The Dawn of a Post-Human Rights World?

With all the talk about alternative facts and fake news, it is perhaps time to ponder whether the global rise of reactionary populism – from Brexit to Trump – signals the dawn of the end of human rights. The indications are that we are not simply heading towards a “post-truth” era, we might also be headings towards a post-human right world.

When British Tory politicians introduced a bill in 2014 to allow British Judges ignore rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, the British tabloids hailed the move as “The End of Human Rights Farce" and the “end of the Human Rights madness.” Although born out of anxieties over national sovereignty and the European Court's perceived judicial overreach, these headlines speak to a growing cynicism about the value of human rights doctrine in our world today.

The alarm bells have already been raised by those who should know. The BBC reports that in Geneva, home to the UN Human Rights Office, the UN Refugee Agency, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the guardian of the Geneva Conventions on international humanitarian law, there is talk of a 'post human rights' world.

In my forthcoming book on Human Rights in Africa (Cambridge University Press), I argue that the adoption of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 ushered in a tentative global human rights revolution. The post-World War II international human rights order held three distinct, yet related revolutionary promises. It held the promise of a revolution of self-determination, a revolution of democracy and a revolution of equality.

If the granting of independence to formerly colonized nations of Asia and Africa in the 1950s and 60s, marked the triumph of the revolution of self-determination, the post-colonial and post-Cold War global order has failed to materialize the revolutions of democracy and equality.

Across the world, the tentative gains of the human rights revolution are being gradually eroded. With an increasing number of states seemingly reluctant to honor international human rights treaties or fulfil domestic rights obligations, we may indeed be heading towards a post-human rights world characterized by repudiations of established human rights norms and the roll back of international humanitarian law.

The clearest indication of this trend is the global rise of reactionary populism, xenophobia and the growing tolerance of torture. Countries in both the West and the Global South are increasingly reluctant to uphold their commitments to refugee protection and the humanitarian conduct of war under international human rights treaties. Another example is the growing list of countries that have opted to withdraw support for international human rights institutions, such as the International Criminal Court.

The human rights genie, it seems, is being put back in the bottle. These existential challenges to human rights signal the specter of a post-human rights world, and invite serious reflections on old questions about the relevance and legitimacy of universal human rights.

The Dawn of a Post-Human Rights World?

2/20/2017 01:13:00 PM human rights, reflections, world

Xenophobia, Immigration Restrictions and the Dawn of a Post-Human Rights World

Across the world, we are witnessing the gradual erosion of the gains of the post-World War II human rights movement. The clearest indication of this trend is the global rise of reactionary populism, xenophobia and the growing tolerance of torture.

The US immigration restrictions on travel from Muslim countries and the shooting in a Quebec mosque in Canada may be unrelated, but they point to a disturbing trend. With an increasing number of countries reluctant to honor international human rights treaties or fulfill domestic rights obligations, we may be heading towards a post-human rights world -  a world characterized by repudiations of established human rights norms and the roll back of international humanitarian law.

In a world driven to extremes by hate and fear, Prime Minster Trudeau’s declaration that refugees will continue to be welcomed in Canada is a reassuring affirmation of our common humanity.

Xenophobia, Immigration Restrictions and the Dawn of a Post-Human Rights World

1/30/2017 12:40:00 PM human rights, politics, reflections

Unlearning Prejudice: History can teach, but we must be willing to learn

In this fascinating personal account, Charles Dew, a professor of American History at William's College reminds us that racism, like a genetic trait, can be passed on from generation to generation. People learn to be bigots, but bigotry can also be un-learned. History can teach, but we must be willing to learn.

Charles B. Dew, "The Unmaking of a Racist"
Published in the Chronicle of Higher Education

"The racial prejudice I acquired came more through a process of osmosis than anything else. I learned from watching how others around me behaved, starting with my own family. There were separate cups, saucers, plates, and glasses in our kitchen cupboard to be used by the African-American help — Ed, who mowed our lawn, and a wonderful woman named Illinois, who cleaned for us, did our laundry, and occasionally cooked our meals."

"I learned early on that I should never shake hands with a black man or woman. I was not to use Mr. or Mrs. or Miss when I spoke to an African-American adult. We had separate bathrooms — a poorly appointed half bath off the back porch for the help, a nice, fully tiled bathroom on the second floor of our house for us. I was 8 years old when I watched my father explode in almost uncontrollable anger at a black man who came to the wrong door of our home."

