Human Values and International Law

I am going to start my presentation with a caveat. While I will endeavor to stick to established facts whenever possible, I caution that my presentation is influenced by own experiences of person born in the USA and by my own perspective and viewpoint

My presentation of International HR will be broken down in 3 Sections

History of HR

Current View of HR and

The Futures of HR

1^st A Quick History of HR (western perspective)

For most of recorded history all power was held by Pharoughs, Kings and Emperors and there was no such things as Individual HR, except to serve the autocrat. In my opinion, I see 3 main events that changed history for HR

The 1^st Event was in 1600, and after Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake by the Vatican, for saying, among other things, the earth revolved around the sun. A miraculous thing happened, Civilization reached a tipping-point and said Enough! And a schism erupted, which separated Faith from Science and Logic, which functions to this day. The Age of Reason and Enlightenment of Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, followed with Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Expression becoming a basic HR, by such philosophers as John Locke.

The 2ed Event occurred with Thomas Paine, in the writing the pamphlet Common Sense, which calling for a new nation to be formed based on the HRs for the Individual. This was an Astounding and Revolutionary idea, resulting in Thomas Jefferson writing The Declaration of Independence in 1776. We all know the 1st paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It has become part of our ethos, which binds us together of who we are as individuals, a nation and as citizen of the world.  Let’s take a detailed look at that first paragraph of this historical document, which changed the world:

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 rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, 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

Self evident: obvious, universal and unquestionable, innately known. Some big assumption

All men are created equal: This was written by a slave owner, and a constitution that only gave white land owning men the vote. But Jefferson gave us the words as a goal.

Unalienable: These are rights that cannot be taken away, even by law or the government.

That among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: These are broad categories that wide interpretation. Happyness?

By the consent of the Governed:  This principal underpins democracy.

The Constitution and The Bill of Rights enables ‘We the People” to determine and maintain our Human Rights through Amendments, Checks and Balances of the 3 Branches of government, Periodic elections. Impeachment and Right to Assemble in Protest. The Declaration of Independence 1^st paragraph ends by saying, “When a government become destructive of these ends, it is THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT.

George Washington called this nation, ‘The Great Experiment,’ Where ‘the consent of the governed can live in a melting pot of different races, nationalities, religions cultures and wealth can come together in harmony for the ‘common good’ of all.  E Pluribus Unam, Out of many One’ has been our nation’s motto since 1788. We are still seeing if this is possible.

The 3ed big HR historic event, with has International universal implications, was issued on December 10, 1948 called the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations, (led by Elinor Roosevelt). It sets out the basic ‘self-evident’ ‘unalienable rights’  that belongs to every human being, including equality, freedom, justice, and dignity. Building on this, the UN adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Treaty. This document makes these freedoms legally enforceable (for those countries that ratify it), protecting rights such as life, liberty, free expression, religious freedom, fair trials, and political participation. Alongside it is, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Treaty focusing on Economic and Social Rights,

Together, these UN documents form the core framework for international HR protections. The United States has ratified the civil and Political Rights Treaty, but does not enforce it directly in its courts, relying instead on existing constitutional protections. The US has not ratified the Economic and Cultural Right Treaty, so it has no legal obligation to enforce economic and social rights under that treaty.

The main difference between UN HR and US HR is essentially that The US Constitution protects individual civil and political rights through placing enforceable limits on the US government, while the UN envisions a broader universal social concept of HRs that all nations should strive to achieve, such as basic pay, health care, child care, senior care, adequate housing, guaranteed retirement benefits, and a minimum standard of living.In the US these are not self-evident human rights, but privileges.

A Quick  Worldwide Current View of Human Rights

China: Its government has created a fast growing economy that combines the market place and socialism with an autocratic government. Individual have basically given up their individual HR rights for the sake of efficiency for the common good. One rule in China is: Don’t complain! 28,000 miles High speed trains. Produces an electric car like a Tesla at one third the price.

Russia: with Putin has become a Fanciest government that rules by violence and fear. Russia did not sign UN HR declaration

European Union, Brittan and Canada PROBLEM: 6 of G7 nations have debt above 100% of GDP, making it difficult affording health care and  senior care while  life and health spans  are zooming to the 90 and 100.. When France retirement was raised from 62 to 64, it almost cause a government shutdown .GOOD: Parliamentary system

Most of the Islamic World functions as a Theocracy: Saudia Arabia; did not sign the UN Decoration of HR  The 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights, states that in  all Islamic Nations, HR are subject to Sharia Law: which 1) Rejects freedom to change religion. 2) Enforces freedom of speech restrictions, including blasphemy laws  3) Applies-differences to women HR  4) Defends capital punishment

So now, lets look at the current HR situation in the USA, There appears to be flaws in the United States Constitution that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to grant the President, ‘immunity’ and  ‘implied powers,’ such as’ ‘executive orders, and extraordinary military powers as ‘Commander-and-Chief.’ This has given the President the power to issue over 250 executive orders, which have the binding force of law and ‘do not’ need the approval of the United States Congress.  At any time Congress could use it powers of oversight and issue legislation and laws to limit these Presidential powers, but it has so far declined to act.

Of the 27 grievances that the Deceleration of Independence declared against King George, I believe 10 of these HR violations are now being violated by the Thump administration.  Of all the HR violations, for the sake of brevity, I will concentrate on just one area: Individual rights that are designed to protect civilians from Federal military power, such as The 1^st Amendment:  Freedom of Speech and the Right to Assemble in Protest.  The 2ed: The right to carry arms and form a militia. The Third Amendment prevents soldiers from occupying private homes, while the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments guarantee individuals privacy, due process, civilian jury trial and ensuring that civilians cannot be searched, detained, or punished by the military, without lawful courts.

Congress in the past has reinforced the Constitutional protections against the military, through the Posse Act of 1878, designated io keep soldiers out of civilian policing. The Supreme Court has upheld these limits in Youngstown v. Sawyer (1952) It should be noted that the President can invoke the Insurrection Act, Section 253, which can nullify all these Constructional and legal protections. While the judicial system and the Supreme Court argue what is lawful (self–evident) the majority of Americans appear to be more concerned about, what is right ( Unalienable).

In my opinion, unless stopped by Congress OR “We the people,’ the President will create a state of an Imperial Presidency, (similar to a dictatorship), even though the large majority of the governed, do not want this.  It takes time to protect HR laws through legislation and the judicial system and a lot of damage can be done to our HR’s in-between elections.  The question each of us may have to answer is, “What can each of us do to insure that the consent of the governed and our individual self-evident and unalienable rights be followed? Should we take to the streets in protest?

This responsibility cannot be taken lightly. Let me tell you my own personal story of protesting. In 1968 the Viet Nam War divided the nation. I was against the war and for the US troops to come home. The 1968 Democratic Convention was held in Chicago and I attended a peaceful anti-war protest of about 1000 people in Grant Park, when someone took down the American flag from a flagpole. The police came in swinging. Us men formed a line, and hooked arms, to let the women and children escape. I was hit on the head and still have the scare.

That night the television coverage switched back and forth between the convention floor, where Humphrey was being nominated, and tv coverage of a police riot that was occurring in front of Conrad Hilton Hotel on Michigan Ave. Demonstrators were being clubbed and pulled into patty wagons. Across the street from the Hilton, I, in my bloodied head bandana, encountered a line National Guard troops with rifles, fixed bayonet and gas masks. Between the blinding flood lights and the remnants of tear gas, the troops only appeared as surreal silhouette, when one of the silhouettes says, Birkelbach. It was my friend Elkins, who sits a couple of desks away from me. I asked, ”How are you doing?” He said, ‘We’re scared.” I said, “Who am I fighting. I think I’m going home.” I’ll never forget what he then said, “I wish I could.”   

On a Micro scale, this is just two friends talking. But on a Macro world scale, it was the artificial axiom of ‘Us vs Them perpetrated on two friends from above, and in this particular case it was Us vs Us.  At any moment someone could have tried to take a rifle away from one of the National Guard troops and my friend could have been ordered to shoot me. I tell this story, because hitting the streets in protest sounds like an easy solution, but as a practical matter is complicated, dangerous and filled with risk.  However, We will only be the home of the Free, if we remain the home of the Brave.

The Futures for Human Rights

I reject the future views of the future of dystopian novels such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Orwell feared pain, censorship, and Big brother totalitarianism, while Huxley feared control through pleasure drugs and genetic engineering of the classes. I also reject the future outcome forecast in the 2013 movie Elysium, where the very wealthy live on luxury space station, while the rest of the population resides on a ruined Earth. Darwin says it is the survival of the fittest. That’s only half true. I think it is our connectedness, which has created civilization out of jungles.

I am optimistic about the future. I believe Us vs Them, has reach its pinochle and the pendulum is ready to swing back toward justice.  I believe the US and world is entering a tipping-point, reminiscent of the tipping-point when Giovanno Bruno was burnt at the stake and in 1968 when television showed the police violence at the Democratic Convention. Then, it was television revealing the truth and our connectedness, now it is ICE and cellphone videos. I expect civilization to say Enough! I believe in the good hearts of Americans people and the good hearts of people that I have meet throughout the world. And that includes the Russian people I have met in St Petersburg and the hundreds of people I have interviewed in Europe over the last 3 years.

We have been given a wake-up call that should shake us out of our complacency of all we assumed was given and established This should motivate a new generation of heroes and leaders. Sometime the flame of human rights has to be reignited and the spring has to be recompressed, in order to spring forward again. To do this we have to change our attitudes from fear to hope. It will only happen if we believe it can happen. Martin Luther King said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”

I just hope this happens in my lifetime, but I am confident it will happen. The Great Experiment is actually working. I know that from my grandmother born in Poland, my father born in Germany, from my wife born in Canada, From my daughter-in-law born in China, by son-in-law born in Ireland, my oldest granddaughter’s husband born in Austria and my second oldest granddaughter’s husband born in India.  E Plutus Unarm, Out of many One. For many children in it has already happened, because for them, more than 50% of kindergarten students are non-white.  Our connectedness just hasn’t bubbled-up to the voting surface yet. As MLK said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”.

In my opinion, the biggest warning has come from James Madison, architect of the Constitution and author of the BIll of Rights, who on June 20, 1888, (the day the construction was ratified) said “If there e be no virtue and intelligence in the voting public there can be no virtue and wisdom in those that are elected.” As Pogo said in a 1970 cartoon ‘We have seen the enemy and it is us.” It is time to trash what divides us and to emphasis the common good.

We can do better, and we will.  We stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us. It is just another challenge in a long row of candles, on a journey where Human Rights struggles to achieve the never ending quest for human dignity, which emphases our universal commonality and connectedness. It is now our turn to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.

QUESTIONS

1. Are Human Rights universal, self-evident and unalienable, or do they depend on culture and national values?

• How far should international laws go in interfering with a country internal affairs, to stop Human Rights abuses?

• What role do ordinary US citizens have in protecting their Human Rights in the US and can they make a difference?

• What obligation do US ordinary citizens have in in protecting Human Rights globally?

• What do you think the future of Human Rights will be like in the US? Or Globally?