Santiago

1
Erica Santiago
HR200: Final Paper

Human Rights Advocacy: Waste of Time or a Valid Cause?

Human rights are those rights that are seen as belonging to
everybody, they are supposed to be inalienable. They are rights that
are to extend to every human being for no other reason than that they
are alive. It is the unfortunate reality that these rights that we all hold
so dear are violated on a daily basis in every part of the world.
Whether the nation is poor or rich, somebody somewhere within it is
being mistreated, they are being stripped of these basic rights,
dehumanized and subjugated. In an effort to thwart said violations,
human rights organization and advocates have worked tirelessly to
make sure that human rights are afforded to every human being. In
perhaps one of the most famous declarations of human rights, The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the drafters intended for those
signing the declaration to adhere to all conditions outlined within the
document. The preamble states:
...all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of
society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by
teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to
secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both
among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
This line suggests that those who choose to adopt this
declaration must carry out what is outlined in this document, that they

Santiago
2
out of their own personal humanity and good will should want what is
presented in this declaration for their people, and that by signing it
they will make a true effort to assure that it is never violated.
Unfortunately, the reality is that many of the supposed oaths made by
the adopters of this declaration and other human rights documents,
have been nothing but empty promises, promises only kept
temporarily as an attempt to subdue the watch of the international
community. Although declarations of human rights are often drafted
with the hopes of being accepted internationally, those countries that
do not accept said terms are allowed to go about their business
without any sort of real penalty. Ideally these treaties and declarations
are meant to serve as preventative measures, these documents are to
act as guidelines on how governments should treat their people.
However, if one were to look at the current rate of human rights
violations in countries such as Syria, Mexico and Iran, it would be very
hard to believe that these three countries have in fact adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Based on what some may say
is the absolute failure of these documents, the question as to whether
or not the idea of a society governed by human rights is simply a
fantasy, an unrealistic desire for a utopian society, has often been
raised and has caused some people to lose faith in those documents
and entities supposedly dedicated to the protection of human rights. It
must be emphasized however, that just because these treaties and

Santiago
3
declarations often do not stop the violations from occurring we cannot
just concede defeat and accept them as a part of human history;
absolutely not. What it does mean is that we as a society cannot
pretend that declarations and treaties will automatically take on an
abstract role of the human rights worker, the words in these
documents are simply not sufficient enough. Just because a ruthless
dictator decides to play nice at an international convention it does
not mean that they are sincere. Society must realize that words are
just that: words; they are not binding; it is the action that follows suit
that will really determine the commitment and sincerity of a
government to protecting their people.
The groups of people within our society who are probably most
aware of this dilemma are human rights advocates. Human rights
advocates must live with a heavy burden, the double edged sword of
hope: the hope that these atrocities will cease but also the hope that
the violations being carried out are enough to catch the eyes of the
international community so that the real work can begin. The
unfortunate truth is that the international community will not be so
moved by just one child sex worker in the far reaches of the eastern
hemisphere; no, for the international community to even bat an
eyelash, many a child sex worker, soldier or sweatshop worker has to
suffer first. For human rights advocates, the adoption and drafting of
treaties is perhaps one of the most trying things in their line of work. It

Santiago
4
is unimaginably difficult to see a situation worthy of resolution by way
of a treaty or law, and not seeing it being taken into that level of
consideration by the local government and or the international
government as well. Whats even more difficult is when the advocacy
has in fact paid off and there is a treaty enacted, but yet and still there
are those who continue to violate its conditions. In Chile for example,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was readily adopted in
1948, however just 25 years later the democratically elected
government of Salvador Allende was brutally overthrown by dictator
Augustin Pinochet. What followed was 17 years of one of the bloodiest
dictatorships in Latin American history, leaving more than 3,000 people
dead or missing. The same can be seen in the histories of Colombia, El
Salvador, and Nicaragua, all countries who have adopted the
declaration.
Being viewed as a tool of imperialism is another obstacle faced
by many human rights advocates, especially those from western
society. When advocates go into a given area, particularly one that is
predominantly religious, the environment more often than not
becomes a hostile place to work in. For many cultures, especially those
who have been conquered by western societies (ex. India, various
Regions of Africa etc.) it is very hard to shake the association that
exists between the arrival of westerners and colonialism. Due to the
brutal years of colonization, these former conquered people were

Santiago
5
continuously told that their cultural practices and views were wrong,
that it was they whom needed to conform to the western standards of
a normal society. The result was of course disastrous, a cultural
cleansing so to speak, stripping these people of their native identity
and forcing them to take on a new one. It is therefore no wonder why
individuals from these cultures will work hard to defend cultural
practices, even those that do infringe on human rights. An example of
this would be female genital mutilation (FGM) in the Middle East. As
was told by Liesl Gerntholz, Director of Womens Rights at Human
Rights Watch, much of the issue with banning FGM, particularly in the
Kurdistan region, was that it was seen as a part of the culture, a
religious rite of passage. Any criticism of it was seen as a direct attack
against Islam because according to the Kurdish clerics it was seen as a
requirement from the Quran. The truth of the matter was that it was
actually not required by Islam for FGM to occur, but it was very difficult
for the western HRW advocates to spread this message. To remedy
this, advocates from within the culture were used as a fundamental
tool to getting the message across. Interviews were conducted in
Arabic, in the womens homes, and only women were involved in the
project. Although the Kurdish government still has made no official
policy against FGM, there has been significant headway. Thanks to the
advocacy conducted, women in this region were told for the first time
that FGM was not in fact a part of Islamic rite, that it was not necessary

Santiago
6
to undergo said procedure in order to be a good Muslim. The
assimilation into the studied culture, or the ethnographers approach is
key when studying any culture that is different from that of the
researcher/advocate. By using individuals within the native cultures
much of the apprehension and anxiety associated with talking about
such a sensitive topic as FGM is alleviated. The women were allowed to
speak comfortably because they felt they were speaking to somebody
who already understood their perspective, they did not feel judged.
Another obstacle faced by human rights activists, one that goes
hand in hand with the issue of getting countries to change their
policies, is funding and support. As with any research project, human
rights research is no different in that it requires funding, depending on
the issue being tackled the amount of funding can range from
thousands of dollars to millions. Funding is critical for acquiring
resources, getting to the places of study and most importantly being
able to efficiently carry out the work. As was discussed by Jo Becker,
advocacy director of the Children's Rights Division at Human Rights
Watch, funding and support for certain issues can prove to be
extremely difficult. On the global issue of child soldiers, some may find
it remarkable that one of the only nations that was largely opposed to
raising the service age to 18 was the United States. The United States
had been recruiting soldiers fresh out of high school, many of them still
17, and giving them combat duties. With only $50,000 donated by the

Santiago
7
Canadian government, Jo Becker and various small NGOs did their
best and began the campaign to raise the combatant age to 18. After
years of campaigning, reaching out to congress, advocating at
conferences, in 2000 after coming under mass criticism from the
international community, the United States finally decided to agree to
straight 18 as the age for combat. By 2010, 20 nations including the
US had signed the agreement. It is remarkable the amount of success
that Jo Becker and her team were able to attain with such little funding,
this is however not the case for many other human rights projects. In
order to make a project appealing one needs to be a skilled advocate
who knows how to approach it from the right angles. Although many of
the advocates are highly skilled in raising awareness, funding is still
very hard to come by.
Perhaps one of the most remarkable cases of human rights
advocacy was that conducted by Raphael Lemkin. Lemkin was a Polish
lawyer of Jewish descent who worked tirelessly for the recognition of
genocide as an actual crime against humanity. Lemkins work led to the
genocide convention, and was it not for him a document such as the
Universal Declaration of human rights may never have existed. Lemkin
was faced with many challenges in getting genocide recognized by the
international community, one of which was non-involvement. Much of
the rationale behind the international communities non-involvement in
crimes of genocide before the genocide convention, are based upon a

Santiago
8
policy of respecting the sovereignty of nations. The idea of getting
involved in such international matters when a citizen of said nation is
not directly involved in the conflict was seen as overstepping
boundaries. Although the United States and other European nations
seem to ignore the idea of sovereignty when entering a country for
their own financial or expansive interests (I.E. the construction of the
Panama Canal), for some reason Genocide was seen as an off limits
issue that these nations were unable to do anything about. During the
Armenian Genocide in Turkey carried out by Talaat Pasha, the United
States refused to get involved in these issues, even when United
States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau Sr., had
brought various atrocities to the attention of President Wilson. When
Morgenthau informed the administration that these crimes were not
just casualties of war but calculated attacks targeting a specific group,
he was met with great resistance, and was frequently told that there
was nothing that the United States could do, because there were no
Americans being put in direct danger. Another excuse or reason, put
forth by the administration was that there was not enough substantial
evidence to build a case against Talaat, and that they would not risk
international relations based on hear-say.
We see the same, reaction to the holocaust during World War II.
This refusal however was one that was almost more upsetting,
considering the amount of substantial evidence being presented to the

Santiago
9
United States and the international community. The excuse this time
was that involvement in the investigation of this genocide was not
strategically sound, because the best way to combat any of the issues
within the war was to defeat Hitler, therefore stopping the current
crimes and preventing any further ones from occurring.
Lemkin however, did not let these complications stop him, he
was determined for this to become an issue that was given great
importance, and he needed this to be defined so as to stop it from
happening again. Lemkin wrote Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of
Occupation - Analysis of Government - Proposals for Redress during the
Holocaust in 1944. This was his attempt at getting the crimes
committed by Nazi soldiers recognized; he wanted their victims to
have the justice they deserved. The real impact came with the
invention of the word Genocide. Lemkin decided he needed a word that
would embody the crimes being committed one that was readily
associated with the crimes main purpose: racial extermination. The
word was developed from the Greek word genos (family, tribe, race)
and the Latin word cide, meaning killing. The word gave the impact
Lemkin was looking for, now this atrocity had a name. Shortly after the
coinage of the word, the Genocide Convention took place. The purpose
of the convention was to assure that those countries in attendance
would agree that they would do everything in their power to prevent

Santiago
10
said atrocities from occurring. Presently, there are 140 countries that
have ratified the convention.
It is unfortunate to note however, that in 1994 there was a
breach of the convention. The Rwandan genocide is considered to be
one of the most brutal acts of genocide in history, claiming over
800,000 lives. The genocide stemmed from a civil war, Tutsis against
the ruling Hutu tribe. The killings were government organized and
supported, acquisition of weapons was made simple and almost
everybody in the country was armed. Local officials organized the
killings and the media and mass communications outlets advocated
and promoted it. The US response to the genocide was slow and
insufficient and by time they decided to intervene it was already too
late. Rwanda serves as a perfect example as to why treaties and
declarations are not enough, without the appropriate response, these
documents are merely pieces of paper.

Although human rights advocacy has attained great success in

many cases, there are still those who cannot seem to shake the idea
that certain human rights projects and treaties are merely excuses for
imperialistic intervention. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, I
believe that the Bush administration did use the human rights
violations occurring in Afghanistan as a way to convince people that
war was the only way to free these people of oppression. While I do

Santiago
11
agree that the conditions for women in Taliban led Afghanistan were
extremely unequal, I also find it disgusting that a government would
use the real pain and suffering of a group of people as an excuse to go
to war. The Bush administration clearly played up the human rights
aspect to the American public, continually showing images of women
in full Burkas, and children in unspeakable conditions. If the conditions
over there were already so horrendous, how then would a war improve
things? There seemed to be no talk of democratic negotiation, it was
war or nothing. Unfortunately enough of the American public believed
it and here we are 10 years later still fighting this war. We also see this
to some extent with the recent invasion of Libya. Although it is clear
that there were human rights violations within the country, and that
Gadhafi was a dictator, I am not sure that the west was totally
unconcerned with the financial gains to be made out of said invasion.
Although I do not doubt that there were concerns for the protection of
human rights, it is hard to rationalize why the Transitional Council that
is now the recognized government of Libya decided during full combat,
to promise 35% of its oil reserves to France in exchange for support. If
it was truly about the salvation of the Libyan people, oil should never
have been part of the equation.
In human rights advocacy there are always those cases that do
not turn out for the best. There are innumerable violators of
international laws, treaties and declarations. Although it is unfortunate,

Santiago
12
this is the reality of the world we live in. I am not saying that all work
on human rights is in vain, that all causes should be abandoned; of
course not. What I do believe is that we cannot be nave and believe
that once a policy is put into effect all violations will cease. If there is
not the correct response to follow up these policies, than they may as
well not exist. The idea of a society completely governed solely by
international law is somewhat of a utopian ideal, but that does not
mean that we cannot continue to strive to make the world a better
place. Although the world we hope to create will never reach a utopian
state where nobody acts out maliciously against one another, we can
work towards a world where there are more individuals who are socially
conscious, more people who are willing to work for these causes,
people who are dedicated to maintaining humanity, and while it may
not be everybody, we can at least hope for a humanitarian majority.