Ideological (Mis)Use of Human Rights - David Chandler
Ideological (Mis)Use of Human Rights - David Chandler
Ideological (Mis)Use of Human Rights - David Chandler
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
120 D. CHANDLER<br />
intervention, became a major factor in international<br />
relations. Th e introduction <strong>of</strong> the human rights-based<br />
approach into traditional humanitarian practices<br />
refl ected two trends: fi rstly, the increased penetration<br />
<strong>of</strong> external actors and agencies into post-colonial states<br />
and societies; and secondly, the transformation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
content <strong>of</strong> traditional humanitarian principles.<br />
As Western humanitarian non-governmental organizations<br />
(NGOs) acquired greater powers and authority<br />
within post-colonial states, they redefi ned the central<br />
concepts guiding their work. Universality and neutrality<br />
came to be redefi ned, not on the basis <strong>of</strong> a universal<br />
view <strong>of</strong> humanity as being equally moral and autonomous,<br />
but on the basis <strong>of</strong> end goals or aspirations. Th is expansion<br />
<strong>of</strong> external power, through redefi ning the ‘human’<br />
as lacking autonomy, eff ectively set up a hierarchy <strong>of</strong><br />
the ‘helper’ and the ‘helpless’. Th rough the ethic <strong>of</strong><br />
responsibility to assist the ‘helpless’—those without<br />
autonomy—this discourse reframed political choices<br />
as ethical questions. In this way, external NGO actors<br />
maintained a ‘non-political’ stance <strong>of</strong> neutrality at the<br />
same time as claiming extended rights to intervene<br />
in domestic political processes. From the late 1960s<br />
onwards, international humanitarian NGOs used the<br />
discourse <strong>of</strong> human rights to rewrite the boundaries <strong>of</strong><br />
their authority through expanding the sphere <strong>of</strong> ethics<br />
into the sphere <strong>of</strong> political decision making.<br />
Th e debate within the NGO community, from the late<br />
1960s, over diff ering approaches to universal humanitarian<br />
ethics, counter-posed two views <strong>of</strong> universality.<br />
Th e former, ‘rights equality’, view espoused by the ICRC<br />
was based on the Enlightenment understanding that<br />
the recipients <strong>of</strong> aid were autonomous capable moral<br />
beings and therefore made no judgement regarding the<br />
actions or political choices <strong>of</strong> recipients (see Ignatieff ,<br />
1998, pp. 109–163). Th e human rights-based approach<br />
saw the recipients <strong>of</strong> aid in more judgemental terms:<br />
this universality was based on ends-based outcomes <strong>of</strong><br />
peace, development, justice, etc. Th e importance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
shift from a universal ‘rights equality’ approach to that<br />
<strong>of</strong> a ‘human rights-based’ approach is rarely clarifi ed;<br />
one exception is Michael Ignatieff ’s discussion <strong>of</strong> ICRC<br />
‘impartiality’ in his book Warrior’s Honor (Ignatieff ,<br />
1998) (see Box 7.3).<br />
Th e human rights-based discourse <strong>of</strong> humanitarianism<br />
enabled NGOs to blur the distinction between<br />
politics and ethics. Central to this confl ation <strong>of</strong> politics<br />
and ethics was the development <strong>of</strong> new codes <strong>of</strong><br />
Box 7.3 The Distinction Between the ICRC<br />
and MSF (Médecins Sans Frontières/<br />
Doctors Without Borders)<br />
Michael Ignatieff on <strong>Human</strong>itarianism<br />
[The ICRC’s] doctrine <strong>of</strong> neutrality is called into question<br />
by organizations like Médecines sans Frontières [Doctors<br />
without Borders], which maintains that humanitarian<br />
intervention cannot be impartial between the Serb<br />
militiaman and the Muslim civilian, or the machetewielding<br />
Hutu and the Tutsi victim. . . . [T]his leaves the<br />
ICRC wondering whether [its] insistence that all victims are<br />
equal, whatever the justice <strong>of</strong> their cause, makes sense in<br />
the bitter confl icts where one ethnic group is now seeking<br />
to obliterate the other. (Ignatieff, 1998, p. 124.)<br />
James Orbinski (MSF) on <strong>Human</strong>itarianism<br />
The moral intention <strong>of</strong> the humanitarian act must be<br />
confronted with its actual result. And it is here where<br />
any form <strong>of</strong> moral neutrality about what is good must be<br />
rejected. The result can be the use <strong>of</strong> the humanitarian<br />
in 1985 to support forced migration in Ethiopia, or the<br />
use in 1996 <strong>of</strong> the humanitarian to support a genocidal<br />
regime in the refugee camps <strong>of</strong> Goma. Abstention is<br />
sometimes necessary so that the humanitarian is not<br />
used against a population in crisis. (Orbinski, 1999.)<br />
practice based around redefi ning neutrality. Neutrality<br />
no longer meant the equal respect for parties to<br />
confl ict or for locally-instituted authorities, but was<br />
redefi ned as neutrality with respect to human rights<br />
frameworks and outcomes. In this way, NGOs claimed<br />
decision-making powers over who deserved aid and<br />
which practices <strong>of</strong> development were more appropriate.<br />
NGOs accrued more authority through the human<br />
rights discourse because they were held to be acting on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> rights subjects unable or incapable <strong>of</strong> acting<br />
on their own behalf.<br />
Th e extension <strong>of</strong> the power and authority <strong>of</strong> humanitarian<br />
non-state actors took place in relation to changes<br />
in approaches to both confl ict and to development.<br />
First, through the extension <strong>of</strong> assistance to victims <strong>of</strong><br />
war, there was a shift from the ICRC approach <strong>of</strong> aid to<br />
casualties and assistance to prisoners regardless <strong>of</strong> political<br />
affi liation, to a more engaged, ‘solidarity’ approach,<br />
advocated by agencies such as Doctors without Borders<br />
who argued that there was a need to discriminate<br />
between abusers and victims and to intervene in confl<br />
ict with a view to rights-based outcomes (see Box<br />
7.3). Second, there was a shift in NGO approaches to<br />
emergency relief, and an increased understanding that<br />
08-goodhart-chap07.indd 120 12/9/08 3:05:58 PM