Individuals

• Ken Saro-Wiwa
• Akbar Ahmad
• Louis Farrakhan

  Theories
  

• Internal & External Judgment on Islamic women, Caste in India and racism in US
• Forms and Interpretation to the Universal Principles of Human Rights
  
• Religion and Human Rights
• John Locke's 2nd Treaties on Civil Government

  Known Violators
  

• Kuper's book, Slaughter Among Neighbors
• Human Rights Violations in China

When Donnelly referred to human rights as indivisible he clearly reaffirmed what the United Nations Bills of human rights stated, that all rights [whether they are economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights] are interdependent on each other. When one speaks of human rights, it is about all the rights mentioned above and that no other rights or interest should supersede these human rights, guaranteed to us because we are human beings. Many would agree with Donnelly on the indivisibility of human rights especially when one of it criterion is based on needs. Howard would contend that, a human nature is a socially variable phenomenon; more than that, it is a social creation. Human nature is strongly affected by our biological needs for survival. [15]

In the two films we observed the blatant violation of human rights, in which the basis human needs to subsistence and survival was compromised for political power and economical monopoly. It was evident that the economic, civil, social and cultural rights of the victimized people were undermined in the interest of profit. In these documentaries, both governments gave unquestionable power to multinational and transnational corporations. These corporations used their access to the land usage regardless of the consequent exploitation of the indigenous people and natives who inhabited the region. Howard explained that this form of human rights violation is defuted by left collectivism that, "this position merges with traditionalism insofar as traditionalist also assert a nationalist right to be free of liberal pressures from imperialist societies that undermine their social values."[3] Ken Saro Wiwa would have been a third world left collectivist by Howard standard. Ken Saro Wiwa would have supported the left collectivist view, A that the most important human right is national self-determination and relief from the control of Western states and the multinational corporations.[3]

When people's rights are denied by the governments and violated by the social agents, who ironically by western ideology is thought of to be protectors of peace and stability, Howard suggests that major rethinking of societal goals are necessary in ensuring human rights. The oppressed people are the true arbiters of their own sense of moral theory of human rights (living a life of dignity as Donnelly puts it) or create their own sense of morally worthwhile life,15] by Howard's standard. The denial of the right to exercise basis survival and cultural rituals within indigenous norm is a direct violation on human dignity. The right to food, security and liberty are basic human rights defined by Shue, and these rights are entitled to all humans, including marginalized and indigenous people. Shue stated, "If one cannot obtain one's subsistence, one will die and thus be unable to enjoy any rights at all."[38]

We cannot have the rights of individual superseded by the avarice and profit interest of companies. These companies care little for the environment that they erode and for the people they capitalize and that they exploit. The indivisibility of human rights is this single most important links that integrate political, social, economic and civil rights into concept of human rights. Howard noted that "the basic human right approach combines two separate methods, one a sense of what is most important to human beings (either as wants or needs), the other a sense of what key human rights is strategically necessary in order that human rights also can be protected." [14]

Akbar Ahmad, is an obvious traditionalist. He viewed western ideals negatively on social matters: "Why should they be dragged along the path of the West's social experimentation?" And deemed western values as "temporary values" which would cause the destruction of family and community. In reaction to the images seen on television of western culture, he said, "these intrusions corrode the innermost structure of balance and authority crucible of all civilization, the family..." Howard in response to someone such as Akbar Ahmad would view this as a challenge to the ideal of human rights. She established that such challenges are a departure from human demands for individual privacy and individual protections against the state, the society and the family. She stated that "Human rights are meant above all to protect the individual against the state...protect people against society...and gives individuals the rights to conduct their own lives as they see fit, even when their choices challenge societal or community norms."[8] What Howard meant by: "Human rights may sometimes require cultural rupture, are when individual challenges threaten societal norm for sake of preserving human rights.

