International Relations - Research Paper Example

International Relations Introduction Human rights can adversely be held as universal since most of the cultures and the societies of the world have practiced them over the centuries. The different cultures and societies throughout history have all revealed concepts of the human rights (Penna and Campbell, 1998, p. 21; Mutua, 1995; p. 358). In the Arab’s literature, it is possible to trace the basis of their basic human rights that runs back to the Koranic texts (Zakaria, 1986, p.228). The history is also quite clear on the traditional African societies and how they practiced the human rights (Wai, 1980, p. 116). The Asians on the other hand would agree and prove beyond reasonable doubt that human rights coexisted in their societies (Anwar, 1994, p. 2-3). Also, with the Hindus, the Hindu Caste system can be articulated as a dimension of human rights in the society (Stackhouse, 1984; p. 12; Buultjens, 1980, p. 113; Khushalani, 1983, p.408). Nevertheless, according to the post colonial critics, the so called ‘universal human rights’ are only expressive of the western culture and not non-western cultures. Several activists and scholars of the world have therefore argued that even though the human rights are said to be universally valid, they originate solely in the West hence a platform that expresses only the Western views and interests. There is a high possibility of linking the human rights to the Western political systems, constitutional orders as well as the social institutions (Benhabib, 2004, p. 77). The discourse of human rights has over the years continued to attract the attention of different activists and policy-makers of the world (Watson, 1992, p. 47). The validity of the universal human rights continues to raise doubts and questions amongst the different scholars of the world. But the defenders of the universal human right have often suggested that the universal human rights have been developed upon the notion of the natural rights something that has been despised by a number of political activists (Padgen, 2003, p. 171). According to Bowing (2004, p. 316), Bentham openly declared the Declaration of the French Right to Men and Women as “plainly simple..rhetorical nonsense built upon stilts”. This is because the Universal Declaration on the Human Right (UDHR) born in 1948 is only seen as universal and wholly applicable to the values of all people and how the different people relate in their day to day life and not to whom it is applicable. The first article of this particular declaration indicated that all the human beings are equal in rights and dignity and that they are born free. Their actions should therefore always be endowing with reasoning and good conscience and the spirit of brother hood should always prevail (Adami, 2012, p. 22-25). In this context, the conscience and the spirit of brotherhood has been seen to relate only to the European societies (Griffin, 2008, p. 35; Ignatieff, 2003, p. 320). Therefore even though the declaration contains inclusive and broad concepts to earn it a character of abstractness, there is no outrageous reference to diverse cultural values and religions as far as the declaration is concerned. The debate on whether the human rights are universal or Western artifact goes on and on. Different activists and analysts argue this matter of different grounds and in most cases the human rights activists accuse the West of the continued influence on the validity of the universal human rights and threat to the independence of the people of the world as well as the sovereignty of the different states. The specific classes of human rights that have been vulnerable to the western influence include; political and civil rights, cultural, social and the economic rights. How such rights have been addressed in the past years form the basis of the debate by the different scholars and activists of the world. Civil and Political Human Rights The civil and political rights are rights that protect the freedom of individual persons from being infringed by the government, private persons and social organizations. They ensure the ability of an individual person to wholly participate in the political and civil life of both the state and the society without fear of oppression and discrimination. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, the civil rights entail right to life and right to safety; protection against discrimination on the grounds of color, race, gender, origin ethnicity, religion and even disability and individuals right to privacy, press, religion, expression, speech, movement and assembly. The political rights on the other hand include procedural fairness in the court system; right to fair trial, right to legal redress and the right to take part in politics and civil society; right to petition, right to assemble, self defense and even the voting right (Keith, 1999,p. 95-118). The civil and the political rights happen to be the main and the original part of the universal human rights (Sieghart, 1985, p. 77). The political and the civil rights guarantee full protection of a person under the law. However, when these two laws are not guaranteed or when the guarantee is only on paper and nobody respects it, vital actions should be taken or else social unrest ensue. Going back to the past centuries, there were civil right movements that fought for the civil and political rights of the citizens in the different parts of the world. These movements were mostly illegal since they constituted civil unrest and armed rebellions. However, they adequately managed to make changes to the lives of different persons of the world. In the recent past, civil right movements have further extended the universal political and civil rights a process that has been described by the different activists of the world as ‘a long and a tenuous journey’. However, not all movements have achieved their core objectives. Myriad questions concerning the political and civil rights have emerged in the recent past. A good example of such is the extent at which the government should intervene so as to adequately protect the rights of its citizens from being infringed by other individuals or even other nations of the world. The post colonialism Post colonialism is generally an era existing in the 20th century; time after colonialism. The post-colonialism emerged after the colonial countries gained their independence from their colonial masters. The aspect of post colonialism is not only found in history, politics and literature but also in the cultures and economies of the different states of the world. The different scholars of the world however associate post colonialism with both bad and good things. According to Chennels (1999, p.110-120), post colonialism has brought about economic development in some post colonial states and at the same time it has enhanced the growth of African literature. Also, post colonialism has led to birth of new constitutions that have effectively incorporated the bills of rights protecting the individual citizens against absolutist rule in the particular continents (Keith and Ogundele, 2007, p. 1065-1097). However, a number of leaders of the world and political activists link the post colonialism to neo-colonialism (Dunne et.al, 2006, p. 256). What has influenced post colonial objection to civil and political rights as ‘a universal value’ Africa- Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Shortly after the Republic of Congo gained its independence in the 1960s, the nation was unable to establish a government following economic and political pressures; a civil war ensued in the country. The UN authorized the peace keeping mission in to the country with the initial intentions of restoring the political stability of the country (Dunne et.al, 2013, p.258). This was geared towards safeguarding both the civil and political rights of the individual citizens of Congo. However, this was just pretence. The truth was that the United States through the UN peace-keeping troops were not in Congo to safeguard the political and civil rights of the Congolese citizens but was in Congo to protect its own interest (Dunn, 2003, p.65). According to Cole (2006, p. 26-37), the U.S intervention in Congo was purely to undermine the legitimacy of the country – Congo and to plainly promote what they felt was the better definition of the African independence and to further protect their interests which was vital in the continent and in a political perspective; “Independence of Congo and other countries in Africa represented a serious threat to the American Interests in the continent” (Cole, 2006, p. 27). America intervened therefore to juxtapose the government of Patrice Lumumba with an agenda of promoting the anti-communism ideology as well as anti-colonialism of the African nationalists. In a nutshell, America used Congo as its base of spreading its postcolonial visions. Together with the Belgians, America made every effort to capitalize on the crisis that was being in Congo to suit their underlying interests. All through, American took the advantage of the crisis in Congo for they had an underlying objective of thwarting the communist interest in the country (Kanza, 1972, p. 301). This is the reason why they even went a step forward to support a clientele who was not even democratically elected to form a government in Congo (Dunne et.al, 2013, p.258). The other UN peace keeping troops; Guinea, Ghana and Egypt had withdraw from the UN mission and provide support to Patrice Lumumba to establish a government. Nevertheless, General Mobutu rose to power in 1963 and Patrice Lumumba was assassinated in 1961 (Cole, 2006, p. 27). Under several UN conventions, America was responsible of protecting the rights of the Congolese but instead they were responsible of transgressions against humanity. According to De Witte (2001, 10-45), There is sufficient evidence linking the Belgians and American to the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. He was allegedly arrested and executed. This was a well planned execution. The Americans therefore conspired in both the assassination of the Congo president and the sabotage of the independence of a sovereign state- Republic of Congo (Cole, 2006, 27-28). Both the political and civil rights of all individual citizens of a nation are well protected under the Universal declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nation in 1948. One of such rights is a civil rights; right to life and right to safety. Such rights were violated when innocent people lost their lives. Nothing could be done since the West and the European nations were responsible and constituted of very powerful and influential parties to the United Nations (UN). No one was held accountable for the assassination and it eventually became a part of the history of the world. Africa- Libya Gadaffi was always unhappy with the conduct of the West and the Europe in the international relations and felt that it threatened the sovereignty of the states in Africa and the rest of the world. In the year, 2012, Gadaffi was overthrown by an uprising that accused him of depriving citizens of their human rights. Gadaffi is one of the most remembered African leaders who would not bow down to the West or any particular European nation for any sort of aid (Al-Qaddafi, 1988, p. 34). For the four decades, he ruled without any help from the West. The West and the European countries accused him for marginalizing the different communities living in Libya and especially the women of Libya something that is perceived to be against the universal human rights. However, despite of what he was accused of, Gadaffi is well remembered for his efforts towards improving the education, housing and health of the citizens of Libya. Gadaffi played a significant role in establishment of OPEC and during his reign, he made Libya such an iconic figure in the petroleum industry of the world (Davis, 2004, p.182). In the late 1980s and in the 1990s, Gadaffi openly supported rebel movements against colonialism in Africa and Middle East. He supported leaders such as the Nelson Mandera of South Africa who was fighting discrimination the apartheid in South Africa and other Palestine and Irish leaders. He was also a great fan of the Zimbabwean President Mugabe and Ugandan President-Idi Amin Dada (Davis, 2004, p.182). According to Dunne et.al, 2006, p. 256-257),the decision by the African Union not to take an imminent action against an uprising that saw the Muammar Gadaffi’s government overthrown further raised eyebrows since Libya is an African State and this was a matter under the jurisdiction of the African Union (AU). Funny enough, The West rallied with other post-colonial powers such as France declared that Libya was not an African State but a member of the League of Arab States ruling out that the AU had no jurisdiction of the North Africa (Dunne et.al, p. 257). They further indicated that Gadaffi’s government had been adversely condemned by the African Union, the League of Arabs and even the secretary general of Organization of the Islamic Conference (Pargeter, 2012, p. 25). Such offences therefore amounted to international offences and the matter was adequately referred to the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN). This is evident that the West together with its allies had not only power to decree the law but also to punish whoever they want (Dunne et.al, 2013, p.257). This proved to be quite a useful tactic in clearing the Libyan menace. On the other hand, the Western alliance had one more advantage that they fully utilized and exploited to their full advantage; the Africans were not in a position to ask questions as pertaining to the ‘liberation’ of Libya (Dunne et.al, 2013, p. 258). In the wake of the 1960s, Gadaffi had risen to power through a bloodless coup and adequately protected and financially supported the King’s family (Dunne et.al, 2013, p. 259). He never shed blood when he ascended power and all through his regime he proved to be a development-oriented person. He not only helped to establish the Organization of Petroleum Exporting States (OPEC) an organization that adversely freed the African oil producing states from exploitation by the foreign states in the oil industry but also helped establish the African Union (AU) as well as the Non-Aligned Movement (Dunne et.al, 2013, p. 259). Therefore, no African could have believed that Gadaffi was really a tyrannical man. The Western Allies were smart enough to not involve the African Union and instead involve the United Nations where they were sure of full cooperation. It is evident and clear that the Western alliance broke the law since they bent it to their advantage so as to infest their personal interests. In this context, they not only threatened the international peace but also interfered with the political and civil rights of the Libyan citizens in accordance to the United Nation convention on Human Rights of 1948. They eventually threatened the sovereign right of Libya as a country and are responsible for the assassination of the Libyan president (Dunne et.al, 2013, p. 256). They were also responsible of the uprising that led to the outbreak of a war between the rebellion and the Libyan government troops. Practically, there could have been better ways to address the Libyan matter if only the West and its European allies had clear intentions of upholding the human rights of the Libyan citizens; through the International Criminal Court (ICC). A court mandated by the United Nations to address matters in relation to deprivation of the human rights and the war crimes and of which all the African States accented to its establishment in 1998 (Dunne et.al, 2013, p.257). In fact, this would have granted the Libyan president- Muammar Gadaffi a right to fair trial. Even if the worst was happening, Gadaffi never stopped being a human being and no one had a right to infringe his civil rights no matter the situation. The truth is Gadaffi was assassinated and everything was made to look like the rebellion assassinated him. Earlier on, there were several attempts on his life but they had all failed. Force was therefore to be used to overthrow his government with the West in the front line. His assassination was a tragedy and even though the Africans were made to believe that he really deserved it, he did not. It seems like his strong stand against the West finally cost him his life. Justice again was never served and the only thing done in relation to his assassination was implementation of a Transitional National Council (Dunne et.al, 2013, p.258). Post colonial objection to civil and political rights as ‘a universal value’ Throughout the post colonialism era, America, Britain and France have dictated the ways for the post-colonial nations. In the past, the West and the European nations have been of great support to the ‘development’ of the post colonial states since these countries have highly depended on them for financial grants and borrowings. Post colonial states in Africa and Asia form the greater part of the Post colonial states of the world (Mamdani, 1996, p.40). Most of the post-colonial nations constitute the nations of global south with a GND per capita of less than ten dollars (Sullivan, 2003, p. 471). Economic analysts and different political activists of the world have in the past argued that this is a condition that has made the post-colonial states highly dependent on the west and the European nations for foreign aid. However, the rise of the Asian countries and emergence of greater economies such as China has threatened the dominance of the West and the European Nations. With the increased number of assassinations of the African and Middle East leaders who object to the West, questions in relation to the universal applicability and validity of the political and civil rights have continued to prevail. The political and civil rights protected under the UN conventions and enforced by the International Criminal Court warns against violation of the human rights under any circumstance but it seems like these laws are only made for the African and the Arab countries. According to Gegout (2013, p. 800-818), in the recent past, the International Criminal Court has been accused of not promoting peace and not protecting the human rights by making sure that justice is served. According to Feinstein and Lindberg (2009, p. 20), the International Criminal Court only serves the interest of the US and the European parties. Further, the court has also been accused by a number of leaders of the world for only prosecuting African and Arab leaders and been branded ‘the court of US and European states’ (Gegout, 2013, p. 802). This has significantly led to the reduction of its support among the nations of the world; a big blow towards attainment and enforcement of universal political and civil rights (Simons 2009, p. 34). This is no wonder some African states and leaders are so objected to the West and the Western ideologies (Chiedu, 2004, p. 197-223). Conclusion It is not possible to ascertain a future day or date when this world we are living in today will have a universal value to the human rights. This is because the greater and powerful nations of the world are always in control and with the intention of exploiting the less powerful nations of the world despite their submissiveness. It has always been that, what the West feels is right gets done and is good for everyone but what the West objects to automatically becomes wrong and the feeling is rendered as mutual for everyone. An institution such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) is supposed to be an independent institution having been given full mandate and obligations by the United Nations. Nevertheless, this has not been the case. Ever since the ICC court was born in the year 1997, it is evident that it has never prosecuted any Western or Europe associated leader. Does it mean that there have never been wars in Europe or other parts of the world apart from Africa and Middle East? Ukraine conflict is among the most recent war crisis of the world. Russia is squarely responsible for the conflict and also responsible of gross violation of the rights to humans and humanity. Funny enough, the West never made any interventions into the conflict. The million dollar question is ‘will Russia be prosecuted for its crimes against humanity?’ The answer to this question bears an answer to whether the universal ‘value’ of human rights is applicable in this world and why there exist a post colonial objection. Bibliography Watson, A. 1992. The Evolution of International Society. London: Routledge. Adami, R. 2012. Reconciling Universality and Particularity through a Cosmopolitan Outlook on Human Rights. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 4(2), pp. 1837-5391. Al-Qaddafi,M. 1988. Qaddafi’s Green Book: An Unauthorized Edition .Edited by Henry M. Christman. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Benhabib, S. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buultjens, R. 1980. Human Rights in Indian Political Culture. In The Moral Imperatives of Human Rights: A World Survey. Edited by Kenneth W. Thompson. Washington: University Press of America. Gegout, C. 2013.The International Criminal Court: limits, potential and conditions for the promotion of justice and peace, Third World Quarterly, 34:5, 800-818, DOI:10.1080/01436597.2013.800737. Chennels, A. 1999. Essential Diversity: Post Colonial Theory and African Literature. [Pdf]. Available at [Accessed 11 April, 2015]. Cole, J. 2006. The Congo question: Conflict visions of independence. Emporia State Research Studies, 43(1), pp. 26-37. Davis, B. 2004. Qaddafi, Terrorism, and the Origins of the U.S. Attack on Libya. p. 182. De Witte, L.2001. The Assassination of Lumumba. London. Dunn, C. 2003. Imagining the Congo: The International Relations of Identity. New York, N.Y., 65. Dunne, T, Milja, K, and Smith, S. 2013. International Relations Theories (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press. Feinstein, L and Lindberg, T. 2009. Means to an End: US Interest in the International Criminal Court.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Chiedu Moghalu,K. 2004. ‘Reconciling fractured societies: an African perspective on the role of judicial prose-cutions’, in R Thakur & P Malcontent (eds),From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: TheSearch for Justice in a World of States, Tokyo: United Nations University, pp 197–223 Griffin, J. 2008, On Human Rights, Rainolds Room, Oxford. Ignatieff, M. 2003, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Bowing, J. 2004. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol II (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962), quoted by Amartya Sen, Elements of a Theory of Human Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), p. 316. Keith, L. 1999 The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Does It Make a Difference in Human Rights Behavior? Journal of Peace Research, 36(1), pp. 95-118. Kanza, T. 1972, Conflict in the Congo: The Rise and fall of Patrice Lumumba. London: Penguin. Khushalani, Y. 1983, Human Rights in Asia and Africa. Human Rights Law Journal 4 (4),pp .403-442. Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and Legacy of Colonialism, Princeton University Press, New York. Mutua, M. 1995. The Banjul Charter and the African Cultural Fingerprint: An Evaluation of the Language of Duties. Virgina Journal of International Law. 35, pp. 339-380. Pagden, A. 2003. Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy. Political Theory, 31(2), p. 171. Pargeter, Alison. 2012. Libya: The Rise and Fall of Qaddafi.Yale University Press, June 27. Kindle edition. Penna, R. and Patricia J. 1998. Human Rights and Culture: Beyond Universality and Relativism. Third World Quarterly 19 (1):7-27. Stackhouse, M, L. 1984. Creeds, Society, and Human Rights: A Study in Three Cultures. Grand Rapds: William B. Eerdmans. Simmons, A. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press. Wai, M. 1980. Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Human Rights: Cultural and Ideological Perspectives. Edited by Adamantia Pollis and Peter Schwab. New York: Praeger. Zakaria, F. 1986. Human Rights in the Arab World: The Islamic Context. In Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. Edited by UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO. Sieghart, P.1985. The Lawful Rights of Mankind: An Introduction to the International Legal Code of Human Rights, Oxford University Press. Sullivan, A and Steven M. S. 2003. Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 471. ISBN 0-13-063085-3. Read More