Argentina Case Study Number One

This week's readings, while all obviously shared themes of abuse and violations committed in or relating to Argentina in the 1970s-80s, were also similar in their tone and mood. Specifically, there were all written in an incredibly dark and somber manner, which is only fitting for the subject matter discussed. I don't mean to point out the obvious but I think it is terribly heart breaking for the Argentinian people that their history is one filled with such horrible images and accounts of mass murders, torture, exile, war, and countless other inhumane experiences. As a Canadian I suppose I take our (relatively) peaceful history for granted and therefore can't imagine how generation after generation of Argentinians (and many other nations with violent histories) have been affected by the horrific abuses of their pasts. I think it's remarkable that people who have suffered such extreme atrocities at the hands of their own unjust and oppressive governments, have been able to continue on and find strength to keep fighting against what is wrong, after virtually everything has been taken away from them. While reading this week's collections therefore, I was shocked to learn about the inhumanities committed in Argentina, by one human being to another, but even more amazed by the courage and perseverance exemplified by those who suffered the most, to keep on living, thriving, and fighting to end abuse.

The Madres of the the Plaza de Mayo, perhaps a Latin American rights group most of us are familiar with, is a prime example of this remarkable Argentinian courage. These mothers, who refused to accept that their loved ones, unlawfully captured by the government and police, were gone forever and so they quite literally took matters into their own hands, marching to court and judges, pleading habeus corpus for those disappeared. When the police started the rumour that they were crazed, pathetic women, the Madres continued on and pulled more women into their demonstration. They even went to far as to capture international media coverage during the world cup, despite the presence of the dictatorial government and police force watching their every move. These women demanded answers and demanded the return of those taken from them. They stood up to the government even after members were detained and held in prison. In short, these remarkable women said a big eff you to the government, and demonstrated that they would not be intimidated into silence and would keep causing trouble until their loved ones were rightfully returned to them.

Never Again, the compilation of Argentinian prisoners' accounts of the torture they endured during detainment by the police was a truly horrifying read. The fact that there exist human beings capable of exerting so much pain on other individuals and actually get some sort of twisted pleasure out of it makes me want to lock my door and never leave my house again.  The testimonials of those people, and the thousands of untold stories of those who died under such torturous conditions, document some of the most despicable acts of mankind. And yet, I believe there is some purpose to reporting these horrible events. The people who recounted their traumas should be commended for reliving these experiences so that the people who committed such crimes can be caught and punished, and (optimistically) stop such crimes from ever occurring again. I have called this optimistic however, and probably naivee, because regardless of the number of survivors stories, such as these, that we read or hear, there will continue to be new stories in the future because bad people will continue to be moulded from society and live to commit horrible crimes.

With this in mind then, I sometimes do wonder about the importance or necessity of human rights. Inherently 'good' people (I use this term loosely to mean the average person that doesn't have a thirst for blood or violence) will be nice to other people, and respect other peoples' so called rights. But bad people, as has been made obvious by history (*cough* Hitler), will harm other people, regardless if there is a piece of paper restricting such actions because they infringe on a supposed human right. The very notion of a human right is such a sociological, intangible construct that it basically means nothing and holds little weight in the real world. It's all well and nice to sit around and talk about the need to declare the universal rights that every human being should enjoy, but the inability to enforce these rights makes them essentially useless and a waste of time. How did the UN Universal Declaration of Rights help the Madres protect their loved ones from the government? How did it enable the victims from "Never Again" to escape torture? How did human rights stop 30,000 Argentinians from being captured, tortured, and killed by their own government, the very body that is supposed to enforce such rights? The existence of "human rights" did nothing to protect the Argentinians and millions like them, who had the severe misfortune of being targeted by bad, violent people.

Chavez says goodbye to Gadhafi

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-gadhafi/index.html


This article relates to our discussion regarding the classification of dictators. One student (sorry can't remember who) pointed out that one person's dictator is another person's freedom fighter (or something to that extent). This was perhaps one of the reasons we had a difficult time reaching a consensus regarding who would be included in the "dictators" section of our human rights museums. 
This article reports President Chavez's response to the news that his "good friend" President Gadhafi had been killed. Chavez is reported as having said that Gadhafi was a, "great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr" and that he would miss his friend. While I think its safe to say that the vast majority of the world would consider Gadhafi to have been a dictator and tyrant rather than a revolutionary and martyr, it is important for us to keep in mind that there will always be those people who go against the status quo and support people who have committed terrible crimes because they do believe the person was justified in their actions. Therefore reaching agreement over who will be historically labelled  a dictator 100s of years from now is not easy and is definitely not black and white. The rulers we consider dictators will always have supporters that honor them as brave revolutionaries or martyrs. 

