humen rights

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Human Rights Author(s): Richard Falk Source: Foreign Policy, No. 141 (Mar. - Apr., 2004), pp. 18-20+22+24+26+28 Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4147546 . Accessed: 11/01/2014 13:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THINK AGBy Richard FalkN

By Richard Falk

HUMAN RIGHTS The concept of human rights is the mother's milk of the international commu-

nity. Problem is, these days human rights come in more flavors than coffee or

soft drinks. Wouldyou like the Asian, Islamic, indigenous, economic, European,

or U.S. version ? And how wouldyou likeyour human rights served: with

sanctions, regime change, corporate window dressing, or good old-fashioned moral suasion? Here's a look at the most effective-and most misguided-

recipes for promoting human dignity around the world.

"All Persons and Peoples Aspire to the Same Human Rights"

No. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be formally accepted around the world, but its generalized framework allows for almost limitless interpretations. Even the supposed global consensus on, say, the prohibition of torture as a "human wrong" is deceptive: In the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the prominent U.S. legal scholar Alan Dershowitz argued in favor of legalized torture as a counterterror measure.

If anything, the postcolonial period since the writing of the declaration has witnessed an erosion of the belief in the universality of human aspira- tions. In part, this erosion stems from a widespread

conviction that human rights are a Western invention being shoved down non-Western throats. Though such attitudes are partly a propaganda ploy by lead- ers who seek to shield their abusive behavior from criticism, they also reflect the views of many non- Westerners who believe that the highly individualis- tic declaration does not adequately balance rights with responsibilities-witness the emergence of "Asian Values" or "Islamic Values."

The assertion of value-based and cultural variations also represents a regional backlash against the unwant- ed aspects of globalization, including the fear of U.S. dominance and related concerns about consumerism and the loss of tradition. One important way to estab- lish regional identity has been to emphasize the distinc- tiveness of human rights, whether Asian or African, Islamic or Christian. Another example of this trend has been the greater prominence of representatives of indige- nous peoples' rights. Their sense of difference is so

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank professor emeritus of inter- national law and practice at Princeton University and visiting distinguished professor of global studies at the University of Cal- ifornia, Santa Barbara. His most recent book is The Great Terror War (New York: Olive Branch Press, 2003).

18 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

strong that, operating under U.N. auspices, a worldwide network of indigenous representatives is developing its own framework for human rights, known as the Dec- laration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Even unity on human rights within the West is overrated. There is an important mainstream confu- sion in thought about international human rights that arises from their dual origins within the Western expe- rience of the late 18th century. From the French Rev- olution, with its affirmation of the "Rights of Man" (liberty, equality, and fraternity), arises a sense of uni- versality, that all persons by virtue of being human

have certain common entitlements that transcend the specifics of context. In contrast, from the American Revolution comes the Bill of Rights, appended to the U.S. Constitution, applicable only to the United States, and subject to interpretation by domestic courts, which themselves are depositories of national values and evolving policy priorities. The ongoing friction between the United States and Europe on such issues as capital punishment and the relevance of interna- tional law can be partly explained by important dif- ferences in outlook that evolved from this dual revo- lutionary heritage.

"Human Rights Are Violated More Today than Ever Before"

Wrong. The clash here is between perceptions and realities. As with cancer and other diseases, the ability to identify human rights abuses more accurately and treat their symptoms more effectively creates the illu- sion that the disease itself is more prevalent. Every reliable human rights indicator suggests progress in the direction of self-determination and democratiza- tion in all parts of the world, which means more par- ticipation by individuals in their own destiny and more restraint on the part of governments. About two thirds of the world's population, or 4 billion people, now live in countries that Freedom House judges to be "free" or "partly free"; overall, these nations account for 94 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Moreover, one of the truly notable achievements of the U.N. system over the past six decades has been the creation of a significant human rights architecture consisting of treaties on discrimination against

women, racism, children, religious beliefs, and refugees, as well as institutional innovations such as the establishment in Geneva of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Much of the credit for this upgrading of human rights should be given to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which took the promise of minimum standards seriously several decades ago when governments regard- ed such matters as either harmless pieties or as purely vol- untary directives. Although human rights NGOs began as a Western phenomenon, by the end of the 20th cen- tury, they had proliferated to all parts of the world and were active even in many otherwise authoritarian coun- tries. Yet there is a paradox inherent in their success: The more effective they are at shining a spotlight on human rights abuses and drawing support for their work, the more likely the public imagination is to be fixed on the persistence of failure.

