Globalization and Human Rights - Essay Example

The recent decade has seen the development of what is described as an international "human rights regime". To what extent has this regime been consistently and effectively applied, represent a genuine globalization of the attempt to implement fundamental human rights, and to what extent has its application (including on the issue of humanitarian intervention) reflected the balance of power and the interests of various parties within the contemporary global order? Study case: Rwanda Globalization tends to refer to the economic systems that have been put into place in order for free trade to occur more easily. However, there is also a different kind of globalization which may be identified as an international “human rights regime”. In some sense the idea that occurrences within individual countries are the concern and responsibility of all countries was created with the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals(Shirer, 1960) and the creation of the United Nations, one of whose purposes was to stop such genocide occurring again. However, as the events in Rwanda have shown, attempts to stop genocide have often been haphazard and/or non-existent. The framework for a worldwide concern with human rights is contained within the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” that was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble states the following: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, . . . (United Nations, 1948) The Declaration then goes on to state what rights stem from these assertions: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (United Nations, 1948) This is the background to all present attempts at preserving human rights across the world. Specific definitions of genocide were created in 1951 as one of the first acts of the new United Nations. Genocide was defined as “killing. . . causing seriously bodily harm” a group “with intent to destroy, in whole or part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (United Nations, 1951) . This would seem somewhat simple and clear in terms of definition, but as events this that time have shown this is not necessarily the case. The genocide in Rwanda occurred over about a 100 day period starting in April 1994. First, the scale of the genocide that occurred is quite astonishing. Between April and June about 800,000 Rwandans were killed. In an of itself the killing could not be regarded as genocide; but what made it so was the fact that the killing occurred because it was perpetuated by the Hutus in an attempt to wipe out the Tutsis. The level of killing may be considered by comparing it to the most infamous genocide in history: that of the Jews by the Nazis. The Nazis killed about 6,000,000 Jews in around 6 years, making a rate of roughly 83,000 per month. So the Rwanda massacre, at near to 300,000 a month, made the Nazi Final Solution seem rather mild in comparison. These figures are mentioned in order to show just how extreme and massive the Rwandan genocide was, and thus to show how ineffective the response to it, mainly through the United Nations, was. One of the problems with having an international community standard and enforcement for human rights is the apparent inability to know precisely what is occurring on a day to day basis in often remote parts of the world. This was the reasoning given by then President Clinton in answering allegations that he had stood by and watched the genocide occurring when only America had the military reach possible to attempt to stop it . In 1998, Clinton stopped in Rwanda and issued an apology (which was really an excuse) for what he had failed to do: All over the world there were people like me sitting in offices who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror. (Clinton, 1998) In fact, as a National Security Archive report shows that the US government, with Clinton at its head, new precisely what was occurring in Rwanda. The Reprt states that “the story of Rwanda for the U.S. is that officials new so much but still decided against taking action or leading other nations to prevent or stop the genocide” (Ferroggiaro, 1996). In fact a NID bulletin (NIDs are reports circulated daily to essential government workers) reported that the Red Cross estimated that 100,000 to 500,000 had been killed by the end of April. The question then arises as to why the fastest and most extreme genocide in recorded history was allowed to go unchecked. The question of why is interrelated with the question of how the world tries to both identify and deal with human rights abuses, the most extreme of which is genocide. The method of identifying human rights abuses and genocide is through the United Nations peacekeeping forces. The so-called “blue helmets” (because of the startling colored helmets they wear) are sent to attempt to keep the peace in troubled regions, but are often under the most absurd rules of engagement that allow torturously slow bureaucratic procedures to decide upon military policy. The result, as might be expected, is often total inaction and the inability to react to situations even when genocide is unfolding before the UN’s eyes (Gourevitch, 1999). The Canadian General (Dallaire) who was responsible for the United Nations forces in Rwanda was caught within a system that would not allow him to react to what was occurring in front of him. He was caught within bureaucracy. The American government was involved in a mixture of denial and diplomatic avoidance. Thus, while the American government undoubtedly did know what was occurring, as the thousands being killed every day were being reported by the newspapers, what those killing meant was open to interpretation. Thus the American government refused to label the killings as “genocide”, which would have made them legally responsible to intervene, but rather cast the deaths as “wartime causalities – the deaths of combatants or those caught between them in a civil war” (Dallaire, 2004). Dallaire states, perhaps most ominously for the future of protecting human rights throughout the world, that the Hutus were actually planning the genocide during supposed peace talks. The Hutus knew, so Dallaire argues, that the United Nations would not have the energy or conviction to actually enforce the peace, and so went about planning their genocide with the assurance that they would not be stopped. As Dallaire simply but profoundly puts it, “they knew us better than we knew ourselves” (Dallaire, 2004). The good-willed and well-intentioned limits put on United Nations action, instituted in order to stop it being used as a tool of conquest, renders it impotent to react to genocide such as that which occurred in Rwanda. There are some bright spots within the history of the genocide in Rwanda. These suggest that it is the actions of individuals, rather than worldwide organizations that may in fact be able to at least partially alleviate what occurs in such terrible times. As Dallaire states, the hotel owner Paul Rusesabagina succeeded in saving hundreds of potential victims “armed with nothing but a liquor cabinet, a phone line, an internationally famous address and his spirit of resistance”. To conclude, after the genocide of World War II the world decided, through the body of the United Nations, that it would no longer allow genocide to occur. Unfortunately, countries that are remote from others, or in perceived “unimportant” areas of the world – such as Africa – tend to be left to deal with their own problems. It seems obvious that if genocide had been occurring in a country such as the United Kingdom then America would have intervened the next day. This is reality, a sad reality, but undeniable nevertheless. _____________________________________ Works Cited Clinton, Bill. Statement. Rwanda Airport. www.the nation/com/blogs/capitalgames. Accessed December 4, 1006. Dallaire, Romeo. Power, Samantha. Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. Carroll & Graff. New York: 2004. Ferroggiaro, William. “Rwanda Report”. National Security Archive, 1996. General Assembly of the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948. General Assembly of the United Nations, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. January, 1951. Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. Picador, New York: 1999. Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Simon & Schuster. New York: 1960. Read More