Is there a place left for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

0

Is there a place left for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Today marks the 73rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and accompanied by the question: What is the reality of human rights in the world? The lesson is not in the memory as much as the practice of human rights on the ground, as the logic of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based mainly on justice, equality and respect. The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based mainly on justice in non-discrimination and discrimination in treatment, standards and criteria between peoples, races and races, whether they are residents of the North or the South, or they belong to poor or rich countries. We note that the past seven decades, that is, since the charter was announced, violations and abuses have occurred in which the same countries that participated in drafting the declaration excelled, those countries that declared themselves responsible for all of humanity, but according to their views, visions, logic and interests. From the very beginning, i.e. the year 1948, the start was wrong and there was a double standard of standards and criteria, as in that historical era, states, nations and peoples were under the yoke of colonialism, and the Charter did not address them, either from near or from afar, and did not give them any consideration. What is the situation nowadays, as we live in an era of globalization and international conflicts and conflicts in various fields, and we are in a global system dominated by turmoil and international conflicts and disputes? And actors in the international system use the term and concept according to their data and interests, and can we talk about the universality of human rights or the globalization of human rights in a world in which a handful of states control its fate and the most important decisions that concern it? What can be said is that human rights, such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, individual freedoms, civil liberties, and many other concepts and terms have become slogans that are practiced and employed in the language of politics and diplomacy and have become used as a means of pressure on a large number of countries that deviate from the obedience of actors in the international system. It should be noted here that the Charter of Human Rights, since its inception, has been characterized by gaps, vague terms, and many contradictions that differ with the values, religious beliefs, traditions, customs, and customs of many societies, etc. And if we return to the philosophy of human rights and return to the French Revolution in particular, we find that the main axis is related to the consolidation in the psyche of the citizen of liberation from tyranny, slavery, dependence, and the tyranny of a particular class or group over the rest of the classes and social strata in society, and these issues, unfortunately, exist and exist within countries. The same major and at the level of international economic and political relations. The question that arises here is: Can we guarantee the human rights of the citizens of a colonial state, and can we guarantee human rights in a dependent state that is externally controlled by another state, states or an international system? Can we talk about human rights in an international system in which specific countries use terrorism, colonialism, settlement and occupation to control other countries, peoples and tribes? The problem of human rights is complex and has become in the era of globalization a means of pressure in the hands of powerful countries (the right to intervene) to control the course of international relations in accordance with their interests and goals. One of the most important contradictions experienced by the world in this field is that a country like the United States of America, the primary defender of human rights, flouts this principle in its country and within its borders, when it comes to minorities such as blacks (many American black citizens were killed by the police deliberately without justification ) and the American Indians (the indigenous people of America) and other minorities, including the Arabs. How many Arab citizens, after the events of September 11, were accused, imprisoned, and expelled from America without justification and trial. What applies to America applies to most European countries and developed countries. France, for example, in its dealings with Muslims and North African citizens, violates human rights, the story of the two Moroccan girls and the handkerchief, the Garaudy trial, the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka, the issue of the veil and the extermination of millions of Algerians due to the liberation of their country from the tyranny of colonialism, are all issues and events that remain a stain on a country that sings the slogan “freedom - Fraternity-equality. Active states in the global system support and support tyrannical, dictatorial regimes in the third world, and this fundamentally contradicts the principle of human rights, because these states, by virtue of their authoritarian political system, cannot in any way respect human rights if individual liberties and freedom of thought, opinion, expression and separation are absent. between the authorities. The strange thing is that Western countries support these tyrannical countries for a certain period of time to achieve their strategic and economic goals and after a certain period they turn against them, such as what happened between the United States and Panama and the United States and the assassination of Salvador Allende and the intervention of Western countries in overthrowing the regimes in specific countries even though they were elected in a way democracy. Human rights for Western countries end when their interests begin. The United States, which has positioned itself as a watchdog over human rights in the world, has double standards. If it comes to Israel and the children of Palestine and the raids on southern Lebanon and the occupation of the Golan, then it is normal and not a violation of human rights. The strange thing is that America itself classifies many countries as terrorist countries and countries that do not respect human rights and condone other countries that practice state terrorism. Israel, which practices state terrorism, gets $3 billion from America and is described as a democratic state and a state that sponsors and respects human rights and freedoms. Actions and practices by the superpowers totally contradict human rights. By what right does the United States set itself a policeman on the world, and by what right does it classify countries and place them in the category of terrorism and disrespect for human rights? Where are human rights when, in the second Gulf War, the Pentagon controls the news and information and CNN becomes the only media outlet in the world allowed to provide all of humanity with what it sees as news or not? Where is the right to communicate, the right to know, and the right to information? The principle of human rights has become a means in the hands of the great powers and actors in the international system to pressure and manage world affairs according to what their interests and strategic goals dictate to them. My world basically knows no borders between states, nations, civilizations, religions, peoples and cultures. How is the future of human rights in light of globalization? A globalization that does not believe in the privacy of peoples or in weak peoples, a globalization whose only concern is the authority of money, politics and power, and does not recognize the different cultures and civilizations and the difference of the other. The multinational corporations that control money, business and international trade exploit the children of the world in Asia, Africa and Latin America, violating the most basic human rights. These multinational corporations that blackmail the world's children and the world's poor in the light of day on the one hand and demand respect for children's rights on the other. Is it not the right of children in areas of conflict, poor countries and colonial countries to live, and how can we talk about human rights in the world and there are peoples who are deprived of their right even to live? It simply seems that the world needs a pause with the self and with the morals of the ego and the other. As for the right to live, health and vaccinations, there is nothing wrong with it, and the moral crisis that the world is experiencing now due to Corona vaccines is sufficient. This is the great challenge that humanity will face in the future. The challenge is mainly human and moral values. But if the culture of slavery, exploitation, settlement, and contempt for religions, civilizations and peoples dominate, then the Global Charter for Human Rights remains ink on paper and mere hollow slogans used by the great powers to impose their hegemony and extend their influence over the peoples of the world.(Mohamed Kirat)

