How does the notion of Universal Human Rights seek to regulate Global Power politics?

Human Rights in Global Politics is complex and controversial.

Human Rights (HR) are inalienable, universal, egalitarian and fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being. In other words they are rights that all humans have and should enjoy. (Casse 1990) says that “HR are based on an expansive desire to unify the world by drawing up a list of guidelines for all governments.” However HR are a complex and controversial matter when states in the international arena engage in power politics and bilateral relations with each other. Some of the sticking points are what rights are included in HR and its interpretation and also the use of HR in Global Politics as both liberals and realists have different views along with the way states use HR in foreign policy. For example, as some countries use HR as a justification when dealing with other countries, while other see HR as tool to interfere with in other countries internal affairs for ulterior motives.

In the Universal Declaration of HR, there are two categories of HR. The first grouping is the civil and political rights which are Articles 3 to 21, while the second grouping comprises of economic, social and cultural rights which are Articles 22 to 28. According to (Baylis, et al. 2011) the former provides legal protection against abuse by the state and seek to ensure political participation for all citizens, while the latter guarantees individuals access to essential goods and services and to seek to ensure equal and cultural participation. Although both of these different groupings of HR are on equal footing, different states around the world give different priority (Mertus 2009). Western developed states have always focused on civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights, whereas developing, Asian and post-Soviet or Middle-East states tend to focus on Socio-economic and cultural rights as their top priority. (Vincent 2000) expresses the advantages are collectivism and equality versus individualism and liberty, while the disadvantages are tyranny versus economic injustice.

HR has different views in terms of realism and liberalism. Both have conflicting views on how HR play into Power politics. (Forsythe 2000) comments its either narrow self-interest or universal concern. Realists are concerned of the balance of power and nations acting in their self-interest, therefore HR will be used as tool for states in order to main advantage or control over another. Realists view the notion of HR as too utopian, just liberal creation, only to be manipulated for ends use. (Dunne, et al. 1999) notes the Universality in HR is flawed because there are no universal values, therefore Universal HR are invalid because of no universal ethical community. Some practices include impose sanctions or cutting foreign aid when states violate HR. This means states will HR as a cover intervening in other states for their own self-interest.

Liberals on the other hand, see HR as tool for all states to improve co-operation between each other and improve peace around the world as HR can be an extension of collective security. They see it as one the solutions to the world’s problems. For example, according to Falk (1998) Operation Uphold Democracy lead by USA restored democracy in Haiti in 1995 after a coup d’état. The reasons were that huge influx of refugees to the USA was problem and if brutal military rule continued HR abuses will continue and create more refugees. Thus if all states respect HR the world will become peaceful. ‘’In the classical liberal view, the good society is based on respect for the equality and autonomy of individuals…’’ (Forsythe 2000;3). According to (Brown, et al 2009) the idea of HR implies a kind of universal human identity that transcends the national, ethnic and religious identities. Under the influence of liberals in Western Europeans and North Americans, a serious attempt has been made to strengthen HR regime, to develop a doctrine of humanitarian intervention and to establish the individual as an international actor along as the object and subject of international law. The notion of humanitarian intervention is that state(s) use military force to against another state to end HR violations that being perpetrated by that state. In other words, its military action in the name of HR. (Forsythe 2003) remarks that threats to peace could arise from abuse and violations of HR and over time the live dividing security issues from HR issues are often blurred. If these abuses continue over a long period of time and it gets worse, the international community has the responsibility to protect the people from the atrocities from continuing. Humanitarian invention is controversial, as (Brown , et al 2009) points that the Chinese and Russians argue that humanitarian intervention is a breach of the right of self-determination and state sovereignty, motivated by a desire to impose Western standards on other states and maybe to covertly pursue Western interests.

HR as notion seems to regulate power politics. Since the mid-1970s, more and more states have chosen to make HR a regular part of their foreign policy. However HR is but of many nationals interest, thus often sidelined in favour of other national interests such economic (Baylis, et al. 2011). As from above, there are two different groups of HR that different states tend to focus more on in the expense of the other. This has led to conflict between states on how to improve their HR record. Thus when disputes and conflicts arise between states HR is thrown in as possible bargaining clip or card. There is even a conflict of the notion of HR itself. As Non-western countries claim that HR that Western states always preach is form of cultural imperialism as it seeks to spread western values worldwide. These countries claim that Western interpretation of HR is incompatible with the cultural environment. (Vincent 1986) notices that Soviet, African, Chinese and conceptions of HR share the characteristic that community and obligation come before individual and right. Sure enough, some regions in the world have already created and adopted their version of HR. Example — the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1986 for the Africa, Asian values via Bangkok Declaration of 1993 for Asian countries, the Cairo Declaration on HR in Islam in 1990 for Islamic countries the Arab Charter on HR in 2008 for Arab countries. Although some of these conventions of their interpretation of HR, might not exactly be the same as the Universal Declaration, but at least these countries do not reject the notion of HR, but rather it’s a gradual step towards moving towards the Universal Declaration.

