A Great World can be achieved by Great States ensuring ethical human rights.
Describes what I see as the UN’s gross neglect of duty re UN Charter (in my opinion, a ‘global crime against humanity’) to uphold UDHR. Also I consider greater political and national unity is planned to execute a ‘near absolute’ control in States.
A Great World can be achieved by Great States which ensure ethical human rights.
Anthony Ravlich
Chairperson
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940.9658
I made the following comments on the social networking sites following my recent article ‘What people have not been told about GFC 2009 – West’s ‘permanent’ decline’ http://barcelona.indymedia.org/newswire/display/477888/index.php .
In the article I describe the creation of a ‘neoliberal absolutism’ a consequence of the whole Universal Declaration of Human Rights now having to be compatible with IMF policies. Previously, under neoliberalism, only civil and political rights had to accommodate IMF policies.
Also, how the creation of neoliberal absolutism on 10 December 2008 lead to a major rebalance of global power which resulted in the West’s ‘permanent’ decline (also see my article, ‘West rebellion justified….’, cited at the end of this article).
The following issues are still work-in-progress but are matters which I think people need to be made aware quickly of especially as indymedia, from my experience, is closing down around the world. For example, I described what I see as the greater political unity planned to execute a ‘near absolute’ control in States and what I consider to be the UN’s gross neglect of duty required under the UN Charter (in my opinion, a ‘global crime against humanity’), as well as brief discussions on global unity, socially responsible business and extreme poverty.
Extreme poverty and UN’s gross neglect of duty.
The following was an additional comment I made to the Catholic Cardinal in New Zealand when circulating the above article.
“Its good to see the current Pope is promoting the interests of the poor - but so are the left-neoliberal 'middle class' elite at the UN - extreme poverty has reduced considerably since the onset of neoliberalism (using the capacity to exploit to rebalance global wealth) but, of course, in my view, the poor are deprived of freedoms e.g. microloan scheme of Bangladesh is now politically out of favor (UN often use the latter country as evidence of their success in reducing extreme poverty) and they have no voice i.e. they are given a fish but no fishing rod, they are given food but their potential must be crushed otherwise they pose a threat to the status quo. So what you get are dependent slaves.
But it doesn't stop there the rest of society will also not be able to help themselves outside of the ‘neoliberal square’, which denies any significant growth, and so severely limits humankind's capacity for survival (we may have to live on other planets one day - the growth of human knowledge is extremely important) - the UN are determining human rights in isolation from the reality on the ground floor which, of course, is severely affected by IMF policies and the IMF is a UN specialized agency.
In my view, those involved in human rights at the UN have been grossly negligent in their duty required under the UN Charter which includes upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[The UN Charter requires that the UN ‘promote’ the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art 1(3), Art 55 (3) of the UN Charter) and assist ‘in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all…’. (Ch IV, Art 13(1), UN Charter).
Chapter 5 of my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ (Lexington Books, 2008) describes how the core minimum obligations of the State as grounds for complaint was left out of the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The latter allowed for the creation of neoliberal absolutism when the OP was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008. My book was released about four months before the OP’s adoption.
The inclusion of the core minimum obligation of the State would have guarded against States simply focusing on the economic, social and cultural rights of those higher on the social scale rather than the most disadvantaged who suffer the worst violations.
The inclusion of the core minimum obligation would have permitted challenges to IMF policies in a domestic court or a complaint made to the UN. It would have also established a socio-economic ‘bottom-line’ in States which would have enabled fair competition without exploitation].
By allowing the UDHR to be made compatible with IMF policies enabling a neoliberal absolutism which aims to severely minimize individual freedoms (and later, in my view, with no growth occurring, also individual economic and social rights) I consider the UN to be in gross violation of Article 30 of the declaration which states:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”
And also as I consider such very extreme ‘top-down’ control as ‘in their interests’ also a gross violation of Article 29(3) which states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”.]
In my view, those involved in human rights at the UN have capitulated to the UN's political wing, the UN General Assembly (also see academic support in the above article, ‘….GFC 2009 – West’s ‘permanent’ decline’, which considers the OP to have been ideologically driven rather than based on the universality of the declaration).
In my opinion, allowing the UDHR to achieve almost the opposite of what the declaration intends constitutes a ‘global crime against humanity’ given the magnitude of the consequences. I see those involved in human rights at the UN as incompetent and ‘not fit for the job’.
It needs to be remembered the UN had an alternative approach available to them before the adoption of the above OP (see article) - it was the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization (in brief, global ethical human rights) outlined in my book but they are still refusing to make it known in the mainstream - even when I asked the Head of the United Nations Development Program directly in a packed meeting at Auckland University she played politics and side-stepped the question.
Global ethical human rights would have returned human rights to its universal roots but instead the UN went the other way with even more extreme, ‘near absolutist’, control. Because few States properly educate their people in human rights (see ch1 of my book, cited in above article) human rights has become elitist. So it is very hard for me to make it understood. But if they made it known in the mainstream people would be far more likely to listen.
In my view, the UN and the international human rights establishment should not be standing in the path of human rights development.
(PS. I have lived in poverty, sometimes very close to extreme poverty, and associated with many of the underclass (of which I am one), since I began promoting human rights in 1991. My views on extreme poverty are based on about 30 years experience since I began seeking truth).
