Tweet
THE DISILLUSION OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Sharief Ali
UNLV The Rebel Yell
http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=1 1812
March 27 2008
NV
Why humanity and compassion are never reason enough to care about
the rights of others
When discussing all of the injustices transpiring daily all over
the world like, murder, human trafficking, slavery, kidnapping,
starvation and so on, people in today's society like to assume that
international human rights are universally held norms. Although there
are some who view these "norms" as new forms of western imperialism,
the general consensus is that every human being is entitled to certain
unalienable rights.
There are many interpretations over the different meanings and concepts
of what international human rights entail. Rather than international,
the only true universal rights are what philosophers have called
"natural rights" for centuries - rights that no government can give
you or take away. But I do not believe in "international human rights"
as a term because it simply seems to be a mechanism of control by
state governments and/or a justification for infringement on state
sovereignty by hegemonic powers when convenient or necessary, but
not for moral purposes.
The basic argument in defense of human rights interventions, is that
humans should not suffer while the world stands and watches. After
the Nuremberg trials, the global community was supposed to make sure
that human rights violations and genocides like the holocaust and
the Armenian genocide were never to happen again.
But the argument against this is one that resembles something
Darwinistic. The world has no responsibility to help stop human
rights violations around the world, and that people who are dying,
suffering, enslaved, starving and so on have to work it out themselves
and whatever happens, will work itself out in the end.
Basically, we have no place.
So as much as people and organizations talk about human rights,
why do powerful governments only mention a select few cases?
Because they mention ones in which political expediency matters.
The powerful countries of the world only care about human rights when
they can gain something from an intervention, like money and power,
instead of good will. That is why the U.S. decided to relieve Iraqis
of their human rights woes and not the Koreans living under the rule
of the world's worst lunatic - Kim Jong-Il.
Case in point: President Bill Clinton felt compelled to stop the
starvation of millions of people in Somalia in 1993. Clinton was
so compelled, that the U.S. intervened militarily in Mogadishu to
ensure that UN and other 'human rights groups' food rations were
being delivered to those in need, and not hijacked by warlords. To
the average person, this cause seemed noble, but to many Somalis, U.S.
intervention was not seen as noble, but rather as an attempt to gain
access to Somalia's vast wealth of natural resources such as oil.
So how important to the world are international human rights?
In the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights, there are definitely broad
interpretations of rights that are cultural, and ones that are natural
or seemingly universal. These natural rights are based on the basic
belief that no human beings should deny other human beings the right
to life or liberty, self-determination, the right to clean water, and
protection against slavery in all its forms; however, there cannot
be any truly universal right. To start, in order to implement these
rights, there must be some inter-governmental organization that has
the ability to enforce them; but any such body would be infringing
on individual states' autonomy and sovereignty.
Secondly, individual human rights come second to the survival of
a state.
Of course any state would sign on to the declaration of human rights,
because which state would want to have that negative spotlight
focused on them by any state or alliance of states? But when it
comes to ensuring basic human rights to its citizens, any state is
concerned more with its own well being than the well being of its
citizens. Basically, if a state's citizens' rights must be compromised
in order to ensure the security or hierarchy of a state's government,
than that is what will happen, and it's what happens today in every
corner of the world with the U.S. being no exception.
States come first, inhabitants come second.
Unfortunately, in our "civilized" world, it seems like human beings
are anything but civilized. Rather than truly be in the interest of
humankind, international human rights have just become another tool
used to pass specific political agendas. Yes, there are those who
do genuinely care to make a difference, and they can - but only on
a limited scale unfortunately.
It is not in any governments' interests to ensure that all of their
citizens are guaranteed certain unalienable rights, although that
would be the morally correct approach. Because in a capital-driven
world, morals and ethics really have no place; the dollar is king,
and we are all subjects.
But is there nothing that can really be done?
Only each one of us can individually answer that.
Sharief Ali
UNLV The Rebel Yell
http://www.unlvrebelyell.com/article.php?ID=1 1812
March 27 2008
NV
Why humanity and compassion are never reason enough to care about
the rights of others
When discussing all of the injustices transpiring daily all over
the world like, murder, human trafficking, slavery, kidnapping,
starvation and so on, people in today's society like to assume that
international human rights are universally held norms. Although there
are some who view these "norms" as new forms of western imperialism,
the general consensus is that every human being is entitled to certain
unalienable rights.
There are many interpretations over the different meanings and concepts
of what international human rights entail. Rather than international,
the only true universal rights are what philosophers have called
"natural rights" for centuries - rights that no government can give
you or take away. But I do not believe in "international human rights"
as a term because it simply seems to be a mechanism of control by
state governments and/or a justification for infringement on state
sovereignty by hegemonic powers when convenient or necessary, but
not for moral purposes.
The basic argument in defense of human rights interventions, is that
humans should not suffer while the world stands and watches. After
the Nuremberg trials, the global community was supposed to make sure
that human rights violations and genocides like the holocaust and
the Armenian genocide were never to happen again.
But the argument against this is one that resembles something
Darwinistic. The world has no responsibility to help stop human
rights violations around the world, and that people who are dying,
suffering, enslaved, starving and so on have to work it out themselves
and whatever happens, will work itself out in the end.
Basically, we have no place.
So as much as people and organizations talk about human rights,
why do powerful governments only mention a select few cases?
Because they mention ones in which political expediency matters.
The powerful countries of the world only care about human rights when
they can gain something from an intervention, like money and power,
instead of good will. That is why the U.S. decided to relieve Iraqis
of their human rights woes and not the Koreans living under the rule
of the world's worst lunatic - Kim Jong-Il.
Case in point: President Bill Clinton felt compelled to stop the
starvation of millions of people in Somalia in 1993. Clinton was
so compelled, that the U.S. intervened militarily in Mogadishu to
ensure that UN and other 'human rights groups' food rations were
being delivered to those in need, and not hijacked by warlords. To
the average person, this cause seemed noble, but to many Somalis, U.S.
intervention was not seen as noble, but rather as an attempt to gain
access to Somalia's vast wealth of natural resources such as oil.
So how important to the world are international human rights?
In the U.N.'s Declaration of Human Rights, there are definitely broad
interpretations of rights that are cultural, and ones that are natural
or seemingly universal. These natural rights are based on the basic
belief that no human beings should deny other human beings the right
to life or liberty, self-determination, the right to clean water, and
protection against slavery in all its forms; however, there cannot
be any truly universal right. To start, in order to implement these
rights, there must be some inter-governmental organization that has
the ability to enforce them; but any such body would be infringing
on individual states' autonomy and sovereignty.
Secondly, individual human rights come second to the survival of
a state.
Of course any state would sign on to the declaration of human rights,
because which state would want to have that negative spotlight
focused on them by any state or alliance of states? But when it
comes to ensuring basic human rights to its citizens, any state is
concerned more with its own well being than the well being of its
citizens. Basically, if a state's citizens' rights must be compromised
in order to ensure the security or hierarchy of a state's government,
than that is what will happen, and it's what happens today in every
corner of the world with the U.S. being no exception.
States come first, inhabitants come second.
Unfortunately, in our "civilized" world, it seems like human beings
are anything but civilized. Rather than truly be in the interest of
humankind, international human rights have just become another tool
used to pass specific political agendas. Yes, there are those who
do genuinely care to make a difference, and they can - but only on
a limited scale unfortunately.
It is not in any governments' interests to ensure that all of their
citizens are guaranteed certain unalienable rights, although that
would be the morally correct approach. Because in a capital-driven
world, morals and ethics really have no place; the dollar is king,
and we are all subjects.
But is there nothing that can really be done?
Only each one of us can individually answer that.