Limits of the UNs Human Rights Agenda - Essay Example

? Limits of the UN’s human rights agenda Introduction One of the major outcomes of Second World War was the formation of United Nations (UN). It was established on 24 August 1945. Until the formation of United Nations, it was difficult to settle international disputes. The requirement of a world organization in settling international disputes was evident agreed by all major powers after the First World War. The League of Nations was formed in 1919 to fill the vacancy of an international body in settling international disputes. However, League of Nations failed to achieve its objectives, which is evident from the occurrence of a Second World War. The formation of United Nations helped a lot in settling human rights issues and global political, cultural and economic issues. According to Kennedy (2007), “Without the actions and the existence of UN, human kind would be a lot worse off than it is today” (Kennedy, 2007, p.285). However, there are plenty of people who argue that United Nations failed to fulfil its objectives as far as the human right protection of the global community is concerned. “The first International Conference on Human Rights, held in Tehran in April and May 1968” (Burke, 2008, p.275). Since then plenty of global incidents happened in which human right violation occurred in one way or another. UN interfered in some international crisis successfully whereas it failed miserably on many such occasions. “The story of UN peace keeping operation in the 1990s - some success and some failures - to agree that the record is a mixed one”(Kennedy, 2007, p.285). This is because of the fact that UN failed to act neutrally on global issues. Some people argue that UN is working as a toy in the hands of America and its allies. In their opinion, UN fails to interfere properly in human rights violation incidents in which America and its allies are the culprits. They cite incidents from Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq etc to substantiate their arguments. This paper analyses the limits of the UN’s human rights agenda. Limitations of UN’s Human right protection efforts The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time on September 15, 2004 that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter (MacAskill & Borger, 2004). Even though Anan showed the4 courage to openly criticize America’s interventions in Iraq, UN failed to take any effective measures to stop America’s war with Iraq. It should be noted that thousands of Iraqi people suffered a lot because of America’s effort to seize Saddam and weapons of mass destruction from Iraqi soil. Even after years of battle and the execution of Saddam, America failed to establish peace in Iraq or seize any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons from Iraq. In other words, Iraq war was definitely the violation of international laws related to sovereignty and human rights. America vetoes any UN efforts which may go against their interests as well as the interests of their allies like Israel. Middle East is a region in which human right violations are going on for the last few decades. UN is acting as silent witness amidst all human right violations happening in Middle East. It failed to ensure safety and security to the lives and properties of the innocent Palestinian people from the hands of Israel. The right for having an independent state is a human right for Palestinians. However, Israel in company with America blocking Palestine’s every effort to become a sovereign state. Israelis have settled in to lands that Palestinians call home and these Israelis believe that they have the right to live there and call it home themselves. Palestinians want the Israeli "occupiers" to leave, and they desperately want a homeland of their own, a country of their own (The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, n. d). Israel’s ability to stop the functioning of a sovereign Palestine is definitely a failure to United Nations. Nobody has any doubt about the rights of Palestine people to form an independent state; however a sovereign Palestine is still a distant reality. Israel does believe that an independent Palestine is not good for their interests. They are working for safeguarding their interests at the expense of the interests of the Palestinians. Even though UN accepted Palestine as an independent state, it does little to help Palestine to function as an independent state. At the same time, it should be noted that UN is effectively interfering in human right violation cases in countries where America is not a party. For example, UN’s involvement in Libya has saved the lives of many people. United Nations Security Council passed a resolution mandating the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya, and ‘all necessary measures short of an occupation force’, to halt Gaddafi’s continuing attacks on rebel forces. The measure was passed with ten votes in favor, including the UK, US and France, and five abstentions from Brazil, China, Russia, India and Germany (Middle East unrest: UN resolution mandates action in Libya; increased violence in Bahrain, 2011) Gadhafi tired a lot to suppress the agitations of the people using bloody means. The interventions of UN helped many Libyans to save their lives. In Egypt, and Tunisia also, UN interfered timely and save the people from the brutal hands of dictators. According to Tsutsumibayashi(2005), “UN led effort to initiate an intercivilizational dialogue stem from the awareness that many of the impending global and regional crises can be averted only through a worldwide collaboration of state and non-state actors” (Tsutsumibayashi, K. 2005, p.103). The above policy is good in principle, but ineffective in practice. For example, India and Pakistan often conduct lot of bilateral talks to establish peace and harmony in the South East Asia. However, these talks failed to meet success which is evident from the fact that India and Pakistan have already engaged in several wars between them. It is impossible for UN to act as a judge to solve international crisis. This is because of the doubts of some countries in the abilities of UN to function neutrally or independently. America is the major funder for UN and hence UN is often taking stands in favour of America. In June 1946, the Communist-led Negro National Congress (NNC) submitted a petition to the UN asking the body to address the treatment of blacks in the United States.to pursue its petition, but it did try. The NAACP took up the petition with similar results, following the collapse of the NNC. Initial high hopes for justice died a quick death at the hands of the UN bureaucracy and the US government (Anderson, 1996, p.531) “Since 9/11, human-security advocates have feared that human rights and democracy may be threatened in the name of security—that certain human rights will be eliminated and security abused in the name of state power” (Timothy, 2004, p.21). War on terror is currently going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. America believes that fundamentalists in these countries are assisting terrorist activities across the world. America’s accusations could be right or wrong. However, the important thing is that millions of innocent people in these countries are currently struggling for their survival. There were plenty of incidents in these countries in which hundreds of innocent people lost their lives because of the American attacks. Even though America assures that they may not attack civilians, past experiences are against these claims. UN seems to be remaining idle even though reports about innocent people deaths are coming from these countries. According to Wheeler (1999), the effectiveness of United Nations Commission on Human Rights from 1982 to 1997, “has been limited by its inability to address most systematic government violations of human rights, by a lack of universality in its application of international standards and by a recent trend toward consensus decision making” (Wheeler, 1999, p.75). UN seems to be adopting double standards when it comes to matters related to superpowers and poor countries. In other words, UN seems to be giving more importance to the protection of human rights in advanced countries while it keeps silence on such issues in poor countries. For example, UN supports war on terror to protect the lives of Americans while it stays away from protecting the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis. In his inaugural address to the newly created Human Right Council in Geneva on June 19, 2006, UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said: “lack of respect to the human rights and dignity is the fundamental reason why the peace of the world today is so precarious and why prosperity is so unevenly shared” (Terlingen, 2007, p.167). These remarks clearly indicate that UN is trying to approach human right issues in a philosophical manner rather than implementing practical strategies or measures to prevent it. It is difficult to assume that human right protection efforts may find success through education of the people. The thirst for domination is inherent in the blood of many people and they may exhibit it when they get suitable opportunities. So, strengthening of international laws is necessary to avoid human right violation rather than saying something in public meetings. International human right principles and national laws protect only those NGOs (Nongovernmental organizations) genuinely involved in human rights. Many governments, especially those criticized by NGOs, persistently labour to limit formal access and participation of nongovernmental human rights organizations and to challenge the legitimacy of their findings (Gaer, 1995, p.389). It is a widely practiced custom by many countries to accept international law only when it travels in parallel direction with their interests. On all other occasions, countries conveniently dishonour international laws for their sake of their interests. For example, two Italian marines were recently arrested by Indian police for killing some of the Indian fishermen. Italy argues that the incident occurred in water areas whereas India has no control and hence India has no authority to prosecute Italian marines even if they are culprit. India on the other hand argues that the incident happened in its territory itself and they have every right to prosecute Italian marines who committed this killing. Rome is angry with New Delhi not paying attention to its plea to let the marines be tried in Italy because the shooting incident occurred in international waters. Italian Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan De Mistura, who is in Kerala, met the marines on Thursday and described the killings as “accidental”(Italy sore over charge sheet against marines, 2012). The above incident clearly suggests that Italy is trying to safeguard the interests of their citizen even if they committed some crime. Italy is trying to dishonor the human rights of Indians. Even though Italy accepts that the crime was committed by their marines, it insists that India has no authority to punish their citizen. This is totally against the norms of international laws. UN should strengthen laws related to similar incidents so that human rights are protected everywhere in the world. Conclusions United Nations (UN) has lot of limitations in protecting human rights across the word. It is not free from the influence of superpowers and hence it forced to act differently on occasions of similar nature. America has a strong hold over the functioning of UN. They are the number one funder for UN activities. So, UN’s efforts to protect human rights face failures when America happens to be the villain of human right violation. Weak international laws are defeating UN’s effort to disperse equal justice with respect to human rights. It is necessary to strengthen international laws more and give enough freedom to UN for the implementation of these laws. The neutrality of UN needs to be improved a lot before it’s policies may get wider acceptance all over the world. At present many of the human right protection measures by UN are lying on papers alone. UN should implement more practical measures for the protection of human rights. As in the case of many other things, wealthy and influential people are getting better human right protection whereas poor people struggle to get it. This is because of the failure of UN in guaranteeing human right protection to every one irrespective of rich or poor. References 1. Anderson, C. 1996. From hope to disillusion: African Americans, the United Nations, and the struggle for human Rights. Diplomatic History, 20(4): p. 531-563.  2. Burke, R. 2008. From Individual Rights to National Development: The First UN International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 1968', Journal of World History, 19(3): 275-296.  3. Gaer, F.D. 1995. Reality check: Human rights nongovernmental organisations confront governments at the United Nations. Third World Quarterly, 16(3): 389-404.  4. Italy sore over charge sheet against marines. 2012. The Hindu. May 19, 2012. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3433547.ece 5. Kennedy, P. 2007. The Parliament of Man, Publisher: Vintage (September 4, 2007) 6. MacAskill E and Borger J. 2004. Iraq War Was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan. The Guardian, Thursday 16 September 2004. 7. Middle East Unrest: Un resolution Mandates Action in Libya; Increased Violence in Bahrain 2011. [Online] Available at: http://justjournalism.com/the-wire/middle-east-unrest-un-resolution-mandates-action-in-libya-increased-violence-in-bahrain/[Accessed July 3, 2012] 8. Timothy, K. 2004. Human security discourse at the United Nations'. Peace Review. 16(1): March 2004. p. 19-24.  9. Tsutsumibayashi, K. 2005. Fusion of Horizons or Confusion of Horizons? Intercultural Dialogue and Its Risks. Global Governance, 11(1): 103-114.  10. Terlingen, Y. 2007. The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work?' Ethics & International Affairs, 21(2): 167-178.  11. The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (n. d). [Online] Available at: http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/worldhistory/palestinianisraeliconflict2.htm[Accessed July 3, 2012] 12. Wheeler, R. 1999. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 1982-1997: A Study of "Targeted" Resolutions', Canadian Journal of Political Science, 32(1): 75-101.  Read More