The world is going to pot, and the human-rights movement is largely to blame. That bizarre critique, popular with dictators and criminals, has taken hold even among some rights supporters who are stunned by the assault on liberal values that defines our age.
Having proven unable to halt the negative tide, human-rights advocacy, we are told, is in “crisis,” “has failed” and is in its “end times.”
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently established a panel that is supposedly to provide “fresh thinking about human rights discourse,” but will most likely undermine gender equality and reproductive freedoms.
Clearly, rights activists must up their game, but they should be under no illusion that the human-rights movement alone can save the planet.
Many criticisms have been leveled at human-rights discourse, but three stand out. Perhaps the most common is that rights advocates have done too little to address economic inequality.
Indeed, over the past four decades, the international human-rights movement has grown hand-in-hand with obscene disparities of wealth.
A second concern is over-legalization. Norms and standards go only so far if they are not implemented in real life.
A favorable court judgment that prompts celebration among activists is often just the beginning of a long enforcement struggle, and a preoccupation with legal claims has blinded the movement to the underlying moral values that move many to action.
Finally, critics argue, the result of excessive reliance on law has been to overlook people. On this view, rights defenders have spent so much time refining arguments for courts and legislatures that they have failed to consult adequately, let alone cooperate meaningfully, with the victims, survivors, family members and others on whose behalf they purport to advocate.
These strategic failures have allowed authoritarian leaders to paint rights advocates as an enemy elite.
In this vein, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has urged his fellow citizens to “reject the fake civil-society activists ... who want to tell us how to live and with whom, how to speak and how to raise our children.”
Yet the criticisms contain much truth, and they lead to clear prescriptions. More attention must be given to economic suffering. Activists must relearn how to speak less like lawyers and more like people, and must work more collaboratively with like-minded groups that do not identify themselves as rights defenders, but whose contributions — whether through science, technology, economics or the arts — can foster rights awareness.
Thankfully, some rights organizations are listening. Amnesty International now aims to increase its membership to 25 million, with a focus on youth, while Human Rights Watch intends to collaborate more closely with activists in the global South.
These suggested reforms will no doubt help, but they will not be sufficient by themselves to reverse the populist onslaught.
We in the human-rights movement must be realistic about our distinctive but limited role in propelling change on the scale needed to confront the current authoritarian threat.
Rights advocates have achieved a lot, and will do more, but rolling back reactionary politics worldwide requires not just rights activism, but also deeper engagement in political debate and elections.
That is a task not just for the rights movement, but for everyone.
Although the impact of rights advocacy cannot be measured in monetary terms, the differences between the amounts spent on it and on political campaigning are revealing.
Although annual philanthropic funding for “human rights and social justice” has increased worldwide in the past few years, it remains under US$3 billion. That is less than half the cost of India’s parliamentary election this year and 50 percent of the amount spent by candidates in the 2016 presidential and congressional races in the US.
Human-rights groups must acknowledge their own responsibility for fueling excessive expectations of what advocacy can achieve — whether out of a need to raise funds, an undue sense of moral purity, or a related desire to rise above the dirty game of politics.
Yet, even amid the prevailing gloom, political organizing and elections are leading to positive change. Armenia, Ethiopia, the Gambia and Malaysia have all experienced progressive electoral transitions in the past three years, while populists suffered setbacks in last year’s US midterm elections and in Indonesia.
These outcomes turned on issues such as corruption, climate change, poverty, #MeToo and others that relate to and extend well beyond human rights, and although rights organizations contributed to these victories, so did political parties, labor unions, women’s coalitions, environmentalists and professional associations.
As these gains suggest, the battle against illiberal populism will ultimately be won in the arenas of politics and power — in voting booths, legislative offices, the media and on the streets. Rights arguments will sometimes be critical, but not everywhere and not always.
So by all means, let us celebrate the many achievements of human-rights advocacy and resolve to do better, but do not saddle the rights movement with the entire burden of transforming the world.
James Goldston is executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and previously worked in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry