While great traditions of struggle informed the founding doctrines of human rights, political considerations continue to trump all others, writes Hassan Nafaa* Fifty-seven years ago, on 10 December 1948 to be exact, the United Nations General Assembly issued an important document known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Due to a fierce resolve for the document to be issued unanimously, none of the UN member states at that time voted against it, although eight states abstained from voting for various reasons: six states of the Soviet bloc, South Africa and Saudi Arabia. This document reflected a philosophy current at that time that the despotic axis states were responsible for the outbreak of World War II and that democracy and human rights were the first line of defence and the cornerstone of all efforts to maintain international peace and security should the new world order desire to play an effective role in preventing the outbreak of a third world war. Yet this assessment, and the philosophy built upon it, was not exact. It was not necessarily the least democratic states that caused the outbreak of so many previous wars. And in fact, the dividing lines between WWII's alliances of states were not drawn in accordance with their position on democracy and human rights. The Soviet Union was in the same trench as the "Western democracies" in that war, despite its regime at that time being no less totalitarian or despotic than the regime the United States later described as the "evil empire". And the claim that victory in WWII was that of "Western" democratic values over totalitarian ones (also Western) is absolutely exaggerated. Victory would not have been secured in that war without the Soviet Union shouldering the heaviest price of blood. Soviet casualties nearly equalled the total of all other states combined. Whatever the case, it is clear that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has remained, from its issue and until today, the cornerstone and source of inspiration for all ideas and activities related to human rights all over the world. It has formed the backbone for what has become known as the "universal heritage of human rights", a heritage that has been fed by four sources. The first source was the liberal revolutions that broke out in various regions of the world, particularly in Britain, France and the United States. Their contribution has been decisive in the formulation of "political and civil rights." The second was the social revolutions that broke out in various regions of the globe, particularly the Bolshevik Revolution in the Soviet Union and subsequent revolutions that followed its approach or were inspired by its principles. The contribution of this type of revolution was decisive in the formulation of "economic and social rights". The third source was the national liberation revolutions that broke out in most regions of the Third World under Western colonial rule. This kind of revolution was decisive in the formulation of "people's rights", foremost the rights of peoples to self-determination, control of resources and choice of appropriate rules of governance. The final source was the well-being revolutions that confronted the negative effects of uncontrolled scientific and technological progress not directed towards the comprehensive service of human kind and their well being. These revolutions were led by the "green movements" that first appeared in advanced industrial states and then transferred to the rest of the world. The contribution of this kind of revolution and protest movement was decisive in the formulation of a fourth generation of collective rights for humanity, such as the "right to a clean environment", the "right to a safe environment", and so on. While the United Nations has been able to crystallise, in theory and thought, a heritage of human rights that truthfully reflects the contribution of various peoples and civilisations, in reality it has failed to polish effective tools for protecting all these rights and punishing those responsible for their violation. And thus "human rights" quickly transformed into a tool in intellectual and ideological struggles that broke out between three groupings of states. The capitalist camp claimed that "political and civil rights" were the origin and essence of rights without which humans were transformed into nothing more than a gear in a hellish mechanism that crushed and enslaved them. The socialist camp saw political and civil rights as mere form without meaning if they were not tied to satisfying humans' most basic needs first, particularly their economic, social and cultural rights. Then the Third World states came up with a new argument -- that it was difficult for the individual within a people under occupation to gain political, civil, economic or social rights unless the entire people gained self-determination and independence and secured its control over its natural wealth and freely chose the political system it desired. Yet in reality, this intellectual and ideological struggle was nothing more than a cover for a struggle of interests each camp tried to win with all the legitimate and other means available to it, including violating the very rights it claimed to defend. The regimes that reigned in socialist states hid under the mask of "economic and social rights" to justify the most heinous violations of other rights, particularly political and civil rights. The regimes that predominated in the Third World hid under the mask of "peoples' rights" to justify denying their citizens any honourable level of basic rights, whether civil, political, economic or social. While advanced capitalist states succeeded in guaranteeing a seemly level of all these rights for their citizens at home, their behaviour in the international arena has not reflected any commitment to respect for these same rights with regard to the citizens and peoples of other states. It is therefore neither strange nor surprising for the current international system to witness the most heinous violations of human rights being committed in the name of human rights. While domestic balances of power have compelled governments not to cross certain red lines when dealing with their citizens, the lack of such balances on the international level has assisted freeing their hands to defend their interest according to the logic of power alone, without any consideration given to laws. Before writing this article I was halted by three news items that occupied various places in the media, all connected by a single thread related to political assassinations, a crime forbade by all international laws and agreements concerning human rights. The first news item referred to relevant authorities in Morocco and France cooperating to uncover the truth surrounding the circumstances of the disappearance of the prominent Moroccan opposition figure Al-Mahdi Bin Baraka, who was abducted in Paris on 29 October 1965. After more than 40 years, no evidence of his corpse has yet been found. The second news item referred to increasing suspicions around the circumstances of the death of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the probability that he was intentionally murdered with an unknown poison. And the third news item, which occupied major headlines this week, was the determination of Detlev Mehlis, head of the international investigation on the death of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al-Hariri, to submit his final report to the Security Council before the deadline of 15 December. These three news items remind us of a reality as manifest as sunlight that confirms that political considerations, and not penal or human rights considerations, have always, and continue to, govern the aftermath of all cases of political assassination. Neither Bin Baraka nor Arafat was less important or weighty than Al-Hariri. All of them were prominent personalities whose Moroccan, Palestinian and Lebanese peoples, and Arab peoples more generally, valued greatly the national and pan-Arab roles they played in various stages and contexts. They were all purposely removed from the arena; either abducted, poisoned or assassinated. And despite this, for political and not penal or legal considerations, an international investigation committee was only formed for the case of Al-Hariri. Were international investigation committees formed for purely legal and penal considerations, Bin Baraka would have deserved for the Security Council to form a committee to unveil all the parties whose interests demanded that he be removed from the arena. This committee would guide his family and followers to the site of his corpse so as to give him the eulogy of glory and respect he deserves. Yet the formation of international investigation committees is not among the practices or customs of a bipolar international system. The Western camp is keen to protect its interests in Morocco and this is much more important that any resolve to protect human rights, even for someone of the standing of Bin Baraka. And if legal considerations were the basis, Yasser Arafat would have deserved an international investigation committee be formed to discern the reason for the disappearance of some of the papers related to his blood analysis from his medical file, as well as the sudden and rapid deterioration of his health that doctors say can only be explained by poisoning. Yet it was political and not legal considerations that stood before knowing the truth in this case. The Palestinian Authority did not have enough political gusto to demand the formation of an international investigation committee and it was not within the means of the Security Council, also for political rather than legal reasons, to take the decision to form such a committee. As for the assassination of Al-Hariri, it was natural for the situation to be different. Pointing blame at Syria provided the United States and Israel with a golden opportunity to blackmail it, forcing concessions unrelated to the original crime. At the time of writing, Mehlis had not yet submitted his final report to the Security Council. Yet all probabilities indicated that the report would be employed politically to generate increased pressures on Syria to make concessions related to Iraq and Palestine. Despite my full appreciation of the German magistrate Mehlis's professionalism, I am not certain of his ability to comprehend all the minute details of the political circumstances surrounding his mission, circumstances that make the possibility of conducting a 100 per cent professional and legal investigation into Al-Hariri's case practically nil. Merely being compelled to present the report to the Security Council before investigations are complete forms in itself a pressure point on Syria that is naturally in the interest of its adversaries. It would have been better, were he aware of the reality of political circumstances in the region, to frankly request from the Security Council that he delay the report until the investigation is fully complete. Perhaps Mehlis wanted to seek the aid of the Security Council to place pressure on Syria to cooperate more with the investigation committee, but he could have done that without being forced to direct blame whose veracity has not yet been proven. Mehlis has placed us in a difficult dilemma: either to line up with the Syrian regime to confront states we all know do not give any value to Al-Hariri's blood, or to progress forward with the investigation, which is political and injurious in nature, even if that results in Syria, the state and its people, becoming a tasty morsel for its foes. There is no choice other than lining up behind Syria, the state and its people. * The writer is a professor of political science at Cairo University.