Is there a place left for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?


Today marks the 73rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and accompanied by the question: What is the reality of human rights in the world? The lesson is not in the memory as much as the practice of human rights on the ground, as the logic of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based mainly on justice, equality and respect.

The principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based mainly on justice in non-discrimination and discrimination in treatment, standards and criteria between peoples, races and races, whether they are residents of the North or the South, or they belong to poor or rich countries. We note that the past seven decades, that is, since the charter was announced, violations and abuses have occurred in which the same countries that participated in drafting the declaration excelled, those countries that declared themselves responsible for all of humanity, but according to their views, visions, logic and interests.

From the very beginning, i.e. the year 1948, the start was wrong and there was a double standard of standards and criteria, as in that historical era, states, nations and peoples were under the yoke of colonialism, and the Charter did not address them, either from near or from afar, and did not give them any consideration.

What is the situation nowadays, as we live in an era of globalization and international conflicts and conflicts in various fields, and we are in a global system dominated by turmoil and international conflicts and disputes? And actors in the international system use the term and concept according to their data and interests, and can we talk about the universality of human rights or the globalization of human rights in a world in which a handful of states control its fate and the most important decisions that concern it?

What can be said is that human rights, such as freedom of the press, freedom of expression, individual freedoms, civil liberties, and many other concepts and terms have become slogans that are practiced and employed in the language of politics and diplomacy and have become used as a means of pressure on a large number of countries that deviate from the obedience of actors in the international system.

It should be noted here that the Charter of Human Rights, since its inception, has been characterized by gaps, vague terms, and many contradictions that differ with the values, religious beliefs, traditions, customs, and customs of many societies, etc. And if we return to the philosophy of human rights and return to the French Revolution in particular, we find that the main axis is related to the consolidation in the psyche of the citizen of liberation from tyranny, slavery, dependence, and the tyranny of a particular class or group over the rest of the classes and social strata in society, and these issues, unfortunately, exist and exist within countries. The same major and at the level of international economic and political relations. The question that arises here is: Can we guarantee the human rights of the citizens of a colonial state, and can we guarantee human rights in a dependent state that is externally controlled by another state, states or an international system?

