I wrote this last night and it was well past midnight and as usual I couldnt get myself to fall
asleep so decided to jot down some of my thoughts since I had nothing
better to do .... so excuse my unorganized randomness:
We are all passing travelers of this vast planet we call Earth, departing with nothing but mere impressions and memories of our existence for the generations yet to come. The real question though, is what good any of that did? Have the proceeding generations been any better or are they moving along in the shadows of the past? Johann Huizinga, a Dutch historian, once said that “History is the intellectual form in which civilization renders account to itself of its past”. Therefore, simply put, history is what mankind has provided or left behind overtime. Having said that, it is our job or rather it is our duty to learn from the faults of our predecessors and make sure the mistakes of the past do not highlight themselves in the present and future.
Among the darkest of these shadows is not being able to abide by one simple code of conduct: equal and fair access to a fundamental right which was ours to keep the day we step foot in this world. Everyday hundreds and thousands of people across the globe are facing violations of human rights; which sadly seems to be a recurring theme throughout history. As the term suggests, human right is the “right that someone enjoys in virtue of being a human being”. This then raises the great question of whether or not the above mentioned human rights can be endorsed globally and universally. In other words, can there exist a human right that is universally applicable to all walks of life regardless of their nationality, race, ethnicity, culture, religion or even gender? As individual human beings we all share the natural right to life, liberty and property as introduced to us by John Locke. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Sadly it is almost never as simple as it sounds.
So back to this notion of humanitarian intervention which is open for deliberation. On the one hand human rights are grossly being violated while the world conveniently turns an eye that can’t be any blinder. On the other hand, some have posed the argument that intervening by means of using threat or force is a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Convenient isn’t it!!
In every situation, there are certain instances where the arising of a conflict between the national interest and human rights is inevitable. It is only all too optimistic to think that the world could be rid of racism or discrimination. Some of these situations may be predictable where as others may take you by surprise. For example, no one could predict that the Chinese government would have such a strong reaction to the American Olympic gold medallist Joey Cheek supporting the war against Darfur, yet it did happen. Is it possible to conceive of human rights being part of a country’s national interest? Yes. How likely is it for that to be the case in actuality? Not very likely.
Yes I went a little off course there with the last point; my mind tends to steer in all direction when I have a thought stewing up in that brain of mine. Moving back on track ...... it seems that more often than not humanitarian intervention is effective very selectively. The only way for nations to entertain the very idea of intervention is for there to be a specific and profitable interest in the matter and/or a situation where there is not likely to be dispute or dissent among the powerful. Basically we are talking about a greatly broadcasted event of utmost chaos and dissolution. For any other case holding a summit pretending to care and help or having lengthy discussions with no effective action is good enough. Ladies and gentlemen welcome to humanitarian deliberation, a new kind of intervention where emphasis is on the it’s the thought that counts!!!
We are all passing travelers of this vast planet we call Earth, departing with nothing but mere impressions and memories of our existence for the generations yet to come. The real question though, is what good any of that did? Have the proceeding generations been any better or are they moving along in the shadows of the past? Johann Huizinga, a Dutch historian, once said that “History is the intellectual form in which civilization renders account to itself of its past”. Therefore, simply put, history is what mankind has provided or left behind overtime. Having said that, it is our job or rather it is our duty to learn from the faults of our predecessors and make sure the mistakes of the past do not highlight themselves in the present and future.
Among the darkest of these shadows is not being able to abide by one simple code of conduct: equal and fair access to a fundamental right which was ours to keep the day we step foot in this world. Everyday hundreds and thousands of people across the globe are facing violations of human rights; which sadly seems to be a recurring theme throughout history. As the term suggests, human right is the “right that someone enjoys in virtue of being a human being”. This then raises the great question of whether or not the above mentioned human rights can be endorsed globally and universally. In other words, can there exist a human right that is universally applicable to all walks of life regardless of their nationality, race, ethnicity, culture, religion or even gender? As individual human beings we all share the natural right to life, liberty and property as introduced to us by John Locke. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Sadly it is almost never as simple as it sounds.
So back to this notion of humanitarian intervention which is open for deliberation. On the one hand human rights are grossly being violated while the world conveniently turns an eye that can’t be any blinder. On the other hand, some have posed the argument that intervening by means of using threat or force is a direct violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Convenient isn’t it!!
In every situation, there are certain instances where the arising of a conflict between the national interest and human rights is inevitable. It is only all too optimistic to think that the world could be rid of racism or discrimination. Some of these situations may be predictable where as others may take you by surprise. For example, no one could predict that the Chinese government would have such a strong reaction to the American Olympic gold medallist Joey Cheek supporting the war against Darfur, yet it did happen. Is it possible to conceive of human rights being part of a country’s national interest? Yes. How likely is it for that to be the case in actuality? Not very likely.
Yes I went a little off course there with the last point; my mind tends to steer in all direction when I have a thought stewing up in that brain of mine. Moving back on track ...... it seems that more often than not humanitarian intervention is effective very selectively. The only way for nations to entertain the very idea of intervention is for there to be a specific and profitable interest in the matter and/or a situation where there is not likely to be dispute or dissent among the powerful. Basically we are talking about a greatly broadcasted event of utmost chaos and dissolution. For any other case holding a summit pretending to care and help or having lengthy discussions with no effective action is good enough. Ladies and gentlemen welcome to humanitarian deliberation, a new kind of intervention where emphasis is on the it’s the thought that counts!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment