. Is it
disrespectful of their cultures and religion to find these Islamic countries in violation of
international human rights standards because of their treatment of women?
These issues are at the heart of a long-standing controversy between the concepts of the
universality of human rights and cultural relativism. Proponents of universality maintain that the
human rights that have been guaranteed in international treaties and conventions are universal,
apply to all countries, and must prevail even when they conflict with cultural or religious
practices. In contrast, advocates of cultural relativism argue that permitting international norms
to override the dictates of culture and religion is a violation of state sovereignty.
As individuals think about these two opposing positions and determine which is more morally
compelling, they may be assisted by examining the origins and objectives of international human
rights norms and by considering additional examples where international norms and culture are
in conflict.
Modern international human rights law traces its origins to the post-World War II period, when
countries acknowledged the profound need for an international consensus regarding the
protection of basic human rights. The fact that so many nations did not intervene in a timely
manner or at all as the Nazis repressed, persecuted, and then exterminated millions of people was
evidence to the world community of its tragic failure.
The formation of the United Nations in 1945 was a response to the unthinkable atrocities of the
Holocaust and the failure of the international community to act. The United Nations and
associated human rights measures were created for the purpose of putting some substance behind
the refrain "never again."
The U.N. Charter identifies one of the organization's primary objectives as "promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion."
Under the aegis of the United Nations, numerous human rights declarations, treaties, and
conventions were drafted. One of the most fundamental declarations adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It sets forth the basic rights and
freedoms that the international community committed itself to respecting and protecting.
The declaration's preamble states that it is to serve "as a common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations." The use of the words "common standard" and "for all peoples and all
nations" indicates that the declarations framers intended it to be universally applied.
The Universal Declaration has been followed by a number of treaties that elaborate on its basic
rights and freedoms. These treaties protect civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
They prohibit governments from interfering with freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or
from engaging in actions such as torture and genocide. The treaties also prohibit racial and
gender discrimination.
Yet, often, the rights and freedoms guaranteed in these international treaties and conventions are
in direct conflict with cultural or religious practices such as FGM. The U.N. Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence Against Women condemns FGM as an act of violence against women
and states that countries "should condemn violence against women and should not invoke any
custom, tradition, or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its
elimination."
There are countless other examples of state practices that violate the internationally protected
rights of women. In Afghanistan, the Taliban, who have recently fought their way to power, have
prohibited women from attending school or working outside the home. Women are not even
permitted to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative.
In China, female infanticide is practiced; in India, brides may be burned to death if the dowry
they bring to the marriage is too small; in the West Bank and Gaza, unmarried women suspected
of bringing dishonor to their families by losing their virginity may be killed.
Although we have focused on women's rights, there are just as many instances of governmental
norms justified by culture or religion that violate the rights of men, as well. For example, many
countries have ignored the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
In some countries, all religious practices have been forbidden, and individuals have been
punished simply for holding and manifesting their religious beliefs. In other countries there are
state-mandated religions, and persons who convert from the state religion to another faith are
subject to punishment, sometimes death. Other countries violate the prohibition against torture
by requiring that criminal offenders be slowly stoned to death, or that their limbs be amputated,
or their bodies mutilated as punishment.
In light of these very concrete examples, which approach is more morally compelling
universality or cultural relativism? To some degree, the answer turns upon one's views on the
nature of culture and the nature of international human rights standards.
The cultural relativists often characterize culture as an essential attribute of self-determination
and of a people's sovereignty. They also may regard international norms as little more than legal
pronouncements the arbitrary dictates of the more powerful nations of the world, engaging in
modern "colonization" by imposing their standards on less powerful nations. From this
perspective, there is little reason to argue that international norms should supersede a state's
history, culture, or religion.
However, as someone who has worked for many years with refugees and other victims of human
rights violations, I strongly tilt toward the principle of universality. This view does not consider
culture inviolate; in fact, from this perspective, culture is often seen as the expression of the
worldview of the most powerful in society. To the degree that the cultural norms are created and
maintained by the powerful, they may disenfranchise less powerful individuals or groups in a
society.
For example, the cultural norms in a patriarchal society become a way to maintain the inequality
of women. Or the cultural norms in a caste-based society may justify discrimination against
members of the lowest caste. The cultural norms in a racist society normalize and justify
discrimination against members of the despised racial or ethnic group.
Those in favor of a universality approach to human rights not only question the sanctity of
culture, but they also disagree with the view that international human rights standards are little
more than arbitrary legal pronouncements. The human rights standards that came into existence
after World War II were not legislated by a few powerful nations. To the contrary, they were
drafted by representatives from diverse nations. These drafters agreed that state sovereignty
could never justify certain governmental practices, such as genocide or torture.
In this light, proponents of universality argue that international human rights norms have moral
authority because they constitute the world community's consensus regarding ethical behavior
between governments and their citizens. If one views them from this perspective, it is not hard to
make the argument that international human rights norms should be universally applied, giving
all peoples the benefit of their protections.
Karen Musalo is director of the Ethics Center's International Human Rights and Migration
Project.

Printer-Friendly Page
FEATURED MATERIALS

Issues in Ethics - V. 8, N. 3
Summer 1997

issue abstract

The Path of Virtue

thinking
ethically

When Rights and Cultures

Collide

Seeking Asylum

How Trust is Achieved in

Free Markets

features

Moral Attorneys; Moral

People

After Dolly

on the one
hand

The Welfare of the

Community

Frequently Asked Questions

a case in point

The Case of the Performance

Appraisal

readers
respond

Comments on the Case of

Henry's Publick House

a good read

Lofty Instincts

letters to the
editor

Role-Driven Ethics

scholars at
work

Tim Healy: Ethics and

Technology

at the center

LEADership in Ethical
Awareness

Ethics Roundtable: When

Products Go Wrong
 Creating an Ethical Political
Climate

Markkula Passes the Gavel

to Kvamme

issues in ethics
tools

Home Subsc
page ribe

The views
expressed on
this site are
the author's.
The
Markkula
Center for
Applied
Ethics does
not advocate
particular
positions but
seeks to
encourage
dialogue on
the ethical
dimensions
of current
issues. The
Center
welcomes co
mments and
alternative
points of
view.

Ethics Home

Campus Map

About the Center

Site Index

Contact Us

2014 Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv