In our debates of international affairs we often encounter what I see as a sad reality. That is to say the when it comes to governmental protection for human rights in the general population the world is a hardly uniform.

It is easy to list countries large and small that form a span of widespread oppression.

From the relatively low-level offenders like France to the mid-level trouble spots like Russia up to higher level concerns in China or Burma and the extreme distress in North Korea.

The progression of human rights violations correlates roughly with the "acceptance" level among governments in the "free world" with could be considered "free" of nation wide human rights abuse.

One problem as I see it is determining what threshold at which the free world should treat the leadership of such nations as legitimate partners in global decision making.

It seems to me that right at that middle level (the line Russia is straddling for instance) human rights violations begin to infringe on the legitimacy of a government. In a country with no free press how are we to deal with "elected" president's.

Even worse are the outright mockeries like China's government which could not be called freely elected by any stretch of the imagination.

These questions have grave implications in all areas of policy. In the middle east the vast majority of government deny their people's fundamental freedoms.

So what has this to do with "Principles and Personal Philosophy," you might ask?


In philosophical terms, rather than political.

What is the acceptable level of nation-wide human rights abuses?

At what point should the free world begin to treat guilty governments as rogue states not fit for full diplomatic relations?

Can human rights abuses such as those in France be tolerated?

Can Russia's? what of other governments guilty of instututionalized human rights abuse?

Is the concept of fundamental freedoms worthy of universal application?

For those who insist on a definition of "fundamental freedoms" let's start with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I have read your comments and I have one major question, why did not include the US in offender nations? Surely the Patriot Act is an assault on the human rights of the Average American may he be legal or illegal. The lack of affordable health care is the number one offense in the list of human rights abuses which the US engages in each day.

As the working poor and the middle class are being squeezed out the health care system. Yes, they can use medical assistance and other charitable choses how ever this does not address the root cause of the problems. People on fixed incomes and those who are trapped in a cycles of poverty that our economic system seems not necessary to address. When anyone comments about the situations in other countries they must be careful because the US has many problems not addressed this Administration Right refuses to acknowledge.

I knew this question in general would come up though the particular points you've chosen are interesting ones.

I will deal with the particulars first.

1. Although the Patriot Act is an expansion of powers beyond what we are accustomed to in the United States it does not violate either the US constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by nature of its text. US domestic security provisions actually remain rather mild compared to the legal powers of many European nations above repute.

In application the US government may deny due process on occasion (take Jose Padilla for example). This is not a matter of law and the victim has redress. Either the practice is neither widespread nor institutionalized.

2. The United States has less affordable health care than I would like, but the fact remains that basic (sometimes very basic) care is available to anyone regardless of their financial circumstances.

Emergency care providers are legally obligated to care for patients regardless of income.


Problems, yes.

Widespread institutionalized human rights violations against its citizenry?

No.

That why the US wasn't on the list.

What is the acceptable level of nation-wide human rights abuses?

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." - This is what we are doing right now with our "detainees" - correct?

The point I am making here is that, though noble in the declaration, every nation on earth is guilty of at least, as you say "mid-level" abuses of some kind- and it is difficult, if not impossible to enforce these "rights" on another country, without risk of actually excacerbating the problem! We can be considered one of the worst- not for abuses IN OUR COUNTRY- but who we have installed as dictators in other countries- Pinochet, Noriega, Shah of Iran, Saddam and on and on and on- so, it is very hard for a goverment that lives in a glass house to cast stones-

To answer the question- to me, there is no acceptable level- however, the only goverment I have any minute, small, almost miniscule influence over is my own, so, I can not see worrying about other countries abuses until I have seen my own countries house in order.




At what point should the free world begin to treat guilty governments as rogue states not fit for full diplomatic relations?

This is a very, very difficult question- China is a great example- okay, we have what we consider, by the definitions posted, of human rights abuses for a couple thousand years in that society- it is part of the society itself- what is the best way to "encourage" them to stop- to we all turn our backs on them, possibly creating a more xenophobic, isolative state, such as North Korea, or do we "encourage" them by helping them elevate thier standard of living to the point where the middle class takes over goverment?

I ask the question, because I don't know which really works better, but I don't think China is LESS free of human rights abuses than before it started down the road to modernization, with help from the west.

Can human rights abuses such as those in France be tolerated?

I would say that is practically a silly question- France is no less a human rights abuser than the US- they may be worse at one thing, but we may be worse at another. Even considering that somehow ANY western nation is some how a human rights abuser while the US is a beacon to the whole world of freedom is downright ignorant. Remember- blacks used to run to France to avoid the racist American policies- and Racism is still a major component of our justice system- how do we critisize them when we can, and sometimes are, far worse? Can we tolerate ourselves?

Can Russia's? what of other governments guilty of instututionalized human rights abuse?

Woo- Russia, possibly one of the most complex and intrasient societies in the modern world. It is tough to say- my observations about Russia is they really don't care what the rest of the world thinks or does- they just use them to line thier pockets (Russian politicians) as best as possible, and otherwise ignore the outside world. They are like a turtle country- they just pull back into thier shell. It is ingrained into thier society, Peter the Great was the first Czar to even venture out his own country!

Putin is classic Russian in nearly every sense- and I watch Russian TV every day via satelite (for my wife of course LOL)- and what the western world is saying about Russian media is mostly bunk- it is no worse than US media, and no more slanted. It is just not corporate owned- and frankly, sometimes ours is the bigger violator here.

The Russian poeple, historically, have favored security over freedom, and respect a cruel and terrible ruler more than a soft and forgiving ruler- read thier history, and you will agree- what can the US do about it? Pretty much nothing- or the rest of the world for that matter.

Is the concept of fundamental freedoms worthy of universal application?

Absolutely, but in it's application, I think we, as a world society, have to mature quite a bit before it can be applied, and, long before "rogue" states are "brought into line"- western countries have to truly become an example of the "universal applicatioin"- and there is just too uneven an application of it, in supposed "free and enlightened" nations such as our own to start applying it to others.

It is a noble cause, and I support it - but we need to apply it to ourselves first!

What is the acceptable level of nation-wide human rights abuses?
On a national level, I think that the only acceptable level is zero - we should not accept our own governments' violations of any of these rights, temporary or expeient though the official justification may be.
On an international level, where we're deciding whether to apply sanctions or to attempt "regime change", I think the UDHR should be taken as a whole. Some of the rights defined there are more critical than others - to me, a temporary suspension of the right not to be detained without charge ("temproary" here means to me up to about a month, so Guantanamo is a flagrant violation to me) is not as bad as the widespread use of state-sanctioned torture and execution without due process of law. So the provisions of US law that permit Guantanamo to exist at all are bad - and should be condemned, and campaigned against - but they are not as bad as the kinds of things the Chinese government does to people it doesn't like.
In this, I applaud the attitude of organisations such as Amnesty International, which are careful to condemn all human rights abuses no matter where they occur. National governments tend to prefer to condemn other people's splinters and try to cover up their own planks.

At what point should the free world begin to treat guilty governments as rogue states not fit for full diplomatic relations?
I'm not sure. There is an argument that diplomatic relations and exertion of influence can have more effect to rehabilitate bad regimes than total isolation can.
I think the real problem here is that we tolerate one government because they have something we want (oil or mineral wealth, or some other strategic importance) and condemn another because they don't though both may be equally in violation of the UDHR.
Wherever we draw the line in the sand, I think it would be fairer, and more admirable externally, if we applied it consistently regardless of our own national or personal interest. Part of the problem we have at the moment with large sections of the Islamic world is the perception that we condemn the actions of people we don't like, but draw a veil over the same actions when we or our friends carry them out.

Can human rights abuses such as those in France be tolerated?[b]
I'm not sure why you have such a bee in your bonnet over France - I assume your concern stems from Article 18.

QUOTE

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

and the French laws on not permitting the wearing of religious garb (not specifically Muslim) in publicly-fuinded state schools.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder whether this is trumped by Article 26 clause 3:

QUOTE

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

i.e. French Muslims, while they do have to go to school (in line with Art. 26 cl. 1), do not have to go to the state-funded schools. They are free to organise themselves to fund free-access Muslim schools where the kids can wear whatever they like. This approach might be counter-productive to peace and harmony, but technically I can see how it might be argued that their fundamental rights are not being violated.
I'm not entirely comfortable with these French laws, but less because their are any kind of rights violation than because I think they'll be counter productive. They certainly go against the spirit of the UDHR, if not (perhaps) the letter.
But to answer your question, I think that the alleged French abuses can be tolerated, and probably should be, if only to continue to exert productive influence on them to withdraw the from the abuses.
An argument could also be made on the issue of capital punishment - I can see an absolute right to life, liberty and security of person, but I can't see anything that could be construed to permit CP. This would notionally place the USA in violation of a more fundamental (the single most fundamental) human right than France is. Just because a majority of the population of the US supports that violation doesn't make it acceptable, does it? If it does, doesn't popular French support for their laws on religious dress justify their violation?
My point is not to defend the French or condemn the USA. My point is that it could easily be argued that BOTH countries are (arguably) in violation, and that our first priority as free world voters must be to sort out the countries we have direct control over - our own. We should not tolerate ANY violation being carried out in our name.

[b]Can Russia's? what of other governments guilty of instututionalized human rights abuse?
There needs to be a (consistently applied) line in the sand where abuses beyond the line mean international pariah status. I am not sure where that line should be, but my gut says that routine and institutionalised violations that cause actual physical harm to anyone cross this notional line.
I'd say that temporary severe, or permanent moderate, infringements to the way people live their lives. For example, suspensions of or restrictions on their education, religious expression, or trade union rights are less reprehensible than physical incarceration, torture or execution (with or without due process)
But how long does an abuse need to go on before it becomes institutionalised. A month? A year? Ten years?

Is the concept of fundamental freedoms worthy of universal application?
Yes. The biggest problem with the free world's attitude to the UDHR is that it is seen not as a set of hard-and-fast rules, but as a list of aspirations we can pick and choose from, both domestically and internationally. We have to realise that, sometimes, doing the right thing all the time means acting against our own self-interest. Too often we are only pious when were in the metaphorical confessional, and not when we're out in the real world.

Again, considered this and no.

Arbitrary mean without reason. Whether or not all of the Gitmo detainees are actually involved with Al-Qaeda that is what they are suspected of (US soldiers generally don't risk their "butts" rounding up random civilians) It is not arbitrary at all, though not equal to the process of the civilians legal system.

Again I'm sure the temptation to make this debate about the US is almost irresistible but the fact is even the lowest level offense I mentioned (France and it's Article 18 violation) is on an entirely different frame frame US policy.


Actually the UDHR list no right to be charged speedily, only that detention not be arbitrary.

Saddam Hussein was held without charge for far more than a month by necessity. I think this is likely true on many cases that have come before the Hague itself.

Guantanumo like it or not is not in and of itself a violation of human rights standards.

The people is Guantanumo are not criminals but participants in illegal warfare. They don't have a right to civilian trials. They are being afforded the right to military tribunals.


That would be a serious twisting of the article on parental choice. It is meant to say that non-state schools have the right to exist not to excuse violations by the state. The state is obligated to provide a basic degree of education because economic necessity dictates not all citizens can send their children to non-state schools. That children in state schools are not allowed their Article 18 right is a clear violation.


Taken this way Article 1 (in conjunction with Article 30) could be construed to disallow any imprisonment whatsoever.

These rights are afforded to law-abiding citizens and can be to some extent revoked by the "competent national tribunals" mentioned in Article 8.

One must remember that when the UDHR was adopted (1948) the vast majority (perhaps all I'd have to check) of UN states practiced capital punishment. It is was a bit of a foregone conclusion.

As to the rest of CR post I prefaced my question with a request for non political answers for a reason. I'm asking in terms of personal philosophy rather than practical consideration. We can make excuses for Russia state-dominated media and free speech suppression because its "The Russian Way" but it wouldn't be right.

Actually- my statement as to the media in Russia being more or less free than the US media, is definately open to debate- I see little difference between a corporate dominated media and a goverment dominated media- in fact, I definately see, with my own eyes, sometimes more frank and honest reporting on Russian TV than on American TV-

I still think it is somewhat US -centric to think that somehow we are less of a human rights violator than any other western nation- and, in fact, worse in many areas- but we, as Americans have a very myopic view of our little world, were everyone else is much worse and less free than us, and we beat our chest and declare how great we are.

To say that somehow any European country, taken as a whole, violates universal human rights more or less than us is plain ridiculous in the extreme, and more than a little bit of chest thumping patriotism, to the point of nationalism.

I don't think any nation in the EU still has the death penalty- I could be wrong- Turkey perhaps?

Anecdote are nice but the state of the Russian media is well documented.
RUSSIA DOWNGRADED TO “NOT FREE”
Russia has the absolute worst record in the West for political freedoms and they are moving backwards.


Frankly, I couldn't care less about nationalist considerations. If the US was acting like France or Russia I'd be the first in line the cast stones.

I follow the facts and the fact is the US (although far from perfect) is not a large-scale human rights violator.



They did when the UDHR was adopted and it was not judged to be a violation. Execution of convicted criminals is not a violation of basic human rights.

Whether it is good policy or not is another question, I personally don't believe it is but nations do have that option under international law and many continue to choose it.

The U.S. government has treated these leaders really well in the past. From east Timor, Iraq and Chile in the 70's and 80's to Uzekistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Sudan today, the American government has supplied support to corrupt regimes. This needs to stop if we expect to make progress. Also, I agree that progress must be made in this country, where gays are considered by some to be sub-human, and all Muslims are guility until proven innocent, not the other way around. We have out own problems and we must not hide from them. We must stand up for human rights and justice, that is how this nation will gain respect once more.