MARIA H. LEWYTZKYJ for Women News Network – WNN
Editor – Katherine Rea
In part three of a ground breaking interview, Monterey Institute of International Studies MA graduate, U.S. born Ukrainian, Maria Lewytzkyj, continues a fascinating discussion with U.S. foreign policy expert, Jan Knippers Black on how transnational and corporate profits can cause human rights campaigns to falter. Lewytzkyj also talks with Knippers Black about today’s global problem of fear and the “culture of denial.” Cultural denial is part of the foundation in the experience of many human rights and women’s rights defenders as they face rejection and personal threat in exposing atrocity and rights violations.
This is the final part of a three part series highlighted on Women News Network – WNN. To see part one of this series, “The Politics of Protection – Moving Human Rights Protection Upstream,” link HERE. To see part two, “Sifting through Politics in Human Rights – Women’s Rights,” link HERE.
________________
Article 4 - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Interview: Jan Knippers Black discusses foreign policy insights with Maria Lewytzkyj
Maria Lewytzkyj (ML): I liked your suggestion that in the long term, peace means many things and should include “re-visioning of what civilization can and must be about.” And that for the time being, most of all, investing in peace must mean investing in the UN, the ICC, and other multilateral organizations and institutions. The way that civilization is defined depends on what book you read, there’s the Eurocentric view of civilization, the Arab-centric view of civilization and those who want to merge those views and not promote a clash of these civilizations. Can you elaborate?…
Jan Knippers Black (JKB): In a way, we have ceased to aspire to the kinds of things that most people agreed upon in the 1960s and 1970s. In terms of the kind of society that we want, we accept much less. We have accepted the idea that profit motives outrank human rights. How can we ever have accepted something like that?
It could be argued that civilization was built on slavery, but I would say that modernization was built on slavery.
It’s not the same thing as civilization. You’re right. It (also) depends on what one means by civilization. I like what is attributed to Gandhi, the idea that he was asked about what he thinks about western civilization and he said, ‘I think it would be a good idea.’
Most of us in the so-called Western civilization assume that we have a corner on civilization, the right to define it for ourselves. I don’t think that you find a lot of clash in values among the non-hegemonic (those who are not influenced by a state, region, or group). I think that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights probably represents the needs and feelings of most people.
But we have to understand that the hegemonic will try to define it in ways that work particularly for them. In some areas, people will claim a right to collective or cultural rights that are not recognized by the universal declaration.
This means that half the population claims the right to abuse the other half of the population. Whether it’s men wanting to abuse women, or the rich wanting to abuse the poor. If you start with the assumption that human rights means all people and all rights and that everybody should have a say about what those rights are, then it’s democracy with a small “d”.
I think there is a global view of what civilization is, but most people don’t have enough to say about the (specific) way they see it.
Samuel P. Huntington at the World Economic Forum - 2004
ML: Speaking of civilization, when Iranian Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, took issue with Samuel Huntington’s work, “The Clash of Civilizations,” that has characterized West-Middle East relations over the past 30 years, Ebadi said, “They (some Middle East leaders) use Islam to hide behind and violate human rights. Like Huntington, they claim Islam is not compatible with democracy. But this is their interpretation. They interpret Islam in a way that grants them power and supports their power. Any objection to them is then an objection to Islam.” What are your thoughts on this?…
JBK: Whether Samuel Huntington really thought that something like that was inevitable, or whether he thought it was a timely popular topic, is an open question. I think it played into what was to come and helped a lot of people come to a conclusion that differences inevitably lead to a clash. Huntington basically said that Islam is not compatible with democracy. Are we supposed to take that at face value?
In the first place, whose democracy? Our system (in the west) is not compatible with democracy. Ours is run by money. Is that what democracy is supposed to be about? It is just too helpful to too many people to have the idea that violence is inevitable so preparing for it is the way to go. If you prepare for violence of course you’ll get it. If you prepare for peace, maybe that’s what you’ll get.
I think that she (Shirin Ebadi) is right. A great many leaders in the Middle East use Islam as a shield just in the way that many leaders, including supposedly religious leaders in the U.S., use “family values” as a shield. People who are serious about human rights just have to keep trying to protect our words and our dialogue. The whole discourse gets pulled into another direction if we are not careful.
Shirin Ebadi released her book, "Iran Awakening: A Memoir of Revolution and Hope," to a Western audience in 2006
ML: “How many declarations do we need?,” said Ebadi. “If Muslims are allowed to draft their own, we will have a Christian Declaration and a Hindu Declaration… We will have as many declarations as there are faiths. It would be impossible.” How do you react to this?…
JBK: That’s the problem – it’s NOT so universal. The pretense at least is that most of the world has had a say in these major documents, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and if it is just a matter of one group’s dogma versus another group’s dogma there is no end to that.
ML: What age do you think we are in now? Do you think that we are in a more selfish era than (ones) previously? For example, there was the age of enlightenment during the Industrial Revolution, the Age of Reason, the Age of Discovery or Exploration, the Great Awakening…
JBK: I would say we are in the age of denial.
It’s certainly not the age of reason. In some ways, it’s an age of greed. I think most people go along with the idea that greed can override (reason), but I don’t think most people are greedy. Most people accept (the concept of the) empire. But I don’t think most people are hegemonic. However, most people will settle for denial — trying to survive however they can and to “not notice,” because they don’t feel empowered to challenge what they see.
ML: That’s really what your book, “The Politics of Human Rights Protection – Moving Intervention Upstream with Impact Assessment,” is all about, trying to get past that (denial). Do you think it’s just a matter of time before those who implement (knowledge) with the politics of human rights and human rights protection until they are not vilified? Or before they are seen as someone who “misses” the importance of global industry or economics? Or before they are seen as “too sensitive”?…
JBK: I never seem to remember who said what, but I think it was Solomon who said a prophet is not without honor save in his own country. We don’t mind being reminded that somebody else way far away is being abused or abusing other people — we just don’t want to know that it’s right here — because we don’t know what to do about it and we don’t want to feel responsible for it.
So, how do we stop the vilification (of human rights protectors)?
Instead of backing off and disassociating from people who have the nerve to tell the truth, we should protect them. We should give them honors. We don’t. We have laws that are supposed to protect whistle-blowers, but they don’t (work), because most people understand that it’s dangerous to be a whistle-blower and it can be dangerous to be associated with whistle-blowers.
We just have it upside down and backwards. We bestow more honors on military leaders who bomb villages than we do the people who might have tried to point out ahead of time that if you drop that bomb you are going to destroy the village.
If you can get people to listen and think about it, maybe you can help them understand, that caring about what your country is doing is patriotic and taking responsibility is perhaps even more patriotic.
We’re not led to think that way. We’re led (to think) that blindly following people right off a cliff is the way to go. The kind of twist we need to get to another way of thinking is so huge.
_____________________________________________________________
Women in many global regions are afraid to “speak out” to expose human rights violations an abuse. In September 2009, World Pulse magazine sat down with Cambodia MP and women’s rights activist Mu Sochua in Berkeley, CA, just before she returned to Cambodia, where Sochua feared new charges of treason and prison for her fight against corruption. This video was reported and produced by Rhyen Coombs for World Pulse.
_____________________________________________________________
- For more information on this topic:
- “Corruption and Human Rights – Making the Connection,” International Council on Human Rights Policy with Transparency International, 2009
- “On the Margins of Profit – Rights at Risk in the Global Economy,” CHR&CJ – Center for Human Rights & Global Justice – NYU School of Law with Human Rights Watch, 2008
- “Multinationals and Anti-Sweatshop Activism,” Ann Harrison – Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC Berkeley with Jason Scorse – Graduate School of International Policy Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, 2009
______________________________
WNN Foreign Policy writer, Maria Lewytzkyj, earned her MA in International Policy with expertise in US foreign policy with Russia. She is also an expert in human rights, global conflict and victim redress, along with multilateral negotiations.
Jan Knippers Black (JKB) is a respected doctoral Professor of International Studies currently teaching at the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at Monterey Institute of International Studies. Professor Black’s international experience includes Senior Associate Membership at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University; Fulbright, Mellon and other grants and Fellowships in South America, the Caribbean, and India; on-site or short-term teaching and honorary faculty positions in several Latin American countries, and extensive overseas lecturing and research. She was also a Peace Corps Volunteer in Chile and a faculty member with the University of Pittsburgh’s Semester-at-Sea program.
This interview has been edited by WNN editorial news intern, Katherine Rea.
_____________________
©2010 Women News Network – WNN
