On the fall of the “beacon of human rights”

2021-July-23 09:33 By: GMW.cn

The UN Human Rights Council as an important multilateral human rights institution is the major battlefield of interference and anti-interference in the international human rights field. In recent years, as China's international status improves, the voice against human rights bullying is getting louder in the UN Human Rights Council. The 47th UN Human Rights Council closed recently. During the meeting, China held several important activities to expose the disgraceful behaviors of the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia, including extreme violation of human rights, manipulation of the double standard, sabotage of multilateral cooperation and contempt of international justice, and resolutely preserved international justice. The US was supposed to create difficulties for China by human rights issues through inciting Canada to represent the Western allies and to peddle "American human rights", but was opposed by more than 90 countries standing with justice. Ukraine and Bosnia-Herzegovina quitted their anti-China activities, which has left the US standing against global justice.

The global landscape is changing, the public has already known the tricks of "human rights diplomacy" of the US and been tired of its behavior of naming itself "human rights judge" and "human rights lecturer". The US, a country self-claimed as the "beacon of human rights", is not as good as it is supposed to be: the "beacon" it worked hard to make is fragile in both its foundation and tower body.

The arrogance and exclusiveness of "American human rights" decided the unstable foundation of the "beacon of human rights". The disadvantage comes from the special historical origin and development trajectory of the US. The extreme religious fever, pressing aspirations to escape their native places, and earnest expectation to build a new home of the early American immigrants combined with the relatively closed natural geographical landscape of the American continent gave the "American spirit" the sense of superiority as a "chosen one" and the sense of mission to build a "city upon the hill", and the values it identified with were considered as unique and unbridgeable "ultimate truth". The US has had trouble restricting its extreme arrogance and stubbornness facing others, and always displayed obvious instrumentalism and absolute exclusiveness. In the field of human rights, it is reflected in the egoism and intolerance of the "American human rights" under the mask of "universal values".

After independence, driven by Puritanism and the pursuit of capital profit, the US soon embarked on an expansionist path of expelling aborigines, seizing colonies, and launching overseas invasions. On the one hand, the ruling elites launch wars, on the other hand, they make up excuses for their violence against small and weak nations and advocate fallacies such as "American exceptionalism", "communicating the Western culture" and "protecting a freed world" to confuse the public and shirk responsibilities. In the face of irrefutable evidence, the US tactics are to make a pitiful face but never admit its mistakes and apologize, instead, it even prepares to fight back. US behaviors are always "justifiable" no matter what it did. Facts illustrate that the logic of "American human rights" is "what the US wants is what the world wants" and the US values are "universal values". If values are the foundation of the "beacon of human rights", such a arrogant foundation is never solid or universal.

Hollow and unjust "American human rights" have determined the askew tower body of the "beacon". Superficially, American human rights issues are related to various social phenomena, such as racism, gun crime, drug abuse, and police violence, but the essence is the external embodiment of the deep "inborn and insurmountable" systematic human rights paradox in the US society. "American human rights" are detached from reality and closely related to identity.

In theory, "American human rights" are weak in connotations and disjointed from reality. Although the system of US human rights theories is enormous, it always swirls around seemingly complicated principled words, and lacks uniform and scientific theoretical elaboration and explanation of concepts for human rights, which result in the connotation of human rights being hollowed and becoming legal rhetoric. Due to the lack of support and care in terms of the common development of people as a member of the community, the term "human rights" has become a simple but imperious political tool instead of a vision or goal that can be realized through concrete effort.

In practice, "American human rights" that enshrine "universal values" as a norm divide people into classes. The human rights issue has been reduced to an excuse for the US ruling elites to dodge problems, the value orientation of "born equal" has been reduced to mental opium for politicians to deceive the public, and the reality of "born unequal" has become a mobilizing tool for careerists to advocate identity politics and reap votes. The systematic injustice which is supposed to be addressed on the basis of meticulous planning with an eye on society's overall picture, has become an effective means of infighting and mutual exploitation among different identity groups with a high degree of "innocent" interior and highly restricted exterior, rather than being improved, and resulted in the serious aggravation in political polarization and social tribalization. The deep roots of a series of problems, such as government failure, class imbalance, racial disharmony, and social disorder, are the foundation of the outbreak of various anti-human rights phenomena in the US during the COVID pandemic. The problems of "American human rights" are comprehensive, systematic, and long-term. If theory and practice constitute the tower body of the "beacon", once a structural problem occurs, painting and patching will be a self-deceiving trick.

Although there are a lot of unsolved domestic human rights issues, the US is still keen on playing the "human rights lecturer". However, the proud "human rights diplomacy" of the US not only has become unpopular, but also the consumption and overdraft of "American human rights" has made the country too narrow-minded to follow the trend of the world, hence becoming a ridiculous laughing stock when it comes to human rights.

Human rights in the US have already been with ideological stigma and become a principle and tool for the US to maintain its international hegemony and interests. On the one hand, the US tries its best to frame itself as a moral embodiment of a "free world", seeks and drags allies like "boss protects employees" to maintain the hegemonic order for its interests. On the other hand, the US frequently wields the "stick of human rights" to blame other countries, even fight against countries that are not obedient, and has created numerous human rights disasters under the flag of human rights.

In recent years, in particular, as domestic problems are frequently happening in the US, it has never forgotten to use tricks to economically and scientifically restrict China in Xinjiang-related, Tibet-related, and Hongkong-related fields with the excuses of "protecting human rights" and "safeguarding international rules". However, such US moves to suppress China through cliques are swashbuckling, very few countries responded. Not only because the US has behaved disappointingly in recent years, which has offended many developing countries and hurt allies' pride, but also because long-term misconceptions have made the US incapable of accepting other countries' progress, and remains obsessed with the Cold War. The fall of the "beacon of human rights" is a matter of course with the US refusing to be sensible.

Different national conditions decide the diverse paths of modernization, which means there is more than one way to protect and develop human rights. Human rights should be inclusive rather than exclusive, beneficial for all rather than for oneself, serve the people rather than as a tool, and should be communicative rather than coercive. At the moment when the world is experiencing unprecedented changes, in which people's destinies are getting closer, countries should serve both themselves and others. Major countries are supposed to start collaboration to lighten the torches forward instead of developing alone and wielding the "stick" to condemn others.

Translated by Fei Jinglun

Editor: Zhang Zhou
More from Guangming Online

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's, GMW.cn makes no representations as to accuracy, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information.

点击右上角微信好友

朋友圈

请使用浏览器分享功能进行分享