We want humanitarian interventions against Syria because we think Asad is guilty of human rights abuses. "Because the life, liberty, security and happiness of Syrians is in danger," shouts every media headlines, "intervention in Syrian is necessary." Well, I am here to tell you that I am sick of the propaganda of Human Rights' claims in Syria. This article will prove that Human Rights is a tool to create perpetual war in the world, not peace. Humanitarian interventions are imperial instruments of the West through which they satisfy their economic and political interests.
Human Rights became essential after the American Revolution, as stated in their Declaration of Independence. But the rights were limited to rich, wealthy, well educated property-owning white men. It excluded women and minorities. Europeans were also selective in confirming rights to African slave workers and their colonial subjects. The Universal Declaration of Human rights was passed in 1948. The resolution was in response to the ordeal of the first two World wars. Yet, strangely enough, to this day, while the mass holocaust and degradation of humanity continues apace by the United States and Europe. They use it as a lip service to shape normative discourse but do not really acted upon it themselves nor enforce it upon their governments. The United States and Europe are the first to engage in human rights violations wherever they see it is fitting to their own goals. Throughout history, US and Europe have used violence, war, exploitation, torture and mass murder for some natural resource gain or economic benefit, prestige or political advantage.
Human rights and International Relations can be understood in four levels. The first level is that of International Law. The second stage is that of the United Nations. The third stage is that of state behaviour. The fourth stage is that of non-governmental organizations. In terms of International Law, the United Nations had made resolutions regarding human rights in three main areas: that of economic and cultural rights; resolutions against torture and degrading treatment. These in turn has become a form of customary law that is slowly becoming international law. It binds nations in how they behave towards others.
In the United Nations, there is the International Criminal Court in which the United States refused to ratify because it could jeopardize their citizens who has committed major war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court does not cover all crimes. They are largely concerned about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, the ICC and the Security Council has never prosecuted Americans for war crimes or brought a single European person to trial. The United Nations, on the other hand has many Human Rights Councils and the Human Rights Commissioners. They are concerned about informing the media of Arab nations that do not comply with the Human Rights resolutions, but have no teeth against against the US. They don't even report against the US. When was the last time sanctions were enforced against the US or import linkage was broken to prevent monetary support to the US from the International community? When did the US use domestic cords to indite war mongers?
The rhetoric of human rights are largely very Euro-centric and even the leaders who claim to be following human rights are themselves hypocrites because human rights is a tool for them to justify military or economic warfare against states that are not aligned with Western imperialist agendas. There is a large disconnect between principle and practice for Western leaders who charge others on human rights but who themselves are more than willing to bomb, pillage, rape, maim, torture, and commit mass genocide on other people whenever it suits their goals. Mearsheimer said human rights is just a veneer and a façade for imperialism, and that even though it is a great normative standard that is worthy of political rhetoric, no state with any real power is willing to follow it to the letter or spirit because of their own national interests and strategic interests in other states.
with the growing role of non-governmental organizations or NGOs, they help to promote the value of human rights and making us aware of certain violations of states against their own citizens (although it is very selective and biased because it does not and never does target their own home state – like the United States for example). The NGOs has the power of shaming and degrading other states and making them look bad so that the international community can react and demand some kind of action must take place. The boomerang pattern says that actors with no resources of their own appeal to NGOs in order to get their message out and in turn this strikes back at the state doing the human rights abuses. This was the case in states like Afghanistan, Iraq Libya, and Syria where NGOs acted as missionaries of empire and new imperialism under the cover of seemingly legitimate human rights concerns.
Its like a script...specific human rights are enforced upon states whether or not they like it because the US and Europe are doing it. Hence, there is a kind of pressure upon the Middle East to adopt Western values even if we have no need for them. Its like, in order to be seen as legitimate by the West, we must play by their rules. According to the non-statist constructivist’s perspective by Keck and Sickink, normative mobilization encourages other states to adopt human rights values and liberalism in order to be accepted into the world community itself. In turn, this creates a normative cascade in which everyone eventually joins in on the group.
Human rights are largely Western-centered and focus too much on individual liberty, capital growth with little emphasis on religious and social values. Others say that human rights are a cover for other motives and generally as a means to sell empire and wars. It is also used as a tool to bring down those states that do not conform to western values and economic policies. There is also the inherent tension between state sovereignty and individual human rights. This tension is the cause of much debate ever since the notion of, “responsibility to protect” and, “humanitarian intervention” has been adopted by western corporate media and political analysts as a sacrosanct occult of a sort that on the surface sounds good but which really justifies the right to project power and the right to pillage and plunder, as well as purge the world of “wasteful” human beings, and endorses torture and other inhuman activities. In other words, human rights are simply a covert mask for insidious and often inhumane treatment of human beings. It is also a great public relations stunt to justify wars and imperialism in the new world order in which nations must comply and obey western imperialists or else.
