There is no neutral territory in combating poverty and oppression. Those who believe in such neutrality more often than not become  prey to the agendas of dominant social forces. (F. Manji) The principle of neutrality –being indifferent– is increasingly obsolete; it is immoral and short sighted. (J. Foster Dulles)

1. An undeniable contemporary fact is that, too often, our political leadership is dissociated from moral and ethical considerations. But essential for their legitimacy is precisely their ability to translate prevailing social and ethical values into politics (or ‘ethical praxis’, if you want): politics is the translation of all our scientific, ethical and historical knowledge into a fair management of society. (D. Najman, P+QLI Commission)

2. So, not trying to be facetious, if our leaders do not know how to equitably distribute wealth and justice, shouldn’t they at least equitably distribute poverty and injustice…?

3. Consequently, in human rights (HR), stepping from the ‘ethics of principles’ to the ‘ethics of responsibilities’ means that our leaders must be made to stand by their signatures and made to keep their promises, basically because they made them…of their own free accord (or convenience at the time…).

4. In today’s world, the life of a person who lives by her ethics is not easy: it is rather a crusade. For her, certain principles are non-negotiable.

5. In the human rights-based approach, rights are not negotiable. Therefore, we have to pin down the HR-expected outcomes –100% of them– as non-negotiable (in a way, a zero tolerance stance). It is this, then, that has to become our point of reference to judge which Assessment, Analysis and Action (AAA) processes in society are positive and needed in our endeavor, and which of them we have to challenge, because they do not lead to such outcomes (i.e., are negative and/or neutral AAA processes for the achievement of HR).

6. In the same way, by now, we know that Respect, Protect and Fulfill all represent HR obligations of states: they thus have the connotation of a social contract! Carrying it a bit further, some people consider Respect to be a passive obligation, Protect to be an active one, and Fulfill to be a proactive obligation. So, for instance, when governments only respect and protect, but do not fulfill state obligations towards, say, the entitlement to food, to care and/or to Health For All, they should be actively denounced and confronted by us; neutrality is not an ethical option.

7. One can ask: is it not commensurate with cowardice to live an uncommitted life in a world of growing polarization? We need to critically examine our commitments of all sorts. Uninformed innocence in a ravaged world amounts to pain and suffering that can be counted as dead bodies and children handicapped for life. We cannot be fundamentally unengaged on HR issues. Detachment has to be challenged. Detachment can come from our early training, disappointing experiences or mere indifference. We simply cannot selfishly shun commitment. A world of choice and action opens before us. We have to make choices. We have to take sides to remain human…. (A.A. de Vitis)

8. In troubled times, a vocal identification with ethical principles needs to be forged. Silence is a strategy to avoid commitment, in our case in HR work. Silence compromises the future of what we stand for. Silence is speech; it is a willed act in the furtherance of one’s objectives. (Is it self-deception?)

9. We cannot attempt to disengage; political involvement in HR matters and, in final instance, is humanizing. Of course, the choice can be made to act as a ‘sympathetic outsider’; from such a position, reality-out-there remains but a picture on the canvas. (Z. Pathak)

[I recognize that people exist as dismembered bodies; we are constructed as complex, fragmented subjects, in part because there is a dialectical relationship between the personal and the political…].

Can Human Rights advocacy be overdone?

10. All people have equal rights, but are indeed very different –and want to be different… (J.Rau, German Federal President, 13/5/02)

11. Because HR pertain to all people, everywhere, one danger is that the term “human rights” be used for many disparate things, if not for everything under sun. The fear is that, eventually, the term be abused so that it gets diluted to the extent that it loses all its original meaning and becomes empty rhetoric –like so many other ‘big words’ we have seen abused –from democracy to freedom to equity…
12. Human rights has actually become a ‘convenient’ moral term, so useful and effective in advocacy that, to be on the safe side, everyone (friend and foe of HR) throws it in…just in case. And that is where the danger of abuse and dilution lies.

    13. While I am aware of the efforts to expand the traditional HR concept and expect that HR will play some role in areas such as the environment, I am wary that if everyone keeps stretching HR into everything under the sun, within ten years, we risk seeing a huge backlash in the HR arena: whoever mentions the term “human rights” will be suspected of being a dinosaur or a fanatic. In the next five years we will see expansion, but what in ten…? This, of course, does not mean that linking HR to environment issues should not be pursued… (Tran Dinh Hoang, personal communication

14. The caveat here is that we ought to advocate for a faithful adherence to the established and already sanctioned international legal human rights concept and principles; expansion from there should be cautious, well justified and long-term.

If something is good, use it carefully, consistently and with care…

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

cschuftan@phmovement.org