World Human Rights
Today
Last week (April 9, 2021) a reporter in Pakistan named Hammad
Sarfraz contacted me about an article he was writing about Amnesty
International’s latest world report. He
sent me some questions via email, which I answered. In the end, he did not use any quotes from me
in his article, https://tribune.com.pk/story/2293985/amnesty-paints-a-grim-picture-of-the-world.
So I have decided to post my answers, as below.
What is your
assessment of the current state of human rights around the world?
I am very worried about the current state of human rights,
especially because of the rise of the authoritarian political right, indeed
even of fascism. Donald Trump, his family and the Republican Party are still a
real threat to American democracy. Their fascistic policies are based on racism
against Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims, as well as on privileges for the
extremely rich.
Similarly, I am very worried about China’s move back from authoritarian
dictatorship to full-blown totalitarianism, using modern means of information
technology to try to control the entire Chinese population. And I worry about Putin’s
dictatorship in Russia, Modi’s anti-Muslim Hindu nationalism, and leaders such
as Bolsanaro in Brazil, Duterte in the Philippines, Orban in Hungary and
Netanyahu in Israel.
Aside from these threats to people’s civil, political and economic
human rights, there are also the long-term threats of nuclear war and global climate
change, violating the rights to peace and to a healthy environment, both
emerging “collective” human rights.
Were human rights ever
universally guaranteed or were they only meant to be for the rich / developed
countries?
This question sets up a false opposition. Human rights have never been universally
guaranteed in practice; they are universal in principle. While it is true that
some rich, developed countries were influential in formulating the United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, so were several independent
non-Western countries such as India and Iran.
The only groups that had no influence were colonized sub-Saharan Africa
and indigenous peoples. Since then, all
members of the UN have had a say in formulating new documents such as the 1990
Convention on the Rights of the Child
People who don’t live in developed, wealthy societies need human
rights even more that people who do. Ask
yourself, which human rights could Pakistanis do without? The right not to be
arbitrarily executed? The right to free speech? The right to adequate food and
housing?
Perhaps some Pakistanis would prefer to get rid of freedom of
religion, as it protects the rights of Christians in Pakistan. But the principle of freedom of religion also
applies to Muslims in China, India and
Myanmar: should it be abolished because these are not wealthy western
countries? Should Muslims in the US have
the right to freedom of religion, while Muslims in these three countries don’t?
An increasing number
of advocacy groups are cautioning us about the growing abuses and violations of
basic rights. Are we moving toward a post human rights world?
I doubt very much that we are moving to a post-human rights
world. People will always want the types
of freedoms, protections and material security that the international human rights
laws and norms provide in law and principle.
We will all have to fight vigorously, though, against the political
authoritarianism and fascism that are currently emerging in various countries.
What are the main
challenges for global human rights norms ?
There are so many that I cannot even begin to enumerate them.
The biggest challenge is always corrupt, self-interested elites that control
states, wherever they are. The other challenge is unbridled capitalism which
ignores the dangers of climate change, inequality, and continued
discrimination. Racism, genocide, patriarchy and homophobia are always constant
challenges.
Countries that
appear to be important in Washington’s grand scheme can get away with human
rights violations. Saudi Arabia got away with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and
India is currently getting away with its oppressive policies in Kashmir. These
are two examples of how Washington conveniently turns a blind eye to violations
— when needed. What are the consequences of Washington’s selective approach
toward human rights?
This question should apply not only to Washington but to all
great powers. In the Western world, aside from some small countries such as
Norway, human rights are always a left-over after states take into
consideration their strategic needs, political alliances, trade, and general
economic interests. Other very powerful countries such as China and Russia
don’t even bother with human rights. For example, China is busy exploiting
Africa without any concern for human rights.
What is your
assessment of the pandemic’s impact on global human rights?
In Canada, where I live, the pandemic has exposed severe cracks
in our system of state health care, as well as cracks in our welfare system. Elsewhere,
presumably, it is much worse. Modi’s decision to simply close down India and
force migrants workers to return home without adequate (if any) protections
against the Covid virus has probably resulted in many tens of thousands of
deaths that will never be reported.
What would it take to reverse
the deteriorating human rights situation in the world?
Continued, constant pressure by civil society groups upon the
elites that control governments and the international economy. This is why civil and political rights are so
important, so that civil society and the general citizenry, can exercise their
rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to vote and participate
in government. When governments can throw civil society actors in jail with impunity,
or torture or execute them, then there is very little possibility of change.
Note that for all his racist, fascistic tendencies, Trump was unable to stifle
freedom of speech and the press in the US; nor, despite stacking the Supreme
Court and other levels of the judiciary with his own appointees, has he
completely undermined the independence of the judiciary.
If I could pick only one human right, I would say freedom of
speech. Some people might rather say, the right to food. But without freedom of
speech, citizens cannot even be guaranteed the right to eat: witness countries
such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela whose governments have committee
state food crimes, destroying their own economics.