Can we talk about human rights in an international system in which specific countries use terrorism, colonialism, settlement and occupation to control other countries, peoples and tribes? The problem of human rights is complex and has become in the era of globalization a means of pressure in the hands of powerful countries (the right to intervene) to control the course of international relations in accordance with their interests and goals.

One of the most important contradictions experienced by the world in this field is that a country like the United States of America, the primary defender of human rights, flouts this principle in its country and within its borders, when it comes to minorities such as blacks (many American black citizens were killed by the police deliberately without justification ) and the American Indians (the indigenous people of America) and other minorities, including the Arabs. How many Arab citizens, after the events of September 11, were accused, imprisoned, and expelled from America without justification and trial.

What applies to America applies to most European countries and developed countries. France, for example, in its dealings with Muslims and North African citizens, violates human rights, the story of the two Moroccan girls and the handkerchief, the Garaudy trial, the assassination of Mehdi Ben Barka, the issue of the veil and the extermination of millions of Algerians due to the liberation of their country from the tyranny of colonialism, are all issues and events that remain a stain on a country that sings the slogan “freedom - Fraternity-equality.

Active states in the global system support and support tyrannical, dictatorial regimes in the third world, and this fundamentally contradicts the principle of human rights, because these states, by virtue of their authoritarian political system, cannot in any way respect human rights if individual liberties and freedom of thought, opinion, expression and separation are absent. between the authorities. The strange thing is that Western countries support these tyrannical countries for a certain period of time to achieve their strategic and economic goals and after a certain period they turn against them, such as what happened between the United States and Panama and the United States and the assassination of Salvador Allende and the intervention of Western countries in overthrowing the regimes in specific countries even though they were elected in a way democracy. Human rights for Western countries end when their interests begin.

The United States, which has positioned itself as a watchdog over human rights in the world, has double standards. If it comes to Israel and the children of Palestine and the raids on southern Lebanon and the occupation of the Golan, then it is normal and not a violation of human rights. The strange thing is that America itself classifies many countries as terrorist countries and countries that do not respect human rights and condone other countries that practice state terrorism.

Israel, which practices state terrorism, gets $3 billion from America and is described as a democratic state and a state that sponsors and respects human rights and freedoms. Actions and practices by the superpowers totally contradict human rights. By what right does the United States set itself a policeman on the world, and by what right does it classify countries and place them in the category of terrorism and disrespect for human rights?

Where are human rights when, in the second Gulf War, the Pentagon controls the news and information and CNN becomes the only media outlet in the world allowed to provide all of humanity with what it sees as news or not? Where is the right to communicate, the right to know, and the right to information?

The principle of human rights has become a means in the hands of the great powers and actors in the international system to pressure and manage world affairs according to what their interests and strategic goals dictate to them. My world basically knows no borders between states, nations, civilizations, religions, peoples and cultures.

How is the future of human rights in light of globalization? A globalization that does not believe in the privacy of peoples or in weak peoples, a globalization whose only concern is the authority of money, politics and power, and does not recognize the different cultures and civilizations and the difference of the other. The multinational corporations that control money, business and international trade exploit the children of the world in Asia, Africa and Latin America, violating the most basic human rights. These multinational corporations that blackmail the world's children and the world's poor in the light of day on the one hand and demand respect for children's rights on the other.

Is it not the right of children in areas of conflict, poor countries and colonial countries to live, and how can we talk about human rights in the world and there are peoples who are deprived of their right even to live? It simply seems that the world needs a pause with the self and with the morals of the ego and the other. As for the right to live, health and vaccinations, there is nothing wrong with it, and the moral crisis that the world is experiencing now due to Corona vaccines is sufficient.

This is the great challenge that humanity will face in the future. The challenge is mainly human and moral values. But if the culture of slavery, exploitation, settlement, and contempt for religions, civilizations and peoples dominate, then the Global Charter for Human Rights remains ink on paper and mere hollow slogans used by the great powers to impose their hegemony and extend their influence over the peoples of the world.(Mohamed Kirat)
Tags:

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post