Thursday | 16 January 2025 | Reg No- 06
বাংলা
   
Thursday | 16 January 2025 | Epaper

Double standards of HR bodies must be shunned

Published : Monday, 7 August, 2023 at 12:00 AM  Count : 689
Rajeev Ahmed
Human rights protection and promotion have become critical in an increasingly linked but hostile world. International human rights organisations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have emerged as major players in the field of individual rights worldwide. However, as the globe transitions to a multipolar order, there is growing concern about the double standards these leading human rights organisations display. This article goes into this tricky issue by exploring the discrepancy between their declared aims and behaviours, utilising solid incidents to demonstrate instances of double standards, biases and politicisation.

The main human rights groups say that their job is to fight for the protection and development of human rights around the world. They act like they care about torture, discrimination, political repression, and civil rights violations, even though most of the money they spend on these things comes from taxpayers in the West. These groups say they act as watchdogs, pointing out human rights violations and pressuring states to keep their promises under old international law.

Even though they want us to think that their missions are good, people are worried about how they do things and how far they go. Critics say that their actions and reactions often show bias, inconsistency, or political agendas, making their human rights advocacy less universal and less credible. All the current wars and battles show that these traits are still present. Critics have said that human rights groups like the UNHRC, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are biased when handling human rights violations in all long-lasting wars and conflicts, whether in the Middle East, Africa, or Ukraine.

While these groups have been quick to criticise anti-West governments for their actions, there are allegations that anti-government forces that used civilian infrastructure as human shields or started violence have often been met with little criticism. This difference in attitude makes us wonder if these organisations are being fair or supporting certain political narratives of the West.

In the past, the West has used concerns about human rights to further its geopolitical goals and has often used them selectively against rivals. This approach was apparent during the Cold War and is still used in the current geopolitical competition with China, Russia, Iran, India, and others. Human rights issues are a big part of the foreign policy of the Biden government, which criticises countries it sees as standing in the way of American dominance around the world.

Critics say that Western human rights activists ignore human rights abuses in their own countries and those of their allies when they try to impose their flawed values on other countries. This approach, aimed at maintaining dominance, involves politicising human rights, which Switzerland-based human rights observer Va Veasna sees as counterproductive.

Va Veasna says, ''When justice is not fulfilled, it surely invites backfire. It will be reminded of the more than 13,000 people experiencing commercial sex trafficking in Sacramento County in the US state of California between 2015 and 2020, police brutality and torture causing at least 1,124 people killed in 2021, and 40 million living in poverty in its territory, let alone shocking death tolls of war crimes committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.''

We've heard much lately about how human rights groups use social media in their campaigns. This helps shape Western narratives about alleged human rights abuses faster. They focus on issues already receiving significant media coverage, which can lead to a bias towards certain countries or governments while ignoring others. This manipulation is evident through various means, including selective treatment, double standards, confrontation over dialogue, and unilateral coercion over multilateral cooperation.

Human rights groups need money to run their efforts. Most of the time, these funds come from a number of places, such as US-led Western governments, foundations, corporations, and individual donors. Most of the time, where an organisation gets its money affects what it does and how it does it.

These donors have interests that fit their geopolitical, geoeconomic, or social engineering goals. They give money to an organisation with the expectation that it will focus on certain human rights problems that are important to them. This often makes people focus too much on certain areas or issues and not enough on others that are just as important. If a group gets a lot of money from one source, it may feel pressured to focus on human rights abuses in regions or by governments that worry the donor. This makes it seem like the news is biased or picked and chosen.

Also, depending on a small number of wealthy donors makes the organisation feel like it must cater to the donor's tastes to keep getting money. This makes it harder for the organisation to be fair and balanced regarding human rights problems since donors may have ways of looking at them that fit their goals. So, these human rights groups always have to frame issues in a way that provides the stories their funders like, which could mean ignoring or downplaying some parts. Also, if much of their money comes from donors who care about specific areas or problems, the organisation might focus more on those areas and less on others.

Aside from the general claims that these human rights groups have different rules for different people, there have also been a number of specific cases that have raised questions about their fairness. One example is how Amnesty International dealt with Julian Assange. Assange started the website WikiLeaks, which has released many secret papers that have embarrassed the US government. Amnesty International said in a statement from 2012 that Assange should be let out of jail. But in 2019, Amnesty International changed its mind and wanted Assange sent to the US. People have said that Amnesty International gave in to pressure from the US government by changing its stance on Assange.

Human Rights Watch's treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi is another case study that has worried people about human rights organisations' double standards. Human Rights Watch has been critical of how the Myanmar government treats Rohingya. But the organisation has said that Suu Kyi did not speak out against the military crackdown on the Rohingya people. The organisation has also supported Suu Kyi against some of the more serious accusations that have been made against her.

Human rights groups like the UNHRC, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have divergent goals, calling into question their missions' purity. Even though these groups were meant to be very important in fighting for human rights, their fairness, credibility, and effectiveness have been called into question by what people see as double standards and the strategic interests of the West.

These organisations need to handle these concerns openly and work together to show that their actions are consistent and not biased. To protect human rights for everyone, you must always put your values ahead of your politics. As the world continues to face complex human rights problems, these organisations have lost their power to make the world fairer and more just.
The writer is a geopolitical analyst, strategic thinker and Editor at geopolits.com


LATEST NEWS
MOST READ
Also read
Are we prepped to face climate change?
Big push for Bangladesh to adapt to changing climate  
The unraveling of military rule in Myanmar
How to win an argument
Recognise Pakistans 1971 atrocities as genocide
Its time we diversified our export trade
Stop ecocide to gain green economy
Conservation of our wildlife is a must
Editor : Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury
Published by the Editor on behalf of the Observer Ltd. from Globe Printers, 24/A, New Eskaton Road, Ramna, Dhaka.
Editorial, News and Commercial Offices : Aziz Bhaban (2nd floor), 93, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka-1000.
Phone: PABX- 41053001-06; Online: 41053014; Advertisement: 41053012.
E-mail: district@dailyobserverbd.com, news©dailyobserverbd.com, advertisement©dailyobserverbd.com, For Online Edition: mailobserverbd©gmail.com
🔝
close