In focus: Transferred rights Pragmatism ill suits the implementation of principle, writes Galal Nassar Two of the most significant documents of the past century speak of human dignity and freedom. The first of these is Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, submitted to the US congress on 8 January 1918. The second is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The Points laid down several rules for international relations including freedom of navigation, the removal of economic barriers, basic equality among nations and the need for disarmament. For Arabs the most important was point twelve, which urged self- determination for nations formerly ruled by the Ottomans. Wilson also called for the formation of the League of Nations, a laudable step towards promoting peace and security around the world. The UN urged member states to have the Universal Declaration "disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." Human rights, the Universal Declaration continues, must be applied "without distinction based on the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty". In particular, the Declaration asserts the right of every individual to life, freedom, safety and legal recognition and maintains that no human being should be exposed to torture or cruel and degrading punishment. Wilson's Points denoted the rise of the US and its desire to exercise a leading international role. The Points put in motion several post-war arrangements, especially those concerning the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. One may therefore discern that the right of self-determination was an attempt by the US to keep conventional colonialism from impinging on its national interests. Events in the 1920s suggest that the Points were an attempt by the US to roll back French and UK influence in the Gulf and Mediterranean. The Points abrogated the right of conquest and led to the replacement of the term "colonialism" by the word "mandate". This set the scene for the US to consolidate its overseas presence, mostly through the building of military bases and the signing of oil agreements with various countries in the region. The Points were a landmark of the post-World War I era, just as the Universal Declaration was a landmark of the post-World War II era. It is to be noted that the Socialist Bloc, led by the Soviet Union, had many reservations about the Declaration and delayed its approval by the UN General Assembly for some time. The two documents came as a response to specific historical circumstances. It is as important to understand these circumstances as it is to be aware of the significance of their provisions. The Points came only two months after the release of the Balfour Declaration which promised Jews a national homeland in Palestine. You may argue, therefore, that the Points contrasted with Wilson's strong endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, which undermined the Palestinians' right of self-determination. Indeed, the British mandate in Palestine was but a prelude for implementing the Zionist project by intensifying Jewish immigration to the Holy Land. The Universal Declaration appeared less than a year after Resolution 181, issued on 29 November 1948, conceived the partitioning of Palestine. On 14 May 1948 the Zionists unilaterally declared the creation of Israel. World powers recognised Israel without delay despite signing the Universal Declaration seven months earlier. In light of the above one should not be surprised to hear Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking a day after the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drop any pretence to upholding international law and the UN charter. If anything, Israel -- allegedly the only "democratic" country in the Middle East -- is acting in the same tradition of history exemplified by the sponsors of the Points and the Declaration. Livni was born in Tel Aviv to parents who were members of the terrorist Irgun organisation, the gang once led by Menachem Begin and blamed for the Deir Yassin massacre. In recent statements she has called for the expulsion of Palestinians who continued to live in the occupied territories after 1948. She even suggested sending them to an alternative homeland outside Palestine. At 15 Livni joined an extreme right-wing movement and marched in demonstrations protesting against the Kissinger-mediated disengagement following the 1973 war. Livni wants a "transfer", a term used in Israel to denote the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. She told Zionist students that to keep Israel a democratic state two nations must be built, with some concessions and clear boundaries. "When we achieve that, I can go to the Palestinians, who are citizens of Israel, those who we now call Israeli Arabs, and tell them that the national solution of their problem exists elsewhere." Although Livni later on tried to play down her statement, claiming that she didn't mean to deport the 1948 Arabs, she maintains that "the national aspirations of the Arabs must be realised elsewhere". This is quite a statement, one that concerns the future of 1.5 million Palestinians. Livni's assertion, which came on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, may be bizarre. But it is less bizarre than the fact that the Arabs failed to react with commensurate outrage. The best homage to the Universal Declaration is to uphold its intrinsic meaning, and rid it of the hypocrisy and duplicity that have marred its history. The Points and the Universal Declaration are still valid, needed by everyone, regardless of language, colour or creed.
