A Dam Breach for the Rule of Law

After 9/11 a great number of constitutional democracies have approved many national security policy measures at the expense of civil liberties – a development that brings the threat of barbarism straight to our doorstep, says Ulrike Mast-Kirschning

When Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov accused the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) of speaking out too strongly for human rights protection, it could almost be taken as a good sign. It shows a certain sensibility – as regards the publicly documented human rights violations of his country and specifically also of Kazakhstan.

This sensibility has clearly declined in political business since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Even constitutional democracies such as the United States have since then approved many national security policy measures at the expense of civil liberties, thereby causing numerous conflicts between the government and the judiciary.

The rule of law or barbarism

Violating the absolute prohibition of torture is one of the most severe infringements of human rights. It is like a dam breach for the rule of law and leads straight to barbarism in entire regions, countries, and societies. If the so-called Baker Commission in the United States is finally interested in going back to fighting terrorism with diplomacy and vigilance instead of military means and organized human rights violations, then this too is finally a good sign.

The principles of state action must always be guided by human rights and the experience they are based on, regardless of whether this is a matter of political civil rights – of freedom of opinion and expression, the right to protest, the right to free elections, the right to physical integrity, and the prohibition of torture – or of economic social rights, such as the right to food, education, housing, and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of skin color, ethnic affiliation, or gender.

And regardless of whether this is about fighting terrorism, AIDS, poverty, or violence against women, thriving coexistence all over the globe is possible only by competing to find the best solutions, and not by competition in a struggle to create barbarity. Sustainability and cooperation can be made possible only by the countries that set a good example and have a firm stance on human rights. Only they can guarantee dignity and freedom for individuals, thus creating the necessary space for peaceful resolution of conflicts in the world.

The best and most existential foundation

There are more than enough conflicts, and even the activation of market forces such as competition, power, and assertiveness is no guarantee that societies will follow human rights guidelines, as the example of China shows.

Fear of the superpower China does not only come from concern about its better economic performance, but also from the feared dominance of a community of values that has very little in common with the rights and freedoms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But only the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the corresponding pacts and treaties comprise the guidelines and framework for action for social development and coexistence around the world. To neglect it would mean stripping humanity of the best and most existential foundation available in the age of globalization.

Ulrike Mast-Kirschning

Translated from the German by Allison Brown

Qantara.de

Interview with Heiner Bielefeldt
"A Ban on Torture Is an Absolute Ban"
Heiner Bielefeldt is the director of the German Institute for Human Rights. In this interview with Mona Naggar, he talks about the rule of law in times of terror, about the headscarf ban, and religious minority rights in Germany.

Human Rights
Despite Terrorism, Standards Must Be Maintained
Representatives of Germany's Human Rights Forum say that the fight against terrorism has become an excuse for violating human rights, but that despite the cruelty of terrorist attacks, human rights standards must be maintained.

Sudan and the "Responsibility to Protect"
The U.N.'s Darfur Moment
A year ago this month the assembled heads of state at a United Nations summit adopted the novel concept of a collective "Responsibility to Protect" the world's citizens – even against their own government. It's time to apply it to Darfur, Mark L. Schneider argues