What is "Human Rights" in The Modern World?

By Darmitha-Kotte

Much is being reported in the newspapers about human rights these days because the 2nd Session of the Human Rights Council Geneva has just been concluded on 18th September,2006. The Daily Mirror carried two articles on 19th and 22nd September, 2006 on this subject. One article titled "Human Rights Situation Remains Alarming" was a very lengthy speech made by Ms. Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the other titled " UNHCR Accuses Govt. and LTTE of Human Rights Violations."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by The United Nations on 10th December 1948 states "The General Assembly proclaims This Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ or society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of the Member States and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." This Declaration carries 30 Articles of which Article 30 states " Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Articles 1-29 talk of specific areas on rights and in Article 30 it sums up the entire Declaration through the above quote.

(1)"Developed" and "Developing" Countries in The World:
When we look at the world picture we can see two main sections to which the world can be divided (1) The "developed world" under which the USA, UK, Europe, Nordic Countries, Australia, South Korea, Singapore and Japan can be categorized, and (2) the "developing world" in which Africa, Middle-East, Latin American countries, Russia (former Soviet Union) and Asian countries (including North Korea and China) are categorized. Based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each of the countries in the world are free and independent.

May we ask the pertinent question " is this really so?" or "how free are the developing countries?" This is where the great misconceptions of "Human Rights" and injustices lie. Reason being, that the developed world has taken it on themselves as the superiors, to dictate terms to every aspect of the lives of the developing countries without giving due respect to the history, culture, ethnicities, religious affiliations and social fabric of these countries. The developed countries (based on their values and standards) consider it their right, to bulldoze over the developing countries dictating what should or should not be done. If we are honest and objective, we will realize that this is the blatant truth!

(2)Who Commenced Violation of Human Rights:
History has it on record, that when Africa, Persia, Messapotamia, Babylonia, Indus Valley, India and China (even tiny Ceylon) already had rich and prosperous civilizations/cultures of their own many thousands of years ago, the now "developed countries" were living in the jungles! The purpose of stating this is not to insult any country but to show how "human rights" were violated for the "now developed countries" to become "developed." Colonial powers plundered every grain of minerals, metals, gems, ivory, spices etc from those countries and left these countries bankrupt, to suffer the ignominy of starvation. Once rich, the developed countries returned to these countries to dictate how countries now categorized as "developing countries" should govern their countries in the form of IMF, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, United Nations, G7, NORAD, JICA, USAID, CIDA, etc. 5-6 countries in the Security Council decide on the very existence and future of all nations of the world. Is this done with the interests of the developing countries in mind, or with the interests of the developed countries in mind? Whose rights are being violated and by whom, is a matter that needs to be microscopically analyzed before making scathing attacks against the developing countries on matters related to the violation of human rights.

(3)How are Human Rights of Nations Violated & By Whom?
Article 30 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: " Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

If all countries have been following this declaration to the very letter, there would be no problem in this world and we would be living in a very peaceful and harmonious environment. However, we all know that this is not the case and it never will be, as long as the developed countries disregard and insult "the rights " of other countries to determine their own future. No matter how well the Universal Declaration is formulated, equality can never be achieved as long as the developed countries deem it " their right" to undermine the sovereignty and independence of countries that are considered to be "developing countries."

(a)Manufacture and Sale of Weapons:
Why would arms manufacture be necessary if countries were following Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can we in our wildest dreams, imagine that large-scale manufacture of weapons by the developed countries, is to spread "love" in the world? Once they are produced, can they sell their arms to countries without violating as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "………..implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Does this seem logical or honest by any standards?

To find markets to sell the weapons, these countries need to utilize their intelligence services to create an environment in which these arms/weapons can be used-to do that, they have to create an environment in developing countries where the human rights of those countries are violated,the peace of those countries are destroyed. Is that not the case?

If it is good for USA, UK, France, Japan and Norway to produce nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, or chemical weapons- then it should also be permitted for Iran, Iraq, Russia, India, Pakistan, China and North Korea to produce the same weapons and sell them to markets that are willing to buy them for their own self-protection. Is this not the logical argument? Why should the USA think that it is "their right" to impose sanctions on developing countries with capabilities of producing weapons thereby violating "the rights" of these countries? Where is the "equality" that the Universal Declaration talks about?

Where does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stand in their Article 30 when terrorism is encouraged by developed countries, for them to make profits through the sale of arms to both the terrorists and the respective governments involved in such conflicts? Whose rights are being violated? Is it not the "rights" of citizens who wish to live in peace and harmony? Who is instigating and conspiring the destruction of human rights in the developing countries- is it very difficult for us to see the utter hypocrisy and blatant violations? The USA has been terrorizing the entire world with their arrogance, invasions and intimidations but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not been used by The UN to stop their atrocities-why? Because they consider themselves "The Super Power" with authority to rule over others while destroying the human rights of other nations!

What action has been taken against Norway by The UN for their active involvement in encouraging terrorism, aiding and abetting with the LTTE terrorists in Sri Lanka? Is this not considered to be a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? As per the Declaration "………..implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Does the Democratically elected sovereign Government of Sri Lanka have the "right" to decide on how to protect her citizens from terrorists? Are we to protect the "rights" of minority terrorists against the majority citizens of this country? Why should Norway, which has blatantly violated the Universal Declaration be permitted to remain in the SLMM when it has been proven that they are part of the LTTE terrorist outfit? Why the double standards? Is this how the USA is treating Iran, Iraq and Muslims as a whole after they dared to challenge the USA?

(b)"Religious Rights" of Developing Countries:
Every country in the world has a" right" to determine how to govern their own countries based on the historical, socio-economic and religious heritage of their particular countries. The developed countries must respect " that right" and avoid as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "………..implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

How can the developed world justify their acts of blatant disrespect for "rights " of developing countries to safeguard their own socio-economic and religious identities? Where is the impartiality of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it comes to acts of unethical conversions being conducted by Christian religious groups with vested interests invading developing countries and destroying the inherent rights of that country? Do countries with majority Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist cultures have a" right" of their own?

What "right" does the USA, UK, Europe or South Korea have, to conduct "religious invasions" of non-Christian countries to force Christianity on countries, which have a history of religious harmony within their own countries. That harmony has been destroyed by these insensitive and selfish Evangelical Christian groups who even have the audacity to write reports criticizing independent countries which want to protect their countries of contamination.

True to US arrogance, they have recently put out a report " International Freedom of Religion Report-2006" in which Sri Lanka is stated as one of the countries which discriminates against minority religions. This is absolutely incorrect given the history of religious tolerance that Sri Lanka has maintained even at the risk of American Evangelists using even the Tsunami of December 2004 to carry on their unethical conversion activities. Their aggressive and arrogant methods are disgusting, to say the least. In the true sense of the term "service to humanity" evangelists must not use 'conversion' as a bait for material benefits! Let us kindly request the USA to permit Muslims to spread Islam freely within the territory of the USA because that would be their "right" to spread their religion just like the American Evangelists are doing in developing countries! The Universal Declaration means nothing to American Evangelists and they are by no means respecters of countries, persons or cultures as we have witnessed in Sri Lanka and we have no doubt that they use the same arrogance in all other developing countries.

If Sri Lanka wishes to bring in an Anti-Conversion Bill to safeguard our citizens, what right does countries like USA and UK have to dictate terms and threaten sanctions against Sri Lanka if the Bill was implemented? Will the USA or UK permit Muslims to invade their countries and spread the Islamic faith within their countries? In France, the government even brought legislation to prevent Muslim women from wearing the Hijab in public because it breaks down the social fabric of French society and culture- isn't that so? Why cannot the same rules be applied to developing countries?

In an article which appeared in the Daily Mirror of 20th September 2006 reported by AP titled "Bush Promoting His Middle East Strategy Before a Skeptical UN" it states; " George W.Bush is trying to persuade skeptical world leaders to embrace his vision for the Middle East in a speech before the United Nations today where he is calling on the world to "stand up for peace" in the face of violent extremism" Who is George W. Bush and is he a Muslim for him to have a vision for the Middle-East? What right does he have to decide on the past, present or future of another country or countries which are independent? Is he respecting "the rights of Middle Easterners" by thinking that he has the authority and right to decide for them? No one in his decent right mind, will justify what Bush has done in Iraq let alone the Middle East-except for Tony Blair who prefers to nod his head to everything the US says.

