I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

Ok, I have finally read the article you linked to. I agree with it– there needs to be a way to incorporate international law (IL) into national charters/laws/practices, especially since nation state laws are inadequate.

****

The biggest problems, however, are:

1. How do you make states follows IL when it is voluntary, and states want to maintain and preserve their “sovereignty” (ie not having an international body overseeing and adjudicating on matters that state want to retain freedom for)? This is the biggest concondrum that IL lawyers deal with.

2. rights have become tied up with nationality and citizenship, which is a product of the predominant current structure we have right now– nation-states.

The thing is that the imposition of “nation-states” has wreaked a lot of havoc and birthed many problems, but it’s become the overwhelming way to regulate and manage affairs of the state, as well as the embodiment of sovereignty, self-rule etc. This is mostly for the regulation of an international political-economic order which facilitates cross border transactions and dynamics, especially since the decolonization of several colonies (ie you can’t simply go occupy a country like in the past to reap the rewards of their resources; now, we engage in neo-colonialism which is economic imperialism. And colonalization and occupation are not entirely wiped out either- witness Palestine). The imposition of nation-states and the pandora’s box it opens up can be testified with the vivisection of the subcontinent and the problems arising out of that, partition of Palestine, balkanization, etc.

And the fact that borders have been created and many people have been left out, rendering them in a location which is a no-man’s land, is another aspect. Or divided historically coherent people, like the Kurds (who now reside in 4 [?] different countries).

And eyeing a nation-state as a container of- paradoxically- the expression of liberation and freedom can be witnessed with the multitude of peoples demanding a state (ie Palestinians, Balochi, etc).

The fact that rights for citizens is linked and tied to citizenship produces a contention, since so many people fall out of the purview of this– there are many stateless people, as well as people who live in nation-states where they are not citizens and are definately not regarded as having any rights (migrants, Guantanamo detainees, etc). But citizenship now gives access to certain rights, it is one of the major facilitators of rights, and this is not lost on even the UN:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

See Article 15.

****

Going back to special interest group mentalities, let me give another example. Hindus in the US vociferously fight for “Hindu human rights” in Kashmir and Pakistan. They point to how Kashmiri Hindus have been attacked and forced to become refugees. They also point to the position of Hindus in Pakistan.

Pointing out the targeted attacks on Hindus in Kashmir and Pakistan is not wrong. They DO get attacked because they are Hindus.

But here’s where myopia sets in– Hindus are cleansed out of Kashmir, but the overwhelming number of Kashmiris who have died in total are Muslim. Why are they not equally perturbed that these Kashmiris have been killed? For me, the death of a Kashmiri Muslim and Kashmiri Hindu is equally atrocious. Human rights violations for all must be ceased immediately.

And in Pakistan, Hindu girls are forced to convert and marry Pakistani Muslim men. But these Hindu groups fail to point out that the same thing is happening to Pakistani Christian women as well. And they don’t point out that sectarian violence amongst Muslims have taken a toll.

They fail to make a connection, which is that people are persecuted for their religion, period. Sikhs have borne the brunt of targeted violence, Muslims have, Sikhs have, Christians have. THIS is the problem. Not only that Kashmiri Pandits have been pushed out of Kashmir.

My point is that when groups like this push for “human rights,” they are not really pushing for human rights. It should be across the board. “Human rights” inherently- for me, at least- means that ALL humans should have the same rights. They, on the other hand, are privileging one group over the other and deeming THEIR human rights as inalienable, why all others are removed from the scene. Which is troublesome. This is why I steer clear of religious based organizations.

Your comments below the line in post 129 are interesting to say the least. If you have advocacy for human rights that are based on anything less than a universal approach, it seems to me to be inevitable that they will privelege one group over another. It is what nation states are about, it is what religions have become.

Good stuff.

“This is what I meant, please read it, I think it is what you are about”

Will certainly do, and I’ll get back to you on that.

***

Touching base with the original point of the post, I really do find religious based and ethnically based groups very constrictive. Everything departs from a singular point of view; all discussions are with the same lens. Sometimes, it makes me feel like it’s a tribal mentality– we’re always thinking of our “own” first and foremost.

Another thing too is that even the ones that purport to fight for seemingly ideal notions, they turn out to be incredibly narrow-minded, as well applying those ideal notions to one particular group (which is their own). Which, in my view, defeats the whole fucking point because I want to see those ideal notions extended to everyone, regardless of whether they are “one of us” or not.

Case in point is a Hindu group in Amreeka that I just can’t stand. Don’t talk to me about fighting for “Hindu human rights” which is an oxymoron in and of itself.

