groundviews is a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiativeregister here.login.find out more
inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Western baloney on “human rights”

The following article, which is a commentary on HLD Mahindapala’s speech given recently at the BMICH, arrived in my inbox earlier today.

It was sent to be by someone who had received it from someone else. Googling the title suggests the commentary was originally produced by a Janaka Perera  and published at the Lanka Herald.

I normally wouldn’t cut and paste such a text – but I feel the commentary below raises some interesting issues, some of which we may be familiar with, but worth revisiting and reconsidering again.

Western baloney on ‘human rights’
Written by Janaka Perera
Saturday, 01 December 2007

In a scathing attack on Western double standards on human rights, veteran Journalist and Editorial Adviser Asian Tribune, H.L.D. Mahindapala last week accused Western Powers of pulling the wool over the eyes of the world on human rights. He charged them with jettisoning their HR proclamations as an when the necessity arose for them to defend their nations, their interests and their way of life.

” Their double standards not only give human rights a bad name but also placed the future of human rights in jeopardy.  Their arrogant actions, riding rough shod over the human rights of others whom they seek to subdue from time to time, give credence to the claim that the place for human rights in contemporary human affairs has been exaggerated and the abuses of institutions set up to safeguard human rights – including the UN – have devalued the promise held out to guide and serve the larger interests of humanity”

Mahindapala was delivering the D.A. Rajapaksa Commemorative Oration titled, ‘Man does not live by rights alone’ at the BMICH, Colombo on November 29.

He further said, “”The sophisticated theories they tout to push their agendas have come under fire from countries selectively targeted by their think tanks, academia, NGOs and above all, Western media who have a tendency to demonize nations ear-marked for condemnation by the foreign offices in Western capitals,”

Mahindapala attributed the crisis facing human rights to Western leaders debasing the credibility and the viability of human rights by using these selectively to serve their interest.

“Whatever their high-sounding theories and principles may be, in practice, the universality and indivisibility of human rights tend to disappear when the Big Brothers use it as a stick to bring the little ones to heel.”

He noted that the United States with its commitment to “life, liberty and happiness” had not hesitated to destroy the life, liberty and happiness of selected segments of American society (Afro-Americans and Native Americans) as well as other nations when it suited their interests.   He recalled the murder of Salvador Allende -the first democratically elected socialist leader of Chile (1970-73) and the destruction of Chilean democracy – did not confirm to any known principles of “life, liberty and happiness” let alone basic human rights.   The U.S. while creating an image of itself as the most powerful and voice defender of human rights, argued vehemently to exclude its citizens from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.   Washington had feared that it generals and its commander-in-chief, the President, could be tried like Slobodan Milosevic for violations of human rights.

Referring to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of a Western naval cordon around Iraq with United Nations approval, Mahindapala said:

“What the 500,000 Iraqi children would never know is that the very institution set up to protect their rights turned against them, under cover of multilateral consensus, and starved them to death. Mercifully, they would never know that the rich and the mighty used the citadel of human rights to violate their right to live. If the UN lends its seal of approval to kill children in their cots why should Kofi Annan, Bush, Blair and their allies be left off the hook of committing this crime against the innocent children of Iraq?   When you consider the scale of crime committed in Iraq under UN approval, Idi Amin looks more respectable than Kofi Annan.”

Asked Mahindapala “who is there to take these culprits to the International Criminal Court or cut off aid? Certainly, not the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, which is exceedingly busy looking for small fry!”

He recalled that the overall trend points to the dismal fact that the dispossessed and the powerless have not been the primary beneficiaries of any set of rights throughout history. Whatever the benefits they had received came to them like the crumbs that fell off the tables of those who had the power to draft, interpret and dictate either the extent or the limits of rights.

Mahindapala observed: “The history of Western ideologies is studded with the artificial glitter of manufactured theories – from Nazism, Communism, and Apartheid to exploitative liberalism – to justify and/or to cover-up the crimes committed against humanity. Mankind has paid dearly not only to give birth and sustain these theories but also to bring down the institutions built on those theories each time they fail to live up to their promises.”

Recalling the past roles of today’s human rights champions in the West he said that during World War II when British and American interest were threatened Britain had fire-bombed Dresden to rubble and the U.S. reduced Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cinders. In Hiroshima , 140,000 died instantly and 80,000 died later. The worst of was it was that the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes knew that these were no military targets and the people were non-combatant civilians.

And these were the very people, he said derisively, who had the gall to condemn the Sri Lankan state for the violent deaths of some 60,000 persons in an internal conflict that has continued for the past 25 years.

“The West seems to claim and act as if they are the sole guardians of human rights. This also implies that they own the monopoly to interpret and dictate terms to the rest primarily with the aim of pushing their political and economic agendas. Of course, they have the resources and the power to dominate and dictate which country should have their blessings to get away with violations of human rights and which should be pressured to obey their diktats.   They even hire a global army of NGO policemen to monitor the conduct of others who do not confirm to the political standards stipulated by them. Some of the reports are cooked up to suit the agendas of the funding masters abroad as seen in the case of Iraq.”