The traditionalism, according to Howard advocate for group rights that fully protect human rights within the confines of the group, and this is not about individual rights. Howard fears that an overemphasis on community can carve away individual human rights. Traditionalism is "the contention that traditional societies should be permitted to violate human rights when those rights conflict with traditional rules for orderly social behavior."[5] The average traditionalist, such as Akbar Ahmad would be disturbed by the idea that human rights should be universal and equal. As Ahmad commented, "men in the West are also now reevaluating divorce, the challenge to parental authority, the marginalization of the old, the regular relocation of the home because of work." And you can almost hear the echoes of devastation by western challenges to his societal norms in his last sentence: "All devastate the family." Howard's response to this, is that: "All communities should be based upon the free and equal participation of all their sane, adult members." [8]

As lamented by Howard, " the interpretation of human rights is debated by diverse social actors, many of whom dislike the way that human rights reflect the moral order of liberal Western society." [16] Furthermore, there is a "perceived lack of social obligation-to family, community and the state."[16] Howard disagrees with the traditionalists in seeing human dignity as the benefit and good of a group. "In my view, dignity requires personal autonomy, societal concern and respect, and treatment by others in society as an equal." [16] Every tradition has its own sense of dignity. The modern tradition is based on equality and respect. The traditionalist fears equality of individual and liberalism because they claim it will cause the "breakdown of communities that are homogeneous, where social solidarity is the result of the similarities not only of individuals' social status but also of their religious beliefs, customs, and values." [37]

There is no sense of community when the society creates an individual who is selfish. Howard argued against that, which "there is modern community, based on voluntary associations and voluntary dedication to the good of others who may not share one's ascriptive or cultural characteristic." [19] Modern societies create such individuals who create their own ethnicity and therefore causes the destruction of organic communities. Howard argues that modern society creates its own ethnicity despite the fact that it is an individualistic and or secular liberal society. Traditionalists fear that human rights are instrumental in the breakup of communal society and that organic community supersedes human rights. Howard disagreed with this and affirm that the breaking up of communal societies are envitable regardless of human rights - that new civic societies will emerge out of these modern societies. "Modernity is a social fact: Both its liberating potential and its potential for social exclusion must be considered in contemporary accounts of community."[19]

Howard describes the requisites of modern societies as "politically created homogeneity of citizenship," in which the strong central government that prescribes tolerance of the "other" within the common boundary of the liberal beliefs. "The modern Western state has forced is citizens to discard their identification with substate groups, order that people from many groups can be incorporated into a common secular community."[37] In response to traditionalists view that: "Homogeneity of religion, customs, and values is most likely to be found in a society of individuals with similar ethnic backgrounds," and that such a community is a strong "community of sameness; a community of the unlike must necessarily be weak," [37] defuted by Howard.

She maintained that: "If traditional societies, developing states, and oppressed social groups cannot pursue their collective goals without denying civil and political rights to individuals (whether their own members or outsiders), then they must be reorganized and new goals must be introduced."[7]

Minister Louis Farrakhan is what Howard would call a status radical. She described a status radicalism in the guise "as the politics of identity."[4] Many status radicals argue that certain categories of people are systematically denied their human rights on the basis of their social identity or status. Most status radical see social stratification. Unlike Martin Luther King Jr., who was more a conservative than a moderate status radical, Louis Farrakhan is an extreme status radical. Like most status radical he sees liberal society as a failing institution. Howard remarked that the denial is systemic, it implies that liberalism has failed, in principle, by not recognizing that human rights are not available to certain groups. [5] The status radical maintains that: A Human rights are available only for dominant status groups and are irrelevant principle for subordinated ones. [5]

A status radical (similarly to fundamentalist) maintains that culture is the most important defining aspect of human being's identity. Moreover, culture must be preserved by society at all cost, including that of human rights. The type of culture defined by the status radical differs greatly from the culture of the traditional modern society. Status radicals reject liberal society's concept of culture and recognize a "new kind of culture exists, the culture of oppressed social categories (for example, women's culture as opposed to that of men)."[6]

Howard discussed the shared beliefs that communities are falling apart on account of the influences of modernization and individualization of human rights. She elaborated that this results in a fear from the traditionalists and reactionary conservatives that communal societies will break down causing anomie and alienation of individuals. Howard reflected their point that, individualism inherent in human rights produces people withdrawn from their societies, people who suffer from normlessness and lack of connection to others.[6] The status radical holds, That by retreating into their own cultural group they will be able to create more caring societies in which individuals feel a sense of obligation.[6] The operative phase in this statement is an obligation to be oppressed. Howard's response to this would be: A culture and community based on systematic degradation, must be challenged; if individual rights threaten such a society, so much the better;[9] and communities that differentiate among members on the basis of their social status, adhere to a concept of social justice that is not based on human rights.[8] Of course, Howard meant this in outburst to the caste system in India which eats away at human dignity through social degradation.

