I share the longing of all who are committed to human rights and to climate justice together with Greenpeace, Fastenopfer, Bread for All, Climate Strikers and the Swiss Green Party, which has inscribed climate justice on its flag before last autumns election.
By demanding human rights and climate justice you confirm to yourself and others that you are a good person - perhaps sometimes this might be the only reason for these demands and this is acceptable. But if these demands were an unrealistic pious wish? Could it be possible that you are deceiving yourself? And if you put them before the electorate could you then perhaps be cheating on voters? (But then false promises have always been the core business of politicians).
Of
course, human rights are anyway demanded from various sides: Politicians traveling to China, who want to assure their clientele how everything is so
human at home (This is not talked about on trips to the USA).
Major
powers like to talk about democracy and human rights in order to justify resource
wars and attempts at regime-overthrow which regularly leave the attacked
countries ruined. It is doubtful for example that the violent elimination of
Gadaffi in Libya has had any positive effect.
Last
but not least, human rights for the Left and Greens serve as a justification
for asylum and climate justice, even if the sneakers they wear were
produced under inhumane conditions (I also wear sneakers).
It
would undoubtedly be wonderful if human rights were attached to every human
being, in a way nose and ears are attached to them. But they are not. Human
rights are a construct of modern times and enlightenment - possibly inspired by contact with so called "primitive" societies - and their first
proclamation in the 1776 American Declaration of Independence begins:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." clearly shows that this is an opinion or a belief, rather than an objectively verifiable fact, such as the fact that the human being has nose and ears. A more modern formulation was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. In 1966, the so-called civil pact on civil and political rights was added, as well as the social pact on economic and sociocultural rights. All together form the international charter of human rights.
The phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." clearly shows that this is an opinion or a belief, rather than an objectively verifiable fact, such as the fact that the human being has nose and ears. A more modern formulation was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. In 1966, the so-called civil pact on civil and political rights was added, as well as the social pact on economic and sociocultural rights. All together form the international charter of human rights.
These ideas did not become widely accepted until the 19th and 20th
centuries, especially in Europe and North America, where the affluence created
by colonial exploitation, use of fossil fuels, and industrialization became so
great that it became more convenient for the ruling elite to grant modest
prosperity and the appearance of rights to the lower classes in order to avoid
tiresome conflicts.
The Islamic version of human rights from 1990 is intended to be introduced globally according to its preamble: It gives precedence to the Sharia, women have no equal rights, and nonmuslims are discriminated against. Among 1,8 billion Muslims almost no voices were heard against these postulates.
Outside Europe and North America, there is usually no
affluence, but scarcity; and then almost inevitably power is seized by a
clique, which looks after its own interests, often takes on the role of the former
colonial powers, and suppresses the rest of the population. Therefore, for more
than 80 per cent of the world's population, human rights are just a wishful
dream or a lie. Even in the US they are only partially respected (Guantanamo,
killings by drones without trial, discrimination against the black population
by the police and judicial system).
In tyrannies the suppression mechanisms are always the same: the inner
circle of power bases itself on profiteers and together they control state power, e.g. police and army, which are also awarded privileges. Democracy,
opposition and independent judiciaries are undermined, and thinking people are
silenced. The necessary brutality and terror is often performed by a
specialised repressive apparatus (Gestapo, KGB, SAVAK). Even science is not secure
if it gets in the way of the power monopoly: the Pope against Galileo, Hitler
against Einstein, Stalin with Lysenko against genetics.
This suppression takes place behind a user interface, which may look
different in each case, but cannot hide the fact that the underlying mechanism
is always the same. The costume may be religious (Iran, Saudi Arabia,
pseudo-religious Marxism), or nationalist-military (China, Egypt), or both
(Russia). The detailed description and classification of these facades does not
seem very relevant, since they are only rationalizations and confabulations.
In case of shortage even progressive states are threatened by relapses
into the rule of cliques, such as was the case in Germany during the
economic crisis after the crash of 1929. Also the United States since Trump show initial symptoms: impoverishment of the middle class, distortion of democracy
by gerrymandering and obstruction of suffrage, closeness to generals, pressurizing or gagging
of secret services, the judiciary and climate sciences, flirtations with a
temporally unlimited time in office, so that even Republicans recently expressed concern about a totalitarian development. The facade in the USA is
nationalist-religious as in Russia, which probably explains some mutual
sympathies.
In the context of the climate catastrophe, there is much talk about
human rights and climate justice. But with further warming drought, scarcity
and famine will spread throughout the world. Johan Rockström, Director at the
Potsdam Climate Research Institute, says that with four degrees of global warming, earth may not be able to feed eight billion people, maybe not even half of that.
The inevitable consequence will be distribution battles and massacres
even in so-called developed countries. That’s us.
Then only the law of the jungle remains, and if nothing is left, also
the emperor has lost his rights. A survivor of the Warsaw ghetto told me that,
of course, one kills fellow inmates for the last piece of bread. At the same time, the climate
catastrophe will also slowly burn plant and animal life, so claiming higher
rights for the human race will become illusory anyway.
Whoever seriously thinks that the 1.5 degree goal, human rights and
climate justice are more than wishful thinking is deceiving himself and perhaps
others. Above all, he proves that he has not understood anything of the
seriousness of our predicament.
Some other posts in English:
