human rights: opposing viewpoints

I am reading (and greatly enjoying) this book right now, which was probably written for bored high school students, but is very thought-provoking nonetheless.

I'm just going to try to collect my thoughts on all of the essays I read in it, since some of them have actually left me fairly conflicted and uncertain, which is probably a good thing. I don't think it's good to be inflexible and unshakable in one's political opinions. It means one is probably not cognizant enough of the world.

1. "Human Rights are Universal" (Jack Donnelly): This essay says there are three "worlds" of rights: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. 1st is Western type, with an emphasis on civil and political rights and upholds the individual primarily; 2nd is the socialist approach emphasizing economic and social rights placing society as all-important; 3rd is self-determination and economic development, placing development highest. He points out the two views of rights, relativist (moral values are culturally/historically determined, and so are human rights which are based on these values) and universalist (all values, and thus human rights, are universal). The author of this essay argues for a weak cultural relativist approach, saying that there are many human rights which are universal, but there are some which are not. Examples which he gives are rights of a spouse in marriage (which differ culturally), political participation, dress codes.
My take: I guess I mostly agree with this guy. It seems not *all* human rights can be universal, because that would create discrepancies with a culture's right to self-determination. I am a fan of most of the rights listed on the UNDHR though.

2. "Human Rights are not Necessarily Universal" (Blair Gibb): This argues that the UNDHR can't be applied to all nations and that most nations, even that have signed it, have had to limit the rights enumerated. It argues that the UNDHR pushes western values that don't prioritize economic development the way eastern nations do. Eastern nations argue that some UNDHR civil and political (more Western) rights threaten cohesive society, like the right to criticize the government or complete freedom of opinion and expression. The author argues that the US system emphasizing individual rights get in the way of sensible societal reform and exacerbate socioeconomic gaps.
My take: I agree that the UNDHR is a bit idealistic and better applies to more developed nations as opposed to developing nations. But I do think that once governments evolve to a democratic form of government, the UNDHR is vital. However, I am conflicted on one idea that keeps coming up in this book: what is more important, the development of a better, more cohesive society that can better serve its people, or the development of the individual and all of his rights? I'm not sure. I want a balance of the two, but government priorities seem to be polarized.

3. "Health Care is a Human Right" (WHO): This essay argues that health care is inextricably intertwined with other human rights, like freedom from discrimination. Health care can be used to uphold other rights in a rights-based approach that targets minorities and marginalized populations while emphasizing transparency and accountability.
My take: Well, as always, I am an idealistic person, and in my idealistic world, health care is afforded to all, even those who don't work for it or contribute to the government, even those who just expect it, not necessarily because of its status as a human right (although I do think it's a human right), but because I think we should all love each other, and who in their right mind would watch someone they love die just because of money or a sense of justice? But I recognize that the real world revolves around cents and dollars...

4. "Health Care is not a Human Right" (Richard D. Lamm): Mostly this essay harps on about fiscal consequences of universal health care, arguing that resources aren't unlimited and that in the end, we have to choose who gets it and who doesn't. He says rights should be legislatively and not judicially determined (since it is the legislative and not the judicial branch that has to deal with the budget, I think). The essay argues that other nations recognize that compromises must be made and use wait-lists or rations based approaches.
My take: This is probably the practical approach to health care. Honestly, I recognize that. I recognize the fact that the new health care bill even, no matter what Obama says, is putting us deeper in debt as we speak. But I have this problem in that I am one of the problematic people that doesn't care about money. This is just something I expect out of a government, or out of people: that they help each other. Is it really that hard?

5. "Defining Human Rights Too Broadly Can Destroy Nations" (John A. Gentry): This argues that an expansive view of human rights leads to an entitlement ethic in which people think they deserve human rights without having to give anything back to society, even when those rights cost the government legitimacy or time/money/resources. When rights conflict, small groups are left out, creating resentment and anti-government groups, leading to political instability.
My take: I guess I might actually agree with this a little bit. I think the definition of human rights is getting a bit expansive because they're all clashing now. You can hardly tread on the airspace without being politically incorrect and offending some group or another. I do think it's a bit excessive. I think we just need to treat each other with respect and love each other. (Wow, I sound like a Miss America contestant... but I do think it would work, if people weren't so complicated.)

