The aguable foreign element of human rights

 Back with a bang my friends but this time talking about if human rights are a foreign concept. Am sure you have heard thousands of debates if human rights are universal or another means by the west to curb our freedom as the 3rd world countries. I do hope by the time you finish reading this you are not only emancipated but equiped to also understand and debate on human rights being or not being a foreign concept.

Henkin 1991 defines human rights as

“claims, which every individual has, or could have upon the society in which he lives…they are universal…..they know no geographical or history, culture or ideological, political or economic system or state of development….they need not be earned or deserved…they are more than aspirations or assertions of the good but claims of entitlements and corresponding obligations”The  argument  here  is  that   all  people, regardless  of  their  race, class, gender  and  so on  have  one  thing  in  common,  that  they  are  human  beings  hence  they  all  need  human  rights. However their origins can be traced and tracked back to the western roots with the first instrument in which many states committed themselves to preserving human rights was the universaldeclaration of human rights in 1948  There has been debatable belief is that they are not of our origin or universal but a means to control the non-western population and nurse the interests of the west. It is the literature piece to follow that will attempt to address human rights as not necessarily a foreign concept even if they are of western origin.

Postcolonial critics argue that universal human rights are expressive of Western cultural particularity and contest the idea of rights as universally applicable . The debate often turns on the idea that, though rights are said to have universal validity, they originate in the west and mostly express western interests. From a historical point of view,  human  rights  date  back  to  the  establishment  of  the  American  Bill  of Rights  in  1791  and  the  French  Revolution (1789) and the slave trade which was mainly imposed by European colonialists. These  are  considered  by  many  scholars  as  landmark  events  that  culminated  in  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights  of  1948

There are political reasons that some African and Asian governments   use as a basis to argue   against human rights universality. Their arguments seem too vague to justify human rights as a foreign concept. Most notably they hide behind theories of imperialism and indigenous culture to argue against human right as a foreign concept. Thomas 2012 notes that there is neither pure Western ideology nor a pure indigenous Asian ideology but each country has to welcome the notion of globalisation and the fact that cultures are inter-exchanging and rotating globally. By 2004 China had not signed the United Nations political and civil rights documentation,  justifying  its  reluctance  to  sign  the  document  to  “Asian  Cultural Values”  such  as  the  absolute  superiority  of  the  state  over  the  individual. In  this  case,  China  refused  to  recognise  the  rights  of  its  people  due  to  a  mindset  that  believes  that  accepting  human  rights  might  lead  to  Western  imperialism. The argument here is not of human rights being a foreign concept but that of power struggles between the west and the rest thereby diminishing human rights as a western concept.

Some African countries such as Zimbabwe grossly argue against human rights universality in the name of sovereignty yet they themselves abuse these on others. For  example,  the  initial  stages  of  the  implementation  of  the  Land  Reform Programme  in  Zimbabwe  was  characterised  by  gross  abuse  of  human  rights.  Human  rights  activists  from  Non  Governmental  Organisations (NGOs)  such  as  the  Legal  Resources  Foundation  which  is  based  in  Harare  have  reports  that  suggest  that  the  way  in  which  former  White  colonialists  were  evacuated  from  their  former  farms  was  marred  with  violence  and  attacks  on  civil  society  hence  in  the  process  violating  human  rights. Western  nations  such  as  Britain  and  America  resorted  to  imposing  sanctions  on  Zimbabwe. This  move  by  the  West  is  largely  criticised  by  African  leaders  such  as  President  Mugabe  who  argues  that  the  imposition  of  sanctions  to  African  countries  for  violation  of  human  rights  is  a  clear  sign  of  how  human  rights  are  being  imposed  upon  them  hence  it  is  another  way  of  enforcing  regime  change  in  Africa. Ironically they argue that they are being deprived of their human rights yet they abuse them. This becomes apparent that they are not a foreign concept but each country only wants to use human rights if and only if they benefit them.

Again, African  countries  are  allowing  culture  to take  precedence  over  human  rights  and  when  the  United  Nations  attack  them  for  violating  human  rights  their  argument  is  that  human  rights  are  meant  to  separate  them  from  their  culture. Human  rights  organisations  such  as  the  International Convention  on  Economic, Social  and Cultural  Rights (ICESCR)  have  condemned  the  mutilation  and  circumcision  of  girls  in  Sudan  considering  this  as  violating  the  right  to  sexual  reproductive  health  hence  it  is  an  oppressive  practice. The  International  Human  Rights  Law  contains  a  number  of  provisions  to  protect  reproductive  health  including  the  right  to  conceive. The  argument  here  is  that  culture  is  part  of  the  structural  forces  that  African  countries  are  using  to  justify  their  violation  of  human  rights  and  in  the  process  claim  that  they  are  a  foreign  concept  imposed  upon  them  by  foreign  governments.  It  is  therefore  not  valid  to  use  culture  as  an  excuse  to  violate  human  rights.

There  are  conflicting  human  rights  principles  such  as  gender  equality  which  are  not  easily  applicable  to  most  African  nations  as  they  are  a  patriarchal  society. This  complicates  the  implementation  of  human  rights  in  Africa  as  a  result, Non  Governmental  Organisations  such  as  the  Legal  Resources  Foundation  which  is  based  in  Harare  recruited  its  members  to  teach  on  human  rights  and  gender  equality. For  example, in  Zimbabwe,  in  the  late  1990s  there  was  a  Provision  of  Non-Formal  Education  for  Human  Rights  Programme  which  was  carried  out  throughout  the  country  as  a  way  of  offering  Zimbabweans  free  education  on  human  rights. This  shows  that  in  a  way,  the  shortcomings  of  democracy  in  Africa  have  allowed  developed  countries  to  intervene  in  African’s  domestic  issues. It is for this reason that the challenge in applicability to the African context has allowed for the blossoming of human rights as a foreign concept.

