When the support of human rights cause more harm than good

[ray243]

Western media and public LOVES to use human rights as a tool to attack other countries.

However, it seems to me that many of those supporters is being too idealistic, and they are only supporting human rights in the short term.

Meaning while it MAY seems to be a good thing to bash or withdraw support to a country due to their human rights offense...but over time, the country end up committing even more human rights offense.

Like the islamic revolution for example, western nations are wary of giving support to the Iranian royalty...ensuring the rise of the Islamic state in Iran...however, there seems to be a even less regards for human rights when Iran adopted the Islamic law.


So perhaps the next time any member want to use human rights as a reason to hate/bash another nation, he or she would consider if they are TRULY doing the right thing for human rights?

[Thule]

People still fail to realize that not all nations in the World want democracy and human rights. Some societies have been around for milleniums and have developed their own functioning ways of governing which have nothing to do with "free elections". Yet the west loves to use "human rights" and "spreading of democracy" as a pretext for many wars and occupations after the ww2.

[danzig]

Um you are confusing democracy with human rights...most of the time they go hand in hand but not necessarily. You can argue that some countries might not want democracy but can you please explain what country doesnt want basic human rights? Im pretty sure the vast majority of the world's population arent going please we dont want the right to work, to education, to eat and to have laws apply equally and atleast *some* basic liberty. Sorry but it sounds like two posts in this thread are a bit confused just what "human rights" are. Trying to force a specific flavor of government on a country is indeed misguided but I cant phantom how HR can be "bad" to any country since it comes hand in hand with people being able to decide how to live and in what manner. In countries like North Korea, Zimbabawe, etc for the most part huge segments of the population are denied that.

[Dromikaites]

People still fail to realize that not all nations in the World want democracy and human rights.

Are you saying that people in those countries which don't want democracy and human rights have an understanding of what democracy and human rights mean?

Let me give you an example from my experience. On December 20th 1989 the anti-communist revolt in Timisoara (the second largest city of Romania) had triumphed there so while the rest of the country was under the control of the communists that city was free.

I was in my first year in the university and one of my colleagues and best friends was the son of a very low rank Secret Police officer (driver for a big shot there). That night of December 20th we were walking back from a park when he opened the discussion about Timisoara. He told me his father has to accompany his boss to that city the next day and he was very worried about it. And he was worried about what he had found out from his father, that everybody in the Secret Police believes communism would fall soon.

I was of course surprised to hear the members of the Secret Police, who were the main enforcers of communism thought the game would be over soon. I could of course understand he was worried about what the future would bring to those who were in the Secret Police (nothing bad as it turned out: those guys are making today 90% of the top 300 richest Romanians ).

But then he said something which normally would have made me laugh. However given the circumstances - he was my friend but his daddy was in the Secret Police and I wasn't so sure communism would fall so quickly (it did 2 days later) I didn't laugh. He asked me how the country could be governed if everybody would be free to say whatever they wanted and if instead of a single party there would be several parties fighting each other and free elections where any idiot or thief can be voted (he got that part right ).

To me his question proved he was a perfect case of political brainwashing but of course for the above said reasons I didn't tell him that. Instead I asked him how come France or USA are not in a state of anarchy because of free speech and free elections. He thought for a couple of seconds in silence and then he said "yeah, you are right", like it was for the first time he realized freedom is compatible with order.

My point is the people who don't want democracy nor human rights are probably in the same situation: they have no idea what those terms mean and how things work. They confuse democracy with anarchy and human rights with debauchery or recklessness or something along those lines.

Some societies have been around for milleniums and have developed their own functioning ways of governing which have nothing to do with "free elections".

You mean their own dysfunctional ways of governing which of course don't have anything to do with the free elections.

Yet the west loves to use "human rights" and "spreading of democracy" as a pretext for many wars and occupations after the ww2.

The real problem is there is no uniform and worldwide enforcement of true democracy and human rights. This selective enforcement makes it possible the use of democracy and human rights as a pretext for sometimes plundering a country and appointing/propping up horrible dictators there who would cooperate in pillaging their own countries.

The solution is of course to have an international force which would come down hard and fast wherever bad things happen. The UN would become that instrument once Russia and China turn into real democracies and thus can't be themselves targeted by such an intervention. A permanent international police made of Americans, Russians, British, French and Chinese would be, due to the economic divergent interest of its members, less likely to "rebuild" say Zimbabwe the way Iraq is "rebuilt" today. Such a force would be truly focused on solving the human rights issues leaving the economic issues to the free market to decide.

[Thule]

@Dromikaites

I hate to repeat other people's words, but Communist actually gave you an answer. Democracy, and modern concept of human rights was developed by westerners for westerners. Human rights always existed, in one way or another, from the pagan days of European (or any other) nations onward. Democracy did too, but it was a local democracy, the only way possible. Global democracy is a stupid, stupid thing. Free elections are among the stupidest of the modern concepts. I will quote Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Brainwashing occurs in democracy, it occurs in a dictatorship, difference being the means, not the objective.
You can't tell me that the African tribes are so much happier now than they were 300 years ago. What good did force installment of democratic system do there? Democracy is just like communism, in theory both sound great, but are far from being great in practice, especially if you try to force it upon someone.
Today democracy is being spread as was Christianity centuries ago, with the same zeal, fire and sword. Now we remember those days and are a bit ashamed it went down like that. Basically, it gets down to one thing, people should stick to their own business and let other people deal with their own affairs, in a way they are accustomed too.

Human Rights and Democracy are 2 different things.

For example the "Right to Vote" is not a human right, but a right promised under a Democratic system.

A "right to live" or a "right to not to get tortured or killed because of my origin or ethnicity " is also a human right.

So what I'm trying to say, "Democracy" and "Human Rights" do not always go hand in hand they don't have to follow each other and there can be a very-pro-human rights- system even in a non-democratic country, where you might not be allowed to vote for the next president, but surely you can detest violations against your human rights and the authority will act on it.

For example: even though "kingdom" is a form of dictatorship, there has been kings beloved by their people for their righteousness and very pro human right laws. If you ask me, many of them were far better human-rights activists and fair rulers than our idiotic politicans and presidents today.

And I agree .

[MyNameIsGreat]

People still fail to realize that not all nations in the World want democracy and human rights. Some societies have been around for milleniums and have developed their own functioning ways of governing which have nothing to do with "free elections". Yet the west loves to use "human rights" and "spreading of democracy" as a pretext for many wars and occupations after the ww2.

WTF?

All people want democracy and human rights. No person, whether brown, white, yellow, red or purple does not value independence. Who would actually want to be oppressed?

[communist]

human rights and democracy is something of western origin. made by and for the people in the west. both of which has its fair share of good points and bad points. yet, for some people it seems to be the law that every country needs to be westernised. lets use china as an example. personally, i see alot of good in human rights, and china has adopted many parts, not all of it. just like any other country, china is not perfect, but would you ever find western press saying good things about china? i do not however, think everything in the human rights should be the law on earth. China is seen as a threat by the west and united states, and they will ALWAYS find something to attack china. no reason to let foreign politics become PC and determine how our own people will live, for better or worse. its kind of like "its our house, get out and mind your own bussiness."

WTF?

All people want democracy and human rights. No person, whether brown, white, yellow, red or purple does not value independence. Who would actually want to be oppressed?

no, check satistics of ANY country.

[1{H][NA]

WTF?

All people want democracy and human rights. No person, whether brown, white, yellow, red or purple does not value independence. Who would actually want to be oppressed?

no, some people want stability and order, something that democracy cannot provide in most cases.

[Odovacar]

Plus most of the times the people actually never get to asked what they want...

[ray243]

The thing is...when people TRULY want to use human rights as a reason in political decision...they should really consider what will happen in the long term...

[dwringer]

I think it might be important to keep in mind that the US didn't use human rights as a pretext to invade Iraq, it was used more as a justification for continued involvement after the revelation that pre-war intelligence was almost completely misguided or, in some cases, falsified. Human rights wasn't much of an argument you heard about Afghanistan either, until the "second coming" of the Taliban when we needed to rally public opinion against them.

[Gauvin]

I think it might be important to keep in mind that the US didn't use human rights as a pretext to invade Iraq

That's not true, they just chose to focus on WMDs and Al-Qaeda links which turned up nada. Perhaps they thought americans wouldn't care about human rights abuses unless they felt their own lives were in danger, and if that's the case then perhaps there's something wrong with society.

If you read all the documentation before the war in Iraq, speeches by Tony Blair in Parliament, all of that, you'll see extensive listings of Saddam's human rights abuses.

[dwringer]

Heh, well, all people want human rights, but certainly not all "nations" if by "nations" we mean "governments" :-\

[dwringer]

You have a valid point, but I don't believe America would have ever gone in on the basis of human rights alone. It's almost universally accepted (From what I can gather) that the Iraq invasion rode the coat tails of the post 9/11 frenzy for terrorist-hunting. "and if that's the case then perhaps there's something wrong with society" - perhaps, but America has long had a love affair with isolationism, going all the way back to George Washington.

Edit: It's very hard, given the state of media coverage as well as the development since the invasion, to separate the Iraq war from the Afghanistan "operations", even though initially there was not one single piece of valid evidence that linked them together. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were not exactly friends.

[roy34543]

I actually think that some countries hate democracy. for example many people in cuba love their socialist system , But want the economy to be better so they can buy more stuff.

[Dromikaites]

I actually think that some countries hate democracy. for example many people in cuba love their socialist system , But want the economy to be better so they can buy more stuff.

When were the Cubans asked if they want democracy and they've had the chance to reject it?

[roy34543]

When were the Cubans asked if they want democracy and they've had the chance to reject it?

Hmm ill have to check that, But im pretty sure i heard most of them are happy with the socalist system they have. I dont think that fidel would allow a poll though.Hes dead now of course but roal isnt that different.
edit: nope couldnt find anything.

[dwringer]

Well, that's a bit of an assumption to say he's dead. He retired; not sure why they'd lie if he were actually dead if he had already relinquished power...

[roy34543]

Hes not dead? Last time i saw him on TV i thought i saw a corpse. Or maybe he just fell asleep.

[dwringer]

Hes not dead? Last time i saw him on TV i thought i saw a corpse. Or maybe he just fell asleep.

I concede