The Middle East has always been a realm of human security. I grew up in the Middle East and I know i had more personal, economic, health, political, community, food and environmental security than I ever had living in the West. What I mean is that people in the Middl East are free from fear and free from the fear of want. Although we live under dictators and monarchs, we have the essential jobs, work and opportunities to be safe and secure. We have the opportunities, resources and skills to survives. The West is the godfather of atheism, social darwinism and consumerism, which is far more deadly, lethal and destructive than any actions by authoritarian regime, real or imagined because the West uses these fake freedoms to control its grid over humanity.
Moving onto Just War theory and intervention, there are many traditions that try to justify the reasons to go to war, and the practise of warfare itself. In the western tradition, Cicero discusses that man has the means to resolve disputes by reason, and that violence is for brutes. In turn, going to war should be a last resort and only if it is for a just cause. War should not be applied to innocent human beings, but only to opposing professional soldiers. Secondly, Augustine argued that wrongdoing by the other side justifies war itself. Aquinas stated that sovereign sources can go to war, and that they should have a good reason for doing so as well. Michael Walzer argued that the common principles of just war theory are that of jus ad bellum, the reasons to go to war. These include justification to use force, self defense, helping an ally, and protection of innocents; as a last resort; right intentions; and reasonable chance of success. On the other hand, jus in Bello says that wars should be conducted in such a way that protects non-combatants; proportionality; and a civil, humane conduct of war that does not damage civilian life.
In practise, however, just war theory has caused more casualties than ever, and that it is in itself a justification to go to war. For example, the bombing of Libya was not justified because it grossly violated human rights and the concept of a just war. It also caused much unnecessary suffering and pain. The Americans could have settled for something less than unconditional surrender but they chose to bomb most of Libya, the only developed country in Africa half to hell. What happened to Human Rights then?
Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize message stated that the instruments of war do have a role to paly in the preservation of peace…which is to say that war is peace. Although Obama laid out the principles of just war, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the reality is that Obama contradicted everything that he promised to the American people, and betrayed the world once again by going on murderous wars of peace. In fact, in Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech, the word, “war” had been used 33 times. September 11 itself was later used as a justification to wage a just war on Afghanistan, and then Iraq because of its past invasion of Kuwait and alleged weapons of mass destruction, which later when they were not found was then forgotten and instead, the war and invasion was justified as imposing democracy throughout the region by using Iraq as a test-ground for “democracy.” Yet, even the conduct of wars does not match what Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech. The real conducts of wars to this day are still as barbaric, precise, and deadly as ever. Depleted uranium for example is still used in most missiles and bombs which in turn do a lot more harm than just a “clean” bomb. The Geneva Conventions, even though so many states have signed them has no real meaning because every state whenever it can, still abuses human rights, and engaged in torture.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was created by Gareth Evans and backed up by the Canadian government in order to sell the right to project force and power throughout the world under the cover of protecting civilians by bombing them to prevent them from being killed by other rogue elements within a state. The Responsibility to Protect outlined the reasons why states should intervene in other nations’ affairs by stating the oppression by other states justify intervention; and that non-intervention should yield to human rights because civilians are much more important than national sovereignty.
In the 2005 World Summit, R2P was adopted except by a few other states that abstained. It also mentioned collective security, diplomatic and humanitarian intervention by military means; and it also cited Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter which authorizes the uses of force. R2P is extremely subjective; it justifies war and human rights abuses itself; it exasperates and worsens the situation; and it is also a failure. It is also easy to abuse, hypocritical, and is simply a means of projecting empire whenever it is convenient for western imperialists to do so.
In practice, the intervention in Somalia did not work out according to United Nations diktats because the United States engaged in human rights abuses themselves before they were forced to pull out under Clinton. In Libya, the entire state is a failed quagmire of death and destruction while it is being Balkanized and broken apart into warring factions. Libya is a modern case of the failure of R2P and its use as a means by American forces (pretending to be NATO) to “save” the civilians by actually engaging in discriminatory bombing sorties and human rights abuses of their own. According to Walzer, Libya violates the norms of what is considered a just war because of the end consequence, while the Council on Foreign Relations (an American neoliberal/neoconservative thinktank) which said that Libya is a model case of the “success” of the responsibility to protect doctrine which is so subjective, vague, and open to abuse that it is a failure in and of itself as an imperial marketing ploy to sell wars based on lies from start to finish (all wars are based on lies from beginning to conclusion).
Humanitarian intervention is so full of holes and errors in reasoning, judgment and usage that experience teaches us that R2P (responsibility to protect) is nothing more than the right for western imperialists to engage in wars of aggression; to pillage, plunder, and purge the world into a chaotic bloodbath for profits sake; and to project their own powers wherever they find that they have some vital interest at hand that under the cover of humanitarianism can be utilized to justify the war itself as a “just war.” No war is ever just because war itself is a grave injustice upon humanity, it is not natural for humans to go to war, and its destructive power is simply psychopathic, sadistic, and barbaric.
Human Rights became essential after the American Revolution, as stated in their Declaration of Independence. But the rights were limited to rich, wealthy, well educated property-owning white men. It excluded women and minorities. Europeans were also selective in confirming rights to African slave workers and their colonial subjects. The Universal Declaration of Human rights was passed in 1948. The resolution was in response to the ordeal of the first two World wars. Yet, strangely enough, to this day, while the mass holocaust and degradation of humanity continues apace by the United States and Europe. They use it as a lip service to shape normative discourse but do not really acted upon it themselves nor enforce it upon their governments. The United States and Europe are the first to engage in human rights violations wherever they see it is fitting to their own goals. Throughout history, US and Europe have used violence, war, exploitation, torture and mass murder for some natural resource gain or economic benefit, prestige or political advantage.
Human rights and International Relations can be understood in four levels. The first level is that of International Law. The second stage is that of the United Nations. The third stage is that of state behaviour. The fourth stage is that of non-governmental organizations. In terms of International Law, the United Nations had made resolutions regarding human rights in three main areas: that of economic and cultural rights; resolutions against torture and degrading treatment. These in turn has become a form of customary law that is slowly becoming international law. It binds nations in how they behave towards others.
In the United Nations, there is the International Criminal Court in which the United States refused to ratify because it could jeopardize their citizens who has committed major war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court does not cover all crimes. They are largely concerned about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. However, the ICC and the Security Council has never prosecuted Americans for war crimes or brought a single European person to trial. The United Nations, on the other hand has many Human Rights Councils and the Human Rights Commissioners. They are concerned about informing the media of Arab nations that do not comply with the Human Rights resolutions, but have no teeth against against the US. They don't even report against the US. When was the last time sanctions were enforced against the US or import linkage was broken to prevent monetary support to the US from the International community? When did the US use domestic cords to indite war mongers?
The rhetoric of human rights are largely very Euro-centric and even the leaders who claim to be following human rights are themselves hypocrites because human rights is a tool for them to justify military or economic warfare against states that are not aligned with Western imperialist agendas. There is a large disconnect between principle and practice for Western leaders who charge others on human rights but who themselves are more than willing to bomb, pillage, rape, maim, torture, and commit mass genocide on other people whenever it suits their goals. Mearsheimer said human rights is just a veneer and a façade for imperialism, and that even though it is a great normative standard that is worthy of political rhetoric, no state with any real power is willing to follow it to the letter or spirit because of their own national interests and strategic interests in other states.
with the growing role of non-governmental organizations or NGOs, they help to promote the value of human rights and making us aware of certain violations of states against their own citizens (although it is very selective and biased because it does not and never does target their own home state – like the United States for example). The NGOs has the power of shaming and degrading other states and making them look bad so that the international community can react and demand some kind of action must take place. The boomerang pattern says that actors with no resources of their own appeal to NGOs in order to get their message out and in turn this strikes back at the state doing the human rights abuses. This was the case in states like Afghanistan, Iraq Libya, and Syria where NGOs acted as missionaries of empire and new imperialism under the cover of seemingly legitimate human rights concerns.
Its like a script...specific human rights are enforced upon states whether or not they like it because the US and Europe are doing it. Hence, there is a kind of pressure upon the Middle East to adopt Western values even if we have no need for them. Its like, in order to be seen as legitimate by the West, we must play by their rules. According to the non-statist constructivist’s perspective by Keck and Sickink, normative mobilization encourages other states to adopt human rights values and liberalism in order to be accepted into the world community itself. In turn, this creates a normative cascade in which everyone eventually joins in on the group.
Human rights are largely Western-centered and focus too much on individual liberty, capital growth with little emphasis on religious and social values. Others say that human rights are a cover for other motives and generally as a means to sell empire and wars. It is also used as a tool to bring down those states that do not conform to western values and economic policies. There is also the inherent tension between state sovereignty and individual human rights. This tension is the cause of much debate ever since the notion of, “responsibility to protect” and, “humanitarian intervention” has been adopted by western corporate media and political analysts as a sacrosanct occult of a sort that on the surface sounds good but which really justifies the right to project power and the right to pillage and plunder, as well as purge the world of “wasteful” human beings, and endorses torture and other inhuman activities. In other words, human rights are simply a covert mask for insidious and often inhumane treatment of human beings. It is also a great public relations stunt to justify wars and imperialism in the new world order in which nations must comply and obey western imperialists or else.
