Tweet
VIEW: DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS
Robert Menard
Daily Times
Dec 9 2008
Pakistan
Western countries must stop using human rights as a card they slap down
when it's useful but are keen to forget as soon as it goes against
their strategic calculations and economic interests. They must also
stop applauding democratic processes while rejecting the results of
elections that bring to power people who do not happen to please them
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 60-years-old on December
10. In Western countries, the occasion is being marked (especially
by NGOs) with events, speeches, resolutions, articles and editorials
that declare the Declaration's values universal. Those who disagree
are dubbed enemies of freedom trying to justify the worst abuses on
the pretext of cultural and religious differences.
But let's be careful not to stigmatise the hundreds of millions of men
and women who honestly believe some of these values are alien to them,
or even a convenient front for selfish Western interests.
This feeling is especially strong in the Arab-Muslim world. Is it
just old-fashioned or perhaps distorted public opinion? Maybe, but
it's not just that. The episode of the Danish cartoons should have
opened our eyes. The outrage at their publication was exploited by
Arab regimes with little interest in freedom of expression but the
indignation of many was genuine.
It resulted in neither side listening to the other, with Westerners
brandishing as their tablets of stone human rights resolutions and
the inalienable right to criticise, while Muslims shouted that Islam
was sacred and had to be protected from mockery and satire. Muslims
noted that some democracies had their own taboos, such as slavery,
the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. These were off-limits yet
Muslim taboos were not.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in similar deadlock, with the Arab
"street" pointing to the contradiction between their situation and the
supposed universality of human rights. Double standards are so blatant
that it is hard to claim the "international community" is trying to
enforce international law. "Resolutions", "democracy" and "holding
elections" are only praised when they serve the interests of the most
powerful. So credibility is undermined and dialogue becomes impossible.
How do we get out of all this? Some say by just listening to each
other. Of course. But also by ensuring people do not content themselves
with once again making big speeches on such an anniversary but make
solid commitments.
Civil society must take action that demonstrates the true universal
nature of human rights, along with its "contradictions" and
"questioning". The Doha Centre for Media Freedom, for example, is the
first international human rights organisation to be set up outside the
West. This is one answer to critics who say defending human rights
is a matter for Westerners. Will defence of human rights be seen
differently from now on and, in some respect, rehabilitated? This
is the goal of the Doha Centre, and also another appropriate way of
celebrating this 60th anniversary.
The uniqueness of the Centre, established in a non-Western country
and with a global reach and an international staff, should enable it
to tackle situations in different continents in the same disciplined
way and solemnly remind countries of their obligations, such as the
controversial matter of universality of human rights.
Arab regimes must stop breaking the promises they make when they sign
international human rights agreements. For example, they should stop
misusing the UN Human Rights Council, which will end up discrediting
itself for defending countries that abuse human rights. Making
alliances between countries simply to avoid sanctions and condemnation,
as member-states of the Islamic Conference Organisation have often
done, should also end. Arab solidarity cannot be at the expense of
peoples Arab governments are supposedly defending. As for countries
that have not yet signed or ratified the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, what are they waiting for? Their
credibility is at stake.
Western countries must stop using human rights as a card they slap down
when it's useful but are keen to forget as soon as it goes against
their strategic calculations and economic interests. They must also
stop applauding democratic processes while rejecting the results of
elections that bring to power people who do not happen to please
them. Or assume the mantle of "worldwide guarantor of democracy"
when they engage in illegal and arbitrary imprisonment and other
ill-treatment on the pretext of fighting terrorism.
It's time these countries asked themselves questions about their
military expeditions supposedly to restore democracy. We have seen
the cost in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will never be seen other than
unacceptable challenges to national sovereignty, even when they are
waged in the name of human rights or defence of freedom. In Darfur
too. This way of governing ruins the efforts of human rights defenders
and makes a mockery of an anniversary like this one on December 10.
Robert Menard
Daily Times
Dec 9 2008
Pakistan
Western countries must stop using human rights as a card they slap down
when it's useful but are keen to forget as soon as it goes against
their strategic calculations and economic interests. They must also
stop applauding democratic processes while rejecting the results of
elections that bring to power people who do not happen to please them
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 60-years-old on December
10. In Western countries, the occasion is being marked (especially
by NGOs) with events, speeches, resolutions, articles and editorials
that declare the Declaration's values universal. Those who disagree
are dubbed enemies of freedom trying to justify the worst abuses on
the pretext of cultural and religious differences.
But let's be careful not to stigmatise the hundreds of millions of men
and women who honestly believe some of these values are alien to them,
or even a convenient front for selfish Western interests.
This feeling is especially strong in the Arab-Muslim world. Is it
just old-fashioned or perhaps distorted public opinion? Maybe, but
it's not just that. The episode of the Danish cartoons should have
opened our eyes. The outrage at their publication was exploited by
Arab regimes with little interest in freedom of expression but the
indignation of many was genuine.
It resulted in neither side listening to the other, with Westerners
brandishing as their tablets of stone human rights resolutions and
the inalienable right to criticise, while Muslims shouted that Islam
was sacred and had to be protected from mockery and satire. Muslims
noted that some democracies had their own taboos, such as slavery,
the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide. These were off-limits yet
Muslim taboos were not.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in similar deadlock, with the Arab
"street" pointing to the contradiction between their situation and the
supposed universality of human rights. Double standards are so blatant
that it is hard to claim the "international community" is trying to
enforce international law. "Resolutions", "democracy" and "holding
elections" are only praised when they serve the interests of the most
powerful. So credibility is undermined and dialogue becomes impossible.
How do we get out of all this? Some say by just listening to each
other. Of course. But also by ensuring people do not content themselves
with once again making big speeches on such an anniversary but make
solid commitments.
Civil society must take action that demonstrates the true universal
nature of human rights, along with its "contradictions" and
"questioning". The Doha Centre for Media Freedom, for example, is the
first international human rights organisation to be set up outside the
West. This is one answer to critics who say defending human rights
is a matter for Westerners. Will defence of human rights be seen
differently from now on and, in some respect, rehabilitated? This
is the goal of the Doha Centre, and also another appropriate way of
celebrating this 60th anniversary.
The uniqueness of the Centre, established in a non-Western country
and with a global reach and an international staff, should enable it
to tackle situations in different continents in the same disciplined
way and solemnly remind countries of their obligations, such as the
controversial matter of universality of human rights.
Arab regimes must stop breaking the promises they make when they sign
international human rights agreements. For example, they should stop
misusing the UN Human Rights Council, which will end up discrediting
itself for defending countries that abuse human rights. Making
alliances between countries simply to avoid sanctions and condemnation,
as member-states of the Islamic Conference Organisation have often
done, should also end. Arab solidarity cannot be at the expense of
peoples Arab governments are supposedly defending. As for countries
that have not yet signed or ratified the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, what are they waiting for? Their
credibility is at stake.
Western countries must stop using human rights as a card they slap down
when it's useful but are keen to forget as soon as it goes against
their strategic calculations and economic interests. They must also
stop applauding democratic processes while rejecting the results of
elections that bring to power people who do not happen to please
them. Or assume the mantle of "worldwide guarantor of democracy"
when they engage in illegal and arbitrary imprisonment and other
ill-treatment on the pretext of fighting terrorism.
It's time these countries asked themselves questions about their
military expeditions supposedly to restore democracy. We have seen
the cost in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will never be seen other than
unacceptable challenges to national sovereignty, even when they are
waged in the name of human rights or defence of freedom. In Darfur
too. This way of governing ruins the efforts of human rights defenders
and makes a mockery of an anniversary like this one on December 10.