6. "Human Rights Are Often Defined Inconsistently" (William Ratcliff): This essay says that organizations like Amnesty International are often only willing to condemn right-wing rights violators while ignoring leftists like Castro. He also talks about politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize and Rigoberta Menchu (I remember reading about her before- she's caused quite the controversy).
My take: I completely agree. As apolitical as groups like AI pretend to be, they really are liberally biased and less willing to look at infractions from their side of the playing field.

7. "The US Has Violated the Geneva Conventions in its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Michael Byers): Byers argues that detainees are actually prisoners of war since they were fighting for the Taliban or Al-Quida, which is connected to the Taliban. He argues that the Taliban is a government. He says the convention was written to protect people fighting in conflicts and situations like this one. The Geneva Convention says POW should get a trial in the same court as members of the military of their detaining power. He says treatment of detainees violates basic human rights, for instance: covering their heads, shaving their beards, detaining them without trial, not telling them their rights, not giving them a lawyer, and many other things listed by AI.
My take: I need to read the Geneva Convention to decide whether or not they've violated that, but it is pretty clear to me and always has been that they are violating human rights down there. Why do you have to have a convention to treat another human being with the rule of law you apply to Americans? If it's good enough for us, why not them? (I know many of them hate us and have done horrible things. No matter.)

8. "The US Has Not Violated the Geneva Conventions in Its Treatment of Terrorist Suspects" (Richard Lowry): Lowry says those apprehended in Afghanistan are not true POWs because Al Qaeda hasn't signed the Geneva Convention and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not real governments.
my take: cross apply my comments on number 7

9. "Sweatshops Violate Human Rights" (Gary MacEoin): workers at sweatshops work in deplorable conditions. For instance, some are allowed to go to the bathroom only once a day. They make only minimum wage, which isn't enough to take care of their families. Children that claim to be of age who are actually too young are accepted. Unions are violently discouraged.
my take: Completely agree.

10. "Sweatshops Do Not Violate Human Rights" (Scott Rubush): This is a very interesting argument. He essentially argues that wages in sweatshops are actually relatively high, and sweatshops provide a benefit both in the US and in their base country. He says that boycotts and fair labor movements against sweatshop corporations detriment workers.
my take: it may be true that sweatshops provide employment at at least minimum wage, but the conditions are unacceptable, and unless we do something to change that, it won't change because it's economically feasible for globalized corporations. However, if we fight for the human rights of sweat shops workers, perhaps we can change the whole system so the new generation of "sweatshops" will have much better conditions, and the poor workers can keep their employment. I think this argument is a cop-out.

11. "Human Rights For Women Are Receiving Greater Attention" (Temma Kaplan): She says grassroots organizations have helped the UN and developed nations to be more aware of problems surrounding women in developing nations. The Beijing Conference (1995) attempted to globally define women's rights. (That was where the CEDAW originated, the treaty thing against all forms of discrimination against women.)
my take: I do agree that in many countries women's rights are becoming more of a humanitarian focus. However, there are many humanitarian countries (Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia) that don't seem to have caught on that bandwagon at all.

12. "Human Rights for Women Have Not Improved" (Human Rights Watch): This article points out some of the exceptions to universal improvement like I just mentioned, for instance the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. It argues that governments and work places are still discriminating against women. The attempts made towards focusing on women's rights after 9/11 trickled away.
my take: I do agree with this article mainly. However, I see a lot of improvement in the world in the past fifty years in terms of women's rights. I think many countries are still very behind, unacceptably behind, on women's rights, but they are also behind on many other human rights issues as well, and I think that for them it's just a matter of developing into a more sensitive government (ie Iran).