Sonia is always onto something. I really, really wish she’d give a position statement. Obviously, I’d agree with it, ’cause I have rarely (never?) disagreed with what she has to say. Sonia is largely right, although her view that Sunny shouldn’t be a politician leaves me cold, and I’ve argued he should be.

What the hell, friends should be allowed to disagree?

Or more explicitly, Sunny @ 119: the opposite of Britishness is not (necessarily/automatically) open borders. To be discussing the limitations of the former is not necessarily to be advocating for the latter.

One can strive for the human within a recognition of the borders, and yet not link it to nationalism, or indeed citizenship.

Read Sonia’s bits again, she’s on to something.

This is what I meant, please read it, I think it is what you are about:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/10/legal_interventions.html

Correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, I see where you are coming from, and it’s not far away from my own position. To take an extreme example of this disconnect, Rumbold put up a post here not so long ago about what appears to be damn near genocide in the Central African Republic, here:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1430

In a triumph of unity for apathy, folk noted it and moved on. Three comments! And I stand humbled as I couldn’t think of anything to add.

I’d like Sunny to ask Conor Foley to guest on here sometimes, it really needs someone who has been there and seen it to bring issues like this out into the open.

I suppose that at least we have some folk thinking on a broader human rights framework than we used to, although the pace of change is so dam’ slow.

As you say, Amnesty have had some successes over the years but they are like the boy with his finger in the dyke. We need a lot more of it, and we need to figure out how to do it on a person to person consensual basis, missing out states at the issue formulation level and only addressing them when we can speak in a united way.

Now that would be a debate worth having

Yes, Amnesty International is one of my favorites. So is Human Rights Watch, Global Citizen, Reporters Without Borders, and so on (just check out my blogroll and you’ll see that I hit up several international orgs).

But those orgs are not the ones I had in mind. I believe that both national AND international agendas should be worked on, and as Sunny said, the two can exist side by side. I’d love to hear about an all inclusive British org which works on British agendas as well as international ones. After all, it’s often domestically made policies that eff up the international arena, no? Like us Americans putting that wanker Bush in office for his second term (arguably, we didn’t put him in office the first time around. Thank you, Supreme Court!)

Douglas Clark:

“I think that it is quite a progessive idea to reject the complete autonomy of a nation state within it’s borders.”

Totally agreed.

I think we can use national agendas to promote causes both at home AND in the international arena. Sometimes, using the state we live allows us to push for laws, legislation, resolutions, etc to become more standardized, vigorous, and accountable. I love some of the NGO’s stated above; but I must confess that at certain times they are:

1. operating outside of the reach of any real change, apart from their critiques (not always; Amnesty gives out contact info of politicians so that we can call them and harass them to stop, say, torturing folks)

2. band-aid remedy when in fact we need structural change

3. they create a sphere for people like me and you, but that sphere is just that- it’s a sphere, it’s not all pervasive.

Also, those of us who are citizens of a state are the ones that have to deal with the consequences of national politics. I’m all down for international outlooks, but I’ve noticed that here in the US, some American Desis will be focused more on the Kashmir issue (which, if you talk to them, they have very little knowledge of beyond the rhetoric, and it’s usually to prop up the powerful state, ie India and they don’t really push for Kashmiris’ human rights which have been severely violated in some cases) but have almost nothing to say about the war in Iraq. Here they are, voting citizens of this country and whose tax dollars are going into this war, but almost no position (or they stand I stand that makes me cringe).

So, in a long winded way, what I’d like to see is a concerted effort that works on both national and international issues.

Is there really an ‘International Rescue’?

Thunderbirds are go!

Others include Doctors without Borders, International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee etc.

Also Reporters without Frontiers is a valuable international organisation.

There are a few out there and they do good jobs and they are supported well by all communities and nationalities. Some of them also link into national and religious orgs for obtaining aid and nothing wrong with that.

Or, of course, there is ‘medecins sans frontiers’, which is committed to providing aid wherever needed, regardless of race, religion, politics or sex.

You are right that you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, but the balance between ‘nationalism’ and ‘internationalism’ seems to me to be skewed towards the former. No-one, as far as I know, apart from at the true fringes is talking about ‘open borders’. What they are trying to do is inject some law into international relations, even if it effects the sovereignty of our beloved nation states. I think that it is quite a progessive idea to reject the complete autonomy of a nation state within it’s borders. We, for instance already pool sovereignty in, say, the International Criminal Court and the ECHR.

The folk that don’t like it tend to be right wing, not progressives.