The Future of Human Rights: “Building Rome*”
JAMES JOHNSON
There is no doubt, when looking back on the 20th century that significant progress has been made in the creation and promulgation of a human rights regime. The issue (as it has been stated so often) is that of state sovereignty when looking forward to the future of human rights in the 21st century and beyond. While reading the article written by Gary Bass about the inherent ignoring of human rights violations by China when they deal with international actors, reminds us when push comes to shove, it is the state that has the final say in international politics (Human Rights Last, 2011) One must ask, then: is an evolution of the international system occurring; moving the focus from the Westphalian model to a more individual-centric, universal human rights model? Also, if this movement is occurring, is it a strictly Western phenomena being imposed upon less-developed states as a form of “New Imperialism (Doyle, 2012)?”
Overall, the interviews Bass conducted and portrayed in his article allow a glimpse into the leadership of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), to which this reader was particularly disturbed. The type of realpolitik practiced is unsurprising, however, when looking at China’s track record over the past twenty years (Foote, 2000). By supporting notorious human rights abusers like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, al-Bashir in Sudan, and Ahmadinejad in Iran, China reinforces a system much like what the United States had during the Cold War; it is imperialistic in the sense that these leaders are being propped up and even aided for the sake of Chinese commerce (Bass, 2011). The main defense these leaders put forward to answer Bass’s questions were, essentially, ‘we need the resources and these countries happen to have them,’ as well as ‘well, the West does the same thing.’ The problem with this type of thought is that it ignores the aforementioned advancement of human rights and simply confirms what Freeman calls “universal rhetoric, not action (2011)” It also allows for the continuation of a human rights abuses with little effort put towards remedial action, despite these leaders’ insistence otherwise.
After such implacable actions taken by the Chinese and the pessimistic view of imperialist motives behind human rights, how can one move beyond the realization that sovereignty truly is the dominant force in international politics? This question is answered well in the bickering match between Jack Donnelly and Michael Goodhart (2006, 2008; 2008). Rather than focusing on whether human rights should be viewed in a universal or relative manner, these authors take a unique approach at showing how these rights are either both relative and universal (Donnelly) or neither (Goodhart). As my space allotted is quite minimal, I will skip argument in its entirety and sum it up. Both articles focus on the fact of an over-arching theme of human rights acting as a guarding mechanism against the new standard threats imposed by modernity (Donnelly, 2007). This modernity is represented by the expansion of liberal economics to all corners of the world and the occurrence of bureaucratic governance as a standard, not the exception, in the international system.
The argument by Goodhart is particularly enticing when he talks about needing to understand the disparity between “universality and [actual] reality (2008).” Much like the words of Freeman, he is arguing that there is a great deal of rhetoric occurring in the defense of human rights. It is not cheap talk though, but rather a form of consensus by the vast majority of people that human rights are necessary for a life of dignity through challenging those that might abuse their power.
To draw back to the Bass article, what these authors are insinuating is that with the benefits of modernity as well as the continual spread of human rights (albeit, an agonizingly slow, drawn out spread), it is the individual, not the state, who wields the real power in this relationship. This is shown, especially, in Bass’s brief reflection of China’s support of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe when he says: “China stands to alienate generations of ordinary Zimbabweans, not to mention the millions of other Africans looking on helplessly from outside.” The power of the individuals can also be seen in the Colour Revolutions that took place in the early 2000s in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, the Arab Spring that is continuing in the Middle East (the impacts of which are yet to be determined), and even in the recent protests of Russian citizens to “Putinism.”
This cautiously optimistic argument is also prevalent in Thomas Franck’s article, which discusses whether personal freedom (and essentially human rights as a whole) is a Western value (1997). The emphasis on freedom of conscience is essential for Franck as he discusses its historical evolution into the personal freedoms represented in most contemporary liberal societies. The ability of this liberalism to spread is due to the “free market of ideas” that allow a society and culture to fluctuate as it must to adapt to the changing nature of the world; especially a world that is as fast-paced and laden with culturally penetrating features as it contemporarily is.
By looking at the power of the individual and acknowledging a consensus that reaches beyond cultural relativity, one cannot ignore what many would regard as overly optimistic view for a bolstered future human rights regime. It must be stressed that this will not be an overnight transition nor will it be smooth. Instead, countless humans will suffer at the hands of regimes supported by powerful states until a certain point is finally reached. This point can be furthered along and aided by individuals in protest, NGOs, and sympathetic state governments either unilaterally, bilaterally, or through international organizations. The solidification of human rights as a defensive mechanism for the individual moving forward is, therefore, essential.
*Partial credit must be given to Henk van Zuilen for collaborating to come up with this ingenious title
The international system has shifted to put more of an emphasis on human rights. Arguably, a combination of the first and second images (the individual and domestic regimes) as outline by Waltz (1954) have gained a greater place in the functioning of states over the last few decades.
Yet while I would agree that the voice of the individual has grown to unprecedented levels, I would remain highly sceptical of any suggestion that ‘it is the individual, not the state, who wields the real power in this relationship’. In terms of the decision making, the international system currently promotes a state-centric model. The influence of domestic groups, which are ultimately comprised of individuals plays a major role in influencing state decisions. Yet even in democracies (more obviously in autocracies) there is often a major gap between foreign policy decisions and the opinion of the majority of individuals.
James observes that ‘China reinforces a system much like what the United States had during the Cold War’. It is inaccurate to argue that over the past twenty years China has supported a system any different to that of the US, in this regard other than in Rhetoric. As Bass notes, China may fall into the ‘trap that America fell into during — and even after — the Cold War’ of supporting brutal dictators.
The interesting difference, which almost commands respect for its frankness, is that China openly acts in its own self-interest, irrespective of normative concerns. China is more consistent in that it does not promote human rights standards internationally while maintaining a monstrous gap between its domestic and foreign policy on human rights. This raises an interesting question, To what extent has the promotion of human rights internationally by the US been affected by its own inconsistency in its foreign policy?
It is hard to see the connection between imperialistic motives and the denial of human rights. It is unclear how the two are directly related. It has largely been argued that China has not shown much imperialist ambition (Irish Times Aug 26 2011, Superpower on the rise).
To respond to the second question, this may reflect whether or not one views human rights as universal or not. If viewed as universal it seems illogical to view the promotion of human rights internationally as a western phenomena. Ultimately what may answer this question is a measure of the level of support for universal human rights standards by individuals in non-western countries. This said, ultimately, I would agree with James’ point of the progressions of human rights, and that the future looks bright, for human rights.