Rights in Latin America

The Angostura address, written by Simon Bolivar, is a document that calls for a reorganization of the federalist government system in Venezuela. Bolivar insists that he is an adherent believer in equality among men (note, MEN not WOmen) and believes that laws are what make men equal, even though naturally, men are not created equally (for example there are different levels of intelligence, ability, talent, morality, etc.). Laws are the equalizing factor that provides men the ability to educate themselves and prosper within a society. The only way to ensure this equality however is through a republican state.

Bolivar also points out that is impossible and foolish to try to apply laws created in one country (such as the United States) to another (such as Venezuela) without taking into consideration the different histories, cultures, religions, etc. of the two countries. Bolivar feels this lack of consideration is why the political system (in 1819) in Venezuela was not working as it should and why Venezuela was not prospering the way the US did after its implementation of a democratic system.

            A particularly interesting part of the document is Bolivar’s statement that he believes a hereditary senate, rather than elected would be more beneficial for keeping the government stable because the senate would be responsible to no one but the state itself. In this sense, it is within the senates’ best interest to keep the government stable and it would therefore naturally do whatever it must to achieve national stability and general happiness. I thought this seemed a little strange as it effectively takes away the freedom of choice for those (presumably sons) born to senators of future employment. From a young age they would be subjected to all matters of education and training to prepare them for their future senator position without ever being asked if that is what they wished to do with their life (unless I am completely misunderstanding what Bolivar intended).

            Bolivar concludes that while he believes in a system of checks and balances (and therefore the tripartite division of government) he believes this decentralization of authority usually has the effect of making democracies weak and it is for this reason most great democracies have failed. Bolivar therefore calls for a centralist rather than federalist organization to government that gives the president more power and more capability to yield power over the country. In the end he believes that a stable government can be achieved by finding a happy medium between pacifying the general will of the people and curtailing public authority.

            Margaret Crehan’s article regarding the evolution of the Latin American state divides the history of Latin America into three sections: the Colonial Heritage, Neo-Colonialism, and the Modern State. The first stage of LA history apparently begins with the Spanish colonization. Under Spanish rule the Americas were carved up into vast tracks of land through which the Spaniards could derive resources to help their fledgling economy. Important (rich) persons were appointed to look after the land and keep the native people under control. As such, the vast majority of the population was treated as second-class ( or even third class) citizens with very few rights.

            The second stage is neo-colonialism, which as Crehan points out, was basically a transfer of colonial power from the Spanish to America and Europe. Even though the wars of independence had occurred, Latin America was still heavily economically reliant on Europe and the US due to the emergence of export-economies. After independence, newly formed LA countries toyed with the possibility of democratic and republican government. However, these were often weak or futile, and the majority of the population still enjoyed few rights, while the power of the country lay in the hands of a privileged elite.

The development of the modern state has largely been an experiment of dictatorships and military coups. Crehan blames the weak democracies inability to maintain order during the world war years as reason for the emergence of so many military dictatorships in the mid-20^th century. Also, the economic support given by America, the most powerful nation, to ensure LA countries didn’t turn towards socialism (as the wayward Cubans!) helped prop of dictatorship and fund corruption. Needless to say, the status of human rights by the turn of the century has been less than exemplary as nations are just beginning to build democracies, and attempt to succeed where they failed in the past.

Cuba: Right to Buy Homes

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/americas/03cuba.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This article from the New York Times is about the monumental reform policy that is to be implemented in Cuba by the end of the year: Cuban citizens will, by 2012, legally have the right to buy and own their own homes. For socialist Cuba, this is a huge step. Until now, the government has owned all property and Cubans have been perpetual renters. With the passing of this new law however, Cubans will be taking a big step into the capitalist world and will be allowed to purchase their own homes.
Drawing from our class discussions on human rights, I was completely unaware and shocked to learn that Cubans do not possess the right to own private property. After all, all of the documents regarding human rights that we have read declare the right to property (or land) to be a "fundamental" human right. Following this logic then, all Cubans have been deprived of a basic human right for a very long time.

However, this article made me realize that the human rights doctrines that we have read have all been written from the point of view of a capitalist society (hence the right to private ownership). If a communist were to write a declaration of rights, the right to property would not be included (hence communism and a sharing of resources). Therefore from a communist perspective, Cubans have not been denied a basic right (with regards to a lack of right to property). I just think it is interesting that I had never before considered that human rights doctrines are created with an economic ideology in mind (therefore all of the "Western" rights documents we have read have also been capitalist ones, as that has been the dominant economic system in the Western world since the revolutions of the late 18th century). I wonder what other differences between human rights would exist on a communist written doctrine versus one written by a capitalist.

Human Rights and Wrongs

I enjoyed reading Galeano’s Memory of Fire because it is unlike any historical narrative I have ever read. The way Galeano writes, by creating a vivid picture of each short account he is describing, makes these historic snippets that much more powerful and real. While each of the vignettes may not be one hundred percent historically accurate, by combining them all into one narrative the reader is able to see the big picture of what Galeano is trying portray—the incredibly violent and brutal history of Latin America.