"Human Rights Are Irreconcilable with the War on Global Terrorism"

On the contrary. In some instances, the protection of human rights must be qualified, or perhaps even suspended, because of the peculiar urgencies of meeting the challenge of global ter- rorism-but such instances are relatively few. Due

to the secret nature of al Qaeda operations and targets, information enjoys the highest premium, and one of the few sources of potentially useful information is the interrogation of detained ter- rorist suspects or operatives. Such a reality may

MARCH I APRIL 2004 19

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Think Again

justify some relaxation of the customary treat- ment of prisoners of war, but it certainly does not validate the sort of humiliating and vindictive conditions of confinement associated with Camp X-Ray on the U.S. Naval Base Guantainamo Bay, Cuba, or the transfer of prisoners by U.S. offi- cials to Egypt and other countries that have few inhibitions about relying upon torture to extract needed information.

The war against global terrorism is far more a political and moral conflict than it is a military one. Adherence to human rights, even for those accused or suspected of terrorist involvement, would signal Washington's respect for life and human dignity. To

act otherwise-holding people without pressing charges or access to lawyers, or mounting vague charges without supporting evidence-discloses a kind of secular fundamentalism that blurs the nature of the conflict. Part of what should be defended is precisely a respect for human rights. Departures from that standard in legislative enact- ment, judicial action, and administrative policy should bear a heavy burden of persuasion. So far, since September 11, the U.S. Congress, media, and public have been reluctant to challenge the exercise of executive power in a display of excessive defer- ence that has weakened human rights without strengthening national security.

"Human Rights Abuses Worsened Worldwide After September 11, oo"001

Yes, but not for most Iraqis and Afghans. Especially in the United States, the enactment of antiterror laws has raised genuine concerns about restrictions on human rights. Governments in nations such as Israel, Russia, Pakistan, and Egypt have seized upon the terrorist issue as a pretext for intensifying the repression of nation- al opposition movements and individuals. And the U.S. preoccupation with security concerns and alliance relations has also taken precedence over human rights, especially in U.S. dealings with critical frontline states such as Pakistan as well as several highly authoritarian Central Asian countries.

But those losses must be set against some impor- tant gains. The pressure to respond to the al Qaeda challenge, and to pursue U.S. geopolitical goals, led to wars that produced regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq, which had two of the worst governments in the world from the human rights perspective. True, millions of people in both countries must confront the prospect of civil strife in the years ahead, accompa- nied by some risk that cruel forms of authoritarian- ism will reemerge. Yet, for the moment at least, they are much better off than they were-even if respect- ing the prohibitions of international law on the use of force remains more important than military inter- vention to promote human rights around the world.

"Corporations Have a Moral and Legal Obligation to Uphold Human Rights"

Not now. Multinational corporations are essen- tially profit-making actors without established moral obligations beyond their duties to uphold the inter- ests of their shareholders. In some cases, the con- stituencies of corporations have grown to encompass so-called "stakeholders," including those groups affected by corporate activity. And to some extent,

corporations have an interest in not alienating consumers and public interest groups by ignoring fundamental human rights concerns. Civil society leaders can organize boycotts against corporations with high-profile links to human rights violations, as has occurred with Shell, Nestle, and others. Campaigns by these and other corporations to

20 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Think Again

improve their public image in relation to human rights are a matter of self-interest that does not reflect the existence or acceptance of a moral obli- gation. Of course, to the extent that a human rights culture takes hold, corporate officials and their shareholders will likely become more recep- tive to moral imperatives associated with treating workers decently, in accordance with human rights standards. In that respect, voluntary initia- tives such as the United Nations' recently estab- lished "Global Compact," which certifies corpo- rations as good global citizens if they agree to abide by a checklist of standards, may pay off. And if such voluntary processes go on for a long time and are widely practiced, they could ripen into a moral obligation at some point, but that is a long way off.