The status radicals Subordinate the needs of the poor to the of group goals that categorize people by ascriptive criteria rather than by actual social position.[10] I recently read two articles on Minister Farrakhan that to advocated his reasoning on liberal societies and attempted to discredit the government of the United States. Upon his return the United States from his visits to Africa and the Middle East, Congress accused Farrakhan of Cavorting with dictators in Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan and Syria. Farrakhan responded that Awe exercised the freedom that the say we have; but if you exercise it, you're punished. He uses language of racially extreme connotation in arguing with the government's charge, he stated that Gadhafi is his friend and he is, Your enemy ain't mine unless I'm your slave. This remark shows the extreme of Farrakhan's political use of status radicalism in directing this issue to racial oppression and violation of his individual freedoms.

In his speech delivered on Saviors Day, February 25, 1996, Louis Farrakhan uses religion as a political tool to unify the African-American. He preached the empowerment of black people in the society and stressed the religious credibility of former Muslim leaders in America such as Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad in liberating African-American freedom. In response to the charges made against by the U.S government, he warned the people not to believe the propaganda involving his visit to Africa. Farrakhan said, AA word of instruction to Black people and to leaders in particular. Whatever you read in the paper from our enemies you should not rush to comment. The purpose of this is to separate government and people and thus create this alienation that Howard referred to. He accomplished the goals of status radicalism through the cry of the oppressed and the race and religion of under represented blacks in the United States. Howard explained that, Although human rights might be better guaranteed in practice if they are also grounded in religious belief, it is not necessary to find a religious basis for them. [12]

Howard points out that liberalism in modern society has enormous capacity for the good of individuals and communities. She maintain that, The freedoms and legal equality now permitted women, blacks, and other subordinated status groups are major achievements of modern liberal life.[7] I must agreed completely with Howard on this issue. I believe Minister Farrakhan although his intent appears honorable in eyes of African American by encouraging them to elevate them, his conduct with the government is unjustifiable and invalid. I don't think that religion or race should be use to unite people. This is the promotion of multi-culturalism. It does not alleviate the issue of racism but merely amplify its existence.

Donnelly distinguishes between an internal judgement and an external judgement in terms of defensibility of social practices within internal framework on whether it is accepted by the external judgement of the international standards. An internal judgement is a practice that is supported by its society. It has a universal and unanimous culture. The external judgement exists outside of the culture. Donnelly explains that it "applies the standards of the evaluator," and that it evaluates "practices that are internally defensible but unacceptable by external standards," where these practices " are of interest in the discussion of cultural relativism and human rights." [114] In essence, the external judgement kicks in when the internal judgment support a practice that is against the International Bill of Human Rights.

Donnelly meant to show by this distinction how the internal and external evaluations correlate with the two extremes of cultural relativism. He explains that it is "the distinction between strong and weak cultural relativism; the stronger one's relativism, the greater one's reliance on internal evaluations." [114] He further elaborated that it helps to elucidate the dilemma of judging culturally specific practices (discrimination based on class, race and gender) and that it is "torn between the demands of relativism and universalism."[114]

Cultural relativism occurs when the society turns a blind eye to the violation done in the internal practices of another culture concerning human rights. It is important as Donnelley noted that the choice between internal and external evaluations is a moral choice. Moreover choosing between the extremes depends greatly on "the moral importance of the practice," [115] despite the historical standing of the practice. For example, slavery, as Donnelly sited, " that no matter how ancient and well established the practice of slavery may be, to turn one's back on the enslavement of human beings in the name of cultural relativity would reflect not moral sensitivity but moral obtuseness." [116] He suggested that basic human moral precepts are universal and egalitarian.

The question that now arise is, if what Donnelly claims to be universal and true, how can we explain the blatant cultural relativism that occurs today in countries such as India with the caste system, Islamic countries regarding women and race discrimination in the United States? Donnelly explains this phenomenon as a negative external judgement, that "fails to give proper weights to our own moral beliefs, at least in the case of central moral precepts, such as the equality of all human beings and the protection of innocents."[116] This can also be explained through the types of conflicts over culturally relatives practices. If we use Donnelley's case studies on page 115, we can explain the differences of the internal and external judgement on these issues by the level of moral importance.

Cases 3 and 4 are perhaps the two most controversial since they involve cultural awareness and established historical cultural practices, such as the issue of women in Islamic countries and the issue of race in the United States. As was discussed earlier about a cultural practices that have historically standing, such as women in Islamic countries who are forced by fundamentalism to cover themselves with veils or the practice of genital circumcism, there is a great need to press a negative external judgement. This issue is of great moral significance to the external evaluator and of little importance internally. It demands the pressing of an external judgement despite the internal opposition to the judgement based on state sovereignty. However the judgement is justifiable only if the external pressure is "made with some tact and cultural awareness." [115]

The issue of race discrimination in United States has historic relevance dating back to the practice of slavery in the 1900's. Although the United States is a modern society that has an enormous controlling capacity it has failed to secure the human rights of individual based on race. This has created a blind spot that demands changes in the culture to combat this blind spot. Case 4 shows that these practices are of great importance to internal and external judgement and therefore there it is justification in pressing an external judgement because the practices are against human rights.

In relation to the caste system in India it is sad to say that the issue is like case 2. It is externally unimportant but internally very important. The external judgement is conditionally based on the level of interest and sensitivity. Donnelly explains that practices such as case 2 is best handled, " by a refusal to press the negative external judgement; given the sensitivity of external judgements and the dangers of cultural arrogance, to press a negative external judgement that one feels is relatively unimportant when the issue is of great importance internally is at best insensitive." [115]

Writing about the possibility of applying different interpretations and forms to the universal principles of human rights, Donnelly observes: "Within the realm of electoral participation, we can distinguished elections based on universal adult suffrage from those based on a suffrage limited to sex, income, or some the criterion; elections where voting is a right from those where it is a privilege or even a duty; elections intended to determine the will of the people from elections that serve principally to mobilize popular support for the government policy; and so forth. These variations in "interpretation" clearly are qualitatively different from questions of "forms," such as how often elections, town meetings, plebiscites, or gatherings ..... will be held or how they shall be called. (116-117)

What does he mean by these distinctions?

Donnelly has re-emphasize his earlier explanation on the correlation between the internal and external judgement in the interpretation to the varieties of cultural relativism. He further refers these variations in terms of forms and interpretations. The first is the actual interpretation of cultural relativism and second, its actualization in form. He explains that, "weak cultural relativists - that is, relatively strong universalists - are likely to allow considerable variation in the form in which most rights are implemented." [116] It is important to draw the distinction between variations in form and interpretation in explaining cultural relativism and the universality of human rights.

Donnelly emphasize that there are instances that require a distinction between interpretation and form since "culture provides one plausible and defensible mechanism for selecting interpretations (forms)," when they are related to particular human rights. [117] There are some interpretations that are plausible or defensible, because they are not free of arbitrary stipulations and are controversial. The range of the controversy, Donnelly remarked that it is "limited to by the substance of the concept."[117] For example, " the right to political participation," when interpreted to mean absolute dictatorship, i.e., "one man, one vote, once," it is an indefensible interpretation. Moreover "even logically valid interpretations" are subjected to external judgement more so than are the variations in form.

Donnelly remark that rights that vary in form and interpretation may still be universal if the substantive list of rights are considered international normative universal. This brings us to Donnelly third argument of the distinction in variations of relativity, the variation of substance. That weaker universality can exist in substantive diversity. Donnelly argued that there should be a compromise between competing practices or conceptions of human rights. He insistently argued that," it may be necessary to allow limited cultural variations in form and interpretation of particular human rights, but we must insist on their fundamental moral universality," [124] since human rights are relatively universal.

In what ways can religions create obstacles to the realization of human rights in today's global conditions?

Realization of human rights is achieved in conjunction with the idea that human rights are rights that all human beings are entitled to by virtue of humanity. Human rights assume universal norms and values. It denies the concept of cultural diversity and ignores the fact that modern society are a non universal of culture. Culture consists of objects and values involving religion, tradition and history, that people have acquired as members of society. The Universal Declaration denies the existence of cultural relativism, i.e. the evaluation of other cultures on their own terms, with the result of not passing judgement on them.

In fact the concept of human rights does the opposite. Religion in its definition is a unified system of beliefs and practices regarding sacred things that unites its adherents into a single moral community. The notion of human rights exist in contradiction with the dogma of religious beliefs. Furthermore religions are multifarious in the sense that there are diversified denominations. How can we expect non unified dogmas to exist within the realms of the universality of human rights. As the book noted, "human rights are universal in nature but that regional differences, as well as historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds, should be taken in account."[33] There are no two cultures that are exactly alike, and moreover, each culture is rich because of its diversity. Many governments use this claim, that culture justifies deviation from human rights standards.

International Bill of Rights is said to be primarily "ethnocentrically Western." This influence has resulted in tensions as to the interpretation and universality of human rights outside of the western realm. This is stated clearly in the book, Religion and Human Rights, "human rights have both legal and moral dimensions that correlate roughly with a distinction, and possible tension, between the universality of the international human rights and the diversity of moral-cultural traditions." [33] Because of that factor there has been and continued opposition to the universality of human rights based on cultures and moral diversity, especially from non western cultures. Many non western countries such, Saudi Arabia, China and Sudan use the language of moral diversity and cultural relativism as an excuse to continue human rights violations and thwart criticism from external judgement by the international community.

The problem therefore is not universality but which standards are universal to all cultures. Moreover there is the idea that human rights standards are not globally accepted in many cultures because of the increasing awareness that moral norms and modes of reasoning and evaluation are conditioned by historical and cultural contexts. Some moral norms and mores are influenced by heritage, however something as tangible as torture, rape, genocide are prevalent in all cultures, and therefore the right to be protected against them should be a universal right. There is also the argument that moral diversity among cultural traditions are "committed to different philosophical and religious premises and understandings of person and society."[34] Generally speaking, I am not certain of the validity of that statement, especially when there is the escalating growth of globalization and global villages.

The idea that, like any other moral system, religion is privatized by cultures is valid. Again the book points out that "a moral system appropriate to one society might not be (entirely) appropriate to other societies, which might need to elaborate their own systems from their respective historical and cultural circumstances."[34] The book denies the credibility of tension invalidating the universality of human rights, "human rights set aspirational norms, and no persuasive case has been made to show that universal human rights conceived as a goal is either illegitimate or unattainable."[35] It recommended that a compromise that is sensitive to the goal of universality and the reality of the particular cultural tradition by holding government accountable to the international law of human rights.[36] But then that takes us into a totally different "ball game," so to speak. By recommending to governments to make changes in their internal policies to stem standard human rights violation is a breachment on state sovereignty and the infringement on self-determination.

The final point on this discussion is related to those who are the oppressed, women and other marginalized individuals ( children, the elderly, indigenous people and the handicapped). These individuals and collective groups feel the blunt of governmental policies and societal norms greater and therefore they have no difficulty in understanding the necessity of standardized human rights mores. Fundamentalists use the language of cultural and moral relativism to reach out to these marginalized groups and the outcome is the transcending of political group thought with the opinion leader being the fundamentalist. The existence of universal consensus is the moral basis for protecting human rights. In addition to heeding the voice of the oppressed, as Donnelly discussed in chapter 6, there is a need to understand the distinction between relativism and universal rights. He explain the significant correlation between the extremes of relativism and universality of human rights is that, a "weak cultural relativism - that is, a fairly strong universalism." [124]

Donnelly points out that, "In traditional cultures - at least the kinds of traditional cultures that might justify deviations from international human rights standards - people are not victims of the arbitrary decisions of rulers whose principal claim to power is their control of modern instruments of force and administration." [121] When religion is divided between the "self" and the "other" human rights realization is difficult to achieved at any scale, regionally or globally. This is not a cultural characteristic that is justifiable in deviating from universal human rights standards, he states, that it is only, "if cultural relativism is to guarantee local self-determination, rather than cloak despotism, we must insist on a strong, authentic cultural basis, as well as on the presence of alternative mechanisms to guarantee basic human dignity, before we justify cultural derogation from universal human rights."[121]

Howard points out that ethno-religious groups hinders the protection of human rights, "citizens who put their loyalties to ethnic group or religion above their loyalties to the states threaten its capacity to offer universal protection of human rights." [36] In so far of the protection of human rights in communities this is true, it remains to be proven if this is also true for religion.

Donnelly's discussion on John Locke's The Second Treaties of Civil Government, was an enormous aid in understanding the origin and the evolution of liberalism. According to Locke, every individual has the right to maximum freedom to shape his own life. In exercising this right the individual may claim a part of nature, as long as he leaves enough for others. No one person may make a greater claim on nature than any other person, since the opportunities offered by nature are no one person's personal right.

As stated, according to Locke nature may only be appropriated as long as enough and of the same quality is left for others. By appropriating more than one's fair share, one is curtailing the opportunities of others to shape their lives. It is beyond doubt that our society stands on liberal foundations. When it comes to many basic liberal rights, there exists little or no difference of opinion. Example the right to exercise the freedom of speech.

In Donnelly's interpretation of Locke he restates that society and state are the devices to guarantee a more secure enjoyment of human rights and government is holds legitimacy in protecting human rights through positive law and practice. Donnnelly also agrees with Locke's threefold commitment to equality, autonomy and natural rights as the basic for recognizing the significance of human rights in a liberal society. He agrees also with Locke that the radical individualism, private property and negative civil and political rights are the essence of the liberal approach to enacting liberalism in society.

In accordance with Locke, Donnelly states that the importance of self-preservation. The preservation of all mankind is the fundamental law of nature distinguishing the self from the other. Donnelly incorporate the idea of self-preservation with unlimited private property, since liberalism according to Locke recognizes only one economic and social right and that is the right to property.

Locke argued that the end of civil society is the preservation of property, endorsing the idea that individuals have the right to unlimited private property. Donnelly observed that the limitation set by Locke on the three natural laws concerning accumulation is inconsistent to modern society. The concept of property does not justify a universal right to unlimited accumulation.

Donnelly contends that Locke view the purpose of society and government to preserve property, and points out that this concept isolate the propertyless. Locke's usage of property is interpreted by Donnelly to mean lives, liberties and estates.

Donnelly indicated that Locke's meant that the protection of lives, liberties and estates is done through negative or restraint action on the part of the government. This clearly set the boundaries between Governmental actions and individual's rights.

Throughout the discourse Donnelly agreed with Locke on many of the idealism concerning the role of government as oppose to human dignity and rights. But he recognized the important factor that Locke was writing his theory on civil government based on the time in which he lived; in the mist of revolutionary ideas and the reign of the class stratification.

In the United States today, there is the noted evidence that liberalism concerning what constitutes property rights, social rights and economic rights. The social welfare system is an example of government action, where individuals who are considered socially disabled receive aid from the government. This is however an example of positive action and not the form of governmental action Locke spoke about in The Second Treaties of Civil Government. Now the biggest concern of all American liberals is to abolish this system, thus limiting government role in the welfare of the citizen of the country. Another example is Affirmative Action. Afro-American people are guaranteed the right to work, however this is no longer a human right but a legal right.

Now a political movement by an ethnic group to realize the "inalienable" right to self-determination is seen as a reprehensible attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state-secession, not liberation...But as it is, some of the most destructive and genocidal conflicts have been waged precisely in the repression of claims for greater autonomy or for independence by large, distinctive, regionally separate peoples.

Kuper's claims that there are states that interpret the right of self-determination as an act of secession and view it as a threat to the sovereignty and the integrity of territory is an accurate analysis. Kuper explained the Aright to self-determination, to freedom from alien subjugation and exploitation was an inspiring, crusading call in the world movement for decolonization.[Kuper, 76] commonly discussed in the book, Slaughter Among Neighbors - Rwanda, India, South Africa, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and the Former Yugoslavia - rising tensions escalated into communal violence through the propaganda spread by members within the government when political popularity or and when territorial integrity was threatened. The fall of imperialism and the divergence from colonization prompted ethnic and political groups to call on the right to self-determination. Kuper alluded to the possible outcome of anarchy, if all ethnic groups within a state decided to seek the right to self-determination and questioning the validity of states that interpret this right in its most narrow sense to preserve territorial integrity and their sovereignty.

