Human Rights

Throughout the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the concept of universalism is frequently cited and reiterated. Universalism can be defined by Mizra (2012) as the reference to philosophical, theological and religious concepts applying to all in application or applicability. It relation to human rights O'Byrne (2003) states that universality assumes that human rights exist in necessity to grant every human beings the same innate rights. This is apparent in the Declaration Article 1 which affirms: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1) illustrating the universal approach the Declaration asserts.

However, the universal approach of modernity has come under heavy criticism from a variety of different angles. One major denigrate of universalism has been the view that the concept of human rights is biased towards Western powers. It is argued that this makes the Declaration unequal but more significantly that liberal theories actually mask structural inequalities. Moreover, the institutionalised and legal practices of human rights mirror and sustain the benefits of a dominant group in the existing structure (Evans, 2001). What is being argued here is that the dominant groups controlling the formation of the rights, Western nations, have the influence and power to dictate the overall welfare which it is argued is always in favour of Western civilisation. It could be articulated that the promotion of universal values such as the human rights standards might be viewed as a distraction where the powerful nations create a system of formal and informal rules that legitimate and influence the actions of the weaker nations. It could be accentuated that the freedom suggested in the Declaration was not for poor, oppressed and excluded people to claim entitlement from those more powerful; rather it was a system which would allow developed states to remove structural, cultural and commercial barriers between countries in order to expand liberalism on a global scale (Evans, 2001). The point being made here is that universalism in human rights is aimed at benefiting Western nations by effectively regulating behaviour through an intrinsic meta-narrative. Weaker nations are subordinate to the hegemon values aiding in what can be referred to as power politics.

In direct correlation to genocide, this criticism of universalism is apparent in the crimes against subsequent groups in Rwanda and Iraq. On the 6th April 1994 one of the worst acts of genocide in the history of human civilisation was carried out in Rwanda (Prunier, 1995). Rwanda was in a state of economic crisis and ethnic unrest during the 80s and early 90s resulting in horrendous levels of poverty and political strife. In the preceding three months thousands of civilians in Rwanda were killed, tortured and raped in one of the most terrible crimes against humanity in human history. O'Byrne (2003) states that there was a complete failure from the Western Nations and the United Nations to intervene in the Rwandan genocide. Furthermore Linda Melvern claims that the genocide was: "carried out openly, without secrecy, and after months of careful preparation, which was also open, and yet the international political community sat back" (Melvern cited from O'Byrne 2003:311) highlighting that even before the actual killings began, the signals of a national crisis were observed by the UN but no action was taken to prevent. It could be adjudged that the international community did not want to intervene because to overthrow one group could have caused the seizing of power by another even more aggressive or stronger group. Moreover, it states in the Declaration Article 2(7) that intervention is prohibited which actively dissuades any forceful action to be taken. Conversely, the United Nations declaration Article 2 actually states that for the purpose of preserving or possibly initiating democracy, armed force against another state can be permitted. The complexity of a crime like genocide relating to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is apparent. It could be argued that the Declaration proclaims universalism such as safety and freedom for all human beings but at the same time condemns intervention.

Additionally the United Nations Article 2 affirms that states can intervene to promote democracy, which begs the question: why was their no action taken from the international community? According to Shaw (2007) the intervention of the United Nations was reactive rather than proactive. He claims that a major reason why international aid was not given was due to the lack of raw material resources owned by Rwanda. A comparative study from the recent claims of genocide in Iraq reinforces the argument that Western interests are central to international action. In 2002 there was information circling global politics and media exclaiming the Iraq dictator and his generals were ordering genocides throughout the country. By 2003 American and British troops had invaded Iraq to bring justice to the oppressed population. However, it is frequently argued that both countries mobilised their militaries and invaded in order to take control of Iraq's copious oil reserves (O'Shaughnessy, 2003). This is a prime example which sustains the argument that human rights are heavily biased towards Western national interests. This evidence also highlights the emphasis on rights rather than duties. It can be adjudged that the international community has the duty to protect people whose rights are clearly being breached, however in the case of Rwanda the lack of proactivity from governments was a clear failure to up hold those rights.

Many continue by arguing that universalism is a concept used in the Declaration to disguise a more ominous power: cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is the practice of systematically influencing other cultures through one's own cultural or beliefs predominantly by the use of physical or economic supremacy. However in the case of human rights it can be articulated that it is not through force Western nations dominate others but through a grand-narrative which proclaims equality and liberty for all; but rather uses this legitimate power over discourse to exert control on weaker nations. This ethnocentric view illustrates the criticisms of universalism and the Human Rights commission relating to their ineffective and selective intervention policies. Reinforcing this is the evidence to suggest that the complexity of human rights on genocide enables the Western states to choose which crimes to intervene in according to the potential gains available. This again highlights the false universalism of human rights.

However, advocates of universalism will argue that intervening in a country in crisis is a delicate issue. Furthermore, the international community was responsible for sending aid in the form of food, medicine and diplomatic advice to Rwanda (Prunier, 1995). Moreover, after the events of the Rwandan genocide the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established with the aim to prosecute the individuals responsible for orchestrating these crimes.