Also, virtually no legal obligations are effective outside the protection of property rights such as trademarks and copyrights in international business activity. Almost all human rights regulation of cor- porate actors is based on national laws and their implementation. Some countries, especially the Unit- ed States, have tried to extend their standards to the foreign operations of corporations headquartered in their countries, but usually in the context of busi-

ness activity (bribes, monopolies) rather than human rights. Efforts by U.S. state courts to ban business deals in response to severe human rights abuses in places such as Burma have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as an interference with the for- eign affairs powers of the Executive Branch. To the extent that U.S. corporations are legally restricted from dealing with certain foreign countries for human rights reasons, such as Cuba, the underly- ing motivation is political, reflecting ideological hostility. After all, why not restrict business with other countries that engage in severe violations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

A framework of international legal obligations would doubtless help protect human rights, espe- cially in countries with minimal or nonexistent human rights regulation. But to ensure that multi- national corporations from some countries would not benefit from a competitive advantage, such a frame- work would require widely endorsed regional and global treaty regimes. And given the clear benefits of foreign investment in mitigating poverty, imposing international standards that reduce the economic attractiveness of countries with minimal regulation would, in the short term at least, likely accentuate human suffering.

"Human Rights Are Primarily About Political Freedom"

No. Human rights should be understood as cov- ering both political and economic concerns. It is true that human rights efforts have been most suc- cessful with political abuses. Yet, to create the sort of solidarity needed to promote the dignity of per- sons throughout the world, it is crucial to address economic deprivations associated with poverty as human rights issues. Indeed, there are two authori- tative international covenants governing human rights: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both adopt- ed by the United Nations in 1966.

The United States has never ratified the sec- ond covenant, and U.S. political leaders are skep- tical about its moral claims and status as law. But regardless of such doubts and any quibbles about

the wording of covenants, the bottom line is that a country that fails to address the basic needs of its entire population is guilty of human rights viola- tions. This approach puts a lot of pressure on poor countries and the economically disadvantaged in various ways. It also exerts pressure on the Unit- ed States and other prosperous nations that prac- tice a form of market economics that does not take responsibility for homelessness, hunger, and other manifestations of poverty. An estimated 840 million people suffer from chronic hunger around the world. At the end of 2002 in the United States, there were 34.9 million people living in hunger or lacking suf- ficient food, 1.3 million more than a year earlier. A human rights approach, based on morality and law, would ensure every human being the basic necessi- ties of food, shelter, health care, education, and

22 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Think Again

employment at least to the extent of the material capabilities of a particular society. It is only by shutting out these issues of economic well-being that the United States can be proud of its human

rights record. Indeed, given the remarkable level of U.S. wealth and might, the existence of such deep pockets of poverty is nothing short of a human rights obscenity.

"Human Rights Abuses in One Country Can

Justify Military Intervention by Others" Yes. This issue arose in the 1990s in relation to genocide in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and failed states elsewhere in Africa. The interna- tional community faced a nasty dilemma: Either abandon populations to humanitarian catastro- phe, or override the fundamental principle of ter- ritorial sovereignty to rescue them. The U.N. record was mixed at best. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who bears some responsibility for the widely criticized U.N. non-response to the unfolding Rwandan genocide of 1994, later made amends by urging the United Nations to balance its respect for sovereignty against its duty to pro- tect vulnerable populations.

The duty of the international community to act now seems clear, not least because of greater global awareness of human rights emergencies. But such action is hampered by a weakness of political will on the part of Security Council members. This weakness arises from two sources: a reluctance by some members, including the United States, to endow the United Nations with sufficient capabil- ities to be effective, and the unwillingness of oth- ers, most notably China and Russia, to erode sov- ereign rights. There is great suspicion among

developing nations, especially in Asia, that claims of humanitarian intervention are concealed ways for former colonial powers and the West general- ly to override their countries' political independ- ence. Although history lends credence to these con- cerns, if the facts demonstrate an impending humanitarian catastrophe and enough political will exists to provide real protection or help, then the world community should act even if it means the erosion of sovereignty.

The policy issue is more difficult. In the case of Kosovo, for example, the U.N. Security Council could not reach consensus, despite the evidence that anoth- er instance of Balkan ethnic cleansing was likely imminent. The 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo res- cued the Albanian Kosovar population from catas- trophe, but at the expense of international law gov- erning the use of force. Unlike the Iraq intervention of 2003, however, a regional consensus supported the action taken in Kosovo and the facts validated the moral claim of urgency. As such, while the interven- tion may have been illegal, it was politically and morally legitimate. This gap is not desirable, but it is better than ignoring principles altogether or adopting a rigid posture of unconditional nonintervention.

"Economic Sanctions Help Improve Human Rights Worldwide"

Rarely. If applied with the genuine backing of the world community, economic sanctions can be effective, both symbolically and substantively. But such backing is rare. The case of sanctions imposed on South Africa during the last stages of apartheid is a rare success story, and those sanc-

tions worked as much by delegitimizing the gov- ernment in Pretoria as by their adverse effects on the South African economy.

Most other instances of relying on sanctions for these purposes have failed. Between 1990 and 2003, the U.S.-led U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq indis-

24 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Think Again

criminately killed hundreds of thousands of civil- ians without reforming or unseating the repressive Baath Party regime. Citing this disastrous humani- tarian impact, two widely admired U.N. adminis- trators of the sanctions program in Iraq resigned on principle in 1998 and 2000, respectively. In Bosnia, half-hearted sanctions directed at the Yugoslav gov- ernment in Belgrade served as an excuse for not tak- ing more energetic protective action on behalf of a severely abused Bosnian Muslim population. For more than 40 years, the U.S. government has main- tained economic sanctions against Cuba in defiance of the majority of the U.N. General Assembly; indeed, in recent years, only Israel and the Marshall Islands

have backed Washington's stance. These sanctions have led to great hardships for the Cuban people without contributing to an improved human rights record, though they have helped successive admin- istrations in Washington court Cuban exile commu- nities that exercise political leverage in such key states as Florida and New Jersey.

Sanctions are a policy tool that should be used most sparingly, and then only with the overwhelm- ing support of the international community. If the sit- uation is serious enough to warrant sanctions, humanitarian intervention might well be more appro- priate, not least because it has a far better chance of addressing the direct causes of human suffering.

"Human Rights and Democracy Will Never Take Hold in the Middle East"

Wrong. Not one among the 17 Arab coun- tries has a government respectful of basic human rights, but is this reality a matter of cultural and religious destiny? I think not. There are impor- tant democratic movements in civil society in several of these countries, including among the Palestinians and Moroccans. Whether these movements can immediately wrest power from authoritarian and repressive elites is question- able. But the idea that outside force can impose a quick-fix government respectful of human rights is tragically risible. Iraq, and to some extent, Afghanistan, are current test cases, and the prog- nosis is not favorable.

Looking back, the democratization of Germany and Japan after World War II are shining examples of what has been and might be achieved, but only under specific conditions. These countries were defeated after lengthy wars, lacked memories of col- onization, and possessed coherent and successful social, economic, and bureaucratic structures. The surviving elites in Germany and Japan could easi- ly identify with their occupiers and seek their pro- tection against dangers from potentially hostile neighbors, especially the Soviet Union. In contrast, Iraq and Afghanistan are ethnically and political- ly fragmented, and, if soon left alone, would like- ly degenerate quickly into civil war or a return of authoritarian rule. Besides, both societies have ter-

rible memories of Western domination, and many among their citizenry harbor deep suspicions that the current motives of outside occupiers are exploitative rather than emancipatory.

U.S. President George W. Bush has gone on record as believing that the promotion of democ- racy and freedom in the Middle East is feasible. But the United States cannot promote human rights in the Middle East by the tactic of regime change exemplified in the Iraq War. The United States might move the region in a more moderate direc- tion if it could resolve the contradictions in its policies toward, say, Saudi Arabia, and achieve greater balance regarding the Israel-Palestine con- flict, promoting a truly fair solution for both peo- ples that takes into account Palestinian rights under international law.

The Middle East, as is true for most of the world, is constituted by sovereign states, meaning that the respect of human rights must be achieved primarily by means of internal struggle. External factors, especially the spread of a human rights culture, including by the United Nations Educa- tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and other educational programs, can exert a benevolent influence. A coercive approach to the establish- ment of human rights and democracy, particular- ly if promoted by Western might and wealth, is almost certain to backfire. [E

26 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Think Again

Want to Know More?

The most influential standard introduction to the subject of human rights is Jack Donnelly's Univer- sal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003). A good supplement is The Human Rights Reader: Major Political Writings, Essays, Speeches, and Documents from the Bible to the Present (New York: Routledge, 1997), edited by Micheline R. Ishay. It traces the evolution of human rights through a comprehensive, historically grounded survey of touchstone writ- ings. Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the United States and Asia (New York: Routledge, 1999), edited by Peter Van Ness, offers a good sampling of non-Western views, particularly from Asian critics of the U.S. approach to human rights advocacy. Richard Falk covers some of the more recent salient human rights issues, such as humanitarian intervention, genocide, and the inclusion of Islam, in Human Rights Horizons: The Pursuit of ustice in a Globalizing World (New York: Routledge, 2000).

Michael Ignatieff offers eloquent and thoughtful advocacy in Human Rights as Politics and Idol- atry (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), including essays in response from several other respected thinkers in the field. Human Rights Watch cofounder Aryeh Neier vents his frustration at government "lip service" to human rights in "The New Double Standard" (FOREIGN POLICY, Win- ter 1996-97); former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce Jeffrey E. Garten responds to his complaints in "The Need for Pragmatism" (FOREIGN POLICY, Winter 1996-97).

Samantha Power's gripping, Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 2002) captures the contradictions, dilemmas, and gross short- comings of the U.S. response to genocide during the 20th century. Former Australian Foreign Min- ister Gareth Evans offers his views on stopping genocide in a wide-ranging interview, "True Believ- er" (FOREIGN POLICY, March/April 2001). Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun chaired the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, whose 2001 report "The Responsibility to Pro- tect" is especially useful on the post-Kosovo debate on intervention and human rights. Internation- al Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), edited by Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston, is an invaluable source that endorses the wider understanding of human rights, including concerns about war crimes, international accountability, and enforcement via intervention. For a broad discussion on the limits and possibilities of the "inter- national community" by a wide range of global thinkers, see "What Is the International Communi- ty?" (FOREIGN POLICY, September/October 2002).

William E Felice's The Global New Deal: Economic and Social Human Rights in World Politics (Lan- ham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) examines whether human rights should include economic and social rights. For a more polemical discussion, see Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corpo- rate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights (New York: Rodale, 2002). Corporate ethicist Daniel Litvin offers some free advice to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the United Nations' new Global Compact in "A Strategy for Business and Human Rights" (FOREIGN POLICY, November/December 2003).

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) devoted to human rights offer excellent Web sites. For a skeptic's look at how NGOs pick their causes, see Clifford Bob's "Merchants of Morality" (FOREIGN POLICY, March/April 2002). The U.S. State Department's Web site allows visitors to download copies of annual country reports on human rights. Other useful information can be found on the Web site of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights.

))For links to relevant Web sites, access to the FP Archive, and a comprehensive index of related FOREIGN POLICY articles, go to www.foreignpolicy.com.

28 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 134.50.50.94 on Sat, 11 Jan 2014 13:47:05 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions