Human rights protection!

In this article I will emphasize on the probable double standards of states and International Organizations regarding the respect of human rights! After the WWII all democratic states took a course on the respect and safeguard of human rights. Under these logos dozens of IGOs and INGOs were established. INGOs developed from IGOs and they have less moral obligation to conduct permanent activities, as they are found mainly on a non-profit, voluntary basis. But IGOs are founded by states who have bind each other by legal instruments to regard and conduct similar activities under some universal principles for the benefit of their nations (and the humanity in whole). We may agree that the main goal of the state is to ensure the safety and prosperity of its own people, but as history and the development of the civilization proved there couldn’t be stability without collective security or balance of power. There are always belligerent states, which discover threat to their national interests in the action of other states and are not willing to solve these issues with the means of traditional diplomacy. So then threat to the stability and prosperity of certain people may come from the wish in stability and prosperity of other. So what is the matter? The problem is supposed to be with the so-called double standards! If an IGO (just say as universal as UNO) is established for the protection of humanity and peace around the world, than these principles should be regarded by every member (maybe even beyond) and applied without exception. What does it mean? The UN declares its peacekeeping mission and has authority to enter “any” state territory and even use necessary forces to reassure the will of the nations. It sounds righteous in the ears of people, but if we look a bit deeper than we’ll realize that the missions are based on certain economic or political (strategic or military) background. When do diplomatic means of communication disappear? Mainly when there is no possibility to share interest of the two sides (UN-dominant state and the belligerent party). The interest from which mainly the people of the first benefit, the second later get only second-hand aid some compassion and a lot of useless talk. You need examples: Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, East-Timor, Chechnya…(Macedonia)…(Israel-Palestine)……….other local conflicts that may raise into a more international spectrum and those surely to follow. Ok. You may say that the International community used all possible means to protect the people, but can war (use of force) solve problems? Maybe some interests should be on stake to resolve the issue without any extra bloodshed? (Arms deal, intelligence sources, strategic military (security) positions).

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic