Judgment Argument for Human Rights - Assignment Example

BHOPAL I. INTRODUCTION The contemporary world has moved towards making the world smaller via creating policies that allow the swift movement of information, goods and people across the world. But as we embark and live our life in this global world, we have constructed immense gaps, extensive disparity between the rich and the poor so mush so that we are now questioning whether the poor who are experiencing severe poverty are living humane lives, are enjoying human rights. In light of this scenario, the paper will attempt to understand the concept of human rights and distribution of power utilising one of the most horrible man-made catastrophe of the 20th century , the Bhopal Disaster. II. BHOPAL DISASTER: A RE-LOOK On that fateful evening of December 2, 1984 things would have been the same for most people who have been living in the slums near the factory of Union Carbide plant, but it would never be the same. A gas leak during the night had caused “7,000 people died within days. A further 15,000 died in the following years. Around 100,000 people are suffering chronic and debilitating illnesses for which treatment is largely ineffective.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 2) What made this matter worst was the fact that people who was supposed to be responsible for the protection of the people was so inept that “even though plant officials knew that there was a possibility that methyl isocyanate (MIC) was leaking into the atmosphere shortly after midnight, they did nothing to alert the communities living in the area or the local city administrator or the police until around 2 am when the loud toxic siren began to sound continuously.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 8) The poor people who were living around the area where left to fend themselves against the very air that they were breathing but how? III. THE OUTCOME: ITS EFFECT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENT The disaster happened in a city with a population of “700,000 in Madhya Pradesh, Central India, spread over 25 square miles…the hardest hit locality was just across the street from the plant: J.P. Colony which housed many Muslim and lower-caste Hindu household.” (Khare, 1987, p 4) In this scenario, it would simply be impossible not to imagine the extent of the harm and damage done to all living forms, not only human beings living within the area. And indeed, the damage is catastrophic. “Between 7,000 and 10,000 people died within three days of the gas leak.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 10) This statistics is a lot higher compared with the official counting of the Indian government. How ever that this data is nearer to the true numbers of people who have died in the man-made catastrophe since “Amnesty International has found no evidence of any systematic attempt by the Indian government to keep a record of gas-related deaths in the 20 years since 1984. The 2003 annual report of the Madhya Pradesh Gas Relief and Rehabilitation Department stated that a total of 15,248 people had died as a result of the gas leak by October 2003. However, this number includes deaths in the immediate aftermath, of which official estimates are grossly understated. Activists and survivors’ organizations estimate that over 20,000 people have died since 1985.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 12) Death is the immediate effect of the Bhopal disaster. And “most deaths were due to asphyxia resulting from acute lung injury, chemical pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by cyanide poisoning.”(Padma, 2005, p 5) This is further aggravated by the fact thousands more of people are still unaccounted because they died fleeing away from the gas chamber, never to return. But the fate of those who survived is nothing less than dehumanizing. “Debilitating illnesses for at least 120,000 people for whom treatment has proved largely ineffective” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 12) is one of the consequences of the disaster. Chronic respiratory illness as a result of the inhalation of MIC, eye disorders as it is a known side effect of contact with MIC, impairment of the immune system which increases the chance of these people to suffer more from other forms of illnesses, neurological damage such as “short-term memory loss, problems with concentration, headaches, difficulty staying awake, and abnormal smell and taste were common after the gas leak.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 15), cancers, gynaecological problems, miscarriages for those who were pregnant during the time of the disaster, depression and anxiety and the most vulnerable and greatly affected by this catastrophe are the children. It is not only health problems that the children encounter as a result of their exposure on MIC, the social stigma of being a survivor of the Bhopal disaster is placed upon the shoulders of these young children. But why suffer from social stigma when they are the victims? The survivors of the disaster have to face the reality that they are burden with the effects of the disaster for life. But how can one carry such an onerous burden when one does not have much in life already. According to Amnesty International (2004), the location of the plant coupled with the direction of the wind during that night worsens the situation affecting the poorest in the city. Statistics have shown that the hardest hit location is a severely depressed area with “70% of those living in severely affected areas were found to be living in poor quality houses.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 19) With the illness that plagues the survivors, most of them have to stop working because the diseases that afflict them are debilitating. With little support from Union Carbide and much red tape in the Indian government side how can you expect people to have a decent life after the disaster? Many family have lost their major wage earner, if they survive they have to grapple with disease whose medical expense is way above their means. For instance, in the Amnesty International report a survivor complained to the doctors that she was suffering from profuse and that she felt weak because of it and the doctors said to her that she should eat more fruits and she replied how can she buy fruits when she can not even buy bread for food. This story is the common among those who have been affected by the Bhopal disaster. Before the disaster, most of them are already living in abject poverty. After the disaster, no words can no longer describe the sever poverty that they were experiencing as a result of a further limitation put upon them. More over, women who are victims of the Bhopal catastrophe have become ineligible for marriage. This is significant since “Marriage, and the ability to marry, has social as well as economic ramifications for many women in India.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 21) The reasons behind these are: first, the burden of shouldering the medical expenses. Second, is that they cannot work because of the illness that they have and thus cannot contribute materially to the family. Third, is the fear that since they are taking medicines they cannot have children or they have it will be deformed. Fourth, is the inability to have children as most women who have been affected have to total hysterectomy to stop profuse bleeding. All of these have caused socio-economic problems to women survivors. But the problem is not only limited to socio-economic and health problems encountered by the people. The environment has also been badly destroyed by the disaster. Its environmental consequences are enormous. Prior to the disaster, studies have shown that Union Carbide has already been contaminating and polluting the environment. “The Bhopal plant began manufacturing the pesticide Sevin in September 1977, using imported MIC. By February 1980, the plant was manufacturing MIC on site, as well as the pesticide Aldicarb (marketed as Temik), phosgene and monomethylamine, both used to make MIC.64 All operations ceased in December 1984 after the gas leak. Operational and waste disposal practices at the factory harmed the environment, even before the gas leak. Internal documents reveal that the US parent company was aware of numerous events at the Bhopal plant which had serious consequences for the environment.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 22) After the gas leak, continuous study regarding the land and water sample from the plant itself and the surrounding community are taken and it has been found out that high levels of chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and dichlorobenzene are found to be ”600 times more than the limits recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 25) There are no potable water in the area. The government has to paint red those water wells which are contaminated. How ever, since there is no supply of potable water, most people in the area are constrained to drink from the contaminated wells, even if there is a warning. It is not that they do not heed the warning but it is because available potable water is two (2) kilometres away from their place, and when most people are sick how they can fetch water. That is why they are dependent on the government’s supply of drinking water but the supply rarely if never comes. That is why they are forced to drink from the contaminated wells. Fortunately, by 2004 a Supreme Court ordered Madhya Pradesh government to supply fresh drinking water through tankers to people whose potable water supplies were contaminated by pollutants from the plant.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 26) Although the Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the enormity of the environmental concerns brought about by the plant itself, the grim picture of environmental destruction becomes bleaker. “A January 2002 report by Shrishti and Toxics Link, a Delhi-based environmental non-governmental organization, found not only contamination in vegetables grown around the plant site, but also a bio-concentration of contaminants in breast milk samples taken from women in the surrounding areas.” (Amnesty International, 2004, p 25) And in spite the initiatives of the Supreme Court “toxic wastes are still lying at the pesticide plant – now owned by the Dow Chemicals – contaminating ground water in nearby area.” (Padma, 2005, p 5) In all of these socio-economic, health and environmental harm and destruction, who are to be held accountable? IV. ACCOUNTABILITY Everybody is accountable for what had happened in Bhopal. Nobody is exempted from the responsibility entailed by the irresponsible acts which brought about the Bhopal disaster. First on the list are Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals. Contemporary companies have moved away from the traditional homo economicus which posits the idea that corporations acting as individuals in the pursuit of a good are ethically free from responsibility. Rather, corporations have now recognized that they have corporate responsibilities that “lead a company to contribute to society beyond the goods and services it produces, the employment it provides and the return on investments it generates.” (Amalric & Hauser, 2005, p 28) And this beyond includes fulfilling and complying with environmental standards way above the legal requirements. In this case, both Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals are primarily responsible for what had happened. Union Carbide cannot claim that they are no longer responsible after they have paid $470 million dollars nor Dow Chemicals can maintain that they are not responsible because they do not inherit ‘the sin’ of UCC. I hold that both companies are ethically, morally, politically and environmentally responsible for what had happened. International companies cannot go around skirting