Concerning
(Image from buckfush.com)I've been thinking about politics a lot lately. And not just because that's what I study at Uni. I've been thinking about how I feel about certain issues. As my profile states, I've never really been sure about where I stand when it comes to Australian politics.
I've come to the conclusion that I must be a leftie. For some time, and without any real knowledge of party policy, I supported Howard's conservatives. Why? I can only say that most of my family favours them, and the limited things I knew about the Labor Party did not appeal to me. I was never a fan of Beazley, but it was only ever for superficial reasons. I admit that after George stole the 2000 election, I didn't mind him. But again, it was all superficial. It was the presidency itself that interested me. And my personal views on the actual issues had not yet formed to any real extent. Of course, those views will continue to alter and evolve with age, but right now, I feel incredibly left-wing - and proud of it. I wish I could describe myself as a 'liberal', but confusion surrounds that term in Australia. I have no idea why the Conservatives here are called the 'Liberal Party'. The word 'liberal', relates to left-wing attitudes. The Conservatives lean to the Right.
I'm currently reading The Last Crusade: The Politics of Misdirection by Barbara Victor (2005). It talks about the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the United States. It's a rise that she (and I) finds concerning. Traditionally, Christians - specifically Evangelical - carry right-wing political views (hence the term, the 'Christian Right'). There are currently 80 million Evangelical Christians in the US. They played a major part in elevating the vague Texan redneck, known as George, to the American presidency (and keeping him there).
Victor raised the following fact: the vast majority of those who describe themselves as 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) are, at the same time, supporters of the death penalty. They also oppose stem-cell research (something quite possibly able to save countless lives).
I'm not going to quote it directly because my knowledge of it is limited, but I am aware that the Bible (The Old Testament?) speaks about those who live by the sword shall die by it; and any man who sheds the blood of another's will have his blood shed too. I also understand that the Bible refers to the sin of a man who lies with another man.
The Bible also says: The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has any festering or running sores or damaged testicles." (Leviticus 21:16)
Why isn't the Bush Administration condemning the disabled of society? Why aren't they condemning people who wear glasses? George has reading glasses; Cheney wears glasses; Rumsfeld wears glasses; The Pope wears glasses; Howard wears glasses. They're everywhere! So are people with running sores! Help us! (I also understand the Bible looks down on the consumption of shell fish. And here we are in Australia, the home of the prawn!!)
All I'm saying is, please, let's keep an open mind. The Right should stop using the Bible in a selective manner, extracting sections that suit them and their views, many of which are backward. Church and State must remain separate. We should not be using the contents of an ancient Book as the basis for our laws. The Bible has been passed down over centuries, and we have no way of knowing how much or how little it has been altered.
posted by Anthony Stoddart @ 5:40 AM
7 Comments:
At Sat Aug 20, 09:14:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
ANthony who is the person who left such a weired comment?
r
At Mon Aug 22, 12:20:00 PM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
I wouldn't normally delete someone's comment, but I'm deleting that one from 'mandyerickson59758066'. Too lengthy and nonsensical.
At Wed Aug 24, 01:09:00 PM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
Moby's latest journal entry is interesting, and is related to my own entry.
In other news (but still political), Hillary Clinton's contender for next year's Senate elections will be Jeannine Pirro. Both women are lawyers, and both have previously-unfaithful husbands. Pirro's advantage is she is a native New Yorker.
It is vital for Hillary to win this election is she intends to run for president in 2008.
At Sat Aug 27, 12:31:00 AM,
Anonymous said…
I agree that religion and politics should be kept well separate. Different people's interpretations of the Bible are so wildly varied that any reference to it in politics is just propaganda. Baseless, out-of-context interpretations of the Bible are pathetic, and do not give credit to any political argument.
At Sat Aug 27, 09:38:00 AM,
Anthony Stoddart said…
Hear, hear!
At Wed Sep 21, 06:42:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Universal Human Rights became a particularly prominent international issue with the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It set a major precedent and remains highly relevant today. The end of the Cold War saw the rearrangement and alteration of a world order to which people had become so familiar. One of the evident features of the post-Cold War order was the re-prioritising of global issues, one of which was universal human rights. The 1990s was an important decade for human rights in general, not least because the consequences of the Soviet collapse resulted in the need for humanitarian missions. The newly-lone superpower, the United States, had a new, youthful leader in Bill Clinton who would, after initially addressing America’s domestic problems, regard human rights as a high priority for his country and for the world. Various initiatives taken after the Cold War are indicative of how important universal human rights had rapidly become. I shall argue that the 1990s signalled the peak of importance with which the international community held universal human rights to be, but that, post-September 11 – with a new US Administration and a major shift in many countries’ foreign policy – universal human rights occupy a significantly lower, less important place on the global agenda.
It is necessary to address the background to the notion of universal human rights before focusing on its level of importance post-Cold War. The notion of rights inextricably linked to humanity and universalism dates back to well before the United Nations formed its Declaration in 1948. Universal human rights are strongly linked with the concept of natural law, of which the most developed version has its roots in the Middle Ages (Brown 1999: 106). It is generally understood to be based on the intrinsically human pursuit of freedom and flourishing, inclusive of methods that distinguish sound thinking from unsound thinking (when dealing with human rights) and a set of fundamental moral standards applicable to all (Finnis [1980] cited in Brown 1999: 106). Chris Brown (1999: 107) believes natural law’s great advantage is that “if one has rights solely by virtue of one’s humanity, the fact that one happens to be the citizen of a tyrannical regime… no longer leaves one without intellectual resources, because the heart of a natural law perspective is precisely the assertion of universal right against local custom”. More recently, international human rights activism finds its historical links in the past campaigns for women’s rights (the ‘Suffragettes’) and the abolition of slavery (Keck and Sikkink 1998: ix).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formed in 1948 by the UN General Assembly, was a response to the vast human atrocities brought about by World War II and was signed by almost every state in the world (Brown 1999: 114; Chan 1995: 27). The Declaration set a major precedent in terms of outlining what was and what was not acceptable in internal regimes and sovereign countries (Brown 1999: 114). Its repercussions remain evident today, with “virtually all areas of the domestic structure of states… covered by some kind of international standard-setting” (Brown 1999: 114). However, as is the case with many agreements of this scale, the Declaration carries flaws that are difficult to resolve. One of the problems is found in the fact that the Declaration is not connected with a similar agreement that lays down the correct interpretation and implementation of the rights themselves (Chan 1995: 27). The other major problem relates to the actual enforcement of the human rights contained in the Declaration. Consequently, the degree of enforcement is largely determined by the specific foreign policy of the world’s major powers (Brown 1999: 115). This issue is not isolated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however. All international human rights legislation lack an effective system of enforcement, the reasons for which are that not enough states involved wish to see human rights actively enforced, and that some states (including those with general respect for universal human rights) are understandably unwilling to agree to global supervision (Brown 1999: 115). This is a fundamental problem because enforcement is one of the most vital elements determining the strength and relevance of an international universal human rights system.
The end of the Cold War provided an excellent opportunity for the reinvigoration of universal human rights. The 1990s contrasted to the 1970s and early 1980s, “when debate often focused on whether human rights should be an active foreign policy concern,… [rather than] which rights to emphasize [sic] particular cases” (Donnelly 1998: 15). The deep polarisation created by the war’s opposing ideologies – capitalism and communism - , and the determination of both sides to achieve superiority, resulted in a frequent disregard for human rights. During the Cold War period, “violations of human rights by the Enemy went unpunished because of its power, while violations by Friends were excused or justified on essentially strategic-diplomatic grounds” (Brown 1999: 115-16). Whether or not this opportunity to fully recognise and adhere to respect for universal human rights was taken total advantage of is still disputable. Chris Brown (1999: 116) believes that even after the Cold War, obstacles hampering the cause of universal human rights remains. He writes that the fact the international legal system is still based on the concept of state sovereignty means states are not going to willingly allow their policies to be constantly shaped by a neutral concern for human rights, and that their commercial and financial considerations significantly hamper any efforts to protect and uphold universal human rights (Brown 1999: 116). Nevertheless, the 1990s witnessed many events that signalled universal human rights as one of the defining issues of the decade.