Unlearning Prejudice: History can teach, but we must be willing to learn

10/17/2016 11:39:00 AM history, human rights

Revisiting Biafra: War and Humanitarian Crisis

"The Biafran Humanitarian Crisis."

A new book by my former PhD student. Dr Arua Omaka (now lecturer at Federal University, Ndufu Alike, Ikwo, Nigeria).

The Nigeria-Biafra War been described as one of the most significant global humanitarian crisis in the post-Second World War era. Little has been written about this crisis. It has largely been forgotten even as the world deals with comparable humanitarian crisis in Syria and other parts of the world.

Dr. Omaka offers an engaging account in his book. A must-read for anyone interested in African studies and Global Peace and Conflicts studies.

Revisiting Biafra: War and Humanitarian Crisis

10/13/2016 04:14:00 PM africa, history, human rights, war and peace

The Future of Human Rights

What is the future of human rights? My hope is that as the world becomes more sensitive to human rights violations, we will see less and less of the most extreme and egregious abuses and violations of the past centuries – mass atrocities such as genocide, massacres and ethnic cleansing.

But that will not mean that the struggles for human rights will be easier or less urgent. Human rights are not just about violations but also about the legacies of violations. Human rights are intrinsically tied to questions of social justice and binding inclusive communities. So, the future of human rights that I see is one in which history and our understanding of the past will pay a much bigger role. Where we will have to pay as much attention to the legacies of past violations as we do to active violations.

The Future of Human Rights

9/17/2016 01:33:00 PM human rights

Public Talk: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation

Speaking on the topic: "Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Re-imagining Human Rights in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding" at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden

Truth, Justice and Reconciliation: Re-imagining Human Right in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding

Abstract

There is an assumed tension between human rights and peacebuilding. Although human rights advocates and conflict resolution specialists share the common aim of building stable societies based on the rule of law, they often disagree on method. Conflict resolvers are characterized as willing to compromise rights and ignore abuses in order to secure political agreement. Human rights advocates, on the other hand, are seen as idealistic and uncompromising in seeking redress for violations, even at the cost of prolonging conflict and human suffering. This tension between the principles of human rights and the pragmatics of peacebuilding is most evident in the work of national Truth and Reconciliation Commissions established in post-conflict societies. Since the establishment of the South African TRC in 1994, there has been a proliferation of TRCs as a mechanism of transitional justice. Charged with uncovering the truth about abuses, providing justice to victims and fostering national reconciliation, most TRCs have taken up human rights and peacebuilding tasks. How have TRCs sought to balance their human rights and peacebuilding mandates? Focusing on the work of TRCs in four post-conflict countries – South Africa, Rwanda, Peru and Morocco - this paper explores the relationship between human rights, justice and national reconciliation. It makes the case for a pragmatic yet principled model of Truth and Reconciliation that integrates human rights and conflict-prevention strategies.

Public Talk: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation

6/07/2016 08:28:00 AM human rights, war and peace

No Development in Africa without Positive Impact on Ordinary People

No Development in Africa without Positive Impact on Ordinary People

Keynote talk at the 2016 Covenant University-International Conference on African Development Issues (CU-ICADI) held at the African Leadership Development Centre on the university campus at Ota, Nigeria.

Africa would not be said to have developed if the indices of development do not reflect a positive change in the life of the ordinary people, a Professor of Global Human Rights and Peace Studies at McMaster University, Canada, Professor Bonny Ibhawoh, has said.
He made this assertion while discussing the speech of the Keynote Speaker, Professor Joy Ogwu, on the opening day of the 2016 Covenant University-International Conference on African Development Issues (CU-ICADI) held at the African Leadership Development Centre on the university campus at Ota, Ogun State.

Ibhawoh, who highlighted the key points raised by Ogwu as Collective Responsibility, Sustainable Development, Continuity in Government, Corruption, Nexus between Security and Development and Inclusive Development, said “the fundamental definition of development is the objective improvement on the life of the ordinary people. Until the kind of growth we see in this country (and Africa) reflects the definition of development I think things will continue to remain the same”.

Acknowledging that, by all measurable standards the Nigerian economy has grown in the past few years and even surpassed that of South Africa as the largest economy in Africa, Ibhawoh, who is also Associate Vice-President (Research) at McMaster University, emphasized on sustainable development.

