Human Rights abuses in Iraq – an analysis
One of the main accusations levelled against President Hussein is
that of human rights abuses committed by his regime.
By virtue of its emotional impact such things are often difficult
to think about, much less talk about rationally. Repulsion for the
act itself (whichever particular abuse it may be), compassion for
the victim, and anger toward or unthinking condemnation of the perpetrator
all become muddled together, such that our response becomes one of
"this must stop, and it must stop now". And in the apparent absence
of any other alternative, we will take forceful measures – very
often quite violent measures in fact – to ensure it does stop.
However, in order to successfully resolve the issue of human rights
abuses, we need to step back for a moment and examine, if not question,
some fairly fundamental assumptions.
For unless we do this, our understanding of the problem will remain
flawed, and our attempts to resolve it will themselves be morally
questionable.
So let's put aside our emotional reactions for the moment, and look at the whole thing in a clear and rational light.
To start with we have to look at the notion of "human rights". Laudable
though this notion may be, the fact of the matter is that they don't
actually exist.
In the heat of the moment its all too easy to lose sight of this very
simple truth.
However much tub-thumping we may do about human rights, their only
real basis for existence is in the individual's heart and mind. Our
concept of human rights is really nothing other than a measure or
indicator of the evolution of our humanism.
In other words, we are not born with rights – they are granted to us by the society and culture into which we are born. They may be part of the values that we hold to be inviolable, but let's never lose sight of the fact that they are part of a value system, which does not necessarily make them intrinsic to Life itself.
For if such "rights" were intrinsic to Life itself, then it follows that all forms of Life would partake thereof – and clearly they don't! If they did, then (for example) animal farming and husbandry would be wrong; plant cultivation and the horticulturalist would be wrong; in fact, virtually any form of human activity that impacts upon the living environment would be wrong!
Either that, or we have to adopt the viewpoint of some of the more primitive religions and argue for some sort of "special status" for Mankind that sets him apart from all other Life. Whilst such ideas may be comforting in times fraught with uncertainty and danger, alas they have little foundation in reality at all.
What all this means is that any appreciation of "human rights" has to be learned.
What it also means is that such appreciations of human rights will vary from culture to culture. In fact its not inconceivable for a given society not to recognise the notion at all!
Thus, what we're really doing when we condemn a society (or a regime!)
on the basis of human rights abuses is measuring that society or regime
by our own values, our own culture.
OK, we may be utterly convinced of the rightness of our view, but
that too is a product of our cultural conditioning – without
it we wouldn't hold to those values.
What we should do, when we talk of human rights abuses, is to assess
those "abuses" in the context of the society, culture, and value-system
within which they occur.
This is not to say that we shoudn't react to such abuses, or seek
to prevent them. Indeed, our own culture and value-system will not
permit us just to stand idly by and do nothing.
But what it will affect is the way in which we seek to prevent or
remedy such abuses. And, to be truly successful, the nature of that
way or method of approach is crucial.
Because such notions as human rights are dependent upon culture and
value-system, there is no quick and easy answer.
If we resort to tactics of violence and force of arms, then we have
trapped ourselves in an inconsistency, for a central part of the Western
notion of human rights is the right to be free from subjection to
the forceful imposition of another's views or will.
And that, curiously, is a rather neat summation of all human rights
abuses – i.e., the forceful imposition of the will or views of
one person upon another.
If we compromise on this, to even the slightest degree, then we undermine
the foundations upon which our own position is built, and demonstrate
that our values are no better than or superior to any other. In other
words, we forfeit the moral high ground of being "right".
Clearly, the way forward is not through violent conflict but through peaceful intervention, education, and reform. The concomitant "cost" in aspiring to this is the need to develop a true understanding of that which we seek to change, and the need to discover or elucidate a common benefit.
Any other approach is doomed to long-term failure, and the perpetuation of that which we seek to overcome.
Putting all of this in context, this is in no way an apology for the
human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime,
but it is an argument against any attack on Iraq that is "justified"
by the accusation of human rights abuses, or by the accusation that
President Hussein's regime is repressive.
If indeed there are human rights abuses occurring in Iraq, then the
way to tackle them is through dialogue, education, and reform; and
the very first step in that direction is through example.
There must be a perception on the part of those being taught that
what they're being taught is "better" than what they already have.
And if this cannot be demonstrated, then we have to question whether
our values and perceptions are in fact right!
