Socialization of Human Rights

             The concept of socializing human rights into a one size fits all model seems flawed for the current state of world politics. The idea that social pressure from Western nations will convert human rights abusing regimes into responsible actors seems to hinge on the idea that the west is better equipped to decide what is and isn't abuse. It would seem from a two-way perspective that this approach is now only flawed, but may not work with the current balance of power within the international realm.
            Much like the idea of Orientalism, the idea of overarching human norms brought about my NGOs and activists seems to share dreaded roots with colonialism. Even if these goals are for the better treatment of domestic populations, it is still unnerving to think that encouraging "subversive" groups to infiltrate countries and incite change is akin to supporting a coup or social revolution. These movement should come from the people, not outside actors. Similarly, with our own abuses (pollution, utilizing third world labor to supply our demand for goods, and immense poverty in certain areas of the country) it seems that scolding other nations for their own actions suggests that we are not responsible for our own misdeeds. Genocide isn't the same as polluting perhaps, but incarcerating millions of Americans for petty crimes doesn't seem to be very human rights friendly either.
            Beyond the moral argument, there is the idea that perhaps countries simply cannot be pressure to do what we say. The Assad regime in Syria is still standing strong amidst mounting years of pressure. Turkey's Erdogan has made sweeping grabs for power, the Castro regime still wields influence even after Fidel's death, and Venezuela will burn to the ground before it succumbs to international pressure. The moral dilemma facing these regimes doesn't seem to worry about outside pressure as long as there are still trading partners. Human rights as a socialized concept doesn't seem to hold weight in an international arena that is becoming less and less skewed towards western dominance. Besides the moral fallacy of the west dictating what is right and wrong, strong leaders may become less inclined to care about their social status in the international realm so long as they can maintain power.

Comments

  1. UnknownAugust 5, 2018 at 5:49 PM

    Well said Ted, I have long agreed that you can't force someone to mimic your actions. What I mean by this is that oftentimes we go in guns a blazing and dictate to people how they should act. We have to come from a place of understanding and build report to be able to have any influence over others. I think we would be better served to gain cultural awareness of these places before we start trying to facilitate change.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more