Why doesn't the UN penalize the violators of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when they blatantly disrespect "the rights" of other countries. Is it because the perpetrators these countries which are also members of the Security Council think that they can violate any regulation human rights or otherwise, and expect developing countries to tolerate their audacity and arrogance?

Conclusion:
Ms. Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her address has touched on the situation in Darfur, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Nepal and the issue of International Migration and Development. In her reference to Iraq states "My colleagues in Iraq continue to report on the breakdown in law and order as well as on daily attacks, extra-judicial killings, kidnappings, arbitrary detentions, disappearances and torture. Cases of violence are inadequately investigated and remain unpunished……………."

Who initially started the violation of "human rights" in Iraq and with what authority? The USA which is thousands of miles away from Iraq decided that it had to punish Iraq, brought out some lame excuses about chemical weapons( even if they had, it is not for the USA to decide how to punish Iraq), brought in their army and began to attack Iraq with venom! Iraq is an independent country with a culture of their own & it is for the people of Iraq to decide without foreign interference. The USA is not the United Nations for them to take unilateral decisions against any country in the world! The UK true to its colonial heritage backed USA not with the best interests of Iraq in mind but their own vested interests-why this hypocrisy? Ms. Arbour has not made even one reference to the abhorring violation of "human rights" inflicted by the US forces against the Iraqi detainees and citizens whose "human rights" have been desperately violated as per the Universal Declaration "………..implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Her reference to Sri Lanka and the LTTE terrorists is equally hollow in the fact that it is obvious she does not understand who is violating "whose rights"? Does she expect the Sri Lankan Government to sit back and watch all the atrocities committed by the terrorists and do nothing to protect the citizens of this country. Let Ms. Arbour not think that the terrorists are representing the Tamil community. The terrorists are a law unto themselves and are even against the majority Tamil community let alone the Sinhalese or the Muslims living in this country.

We are quite familiar with the Sri Lankan issue and it is obvious that the likes of Ms. Arbour do not understand the core problem of the issue related to the LTTE terrorists. First and foremost, it would be prudent to investigate extensively and find out as per the Universal Declaration "………..implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Sri Lanka is a sovereign country with a democratically elected government. Any terrorist activities against the state or her civilians have to be stopped by the government and the Armed Forces which are there to protect and defend our nation. A mythical assumption of the LTTE terrorists have been pampered by countries like Norway and other western countries until recently when they began to blacklist them as "terrorists" and curtail their activities within their countries. Who has been selling arms to the terrorists? Why have they not been charged according to the rules of the Universal Declaration for violating the" rights "of a peace-loving nation? For nearly 30 years, the terrorists have been conducting their killings, abductions and atrocities but western countries chose to ignore these activities because their INGOs could prosper and thrive in Sri Lanka so long as they could talk about " conflict resolution " and "peace and harmony" and "ethnic conflict."

Westerners should accept the fact that Sri Lanka does not have " an ethnic conflict" and there never was such a problem. How come Muslims, Tamils and Sinhalese all live together in other parts of Sri Lanka except in the North and East of the country?

Western countries and world bodies need to be honest with what they are doing. Show the world that they really and truly respect equality, human rights and fundamental rights of the developing countries. All these terminology is not there only to serve the vested interests of the western powers. Understand the core issues before passing rash judgements and sanctions against governments. Most conflicts in developing countries have been created with the instigations of developed countries, to achieve their agendas.

Just as much as western powers want to protect "their rights," developing countries also would like to protect "our rights." If developing countries blindly listen to the dictates of western powers or western aggressors as we may call them, then we will continue to be "developing countries " until the next millennium! We need to stand up and speak up for what is " our right" and work towards building solidarity amongst developing countries, we must not fall prey to the "divide and rule policy" of western powers who continue to create rifts between nations.