Human 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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpni
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4147546?origin=JSTOR-pdf
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Think Again