We define the right to self-determination as the group's right to choose the political status, economic and social development and the right to dispose of natural wealth and resources. Donnelly discussed that the right to self-determination is The one unambiguously well established people's right. [Donnelly, 147] He agrees with Kuper that self-determination is the outcome of destroyed imperialism and it is use as An instrument that of repression rather than liberation. [Donnelly, 147] He maintained that the right of people to their natural wealth and resources should be a guaranteed right especially when the Material means to satisfy a wide range of rights, and will not be subject to continued plunder by foreign states or corporations. [Donnelly, 148] The right to self-determination of a people, is a right of individuals acting collectively.

When an ethnic group advocates for self-determination within states, Kuper explains that, states interpret this right as a direct threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, and as a result they view liberation as secession. We can see examples of this form of reactions by governments in the Former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Armenia-Azerbaijan. In these cases, the United Nations has failed to prevent acts of genocide and with a tacit response, has encouraged nation-states to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity at their discretion. The message received by these states from the United Nations is that the international community condones these acts of genocide and therefore is excusable. Kuper claimed that the United Nations in its non-intervention policy by adhering to Article 27 of the UN Charter has, Abandon a dehumanized scale of values which effectively condones the sacrifices of human victims to the Territorial States. [Kuper, 76] Kuper suggested that the United Nations has provided no protection against the genocide of ethnic groups that sought independence from the repressive authority. He claimed that the Commission in their "delay, evasion and subterfuge," in dealing with the crimes and acts of genocide have condoned and protected states that use repressive means to crush claims for greater autonomy. [Kuper, 76] For example, in South Africa, India and Armenia Azerbaijan the governments were slow in containing the growing communal violence and condemning those actively involved in stimulating the insurgency. Their delay in responding to the acts of violence has encouraged the toleration and continuity. They could have prevented the Massacred of 25,000 people and one million displaced in Azebaijan by the Armenian forces if the Soviet government had acted accordingly in stemming the anti-Armenian violence from the start of the insurgency.

Frequently the governmental policies and many have administered the conflicts of the communal violence are orchestrated by the governments for example, Rwanda, Israeli-occupied territories and former Yugoslavia. We frequently believe that communal violence is a result of deep-seated or Ancient animosities, after the collapse of the authoritarian structures that had loosely united and defined territories. However we have seen in the cases mentioned above that these conflicts that have occurred within these regions were more than just Ancient animosities. I think the cause of such conflicts originate from greed and the desire for more land. This is an age-old power game played by people in waging wars to capture and claim more territory.

The book describes this in the sense that, Government's willingness to play on existing communal tensions to entrench its own power or advance a political agenda is a key factor in the transformation of those tensions into communal violence. [2] Governments in an attempt frequently used this to direct the violence to a minority group and win popularity from an ethnic majority. In Rwanda, they incited the Hutu to kill the Tutsi minority and in Bosnia the Bosnian-Serbs were encouraged to conduct Ethnic cleansing of all non Serbians- Muslims, Croats, Albanians, Gypsies and Jews- in the regions of Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia; areas believed by the Serbs to part of the Greater Serbia. In both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the governments - of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and by the Habyarimana government in Rwanda- targeted the communal violence to a specific minority group through propaganda from the media, in the pursuit of achieving the political objective for more land and thus more imperial power.

The acts of genocide that are deliberately orchestrated by governments and the power game played by politicians is like a game of chess. When one player moves a piece on the board, this move prompts a consequent move by the opposing player. The leaders of the insurgents are the players while the people whom they are massacring are the pieces on the board. The politician and insurgent leaders often have a direct political objective other than the interest of nationality. In these instances patriotism and the right to self-determination are power tools in achieving their main objective. In the cases of Kenya, Romania and India the political objective of the government was again concerned with border issues. However with the case of Sri Lanka, the political device that used was language. The political leaders use the communal sympathies to gain support from their constituency by aggravating ethnic discord and anti-Tamil riots. In Kenya the book stated that, The clashes were deliberately instigated and manipulated by KANU politicians who were eager to retain their power in the face of mounting internal and external pressure for change in government.[102] And again one of the main political objective was gaining more land, To terrorize and intimidate non-Kalenjins and non-Maasais to leave the Rift Valley Province, one of Kenya's most fertile areas and to allow Kalenjins and Maasais to take over the land.[102]

Of all the cases in the book, the genocidal acts in the Former Yugoslavia perfectly matched Kuper's discussion on the Repression of claims for greater autonomy. [Kuper, 76] The book stated clearly that the Communal violence was orchestrated by certain politicians, bureaucrats and members of the army as a means through which to retain political power and acquire territory.[114] When Yugoslavia was dissolved, the nation-states of former Yugoslavia began making claims to land that they believed was part of their constituent, although these regions were within another constituent. The Serbs made claim to land in Croatia. Both the Croats and the Serbs were making claims to land in Bosnia, heedless of the Muslims, Hungarians, Albanians, Italians, Slovaks and other minority groups that occupied the region with the Serbs and Croats.

