7 October 2020, NIICE Commentary 6102
Bishnu Chaudhary
Human rights, these days have become more a source of vexation rather than need, especially the way the nationalism driven conflicts, racial discontents, terrorism, economic sanctions, new brand of despotism, and subtle authoritarian governments have surfaced and thrived lately. Let’s take a look at certain contradictory aspects of human rights and try to analyze the moral and ethical dilemmas through some recent examples in its practice.
Let’s begin with the historic declaration of Palais de Chaillot in 1948, popularly recorded as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Out of 58 UN members at that time, adopted by vote of 48-0 in favor, 8 abstaining and 2 absentees). The seeds of dissent were planted right then. Saudi Arabia, one of the early members of UN voiced its vocal disapproval, particularly to Article 18 which speaks for the right to religion, citing the nation’s Islamic Sharia Law. At the same time, Pakistan, along with other Muslim states like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey signed the declaration.
The current degradation of human rights also generates from the conviction that human rights are western agenda and forcibly loaded onto non-westerners. Although this stance has particularly been used by the populist and authoritarian leaders as propaganda tool to cover their lust for power, still many non-westerners believe that the declaration does not fairly explain the right balance between the rights and responsibilities; evidenced by the recent resurgence of Asian values and Islamic faith. The criticism can also be derived from the regional dissent against West-led globalization, corporate dominance, burgeoning consumerism and paranoia of loss of traditional values.
Even the western society per se does not share the Universality of Human Rights. For instance, the difference in the views between US and Europe regarding the death penalty, capital punishment and Assisted suicide.
Has Human Rights Abuse Increased in the Modern Times?
The answer is Yes and No at the same time. Yes, in the sense that the countries like Egypt, Israel, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and even the US have restricted its practices to repress the opposition on the pretext of security concerns. The examples can be controversial use of US Patriot Act (after 9/11) and most recently in India, the invocation of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) to arrest Jawaharlal Nehru University student leader Umar Khalid, which has been topic of contention among the Indian intellectuals and media.
No, in the sense that recent times has seen regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the people are enjoying more human rights than they did during the earlier despotic rulers. Again, the military operations used in this setting are debatable in the eyes of International law; yet the citizens, especially females in Afghanistan are visibly far better off. Nevertheless, the increasing numbers of terrorism related activities have given rise to discourses on legal validity towards inhuman practices like torturing. Alan Dersowitz, Harvard law professor, although he accepts torture as morally wrong, argues that sometimes it is the only option to protect innocent lives and hence a justified action.
Political and Economic Flavor
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have stated through avowed statements that human rights violations have been visibly linked to the political and economic interests of the United States and other developed capitalist countries. These advanced countries attempt every step to maintain favorable conditions for their better returns in the third world. One of those steps being controlling the formation of trade unions and the quashing of public demonstrations deemed detrimental to their benefits.
The human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank have been eternally shrouded by the political struggle between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Unsurprisingly, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen exposes the helplessness of the international human rights watch groups in its inability to guarantee even the basic rights like food, clean water, medication and accommodation to the victims of what is explained as proxy wars. The reluctance of US and the West as the advocate and the guarantor of human rights to take any measures only add the obscenity to already revealed nakedness of human rights abuse.
Additionally, Amartya Sen along with Martha Nussbaum introduces the capability approach that states personal freedom exercised is relative and depends upon the economic power or purchasing ability one can afford. The human rights enjoyed by a well-to-do person might not be the same for the person struggling to manage two meals every single day.
Robert McNamara has clearly expressed his view on the links between economic activities and practice of human rights as: “there can be no question but that there is an undeniable relationship between violence and economic under -development.”
Human Rights in Economic Sanctions
The question on Economic sanctions has also been raised time and again. Although the sanction on South African government is said to have proved successful in its aim to end the apartheid in early 1990s, the legality of those sanctions on Syria, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba remains challenged. The economic sanction laid on Cuba by the US since 1958 has been criticized many times in UN General Assembly, yet it persists. The effect of this economic sanction is visibly evident through Cuban peoples’ hardships and is a testimony that the sanction does not always improve the human rights.
Corporate Flavor
In the present globalized world fueled by growing corporate consumerism and never-ending appetite for cheaper products, a number of big Multi-National Companies (MNCs) have also been found guilty when it comes to human rights abuses. Kellogg, Unilever, Nestle, and Procter & Gamble are some of the big names in MNC world, according to Amnesty international, who have been using Child labor to extract palm oils in Indonesia.
In another case, Nestle has been accused of branding Baby formula in poor African nations who clearly lack proper drinking water. Although the company knew the fact that this formula mandatorily required clean water to be mixed with before serving, they opted to keep it secret so that they would not have to forgo their share of market. The result was large cases of infant deaths and unsought grief.
Such is the corporate greed and brutality that garment workers in Bangladesh are even barred from drinking enough water citing that too much water intake will lead to frequent visit to toilets that will result into workers’ reduced productivity. This exactly shows the corporate monstrosity that led to the death of more than 1100 garment workers what is infamously known as Rana Plaza Factory Collapse (2013) where those poor Bengalis, some as young as 14 years old, were slaving for hours to quench the rich peoples’ thirst for cheap clothing. Now, would the same fate of human rights be suffered if those ‘murdered’ had other options for their economic capabilities? Do not the corporate houses hold some sort of moral and legal accountability to endorse the human rights?
Asian Flavor
Lee Kwan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore is one of the most candid champions of Asian values when it comes to human rights. He has repeatedly claimed that the human rights based on communitarian values is much preferable and better for the society than those based on Western individualism. Amartya Sen, further adds more strands within the Asian values, differentiating East Asian values with the South Asian values. He states that the Eastern practice of social values is more based on Confucianism, whereas those of South Asia show more affinity towards respect to tolerant behavior. Both of these collide with Marx’s view that blames Asian society to give rise to authoritarian feudalism and patriarchal regimes. Nevertheless, there are actually some Asian statesmen like Truong Chinh, Vietnamese communist leader, who criticized the Asian traditional cultural values as unreasonable, unscientific, flourishing superstition, mysticism, maladroitness, and all those habits that are unscientific or unprogressive.
Looking forward to Middle East
The absence of government honoring human rights in any of those 17 Arab countries, US coddling of Israel continuously, and recent American partnerships with Saudi Arabia might suggest that the ideal practice of human rights is long away. Still, the popular movements that surfaced in the form of Arab Spring (early 2011), recent demonstrations in Lebanon provide some hint of optimism. The question is, will they be successful in immediate snatching of power from their tyrannical and oppressive elites. One thing certain is the coercive action of West like regime changes to establish human rights championed by western power and wealth is surely going to be counter-productive.
Some Food for Thought
In 2016, an Italian court freed a homeless man convicted of stealing food from the supermarket on the grounds of basic human right to food. The event was covered and applauded in most of the major western media and gives rise to the question “will this really set precedent for forthcoming cases of humanity and hunger in the world reeking of poverty, inequality or will it just succumb to the corporate dominion that constantly bombards us with the customized products for almost any purposes.
In another case, what about prohibiting Hijab to school in France, and Burkini in many European coasts? Does it display the bullying nature of government or is it the protective warmth of governments that will safeguard the potential victims from possible vilification and maim from onlookers.
The questions remain unanswered amid big confusion, especially when the human rights come with so many flavor and color, just like the candies and the carbonated drinks in the supermarket.
