02 Symposium (JB/D) 14/3/01 2:11 pm Page 21

SYMPOSIUM ON ETHNICIT Y 21

in which excluded outsiders were never eligible for acceptance whether as

co-workers, neighbors, friends, or intimates. Yet in phrasing the matter this
way, we substitute an analytic language that modifies the absolute distinc-
tions implied by the concept of race. We also convert the relationship
between them and us into a continuum, and thereby gain purchase on the
dynamic nature of ethnic life, without succumbing to the groupist illusion
that has so often clouded our vision in the past.

UNIVERSAL MINORIT Y RIGHTS?

WILL KYMLICKA
Queens University, Kingston, Ontario

There is a growing trend to formulate international standards for the treat-

ment of ethnocultural groups. For example, the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe has adopted a series of principles regarding the
rights of national minorities since 1991. The Council of Europe adopted a
charter on minority language rights in 1992, and a Framework Convention
for the protection of National Minorities in 1995. Nor are these empty declar-
ations: respecting these standards is a precondition for post-communist
countries to join NATO or the EU.
This is part of a broader trend towards the internationalization of minor-
ity rights. For example, the UN adopted a declaration on the Rights of
Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minori-
ties, and is debating a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples. And the World Bank now includes minority rights as one of the
criteria for evaluating development projects.
This trend has the potential to change dramatically the status of ethno-
cultural minorities around the world. The treatment of minorities is increas-
ingly seen as a matter of legitimate international concern, perhaps even
economic sanctions and international intervention.
These standards are largely based on western models of religious toler-
ance and respect for ethnocultural diversity, which other countries are now
expected to adopt. It is worth noting, however, that these models are them-
selves quite new within the west. In the past, for example, most western states
attempted to suppress the distinct identities and institutions of national
minorities and indigenous peoples. States assumed that these nations
within groups with their own historic homelands and traditions of self-
government would be disloyal and potentially secessionist. It is only in the
past few decades that we see a clear trend towards accepting the identity
and institutions of such nations within. National minorities and indigenous
peoples in the west have been accorded increasing self-government over
02 Symposium (JB/D) 14/3/01 2:11 pm Page 22

22 ETHNICITIES 1(1)

their traditional territories, through federal or quasi-federal forms of

territorial autonomy.
Similarly, it is only recently that western countries have abandoned
earlier policies of excluding or assimilating immigrant groups. In the past,
many states in Europe had restrictive citizenship rules that permanently
excluded immigrants and their children from becoming citizens. Today,
however, it is increasingly accepted that all permanent residents of a state
should have the right to become citizens. Moreover, it is increasingly
accepted that the integration of such immigrant citizens is a two-way street.
In the past, it was assumed that the burden of integration fell entirely on
immigrants, who were expected to assimilate to existing norms and prac-
tices. Today, however, it is recognized that while immigrants must adapt to
the institutions of their new society, so too must these institutions such as
schools, hospitals, public media, the police adapt to reflect the identities
and practices of immigrant groups. The emerging model of multicultural
citizenship for immigrants, then, requires that immigrants have access to
citizenship, and that public institutions make various kinds of multicultural
accommodations for immigrant groups.
These forms of self-government and multicultural citizenship are still
quite recent in most western countries. They were often adopted grudgingly,
and remain controversial, and a few western countries continue to resist
them (France and Greece resist the former; Austria and Switzerland the
latter). And yet these accommodations are increasingly offered by advo-
cates as standards that all countries should meet in their dealings with
national minorities, indigenous peoples and immigrants. They are now seen
not just as a matter of domestic choice or pragmatic compromise, but rather
as a matter of fundamental justice. Minority rights are increasingly seen pre-
cisely as rights, the violation of which can be an assault on basic dignity
and respect, and hence as worthy of international protection.
This idea of universal minority rights raises a number of questions. Let
me mention four of them:
(a) The shift in western attitudes towards minority rights is arguably tied
up with the desecuritization of ethnic relations. In the past, issues regard-
ing minorities were often seen as issues of national security. Minorities that
did not share the dominant national identity were seen as disloyal, and the
fundamental question was how to secure the state from these threats. Today,
issues of ethnicity in the west have gradually moved out of the
security/loyalty framework into the framework of normal politics. Inter-
ests and claims related to ethnocultural diversity are no longer seen as exis-
tential threats to the state, but simply as one more ingredient of day-to-day
politics, to be regulated by the normal democratic procedures of bargaining
and laws, constrained by basic principles of justice.
In many parts of the world, however, the treatment of minority groups is
still viewed primarily in terms of security. In such contexts, concerns about
02 Symposium (JB/D) 14/3/01 2:11 pm Page 23

SYMPOSIUM ON ETHNICIT Y 23

security/loyalty tend to drive out claims of justice and fairness: existential

fears about the state preclude rational discussion of the legitimacy of minor-
ity claims. This suggests we cannot hope to gain an international consensus
on minority rights until majorityminority relations are desecuritized. It is
difficult to imagine countries accepting the legitimacy of universal minority
rights when these rights will be exercised by groups they perceive as disloyal.
Some people argue that minority rights can help in advancing these pro-
cesses of desecuritization. Granting minority rights can help to ensure the
loyalty of a minority, whereas suppressing minorities tends to exacerbate
rather than solve problems of security. There is some truth to this. But it is
not clear that one can base a conception of universal minority rights on such
arguments. The sorts of rights that help ease security concerns are not
necessarily the same sorts of minority rights which promote justice. We need
to unpack the relationship between justice and security. Which minority
rights contribute to the desecuritization of ethnic relations, and which
require that desecuritization has already taken place? Should international
standards focus on the former or the latter?
(b) There is a well-known literature on whether the idea of universal
human rights is truly universal, or whether it simply reflects the cultural
biases of the west. What about the idea of universal minority rights? Critics
of universal human rights often say that they reflect western individualism.
Whether or not this is the case, I doubt the same charge can be laid against
western models of minority rights, which after all are concerned precisely
with protecting peoples group identities. But are there other ways in which
western models of minority rights might be inconsistent with the cultural
traditions, economic needs or political imperatives of non-western societies?
(c) Minority rights in the west have typically developed along three
parallel tracks: multicultural policies for immigrants, territorial autonomy
and language rights for national minorities, land and resource claims for
indigenous peoples. These distinctions are reflected in both domestic and
international law. These categories make sense, I believe, in the western
context, but do they work in the African or Asian context? On what basis
could one divide the various ethnic groups in Indonesia into immigrants,
national minorities and indigenous peoples? If we cannot identify universal
categories of minority groups, can we identify universal minority rights?
(d) One could argue that the success of minority rights in the west is tied
precisely to the fact that they arose endogenously, as a result of long domes-
tic negotiations, rather than being imposed from outside. Will minority
rights imposed by the international community lack the legitimacy of
accommodations that arise from domestic negotiations?
This is just a sample of the questions that arise once we take seriously
the idea of universal minority rights. In my view, the pressure to inter-
nationalize minority rights is strong, and will not go away. But we have only
started to sort out the complications it raises.