Examples of Human Rights Hypocrisy

Apr 16th, 2008, in Opinion, by Guest Writer

Sylvester sees power-mongering and the profit motive behind the West’s hypocrisy over human rights.

Human Rights enforcement by Western countries: Is it sincere?

We all are aware that Western countries such as the US, the EU, and Australia often promote the human rights to every corner of the globe. Today we see the protests by Westerners against human rights abuse in Tibet, Middle East, China, Sudan, Burma and many other parts of the world. Developed Western countries also often use human right issues in diplomatic relations with the developing countries in Asia and Africa. Personally I support the respect of the human rights. The idea is highly honourable. However, how sincere are the Western countries in promoting human rights worldwide?

There are hundreds of case that we can analyse. In order to prevent the reader like you falling asleep or having eyes sore for having to read a very long article, I only use three cases as the example.

The first is the Iraq War. The second is the issue of Tibet and Xinjiang. These two are chosen because they are the hot topics.

The third case is the East Timor simply because it is directly related to Indonesia.

1. Iraq War

The main reason stated by the US and UK governments for invading Iraq was to protect the world from the Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destructions (WMD) and to promote human rights in Iraq. Western countries accused Saddam’s regime of torturing his own people. Saddam was evil, indeed. However, we should be aware how Saddam came into power.

Saddam was the US ally during the Cold War. He was supported by the US government to fight Khomeini in Iran, which was backed by the Soviet Union. The US urged Saddam to attack Iran, resulting in an 8-year war that killed hundreds thousand of Iraqis and Iranians. Even when Saddam used the WMD to massacre Iranians and Kurdish, the US government just ignored it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam was not a good boy anymore, the US and UK started to try to eliminate him. We can see this similarity with Osama bin Laden when he was the US ally during the war with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Now the US claim that they assigned more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for the sake of human rights and democracy. Many people know the true reason is oil. The US has predicted that the demand of oil would increase sharply that they need to protect their source of oil by invading Iraq. It is also the same reason the US is being ignorant of the human right abuses by the Saudi Arabian government. This is the first case showing how “sincere” the Western human right enforcement.

2. Tibet and Xinjiang

We need to understand the historical background why the Chinese occupied Tibet and Xinjiang. The reason in the past was more about geopolitical issue. Tibet is a plateau surrounded by the range of largest mountains in the world such as Himalaya and Kun Lun. It has a strategic advantage for land warfare. In 1950s, India under Nehru was close to the US and UK. Tibet under the Dalai Lama also more supportive toward India than his communist Chinese neighbour.

Apart from the historical fact that the Tibet was part of the Qing Dinasty, Mao saw that it was essential to secure Tibet to protect China from any possible invasion from the Western countries via India. This strategy worked well during the Sino-Indian War in 1960s when the Chinese defeated Indian troops in the Himalayas.

For Xinjiang, it was the same reason. China wanted to secure her border with the Soviet Union, using the Mongolian plateau and Gobi desert to protect the capital Beijing. Some analysts argue that Tibet and Xinjiang hold a huge amount of natural resources (ores, uranium, oil, gas, coal) and that is why China will strongly maintain her grip.

Now many Western countries protesting the human rights issue in both places, accusing China of cultural genocide, killing activists and monks. They also threaten to boycott the Beijing Olympics. This may be true but we should also realize that many Western media has been exaggerating the fact. The publication often misleads the readers. For example, many photos showing the Indian or Nepalese police beating the monks are explained that they were done by the Chinese police. Only an idiot couldn’t distinguish between the Indian and Chinese faces.

In this case, the Western countries are using the human rights issue to prevent China from exploiting the natural resources in Tibet and Xinjiang. They fear that China will become the next superpower. Also, making independent pro-Western Tibet and Xinjiang governments would allow the access for the Western company to exploit the resources. Thus, we see the second case how “sincere” the Western human rights enforcement.

3. East Timor

The reason why Indonesia occupied East Timor was that the communist Fretillin won power in 1975. The US was afraid of the growing of communism in Asia Pacific and allowed Suharto (who was also anti-communist) to invade East Timor. Thousands of people were killed during Indonesian rule in East Timor but the US and Australian just played ignorant.

When they found that there was a huge amount of gas reserve in the Timor Gap, they tried to negotiate with Suharto with little success. Then they started to condemn the Indonesians for the human rights abuse in East Timor. Now after Indonesia was kicked out of East Timor, most of the natural resources are controlled by the US and Australia. East Timorese still live very poor, even worse than when it was part of Indonesia. This is the third case how “sincere” the Western human rights enforcement.

Conclusion

We now can conclude that the sincere Western human right enforcement is very hard to prove. It does not mean that all the Western human rights organizations are hypocrites. Many of them have been contributing a lot for the better respect of human rights worldwide. However, it is obvious that the Western governments often play a double standard. Money is still above human rights.

36 Comments on “Examples of Human Rights Hypocrisy”

Ana says:

May 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Dear all

Forgive me I’m not that good in talking, but this post is most intriguing… I have tons of things to say in my head but not sure where to start! Go easy on me:)

But first, what are human rights? Sending UK troops into action without proper kit has been criticised recently as a breach of the soldiers’ human rights. But is it really or is it more of a case of neglect? Until we have our definition standardised correctly, human rights will remain as vague symbols that only human right lawyers can decipher.

Timdog & Sylvester,

Thanks for raising a lot of points, some of which are valid and some interesting.

…as an Indonesian who has been working in the UK’s public-services sector for the past few years, I have the privilege to learn from those with firsthand experiences of poverty. I agree that the individual experiences of poverty between those from rich and poorer countries are indeed different. The UK poor (often associated as crime offenders and benefit receipt) appear to bear the label of parasites and often socially excluded. The poorest in Indonesia are often more pitied rather than stigmatised, may be as the richer Indonesians are not enforced to render any form of support. However, the poor there form the majority of the population and, correct me if I’m wrong, are able to stick together in closer community. This has in turn makes them more resilient. But because of lack of nationwide support, they are often denied the very basic needs of food & shelter, let alone health service and education. So all the same, their human rights are suffering. And you have got to be joking to think that any politicians have genuine concerns about human rights (oooppsss, I just committed the generalising offence). But I constantly have to work with my hands tied by targets, new policies and the limited resources and defying low work morale surrounding on a daily basis (wow didn’t know public moaning is such a gratifying vent:) ). No government ever care for their own poorest citizens and any acts they do are for the sake of formality and at times counterattack the cause. No, the advocates of human rights have to be every individual in the society for the principle to actually work. If grabbing the Olympic torch makes one feel that’s a valid contribution then alas, I rest my case! How come human rights abuse only becomes sexy when it makes controversial political news? I can’t afford going all the way to Iraq/Tibet/ET to get their side of story. Around me, there are neglected human right cases of individuals with mental illnesses, child abuse, domestic violence victims, and the homeless (I can also add asylum seekers but then it will open a whole new debate!). These problems probably happen in our own neighbourhood as we speak. Human rights hypocrisy is not right, but as part of a blind and deaf society we are all guilty as charged. We tend to continuously passing the bucks as far as possible from our comfortable corners. I now truly understand why being content to act and leaving the talking to others is not always easy. Hence, this humble piece of opinion:)

Kindest regards
Ana
Jian says:

May 5, 2008 at 11:29 am

I like Ana’s comment much. To me, the concept “human right” itself is a hypocrisy. It is too general and artificial. We only need to be kind, then “human right” is automatic. Did the Buddha or Christ mentioned HR at all? I like the comment by a master Monk ( Jing Kong, if readers happen to know): “If you ask me if I have HR? I would say I don’t! Do I have the right to be 18 years young forever? Yes I do! But can I have it?!”

Such artificial conception often shows the laziness of the person who fansies he could control all situiations by sticking with one rigid concept while life itself is infinitely possible and demands spantaneous committment but the celebration of a fashionable concept. Ana mentioned a perfect example: the invaders to Iraq complained that their HR wasn’t respected since they were not well prepared enough. The artificially intended nature of the concept of HR naturally makes it vulnerable to abuse, hence its hypocrisy is almost natural. What is truly missing is people’s sincerity and willingness. In USA, nowadays, if one uses the word “niger” (a word used to humiliate Africans during slavery), the police can arrest the individual. That sounds very respectful for black people, yet in reality, black people are still descriminated, people just don’t say the word openly. If people’s heart sticks with the same illness, what is the good of a concept that must be guarded by police? It is even more humiliating, is it not?

As well, tracing the history of this concept (and its like, “freedom” etc.), it was made precisely by the western world who abused it the most. This in my view is not purely a co-incident.

Let’s forget “human right”, and just be kind to others!
timdog says:

May 8, 2008 at 7:00 am

Ana – thank you for your contribution. It is good to have the perspective of an Indonesian in Britain on the poor of that country. You are absolutely right – there is a very different attitude towards the poor in Britain compared to Indonesia – namely one of contempt, mockery, and ill-disguised fear (while British people are quite happy to patronise and moan over the fate of the exotic poor of other countries)…

You are also absolutey right – it is very difficult to discuss “human rights” when we have no real defined concept of what the term actually means…
S.Spacc says:

July 1, 2008 at 12:54 pm

You want to talk about human rights? Yes, the U.S did invade Iraq for unworthy reasons but that cannot shy away from the fact that your government would put a person to death for carrying Marijuana. A young Australian gets 20 for a transport that makes no sense even to the very people who do this sort of thing for a living? I dont care how long ago this was, your judicial system is fcked. Money may run things in my country but obviously publicity and exampling runs indonesian law.
kinch says:

July 1, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Have to say that I don’t have much sympathy at all for that Corby slapper. Absolutely no need for what she did to have been logical and therefore the sheer stupidity of taking coals to Newcastle is not a convincing defence. I mean just look at who she is and where she crawled out of. Best to have her out of circulation during her fertile years so that her genes stop right where they are.

Certainly the Indonesian legal system is a complete and utter farce. But occasionally it takes the garbage out and in those cases we might as well sit back and enjoy a beer since there’s no point in getting worked up about the Indonesian legal system. Won’t change a thing.

Kind of an insult to the words ‘legal’ and ‘system’… but a country which produced Farah can’t be all bad, can it? 🙂
Courtney says:

December 8, 2008 at 7:58 am

I want notes!
Like examples … this gives me war, WHICH I agree with but that’s one!