Mennonites of the Round Table
A friend of mine is preparing to discuss and then author the summarizing document of a roundtable discussion on human rights. In his blog, he asks three questions, to which I submitted a response.

Here are the three questions:
1. Violating basic human rights: What is the risk to sustainable peace, security and development?
2. UN reform: can the UN adequately protect basic human rights?
3. How can Civil Society best strengthen human rights for enduring development?

I only answered the first one essentially. I guess that leaves me wanting as far as practical suggestions and extra research, but he wasn't specific about what kind of input he wanted, so I chose myself.

Here is the text of my response:

Pat, I don't know enough about the structure of the UN, or about the definitions of some of the key terms here.

What are basic human rights? A steady supply of food, clean drinking water, shelter from the elements. Over the course of history, people have voluntarily chosen to live with much less. Anything else that we can add to that list is either theoretical, or a need that has been created in our affluence: freedom of religion, security from war, economic opportunity, free speech, social welfare, Tim Hortons coffee. These are all great things, but how many of them are universally applicable, economically feasible, and relevant for me in my cozy University computer lab. I only know life with those things, but that doesn't mean anything else isn't life. No matter how much "we" give people, they will always want more. No matter how little I have, I will never understand what it means to have less.

Peace. Following the international definition of this word, I cannot give you a good answer. Peace as the absence of war or armed conflict leaves out so much. By my definition of peace (and according to the Hebrew word Shalom), the moment any human right is violated, there is no peace. When people need more, they will do whatever they can to get it. When people want something, they will do whatever they can justify to get it. By violating basic human rights, there is no sustainable peace. Why should I feel safe, when they still feel hungry? What is the point to development when people are being mistreated? Peace, security and development ... I'm wonder how accurate it is to reword the question as, "how little can we get away with providing to make sure that we are safe, they feel safe, and we can turn a profit?"

So, in short, my answer to your question is that violating basic human rights negates sustainable peace and makes security and development irrelevant.

   [ posted by William @ 1:31 PM ]