What Kuper had used as a hyperbole of a situation leading to anarchy in which all the ethnic groups called for the right to self-determination had occurred in the former Yugoslavia. It was as early as 1987 that the Serbian government under Milosevic started a policy of repression in Kosovo to drive out Albanian minorities. As Serbia gained control of Vojvodina and Kosovo and alliance with Montenegro, it became a formidable force in former Yugoslavia in blocking autonomy and strength of other nation-states, such as Croatia. The government of Serbia has conducted training and arming of rebel Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, claiming that they were protecting The Serbs living in those republics from persecution by the fascist Croatian regime and the fundamentalist Bosnian government. [119] They justify their use of force in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia by claiming that They had a right and a responsibility to maintain the territorial integrity of the former Yugoslavia. [119] This is mere gibberish! In fact, their true interest is the opposite of what they use as a moral claim. As the book points out, Use of ethnic cleansing by Serbian and JNA forces supports the creation of a 'Greater Serbia,' not the preservation of a multiethnic Yugoslavia. [120]

I remember reading about an incident that occurred in the United States. It concerned a mass hysteria by the public in response to a radio broadcast of an alien invasion. As absurd as that may sound, the thousands of people who heard the broadcast - incidentally what they heard was actually a scene enacted from a radio play - panicked and actually believed that, what sounded as a news broadcast of aliens invading the planet was true because they heard it on a major radio station. This is the great impact that the media has on the public. The governments of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia have all manipulated the state-owned media to provoke ethnic hatred. To gain public support, Milosevic initiated a propaganda campaign portraying the Serbs as victims and even exaggerated the number of Serbs who died at the hands of Croatian and Bosnian forces. The Croatian and Bosnian governments bred their own propaganda in fomenting and escalating the ethnic hatred of the Serbians. A similar manipulation of the press was undertaken by the Habyarimana government in Rwanda and the depiction of Gypsies as thieves, beggars and black marketers by the Romanian government.

In almost four years, the international community has turned a blind eye to the massive and systematic genocide of people in Rwanda, India, South Africa, Romania, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Armenia-Azebaijan and the two most recent and convergent cases, the former Yugoslavia and Israeli-occupied territories. There are factors affecting the stability of world peace and order. Three of which are the ethnicity of cultures, conflict over borders, and the need to preserve sovereignty. There is a tremendous need for peace and world order. How then can we explain the continuous act of genocide, often and in almost every sector of the sphere? Without stabilizing peace in these insurgent areas, there was the fear that the atrocities which had occurred during World War II - the Holocaust - would be repeated. They created the United Nation with the solemn purpose of preserving world peace yet this body remains dormant while the death counts of thousands of people escalate.

We have seen Leo Kuper and Donnelley's argument echoed in almost every case discussed in the book, Slaughter Among Neighbors. The international community has recognized the right to self-determination but has failed to ensure the full liberation of these rights, thus resulting in communal violence and genocide. Donnelly stated that: States fears of secession and governments fears of revolution have combined to restrict the right to self-determination to little more than a right to sovereignty for those states (and colonies) that currently exist. [Donnelly, 148] Taken from Donnelley's argument, the right to self-determination emerged in many of the cases as part of the struggle against imperialism. Moreover the self-determination as a collective human rights, provide little new leverage in the struggle for human dignity, but they do provide additional intellectual, or at least ideological, ammunition for the forces of repression. [Donnelly, 149]

Slaughter Among Neighbors. The Political Origins of Communal Violence. Human Rights Watch. Yale University Press. London:1995.

Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice Cornell University Press. New York:1993.

Abstract from Leo Kuper, The Sovereign Territorial State: The Right to Genocide. Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century. Yale University Press. New Haven:1981.

Return to Kayebee's Home Page