Category Archives: human rights and democracy

>Steve Hynd

>

Right to Protect interventionism is essentially a utilitarian argument – that by using violence in reply to violence the greater good of the greater number can be achieved – specifically, that fewer people will die if there is an armed intervention than if the state or non-state actor is allowed to continue killing unopposed by external forces. But it largely ignores a wider utilitarian argument to do so – that the resources required to intervene could be put to better use saving more lives elsewhere.
The war in Libya has cost the US somewhere in the region of $1.2 billion over six months, at a rough guess. That’s a drop in the ocean compared with the hundreds of billions so far spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the bloated overall defense budget. But State spends far less on core foreign assistance – including food aid – than is spent on America’s wars. That stands at only $32.9 billion in the FY2012 request. DoD will get three and a half times that money for Afghanistan and Iraq alone.

>Jayshree Bajoria

>

The crackdown by Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on mass anti-regime protests in early 2011 resulted in strong condemnation by the international community. In a historic move, the UN Security Council invoked the principle of “responsibility to protect” and adopted Resolution 1973, endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya and authorizing member states to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians under attack from Qaddafi’s government. As a result, some Western countries, including the United States, began air strikes over Libya, which spurred a debate on whether forced intervention was warranted. Countries like Russia, China, Brazil, and India abstained from voting on the UN resolution, spotlighting the sensitive nature of the issue. Some states in Asia and Africa, especially former colonies, have long seen intervention of any kind as a threat to their sovereignty. This was evident in the divide that followed a devastating cyclone in Myanmar in May 2008. There have been some instances in the recent past where countries have opened up to outside aid in the aftermath of natural disasters, but sovereignty remains a sticking point.

>David Rieff

>

Use any euphemism you wish, but in the end these interventions have to be about regime change if they are to have any chance of accomplishing their stated goal. (That is why they are opposed in many parts of the formerly colonized world even as they are supported in the formerly colonizing West.) After all, how can the people of Darfur ever be safe as long as the same regime that sanctioned their slaughter rules unrepentant in Khartoum? Or, for that matter, how can the Myanmar government be trusted to look after the slow business of reconstruction in the zones hit by the cyclone if it was unconcerned with the fate of Nargis’s survivors from the beginning?
The harsh truth is that it is one thing for people of conscience to call for wrongs to be righted but it is quite another to fathom the consequences of such actions. Good will is not enough; nor is political will. That is because, as Iraq has taught us so painfully, the law of unintended consequences may be one of the few iron laws of international politics. And somewhere, despite all the outcry, leaders know that the same people calling for intervention may repudiate it the moment it goes wrong.

>International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty

>

“Humanitarian intervention” has been controversial both when it happens, and when it has failed to happen.
  • Rwanda in 1994 laid bare the full horror of inaction.
  • Kosovo in 1999 raised major questions about the legitimacy of military intervention in a sovereign state.
  • Bosnia in 1995 is another which has had a major impact on the contemporary policy debate about intervention for human protection purposes.
  • Another was the failure and ultimate withdrawal of the UN peace operations in Somalia in 1992–93.
For some, the international community is not intervening enough; for others it is intervening much too often. For some, the only real issue is in ensuring that coercive interventions are effective; for others, questions about legality, process and the possible misuse of precedent loom much larger. For some, the new interventions herald a new world in which human rights trumps state sovereignty; for others, it ushers in a world in which big powers ride roughshod over the smaller ones, manipulating the rhetoric of humanitarianism and human rights. The controversy has laid bare basic divisions within the international community. In the interest of all those victims who suffer and die when leadership and institutions fail, it is crucial that these divisions be resolved.

>Kofi Annan

>

… if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?
The genocide in Rwanda showed us how terrible the consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder. But the conflict in Kosovo raised equally important questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear legal authority. On the one hand, is it legitimate for a regional organization to use force without a UN mandate? On the other, is it permissible to let gross and systematic violations of human rights, with grave humanitarian consequences continue unchecked?

>Aliaa Magda Elmahdy

>

The photo is an expression of my being and I see the human body as the best artistic representation of that. I took the photo myself using a timer on my personal camera.
Most Egyptians are secretive about sex because they are brought up thinking sex is something bad and dirty and there is no mention of it in schools.
Many women wear the veil just to escape the harassment and be able to walk the streets.

>Nujood Ali, Delphine Minoui

>My head is spinning — I’ve never seen so many people in my whole life. In the yard outside the courthouse, a crowd is bustling around in every direction: men in suits and ties with bunches of yellowed files tucked under their arms; other men wearing the zanna, the traditional ankle-length tunic of the villages of northern Yemen; and then all these women, shouting and weeping so loudly that I can’t understand a word.
I’d love to read their lips to find out what they’re saying, but the niqabs that match their long black robes hide everything except their big, round eyes. The women seem furious, as if a tornado had just destroyed their houses. I try to listen closely.
I can catch only a few words — childcare, justice, human rights — and I’m not really sure what they mean. Not far away from me is a broad- shouldered giant wearing his turban jammed down to his eyes; he’s carrying a plastic bag full of documents and telling anyone who will listen that he has come here to try to get back some land that was stolen from him. He’s dashing around like a frantic rabbit, and he almost runs right into me.

>W. R. Wilson

>Etruscan men and women were equal.

Women enjoyed high status in Etruria and paintings show them prominently in every aspect of life.

Etruscans are an enigma wrapped in a mystery because unlike other vanished peoples, they do not speak to us through their writings.

>Human Trafficking National Coordination Centre

>

What is human trafficking? Under the Criminal Code, it’s when someone is being exploited by different means such as force, coercion, threat, fraud, or deception. Victims will often find themselves in prostitution, forced labour or other forms of servitude.
The Centre has five priorities:
  1. Develop tools, protocols and guidelines to facilitate Human Trafficking investigations.
  2. Coordinate national awareness/training and anti-trafficking initiatives.
  3. Identify and maintain lines of communication, identify issues for integrated coordination and provide support
  4. Develop and maintain international partnerships and coordinate international initiatives.
  5. Coordinate intelligence and facilitate the dissemination of all sources of information/ intelligence.

>Made By Survivors Network

>

Made By Survivors is the core program of Made By Survivors Network, a US based NGO that works internationally with survivors of slavery and human trafficking.
MBSN currently operates programs in six countries, with a concentration of programming in India and Nepal.
We currently sponsor 200 child survivors and children born into brothel communities to attend school for the first time.
Our beautiful fair trade jewelry items, handbags and gifts are made by survivors of slavery at shelters around the world, offering them sustainable income, dignity, and a bright future free of slavery.

>David Batstone

>

I read in a local paper that one of my favorite Indian restaurants in the Bay Area had been trafficking women from India to wash dishes, cook meals and other tasks. The story came out when a young woman, Chianti Pratipatta died of a gas leak in an unventilated apartment owned by the proprietor of the restaurant, who forced Chianti and others into slavery under threat of reporting their illegal presence to the authorities.
This was happening in my country at a restaurant I frequented. My shock turned into a consuming passion that took me around the world to learn more about how slavery flourishes in the shadows.
I also learned about the solutions. I met heroes. Modern-day abolitionists fighting trafficking and slavery on the front lines. And I knew I had to do something. The Not for Sale Campaign combines technology, intellectual capital, abolitionist groups and a growing network of individuals like yourself – joined together to end slavery in our lifetime.

>Human Rights Committee

>

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee
Japan
7. The Committee stresses that protection of human rights and human rights
standards are not determined by popularity polls. It is concerned by the
repeated use of popularity statistics to justify attitudes of the State party
that may violate its obligations under the Covenant.

>Debito Arudou

>… why is the government even asking whether non-Japanese deserve equal rights? Are human rights optional, a matter of opinion polls? And if a majority says foreigners deserve fewer rights, does that justify the current policy of resisting introducing laws against racial discrimination? …
… in Q3, part 2, people who felt they had experienced discrimination were to choose from a conveniently-provided list of scourges: “false rumors, bad-mouthing by neighbors,” “insults or defamation,” “bad treatment from police,” “violence, extortion,” “false accusations of crime,” “foul odors, noise pollution,” “discriminatory treatment by race, creed, gender, and social status,” “being excluded by your neighbors,” “bad treatment at work,” “your domestic utilities, such as gas or water, getting switched off,” “bad treatment at public welfare facilities,” “invasion of privacy,” “sexual harassment,” “stalking,” “something else,” and finally, “not sure, but something (nantonaku)”.
And how about “foul odors”? Under this rubric, one could argue a stinky public toilet or a humid fart in an elevator is a violation of human rights! No wonder people have trouble taking human-rights activists seriously, when concepts even utilized by the government are so ill-defined.

>伊藤真

>

 大学生のある時、ジャーナリストをしているアメリカ人の友人に「日本の憲法で最も大切なことは何か教えてくれ」と言われました。小学生の時から、「国民主権」「基本的人権の尊重」「平和主義」の3原則を覚えさせられて、この3つを書かないとテストでは×(誤り)でしたので、彼にこの3つだと答えました。
 しかし、彼は、「3つもいらない、1つだけにしてくれ」としつこく言いました。。。私は家に帰って、憲法に関する本を取り出して、いろいろと調べてみました。
 驚いたことに、どのような憲法の本にも、憲法で最も大切なものが何か書いてありました。それが、憲法13条の「個人の尊重」です。この「個人の尊重」は、「国民主権」「人権尊重」「平和主義」の3原則の根本にあります。アメリカ人の友人のきつい一言がきっかけで一生懸命に憲法を勉強するようになったのですから、彼は私が憲法を学ぶ上での“大恩人”だったと言っていいかもしれません。
 この「個人の尊重」には、「人はみな同じ」と「人は皆違う」という相反するような2つの意味があります。
 人として尊重される点では人は皆同じ、すなわち、人として生きる価値がある点で人に何ら違いはないのです。また同時に、個人として尊重される、すなわち、人は皆違うのであって、誰一人同じ人がいないからこそ、人は一人ひとりかけがえのない存在なのです。

>文部省

>

  • みなさん、国を愛し、国に尽くすように、自分の住んでいる地方を愛し、自分の地方のために尽くしましょう。
  • こんどの戦争で、天皇陛下は、大変なご苦労をなさいました。
    なぜならば、古い憲法では、天皇をお助けしてくにの仕事をした人々は、国民全体が選んだ物でなかったので、国民の考えと離れて、とうとう戦争になったからです。
    そこで、この先、国を治めていくについて、二度とこのようなことがないように、新しい憲法をこしらえるとき、大変苦心を致しました。
  • ですから、私たちは、天皇陛下を、私たちの真ん中にしっかりとお置きして、国を治めていくについて、ご苦労のないようにしなければなりません。
  • なるべくおおぜいの人の意見で、物事を決めてゆくことが、民主主義のやりかたです。
  • 国民ぜんたいの意見で、国を治めてゆくのがいちばんよいのです。
  • よその国との争いごとがおこったとき、けっして戦争によって、相手をまかして、じぶんのいいぶんをとおそうとしないということをきめたのです。
  • みなさん、あのおそろしい戦争が、二度とおこらないように、また戦争を二度とおこさないようにいたしましょう。

>Pentti Linkola

>

Man has learned nearly nothing even when confronted with the end of the world. Still the majority of people do their daily decisions based on what they want, or what pleases them. The deep ecologist never intermingles the preferences or distastes of man, not of own or others, with matters. He makes his judgements and creates his guidelines by what is feasible – without diminishing the possible richness of the biosphere, endangering its continuity. Democracy listens to the whims of man, the will of the people. The consequences are frightening. The suicidal society that we see around us is what follows.
Democracy is the most miserable of all known societal systems, the heavy building block of doom. Therein the unmanageable freedom of production and consumption and the passions of the people is not only allowed, but also elevated as the highest of values. The most incomparably grave environmental disasters prevail in democracies. Any kind of dictatorship is always superior to democracy, leading to utter destruction more tardily, because there the individual is always chained, one way or other. When individual freedom reigns, human is both the killer and the victim.

>京华时报

>全国人大常委会第二十三次会议审议《中华人民共和国居民身份证法修正案(草案)》。草案要求,公民申请领取、换领、补领居民身份证,应当登记指纹信息。对于身份证为何要登记指纹信息,公安部副部长杨焕宁表示,在身份证中加入指纹信息,国家机关以及金融、电信、交通、教育、医疗等单位可以通过机读快速、准确地进行人证同一性认定,有利于提高工作效率,有效防范冒用他人居民身份证以及伪造、变更居民身份证等违法犯罪行为的发生。

>Jeff Kaufman

>

A start would be returning to a gold backed legal tender dollar. It will not reimpose the full intent of the Constitution but it would reimpose limitations on the government consistent with the Constitution. A bigger step would be repealing all legal tender laws so that alternative entities could introduce other “monies” in competition with the U.S. dollar which would also discipline the Federal Reserve and create a disincentive to quantitatively ease the money supply.
What we really cannot do however, is nothing. Since 1912 the dollar has been on a 100 year decline losing value as it became detached from gold and printed in excess so that its value against other currencies has been eroded by inflation. Inaction will lead to an inevitable collapse of the dollar.

本多圭

フジテレビが俳優の松方弘樹を暴排条例に抵触しかねない危険人物として、極秘に使用禁止の通達を出したという。続いて日本テレビが、女優の水野美紀に関して、同じ理由で使用禁止の通達を流したそうだ。
松方と水野の共通点は、テレビ局にも甚大な影響力を持つ大手芸能プロ「バーニングプロダクション」から独立していることだ。
そんな2人をフジと日テレは芸能プロ関係者からの情報を鵜呑みにして、テレビ界から追放した。そこに、真実性や公平性はあるのだろうか。
「マル暴交遊を身体検査された歌手たち」というリストについても、何の根拠もない歌手の情報が入っている。NHKは『紅白』の選考に関して、社会部記者総動員で調べていると言ってるらしいが、暴排条例を担当する警視庁組織犯罪対策3課の関係者はリストを見て、「暴力団との交際者として聞いたことがない歌手の名前も挙がっている。濡れ衣を着せられている人もいるのでは?」と同情するほどだ。
特定の芸能人を「干してやりたい」という芸能関係者の思惑で情報が操作され、”芸能界浄化作戦”の一環に利用されたら、人権侵害にもつながりかねない。NHKや民放は出演者の身体検査をする前に、芸能プロとの癒着体質を検査し、浄化することが先決のはずだ。

>赤田敦

>

  • 権利はどのような感情に由来するか
  • 他人の苦痛や快に対する想像力である
どれほど認められるかはわからないが、わたしはこのような発想をわりと信じている。
また、論証も説得もできないが、わたしは権利に関する事態をおおむね以下のように理解している。
  • 他人の苦痛・快と未来の自分自身の快・不快は似ている。どちらも想像のなかにしか無いから。
  • 未来の自分の快を招き、未来の自分の不快を避けるように行動できる人は、その能力を他人のために行使することもできる。
  • 権利とはこの能力の行使を制度化したものである。

>L’Aurore

>« J’Accuse…! » est le titre d’un article rédigé par Émile Zola lors de l’affaire Dreyfus. Il est publié dans le journal L’Aurore du 13 janvier 1898 sous la forme d’une lettre ouverte au Président de la République française Félix Faure. Au travers d’un véritable pamphlet accusateur, la contestation d’une décision de justice au nom de valeurs universelles, l’écrivain décide de s’exposer publiquement, afin de comparaître aux assises pour qu’un nouveau procès, plus indépendant, puisse se dérouler. C’est cet article qui relance l’affaire Dreyfus, au moment où, le véritable coupable (le commandant Esterházy) étant acquitté, tout pouvait sembler perdu pour le camp dreyfusard. Cet article représente le symbole de l’éloquence oratoire et du pouvoir de la presse mis au service d’une cause juste et généreuse.

>早尾 貴紀

>

メロン・ベンヴェニスティ氏が来日し、東京での講演が始まった。
その複雑で稀有な経歴のとおり、ものごとを単純化しない姿勢と、党派的政治運動へ利用されることへの拒絶と、机上のラディカルさだけを求める空論への戒めにおいて、彼はつねに慎重さと大胆さをもって、触発的な発言を続けている。
イスラエル/パレスチナ内においても、アラブ・パレスチナ人であれユダヤ・イスラエル人であれ、シオニスト側であれ反シオニスト側であれ、非難するのであれ歓迎するのであれ、ベンヴェニスティ氏の発言は誰もが気にせざるをえなくなっている。薬にもなるが使い方を間違えれば毒にもなる。そういうポジションをもっている。

>Association for Civil Rights in Israel

>

The Nakba Law, officially titled “Budget Principles Law (Amendment 39) – Reducing Budgetary Support for Activities Contrary to the Principles of the State,” will enable a committee of bureaucrats from the Ministry of Finance to fine municipalities, public institutions, or publicly supported organizations – if they believe that these bodies oppose the interpretation of the term “Jewish and democratic State,” express feelings of mourning related to the Israeli Independence Day or the Nakba, or violate the symbols of the State.
Therefore, for example, it will be possible to fine cultural or educational institutions and local municipalities if they hold an event that gives artistic expression (or any other form of expression) to critical or alternative opinions. The actual meaning of this fine is the revocation of public funding, up to ten times the cost of the event in which the “offense” was committed.
The second bill to be brought for a final vote today is the Acceptance to Communities Bill, which will anchor discrimination and separatism in Israeli law by creating acceptance committees to villages of up to 400 family units in the Negev and Galilee regions.

>Ligue des droits de l’Homme

>

On aurait pensé que l’opinion tout entière s’élèverait contre une illégalité dont le Code pénal lui-même réclame la séparation, mais des passions d’un autre âge se sont déchaînées et l’antisémitisme a éloigné de nous, pour un moment, un grand nombre de ceux qui, sans approuver au fond ses tendances, n’osent pas affronter ses menaces. Il s’est fait comme une sorte de Terreur sous l’action perfide d’une campagne de diffamations et de mensonges et les vociférations organisées de « A bas, à mort les juifs ! » ont transformé en question politique une cause qui n’est en réalité que d’ordre purement judiciaire.
Cette poussée d’aveugle fanatisme ajoute au devoir de redresser une injustice, celui, plus grand encore, de sauver l’âme de la France d’un grave péril.

>Георгий Полтавченко

>

У нас что — отменили выборы в России, или еще какие-то действия, которые противоречат демократии?.. Один руководитель нашего государства, легитимно избранный подавляющим большинством россиян, предложил другого руководителя нашего государства, лидера ведущей парламентской партии, на пост президента. Выборы впереди, 3 марта: российский народ примет решение, поэтому так утверждать — безответственно, все идет в рамках демократии.
В Америке в свое время предыдущего президента избрали по суду. Откройте глаза: демократии не меньше, чем в США, самой демократичной стране мира, как они себя называют. Не думаю, что у нас меньше демократии.

>Anna Nemtsova

>

Radicals in Russia have been bombing bikini-clad women to enforce Islamic dress codes (mines were hidden in the Sharia-compliant beach opened by the state).
Leaflets distributed at Muslims girls’ schools this summer warned, “Behavior is important—Muslim women should not speak loudly or look directly into the eyes of men.”

>Jake Adelstein

>

Most Americans think of Japan as a law-abiding and peaceful place, as well as our staunch ally, but reporting on the underworld gave me a different perspective. Mobs are legal entities here. Their fan magazines and comic books are sold in convenience stores, and bosses socialize with prime ministers and politicians. And as far as the United States is concerned, Japan may be refueling U.S. warships at sea, but it’s not helping us fight our own battles against organized crime — a realization that led to my biggest scoop.

>Noam Chomsky

>

If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.
It is elementary that freedom of expression is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended.

>Level 3 of Tepido.org

>

The chief prosecutor in the Saga City Agricultural Co-op case, infamous for use of false charges, spoke at a symposium held in Tokyo on May 23, 2011. He gave a stunningly candid account of the reality of training for new employees. He disclosed that in his past experience, “We were taught that yakuza and foreigners have no rights.” and “Prosecutors are instructed to make up a confession on their own and then make the suspect sign it.” Further, he gave a chilling account of how under this warped training system, “While being trained in this way, I came to sort of agree that these kinds of things were only natural.”

篠田建市

異様な時代が来たと感じている。やくざといえども、われわれもこの国の住人であり、社会の一員。。。。われわれが法を犯して取り締まられるのは構わないが、われわれにも親がいれば子供もいる、親戚もいる、幼なじみもいる。こうした人たちとお茶を飲んだり、歓談したりするというだけでも周辺者とみなされかねないというのは、やくざは人ではないということなのだろう。しかも一般市民、善良な市民として生活しているそうした人たちがわれわれと同じ枠組みで処罰されるということに異常さを感じている。。。今回の条例は法の下の平等を無視し、法を犯してなくても当局が反社会的勢力だと認定した者には制裁を科すという一種の身分政策だ。今は反社会的勢力というのは暴力団が対象だが、今後拡大解釈されていくだろう。
われわれの子供は今、みんないじめにあい、差別の対象になっている。われわれに人権がないといわれているのは知っているが、家族は別ではないか。若い者たちの各家庭では子供たちが学校でいじめにあっていると聞いているが、子を持つ親としてふびんに思う。このままでは将来的に第2の同和問題になると思っている。
懲役とは隣り合わせだし、ときには生命の危険もある。それでも人が集まってくる。昔から言われることだが、この世界で救われる者がいるからだと思う。山口組には家庭環境に恵まれず、いわゆる落ちこぼれが多く、在日韓国、朝鮮人や被差別部落出身者も少なくない。こうした者に社会は冷たく、差別もなくなっていない。心構えがしっかりしていればやくざにならないというのは正論だが、残念ながら人は必ずしも強くはない。こうした者たちが寄り添い合うのはどこの国でも同じだ。それはどこかに理由がある。社会から落ちこぼれた若者たちが無軌道になって、かたぎに迷惑をかけないように目を光らせることもわれわれの務めだと思っている。

>Garet Garrett

>

Nevertheless, there is here a startling departure. It begins with saying that democracy and capitalism shall be reformed together. The argument is circular. To arrive at the free and abundant life to which every individual is entitled, it will be necessary to reform democracy. But to reform democracy it will be necessary first for a government, acting in the name of the people, to overthrow the rule of individualism in the economic sphere, to lay a controlling hand upon all the means of production and to say how the nation’s wealth and income shall be divided. It follows simply that in order for the government to seize and exercise this power of economic and social control, thereby to reform democracy for the full and abundant individual life, it will be necessary for the individual to surrender the economic liberties he has enjoyed and may have abused under what hitherto ne mistook to be a democratic form of government. Not for his own sake as a specific individual but for the sake of every individual, he must submit his individualism to a planned economy.

>Khodorkovsky and Lebedev Communications Center

>

Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, formerly two of Russia’s leading entrepreneurs, have been unjustly imprisoned since 2003. Patriots, family men, and philanthropists, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev had every opportunity to leave Russia prior to their arrests, once it became clear they were being targeted by authorities seeking to neutralize their political activities and seize their assets. But they chose not to flee their homeland.
Khodorkovsky and Lebedev remain in jail today because their vision for their country differs from that of the people in power. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev support the development of a free, open society, a competitive and modern market economy, independent political and judicial institutions and increased international cooperation.

>Прессцентр Михаила Ходорковского и Платона Лебедева

>

2 июля 2003 года Платон Лебедев был арестован в госпитале имени Вишневского.
25 октября 2003 года в Новосибирске самолет Ходорковского штурмом берет спецназ ФСБ. Ходорковского обвиняют в нарушениях при приватизации ОАО «Апатит» в 1994 году и арестовывают.

>Stop Blood Diamonds

>Stop Blood Diamonds is an organization pledged to stopping the exploitation of the diamond trade by human rights abusers.

Blood diamonds, often called conflict diamonds, are mined in war torn African countries by rebels to fund their conflict. The rebels grossly abuse human rights, often murdering and enslaving the local populations to mine the diamonds.

We can stop this by purchasing legitimate diamonds. Botswana used to be a poor farm country but today its government works hand in hand with the Diamond industry to give Botswana a living standard 7 times higher than its neighbors.
Make sure your jeweler stops the blood diamonds trade by supporting conflict free diamonds.

>Kyung-wha Kang

>

Immediately and unconditionally release all political opponents, activists and journalists, who were not involved in any violence. Conduct an impartial, credible and objective investigation of circumstances in which these persons were arrested and detained and of al reported cases of torture and ill treatment and bring those responsible to justice. Put an end to all forms of political and administrative pressure and harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and political opponents.

>Nathan Bransford

>

I think we’re in a cultural period that celebrates mass appeal and democracy and devalues experts. I’d bet that more people read Amazon reviews than the New York Times Book Review. More people check Yelp for restaurant recommendations than a city’s local restaurant critic. People don’t particularly listen to the judges when they vote for their favorites on American Idol and they certainly don’t listen to movie critics when they decide which movies to see. The Internet has opened up all kinds of ways for the crowd to be king.
And I think this has resulted in a cultural moment that celebrates mass appeal rather than the elite. Which definitely has its benefits …
At the same time, there is definitely something that is lost in the over-celebration of mass appeal and the lowest common denominator and the dismissal of experts, and I really think it can be taken too far. What about aspiring to create something that is great, rather than merely popular? What about pushing the envelope even when it’s not what’s currently in fashion? What is wrong with being elite and appreciated by experts if not by the masses?

>Насер Абдель Азиз ан-Насер

>

В этом году Международный день мира имеет особое звучание. По всему миру люди, в том числе молодые, объединяют свои голоса в призыве к миру и справедливости – призыве, который прежде оставался не услышанным. Повсюду в Арабском мире происходят исторические сдвиги в интересах мира, демократии и прав человека. Эти сдвиги напоминают нам о настоятельной необходимости стремиться к достижению мира мирными средствами, использовать посредничество и другие инструменты для установления прочного мира.

>G. John Ikenberry

>

This impor collection brings together historians attempting to chronicle the contested path Enlightenment ideas about human rights took as they made their way across the centuries and into the heart of contemporary world politics. The authors are united in the conviction that the rise of human rights around the world was historically contingent and politically contested. The American and French Revolutions of the late eighteenth century generated a language of human rights, but this was eclipsed in the nineteenth century by the rival concepts of nation, race, class, and civilization. Hoffmann and his colleagues argue that it was only in the conflicts and crises following World War II that human rights became a universal moral ideal.

>Gita Sen, Piroska Östlin, Gita Sen, Piroska Östlin, Asha George

>

Gender inequality damages the physical and mental health of millions of girls and women across the globe, and also of boys and men despite the many tangible benefits it gives men through resources, power, authority and control. Because of the numbers of people involved and the magnitude of the problems, taking action to improve gender equity in health and to address women’s rights to health is one of the most direct and potent ways to reduce health inequities and ensure effective use of health resources. Deepening and consistently implementing human rights instruments can be a powerful mechanism to motivate and mobilize governments, people and especially women themselves.

Noam Chomsky

(“the first 9/11”) … September 11, 1973, when the US succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s brutal regime in office. The goal, in the words of the Nixon administration, was to kill the “virus” that might encourage all those “foreigners [who] are out to screw us” to take over their own resources and in other ways to pursue an intolerable policy of independent development. In the background was the conclusion of the National Security Council that, if the US could not control Latin America, it could not expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world”.
The first 9/11, unlike the second, did not change the world. It was “nothing of very great consequence”, as Henry Kissinger assured his boss a few days later.
These events of little consequence were not limited to the military coup that destroyed Chilean democracy and set in motion the horror story that followed. The first 9/11 was just one act in a drama which began in 1962, when John F Kennedy shifted the mission of the Latin American military from “hemispheric defense” – an anachronistic holdover from World War II – to “internal security”, a concept with a chilling interpretation in US-dominated Latin American circles.

David Zirin

… only in a world so upside down could “the Beautiful Game” be run by an organisation as corrupt as FIFA and by a man as rotten to the core as FIFA President Sepp Blatter. Only Sepp Blatter, whose reputation for degeneracy approaches legend, would hire a war criminal like Henry Kissinger to head “a committee of wise persons” aimed at “rooting out corruption” in his organisation. And only these two twinning avatars of amorality would use “the Beautiful Game” as an instrument of Islamaphobia.

Those who bleat that “sports and politics” should be kept separate when an athlete dares express an opinion, should turn their outrage toward Blatter, Kissinger, and FIFA’s decision to see soccer as a tool to sideline Muslim women. We should call upon FIFA to revoke the forfeits and adhere to the three words that should bind all leagues, all countries, and all people who believe that sports can reflect the best of our species: Let them play.

>Manning Marable

>Socialism lost its way largely when it became decoupled from the processes of democracy. My vision of a socially just society is one that is deeply democratic, that allows people’s voices to be heard, where people actually govern. C.L.R James sometimes used the slogan “every cook can govern” to speak to the concept that there should be no hierarchies of power between those who lead and their constituencies. This idea is related to Antonio Gramsci’s argument that the goal of the revolutionary party is for every member to be an intellectual. That is, everyone has the capacity, has the ability to articulate a vision of reality and to fight for the realization of their values and goals in society. Gramsci is pointing toward the development of a strategy that is deeply democratic, one where we don’t have elitist, vanguardist notions of what society should look like, but have humility and the patience to listen to and learn from working class and poor people, who really are at the center of what any society is.

>Marshall

>

… capitalism is economically based, not politically. Democracy is a political view.
Democracy is where the people directly control the government and elect officials, whereas capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own businesses privately and make profit for themselves.

S.E. Smith

Human rights are a set of basic rights which many people believe belong to all humans by birthright. The concept is ancient, although the term “human rights” only entered usage in the 1940s. Because many people, especially in the West, feel very strongly about human rights, a number of measures have been undertaken to protect them. An international organization, the United Nations, has a large division related to the protection of human rights.

In the 1940s, the Second World War called a great deal of attention to the concept. Many nations were deeply concerned by the actions of the Axis Powers, which greatly abridged human rights for a number of people, most prominently followers of the Jewish faith. At the close of the war, the United Nations was founded, and human rights became one of the major issues that the organization focused on. By 1948, the United Nations had issued a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asking all member nations to sign it and defend the rights described therein.

>Ryan Lizza

>

Barack Obama came to Washington just six years ago, having spent his professional life as a part-time lawyer, part-time law professor, and part-time state legislator in Illinois. As an undergraduate, he took courses in history and international relations, but neither his academic life nor his work in Springfield gave him an especially profound grasp of foreign affairs. As he coasted toward winning a seat in the U.S. Senate, in 2004, he began to reach out to a broad range of foreign-policy experts––politicians, diplomats, academics, and journalists
… Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

>Paula J. Dobriansky, Thomas Carothers

>

In pursuit of our goals, our first imperative is to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere…. America must stand firmly for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.
It is also a matter of record that this administration, whenever it encounters evidence of serious human rights violations or antidemocratic practices in specific countries, has raised a voice of opposition to such violations and sought to address these problems. This is certainly the case with such countries as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, as well as Russia, Uzbekistan, and China. In general, we do this irrespective of the identity of the offender and, when circumstances merit it, criticize even some of our close allies. We manifest our concerns through a variety of channels, including diplomatic dialogue, both public and private, and the State Department’s reports on human rights, international religious freedom, and trafficking in persons.
Bilateral efforts aside, a great deal of our multilateral diplomacy, including American engagement at the UN and the Organization of American States, is shaped by the imperatives of human rights and democracy promotion.

>Curt Tarnoff

>

Although many disparate elements of Marshall Plan assistance speak to the present, it is questionable whether the program in the main could be replicated in a meaningful way. The problems faced now by most other parts of the world are so vastly different and more complex than those encountered by Western Europe in the period 1948-1952 that the solution posed for one is not entirely applicable to the other.
Some aspects of the Marshall Plan are more replicable than others. The Plan was chiefly characterized by its offering of dollar assistance targeted at productivity, financial stability, and increased trade. This, however, is the aim today of only a portion of U.S. economic assistance to the developing countries, much of which goes for humanitarian relief or political security purposes. Surely developing and former communist countries would benefit by receiving large scale aid if it eliminated the necessity of going even deeper into debt to private or public sources. Such grant aid could make radical policy reforms politically easier to adopt. However, many developing countries may not possess the human, industrial, or democratic base to make effective use of such aid and may need long term development-oriented aid, not a short term infusion of capital. Some suggest that, in many cases, a rapid infusion of large scale assistance would lead only to corruption and abuse of aid funds.

>Susan B. Epstein, Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko

>

Experts and policy makers are still wrestling with the challenges of whether and how to promote democracy in authoritarian states that are key allies and of strategic importance to the United States. In these cases, applying a principled approach consistent with our rhetoric by pressuring governments to ease repression and instituting real democratic reform could unleash forces far worse than what now exists in these countries, some believe. Often, authoritarian governments that the United States needs and that need the United States, especially in the fight against terrorism, are unwilling to liberalize and warn that to do so would risk bringing extremist forces to the fore. On the other hand, some argue, the failure to oppose regimes viewed as corrupt and ruthless by their own people has been pointed to as one of the major factors impeding U.S. success in the larger battle for “hearts and minds,” especially in the Islamic World from which terrorists seek to draw recruits and support.

>Why Democracy?

>Democracy is arguably the greatest political buzzword of our time and is invoked by everyone – but what does it mean? Can it be defined, measured, safeguarded? Can it be sold, bought, and transplanted? Can it grow? Can it die? What does it mean to people who can’t even talk about it? What does it mean to people who don’t believe in it? What does it mean to you?

>Noam Chomsky

>

The leading studies of—scholarly studies of what’s called “democracy promotion” happen to be by a good, careful scholar, Thomas Carruthers, who’s a neo-Reaganite. He was in Reagan’s State Department working on programs of democracy promotion, and he thinks it’s a wonderful thing. But he concludes from his studies, ruefully, that the U.S. supports democracy, if and only if it accords with strategic and economic objectives. Now, he regards this as a paradox. And it is a paradox if you believe the rhetoric of leaders. He even says that all American leaders are somehow schizophrenic. But there’s a much simpler analysis: people with power want to retain and maximize their power. So, democracy is fine if it accords with that, and it’s unacceptable if it doesn’t.

>위키백과

>민주주의는 의사 결정시 시민권을 가진 모두 또는 대다수에게 열려 있는 선거 또는 국민 정책투표 등의 방법을 통하여 전체적인 구성원의 의사를 반영, 실현시키는 사상 및 정치 사회체제이다. 일반적으로 국민 개개인이 나라의 주인된 힘, 즉 주권을 행사하는 이념과 체제’라고도 표현된다. ‘민주주의’는 근대사회에서 서구의 자유민주주의나 사회민주주의와 동의어처럼 사용되었으나 “반자유주의적 민주주의” 국가도 분명 존재하고 있다. 이런 맥락 속에서 ‘자유주의적’이라는 수식어는 엄밀히 말하면 입헌주의적 자유주의와 각인의 평등한 인권의 보장을 지칭한다. 그러나 민주주의는 다른 견해를 기술하는 데에도 널리 사용된다. 어느 경우에든, 민주주의의 이념이 민주사회에서 사회와 정치 문화에 대한 합리적 견해들을 포괄하는 것으로 의미가 무한정 확장될 수 있다.한편,민주주의에 대한 가장 간결한 정의로 링컨의 “인민의,인민에 의한,인민을 위한 정치”가 통용되고 있다.이는 민주주의의 핵심요소로 국민주권과 시민자치,복지주의를 담고 있다.

>infousa.ru

>

deДанный сайт более не поддерживается.
Вы будете перенаправлены на портал Государственного департамента США на русском языке America.gov/ru, где сможете ознакомиться с самой разнообразной информацией
о Соединенных Штатах.

>Richard Madsen

>

To understand what is at stake, let me articulate briefly the principles of Western liberalism and show how these contrast with East Asian principles of political and economic organization and social philosophy.
The first principle is that of individualism. The individual is prior to society. Each individual is morally autonomous, free to choose his or her own life goals, and to pursue these in any way the individual wants, so long as he or she does not interfere with another’s pursuit of goals. Societies come into existence only because of voluntary contracts of individuals trying to pursue more effectively their individual goals.
A second assumption is rationalism. The individuals who constitute societies are rational agents. The rationality they possess is primarily instrumental-the capacity to calculate the most effective means to achieve their ends. The way to establish public order is to increase, through a secular scientific education, the capacity of each individual for this kind of rational action. That way, each individual will see that he or she needs to follow similar procedures.
The rational individual will recognize the need to organize the pursuit of his or her goals through entering into contracts. Thus contractualism is the third principal assumption of liberalism. Stable social relations are formed because individual parties enter into agreements to provide mutual benefits. Aggregated, all of these micro-level contracts constitute the social contract that is the basis of society itself.

Amartya Sen

Cultural differences and value differences between Asia and the West were stressed by several official delegations at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993. The foreign minister of Singapore warned that “universal recognition of the ideal of human rights can be harmful if universalism is used to deny or mask the reality of diversity.” The Chinese delegation played a leading role in emphasizing the regional differences, and in making sure that the prescriptive framework adopted in the declarations made room for regional diversity. The Chinese foreign minister even put on record the proposition, apparently applicable in China and elsewhere, that “Individuals must put the states’ rights before their own.”
I want to examine the thesis that Asian values are less supportive of freedom and more concerned with order and discipline, and that the claims of human rights in the areas of political and civil liberties, therefore, are less relevant and less appropriate in Asia than in the West.

>James Fitzjames Stephen

>Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion. We agree to try strength by counting heads instead of breaking heads, but the principle is exactly the same… The minority gives way not because it is convinced that it is wrong, but because it is convinced that it is a minority.


The criminal law stands to the passion of revenge in much the same relation as marriage to the sexual appetite.

>Gene Sharp

>

In recent years various dictatorships—of both internal and external origin—have collapsed or stumbled when confronted by defiant, mobilized people. Often seen as firmly entrenched and impregnable, some of these dictatorships proved unable to withstand the concerted political, economic, and social defiance of the people.
The collapse of dictatorships … has not erased all other problems in those societies: poverty, crime, bureaucratic inefficiency, and environmental destruction are often the legacy of brutal regimes. However, the downfall of these dictatorships has minimally lifted much of the suffering of the victims of oppression, and has opened the way for the rebuilding of these societies with greater political democracy, personal liberties, and social justice.

>Bret Fisk

>

In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas sets forth three steps for determining whether a given conflict can be considered a “just war.” Aquinas’ first assertion is that war must only be instituted by the proper authority. Second, war must always be waged in the name of a worthy cause—to avenge or punish a wrong or to restore what an enemy has unjustly seized. Finally, war must be prosecuted while maintaining “rightful intention,” namely, “the advancement of good” or “the avoidance of evil.” Several questions come immediately to mind. Who is to say what constitutes the proper authority for declaring war? Don’t all nations consider their various causes to be just—no matter how conflicting they might be? Couldn’t such a vague formulation be used to validate almost any conceivable military adventure? However, because the main thrust of Aquinas’ argument is contained in that third point regarding “rightful intention,” I would maintain that even after more than seven centuries Aquinas’ simple formula has yet to be surpassed either in terms of simplicity or profundity. After acknowledging that “a war may be declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered illicit through a vile intention,” Aquinas quotes Augustine to further illustrate what such vile intention might consist of: “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an implacable and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”

>Omar Ashour

>

Getting “stuck in transition” is a third possible scenario, with Libya remaining in a “gray zone” – neither a fully-fledged democracy nor a dictatorship, but “semi-free.” This means regular elections, a democratic constitution, and civil society, coupled with electoral fraud, skewed representation, human rights violations, and restrictions on civil liberties. Getting stuck in transition usually kills the momentum for democratic change, and widespread corruption, weak state institutions, and lack of security serve to reinforce a myth of the “just autocrat.” Vladimir Putin’s rule in Russia illustrates this outcome.
Unfortunately, a study published in the Journal of Democracy showed that out of the 100 countries that were designated “in transition” between 1970 and 2000, only 20 became fully democratic (for example, Chile, Argentina, Poland, and Taiwan). Five relapsed into brutal dictatorships (including Uzbekistan, Algeria, Turkmenistan, and Belarus), while the rest were stuck somewhere in transition.

>大杉栄

>

… コロメルの宛名の、フランス無政府主義同盟機関『ル・リベルテエル』社のあるところは、パリの、しかもブウルヴァル・ド・ベルヴィル(強いて翻訳すれば「美しい町の通り」)というのだ。
… もっとも両側の家だけは五階六階七階の高い家だが、そのすすけた汚なさは、ちょっとお話にならない。自動車で走るんだからよくは分らないが、店だって何だか汚ならしいものばかり売っている。そして通りの真中の広い歩道が、道一ぱいに汚ならしいテントの小舎がけがあって、そこをまた日本ではとても見られないような汚ならしい風の野蛮人見たいな顔をした人間がうじゃうじゃと通っている。市場なのだ。そとからは店の様子はちょっと見えないが、みな朝の買物らしく、大きな袋にキャベツだのジャガ芋だの大きなパンの棒だのを入れて歩いている。
… その本屋の店にはいると、やはりおもてにいるのと同じような風や顔の人間が七、八人、何かガヤガヤと怒鳴るような口調でしゃべっていた。
… ふり返って見ると、まだ若い、しかし日本人にしてもせいの低い、色の大して白くない、唇の大きくて厚い、ただ目だけがぱっちりと大きく開いているほかにあんまり西洋人らしくない女だ。風もその辺で見る野蛮人と別に変りはない。
… 毛唐と野蛮人とのあいの子のようなけったいな女がはいって来て、 …
… 黒ん坊の野蛮人が戦争している看板があげてあって、 …
… そこへうじょうじょと、日本人よりも顔も風もきたないような人間が、ちょっと歩けないほどに寄って来る。実際僕はヨーロッパへ来たと言うよりもむしろ、どこかの野蛮国へ行ったような気がした。

>dnoakes

>

In this photo from June 1920, President Woodrow Wilson signs a bill into law. The lady next to him is Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, the First Lady. She is steadying the paper he’s signing to conceal the paralysis he was still suffering from a series of strokes the preceding November. Many historians believe Mrs. Wilson was the defacto President of the United States for much of the last year of her husband’s term.
(Woodrow Wilson’s first posed photograph after his stroke. He was paralyzed on his left side, so Edith holds a document steady while he signs. June 1920.)

>Ari Karpel

>

The few features with a message that do make it to theaters often have a single individual at their center, like Karen Silkwood or Erin Brockovich, or a pair, like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances who become the audience’s guide through a murky subculture.
Add Kathryn Bolkovac, an American police officer, to that list. She is portrayed by Ms. Weisz in the new film “The Whistleblower,” opening Friday. It follows Ms. Bolkovac’s real-life assignment as a United Nations peacekeeper in Bosnia in the 1990s, a job that exposed her to a world of international workers complicit in and in many cases fostering the international trade of young women for sex. Ms. Bolkovac’s investigation led to her firing.
“There were so many people in the same situation as her,” Ms. Weisz said. “They saw what was going on, and they didn’t respond in the way that she did.”
Her crusade, which was widely covered by the European press after she filed a lawsuit in Britain for wrongful dismissal, drew Ms. Weisz, who in turn hopes to attract audiences in a season when Hollywood’s prime concern seems to be the plight of superheroes and young wizards.

>Colum Lynch

>

The Whistleblower: The movie the U.N. would prefer you didn’t see

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon traveled to Hollywood last year to cajole filmmakers and movie stars into making pictures that portray the U.N.’s good works. The Whistleblower, a scathing full-length account of the U.N. peacekeeping effort in Bosnia during the late 1990s, is not what he had in mind.
The Samuel Goldwyn Films movie, which is due out in theaters in Los Angeles and New York on Aug. 5, stars British actress Rachel Weisz as a U.N. policewoman who stumbles into the sordid world of Balkan sex trafficking and finds her fellow U.N. peacekeepers implicated in the trade.
It constitutes perhaps the darkest cinematic portrayal of a U.N. operation ever on the big screen, finding particular fault with top U.N. brass, the U.S. State Department, and a major U.S. contractor that supplies American policemen for U.N. missions.
The actual abuses in Bosnia were so shocking that the film’s director, Larysa Kondracki, told Turtle Bay that she had to tone it down to make it believable and to ensure that viewers didn’t “tune it out.” The movie, she said, in some ways resembles a “70s paranoid thriller” in which it can be hard to tell the difference between the heroes and the villains. Kondracki declined to name DynCorp as the model for the company portrayed in the movie, citing unspecified legal concerns.

>Marc Lynch

>

In developing a new approach to Iran, the administration should:
  • Engage newly empowered publics. The administration should lay out a vision that aligns the United States with the aspirations of publics in the Arab world and Iran, and demonstrate that commitment in practice.
  • Focus on human rights and universal freedoms. The United States should call for the same universal rights and freedoms in Iran that it has articulated for the rest of the region, and significantly increase its focus on human rights in its approach to Tehran.
  • Communicate Iran’s weakness. The administration should launch a strategic communications campaign designed to highlight Iran’s irrelevance to the uprisings and dwindling soft power, and avoid the temptation to embrace narratives that give Tehran an undeserved centrality in the region’s transformation.
  • Use diplomacy to shape the future. A negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge is unlikely in the short term, and this is not the time for a new public initiative. However, the administration should continue pursuing lower-level diplomacy and confidence-building measures designed to create possibilities for movement when conditions change.
  • Watch out for war. The administration should guard against sudden spirals to war based on miscalculations, fear and unpredictable proxy struggles. It should reject efforts to adopt the model of intervention applied in Libya to Iran, and continue to resist calls for military action.

>United States Declaration of Independence

>

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

>Fareed Zakaria

>

If democracy becomes an empty shell, this would be a tragedy because democracy with all its flaws represents the ‘last best hope’ for people around the world. But it needs to be secured and strengthened for our times. Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson took America into the twentieth century with a challenge to make the world safe for democracy. As we enter the twenty-first century, our task is to make democracy safe for the world.

>Why Democracy?

>

Democracy is arguably the greatest political buzzword of our time and is invoked by everyone – but what does it mean? Can it be defined, measured, safeguarded? Can it be sold, bought, and transplanted? Can it grow? Can it die? What does it mean to people who can’t even talk about it? What does it mean to people who don’t believe in it? What does it mean to you?

