"Human Rights"

    I wrote in my previous blog post about how the word “terrorism” is used as a political tool. Another term that is seen as a very important issue but is used more as a political tool than something real is “human rights”. There is a difference between how terrorism and human rights are used as political tools. Terrorism is an abstract idea that is applied to violence when it is helpful politically. On the other hand, human rights is not an abstract idea, but something very real and very important. The way that human rights are used as a political tool is by people in power creating a narrow definition of human rights and selecting certain situations where human rights are a concern and allowing it to be ignored when that is more politically convenient. One way to understand the first part of creating a narrow definition of human rights is to look at how Nhina Le explores the difference in how the west and the non-west view human rights. Human rights are often relative to local values and this changes the way that human rights are understood. Le describes the understanding of human rights in Asia as, “the best way for the region to meet its human rights obligations is to prioritize the unified goal of development even at the cost of restricting political and civil rights” (Le, 204). Le describes the American understanding of human rights as, “political and civil rights, but resists socioeconomic rights due to a concern that these rights might harm business competition, infringe on autonomy, and limit freedom of speech” (Le, 204). It is very obvious that these two ways of understanding human rights can be in tension with each other. The way that this can be used as a political tool is that political leaders can use the rhetoric of human rights violations as a way to make their own society seem better and justify intervention. This can be seen with the way that the United States often brings up human rights violations when trying to vilify China. China does commit human rights violations in some clear ways, such as the way they treat Uyghur people, but the way that they restrict some rights with the intention of development is not seen as a violation to the Chinese people, but rather part of their culture. In the United States, people may have less restrictions, but they also do not have universal health care, which many people may consider to be a human rights violation. Neither side is treating all people in a way that adheres to human rights fundamentally, but the way that political leaders use the words without looking at how there are different ways that people around the world see human rights exposes how it is used as a political tool. The second way it is used politically is by ignoring clear human rights violations in order to achieve political goals. The United States and people who live here get angry about Russian human rights violations so there is a ban on buying oil from Russia. This happens while the United States works closely with Saudi Arabia who commits massive amounts of human rights violations. Again, both sides are wrong and neither side is good, but for a country that emphasized protecting human rights, it is quite transparent that it emphasizes them with political motives rather than an actual desire to protect people around the world.

Work Cited:

Le, N. (2016). Are human rights universal or culturally relative? Peace Review, 28(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2016.1166756