Digre 1

Peder Digre John ONeill ENGL 298 - Writing Link to SIS 201 30 April 2010 Human Rights: An American Perspective Just as the natural world evolves, the ideas that govern intrinsic human rights and

warfare evolve. Through the ages, mans inherent nature has been described by philosophers as being malign by Thomas Hobbes, to being a blank slate (tabula rasa) by John Locke, to being inherently benign by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Although mans inherent state shifted to being virtuous and moral, warfare became increasingly more heinous and immoral with its apotheosis in World War II, a total war (a war not restricted to military personnel or by the types of weapons that can be used). Human rights have often fallen victim to the immoralities of war and World War II was no exception. In fact, most of our ideas about human rights come from the aftermath of World War II. However, as one could have guessed, history is written by the victors and in this case so were the codes for human rights. With this in mind, current human rights codes are a largely American-centric view of the world, formulated by mostly American leaders during and immediately after World War II with their views on a just war in mind, that often have no effect in many countries; however, human rights appear to have a more globalized future. Writing from an American perspective is always difZicult when discussing

international issues. DifZiculty arises when trying to release oneself from the bias that a Liberal Democratic Capitalist society is the most supreme society on Earth. Therefore, it is hard to answer the question: Do other countries place such an importance on human rights

Digre 2

as the United States does? Fareed Zakaria views the answer to this question as non- Western countries...are likely to have very different outlooks from those of the United States because they see themselves as developing countries and, therefore, too poor to be concerned with issues of global order, particularly those that involve enforcing standards and rights abroad and they are not Protestant, proselytizing powers and thus will be less eager to spread universal values across the globe. (Zakaria 84) Since the end of World War II (and arguably earlier), America has been placed in somewhat of a dilemma. The American Dilemma is essentially the enormous responsibility to be the benefactor of the world. Being the benefactor of the world includes the responsibilities to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and displaced, and cure the sick. With the preceding points in mind, is the United States being a good Samaritan or does it have an ulterior motive in searching for power by being the worlds police ofZicer of human rights? This question and the question presented at the beginning of the paragraph are questions that each person must answer to form their own view on the how human rights codes should be developed and enforced. Individual rights have been important to people throughout history, but since only

recently have these rights been protected by laws. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, national sovereignty was more important than individual rights. Perhaps it took the atrocities of war for people to realize the importance of human rights. Franklin D. Roosevelts list of The Four Freedoms from January 1941 is one of the Zirst arguments to arise out of World War II for a list a basic human freedoms: the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear. (Roosevelt) However, it can be plainly seen by any student of American history that these freedoms appear to be largely

Digre 3

inspired by the American Bill of Rights, with little inZluence from any other source around the world. In August 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill made a further

contribution to national rights and obligations (and somewhat to human rights) when they released The Atlantic Charter. Six of the eight points they make in The Atlantic Charter concern national interests following World War II and the other two points allow only for peoples to choose their own form of government and to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance. (Roosevelt and Churchill) It can be argued that these points were really allowing for the spread of democracy and an increase in trade, both of which would beneZit Americas hegemony in world affairs. Besides spurring the debate for a code of human rights, the World Wars also

increased persecution. When national boundaries in Europe and around the world (from the decline of imperialism) were redrawn after the war, ethnic and cultural lines were not always considered. With this policy, many countries became ruled by one ethnic majority with one or more small minorities being persecuted or vice versa. Examples of this include Bosnia (and other countries that were part of the former Yugoslavia), Sudan, Rwanda, Israel, and Iraq. These countries have played host to some of the greatest abominations of human rights since World War II. If Americans (and other Western powers) were so enamored and conZident with their sometimes oblivious and not yet mature views on human rights, it might have been wise to extensively research regions before redrawing the map after World War II. When the United Nations came into existence after World War II, it was meant to be

a more potent version of Wilsons League of Nations, this time with the support of the

Digre 4

United States; in fact, almost all control over the United Nations was granted to the United States. The United Nations became a place for nations to resolve their grievances en masse and not on the battleZield. The mere creation of the United Nations was a bigger step for the advancement of human rights than any other speciZic time in history because any war that has taken place since its formation has not been on the scale of the World Wars which decimated entire countries and took many civilian lives. The United Nations constant deliberation created an informal assurance that peoples lives will not be taken or their homeland destroyed; in turn, this created an arbitrary expectation of peace for countries to uphold for their citizens. The United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on

December 10, 1948. The thirty articles of this document were based largely on American ideals of the time and show great inZluence from the Bill of Rights, other articles of the United States Constitution, and Roosevelts Four Freedoms. These similarities are apparent in the introduction of the Declaration where it is written, 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. But who were these common people? The Declaration aimed to provide a more comprehensive set of rights applicable to the entire world, but the fact still remained that the majority of member states of the United Nations were Western powers. The Declaration was even passed without the support of the Soviet Union and its allies as well as Saudi Arabia and South Africa (Gaddis 160) -- a sizeable population not voting for the Declaration. Although the Declaration showed

