A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Time to rethink International Human Rights approaches
Seventy years is a long time since the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the UN in December 1948. Whatever
the marginal biases or weaknesses that it entails, it is a fair
statement on human rights that all human beings should have,
irrespective of the country, culture, religion, ethnicity, class, social
status, gender or any other distinction. Its rationality springs from
the human rights commitments outlined in the UN Charter (1945).
The important premise that the human rights promoters have to understand
however is the fact that the world is so diverse, social, political,
economic and cultural conditions are different, so the development of
human rights would be a difficult task that requires objectivity,
patience, dialogue and multiple approaches. It is not clear whether this
is understood properly then or today.
After the Universal Declaration in 1948, the UN adopted more binding two
International Covenants in 1966 that became operational for those
countries who ratified them since 1976. Those are the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
With the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 1979) and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989), the international framework for human
rights promotion appeared complete with other declarations and
conventions.
Need for Social Approaches
Among all the conventions, the Rights of the Child could be considered
most futuristic. If implemented properly, with necessary skills and
values in education for children (i.e. social rights), and with gainful
employment when they grow up (i.e. economic rights), within a few
decades human rights situation could be dramatically changed or
improved. What is primarily required for such a change and improvement
is socio-economic reforms.
It is believed that those children who are abused or deprived of rights
are most prone to violate the other people’s rights when they grow up.
This is apart from legal, institutional and political conditions that
propel or perpetuate human rights violations. A major predicament,
however, in this respect is that those who are supposed to implement
Child Rights are the old and abusive generations. Apart from the
responsible officials, they are the fathers, mothers, teachers,
religious preachers, and the neighbours. Therefore, the approaches have
to be more nuanced and socially oriented.
Women, without sparing men of the responsibility, undoubtedly can be
mobilized in this venture. The Rights of Women and the protection of
them could play a crucial role in this respect. Women and mothers can be
the champions of the futuristic Child Rights. Women rights should not
be limited to employment, equal wages, individual freedoms, freedom from
abuse and political equality, they should be enhanced to the protection
of children. This is a leadership role than a responsibility. This is
one reason why women should be brought into politics (not dirty
politics) and public life.
Mere Ratification?
By the end of 2018, all UN member countries (193) except the US had
ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rights of Women were
ratified by 189 countries, but 50 of them with reservations on certain
and some important provisions. These were due to certain religious and
cultural beliefs.
In the overall context of human rights implementation, the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights can be considered crucially important. The first is
important for democracy; and the second for social justice, equality and
elimination of poverty. Both are interdependent, but without proper
economic and social rights, no one can exercise civil, political or
cultural rights properly.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is ratified by 172 countries,
with six other countries including China only signing it, hopefully with
the intention of ratifying it in the future. This is fairly a good
indication for future of democracy in the world. The Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is ratified by 169 countries, with
four others including US only signing it.
Ratification of human rights conventions can be considered satisfactory,
whatever the reservations placed on some provisions and by some
countries. However the ratification is not a guarantee of implementation
or adherence to human rights. This is like the proverbial difference or
the gap between the ‘theory and practice’ or the ‘law and reality.’
Otherwise, the situation in the world today would have been wonderful.
Gaping Holes
No one expect any country to be perfect in practicing or implementing
human rights i.e. civil rights, political rights, economic rights,
social rights, cultural rights, women’s rights and child rights that we
have been discussing. However, the gaps are enormous in most countries.
For convenience, let us limit this discussion to five types of overall
rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural.
In liberal democratic countries where civil, political and social rights
are fairly established, the economic rights are pathetically lagging
behind, and in some countries major aspects of cultural and indigenous
rights are also neglected. There are authoritarian countries where
almost all rights are neglected or often suppressed although they have
ratified most international conventions. Then there are socialist
countries, China being primary, where economic and social rights are
promoted or fairly established, but civil, political and cultural rights
are lagging behind or still neglected. In the case of China, the size
of the country, mammoth population and past history are some inhibiting
factors. Social democratic countries in Northern Europe and partly
Australasia appear to be the best where two sets of rights are balanced
fairly well. They are rated high in the happiness index as well.
However, their social democracy moves back and forth with neo-liberalism
creating considerable holes.
Most alarming is the gross violations or neglect of basic human rights
in so many countries around the world; many countries unfortunately
being in the African continent. News and images of extreme poverty,
hunger, malnutrition, armed conflicts, wars, gang violence, killings,
terrorism, election violations, authoritarian or dictatorial political
leaders are prominent in the media. Some may not understand these
situations as related to human rights. But underlying causes are
related, while obviously there are other factors involved.
Rigid Legal Approaches
All the above point to some terrible defects in human rights approaches
at international as well as national levels. Simply said, the approaches
are predominantly too legalistic with colossal neglect of economic and
social rights.
There are so many legal experts who draft, draft and draft so many
international declarations and conventions on human rights. Altogether
there are over 200 international instruments (declarations, covenants,
conventions, resolutions, statements etc.) today. They like to call them
‘instruments’! These are mostly in the areas of civil and political
rights. After the ICESCR in 1966, there is no significant international
‘instrument’ drafted in promoting economic and social rights
particularly affecting the poor and the needy.
Then there have been efforts to persuade or force particularly
underdeveloped, poor and former colonial countries to ratify them
without assessing their capacities to implement them. There are no
proper dialogues involved. It is questionable whether these (or some of
these) efforts are genuinely human rights or intentionally political
(with economic interests behind). I was partly witness to what went on
in Cambodia during the UN intervention (1992-93), where nearly a dozen
of ‘instruments’ were forced on the country. By that time there were no
more than 10 qualified lawyers in the country even to understand these
‘instruments’ properly. The compulsion to ratify ‘instruments’ has been
the case in many other countries, before and after.
There has been a parallel pattern emerged where many developing
countries just superficially ratified human rights ‘instruments’ to seek
favours from the UN and/or Western countries. As an inducement, there
were human rights conditions attached to foreign aid (and trade). Sri
Lanka came under this category during JR Jayewardene’s time and
thereafter. Sri Lanka’s recent sponsorship of the UNHRC Resolution 30/1
(2015) also has evolved on those lines, going into an absurd extreme.
There was a time when the country even was not sure whether it has
ratified the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR or not! If we take all
the human rights conventions that Sri Lanka has ratified seriously, the
country should in fact be a human rights paradise!
This does not mean that the ratifications of human rights conventions
were wrong or unnecessary in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. The point is that
those were ratified without much commitment, realism, proper planning or
follow up. This is one reason why the high ratification numbers
internationally of the ICCPR (172), ICESCR (169), CEDAW (189), CRC (196)
or other instruments might not make much sense in practice today.
Lopsided Implementation?
There are several UN mechanisms to monitor the implementation of (1) the
general commitments of human rights under the UN Charter and (2) the
obligations under the ratified international conventions by member
countries. The first type is called the Charter Based Bodies and the
latter, Treaty Based Bodies. In whatever name they are called, the
approaches seem to be going in a similar direction, the first type of
bodies being more and more political and the latter type more and more
legalistic.
The most controversial Charter based body today is the Human Rights
Council. It oscillates between political and legalistic approaches. The
US left the Council last year, after inflicting so much damage, but
failing to sway the other members on the Israeli question. In my
experience, the predecessor Human Rights Commission (1946-2006) was more
flexible and balanced. There was no rigid bureaucracy like today, led
by the Human Rights Commissioner and many so-called experts and
officials. However, even during those days, the economic and social
rights of the people in the world were terribly neglected.
To conclude, the main defects of human rights approaches both
internationally and nationally could be identified as (1) the rigid and
sterile legalism and (2) the pathetic neglect of economic and social
rights of the people. Therefore, with over 200 international
‘instruments,’ the world has not progressed much since the inauguration
of the Universal Declaration in 1948. This is regrettable. The most
important conclusion, however, is not to throw the human rights ‘baby’
with the questionable approaches of ‘bath water.’ To save the ‘human
rights baby,’ more and more social approaches are necessary with
people’s involvement.