With so much violence done in the name of democracy, it has undoubtedly become a more contested idea. However, there is even greater need than before to understand it better and, despite its ironies, there is an unparalled interest in the promise it holds.

Why Democracy? hopes to encourage everyone to engage with this task. It started on October 8th, 2007 and continues to be a global success. Wherever you are in the world, join in!

>王晨

>

当然,我们也清醒地认识到,中国是一个发展中国家,中国的人权事业也在发展过程中。发展中不平衡、不协调的问题依然突出,如经济增长的资源环境约束强化,收入分配差距较大,物价上涨压力加大,部分城市房价涨幅过高,食品安全问题比较突出,优质教育、医疗资源总量不足、分布不均,城乡区域发展不协调,违法征地拆迁等引发的社会矛盾增多。同时,还应看到,我国在保障人民民主权利方面还存在不足。受自然、历史、文化、经济社会发展水平的影响和制约,中国人权事业发展仍面临许多困难和挑战,实现享有充分人权的崇高目标仍然任重道远。
我们要继续坚定不移地走中国特色社会主义道路,坚持以人为本,进一步健全人权的法律保障体系,全面提升全社会尊重和保护人权的意识,全面推进中国人权事业的发展,依法保障人民群众经济、政治、文化、社会等各项权益,使每一个社会成员生活得更有保障、更有尊严、更加幸福。

>Embassy Beijing

>

Ethnic riots like those in Xinjiang July 5-7 and in Tibet in March of 2008 differ markedly in origin and nature from mass incidents, XXXXXXXXXXXX emphasized to PolOff on XXXXXXXXXXXX. Both present serious problems for the Party, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, but the Party leadership would not hesitate to open fire on Uighurs or Tibetans if they deemed it necessary to restore order. Mass incidents pose a different kind of threat, he said, as the leadership is “afraid” to fire on Han rioters for fear of sparking massive public outrage that would turn against the Party. XXXXXXXXXXXX told PolOff on XXXXXXXXXXXX that the Xinjiang riots and the June mass incidents were different in kind but shared an important similarity. In her view, at least some rioters in Xinjiang took to the streets because of general discontent unrelated to the immediate cause of the violence. Han people do not hate Uighurs and are not looking for revenge, she said, but some people “can always find an excuse to express their grievances.”

>UNHCR

>

Nationality is a legal bond between a state and an individual, and statelessness refers to the condition of an individual who is not considered as a national by any state.
Statelessness occurs for a variety of reasons including discrimination against minority groups in nationality legislation, failure to include all residents in the body of citizens when a state becomes independent and conflicts of laws between states.
Statelessness is a massive problem that affects an estimated 12 million people worldwide. Statelessness also has a terrible impact on the lives of individuals. Possession of nationality is essential for full participation in society and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the full range of human rights.
While human rights are generally to be enjoyed by everyone, selected rights such as the right to vote may be limited to nationals. Of even greater concern is that many more rights of stateless people are violated in practice – they are often unable to obtain identity documents; they may be detained because they are stateless; and they could be denied access to education and health services or blocked from obtaining employment.

>John R. Oneal, Bruce M. Russett

>

The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically and to abolish royal charters, monopolies, and the protectionist policies of mercantilism so as to encourage entrepreneurship and increase productive efficiency. They also expected democracy and laissez-faire economics to diminish the frequency of war.

>U.S. Department of State

>Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. In addition, democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health.

With these goals in mind, the United States seeks to:

  • Promote democracy as a means to achieve security, stability, and prosperity for the entire world;
  • Assist newly formed democracies in implementing democratic principles;
  • Assist democracy advocates around the world to establish vibrant democracies in their own countries; and
  • Identify and denounce regimes that deny their citizens the right to choose their leaders in elections that are free, fair, and transparent.

>Democracy Now!

>

For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.
But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogeneous in the early 1980s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media.
In addition, corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits.
Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding. This allows us to maintain our independence.

>Aryeh Neier

>

I recall that when we launched Human Rights Watch a little more than a quarter of a century ago, a significant component of our strategy was to leverage the power, purse, and influence of the United States to promote human rights more systematically around the world. From the standpoint of those who are trying to promote human rights today, it is necessary to pursue the opposite course. One has to put as much distance as one can between one’s own efforts and the efforts of the United States government.
Whether the situation is subject to repair, if there were to be a change of administration, I do not know. The damage has been done for a very long time to come.

National Security Strategy of the United States of America

We will speak out honestly about violations of the non-negotiable demands of human dignity, using our voice and vote in international institutions to advance freedom; use our foreign aid to promote freedom and support those who have struggled nonviolently for it, ensuring that nations moving towards democracy are rewarded for the steps they take; make freedom and the development of democratic institutions key themes in our bilateral relations, seeking solidarity and cooperation from other democracies while we press governments that deny human rights to move to a better future; take special efforts to promote freedom of religion and conscience, and defend it from encroachments by repressive governments. We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it.

>Richard Ashby Wilson

>

After the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent ‘war on terror’, have human rights irretrievably lost their status in international affairs and national policymaking? Or, as de Tocqueville declares, must rights always remain a fundamental part of democratic politics since they define the boundary between individual license and government tyranny? There now exists a plethora of books on international affairs after 9/11, too many to cite here, which examine the political fallout of the attacks on the United States and the subsequent U.S. response. Many are concerned with judging the proportionality of the U.S. response to Islamist terrorism, and in particular determining the justness or otherwise of U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>Alexis de Tocqueville

>

The idea of rights is nothing but the concept of virtue applied to the world of politics.
By means of the idea of rights men have defined the nature of license and of tyranny . . .
no man can be great without virtue, nor any nation great without respect for rights.

>Paul Gready

>

… human rights is a political struggle. Rights doctrines arouse opposition because they challenge sources of power. Universality, therefore, cannot imply equal consent in a world of unequal power. Hence the political bias of human rights advocacy must be towards the victim, and the test of legitimacy/universality is the victim’s consent, bottom- up rather than top-down. Human rights are universal because they define the universal interests of the powerless, that power be exercised over them in ways that respect their autonomy. …

>Michael Ignatieff

>

Since the end of the cold war, human rights has become the dominant vocabulary in foreign affairs. The question after September 11 is whether the era of human rights has come and gone.
Human rights matter because they help people to help themselves. They protect their agency. By agency, I mean more or less what Isaiah Berlin meant by “negative liberty”, the capacity of each individual to achieve rational intentions without let or hindrance. By rational, I do not necessarily mean sensible or estimable, merely those intentions that do not involve obvious harm to other human beings. Human rights is a language of individual empowerment, and empowerment for individuals is desirable because when individuals have agency, they can protect themselves against injustice.