He charged professional rights activists in NGOs with pocketing heaps of money by living off the plight of the poor, women, and even victims of war.

“Theirs is a money-making business. Rival NGOs compete with each others to grab the dollars pouring out of the Western cornucopia.   These NGO activists are mercenaries posing as rights activists to make themselves a name and win some awards while making pots of money on the side.”
Mahindapala stressed the need for reviewing the reporting mechanism comprehensively to prevent the abuse of human rights in the hands of these questionable political activists.

“Reporting human rights violations should not be left in the hands of those handpicked from Western nations with a biased agenda or the local NGOs funded by these nations.   Some of the UN rapporteurs fly in and out of war-torn countries picking up only the bits and pieces that are useful to their prejudices or their agendas.”

On the issue of genuine human rights and duties he drew attention to Mahatma Gandhi’s illiterate mother as a universal figure who made history, anonymously and unobtrusively, and remarked:

“She did not write applications in triplicate to funding agencies pushing her claim for funding, most of which goes in this age of rights to maintain the luxury life-style of NGO bosses. Without romanticizing the humble but noble services of Gandhi’ smother, it can be averred that in the age of duties the moral sense reigned supreme.”

Mahindapala emphasized:

“No one has a monopoly on human rights. It is part of the human heritage which must be shared in common by all. Maximizing the universality and the indivisibility of human rights is the primary task of those who champion human rights. And this can be achieved only by balancing human rights with traditional duties”

Print this post
1,208 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:
  • Measuring poverty differently What comes to mind when one hears the word poverty? Scarcity, shortage, paucity, deficiency, dearth are words that are in the Thesaurus. Yet, the word confuses me in the way it is commonly used. I live in Sri Lanka, a developing country with GDP of about US $1,000 per capita. In western terms, this is a... Lalith Gunaratne, October 25, 2008
  • Youth activists on human rights in Sri Lanka To commemorate Human Rights Day 2009 (falling on 10 December) Groundviews interviewed a number of leading activists in Sri Lanka to find out their perspectives on current challenges facing human rights in post-war Sri Lanka. In general, activists featured were asked to comment on the Sri Lankan State’s protection of human rights, the nexus between... Groundviews, December 14, 2009

| Share this article on Facebook

kiripani said,

December 11, 2007 @ 9:09 pm

“…can be achieved only by balancing human rights with traditional duties” ???

You’re kidding,right? BALANCING?! Surely he doesn’t mean that certain traditional duties are more importand than human rights? i.e.some “things that are done, simply because that is the way they were always done” are more importand than human rights? What a moron.

Getting back to the point: The human rights record of Western countries are irrelevent. Human rights should be respected because that is what is right!

groundviews said,

December 12, 2007 @ 4:34 am

Sam,

Since I don’t usually allow authors to post unoriginal content on this site, I would strongly suggest that you can explain why you found this article interesting and share your opinion on the questions it poses and issues it raises.

Thanks and best,

Sanjana

JM said,

December 12, 2007 @ 5:03 am

Kiripani, I think what the man means is that our traditional values, which place inter-personal and communal duties above individual rights and demands, should be preserved in harmony with the latter. A society with rights sans duties is doomed as is vice versa.

sam said,

December 12, 2007 @ 8:47 am

Sanjana,

Yes – a tad lazy on my part to simply cut and paste – I should have summarised and reflected.

However, I am curious to see what other readers of GroundViews thinks about this piece.

During the past few hours, George Bush has demanded the following of Iran: “”We believe Iran had a secret military weapons program and Iran must explain to the world why they had a program”.

Why?

I am interested in double standards, and I am trying to work out if countries that have not acknowledged their own dirty business has the right to criticise the dirty business of others.

The commentary above provoked me to consider this idea of double standards further – from individuals, nation-states and international agencies…

Hopefully, there’ll be a few more comments from readers on the above commentary…

Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats his child? Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats both his children?

Sam.

Jack Point said,

December 12, 2007 @ 12:58 pm

The criticism of ‘western’ human rights activists seems to be:

1. things in the west are as bad or worse
2. therefore they have no moral standing, so to speak, to criticise us.

Local NGO’s are assumed to be puppets of ‘western’ NGO’s and therefore have no standing either.

May I suggest that we forget the NGO’s and examine the facts, and reflect on them :

1. Are human rights being violated?
2. Why? Can this be justified?
3. Can certain procedures be put in to minimise abuses?
4. Are there alternative means to achieve the same end?

Jack Point said,

December 12, 2007 @ 1:05 pm

‘Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats his child? Does a father who beats his child have the right to criticize another father who beats both his children?’

My question is: is it right to beat the child?

sam said,

December 12, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

@ Jack,

I agree completely with what you are saying.

It seems to me that if ordinary people “examine the facts” and make a stance, then the focus on NGOs, etc will lessen, and positions of commentators such as Mahindapala’s will become less relevant.