The key question to ask, according to him, is how far does development brings succour to the ordinary people. “Until we can answer that question in the affirmative, I think all this talk about inclusivity is a ruse, and this is buttressed by what the former President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, said, that the African poor cannot eat the GDP (Gross Domestic Product),” he said.

In collective responsibility, he averred, lies the prosperity of Nigeria and indeed all African countries, while echoing Ogwu’s assertion that African people must fashion out indigenous and organic responses to the challenge of development in Africa.

“When I came into the campus, I was told that earlier in the day (Sunday) some 50 to 60, 000 people had been on this campus for a church service, and I wondered how come it is so calm, so clean there is no garbage in the streets, everything has been taken care of. I was told that much of the cleaning of this campus is done by the people themselves, people who clean and tidy up because they share a sense of collective responsibility.

“And that got me thinking; imagine if that same sense of collective responsibility were replicated at the national level; that everyone is able to contribute a little bit; if I cannot pay a thousand naira as tithe, I will sweep the street; if I cannot pay a thousand naira as taxes, I will do my little part in my community. I think that is a development model we should follow,” said Ibhawoh.

On continuity in government, Ibhawoh said it is crucial to national development as African nations cannot continue to take one step forward and three steps backward, adding that one cannot build a scaffold on the foundation of discontinuity.

“There has to be parameters for progress,” he said. “The concept of prebendalism is the most analytical attempt to dissect the endemic problem of corruption in Africa. The same Nigerian that embezzles states funds wouldn’t do that as secretary of a community association; those funds are considered sacred.

“We talk about government building roads, building bridges, whereas the emphasis in the United States is on tax payers building infrastructures, it is about people having responsibility in their own governance.”

Ibhawoh, who expressed concern that African nations do not pay enough attention to security, stressed the need for countries to give priority to security on their development agenda since there is a nexus between development and security.

McMaster University, he revealed, has a Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies and what the Centre does is to proactively think about building peace in the society, such that even before conflicts erupt there are measures put in place to arrest potential conflicts.

He said: “In our country (Nigeria), it seems just as we are dealing with one conflict another one erupts; the Niger Delta militants, Boko Haram or farmers and herders. My thinking is that rather than respond to these security issues when they erupt, why don’t we create a body that acts proactively, a gathering of lawyers, scientists, thinking about peace retention, and peace resolution.

“In South Africa at the end of apartheid, one of the things former President Nelson Mandela got right is that he put in place the Truth and Reconciliation Commission because he realized that unless the conflicts caused by apartheid are dealt with in a peaceful manner the country won’t move forward.”

Speaking on the issue of gender equality and inclusive development, Ibhawoh urged African nations to involve women in governance, politics and business because in the words of Nyerere, “No person can run on one foot”.

An African nation that does not empower its women, he said, is like a football team going to a competition with six players when everybody has his first 11. He cited Rwanda as example of an African nation that realizes the importance of women in nation building.

“In Rwanda, 60 per cent of the Rwanda legislatures are women. Rwanda ranks higher than the United States, higher than Denmark, higher than Canada in women participation in the legislature, which is what I call progress,” he said.

Ibhawoh, in conclusion, reiterated that “nobody can write our script for us, we Africans must find solutions to our challenges”.

No Development in Africa without Positive Impact on Ordinary People

5/17/2016 06:28:00 PM africa, Development, politics

Empowering Women and the Nation: Lessons from Rwanda

In the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report for 2015, an annual ranking of the world's most equal countries for men and women, the small African country, Rwanda, ranked 6th globally, ahead of the United states, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark.

Rwanda has been described as “the best place to be a women in Africa.” Women constitute 63 percent of the membership of the Rwandan parliament. That means that there are more women than men involved in the legislative process. I would add that it is one of the best places to be a woman anywhere in the world.

How did Rwanda manage to rank so highly? After the horrific genocide of 1999 that devastated and traumatized the country, the Rwandan government put in place a comprehensive set of laws to promote women’s participation in the political, social and economic life of the country. This was seen as critical to the process of national reconstruction and healing. The laws enacted have facilitated women’s participation in local politics, given women the right to inherit land, share the assets of a marriage and obtain credit. As many girls as boys receive primary and secondary education, maternal mortality is lower and the birth rate is falling.

This achievement is the result of a comprehensive program of national reconciliation and re-integration put in place after the genocide. It included the establishment of a National Unity and Reconciliation Commission whose mandate is to “organize national public debates aimed at promoting reconciliation, foster tolerance and a culture of peace and human rights, and denounce any ideas aimed at disunity."

The Commission is also tasked with educating Rwandese on their rights and the rights of others, draft laws to foster reconciliation and monitor whether authorities and the people in general "respect and observe the policy of national unity and reconciliation." While not all the lofty goals of national reconciliation and human rights protection have been achieved, Rwanda has made significant progress in the key area of empowering its women and girl-children.

The simple lesson here is that empowering women and protecting women’s rights is a matter of commitment and political will, more than anything else. Where there is political will, the familiar arguments of resource limitation and cultural tradition often used as excuse to resist changes aimed at empowering women can be surmounted. That Rwanda, a resource limited and traditionally conservative society, has managed to uplift its women to unprecedented levels, only two decades after genocide, is a valuable lesson for the rest of the world.

Empowering Women and the Nation: Lessons from Rwanda

4/21/2016 12:37:00 PM africa, human rights

How Should we Respond to Terrorism?

Recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Belgium have prompted questions about how ordinary citizens should respond to terrorism. Fear, anger, anxiety? I recently received an e-mail from a former student asking precisely this question. I have posted our redacted exchange below with her permission.

Good evening Dr. Ibhawoh,

My name is XXX and I was part of the ARTSCI 1C06 Inquiry class that you taught last year along with Dr. XXX.

I was recently prompted by a family member to sign an online petition to "Stop resettling 25,000 Syrian refugees in Canada" and was very deeply unsettled upon reading the petition goals and justification. The recent attacks in Paris have also set the internet up in flames and I find myself at a loss as to how to respond rationally to widespread fear, as petitions like this gain over 20 thousand signatures.

I realize this is quite unconventional but I was wondering if you could direct me to any reliable resources/individuals/organizations that might help me try and start to understand the complexity of the refugee crisis? I am quite upset by some of the reactionary actions that people have taken and feel altogether disoriented as to how to proceed to discuss these very important problems.

I would very much appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Sincerely,
XXX

MY RESPONSE

Hello XXX

The terrorist attacks in Paris (and Belgium) are heartbreaking but they are not isolated events. There have also been recent similar mass terrorist attacks in many other counties - Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, the list goes on. Russian and Somalian aircrafts have also been subject to terrorist attacks. Terrorism is a global problem that requires a global solution. How does the world respond to these mindless attacks on civilians? Here is what I think.

First, we should condemn them and stand firmly against all forms of terrorism. In an age of terror, we must also be vigilant and proactive about stopping those who seek to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people in the name of ideology or religion. On this question, there can be no sitting on the fence.

The other instinctive response is to take a hard line against all migrants and refugees from Syria and other conflicted countries. However, it is important to remember that most of these refugees are themselves victims of these atrocities. An estimated 250,000 people have been killed since the start of the Syrian conflict. A vast majority of these have been Muslims who dared to disagree with the extremist Islamist jihadists. Many of them are also women and children who have lost their husbands/fathers in the war.

Refugees from war affected regions must be carefully screened to ensure that those seeking asylum are legitimate refugees and not terrorists trying to sneak in. But we cannot shut the door on everyone who needs help, especially the children. One of the themes we discussed in our Global Challenges class is the fallacy of judging individuals by stereotypes. Rather we should strive to "fracture simplistic binaries."

We need to be careful about who we let in but we cannot and should not turn our backs on legitimate Syrian refugees. Canada has historically been a place of refugees for those fleeing wars and famine such as the Irish, Poles and Ukrainians. We have an obligation to continue with this noble tradition which has saved so many lives in the past and served our nation well.

If you would like to know more about these matters, I would suggest you subscribe to the mailing list of human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch mailing list. AI and HRW have human rights expert and researchers who think through these matters carefully before taking a position.

Best wishes

  

BI

How Should we Respond to Terrorism?

3/22/2016 12:13:00 PM war and peace, world

A Case for Pragmatic Pacifism

 

I have been thinking a lot about pacifism lately. In the decades since the anti-war peace movements of the 1960s and 70s, peacemaking has come to be seen as synonymous with absolute pacifism or what some describe as anarchic pacifism. Absolute pacism is the opposition to violence under any circumstance even in defense of self and others. For religious and moral reasons there will always be those who subscribe to absolute pacifism and oppose any form of violence; those who believe that war should never be conducted, even in the justified pursuit of peace. For the absolute pacifists, there can be no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war.

For the absolute pacifists who subscribes to the unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare, there are no just wars; all wars are unjust. This moral position will continue to have a place even in a dangerously conflicted world. When people think about peace movements, they invariably think about absolute pacifists and it becomes easy to dismiss the movement as idealist and utopian, even irrational, offering no real world solutions.

But pacifism covers a spectrum of views. At its most basic level, pacifism is the opposition to war and violence. In a complex and conflicted world such as ours, strategies for peacemaking need not be limited to absolute pacifism. There is a place for pragmatic pacifism.

Many of today’s pacifists are what can be described a pragmatic pacifists who subscribe to Just War theory. Pragmatic pacifists believe that domestic and international disputes can and should be resolved peacefully. If institutions of the military and instruments war must be used, they should be used as a last resort and only in defense of self and others. They reject the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals.

The pragmatic pacifist believes that if the foe is willing to egregiously hurt others, then it is justified to respond with force. True, some believe that those who subscribe to any use of force are really not pacifists at all, but that is a matter for debate.

I would suggest that peacemaking in today’s conflicted world requires a pragmatic pacifism. Within pragmatic pacifism there is room for humanitarian intervention. The foundational premise of the post-Second World war universal human rights regime, drawn from the lessons of the Holocaust, is that we can no longer allow the excuse of state sovereignty to be used to justify gross human rights violations.

No longer can oppressive dictatorships be allowed to massacre their citizens on the perverted argument that posits: “These are our own people, we can do with then whatever we want.” Universal human rights is the right to meddle in the business of other nations. Backed by the provisions of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the emerging doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the international community now has an obligation and the legal framework to intervene to protect victims of gross human rights violations wherever they may be.

Within these international legal frameworks, UN Peacekeeping missions involved in humanitarian interventions in conflict situations have the mandate to stop hostilities, protect civilians, restore order and enforce peace. Only when law, order and security are restored (sometimes through the use of force) can peacebuilding initiatives be put in place.

It is true that the principle of humanitarian intervention can and has been politicized, sometimes used as an pretext in big power politics to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of less powerful states. But we have also seen military humanitarian intervention put to good use such as the case of NATO intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina in the late 1990s which stopped ethnic cleansing and an impeding genocide.

One of the great tragedies of the Rwandan Genocide was that Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian General who led the UN peacekeeping force in that country on the eve of the genocide could not convince his superiors at the UN secretariat to change the mandate of the force to allow for active military intervention to stop the genocide.

In his compelling and poignant [poin-yant] account of the Genocide, Shake Hands with the Devil, Dellaire points out that it was clear to him and his colleagues in the UN Peacekeeping force that Hutu extremists were making elaborate plans to massacre Tutsi civilians. Prompt and decisive intervention by the international community, some of simple as jamming radios stations broadcasting hate propaganda, may have prevented the genocide and saved thousands of lives. But in that case, as in the Cambodian Genocide two decades earlier, the apathy and indecisiveness of the international community allowed the massacre of a million people.

What are the guarantees that pragmatic pacifism can provide the solutions to conflict in our deeply divided world? Simply, there are no guarantees. But what are the alternatives to peace? The appeal of pragmatic pacifism is that it recognizes that just wars may sometimes be waged in self-defense or the pursuit of peace, and it yet offers the hope of avoiding the scourge and devastation of war.

The US President Ronald Regan, more pragmatist than pacifist himself, faced similar questions when he initiated nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union in the1980s. He was confronted by critics and sceptics who worried that the Soviets could not be trusted to keep their own end of the agreements, and warned that disarmament talks would undermine US security and strategic geopolitical interest. In response, Reagan famously stated: “Peace is not the absence of conflict. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.” Despite the gloomy predictions of the skeptics, Reagan pushed on with the nuclear disarmament talks, setting the tone for de-escalating US-Soviet tensions and ultimately, ending the Cold War.

It is ironic that a bi-polar Cold War world of superpowers, nuclear proliferation and the threat of mutually assured destruction now seem more stable than a fragmented unipolar world. The end of the Cold War was expected to usher an era of unmitigated world peace.

This clearly has not happened. Angry voices of war and fear have drowned out the voices of hope and peace.

Our conflicted world needs more voices of peace, now more than ever before.

A Case for Pragmatic Pacifism

1/15/2016 05:10:00 PM war and peace, world