Human Rights And Government Duties

The other day a coalition of nations led by those of the EU but including a number of Latin American and Asian countries as well introduced a non-binding resolution in the UN General Assembly. The measure called for the decriminalising of homosexual conduct and the securing of basic human rights regardless of gender identification or sexual orientation.

The resolution was opposed by the United States on the grounds that the national government could not take a position on a matter which, under the federal system, resided solely with the several states. This argument was disingenuous at best.

The initiative was also opposed by the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference as being contrary to the feudal dogmas of Islam. (It might be noted that the seven countries which impose the death penalty for homosexual conduct are all members of the OIC.) A speaker denounced the proposed measure as leading to pedophilia. This was an interesting stance considering the legitimacy of pedophilic marriage in Islam and its practice in many of the OIC's member countries.

The raising of the "human rights for gays" matter is one more example of a long standing tendency not only in the UN but throughout the world generally which is inherently both wrongheaded and ultimately not very productive. The primary consequence of the decades long emphasis on "rights" has done little beyond the promotion of a pervasive culture of "victimhood."

The problem with calling for "rights" particularly in resolutions or conventions intended to have international applicability resides in two paramount characteristics inherent to the concept. The first is that any and all "rights" can be defined only in hazy, ambiguous fashion. This means that the extent and nature of any particular "right" is subject to manifold interpretations and endless wrangling.

"Rights," it appears from the historical record are slippery critters. A "right" changes its shape and form with the passage of time and shifting of political winds or social currents.

The second problem with "rights" is their inevitable erosion by government. The government invariably adduces some "for-the-good-of-all" reason. Typically the government abridges a "right" with the tacit support of the citizenry--or at least the politically dominant portion of that society.

The historical record as well as contemporary reality shows that not only are "rights" shape shifters but that they are very fragile beasties as well. A soap bubble in a hurricane has a better chance of longevity than a "right" in the face of government ambition.

Governments, like all practitioners of politics are after power. Governments seek to acquire or at least maintain a level of direct, material and substantial control over the perceptions, beliefs and, therefore, actions of those living under their jurisdiction. Governments, regardless of their nature, are all about power. Power and coercion. "Rights" are the frailest of opponents. A "right" can be crushed easily under a jackboot. Or, a "right" can be modified unto death by a lawyer's pen.

It would be far better--and far more cynically realistic--if institutions, particularly those which aspire to a global sweep spoke of "duties." If they addressed the duties of a government, any government, all governments to their citizens.

The concept "duty" places a specific, well defined obligation for an affirmative action upon an individual or entity. That includes governments. The notion "duty" imposes a definite responsibility on an entity--including a government--to take a necessary action or to refrain from a specific action.

The concept "duty" gains even more salience when it is recalled that the sole justification for the existence of any government is its responsibility to protect and advance the interests and well-being of those individuals which live within the scope of its writ. The only way in which a government can meet the test of legitimacy is through its willingness and ability to shoulder specific responsibilities for the overall commonweal.

Because of their definable nature it is easier to demonstrate that a government has failed in its duty to the citizens under its authority. This implies that it is easier for a multi-national organization to both allege and prove that a particular government has violated international norms of "duty" than it is to do the same with respect to "rights."

To say that there is an inherent "human right" to freedom of speech or conscience is to say nothing. It is a High Minded, Lofty Thinking mouthing of feel-good ambiguity.

If an international convention instead were to impose a duty upon all governments to act affirmatively so as to assure that all citizens were free to write, to speak on any subject without punishment or interference, official or otherwise, is a different matter. It is a requirement, the breech of which can be easily observed and negatively sanctioned. To require that a government must take no action to impede its citizens from following the dictates of conscience and further must take action to assure that no impediments, legal or otherwise be placed in the way of such exercise is to assure that any violation is observable and open to collective expressions of international disapproval.

The same paradigm exists with respect to all the many "rights" enshrined in the sixty year old Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead of hazy sentiments such as those expressing the "rights" to adequate housing, proper nutrition, education and remunerative employment would it not have been better had "duties" been placed upon the signatory states to take all necessary actions to provide these fundamentals of life?

International norms which are expressed in terms of governmental "duties" rather than "human rights" would make it far easier to gain popular support for collective action against those regimes which fail in their "duties." It would be far easier to gain political support and maintain political will in the US and other nations for action against the regimes of kleptocrats, dictators and theocrats who pursue personal power or the dictates of some ideology or theological dogma to the disadvantage of their citizens.

"Rights" are wonderful. We're all for them. They make for a whole lot of feeling good. They are, unfortunately, impossible to define with precision or permanence. They are, unfortunately, impossible to enforce with effectiveness and consistency. Particularly on the international level.

"Duties" are made of sterner stuff. They can be listed with specificity. They are less subject to differing interpretation. Their violation is observable. And, they can be enforced. Even on the global level.

It's time for a change. It's time to replace "human rights" with "governmental duties." It's time for the UN and other international bodies to really work to make life better for the peoples of the world instead of simply doing things that make a few High Minded folks feel better for a day or two.