Western
Double Standards
And The New United Nations
Human Rights Council
By Anthony Ravlich
13 March, 2006
Countercurrents.org
While the United States is holding up the formation of the new United
Nations Human Rights Council because it wishes to exclude States with
poor human rights records the double standards of many Western democracies
are overlooked.
The US Ambassador John Bolton,
backed by a small minority of States, are challenging the draft proposal,
presented by the President of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson. The
proposal will (potentially) form the basis for the new UN Human Rights
Council. However the US wants to see greater power to exclude countries
they consider to have poor human rights records. These could include
such countries as Zimbabwe, Sudan, Lybia, Cuba, and North Korea.
For instance, to achieve
this the Americans want members of the council to be elected by a two-thirds
vote, not the “absolute majority” (96 votes in a 191-member
General Assembly), to keep rights abusers out.
But putting this into perspective
during the recent Open-Ended Working Groups discussions on whether to
draft an Optional Protocol for the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (a complaints procedure for those suffering
social injustice) which could be of assistance the bulk of humanity
who live in poverty countries such as the US, Australia, the UK, Canada
and India have opposed the drafting of the Optional Protocol. These
countries prioritize civil and political rights thereby marginalizing
economic, social and cultural right rights, and in the case of the US
this is to the point of exclusion. The US is the only industrialized
country not to have ratified the covenant on economic, social and cultural
rights under international law.
However it is debatable,
for example, to what degree torture, imprisonment without trial etc
(civil and political rights) compared to a lifetime involving a desperate
struggle for survival by the poor (economic, social and cultural rights)
equate in terms of seriousness. Also it must be recognized that those
imprisoned without trial, tortured etc are small in numbers compared
to those living in extreme poverty. But suffice to say that the United
Nations has constantly maintained, at least in terms of rhetoric, that
civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights
are of equal status (Vienna Declaration, 1993) so States should not
prioritize either set of rights yet typically the West, at the domestic
level, only define human rights as civil and political rights.
What is rarely ever discussed is the reasons for prioritizing civil
and political rights. Paul Hunt, presently the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Health, quoted ‘the great (African) jurist’,
Chief Justice Dumbutshena of Zimbabwe, who delivered a speech at the
1990 Commonwealth Law Conference when he referred to the political nature
of human rights in the West. He stated: “Human rights is an ideology
used to achieve power. It has been used hypocritically by the middle
classes, in efforts to protect only their own rights (Human Rights –
How are they Best Protected, ed Paul Hunt, publisher New Zealand Human
Rights Commission, Dec 1999).
In essence there appears to be three human rights areas which reflect
Western double standards:
1) Civil liberties are supposed to be universal however the poor would
have a minimum of such rights when compared to those of the more powerful
and wealthy elite – liberal, middle class, professionals who exercise
so much control over the media, parliament, the work force and, in fact,
society as a whole. Without sufficient civil liberties and faced with
a large gap between rich and poor the latter can be left virtually powerless.
In my view powerlessness is just as undesirable as poverty or, framed
in another way, ‘freedom’ is just as important as ‘food’.
2) While the liberal elite promote democracy it will not relinquish
control of the human rights agenda to the people. For instance, New
Zealand is only one of 14 countries to have written a national action
plan for human rights. This includes economic, social and cultural rights
however none of the political parties have adopted these human rights
(i.e. they do not define social justice in human rights terms) and the
liberal press will only very rarely mention them. Without this information
these rights were not an issue in our recent elections. The result is
elite control not people control.
3) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often used as the authority
for liberal rights (i.e. only civil and political rights) but this document
cannot be used as an authority when economic, social and cultural rights
are subject to exclusion from human rights law. For instance, the preamble
of New Zealand’s Human Rights Act 1993 refers to being “in
general accordance with the United Nations Covenants or Conventions
on Human Rights” and the preamble to the New Zealand Bill of Rights
Act 1990 states “To affirm New Zealand’s commitment to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” however
both Acts only include civil and political rights. While section 5(a)
of the HRA 1993 does require the Human Rights Commission to educate
people in economic, social and cultural rights the Commission admits
that successive governments have failed to fund this. In addition social
origins are excluded as a ground for non-discrimination (although it
is included in the covenant on civil and political rights). It would
be more accurate to base these Acts on our common law inherited from
Britain or even the American constitution (which only deals with civil
and political rights) but references in the Acts to the United Nations
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be justified in
my view.
It seems America is taking the same political view of human rights in
the debate on the new United Nations Human Rights Council. America is
obviously averse to authoritarian regimes who can also be violators
civil and political rights. By the same token some of these countries
under the banner of Asian Values can prioritize economic, social and
cultural rights. However there seems to be no more reason to exclude
or discriminate against such countries than it is to exclude those that
prioritize civil and political rights. In fact it will encourage the
continued marginalization of economic, social and cultural rights at
a time when social justice have become a major global concern.
Rather than placing too much
emphasis on exclusion from the new United Nations Human Rights Council
it would be better in my view to set a good example. Those countries
(of which New Zealand is one) which promote the equal status of two
sets of rights should be regarded as Peace Makers and given a special
role to play on the Council. This may encourage countries to take a
more balanced view of human rights.
Anthony Ravlich
Chairperson
Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand)
10D / 15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
[email protected]