According to Cook, human rights are not a foreign concept in Africa. He argues that “the charter of human rights and people’s rights is a relative concept fettered by international standards both of regional and international scope.” He points out that human rights contain regional standards of conduct by African states and therefore cannot be a foreign concept. The idea presented here is that human rights are generally accepted worldwide even if they are contained in other foreign charters.

Furthermore, human  rights as a necessity to the human race cannot be considered  a  foreign  concept  imposed  upon  Africans  by  foreign  governments. Scholars  realise  that  human  rights  can  be  linked  to  development  and  good  governance  cannot  be  there  unless  human  rights  are  observed  and  enforced. In  Africa  there  are  existing  social  and  gender  injustices  in  water, land  and  other  natural  resources  in  distribution  of  these  resources. Of  great  concern  in  Zimbabwe  is  the  gender  distribution  of  farming  in  Mhondoro  and  other  Zimbabwean  communal  lands  whereby  the  most  cash  generating  crops  such  as  tobacco, cotton  and  maize  are  mainly  allocated  to  men  as  they  are  considered  breadwinners. This  leads  to  lack  of  development  as  women  are  not  empowered  enough  to  contribute  to  the  undermineddevelopment  of  the  Agricultural  sector  in  Zimbabwe  and  most  parts  of  Africa  as  democracy  is  .  Therefore  human  rights  are  not  a  foreign  concept  but an essential thesis in  promoting  good  governance  and  development  in  all  nations  whether  African  or  not.

According to the Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai:

                         “Human rights are not a foreign concept that was imposed upon

                          The country by foreign countries but all human rights are informed

                          By the values of each and every Zimbabwean. ‘

                          http://thezimbabwean [Accessed 24 February 2012]

 
He  further  argues  that  it  is  for  this  reason  that  the  liberation  fighters  waged  a  war  against  the  former  white  colonialists  (Britain), to  ensure  that  all  Zimbabweans  enjoy  their  human  rights  regardless  of  their  differences.  His  argument  here  is  that  human  rights  are  generic  by  virtue  of  being  a  human  being  and  he  also  observed  that  every  community  has  a  sense  of  human  rights  hence  they  cannot  be  labelled  a  foreign  concept  because  they  promote  democracy.

For  the  purposes  of  argument,  it  is  valid  to  consider  some  of  the  issues  that  African  leaders  assume  are  a  sign  that  human  rights  are  a  foreign  concept imposed  upon  Africans.  For  example,  the  debate  of  cultural  imperialism  being  facilitated  by  human  rights  can  be  considered  as  critical  because  human  rights  originated  in  Europe  hence  they  present  the  values  and  norms  of  Europeans  and  they  even  promote  individualism  and  homosexuality  amongst  other  values  that  are  shunned  in  the  African  society. Some  scholars  even  argue  that  human  rights  are  an  imposition  on  Africa  because  Africans  are  forced  to  abandon  their  values  and  norms  in  a  bid  to  fit  in  the  international  sphere  and  women  are  the  most  affected  group.

Hellum  argues  that  the  way  in  which  human  rights  are  implemented  is  different  from  the  way  in  which  Africans  themselves  observed  human  rights  making  the  illusion  that  they  are  a  foreign  concept  yet  they  were  already  there  but  were  observed  in  a  different  way. The  argument  here  is  that  human  rights  are  not  a  foreign  concept  imposed  upon  Africans  but  how  they  are  implemented  resembles  and  imitates  the  ways  of  living  of  the  Europeans.

Analytically,  there  is  a tendency  to  doubt  the  universality  of  ideas  in  human  rights  because  the  cultural  values  and  norms  of  African  countries  are  different  from  those  in  the  West, that  is, what  might  be  acceptable  to  Africans  may  not  be  acceptable  to  Europeans. Gawanas notes that human rights can be considered a foreign concept as they ignore the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the non-western countries. Africans  believe  in  that  the  community  has  more  power  than  the  individual  hence  an  individual  should  conform  to  the  expectations  of  the  community  first  before  he  or  she  is  considered, they  believe  in  fellowship . On  the  other  hand, Europeans  believe  in  values  such  as  individualism  whereby  the  individual  is  given  more  preference  than  the  community  from  which  he  or  she  comes  from. It  is  for  this  reason  that  some scholars  argue  that  human  rights  cannot  be  applied  universally  due  to  the perceived ignorance on the cultural standpoint of non-western countries.

To add on, there is an argument that human rights are a foreign concept which the West uses to control, colonise and penetrate the non-western world. Gawanas argues that they benefit the West who in turn uses them to cover for western intervention in the affairs of the developing world as mainly a means to divide the developing world so that it can easily be penetrated for ruling. The general argument is that ever since they have been drafted they have never been redrafted or revised to carter for the developing world.

Undeniably the  concept  of  human  rights  is  indeed  rooted  in  Western  values  and  they  have  a  Western  background  but  l think they  have  to  be  observed  because  they  promote  democracy  and  development  in  all  nations.  It  becomes unfair  to  claim  that  they  are  a  foreign  concept  imposed  upon  Africans  because  Africans  themselves  had  their  own  way  of  observing  them  through  great  emphasis  on  respecting  the  human  race  deeply  rooted  in  the  spirit  of  Ubuntu/Chivanu.  The  only  difference  now  is  that  they  are  documented  through  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights,  an idea  which  the  Africans  did not pioneer. So l wonder is the argument on the human rights or we just tring to create a fight in midst of rights which a neutral to all?