UN's Global Unity - enslaving the world
Global ethical human rights emphasizes a 'bottom-up' approach and would have returned human rights to its universal roots but instead the UN went the other way with even more extreme, a ‘near absolutist’ control i.e. whole UDHR now required to be compatible with IMF policies (see recent article, ‘…GFC 2009 - West in 'permanent' decline, internet).
It seems the UN sees global unity as only possible under its ‘near absolute’ control but the global ethical human rights approach sees global unity when all States abide by a human rights 'bottom-line' i.e. the ethical core minimum of all the rights in UDHR. The latter protects against extreme violence, extreme poverty and allows individual (State, and World) to reach full potential without States needing to forgo sovereignty for regionalization e.g. European Union and the proposed East Asia Community (which includes New Zealand and Australia) possibly in 2015.
The UN now seems to have established considerable bureaucratic control over the EU and the next step would seem to be the East Asia Community e.g. includes India and China. In my view, the latter region would certainly have benefited from the West’s decline. However, I predict the East Asia community will also become ruled by bureaucrats extending their global hegemony.
However, history sides with sovereignty and the UN’s grandiose plan could well come unstuck especially as both the human rights truth and global ethical human rights become better known and also if States have the courage to claim their right to self-determination i.e. reject the UN’s political human rights agenda as well as IMF policies and fight for the ethical alternative.
In my view, a great World can be achieved with great States i.e. those that ensure ethical human rights for all its citizens so, if they wish, they can reach their full potential while being socially responsible. I consider the UN plans an enslaved World, enslaved States and enslaved individuals.
Socially responsible business to enable ‘political and national unity’.
But how will States execute 'near absolute' control? As discussed in my recent article, ‘…..GFC 2009 – West in ‘permanent’ decline’, the Corporations are likely to benefit considerably from the UN’s failure to address exploitation when dealing with economic, social and cultural rights from 2004 to 2008. I consider this would have removed a major obstacle to big business relocating to countries with cheaper labor.
But, in my view, the prospect of greater profits comes at a price as I see a considerable decrease in Corporate political power as economic, social and cultural rights will require greater social responsibility on the part of the Corporations i.e. business and social responsibility is frequently talked about these days (see The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Ed. Radu Mares, 2011, http://www.brill.com/un-guiding-principles-business-and-human-rights).
However, under the UDHR (Article 29(1) all have duties to the community i.e. not just the Corporations. But the domestic and global bureaucratic elites are not also required to be social responsible i.e. ensure the UDHR is not made compatible with IMF policies which enables their ‘near absolute’ ‘top-down’ control.
Consequently greater social responsibility on the part of business must, in my view, be simply regarded as a way of gaining far greater bureaucratic control over the independent sector.
And this, in my view, achieves the real objective – to undermine right-wing politics, who could well prefer profit over power, to enable the greater political unity required to execute ‘near absolute’ control over society i.e. there will likely be far less political dissent.
I consider economic, social and cultural rights will be focused on those higher on the social scale rather than at the bottom who suffer the worst violations.
Consequently there will very likely be greater job security for those in the establishment in return for their ‘silence’ while the great bulk of the population will be exploited, part of which will be redistributed to address extreme poverty – although, in my view, the crushing of potential of the latter will be ensured as it will be for the rest in society to ensure no threat to the status quo i.e. ‘national unity’ will also be required.
The following is a brave intellectual prepared to comment on my recent article: ‘What people have not been told about GFC 2009 – West’s ‘permanent’ decline. Dickson Ntwiga, Director of Public Relations at Rotary Club of Meru states:
"Very informative piece! While these OPs tend to grease some of the shortcomings of the various treaties, the continued failure of states to put the rights of the individual first in the course of drafting most of the treaties, means that we will not be able to fully enjoy especially the freedom from fear and want in our lifetime. Meanwhile, the very considerations associated with this failure continue to haunt the same states that drafted them. It's high time states changed their perception about the place of an individual in the context of human rights. The moment they[states] begin to perceive an individual as the principal focus of human rights, social justice will, without limitation, begin to flow to all nations regardless of their geographical locations. It's my believe that justice denied elsewhere can be realized everywhere if we all allowed our eyes to see human rights as they are--through the individual lens, which, anyway, we all have".
By way of contrast to what I see as the almost completely ideological captured intellectuals of today readers may be interested in the ‘independent thinkers’ that existed in the 1940’s.
‘Human Rights’ - A Symposium edited by UNESCO, publisher Allan Wingate. UNESCO sent a questionnaire in 1947, ‘an enquiry into the theoretical problems raised..(by)..the Universal Declaration’ to ‘various thinkers and writers’ of member States. The book includes the views of such intellectuals as Aldous Huxley, Harold J. Laski, Jacques Maritain and also includes a letter from Mahatma Gandhi.
Given the direction the UN is now taking I do not consider silence an option.
More on the major global rebalancing of power can be found in my article, ‘West rebellion justified: a global ethical HR ‘bottom-line’’, (Scoop NZ, 1 January 2013, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1301/S00002/west-rebellion-justified-a-... ).
An article which gives a brief description of the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization can be found in my article, ‘Comments on Helen Clark’s refusal to discuss global ethical human rights’, (San Francisco Indybay, 1 September 2013, http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/09/01/18742456.php )