U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights

U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights - washingtonpost.com

According to Column Lynch at the Washington post.com:

"But, as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this week, human rights activists and political analysts say the new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights issues."


Column Lynch of course is a highly regarded writer at the post so we will not question his analysis, but I am curious why the US is always considered to be the Lone Ranger on Human Rights issues? The examples listed in the article are related to the way in which the US government wishes to handle Darfur, (an on-going human rights nightmare), criticism of the new membership within the Human Rights Council , and last but not least, Sri Lanka. Column has some great points, don't get me wrong, but is it so bad that the US wishes to express an agenda that they deem to be appropriate not only for "international" relations, but also for "US" interests as well? This is the balancing act that every country must consider when they elect to become members of a supranational organizations which are far beyond the scope of nation-state interests alone. There is a certain sacrifice of your "own" state sovereignty that you must make and the United States is the most powerful nation in the world; and having recognized that, our decisions must not be made "lightly."

This is where I think the media sometimes misunderstands the intentions of the United States and questions the Uni-Power status we now hold since the end of the cold-war in 1989. Of course new challenges have arisen since the fall of the great Soviet Empire. Nevertheless, the realm of human rights is undoubtedly still paramount to the US, as evidenced by our recent renewed commitment to the Human Rights Council, and our cooperation with the United Nations overall.

William

Science and human rights

"Science and human rights are inextricably linked in many ways. In 1913 former academy member Albert Einstein said in an address to the California Institute of Technology:

"It is not enough that you should understand about applied science
in order that your work may increase man's blessings. Concern
for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest
of all technical endeavors."



By Eliot Stellar, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.). Committee on Human Rights

This post is about a scientific journal published in 1988 to specifically address the nexus between science and human rights. This is uncharted waters for many "political scientists" approach to human rights, so I thought it to be "nice" when I discovered this journal. Therefore I posted the forward and will briefly discuss where this scholarly journal's analysis looks to be heading. Much to my surprise a very prominent man is mentioned right from the get go!

"The creation of a Committee on Human Rights by the National Academy of Sciences in 1976 was but the formalization of a longstanding concern of the academy about humanitarian issues.

For many years, academy officers have taken private action through fellow scientists, sister academies, and research councils throughout the world in behalf of threatened colleagues. In the 1950s, the academy helped find positions in the United States for Hungarian scientists who had fled their country. In 1966, it provided assistance to Argentine students whose education was interrupted by the closing of the University of Buenos Aires by finding institutions in the United States where they could study.

It is noteworthy that a large number of the academy's roughly 1,500 members are foreign born; many fled their countries of birth because of abuses inflicted upon them and their families by repressive governments. Many of those scientists have gone on to make outstanding contributions to the science and welfare of their nation of adoption, the United States of America."

The authors begin by quoting Albert Einstein which I think is great. But even better is the fact that they acknowledge the human rights assistance they had lent to there scientific colleagues in contribution to there work in science in the name of human rights in my opinion is quite remarkable. Furthermore, "the creation of a Committee on Human Rights by the National Academy of Sciences in 1976, was but the formalization of a longstanding concern of the academy about humanitarian issues." This is even more remarkable evidence of a direct link or nexus between science and the humanities. It is good to see scientists with all there wonderful theories and such, reach across disciplinary studies into the arts and humanities, and into the files of social sciences, in the name of human rights and, to dedicate an entire scholarly journal to science and human rights. The link provided will take you to this journal which provides open access online via Google books. I hope you enjoy.

William

Global Human Rights! Not New News!

This post is taken from a book entitled:

Worldwide education statistics: Enhancing Unesco's Role

By James W. Guthrie, Janet S. Hansen, Michael W. Kirst,National Res

I am particularly interested in the "global" aspects of this books inherent approach to the notion of human rights. The book was published in 1995. This is the quote I would like to review:

"Fifty years ago, international relations were dominated by a legacy of fear and distrust between many nations and groups of nations. Today there is a global investment and trade economy, an understanding (at least intellectually) of worldwide ecological interdependence, an emerging international consciousness about human rights and humanitarian issues, and an intense reliance on human capital formation to sustain a nation's global competitive status and internal civic structure.

Research in macroeconomics, international relations, and comparative sociology document these developments and inform our understanding of them. They are highlighted in studies of the global economy and the role of highly skilled personnel in fostering national competitiveness (Reich, 1991), in research on the global expansion and legitimation of education and its transnational influences (Schriever, forthcoming; Ramirez, 1993), and in the literature on the rise of human rights as a global standard (Forsythe, 1991) and its implications for the comparative study of efforts to upgrade the status of women (Stromquist, 1995). The new globalism has gone hand in hand with studies that direct attention to worldwide economic trends and cycles, to international emphasis on education and science for sustainable development, and to human rights issues, especially as they affect women, children, and minorities."

This is of course a 14 year old analysis of a very modern problem that has not gone away. Perhaps it has even worsened in many respects in some regions of the world.Yet it had been very much recognized by scholars as a global problem in 1995 and I am sure as I continue with the research for this blog, I will go back into book and scholarly archives and discover even more literature that demonstrates that there had been globally significant issues which definitely implicated women children and of course minorities even way earlier than 1995. My point is that global human rights are not a new notion. They have been "around" for a very very long time!

William