Davos, Switzerland -- This year's World Economic Forum meeting in Davos is focusing on the challenges of global governance. Are international institutions capable of addressing today's problems in light of recent shifts in global power? What will these institutions look like when emerging powers such as Brazil, India and South Africa have a seat at the table?
Recent elections to the United Nations Security Council give us a glimpse of the future. For the next year, Brazil, India and South Africa will all sit on the 15-member council, and all three aspire to become permanent members. How will they conduct themselves? Of particular interest to me, will they join efforts to defend human rights? There is reason for both hope and apprehension.
All three are genuine democracies with constitutions that guarantee basic rights. That would suggest sympathy toward others facing deprivation of their rights. Unfortunately, when it comes to their foreign policies, the three governments are often skeptical or even hostile to enforcing human rights. At first blush this is surprising, because even though these governments are sometimes criticized for their human rights records, all three benefited in the past from the attention of the international human rights movement--to fight apartheid in South Africa, military dictatorship in Brazil, and colonialism in India.
When it comes to the Security Council, one reason sometimes cited for these governments' wariness toward enforcing human rights is the unrepresentative nature of the council. Reflecting power relations when the UN was founded after World War II, permanent seats and veto power are held by Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States. Other governments understandably want these privileges reallocated to better reflect the modern order. Until then, they advocate a narrow view of the council's powers in favor of more representative bodies of the UN, such as the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council.
But preventing and stopping mass atrocities has become a core task of the Security Council--widely recognized as essential to fulfill its traditional role of addressing threats to international peace and security. And in any event, Brazil, India and South Africa have not consistently supported human rights enforcement even in the General Assembly and Human Rights Council.
So why are these emerging powers not doing more to defend human rights abroad? The foreign policies of all three governments still sometimes seem informed by a vision of the world that sees human rights as an "imperialist" endeavor, even when the beneficiaries are ordinary people in the global South. That view stems from the Cold War, when many proponents of human rights were Western governments, and their often-selective support called into question their intent. Many members of the non-aligned movement in that era tended to identify with Southern leaders, no matter how repressive, instead of their victims.
Selectivity, and its corollary of exceptionalism, remain problems today, but the global political environment has changed substantially, with human rights organizations proliferating throughout the global South. Yet, Brazil, India and South Africa still often act in their foreign policies as if rights were a strictly Western concern, accepting atrocities elsewhere that they would never tolerate at home.
That tendency is aggravated by the leadership role played within today's non-aligned movement by certain repressive governments such as Algeria, Egypt and Sri Lanka, all which have a strong interest in undermining human rights enforcement. Moreover, solicitation of support by Brazil, India and South Africa for their quest for permanent Security Council seats, even from the abusive governments that make up a large chunk of the votes needed, only reinforces this wariness toward enforcing human rights.
The challenge now is to shed light on how these three governments develop their foreign policies. Domestic audiences in these countries often pay little attention to foreign policy concerns. But when foreign policies have been subjected to public scrutiny, they have tended to move in a more pro-human rights direction, given the difficulty of justifying significant discrepancies between values espoused at home and abroad.
For example, under heightened scrutiny, Brazil went from abstaining on a critical resolution about North Korea to supporting it, South Africa overcame initial reluctance to defend gay rights and softened its opposition to international justice, and India played a more constructive role on Iran. Human Rights Watch is encouraging more such scrutiny in all three countries.
The world is changing rapidly, and emerging powers deserve a seat at the table of institutions of global governance. But with that new global role should come responsibility to global norms, including human rights.
Follow Kenneth Roth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kenroth
Saba Farzan: Lifting the Veil on Iran's Barbaric Human Rights Abuses
We dont want to be pasterized and homogenized into one global consumer product. It has worked so well with America and Canada with all jobs going to Mexico, China, India and Indonesia.
Economics is a belief system. Nothing more.
They are in a bubble.
Or should he like big Brother Joseph lead the rest of the family to Egypt? It has taken more than 5000 years to correct Joseph's Error and we are still in it. The Bible tells us of the past and tells also of the present - selfish love is the greatest sin.
Peace has continued to elude the world because the UN is not functioning or delivering.
If the UN had been a mega corporation, the Board and Management would ave been fired for non-performace.
In an AGM, the share-holders would have sought re-organization. It is time to reset the Tasks and Targets of the UN, clrify its Mission and Vision, then recontitute the Board with a more acceptable and functioning Organogram. The Articles of Association are long overdue for ammendment. It takes some brave men to reshape the World; the same spirit that gave birth to America as an Ideal is what the UN needs.
I'm not sure I like the idea of "global governance". Who are these unelected bureacrats anyway? How about localized government? How can a far removed group of bureaucrats effectively govern ANYTHING?
Treaties and trade agreements are fine but that's not what we're talking about here are we?
EU is in tremendous debt. The Irish rejected the Libson Treaty twice and yet were still forced into it. The Germans dont want to bail out Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
This is hogwash.
First, the Security Council was based on post-WW2 poweer relations. Neither Russia nor the USA enjoy their seat because of dedication to human rights. The security council is about the use of force, and those with permanent seats are those with massive military power.
Second, it ignores the US record on human rights, which in many cases is shameful. Almost no other country routinely executed minors in the 21st century, for example, but the US did. It has a terrible recent record on wars of aggression, on torture, on middle east peace, the war on drugs, the highest imprisonment rate, etc.
We can examine the Human Rights records of other/potential council members, but not while hypocritically turning a blind eye to our own failings. Why is it that the USA should be the only country that can trample human rights when it sees fit but still sit on the committee?
"So why are these emerging powers not doing more to defend human rights abroad?".
Because they're emerging. What are the ESTABLISHED powers doing? Oh, looking at the emerging powers and blaming them for working enough. How productive. How colonial.
"But with that new global role should come responsibility to global norms, including human rights."
Unless you're the USA, in which case"global norms" are meaningless: only American opinion and American justice count.
The concept of a right is only formed when a government or religion gives them. Humans have no such thing as God Given rights and if they live under a government only the real not on paper rights that the ruling party will allow to the people. Today we have different forms of governments that allow or do not allow a view of what peoples rights are. Today, in America you can preach about such rights because the government protects, has given you the power to do so with out being shot or jailed. Today, in most parts of the world, your freedom to express your displeasure with other governments as long as you are in a safe country is protected. My fear is, under a large umbrella government, this right you feel each human has may be much more limited and where you can cry fowl will no longer be found.
Everybody likes the idea and the advantages of being part of a bigger entity but nobody want to give up any sovereignty.
The UN is the penultimate 'sternly worded letter' writer of the world. The blue helmets are dispatched as witnesses to genocides and ethnic cleansings across the world and despotic governments are appointed to the human rights commissions.
Why would anyone in their right mind consider expanding global governance by even a postage stamp? What happened after the Indonesian tsunami? Who showed up with the goods? Wasn't the UN? How about Haiti?
Other than that they've been totally ineffective, though I'm sure if we ever saw real rev. o_lushun in the streets here, they've show up in a flash.
Americans can get quite indignant (rightfully so) when a politician is personally benefiting from legislation while in office without giving notice of their involvement. In many other countries they often expect each and every official to be paid under the table money (sometimes by syndicated crime mobs).
This is one of my main reasons for refusing to allow any type of UN resolutions be accepted that could limit liberty or freedom in America. Supporting some form of global governing body is a disaster waiting to happen.
Which side of those issues will carry the day? I do not have a clue. However, if I had to guess I would have to say:
No to gobal governance
No to the gobal economy
No to outsourcing
Yes to rebuilding the country's manufacturing base
No to illegal immigration
Drill baby drill
Phase out Medicare and keep Social Security
Buckle your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
I am not so sure about phasing out Medicare, but there will be substantial changes to the medical system in this country to bring costs down, but not having government play such a large and heavy handed role a la Obamacare.
We'll see.