Human Rights vs Human Wrongs

10th December marks the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The Human Rights Day coincides in Namibia with the commemoration of the victims of the resistance to the forced re-location from the ‘Old Location’ to Katutura in 1959. This traumatic event marked a turning point in the emergence of the national anti-colonial resistance, leading to the formation of SWAPO and ultimately to the decision to resort to the armed struggle against illegal foreign occupation.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN HISTORY

The codified enshrinement of human rights dates back to The Declaration of Independence by the then 13 united states of America, proclaimed in 1776. It categorically stated that, ‘all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. But the indigenous Indian population in the Americas, as much as the slaves imported from Africa, hardly had any reasons to welcome such noble words resulting from the era of European enlightenment. Their ‘pursuit of happiness’ ended in physical or mental destruction.

Along similar lines, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted after the French Revolution between 1789 and 1791 by the National Constituent Assembly was inspired by a concept of equality, which at the same time excluded the majority of people. The triumvirate of ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’ did indeed limit the applicability of liberty and equality mainly to the brotherhood of (white) men. This motivated the humanist philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet to declare that, ‘he who votes against the right of another, whatever the religion, color, or sex of that other, has henceforth adjured his own’. Marquis de Condorcet, also a fierce advocate of the abolitionist movement against slavery, became himself in 1794 the victim of the machinery of extinction set into motion by the so-called revolutionaries and exemplified by the guillotine. He left his life as a result of the citoyens’ ruthless efforts to eliminate any opposition to their self-righteous rule.

Both early milestones in the history of the formulation of human rights already illustrate the ambiguities between normative values proclaimed and the political-social realities under the execution of power and the selective application of norms to maintain rule. The rule of law has almost ever since then been the law of the rulers. Despite the US and French declarations, the subsequent expansion of Europe to most other parts of the world, euphemistically labeled as a ‘civilizing mission’, resulted in colonialism and racism culminating in the subjugation of all other people as inferior. If they resisted to such foreign rule, they were eliminated.

The German-Namibian War of 1904 to 1907 is among the early evidences of such practices at the beginning of the 20th century, which produced industrial forms of mass violence and extermination through two world wars, the Holocaust, the Gulag, and the annihilation of civilian populations through the atom bomb, before – and also in response to these traumatic experiences - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted.

THE POWER OF DEFINITION

The United Nations Declaration was by no means only the result of paternalistic Western visions imposed upon the rest of the world. Adopted by 48 of the UN member states with eight abstentions (the Eastern bloc, Saudi-Arabia and South Africa), the document also incorporated non-European perspectives. It was drafted mainly by a Canadian and a French legal expert, a Lebanese and a Chinese philosopher and Eleanor Roosevelt (widow of the US-President Franklin D. Roosevelt). It came during the 1950s as a handy and opportune point of reference for the emancipation movements from foreign colonial rule in the global South. Advocates of the right of self-determination of people knew how to utilise the normative framework, even though it took in many cases - as we know in Namibia - far too long to achieve the legitimate goal.

The reference to a universally set standard in pursuance of legitimate goals to enforce and protect undivided human rights was however all too often quickly forgotten again by those once in power. Using the human rights in justification of their own ambitions to govern their people (instead of government by the people), the leaders of newly independent countries hardly ever lived up to the standards as defined in the Universal Declaration. Their totalitarian regimes found it more convenient to dismiss the Declaration as cultural imperialism and a Eurocentric hegemonic project. They failed, however, to come up with a better alternative, which would indeed serve people more than the Universal Declaration.

Such selectivity executed by those who hold the power of definition over societies through their political offices is by no means the sole or exclusive domain of the countries skeptical of Western dominance. The West itself hardly missed any opportunity to show that human rights were only a guiding principle when it suited its own interests. The ‘War Against Terror’ serves as an excuse to ignore or violate even the most basic fundamental rights of people, to justify torture, war and what is euphemistically called ‘collateral damage’, meaning the killing of innocent civilians. Xenophobia raises its ugly head even in the most tolerant Western societies, including those in the Nordic countries. In current France the Sinti and Roma (in the ordinary slang referred to as ‘gypsies’) are systematically deported on the grounds of their ethnic origin. These and other scandals do not allow claims to occupy any moral commanding heights. The West has certainly no reason to consider itself as a role model.

CONTINUED CONTESTATION

But neither has the East or the South. The dismissal of the human rights discourse as Western cultural imperialism has a bad smell when it comes from voices such as those of Mugabe. African governments have hardly reason to pose as alternatives. In neighbouring South Africa, fellow Africans perceived as ‘strangers’ from elsewhere risk their lives. So do Albinos in many African countries, who have reason to fear that they will become the victims of ritual murders. Political or religious motivated massacres are still almost a daily occurrence in several African countries. Gays and lesbians are in many states on the continent intimidated, oppressed and prosecuted, even risking capital punishment or long-time imprisonment. As recently as the end of November this year their advocacy group was denied observer status at the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Women remain the targets of systematic sexual violence and continue to suffer from genital mutilation.

The list of abhorrent scandals violating the most fundamental rights of human beings in African societies could go on. Not to mention the second and third generation of human rights. These include the right to food, to water, to shelter, to clothing, to education and many other basic necessities, available until this very day only to a minority of people on our planet. The origins for these discriminating conditions date back to the same era of enlightenment, which produced not only the noble declarations, but also the expansion of an emerging industrial-capitalist system to the rest of the world and the exploitation of many for the privileges of few. But this should not serve as an excuse for those holding political responsibility in societies, who have been for centuries at the receiving end, to now perpetuate the same class structures and interests under their own governments in the domestic context.

This includes our own Namibian socio-political realities. It should be accounted for by a leadership, supposedly guided by a Constitution, which embraces most of the essentials reflected in the human rights discourse. The Human Rights Day coincides with a cornerstone of our own struggle for liberation and emancipation and reminds us of the price the Namibian people had to pay in their pursuance of dignity and respect leading to self-determination. It was our own Soweto massacre, which is commemorated on the very day and marked a turning point in the history of resistance against foreign occupation and a minority regime guided by apartheid.

The liberation struggle resulting from this experience produced victims and perpetrators on all sides. We have no reasons to romanticise the bloody road to Independence, knowing about all the skeletons in the closet of the liberation movement. Similar to other revolutionary transitions in societies elsewhere, the processes of resistance often turn victims into perpetrators. At the end of such emancipation, the mindset of the new ruling elite is not too different from the one of those replaced in the seats of state power. This does not bode well for the respect and protection of human rights for all. The commemoration of old injustices should not be abused for the legitimisation of new ones. Rather, it should serve as a reminder that the struggle was not only against such injustice but also at the same time for justice. So far, we have not yet come close to this goal.

BACK TO THE ROOTS

At the end, and in conclusion of these reflections, it might be worthwhile to return to the first document of its kind, the US charter adopted in 1776. After declaring the pursuit of happiness as a legitimate entitlement for all, it continued to reason:

- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In the spirit of this affirmative attitude to the rights of people, Henry David Thoreau in an essay originally published in 1849 in the ‘Aesthetic Papers’ as ‘Resistance to Civil Government’, claims legitimacy to refuse the authority of the state if this authority is not serving a just cause: ‘Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.’ In his view, laws have not to be obeyed if they are unjust. He is prepared to accept minor injustices, but if the law ‘is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.’

It seems that 62 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the spirit of its predecessor of 1776, a lot remains to be done to return to these principles and apply them even handedly - everywhere. After all, it is the people themselves who are tasked to take care of their rights.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Dr Henning Melber is the executive director of The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation in Uppsala/Sweden and a member of Swapo since 1974.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.