For any issue to shape events that largely define an entire decade, it is almost imperative for the United States, as the planet’s most powerful and influential nation, to be closely involved. Bill Clinton’s America was undoubtedly a major reason why universal human rights became so important after the Cold War. Indeed, with the US having won the war, the course of the coming years was always going to be shaped by it primarily. It should be noted here also that the United States had the greatest effect on developments associated with universal human rights during the actual Cold War as well (Barnds 1995: 71). Though the initial years of the Clinton Administration were dedicated mostly to resolving domestic problems, the President announced in June 1993 that he would “seek Senate ratification for four international treaties signed by the US government in earlier decades but never ratified” (Barnds 1995: 81). Still very early in the presidency, this signalled an intent to make universal human rights a major priority of this new American government, which had taken office as the new post-Cold War order was still in the process of formation.
Politically and militarily, the 1990s will be largely remembered for its army-led humanitarian missions, launched in light of this new importance placed on universal human rights. The three major human rights missions were responses to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the collapse of centralised political authority in Somalia and the military rule in Haiti (Donnelly, 1998: 16). In Iraq, the United Nations set up security zones in the north to protect Iraqi Kurds against their own government; in Somalia, the UN launched huge humanitarian programs which saved hundreds of thousands from civil war and starvation; and in Haiti, the UN, the US and the Organisation of American States combined to place political and economic pressure (and the threat of armed intervention) on the military ruler (Donnelly 1998: 16). Additionally, post-Cold War peacekeeping operations undertaken by the UN have included those in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Northern Iraq, Mozambique, Bosnia, Croatia, Guatemala, Haiti and Rwanda, all of which carried either explicit or primarily human rights responsibilities (Donnelly 1998: 16). Jack Donnelly (1998), a well-known scholar in the field of human rights, believes that such missions “have been taken by many to suggest a qualitative transformation of the international politics of human rights in the 1990s” (Donnelly 1998: 17).
More evidence of the increase in importance of universal human rights post-Cold War was the rise of non-governmental human rights organisations and rights advocacy groups. These would become a significant and influential part of the international political landscape, particularly in the Third World and former Soviet bloc (Donnelly 1998: 15). Many of the human rights advocacy networks demonstrated their ability to “reach beyond policy change to advocate and instigate changes in the institutional and principled basis of international interactions” (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 2). This was vital considering the elevation of the importance of human rights in relation to the question of the power of modern institutions. The importance of protecting human rights was evident in a world consisting of power wielded by bureaucrats, the market and large industrial groups and enterprises (Chan 1995: 29). Indeed, the international community continues to be highly influenced by such entities. Observing their impact, Joseph Chan (1995) believes
“Traditional communities have either broken up or become too weak to protect powerless individuals from the invasion by these powerful institutions. Human rights are then instruments to ensure that individuals have something to fall back on to protect themselves in these situations” (Chan 1995: 29).
Such a case galvanises the argument in favour of strengthening and enforcing universal human rights, particularly today.
At Thu Sep 22, 02:29:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
Universal Human Rights became a particularly prominent international issue with the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It set a major precedent and remains highly relevant today. The end of the Cold War saw the rearrangement and alteration of a world order to which people had become so familiar. One of the evident features of the post-Cold War order was the re-prioritising of global issues, one of which was universal human rights. The 1990s was an important decade for human rights in general, not least because the consequences of the Soviet collapse resulted in the need for humanitarian missions. The newly-lone superpower, the United States, had a new, youthful leader in Bill Clinton who would, after initially addressing America’s domestic problems, regard human rights as a high priority for his country and for the world. Various initiatives taken after the Cold War are indicative of how important universal human rights had rapidly become. I shall argue that the 1990s signalled the peak of importance with which the international community held universal human rights to be, but that, post-September 11 – with a new US Administration and a major shift in many countries’ foreign policy – universal human rights occupy a significantly lower, less important place on the global agenda.