The Middle East has always been a realm of human security. I grew up in the Middle East and I know i had more personal, economic, health, political, community, food and environmental security than I ever had living in the West. What I mean is that people in the Middl East are free from fear and free from the fear of want. Although we live under dictators and monarchs, we have the essential jobs, work and opportunities to be safe and secure. We have the opportunities, resources and skills to survives. The West is the godfather of atheism, social darwinism and consumerism, which is far more deadly, lethal and destructive than any actions by authoritarian regime, real or imagined because the West uses these fake freedoms to control its grid over humanity.
Moving onto Just War theory and intervention, there are many traditions that try to justify the reasons to go to war, and the practise of warfare itself. In the western tradition, Cicero discusses that man has the means to resolve disputes by reason, and that violence is for brutes. In turn, going to war should be a last resort and only if it is for a just cause. War should not be applied to innocent human beings, but only to opposing professional soldiers. Secondly, Augustine argued that wrongdoing by the other side justifies war itself. Aquinas stated that sovereign sources can go to war, and that they should have a good reason for doing so as well. Michael Walzer argued that the common principles of just war theory are that of jus ad bellum, the reasons to go to war. These include justification to use force, self defense, helping an ally, and protection of innocents; as a last resort; right intentions; and reasonable chance of success. On the other hand, jus in Bello says that wars should be conducted in such a way that protects non-combatants; proportionality; and a civil, humane conduct of war that does not damage civilian life.
In practise, however, just war theory has caused more casualties than ever, and that it is in itself a justification to go to war. For example, the bombing of Libya was not justified because it grossly violated human rights and the concept of a just war. It also caused much unnecessary suffering and pain. The Americans could have settled for something less than unconditional surrender but they chose to bomb most of Libya, the only developed country in Africa half to hell. What happened to Human Rights then?
Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize message stated that the instruments of war do have a role to paly in the preservation of peace…which is to say that war is peace. Although Obama laid out the principles of just war, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the reality is that Obama contradicted everything that he promised to the American people, and betrayed the world once again by going on murderous wars of peace. In fact, in Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech, the word, “war” had been used 33 times. September 11 itself was later used as a justification to wage a just war on Afghanistan, and then Iraq because of its past invasion of Kuwait and alleged weapons of mass destruction, which later when they were not found was then forgotten and instead, the war and invasion was justified as imposing democracy throughout the region by using Iraq as a test-ground for “democracy.” Yet, even the conduct of wars does not match what Obama said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech. The real conducts of wars to this day are still as barbaric, precise, and deadly as ever. Depleted uranium for example is still used in most missiles and bombs which in turn do a lot more harm than just a “clean” bomb. The Geneva Conventions, even though so many states have signed them has no real meaning because every state whenever it can, still abuses human rights, and engaged in torture.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was created by Gareth Evans and backed up by the Canadian government in order to sell the right to project force and power throughout the world under the cover of protecting civilians by bombing them to prevent them from being killed by other rogue elements within a state. The Responsibility to Protect outlined the reasons why states should intervene in other nations’ affairs by stating the oppression by other states justify intervention; and that non-intervention should yield to human rights because civilians are much more important than national sovereignty.
In the 2005 World Summit, R2P was adopted except by a few other states that abstained. It also mentioned collective security, diplomatic and humanitarian intervention by military means; and it also cited Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter which authorizes the uses of force. R2P is extremely subjective; it justifies war and human rights abuses itself; it exasperates and worsens the situation; and it is also a failure. It is also easy to abuse, hypocritical, and is simply a means of projecting empire whenever it is convenient for western imperialists to do so.
In practice, the intervention in Somalia did not work out according to United Nations diktats because the United States engaged in human rights abuses themselves before they were forced to pull out under Clinton. In Libya, the entire state is a failed quagmire of death and destruction while it is being Balkanized and broken apart into warring factions. Libya is a modern case of the failure of R2P and its use as a means by American forces (pretending to be NATO) to “save” the civilians by actually engaging in discriminatory bombing sorties and human rights abuses of their own. According to Walzer, Libya violates the norms of what is considered a just war because of the end consequence, while the Council on Foreign Relations (an American neoliberal/neoconservative thinktank) which said that Libya is a model case of the “success” of the responsibility to protect doctrine which is so subjective, vague, and open to abuse that it is a failure in and of itself as an imperial marketing ploy to sell wars based on lies from start to finish (all wars are based on lies from beginning to conclusion).
Humanitarian intervention is so full of holes and errors in reasoning, judgment and usage that experience teaches us that R2P (responsibility to protect) is nothing more than the right for western imperialists to engage in wars of aggression; to pillage, plunder, and purge the world into a chaotic bloodbath for profits sake; and to project their own powers wherever they find that they have some vital interest at hand that under the cover of humanitarianism can be utilized to justify the war itself as a “just war.” No war is ever just because war itself is a grave injustice upon humanity, it is not natural for humans to go to war, and its destructive power is simply psychopathic, sadistic, and barbaric.