From my brief experience in living and travelling relatively widely throughout Sri Lanka, it seems to be that many Lankans tend not to “examine the facts”, and therefore it becomes acceptable to beat the child…

rmk said,

December 12, 2007 @ 6:15 pm

“And these were the very people, he said derisively, who had the gall to condemn the Sri Lankan state for the violent deaths of some 60,000 persons in an internal conflict that has continued for the past 25 years.”

The implication of that sentence, and what follows it, is that the rights violations taking place in Sri Lanka are so minimal as to be ‘irrelevant’, if compared to violations committed by Western powers. That sounds like a very convenient position for any perpetrators of rights violations here. Are we to think that the victims of violations will respond by saying that, ‘Oh well, the West does worse things’? I’m sure that would comfort them.

Mahindapala, and Janaka Perera, have attacked Western powers as using human rights for political agendas. In many cases that’s incontrovertible, and a cause for condemnation. But with statements like this, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that his own attack is also motivated by specific agendas.

If we get caught up in detailed responses to Perera’s article, I think we’re allowing him to set the agenda for the discussion. That’s a useful diversion for perpetrators of abuses here, in Sri Lanka’s own cities and towns. When such positions are repeated ad nauseum in the mass media, they become a major propaganda tool in favor of the perpetrators. By allowing Perera and his kind to set the debate, in effect we start playing a game that distracts from the cold, hard facts of abuse.

Personally, I’d rather engage with debates that work towards the curtailment of rights violations, here, and everywhere, including condemnation of all regimes’ abuses, Western and otherwise. However as a debating device, Perera’s article leads us in the opposite direction, condemning one set of perpetrators in a manner that distracts from others, the ones closer to home, in our own neighborhoods. Is that really the kind of debate we want to engage in?

There are several publications on the history of human rights, and the mixture of idealism and compromise, principle and politics, that have led us this far. It hasn’t always been a clean story, but it has led to strong instruments and concepts in support of human dignity. Perhaps one useful publication is Geoffrey Robertson’s ‘Crimes Against Humanity – The Struggle for Global Justice’. There are others written by non-Western rights activists. I’m sure they weren’t all writing for the money.

Nagalingam Ethirveerasingam said,

December 14, 2007 @ 12:28 am

Thank you Sam for ‘cutting and pasting’ to get the readers to reflect. If someone says I am violating another person’s rights, it does not matter to me who says it. But what is said with evidence and reason is what I would care. It does not matter to me whether the person who accuse me of violating another’s rights also violate the rights of others. I would condemn him, but will not give that as an excuse to keep on committing the crime. In the late Eighties I used to watch an Australian television show hosted a Robertson called “IF …). He will give a hypothetical “If” situation to a Panel of experts in many fields and ask them to respond what each one of them would do. The discussion continues for an hour at the end of which a conclusion is reached.

I used to use that technique to my students at the Univ of Papua New Guinea. One of such a question was, “What will happen and what would you and your community would do if the Sun never rises again?” As a moderator I would probe and put limits when the discussion goes off track, and ask questions.

May be Groundviews could pose the question, “What would happen to the people living in Sri Lanka if all people in Sri Lanka loose the urge and ability to physically or mentally harm another person?” Sanjana will be the best person to be the moderator, like Robertson. The readers can be the Panel. Just a thought.

bulathsinhala said,

January 1, 2008 @ 12:05 am

Jack point,
1. Are human rights being violated?

yes unfortunately.

2. Why? Can this be justified?
Why:?
It happens in every war situation unfortunately. It happened in ww2, before they liberated the west from the monster Hitler. But it was the duty of the armies to liberate the people.

When a suicide bomber blows himself/herself in Colombo, fighting in Iraq or afghanistan or every time neo nazi’s racial attack takes place against a non-white person in Europe, etc. human rights are equally violated. The point is that we select and over-expose some, ignore others.

can be justified ? No. None of these can not be justified.

3. Can certain procedures be put in to minimise abuses?

Yes. End terrorism. End the war with minimum casualities. Go that extra mile to speak to the opponents. Try to solve the problem betiween ourselves as one nation. offer friendship typical compassion that we buddhists/hindus/muslims/cristians have inherited from our great cultures.
(We have all the blessings of all gods in this country.)
Safeguard the nation against any foreign/local elemants who may try to take advantage of the situation. Listen to our neighbouring/friendly countries.

4. Are there alternative means to achieve the same end?

Eliminate poverty. This can be done only by fighting corruption, ending the war, being proud of our own things.
do not let others dictate us.
stop begging from others. Of course
get help from friendly counties. Help them too as equals. They are as interested as ourselves about the stability of the region.

We have the worlds most prosperous and beautiful country. if we can all unite as brothers and sisters definitely we can make things work.

thanks.
Bulathsinhala

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

This is a moderated forum. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Please do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Comments are automatically scanned for spam and obscenity.

Comments are only approved if they are in line with the site guidelines. Those that do not will be edited or deleted without prior intimation. Comment approval may take up to 24 hours.

Thanks in advance for your civil and constructive engagement.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free