It is necessary to address the background to the notion of universal human rights before focusing on its level of importance post-Cold War. The notion of rights inextricably linked to humanity and universalism dates back to well before the United Nations formed its Declaration in 1948. Universal human rights are strongly linked with the concept of natural law, of which the most developed version has its roots in the Middle Ages (Brown 1999: 106). It is generally understood to be based on the intrinsically human pursuit of freedom and flourishing, inclusive of methods that distinguish sound thinking from unsound thinking (when dealing with human rights) and a set of fundamental moral standards applicable to all (Finnis [1980] cited in Brown 1999: 106). Chris Brown (1999: 107) believes natural law’s great advantage is that “if one has rights solely by virtue of one’s humanity, the fact that one happens to be the citizen of a tyrannical regime… no longer leaves one without intellectual resources, because the heart of a natural law perspective is precisely the assertion of universal right against local custom”. More recently, international human rights activism finds its historical links in the past campaigns for women’s rights (the ‘Suffragettes’) and the abolition of slavery (Keck and Sikkink 1998: ix).
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formed in 1948 by the UN General Assembly, was a response to the vast human atrocities brought about by World War II and was signed by almost every state in the world (Brown 1999: 114; Chan 1995: 27). The Declaration set a major precedent in terms of outlining what was and what was not acceptable in internal regimes and sovereign countries (Brown 1999: 114). Its repercussions remain evident today, with “virtually all areas of the domestic structure of states… covered by some kind of international standard-setting” (Brown 1999: 114). However, as is the case with many agreements of this scale, the Declaration carries flaws that are difficult to resolve. One of the problems is the fact that the Declaration is not connected with a similar agreement that lays down the correct interpretation and implementation of the rights themselves (Chan 1995: 27). In order for the Declaration to be significantly effective in the long-term, it is vital that a clear definition be agreed to by all of its signed members concerning what each right means and what expectations they bring. Obviously, however, the prospect of achieving a consensus in relation to interpretation and methods of implementation would be a strenuous and arguably impossible task. The other major problem relates to the actual enforcement of the human rights contained in the Declaration. Consequently, the degree of enforcement is largely determined by the specific foreign policy of the world’s major powers (Brown 1999: 115). This issue is not isolated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however. All international human rights legislation lack an effective system of enforcement, the reasons for which are that not enough states involved wish to see human rights actively enforced, and that some states (including those with general respect for universal human rights) are understandably unwilling to agree to global supervision (Brown 1999: 115). This is a fundamental problem because enforcement is one of the most vital elements determining the strength and relevance of an international universal human rights system.
The end of the Cold War provided an excellent opportunity for the reinvigoration of universal human rights. The 1990s contrasted to the 1970s and early 1980s, “when debate often focused on whether human rights should be an active foreign policy concern,… [rather than] which rights to emphasize [sic] in which particular cases” (Donnelly 1998: 15). The deep polarisation created by the war’s opposing ideologies – capitalism and communism - , and the determination of both sides to achieve superiority, resulted in a frequent disregard for human rights. During the Cold War period, “violations of human rights by the Enemy went unpunished because of its power, while violations by Friends were excused or justified on essentially strategic-diplomatic grounds” (Brown 1999: 115-16). Whether or not this opportunity to fully recognise and adhere to respect for universal human rights was taken total advantage of is still disputable. Chris Brown (1999: 116) believes that even after the Cold War, obstacles hampering the cause of universal human rights remain. He writes that the fact the international legal system is still based on the concept of state sovereignty means states are not going to willingly allow their policies to be constantly shaped by a neutral concern for human rights, and that their commercial and financial considerations significantly hamper any efforts to protect and uphold universal human rights (Brown 1999: 116). Nevertheless, the 1990s witnessed many events that signalled universal human rights as one of the defining issues of the decade.
For any issue to shape events that largely define an entire decade, it is almost imperative for the United States, as the planet’s most powerful and influential nation, to be closely involved. Bill Clinton’s America was undoubtedly a major reason why universal human rights became so important after the Cold War. Indeed, with the US having won the war, the course of the coming years was always going to be shaped, primarily, by that country. It should be noted here also that the United States had the greatest effect on developments associated with universal human rights during the actual Cold War as well (Barnds 1995: 71). Though the initial years of the Clinton Administration were dedicated mostly to resolving domestic problems, the President announced in June 1993 that he would ask the Senate to ratify four international treaties that had been signed by the US government in earlier decades but which it had never properly ratified (Barnds 1995: 81). Still very early in the presidency, this signalled an intent to make universal human rights a major priority of this new American government, which had taken office as the new post-Cold War order was still in the process of formation.
Politically and militarily, the 1990s will be largely remembered for its army-led humanitarian missions, launched in light of this new importance placed on universal human rights. The three major human rights missions were responses to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the collapse of centralised political authority in Somalia and the military rule in Haiti (Donnelly, 1998: 16). In Iraq, the United Nations set up security zones in the north to protect Iraqi Kurds against their own government; in Somalia, the UN launched huge humanitarian programs which saved hundreds of thousands from civil war and starvation; and in Haiti, the UN, the US and the Organisation of American States combined to place political and economic pressure (and the threat of armed intervention) on the military ruler (Donnelly 1998: 16). Additionally, post-Cold War peacekeeping operations undertaken by the UN have included those in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Northern Iraq, Mozambique, Bosnia, Croatia, Guatemala, Haiti and Rwanda, all of which carried either explicit or primarily human rights responsibilities (Donnelly 1998: 16). Jack Donnelly (1998), a well-known scholar in the field of human rights, believes that such missions “have been taken by many to suggest a qualitative transformation of the international politics of human rights in the 1990s” (Donnelly 1998: 17).
More evidence of the increase in importance of universal human rights post-Cold War was the rise of non-governmental human rights organisations and rights advocacy groups. These would become a significant and influential part of the international political landscape, particularly in the Third World and former Soviet bloc (Donnelly 1998: 15). Many of the human rights advocacy networks demonstrated their ability to not only affect policy direction but also to “advocate and instigate changes in the institutional and principled basis of international interactions” (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 2). This was vital considering the elevation of the importance of human rights in relation to the question of the power of modern institutions. The importance of protecting human rights was evident in a world consisting of power wielded by bureaucrats, the market and large industrial groups and enterprises (Chan 1995: 29). Indeed, the international community continues to be highly influenced by such entities. Observing their impact, Joseph Chan (1995) believes
“Traditional communities have either broken up or become too weak to protect powerless individuals from the invasion by these powerful institutions. Human rights are then instruments to ensure that individuals have something to fall back on to protect themselves in these situations” (Chan 1995: 29).
Such a case galvanises the argument in favour of strengthening and enforcing universal human rights, particularly today.
In addressing the question of the importance of universal human rights post-Cold War, it is appropriate to break the post-Cold War era into two categories – pre-September 11 and post-September 11. My argument is that the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 led to a significant re-prioritising within the US government, which resulted in international preoccupation with terrorism and, hence, a new place for universal human rights advocacy at the lower end of the global agenda. Of course, the threat of terrorism had been major focus for America prior to September 11 (i.e. the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing; the Oklahoma City bombing; and the USS Cole attack), but after it, US foreign policy would be re-shaped in such a way that meant universal human rights would not only lose its post-Cold War importance but become frequently neglected as well. The United States, as the world’s superpower, has the ability – and the obligation, as some might argue – to keep check on any human rights violations committed by governments worldwide (and to intervene, as it did on a number of occasion during the 1990s). It also has, not least of all due to its contractual membership of the Universal Declaration, to uphold human rights in its own domestic domain.
Post a Comment
<< Home