Are serious flaws within the UN fatal? The global ethical human rights vision for World Peace.
Anthony Ravlich
Chairperson
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.
Auckland City.
Ph: (0064) (09) 940 9658
The following is my response on Facebook to Jennifer Chim, President and Founder of the World Peace Elite Association, http://www.worldpeaceelite.org/index.php/component/content/article/76-fo... . Her post to me is at the end.
Dear Jennifer Chim,
Yes, I think the UN is a very flawed institution which seems to have lost the capacity to allow for human rights development outside the neoliberal interpretation of human rights.
Its ability to adapt to such major global issues such as increasing civil unrest in not only authoritarian countries but also western countries is likely to determine whether it is fatally flawed.
As I have said before I consider the failure of the UN to make public the global ethical human rights vision I consider to be a ‘crime against humanity’ especially considering the precarious state of the world today.
I am also very concerned about the very slow rebuilding post disasters e.g. Christchurch, Japan, Haiti with concerning implications for the rebuilding following super storm Sandy in the US.
The UN did recommend my book on their website for about two years and even embedded a tweet on twitter supporting the above ethical vision stating: “ethical human rights, development and globalization to replace neoliberalism”. Interestingly the US State Department and the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House embedded the same tweet.
But really this is far from good enough - the internet only reaches an exceedingly small section of the population – there really must be a space in the mainstream not only in the media but also the human rights/political/academic establishment for such human rights development which transcends human rights as defined by neoliberalism.
In the mainstream the global ethical human rights vision has been met by a ‘deafening silence’.
When the mainstream is taken over by ‘collectivist minds’, overwhelmingly so in my experience, with independent minds contained and relegated to the margins you must really question the validity of a democracy in such circumstances because the only choices people have are within the ‘neoliberal square’ because its all they are informed about.
As you are aware I recently laid a complaint with Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur (SR) on human rights defenders because of the failure of the mainstream media in the Christchurch earthquake zone of failing to inform the residents of the ethical human rights approach which emphasizes a bottom-up development whereas neoliberalism is bureaucratic/ Corporate top-down control.
My complaint was under the ‘right to develop and discuss new human rights ideas’ (Report of the SR to the 66th Session of General Assembly) but it is very likely that this right only exists within the limitations permitted by neoliberalism. It has been about ten days since I laid the complaint and it has not yet been acknowledged that it has been received.
For about four years I have routinely sent my articles regarding the ethical approach to human rights, development and globalization for World Peace (to replace neoliberalism) to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, but have never had a reply even now when the thical human rights approach is beginning to get some high profile support on the social networking sites.
Also my article, ‘NZers must speak out about omitted rights or be reduced to mere numbers’ (see website, www.hrc2001.org.nz) which describe some serious concerns I have regarding the UN.
So I agree with you when you state: “The facts make me believe that the United Nations has not regulated its member states enough 'top-down' by the Charter and ignored their human rights violation or 'crimes against humanity'”.
But I will need more time to consider the recommendations you make to improve the UN from within.
But I think the best ideas come from outside the system so your organization, World Peace Elite’, and PDHRE might like to consider the idea of cooperating with our council in televised human rights debates.
A number of years ago I had the idea of having a global televised human rights debate and contacted a number of top human rights academics, including Noam Chomsky, and was surprised to find some real interest (the topic was human rights in relation to poverty) but my attempts to get funding failed.
However, in Auckland, New Zealand, there is Triangle TV, which could now be described as mainstream, where you can produce and televise your own show although at a cost (approximately $1000 per half-hour) so the idea is not implausible given that virtually all the mainstream media such as the BBC and Al Jazeera I have contacted are, in my view, obviously captured by the neoliberal ideology.
With televised human rights debates the possibilities seem endless. For instance, the global ethical human rights vision could be debated, as could ‘human rights as a way of life’ as promoted by PDHRE, the neoliberal interpretation of human rights, human rights ‘in reality’ in communist countries, Islamic countries i.e. they might not be defined as such, etc.
World leaders, academics, students, NGOs, laypeople e.g. from Islamic/communist/Bolivarian socialist/ monarchies/ tribal cultures/neoliberal States could debate relevant human rights issues e.g. increasing civil unrest, how successful will the presently buoyant Asia economies be under neoliberalism, top-down versus bottom-up control of democracy and development, also is regionalization e.g. EU, East Asia Regional bloc necessary or unrealistic dreams etc. as well as looking at possible solutions to world problems.
For example, would the recent idea from Australia help solve lack of progress and high unemployment in the European Union or will it have to wait for massive earthquakes to occur. Tony Abbott the Opposition Leader in Australia a few days ago announced plans to double the rate of small business growth in Australia (‘Small business could double: Abbott’, Sydney Morning Herald, Nov 15, 2012).
Now the world appears to me to be essentially leaderless, run by collectivist minds captured by neoliberalism and people no longer seem to want the US taking a leadership role so neoliberalism is heading toward its logical conclusion which in my very strong view is a world in darkness (which I hope to prove conclusively in my next book).
I consider truth is so utterly hated because freedom is feared as evidenced by the fanatical top-down control of neoliberalism for which the ends justifies the means – no matter how much needless human suffering is involved (see anthony ravlich’s blog, guerilla media which gives much evidence of this neoliberal fanaticism).
In my view, the ethical human rights approach for World Peace will not only avert much needless suffering but promises to ensure the existence of a light in the darkness because, in my view, it is the proper, non-political, interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The people and the children of the world deserve much better than neoliberalism – our destiny is the stars not slavery on planet Earth.
Jennifer Chim Dear Madam Anthony Ravlich,
I agree with your view about the ethical approach to human rights and global establishments for public acknowledgement.
A few days ago, I met Ms. Shulamith Koenig, the recipient of the 2003 UN Award for outstanding achievement in the field of Human Rights. She shared with me her view: Learning Human Rights as a way of life.
The great philosopher Confucius ever said, “Without an acquaintance with the rules of propriety, it is impossible for the character to be established.”
Therefore, I think that both the governments (their obligations to the Charter and the UDHR) and Human Rights Defenders should promote human rights and development on a 'bottom-up' approach, whether as a way of life or as an ethical approach.
However, it’s a great pity that our world presents in such extremely exasperating situation, especially after more than 60 years of the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The facts make me believe that the United Nations has not regulated its member states enough 'top-down' by the Charter and ignored their human rights violation or 'crimes against humanity'.
Being a victim for 8 years, I’ve fought for justice from a Pakistani dirty prison to the United Nations.
However, law has not redressed my human rights and now I’m still on bail by a falsified criminal charge against me. It’s confirmed by the report of National Police Bureau of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
All the facts make me realize that for social justice and world peace, human rights should be respected and protected by the government utmost and every individual should be aware of his human rights.
Therefore, I strongly appeal to the United Nations, which was handed over to Ms. Navanethem Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights in New York on 24th Oct. 2012.
1. To set up a mechanism for the state leaders of member countries to respect the Charter and to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2. To terminate the Optional Protocol which has acted as an umbrella for the government without any punishment after violating human rights;
3. To have the International Court of Justice care of the complaints of human rights violations by individuals without any distinction of their nationality
Sincerely hope we could cooperate to promote human rights globally.
November 14