20th century human rights; 21st century fascism
Duncan C, Tangerine Tyrant, Flickr, 18 Feb 2017.
Stephen Hopgood, in ‘Fascism Rising’ (published in openDemocracy (online)), states that faced with more Trump-’fascism’ in the world, human rights activists should disregard the international and focus on the domestic. That is, the problem of rising discontent and inequality among the middle class and white cannot be adequately addressed by international human rights (IHR), and perhaps even lead to the election of the Tangerine Tyrant. For Hopgood, human rights are forever associated with the liberal elite, which will be forever delegitimised in the say-it-like-it-is, alternative facts twitterverse. It is tempting to see the world from Hopgood’s eyes; the state of international consensus on human rights has been heavily and openly criticised, and after Brexit and Trump many spectators fear an unending dismantling of human rights institutions. Indeed we see Turkey’s Erdogan, once vying for a place in the EU, has now centralised and prolonged power (with questionable referendum results) and continues his crackdown on dissent.
Cathy Wilcox, High Tension in Turkey.
But none of Hopgood’s criticisms seem to be with the values espoused by human rights in general, nor their capacity to emancipate and empower. Merely with the current failure of human rights to be an effective discourse in responding to the problems of the populist base. Hopgood seems most critical of the messenger rather than the message, and that is why I cannot fathom his statement that activists must now focus on national rather than IHR. He contrasts democratic politics within national borders with castles of international normative air - the national ballot box with international law.
Samuel Moyn, in ‘Trump and the Limits of Human Rights’ (also published in openDemocracy (online)), similarly offers a pessimistic view of the future of human rights in world of the Mango Mussolini. In essence, Moyn agrees with Hopgood that human rights as it has developed (in the hands of a liberal elite tied with economic liberalism, according to Moyn) cannot offer a way forward to counter the possible rise of fascists and the popular discontents that elect them. Where Moyn differs with Hopgood, is that he does not think that the norms of international human rights law (IHRL) exist to counter distributive inequality. Where this was merely implied in Hopgood’s article. Moyn sees great achievements in IHRL, but only in the capacity to stigmatize deviant states, and especially in the International Criminal Court. Any other emancipatory wins have been exceptions to the rule. Among the failings Moyn cites that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement have not internationalised in the name of human rights, nor does IHRL provide strong norms to deal with disadvantaged, non-citizens. Both assertions I would counter. Firstly, the Refugee Convention and its Optional Protocol were clearly created to address the needs of non-citizens and displaced persons, calling all States Parties to address the problem of forced emigration. And secondly, in a statement from the Movement for Black Lives (somewhat affiliated with BLM), their globalisation of values is clear:
‘We stand in solidarity with our international family against the ravages of global capitalism and anti-Black racism, human-made climate change, war, and exploitation. We also stand with descendants of African people all over the world in an ongoing call and struggle for reparations for the historic and continuing harms of colonialism and slavery. We also recognize and honor the rights and struggle of our Indigenous family for land and self-determination.’
Photo from Reuters, New York, 9 July 2016.
There is no denying that the IHR project has been the purview of elites for some time; legal professionals, high level politicians and diplomats, and national governments with empty promises have played IHR for decades, and can do it well. But the ballot box has never been under attack. International law has left representative government untouched, and in the ICCPR at least, encouraged representative democracies. Progressive democratic policies can be buttressed by the core IHR instruments, and supported by those elite NGOs and UN bodies. In contrast with what Moyn states in his article, the norms for redistributive policies are espoused in IHRL (see ICESCR, Committee on Economic and Social Rights comments, and jurisprudence in states that have implemented ESC Rights). Perhaps the strength is not yet there, because human rights have little direct and practical application to the lives of the suffering unless domestically incorporated. But it is only in the last 30-odd years that we have seen the uncritical marriage between neoliberalism (or economic fundamentalism) and IHR, and only if you focus on the progressive (or centre-left) political parties of select Western states, ie not including the social democratic parties of Scandinavia, or the adoption of ESC Rights in India and various Central and South American states.
Even further, I am not comfortable with the exclusionary politics that Hopgood advocates. What is there to be gained from drawing national boundaries and denying that the progressive democratic policies we achieve and develop at home can not be shared with other societies and cultures? I do not think that we can effectively create a nation of ideal conditions while ignoring the reliance this would have on the lives of people outside that nation. This is the point Moyn makes in his article, we cannot ignore the politics and economy of the new international order. In the 21st century, no country has the material, financial, or labour resources to sustain itself without recourse to a neighbour. And even it did, most nations are too far gone to stem the flow of globalisation. We rely on others for our comfortable lives, and if we deny them the equal rights to dignity then we are no worse than our Imperialist forebears - pillaging and ravaging lands inhabited by people deemed less than us.
The future of human rights may be more ‘collaborative’, it may be more ‘grassroots’, and it may tackle ‘inequality’. But this speaks only to bottom-up protest struggles. Citizens may not regard their struggle as human rights struggles, but regardless the pressure they can/should put onto their governments is translatable to already existing human rights documents and norms. The project of IHRL has also been to speak top-down, through governments, and in this respect at least, the institutionalising and vernacularising of human rights has been partially successful. Where there is a commitment to the totality of human rights, a truly democratic and representative government cannot but implement policies that would better address the concerns of inequality (economic or civic).
Stephen Hopgood, ‘Fascism Rising’, openDemocracy, 9 November 2016 <https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/stephen-hopgood/fascism-rising>.
Samuel Moyn, ‘Trump and the Limits of Human Rights’, openDemocracy, 14 November 2016 <https://www.opendemocracy.net/openglobalrights/samuel-moyn/trump-and-limits-of-human-rights>.
The Movement for Black Lives, ‘Platform’, https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/
Hamid Dabashi, ‘Black Lives Matter and Palestine: A historic alliance’, Al Jazeera (online) 6 September 2016, <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/black-lives-matter-palestine-historic-alliance-160906074912307.html>.
Daniel Boffey, ‘Turkey should investigate referendum vote 'irregularities', says EU commission’, The Guardian (online), 18 April 2017 <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/18/turkey-should-investigate-referendum-vote-irregularities-says-eu-commission>.
Jennfier Rankin, ‘Council of Europe vote puts pressure on Turkey over human rights’, The Guardian (online), 26 April 2017 <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/26/council-of-europe-turkey-human-rights-pace>.
