By Michelle Consorte
Despite the theory that human rights ideals are 'universal,' and the belief that governments are charged with the duty of protecting those they represent, several countries still refuse to accept self-criticism from their citizens, even when faced with international disapproval.
Recently, two awards ceremonies have stood out to the international human rights community as further proof that universal acceptance of these basic rights is still far from reality.
The first, and the more prestigious award was the Nobel Peace Prize, given to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. He was convicted of "inciting subversion of state power" and sentenced to 11 years in prison. At the ceremony, as no immediate member of Liu's family nor any of his close friends—let alone Liu himself—were allowed to go to Oslo to accept the award, an empty chair received the medal of honor in his place.
According to an article in The Guardian, The Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said that Beijing must learn to take criticism, and referenced Articles 35 and 41 of China's own constitution which allow Chinese citizens "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association" and "the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary".
Putting the situation into a larger context, he added that to a certain extent China's size and economic might mean it is "carrying the fate of mankind on its shoulders." In effect, if we can get China to adhere to human rights standards (which is has already agreed to but frequently chooses to ignore to keep control of its own authoritarian power) a good portion of the battle, merely through sheer size, will be won.
One attendee who also read on Liu's behalf was the actor Liv Ullmann. Ullmann was critical of China's current position but optimistic that change was on the horizon and that human rights are capable of universality, stating, "there is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom, and China will in the end become a nation ruled by law, where human rights reign supreme."
A second ceremony that included an empty chair to hold the place of the winner was for the European Union's Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Guillermo Farinas was to be awarded the prize for his consistent human rights campaigning, which includes staging over 20 hunger strikes and having been in prison for a total of 11 year. The latest hunger strike, which had Farinas on his death bed, ended in July when the Cuban government agreed to release 52 political prisoners.
Farinas said he accepted the award on behalf of the Cuban people and for all those others who also campaign for human rights. He stated, "[t]he only fear I have is of failing the Cuban people and the campaign for democracy in Cuba."
Unfortunately, like Liu Xiaobo, Farinas was also barred from attending the award ceremony by his own government. He was denied an exit visa by the Cuban government, preventing him from traveling to France to accept the award. Attempts by the European Union to convince the Cuban government to let Farinas go were to no avail. And so, yet another prisoner of conscience and human rights activist was denied the ability to accept his rightful prize. Another shame and another blotch on the government's human rights record (both China and Cuba).
For those who argue that human rights are not universal but are only western ideals and a ploy to try to force imperialistic beliefs on other parts of the world, I have to ask, what is so negative or dangerous about spreading ideals of human freedom? If life and liberty are not not protected by the government but, instead, seen as detrimental to the government's own authority then there is something wrong with the structure, not the rights or the call for them.
Economic and social progress are not mutually-exclusive; they must be harnessed in tandem. It is imperative that nations take human rights seriously and adhere to their principles vigorously. As Michael Waltzer states in his work, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations, human rights are always present as undeniable entities and "are still standing at the very moment they are overridden: that is why they have to be overridden."
With that in mind, we as an increasingly globalized world must move toward a point in time where empty chairs do not fill in for award recipients solely because the winner was not allowed out of the country by the government that is supposed to be protecting and representing them.
No comments:
Post a Comment