Digre 5

little consideration for developing countries, the Declaration provided a framework for the world to follow to ensure that the mass-genocide that took place during the Holocaust did not occur in the future. Perhaps at no other time in history (other than when the atrocities of the Holocaust

were discovered) have human rights held such a concrete position in global society. Part of President Obamas massively popular 2008 presidential campaign focused on his thoughts about equal human rights and a war fought in a justiZied manner. He has made these items a forefront of his international policy and related some of his ideas on them during the speech he gave to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. He stated, America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons. (Obama) And yet, when one looks at this architecture, none of the goals stated by President Obama were effectively accomplished. President Obama gives reasons why this may be when he says that total wars developed in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred and because evil does exist in the world and wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. (Obama) Because of these reasons, the concept of a just war emerged, suggesting that war is justiZied only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. (Obama) Using this deZinition of a just war, Americas prominent place in shaping the creation and enforcement of human rights codes may be faltering because of several violations of this deZinition, most notably the Iraq War and other incidents in the Middle East.

Digre 6

More and more, we all confront difZicult questions about how to prevent the

slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. (Obama) These difZicult questions are increasingly being answered by individuals around the world instead of Western governments. These individuals and the private organizations they have founded have placed sanctions (even if not always ofZicial) on countries today for violations of human rights, just as sanctions are placed on countries such as North Korea and Iran for not following the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty. For example, before the 2008 Beijing Olympics threatening a boycott, protestors around the world fought for China to reevaluate and change its policies regarding Tibet. These groups also lobby Sub-Saharan governments to increase their response to the AIDS epidemic which kills a great number of people every year. These individuals actions have encouraged stronger responses on human rights issues from other governments, including Americas. President Obama said, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail and ...sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door. (Obama) These statements seem to place more importance on diplomacy than other tactics to enforce human rights. The increased use of diplomacy means a more globalized resolution rather than sheer enforcement when a rule is broken which previously had been the norm. President Obamas Nobel Acceptance Speech bears some similarity to Mikhail

Gorbachevs United Nations Address which also contained themes of human rights. Today we have entered an era when progress will be based on the interests of all mankind.

Digre 7

Consciousness of this requires that world policy, too, should be determined by the priority of the values of all mankind. (Gorbachev) This passage is just as valid today as it was in 1988 because as Fareed Zakaria argues in The Post American World, America is losing its superpower status just as the Soviet Union was at the time of Gorbachevs speech. Therefore it makes sense when President Obama says, We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we Zight to defend and if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something and thats why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. (Obama) These thoughts by President Obama demonstrate his views on the future of Americas minimized role in the enforcement of human rights. Although Americas future involvement appears that it may be minimized, there has

been some counter-reaction to President Obamas stance for increased international involvement. Nicholas Kristof criticizes President Obama for his lack of action in Sudans Darfur region when he says, when a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, its time to review [Mr. Obamas] policy. (Kristof) Besides gaining criticism, a minimal American involvement approach has gained traction in the United Nations as exempliZied by Jean Bricmont in the Interactive Dialogue on Responsibility to Protect meeting when he said, if it was also true that the twenty-Zirst century needed a new United Nations, it did not need one that legitimized such interventions by novel arguments, but one that at least gave moral support to those who tried to construct a world less dominated by the United States and its allies. (Interactive Dialogue) The very basics of a new architecture are developing within the United Nations to focus on a more globalized enforcement of human rights with The United Nations

Digre 8

Human Rights Council, which is largely in control of enforcement the many violations in human rights detected. Just as the thoughts on mans inherent nature have evolved, so have the thoughts on

human rights and justiZied warfare. After World War II, America was extremely inZluential in creating the current world system to deal with human rights issues, but as we have seen, events such as The Iraq War have been slowly dismantling Americas supremacy over human rights enforcement. This dismantling along with the shift in ideas imposed by President Obama point to a future where human rights codes are developed and enforced by a more globalized order representative of more than just Western powers. Although Americas role is still the most powerful in the world, there is certainly movement towards a minimized American role and more globalized human rights enforcement.

Digre 9

Works Cited Gaddis, John. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin, 2007. Print.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. United Nations Address to the 43rd General Assembly New York, NY. 7 December 1988.

Kristof, Nicholas D. Obama Backs Down on Sudan New York Times: 22 April 2010.

Obama, Barack. Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. Oslo City Hall, Oslo, Norway. 10 December 2009. Roosevelt, Franklin. The 1941 State of the Union Address (The Four Freedoms). United States Capitol, Washington, DC. 6 January 1941.

Roosevelt, Franklin and Churchill, Winston. The Atlantic Charter. 14 August 1941

UN General Assembly. Interactive Dialogue on Responsibility to Protect (AM). 23 July 2009

UN General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 10 December 1948

Zakaria, Fareed. The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 2009. Print.