13. "Slavery in Africa Must be Eradicated" (Charles Jacobs): He argues that slavery is still occurring in Sudan for instance, and CSI (Christian Solidarity International) is responding correctly while UNICEF is responding badly. CSI is responding by buying back the slaves and liberating them, but UNICEF has refused to ever buy a human being as a matter of principle.
my take: I think I believe that slavery is still occurring in Sudan, from what I've read/heard about Darfur. It's hard to tell though. Anyway, I don't think that buying back the slaves is a good solution, though I agree that something needs to be done somehow. I'm not sure what though. I just don't think buying back the slaves is a good plan because it pumps money into the slave trade and doesn't project the message that the West (or the rest of the world for that matter) doesn't think slavery is OK. So I'd agree more with UNICEF.

14. "Anti-Slavery Groups Are Making False Claims About African Slavery" (David Hoile): This article confusingly argues that slavery doesn't actually exist in Sudan, that people are just posing as slaves in order to get the reward from groups like CSI. He says Craig Jacobs' group is pro-rebel in Sudan and biased against the government. He says that pieces on slavery in the media are actually "puff" pieces from PR releases.
my take: it's hard to tell from these two articles whether or not there is actually slavery in Sudan. My instinct is that there is, but there are also people posing as slaves just to get the reward. At any rate, CSI is reinforcing the system and it's clear that Craig Jacobs and is organization is politically biased for whatever reason. I"m not sure about the whole media PR-puff piece thing.

15. "Consumer Boycotts Can Discourage the Use of Sweatshops" (Linda Golodner): She argues that consumer groups like the National Consumer's League can use buying power to protest against goods made in factories that violate basic human rights standards. She says that in the past colored labels have been used to indicate clothing from factories that agreed not to violate basic codes of conduct. the NCL has also prompted a lot of global corporations to develop better standards on issues such as child labor, although these standards are still inconsistent and not universally enforced. Some cities have converted all shops in the city to only receiving goods from companies that can be trusted not to be violating human rights standards (ex. Bangor, ME).
My take: I agree with everything in this article. I can say though that sometimes it's hard as the consumer to choose what is right over what is cheap, but I know that it's more important to discourage immoral practices. I love what they've done in cities like Bangor, and I must admit that I should probably (definitely) be more conscious of where my own clothes come from.

16. "Consumer Boycotts are a Misguided Response to Sweatshops" (Fred Smith): This guy has a similar argument to the Rubush guy: boycotts cause children employed in third-world countries to lose their jobs, decreasing wealth that is necessary for urbanization. These kids/adults are then either unemployed or forced into distasteful jobs like prostitution. In a country where people's alternative to a sweatshop is no wage at all, they can't complain too much at having slightly less than a "living wage." Minimum wages are a bad policy because they discourage companies to hire workers from the dregs of the employment pool, meaning those individuals will never be employed. People boycotting sweatshop apparel are treating other countries as if they are developed countries when in fact they are not, and sweatshops are just a distasteful step towards development and urbanization. Things are not egalitarian in third-world countries, and people have to do what they can to earn small amounts of capital.
My take: I actually don't reject this argument as vehemently as I thought I would from the title. Some of the things he says make sense, like the fact that perhaps we are treating third world countries a bit too much like developed, egalitarian societies by assuming that boycotts will benefit their citizens. I think it may be true that a lot of people would be hurt initially by a boycott, people that may have no other source of income or employment. However, as much as it kills my Kantian fingers to type this, I think it's more important that future generations to come get a better standard for their workplace than that this generation remain employed in squalor. So I still disagree. It's time to change the conditions. That, too, will push the country towards development. Both economic and civil/individual rights are necessary.

17. "Nongovernmental Organizations Help Improve Rights" (Peter van Tujil): This argues that in a globalized economy, NGOs have begun to fill the institutional gaps. Most NGOs nowadays operate via large international networks, fitting around the global economy. They serve as advocates for global human rights in local places.
my take: Yes, I agree. I'm a big fan of NGOs as long as they remain transparent and accountable to the people they serve.

18. "Nongovernmental Organizations are Increasingly Counterproductive" (Robert Hayden): NGOs have been co-opted by larger, stronger states since the Cold War from which they receive mass funding, making them biased.
my take: I agree that some NGOs may have been swayed by government agency funding. However, I don't think that's any reason to dismiss the whole NGO framework. I believe NGOs can be very powerful. But I think they need to remain independent, and as part of their transparency, it needs to be very clear where their loyalties lie.

19. "The US Should Support the International Criminal Court" (Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court): This addresses some possible arguments against the ICC. It says people are concerned because the ICC has jurisdiction over people from countries which haven't ratified it. It justifies this by saying that even now US citizens can be tried in a different country if they commit a crime there. So the ICC will only have jurisdiction over a member of a non-signing state if he commits a crime in a signing country. The ICC isn't unconstitutional because active duty citizens aren't guaranteed trial by jury now, so this isn't any different. All other rights from the Bill of Rights are applied. US military strategy won't have to change because it already conforms to all ICC laws.
My take: I approve of the ICC (besides the fact that it has no power itself to capture those it indicts, making it a failure in cases like Joseph Kony), but I don't like that people don't get a trial by jury. That seems like a pretty important right to be just throwing by the wayside. I don't understand why we can't have the ICC and still give the criminals a trial by jury. As for having power over citizens whose country hasn't signed it, that's fine. Plenty of crazy genocidal maniacs I'm sure aren't going to have their country sign it, yet I'd like it to have the power to indict them.

20. "The US Should Not Support the ICC" (Lee Casey and David Rivkin Jr.): This has the standard arguments: the crimes under the ICC are broadly defined and open to abuse, the ICC has too much central power in the justice process, the ICC threatens American self-government by judging US officials away from home soil, no right to trial by jury (only an inquisitorial system), no guarantee of a speedy trial, subjection of US citizens to a foreign jurisdiction, etc.
my take: some of these do sound a bit concerning, in particular the centralized, inquisitorial system lacking the trial by jury (why can't it have one? but then I guess not every country in the world works the way we do...), and the lack of guarantee of a speedy trial. But I still think its worth it to have a justice system for crimes against humanity.

21. "The US Should Ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)" (Amnesty International): This address fears and argues that the convention doesn't give any enforcement power to the UN, doesn't authorize any new form of lawsuits, doesn't regulate the definition of the family structure, doesn't usurp the role of child rearing (only recognizes the shared role between parents), and doesn't eliminate single-sex education (only emphasizes equal education in all schools no matter the gender).
My take: I feel like they're sugar coating this a bit. The really conservative piece to follow makes it seem like a radical jab from a lesbian woman who works all the time and doesn't take care of her kid... I'm not sure what the truth is. Also, I have to laugh at the title. When is it ever possible to eliminate all forms of discrimination against anything, much less something traditionally discriminated against since the dawn of time?

22. "The US Should Not Ratify the CEDAW" (Kathryn Balmforth): First off, I like that it's a woman writing this (who would take a man seriously?). She sounds like one of those conservative soccer moms. She says the CEDAW is from a radical western feminist agenda which wants to legalize prostitution, eliminate the noble role of motherhood, and destroy the traditional family structure.
my take: It's a bit hard from these two radically different presentations of CEDAW to understand what exactly the convention does... and to me it seems functionally rather weak. I mean, what does it actually stipulate? Is it just an ideological statement? Because if it has no means of enforcement, it's not going to get anywhere. But I guess a ton of countries have ratified it, so I should probably read more about it. For now, I don't know enough to really formulate an opinion.

23. "The US Should Admit More Refugees Suffering Serious Human Rights Abuses" (Mark Gibney): This article says that we're admitting too many soviet refugees now when the Cold War is long since over and there are much more violent regimes we should be focusing on. It says we should reallocate our refugee intake so that we receive fewer refugees but from more terrorized places. He says he knows it would create assimilation problems, but it would be worth it, and also that we could redo the system to make the refugees only temporary until things cool off in their own countries.
My take: I like this guy. He is a man of my own thoughts. He is probably way to idealistic, and I can see how this regime change in refugee policy would be very hard to implement in our bureaucratic red-tape system. But I think it's a very good idea, and I agree that we don't let in enough refugees from truly needy locations. I had friends in middle and high school illegally from Guatemala. Guatemala is a place we should have focused refugee policy on, rather than the old soviet states.

24. "Admitting More Refugees Into the US is too Costly" (Don Barnett): He argues that refugees, although they are supposed to be assimilated into society by "Volags," actually just end up on welfare (since 1980). They use state programs, and then the Volags pay a lot of money to help them become citizens so they can use federal money instead. Either way, they are a huge drain on the economy, contributing little and taking a lot.
My take: This man is not a man of my own thoughts. His arguments are all very fiscal and he doesn't seem to care about the actual refugees. Also, if the guy in 23 is right, it would be possible to more efficiently handle the refugee system by reallocating sources rather than admitting more, and then we could even admit less. So I don't think the answer is just whining about money. Although after going to India this summer, I do know that people from developing countries do tend to just take money from westerners without earning it. I don't really blame them for this. They see our affluence, and I think that to them it feels like a sense of entitlement. So whereas before I might have believed that these people couldn't actually get jobs or pay their bills, I think now they probably are just taking the free money and running. So maybe we should change the system to slowly ease people off welfare to try to convince them to actually make a living for themselves which would be more sustainable and less of a drain on the US economy.

That's all for now, folks.

multilateral action

I've just finished reading "Moral Victories: How activists provoke multilateral action" by Susan Burgerman. It was a very interesting book (although filled with too many acronyms). It discussed the cases of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Cambodia mainly.

El Salvador: the government itself was committing atrocities against the people and the gorilla fighting force, mostly the right wing of the government, and the president claimed to be unable to control them. However, the country was concerned about its international reputation and the military was highly dependent on US aid (the US pumped money into a terrorist government for years!), so when the fighting reached a stalemate and the US finally pulled the plug on aid after some high profile assassinations, the UN was able to come in and set up a peace negotiations process that included a high emphasis on human rights. With the help of the UN, El Salvador was able to establish a civilian police force, build its governmental institutions, and make necessary compromises with the gorillas. It's a much safer place to be now.

Guatemala: similar to El Salvador except the gorilla forces were much smaller so there was no question of fighting reaching a stalemate. The government was abusing human rights by enlisting peasants into the war and other methods. They also didn't care quite so much about an international pariah reputation. However, after thirty something years of bloody civil war and the jabs of economic sanctions and international disdain, they finally agreed to a peace process like in El Salvador but with less of a UN role.

Cambodia: this was an instance of two governments fighting and also grappling with Vietnamese occupation. The Khmer Rouge were fighting Cambodia and the USSR, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Americans were all involved in a big geopolitical fight. The country was very closed off, allowing no NGOs or commission investigations. Also, because the involved parties wouldn't agree to demilitarization, the peace effort was hampered (also, both sides went back on agreements), so its main successes were in building institutions such as the judicial branch.

I just thought these cases were interesting because they give you hope, you know? Even in a place like Cambodia where they had "killing fields" and so many people died, it was possible, via international cooperation, sanctions etc, and local/international NGOs, it is actually possible to get an extremely abusive government to change its ways, or to end a long and bloody civil war. Sometimes it's easy to think that something is so bad that it will never change, but it turns out that you just need enough people working together.

That's how I hope it will be in the Middle East. I guess it's different, though, to stop the civil unrest of millennia, than to stop a 35 year civil war. But if it's possible in South America and Cambodia, maybe someday it will be possible in Israel and Palestine.