Chapter 11 - Human and "other" rights..

 

There's an old saying: "International Law is what old men talk about after the battle." There's truth in that. But Since World War two - the entire idea and force of "international law" has changed. But that does not mean the abondonment of Realism or the beginning of some great new age. The states are still the primary actors in the international arena.

I remember being at USC's School of International Relations (in a Ph.D. program I did not finish) in 1985 and being "accused" of being a feminist. I'm male, probably been (falsely) accused more often of being sexist, but this 'SC snob (at the time he was receiving a full ride in the Ph.D. program because he was so brilliant) looks down at me (he was tall and lean and probably a vegan - not that there's anything wrong with that) and says to the room: "You're a feminist then, anyone can see that."

I don't remember the exact topic we were discussing but it had something to do with the fact that women's rights are human rights and that all human rights are some how connected - maybe by the fact of our shared humanity.

He meant it as an insult, a way to silence me, I remember laughing at him alone. I looked around the room full of my fellow MA and Ph.D. students in the School of International Relations and seeing about ... less than a handful of females - oh I get it. Its a good old boys club and I'm a peasant.

The idea that women should be equal to men is deep in my heart because I am a product of my culture, my parents, my schooling and my experience. Others, around the world - do not share any of that with me.

So they see women, the infirmed, the poor, the elderly, the homosexuals, the religious or ethnic minority groups, quite differently than you or I. Are they wrong because we know we are right? Do you know why a girl from another land wears what she wears? Is making "them" all dress like westerners going to change their country (ask Ataturk or Peter the Great).

What should be the role of women in the world? That is not the question of international relations - A friend of mine who considers himself to be "not white," told me: "You know what's wrong with you white guys?" No, I said curious to learn. "You let your women run everything."

I'm pretty sure "our women" (whomever they are) would not agree but more importantly, so what if we do?

See, I'm married to a strong hyper educated women who love to be in charge and run things. So I say - go... run things ... things await you to run them ..."

Let's get real. Women's rights are human rights. All human rights are also women's rights, economic rights, the right to food, medicine, housing, religious/social/cultural rights, GLBT rights, dietary rights, etc. It's not just "free speech" and the right to vote, no those are all part of the package.

Human rights cannot be separated if they are to maintain their power. We cannot pit one right against the next no more than one community against the next. More than half the world's population are women and they are needed to continue the species, but can and should they "be allowed" to do more than that? Of course.

The role of the international community is always contingent upon the states involved and there are vast differences among the countries of the world with what I just said above.

GLBT rights are discussed in only a small group of countries. Those other rights issues are by no means equally understood and pursued by the domestic policies of the member states of the UN or any other international body. Even those directly founded and existing to promote human rights are always constrained by the host country's government, or it's culture, or history and by the member states.

So-called universal human rights really are by nor means universally defined and of course not universally supported by state governments. So how can we expect much action from the international community?

The entire discussion of Afghanistan smacks of imperialism. Have any of these efforts changed the lives of women outside the capitol? Is that the job of the international community to change Afghanistan?

On page 332 the authors of your text try to make a link between terrorism and inequality as if to say if we fix all the world's ills there won't be any terrorism, or if we understand terrorists' minds better we can ... they don't really say.

But I do not believe we need to stretch and include terrorism into the list of reasons why the entire world, but especially the so-called first world, has a direct interest in expanding human rights to become truly universally understood, accepted and enforced by domestic governments and the international system.

Our shared humanity connects us to some basic realities. The philosopher John Rawls essentially argues that if we are wondering if our government, system or culture is just, we ought not ask those on top - or even those in the middle - we would be smart to ask those on the bottom. If they say it is just than it will continue, if they think it is not just, they can burn it to the ground and still lose nothing. Justice is in all our interests.

Also, don't forget as we are listing the causes of poverty, that war is a chief cause. So may be the rate, pace, and type of industrialization. Do not equate rising industrialization, or even rising wealth within a country, as evidence of the abatement of any of these human rights issue areas.

While I'm reminding you not to forget - the highly touted Magna Charta was an agreement among feudal lords and the king ... the common person had no role, no say, and it was far from universal.

More to the point, the great charter is a western document, based in western ideas. It is a product of a people and a time when the cultural influences of the Church were supreme and even the culture of England was created by throwing several northern European cultures together on an island and having them fight it out and eventually inter breed.

The whole Hobbs/Locke discussion bores me because of its clearly western bias. So you and I may share much of our view of the family, government and society, but how can you say you understand another's view of family or service or honor or whatever? I'm not arguing that honor killings are right or should be lawful. I believe the opposite, but my point is that we cannot know the other culture enough to glibly and blindly say "we are right, and they are wrong" without being imperialist, without "forcing our values on others."

That is what some may see as our moral imperative.

But looking at the international system, the world as a whole, and the lot of most people in the world, the very existence of the UN charter and all the other work on human rights that has been done since world war two has changed the world, and probably for the better.

On pages 335 - 6 they list the three ways to "see" justice: As equal shares, as due process, or as fairness. It is important to understand all three and see them (as much as possible) without bias. Different people do have competing moral principles and there is always conflict among them ... Just like our friend Hans Morgenthau said so long ago.

The western world leans towards due process as a method of seeking the other two, but fairness seems to often trump the other two.

On page 341, the authors put forth the question of our age: Sovereignty verses Global Rules. Global Rules will always get the press and the sexy image, but sovereignty - especially for the large and powerful states - will always win the day.

There is a famous Stalin quote, after he was told that the Pope opposed him: "How many tanks does the Pope have?"

What I don't understand about the feminist perspective is why they need to separate themselves from Realism. I am a realist and I know that national power is not just guns and stuff you make. I know that a part of power is moral suasion. That is why the last eight years saddens me so.

Again on page 343, the rights discussion is about western culture, western advancements and ignores the women's issues around the world. I have met and talked to Arab women who say they like wearing the full chadar because they feel modest and no men can not stare at them. I have had Arab men tell me they can tell how beautiful a women is by just seeing her eyes and hands ("Her hands, man, they tell everything" a friend once told me.) Or is it, those are the only parts they get to see?

Let me put it this way - I love suffragettes and I support the right of all women to vote everywhere, but that some culture or legal system allows rape as a punishment for the family... that is way outside my understanding. And we may all agree we despise that, but its not our culture, nor our family and I'm not certian our intervention can be justified simply because we know "the value of women" and they don't. It is easy to be an imperialist of the mind and heart and even easier to step over that line and impose our will, our way.

Or maybe that is our moral obligation - some would argue - to ensure our ideals are imposed around the world and then the world would be "better." That's not liberalism, nor even feminism, that's just silly.

The very fact that feminism has made it into a text book - got nearly an entire chapter - that is a great advancement since the olden days of my graduate experience.

May the world progress... but will it do so fairly?