“Human Rights in Global Politics” by Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler; Cambridge University Press; © 1999; 337 pages, softcover.
Twelve essays by a total of thirteen writers offer an intellectual discussion on human rights. The first five essays address theories of human rights and the last seven focus on specific challenges such as genocide, the role of media, the specific situation for women, refugees, etc. While there are wide-ranging discussions, they are based within the Western philosophies and language meanings derived from the Greek-Roman heritage. This leaves out the completely different mindset formed by non-Western languages and a unique legal system built from Confucian culture and East Asian languages. This is important because “rights” and equivalent terms in Romance languages incompletely translates into words closer to what we would consider “duty” and “responsibility.” And this changes the way such cultures think and value human interactions. There are occasional hints of recognizing this difference in some essays, but most discussions stay within a Western mindset.
This book evolved from a conference held by the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth in Wales. In the introduction, the editors clarify that universal human rights encompass both positive rights (education, healthcare, etc) as well as negative rights (freedom from political repression, etc.). Is there a natural law, a unity among all peoples’s of the world that transcends cultures? Much of the discussion is philosophical, distinguishing ideas that human rights are set and immutable from culturalism that pits tradition against change and from positivism. Some arguments contend that human rights are evolving concepts in response to repressive political and economic structures. Other essays see a distinction between the human rights espoused by a country and their actual implementation. One essay argues that “universal values are possible but have to be decided through argumentation.”
I find the brief comparison of China with Singapore poses the very problem of lack of understanding of the languages involved (Mandarin and Cantonese) and cultural history which emphasize duty, responsibility, family allegiance, etc. and find the Western construct of “rights” to be alien. While several essays discuss women’s rights and China’s one-child policy of the time, they fails to discuss the dilemma of allowing uncontrolled population expansion versus eventual starvation, a problem India is most likely to face. Therefore, the nature of human “rights” is also to some extent entangled with individualism versus communitarianism, and Jeremiah Johnson-style individualism or free-wheeling selfishness is possible in wide open wilderness, but not in Hong Kong, Tokyo or Shanghai where there is no space left if the people housed in high-rise buildings all come to the ground level at the same time.
There is certainly value in discussions in these essays that pose that “an individual can only become a human being in community.” They do mention the China criticism of the universal human rights in a 1991 white paper “Human Rights in China.” Many statements about China being “repressive” reveal that the authors have not likely been to China. The essay by Hurrell reflects this shallow perception of Asian values that derive from a different cultural base and language heritage.
As a youngster, I read Thomas More’s “Utopia” and found that it was easy for a community to live together in harmony as long as they all held the same core beliefs. But as a youngster considering the possibility of a one world government, it was obvious that there were far too many differences to unify under such a big tent. To some extent, reading through these essays 60 years later provides confirmation. Today, I am also aware of China’s “five principles of peaceful co-existence” wherein China maintains a policy of not interfering with other nation’s politics, based in the belief that each country must evolve forward from where their history has brought them to future modifications in governing based on where their culture takes them. That is a lesson that the U.S. has not learned in its recent decades of failed “nation-building” assuming everyone should eventually be “just like us.”
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