their responsibilities, hiding and utilizing governmental inefficiencies to cover their mistakes. More over, Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals are examples of “multinational companies who have established dangerous and polluting industries in the Third World countries where safety and monitoring standards are less stringent” (Dorr, 1991, p 31) so we do see that these multinational companies are not really interested in uplifting the lives of the many people but only enriching further themselves. Second is the Madhya Pradesh government. They should not have allowed the construction of a pesticide plant in a place that is near people’s living space. They should have located it far from the city. Next they should act swiftly regarding the distribution of the benefits of the victim who have died. People are continuously dying not only because of the irresponsibility of UCC but also because of the ineptness of the government to respond properly to the graveness of the situation. It seems that they are more concern in keeping the money in the bank rather than distributing it to rightful beneficiaries. Third, they do not have the political will to implement the laws. Yes, the government “enacted the Environment Act in 1986” (Sharma, 2005, p A 395) but the “laws lacked teeth and the bodies lacked functional and financial powers.” (Dam, 2004, p 598) Lastly, the government do not act enough to address the problem of poverty. Focus should be on “the eradication of severe poverty” (Pogge, 2005, p 183) which is the state of the lives of most of the victims of the Bhopal Disaster. The government should serve the people and not just the interests of the few. Finally, third, we are responsible for what happened. We are ours brothers keeper. The political and economic structures of the contemporary period have allowed the perpetuation of poverty. It entrenches social paradigms that deprive the poor of a humane life by carrying on and implementing economic, trade and political policies that continue to disempower the poor economically, socially and politically. This situation brings to the fore the distribution of power in the contemporary world. V. DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD The Bhopal Disaster starkly manifests the vast inequality between the rich and the poor in the contemporary world. It clearly shows that power is lodged in the hands of the few wealthy nations, few wealthy locals, of few individuals. This is not only theoretical but it is concretely lived in Madhya Pradesh. The lack of potable water for 700,000 people Madhya Pradesh while safe drinking water is readily available to anybody in the First world countries is just one of the many actual examples of the disparity between the rich and the poor. In 1998 alone “18 million human deaths are caused by starvation and preventable diseases” (Pogge, 2001, p 12) something could have been done in order to prevent this scenario yet “the new economic structure will further increase global economic inequality and perpetuate even aggravate the horrendous conditions among the poorest.” (Pogge, 2001, p 13) As long as the unequal distribution of power and wealth is preserved, structures that perpetuate it are sustained, “human rights which are the core values of our moral and political discourse central to justice…” (Pogge, 2005, 195) will remain as an illusion to many people of the world. But what are human rights? Does it really exist? VI. HUMAN RIGHTS: ITS MEANING, NATURE AND EXISTENCE The concept of human rights in the global context is distinct phenomenon perceptible only in our time. Although the ancient great thinkers have provided us with the parameters with which we may be able to understand and apprehend the concept of human rights, still it is the modern period which is responsible for the elucidation of the concept. Human rights can “best be defined as those rights which human beings have simply because they are human beings” (Palumbo, 1982, p 9) and this is not the only definition available for the understanding of the concept. There are other approaches that may be used as we try to define it. John Rawls holds humanity’s rationality into esteem, and using the veil of ignorance as a shield against inequalities, he assumed that human beings will come up with choices that will distribute benefits in an equitable manner. With the choices that we made being anchored on our rationality and the veil of ignorance, we come up institutions that will achieve the goals of justice as fairness. Utilizing this approach, Rawls have extended the same procedure in his conception of human rights by the stipulating that the members will be representing their country in the original veil of ignorance. In the veil of ignorance the representatives will not have an expansionist framework but they will be embracing the associationist paradigm as that will be the rational and moral choice under the veil of ignorance in an international level. This means that the delegates will carry with them “their society’s conception of justice.” (Natcchia, 1998, p347) Although this notion is not with out question, and criticism but the whole point is the belief that human rights being attributable to human beings is anchored on the supposition that there are certain ground which are ”moral-philosophical in nature” (Ferrara, 2003, p 395) with which the concept of human rights are anchored. While Jürgen Habermas, on the other hand, has stipulated that human right are to be understood as rights in “the positive, legal sense of the term.”(Ferrara, 2003, p 396) What does this mean? Habermas maintains that human rights have universal validity but its validity does not rest on some moral grounds wherein societies who are capable of making rational decisions will accept certain human rights. Rather, Habermas holds that although human rights maybe similar to moral norms in the sense that it refers to all human persons and that its justification is supported by moral arguments, still it does not imply that the conception of human rights is founded and justified on moral grounds. Instead “Habermas is proposing that human rights shares structural features with legal norms in general that have important consequences for their form and function.” (Flynn, 2003, p 434). Habermas (1997) himself said that “human rights belong structurally belong to a positive and coercive legal order which founds actionable individual legal claims. To this extent, it is part of the meaning of human rights that they claim the status of basic rights which are implemented within the context of some existing legal order be it rational, international or global.” (134) In other words, what he is telling us is that human rights are determined by the structure and form of modern law. Thus, it is sanction by law. What we have presented are two great names in philosophy who are espousing two different natures of human rights. The problem is that they have not given enough premises with which we will affix consent regarding the human rights’ nature. It is my opinion, that human rights is both intrinsic in human beings as presented by our definition and by Rawls and at the same time and ,of equal weight, it is extrinsic in the sense that it is sanctioned by law. In other words, human rights are both intrinsic and extrinsic. This I support on the position that human rights are attached to our human nature, it is something that is common to all human beings regardless of colour, race and gender, it is the essence that helps define our humanity - we are rational beings who are capable of entering into relationships with other human beings. Being such, borrowing from Thomas Hobbes, it is the nature humanity. But the very form and structure of human rights can only be realised within the context of law. It is not present right away; it has to be formulated in the forms and structure of law. But the more pressing question is ‘do human rights exist?’ Human rights are “guaranteed in a way that is distinctive to the realm of human affairs.”(Parekh, 2007, 759) but to ask whether it really exist in the same manner that the computer in front me is existing is quite difficult to answer. Theoretically, we can lay down all the possible explanations and clarifications answering the questions why, how when do we have human rights but I honestly think that it all boils down to the fact that if human beings are willing to see and accept the presence of another persons’ rights which is the same with my rights then authentic human rights begin to exists.. Are human beings ready to accept it with out prejudice? I would really like to say yes we do have human rights but the story of humanity continuously show us that human beings have come up with ways and means with which we stripped human beings of their humanity and that they have been reduced to less than human beings. I am referring to the atrocities of World War II, to the horrible suffering of millions of people worldwide from abject poverty, from the insensitivity of wealthy countries, wealthy people. We “create through intersubjective political commitment and substantiated through our action” (Parekh, 2007, 759) the reality, validity and authenticity of human rights. CONCLUSION The Bhopal Disaster has shown us the great disparity that exists in the distribution of wealth and power in the contemporary world. With the severe poverty that millions of human beings are experiencing, we put into question our conception of human rights. We may continue to look for the real meaning and nature of human rights but human rights will only start to exists if the “policies we pursue and international order we impose” (Pogge, 2001, p 21) no longer perpetuate and aggravate the situation of the poor worldwide. Reference: Amalric, F., & Hauser, J. (2005). Economic drivers of corporate responsibility activities. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 20, pg. 27. Amnesty International. (2004) Clouds of injustice: Bhopal disaster 20 yrs on. Retrieved on August 9, 2004 accessed from http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/015/2004/en/543cOa1b- a497—11dc-bac9-0158df32ab50/asa200152004en.rtf Dam, S. (2004). Green laws for better health: the past that was the future that maybe – reflections from the Indian experience. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 16, 4, pp 593-615. Dorr, D. (1991) The social justice agenda: justice, ecology, power and the Church. Orbis Books: New York. Ferrara, A. (2003). Two notions of humanity and the judgment argument for human rights. Political Theory, Vol. 31, No 3, pp 329 – 420. Flynn, J. (2003). Habermas, on human rights: Law, morality and intercultural dialogue. Social theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No 3 p 431 Habermas, J. (1997). Between facts and norms: Contribution to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Pr: London. Khare, R.S. (1987). The Bhopal industrial accident: Anthropological and civic issues. Anthropology Today. Vol. 3, No 4, p 4 – 6. Naticchia, C. (1998). Human rights, liberalism and Rawl’s law of peoples. Social Theory and Practice, pp 345 – 375. Parekh, S. (2007). Resisting dull and torpid assent: returning to the debate over the foundations of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29, pp 754 – 778. Padma, T. V. (2005) Long –delayed report on Bhopal disaster offers little new information. Nature Medicine, Vol. 11, No 1, p 5. Palumbo, M. (1982). Human rights: meaning and history. Robert E. Krieger PublishingCompany, Inc.: Florida. Pogge, T.W. (2001). Priorities of global justice. Metaphilosophy, Vol. 32, No 1/2, p 1- 21. __________. (2005). Human rights and global health. Retrieved on August 9, 2008 accessed from http:/www.patent2.org/files/Pogge_Human_Rights_and_Global_Health_- _A_Research.pdf. Sharma, D. C. (2005). By order of the court: Environmental champion. Environmental Health Perspective, Vol. 1131, No 6, A395 –A394. Read More