Clearly the use of HR in Power Politics is inconsistent and full of double standards. While Western countries peach about the importance of civil and political rights to the world, developing nations particularly China, point out that that the West especially USA have a long track record of opposing economic, social and cultural rights(Mertus 2009). USA and some extent the Western countries and China seems to be in a HR ‘war’ as when USA raises human rights issues with China,

China responds that its improving its rights record (releasing its White Paper to prove it) and stating that other countries should improve its rights record on their own time rather to be fixed instantly. In terms of Foreign aid, Western countries have conditions attached such as good governance, democracy and respect for HR, whereas China gives aid with ‘no strings attached’. Also each year USA releases ‘Country Reports on HR Practices’ for each country in the world, ironically USA does not release a report for itself, which China does (entitled ‘HR Record of the United States’) in response to USA’s report(s). It is not to say Asian countries have rejected or ignored HR, as some in west have perceived. (Forsythe 2000) mentions that Asian societies had long emphasized on collective welfare that seems notably lacking in the west. Also Non-western societies have accepted HR just as the idea of state sovereignty arose from the West and had broad acceptance elsewhere.

The USA foreign policy is full of double standards and hypocrisy when dealing with countries that have HR violations. USA, like most Western countries are the ones actively promoting HR, more specially Civil and political rights. However (Forsythe 2000) indicates where USA has important economic or political interests; Washington has not sought to link HR performances with these multilateral or bilateral dealings. If the state is an ally of USA, the criticisms of these abuses are muted, whereas if they are not USA’s ‘friends’ their response will be harsh. For example USA still supports Israel and Saudi Arabia despite their poor HR record, whereas in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe since 2000 and Myanmar since 1988, sanctions were imposed due its HR abuses. Even during the Arab Spring, it quickly condemned Libya, Syria and Iran’s abuses, was hesitant on condemning Egypt’s and for Bahrain, its response was almost a blind eye. Some non-western states claim the promotion is neo-colonialism and its way reassert Western power in the international hierarchy (Dunne, et al. 1999). Therefore for USA, trying to spread HR around the world will run into problems. (Newson 1986) states that Americans see themselves as a moral people and believe that gives them as obligation to promote certain moral standards to other states, however US diplomacy in the HR field suffers inevitably from contradictions between promise and fulfillment. However whatever the case HR is part of foreign policies around the world, with the goal of improving HR records around the world, whenever other states like it or not.

In Conclusion, HR in Power politics is complex and controversial. As different interpretations of HR by states based on their status of developed and developing has led to conflicting views on which category of HR is more important: civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights. Apart from that is also a rift on the views of liberals and realists on HR. Despite the conflicting views, HR stands as a beacon of moral hope and a statement of absolute power moral principles (Langlois 2002) It seems to be that HR are already have an impact on regulating power politics as states around the world use HR for conditions of aid and as an issue when dealing with other states. Even though some states see HR as cultural imperialism and as tool of interfering with their internal affairs, HR have now become in trench foreign policies of countries and diplomacy, that it can’t be ignored. Universal HR might not be agreed universally in the world, but its relationship in power politics is glued in and is treated as an important issue in relations between states even though it not always be the top priority. Therefore the diplomacy of HR is complex, controversial, sensitive and not always rewarding (Newton 1986).

References

Baylis, J, Smith S and Owens, P (2011) The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford university Press, Oxford, New York, Auckland, Cape Town, Dar es Salaam, Hong Kong, Karachi, Kula Lumpur, Madrid, Melbourne, Mexico City, Shanghai, Taipei, Toronto

Brown C and Ainley K (2009) Understanding International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, USA

Cassese, A (1990) Human Rights in a changing world, Polity Press, Laterza

Dunne, T and Wheeler, N (1999) Human Rights in Global Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)

Falk, R (1998) ‘’A Half Century of Human Rights’’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 52 (3) pp 255–272

Forsythe D (2000) Human rights in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)

Langlois, A (2002) ‘’Human Rights: The Globalization and Fragmentation of a Moral Discourse’’, Review of International Studies, 28 (3), pp 479–496

Mertus J (2009) The United Nations and Human Rights, Routledge, New York and Canada

Newson, D (1986) The Diplomacy of Human Rights, University Press of America, USA

Vincent R.J (1986) Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK)