Summary:
The issue of human rights cannot be separated from the issue of the state. With the development of the state and its apparatuses, the need arose to regulate its relationship with its citizens. The concept of human rights is defined within this framework and influenced by the Cold War between two camps, each adopting a different model of the state. The first camp leans towards democracy and human rights in the liberal sense, while the second leans towards the totalitarian state.
In such a context, the concept of human rights emerged, along with active institutions in this regard, including the United Nations, which serves as a global government responsible for preventing violations in this field.
But when the communications revolution came, and social media platforms spread, it exposed Western hypocrisy regarding human rights issues. It also highlighted the shortcomings of current prevailing concepts and the limitations of existing institutions in addressing violations. What was once difficult to uncover in this matter has become easy and straightforward today. Any citizen needs only to follow social media platforms to see Macron speaking about supporting human rights in Paris, only to see him the next day imitating a deserving dictator and heading to Lebanon as a new special envoy, then on another day attending a dictator’s memorial in Chad, and finally witnessing his government banning a protest in Paris in support of human rights in Gaza. We discuss this topic through the following axes:
- Introduction
- Is there a decline in human rights globally?
- Anti-Islam campaigns in western elections battles.
- Ignoring Tragedy of Gaza’s people by the world’s official media.
- Conflict between human rights and the state’s interests.
- Political ethics between human rights and the state’s supreme interests.
- The issue of the state in the era of globalization.
Introduction:
Recently, the world has witnessed some events that present a good opportunity to shed light on and deeply discuss. This offers a chance to delve into the current state of human rights worldwide, which will be the focus of this paper.
And since the issue of human rights is closely linked to the issue of democracy, considering that we cannot label a country or state as “democratic” if it does not respect its laws and human rights and dignity, this discussion inevitably leads us to the issue of democracy, which some argue is witnessing a decline even in its Western strongholds. This discussion may ultimately lead us to an ideological or nihilistic issue, defined by the following question:
Is the human rights crisis we are discussing today a result of the crisis of democracy? Or is the decline of democracy due to the Western “democratic” countries’ laxity in human rights issues? Has this reflected a decline in democracy? Or is it not fundamentally more than the fact that the general framework for addressing these issues has become narrow and outdated? By this, we mean the issue of the state, its framework, boundaries, laws, commitments, and confinement within the sovereign domain of each country, as the place where democracy and human rights are practically exercised, whether in institutions or laws regulating the relationship between people and authority.
But before delving into this intellectual argument, we must return to the initial premise from which we started in this paper: Is there truly a regression in the issue of human rights? And what are the events that confirm this?
Is there a global regression in human rights?
If we observe the statements issued by the heads and leaders of self-proclaimed “democratic” countries, or presented by the media as having a “good track record” regarding human rights, we will find that words like democracy and the necessity of respecting human rights are constantly on their tongues. But what about the implementation of what they say?
If we take “the country of Enlightenment,” referring to France, which recently concluded its elections where all parties vied for power, we will notice a significant rush and competition in the French political arena. This can be observed in two topics that are heavily debated within the electoral campaigns:
The first topic revolves around the issue of Islam in France, expressed by President Macron as “Islamic separatism” and the immigration file, both of which are interconnected considering that Muslims in France are also immigrants. Here, we observe that with every election, the spotlight is once again directed at these issues, and suddenly, overnight, everyone related to these denominations becomes the subject of public debate and intense political clashes between the right and left wings, all in pursuit of gaining power.
No one here seems to consider the harm inflicted on human rights in terms of the psychological and daily pressure that these people find themselves under throughout these campaigns. This pressure, which only serves to incite dormant terrorist cells, opens the door to the effects of this incitement and the electoral atmosphere it imposes on the public sphere. Those affected find themselves somehow implicated in responding to what politicians say through the only weapon they excel at: terrorism. This plays into the hands of politicians, as these terrorist acts serve to validate their views, in an electoral quid pro quo exchange. Gradually, this process works to marginalize rational voices that find no place in this context because the “electoral market” (which is dominated by supporters of these candidates) demands it.
It could be argued here that this is the nature of electoral campaigns, where investment is paramount worldwide. It’s an opportunity for every electoral party to push its agenda and convince its audience. This is an integral part of the democratic game.
If the previous example might raise doubts about whether the previous issue constitutes a blatant violation of human rights, subsequent examples may not do so. When the Chadian president passed away, President Macron was among the first attendees at his funeral, and the first to congratulate his son on assuming power, knowing that the late president had been a dictator ruling the country for many years with full French approval.
This scene reminds us that France was the first to market the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when it officially received him at the Élysée Palace, even before he had any official status other than being the “son of the president” in a republican country. Today, France allows the Syrian embassy in Paris to conduct elections that allow him to run for a fourth term despite all the crimes he has committed, unlike what Germany did, for example.
One doesn’t need a lot of evidence and examples to illustrate the duplicity surrounding the issue of human rights in the West. Looking at the rebranding and reception of leaders from our impoverished East in Paris, Berlin, and other Western capitals is evidence enough that interests take precedence over human rights.
However, on the other hand, we also find that countries like Germany have allowed their courts to entertain lawsuits against individuals from other countries. Two elements of the Assad regime, for example, are being prosecuted in German courts, with the possibility of bringing lawsuits, even in absentia, against prominent figures in the Assad regime and others if evidence is available.
The second issue is criticizing Israel:
As these countries ensure full, unqualified rights for their peoples in every aspect of life, from education and healthcare to freedoms, journalism, and dissent, with relatively few limitations overall when measured against what is practically available and achieved. Among the most prominent of these limitations is the issue of criticizing Israel in Germany and Europe in general, with the suggestion of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticizes Israel in several European countries.
This has become particularly evident in the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Palestine. The issue of human rights has been completely ignored officially. Politics in this matter have fallen morally and legally short towards a people being decimated by military machinery, innocent except for being governed by Hamas, a militia ruling by force and coercion. The West has not officially sympathized with them except for humanitarian rights organizations whose voices have been drowned out amidst the silence of those who support Gaza’s people, who suffer under the hammer of Israel and the anvil of Hamas.
What to do when human rights conflict with state interests?
As we’ve discussed earlier, we’re confronted with the question of the state’s relationship with human rights and democracy. Looking at it from this angle, it becomes clear that Western countries generally respect the rights of their citizens, which is undeniable. However, they don’t apply the same standards to the rights of citizens in other countries. Here, we face many questions:
Where does the problem lie?
Is it in the issue of human rights or in the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, which necessitates each authority’s commitment to securing the rights of its citizens regardless of the rights of citizens in other countries, which remains a matter for other authorities?
Indeed, even if we assume that democratic countries have a duty to uphold human rights in other nations, is it practically feasible? And since interests cannot be sacrificed for the sake of human rights, can we say that those countries truly respect human rights? Can we, for example, claim that a country like France, which supports dictatorships in Africa, can be considered a nation with a good human rights record? Or a country that sells weapons to a regime that uses those weapons to kill its own people? Or a country that uses its veto power in the Security Council to prevent the condemnation of a dictatorial regime that secures its interests?
Reflecting on the above, it becomes clear that there is a strong and resolute commitment from the West to respect the rights of its citizens, alongside a noticeable laxity regarding the rights of other peoples! This is a matter that has become evident to all discerning observers. Interests take precedence over these rights and often trample upon them. As this has always been the case, where then lies the problem? And why does this contradiction seem so glaring, sharp, and evident today?
The intersection of political ethics, human rights, and state interests
The intersection of political ethics, human rights, and state interests presents several complex issues that cannot be separated from power dynamics and knowledge structures, as noted by French philosopher Michel Foucault and thinker Edward Said in his book “Culture and Imperialism.” The dominant power is capable of controlling the production and framing of discourse to serve its interests, a phenomenon elucidated in the formation of the concept of human rights since its inception.
One cannot overlook the historical context in which theories of human rights emerged—a context deeply rooted in Western hegemony and control. The foundation of these theories was laid to align with Western standards of dominance and control. Thus, the very framework within which human rights were conceptualized reflects a Western-centric perspective, tailored to suit Western agendas of hegemony and dominance.
Understanding the genesis of human rights within this Western framework underscores the inherent biases and power dynamics embedded within these principles. It prompts a critical examination of whose interests are truly served by the discourse of human rights and how they intersect with the broader political and geopolitical objectives of states.
Furthermore, the discussion cannot stray far from the issue of colonialism itself. Former colonial powers, now democratic states, historically rearranged the world to suit their interests. They sponsored and supported dictatorships in countries they militarily withdrew from or those where they had vested interests. This reality persists today in the relationships between the United States and Latin American countries, France and Africa, and even in the Soviet Union’s past relationships with its satellite states. This dynamic continues with Russia inheriting the support for some of these dictatorships previously backed by the Soviet Union, as evident in the case of Syria today.
In such a context, the concept of human rights emerged, along with the institutions active in this field, including the United Nations. The UN serves as a global governing body tasked with preventing violations in this regard.
Here, we undoubtedly observe that the concepts, theories, and knowledge that formed the theoretical framework of human rights reflect, at their core, the rights of the “victors” after World War II. Therefore, there is no clear and defined presence of issues such as supporting coups, arms sales, surveillance apparatus, and the use of veto power in the Security Council to protect a dictatorial and murderous regime within the prevailing theories of human rights globally today.
On the other hand, we notice a clear focus in the daily practice of human rights on torture and the violation of the rights of citizens by dictatorships. This focus is susceptible to exploitation in the political interests market of major powers, as we clearly see. This underscores the need for a profound reconsideration of the philosophy of human rights itself, to reframe it anew to be truly universal. It should reflect the rights of all peoples equally, regardless of whether they are from a dominant North or a weak and dependent South.
The issue of the state in the era of globalization:
The issue of human rights cannot be separated from the issue of the state, as the development of the state and its institutions has led to the need to regulate its relationship with its citizens. Thus, the concept of human rights is defined within this framework and is influenced by the Cold War between two camps, each adopting a different model of the state. One camp unequivocally favors democracy and human rights in the liberal sense, while the other leans towards the authoritarian state. With the collapse of the authoritarian project following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Western model emerged as victorious and dominant. This coincided widely and intensively with the issue of globalization, which transformed the world into a “global village.
With globalization, the issue of the state itself has become doubtful, as the state’s ability to control its borders and hold onto them has diminished. Moreover, ideas have become more capable of migrating from one place to another, especially with the expansion of the internet and the flow of information, along with the capacity of social media platforms to connect people across the globe, transcending language barriers. These platforms provide rapid translation capabilities for ideas and writings, and they are evolving further.
This new reality has exposed Western double standards regarding human rights and revealed the shortcomings of current prevailing concepts and the limitations of existing institutions in addressing violations. What was difficult to uncover before has now become clear, easy, and simple. It suffices for any citizen to see Macron speaking about supporting human rights in Paris, then watch him the next day on television going to Lebanon as a new envoy, and then see him on another day in Chad at the funeral of a dictator. Then his government prevents a demonstration in Paris in support of the besieged people of Gaza, caught between the hammer of the Israeli military machine and the anvil of the radical Hamas movement. This blatant and inhumane double standard is evident.
It is evident to us that human rights are not in decline, but rather have become easier to see and observe than before. Previously, recognizing human rights required more effort, research, and studies, which remained within a narrow and limited academic framework. However, with the advent of social media and globalization, the dissemination of knowledge on this matter has expanded significantly.
Conclusion:
Therefore, today we clearly see the contradictions between the model of the state, which is supposed to protect and secure the rights of its citizens, and the necessity of safeguarding human rights and their globalization.
And this is not possible without addressing the issue of the state and globalization, which means the necessity of developing a new concept of human rights that transcends the state towards a comprehensive global perspective, including all the citizens of the world, and even holding major powers accountable for policies that prioritize the interests of their own people over those of the world.
In this context, it is essential to note that there are global issues that are now posing themselves to the global public opinion, including climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, global warming, biodiversity protection, and so on.
Even democracy has become a global issue today, as it has become a popular demand even in countries ruled by dictatorships supported by Western nations that claim to uphold human rights. This has led some of these countries to confront these changes by renewing the “legitimacy” of the dictatorships they support, as we see in our troubled East and African countries today. This constitutes the greatest violation of both human rights and democracy together, even in the heartland of the West itself. This leads us to discuss the problematic relationship between democracy and human rights, both domestically and internationally.
Here, we must realize that the prosperity of Northern countries is largely based on the plundering of the wealth of the Global South. Consequently, Western democracy, to some extent, relies on this plunder. Without it, governments in the North would be unable to achieve prosperity, health, education, and employment opportunities for their citizens. Without this, democracy itself becomes a subject of debate as to whether it can be achieved without these colonial policies. This explains and clarifies why Western countries adhere to these double standards regarding democracy and human rights because the question then arises: Is it truly in the interest of Northern countries for democracy to prevail in the South?
References:
- Charles R. Beitz, “The Idea of Human Rights,” Knowledge World Series.
- Edward Said, “Culture and Imperialism,”
- Contemporary International Economic System from the End of World War II to the End of the Cold War, Knowledge World Series.
- Hans-Peter Martin, Harald Schumann, “The Globalization Trap: Globalization and Assault on Democracy and Prosperity,” Knowledge World Series.
All publishing rights and copyrights reserved to MENA Research Center.
