By Firmus
The compass of the mind of a western man, and also that of more and more people living in other geographical areas, is tuned to humanistic principles, egalitarian concepts and philosophical notions, as generous as each other, whose main functions are to illuminate the spirit of humanity to free it from its old demons and build a world of peace. At the head of these principles are the Rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed in 1948: the right of peoples to self-determination and the fundamental rights of humans, which are in all circumstances subject to power.
By definition, these rights are universal, inalienable and incompatible with political systems founded, for example, on the superiority of one people over another, all of which have the same execrable tendency to propagate the persecuted people as scapegoats. Responses to the so-called “internal enemies” fall systematically on the scapegoat to direct the anger and frustration of the citizens on the said people in order to make them forget the causes of the evil that arranges their existence. Indeed, a dictator knows all too well that in a society sclerotic by the single thought, the fear of the “external enemy” has an inimitable capacity to weld his people around him.
We have just sketched the portrait of the Universal Human Rights Ideal with a little detour concerning the methods of a dictatorship. Continuing, we will expand upon the inconsistencies, not of the portrait itself, but of those who present themselves as its principal designers. Current events reflect our point. In this case, the positions taken by the democratic states today, against the organization of referendums of self-determination in Kurdistan and Catalonia. They characterize in an edifying way their flagrant contradictions between the principles which they apply internally, claimed as the most precious good of humanity and those which they deploy outwardly for purely economic interests.
In order to make the bitter pill pass from its true intentions, the antinomic position has embraced a motto of: “It is for the good of all”. That we can translate it in these terms: “in the name of maintaining our interests, we kindly ask you to ignore your rights”. Through “Good for all”, states appear as guardians of peace for all, while instability will be the result from the granting of the right to self-determination for all peoples. And the dangerousness of the world which makes them choose at all costs political stability on the whole globe, despite the severity of certain political systems used to uphold this. This is at least the official version. However, under the tip of the iceberg, colossal economic interests and political strategies lie at the mercy of the very essence of human rights embodied in the ideals mentioned in the introduction. They are not perturbed by the dissonance between solemn proclamations to uphold human rights everywhere and the position that contradicts the founding principles that structure their respective societies.
Their rigidness in their approach to the quashing of demands of independence on the world stage leads us to ask: Do they want a world of cultural exclusion? A world rid of peoples without states? It is a question inspired by the great western nations’ position and unwavering support for the regimes most retrograde and harmful to the cultures they dominate. Their support demonstrates that they do not cure the impoverishment of cultural diversity that the position provokes, and that they do not really want to see the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights triumph everywhere.
By imposing their vision of the world without considering the catastrophic consequences on many peoples, they provoke violent reactions, igniting torches of anger all over the earth. The Enlightenment is come and gone, but the values and ideas gained from it are all but ignored. Even if they do not behave exactly as in their colonial past, violently eradicating cultures conquered by the brutality of arms, it is no less true that the result of their position today has the same implications.
Their position is problematic in the long term and we can only reverse the trend through solidarity with peoples struggling for their human rights, and the commitment alongside them of all humanists and universalists attached to cultural plurality world. We have the means to force the powerful to adopt human ethics and the factual application of the foundations of the Declaration that to give priority to the economic interests that support the sacrosanct political stability that will lead us to a monocultural world.
We should not be overly disappointed, nor should we pretend that these powerful western states are alone in this, in the present global environment and in history. In order to analyze international relations impartially, it is of course essential to keep in mind that nations are at most allies, not friends. International relations are not built upon respect of mutual interest and reciprocity of favours, but on competition and the ambition, a desire for power with no spirit of equality. The competition between states is fierce. All are naturally condemned to ruthlessly defend their interestor to be eaten raw. Some can trust to the intelligence of their leaders. Others will find themselves in the grasp of corrupt, incompetent leaders, unable to change the political system.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that the world is the exact reflection of the women and men who populate it. We live not in a perfect world, where the exploitation of human beings is forbidden, but rather in a world where the perpetual conflicts between antagonistic interests, the intransigence of dictatorships, are the driving forces of conflicting relationships between humans. Since the birth of our race, we have greatly improved in this respect, but much remains to be done. The condition of humanity will not grow better by the will of the heavens, but in the hands of humanity, through our taking responsibility.
In a world where humanist principles take precedence over economic and particular interests, no culture would need to fight for its basic rights. In a world where the foundations of the Human Rights Declaration are taught in all schools from early childhood and applied to everyday life, no sane person would think of challenging human ethics. Unfortunately, in our world, human ethics has always been perceived by the ideologists of the single thought as a lethal danger to ward so that their dominant position is not jeopardized. On page after page of history books, this is proven.
Is the hope of a better world utopian? Never so. Those who voice the wish for a more equal world are louder and more numerous than ever. Human interconnection through modern technology has enabled cultures to enrich each other and inform each other. Before our very eyes, universalism is replacing the old ideological software of the world, and to this universalism adheres those citizens of the world responsible for the future of our planet. Under their pressure, the democratic powers have little choice but to change their approach and to align their foreign policy closer to that of the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The ways to reach the universal goal of peace on earth are as varied as the ideals that constitute it. One of the ways is to defend the rights of peoples without states, some of which are victims of massive discrimination. They stand before us, fighting for emancipation and to claim their human rights, facing vast injustices with peaceful combat. Their struggle, as long as it remains pacifistic, is our struggle also. It paves the way for generations to succeed in peaceful protest, and it is vital that they are not left unfulfilled.
The struggles for equal rights by peoples confronted with intolerant political conceptions are legitimate and noble causes – these peoples want to govern themselves, in accordance with the principles of universal rights. Many of them are fighting peacefully. They struggle, for the dignity of a people compels them to defend themselves against all imposition. They struggle, for there is no doubt that all the peoples of the world aspire to freedom and have a vocation to trace their way by themselves. The time has come to honour the rights inscribed in the marble of the International Institutions by extending them to all these peoples.
Respect for human rights must be enacted in practice, not only in the speeches made on the occasion of the anniversary of their proclamation, or the inauguration of a street, statue or monument to some illustrious personage. If humanity wants to honour the memory of one such man of our millennium, in this case, Sir, Nelson Mandela, so admired in Kabylia, then we must begin by applying his philosophy to the planetary scale.
“In wanting to stifle peaceful revolutions, violent revolutions are favored! J.F.Kennedy
The original article on the site the independant kabyle