Each story (for the most part—there were a couple of seemingly random inclusions of famous people) describes a scene in South American history, and most of these are riddled with violence, racism, exploitation, or some other form of human right abuse. The stories deal with a wide variety of atrocities, including extreme racism in Peru, the massacre of Granada, revenge of the Mayan army over the “whites”, exploitation of workers building railways, black slavery, Chinese slavery, corrupt dictators, coup d’états, and Native American exploitation. There is a recurrent theme, and mention, of a privileged few dominating the masses, usually in regards to the privatization of land that benefitted the small aristocratic class and caused hunger and starvation for the vast majority of the poor populations. Before reading these stories I had a very limited knowledge of Latin American history. Now however, I can say without a shred of doubt that the history of South America is probably one of the most brutal and violent in the world. I think its safe to say that human rights did not exist, for the majority of the population, except for those privileged few (white men? Isn’t it always the case) who managed to snag power for a brief moment in time.

The second reading, as I’m sure most will agree, was quite intense and extremely grotesque in some instances. Fifteen million Native Americans killed in 50 years---wow!! Not only is that horrifying but it is unimaginable, especially considering this happened in the mid 16^th century, when methods for mass murder, such as bombs and heavy machinery, had not even been invented yet. The magnitude of this--I think its fair to say—genocide is despicable and almost too terrible to comprehend.  The fact that the Spaniards were killing the indigenous people for no other reason but out of shear greed is even more sickening. What was most troubling to me was the innocence and naïveté of the Native Americans. Las Cajas gives example after example of the same cyclical Spanish massacre that seemed to occur in most of the “new world”. The Spaniards would arrive, and be treated with nothing but respect and welcoming from the Native Americans. The Spaniards would then proceed to start their mass killings, usually involving the assassination of one of the most important leaders or chiefs. Eventually the indigenous people would realize that the Spaniards were not to be trusted and would form a resistance movement. This however would prove to be to no avail because the advanced technology and weaponry of the Spanish left the Native Americans all but defenseless. And so entire populations—men, women, children, babies, the elderly—would be wiped out or sold into slavery.  Just despicable.

            After reading this week’s readings, I think labeling this week as “Wrongs in Latin America” is an adequate, if not too lenient, a title. I cannot recall one passage from either of these lengthy articles that would merit recognition as an adherence to a human right. The list of human “wrongs” however could fill many, many pages. The fact that human beings have been, are, and will be so cruel to one another is dishearteningly heartbreaking and eye opening at the same time. What is the point of crusading for human rights when people are so capable, and willing, to commit human wrongs?

Illegal? Immigrants

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/americas/mexican-immigrants-repeatedly-brave-risks-to-resume-lives-in-united-states.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This weeks article is about illegal Mexican immigrants crossing the border into the United States. I think it is so unnecessary to deport Mexican (technically illegal) immigrants who have been living and working in the US for, in some cases, most of their lives and contributing to the American economy. One man interviewed for the article said he has lived in the US for over twelve years, has a wife and an American son, and has three brothers also living in the US. However, the man recently got deported for driving on an expired drivers license. Is it fair to say that this man does not have the right to live in the US? His entire family lives there, his son is an AMERICAN citizen, and yet he was deported back to Mexico, with no hope or inclination as to when he may be able to be reunited with his family.

I personally do not understand why the government exhausts so much time and money on the issue of illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of "illegals" are average, relatively young people, who are leaving Mexico to escape violence and are therefore merely in search of a better life. While it is true that some illegals that cross the border work for drug cartels and conduct other illegal business, this is a relatively small percentage of the Mexicans who cross the border. Instead of spending $12,500 PER PERSON that is deported, why doesn't the government save that money and leave well enough alone--let the illegal immigrants, who have already suffered so much to get to where they are, continue living peacefully and undisturbed, especially since all they want is a safe place to raise family--they are doing no harm  (and do NOT tell me they are taking away jobs--most Mexican immigrants are forced to work at jobs that pay below minimum wage, receive no benefits and are hard labour, jobs Americans would not work at for so little money). Why doesn't the government spend that 12,500 (per person!!) cracking down on other, more serious problems within their country (healthcare, education, low-income housing, crime...to name a few).

The redefinition of human rights?

The readings this week share the common idea that human rights have ended or never really existed in the first place. Rather, some believe, they are ideological constructs perpetuated by the Western world, in an unconscious (of conscious?) effort to spread Western beliefs and values around the world, and smother other forms of cultural diversity. Here are my thoughts on two of the readings (space constraint prohibits me from sharing my thoughts on all of the readings).

The Ideology of Human Rights

Mutua is very pessimistic about the idea of human rights. He is one that believes human rights, as they are defined and exist today, have only evolved from the Western perspective of what is right and wrong, and primarily serve to promote an ideology, namely Western democratic liberalism and capitalism. He therefore insists that that the human rights movement of the post-1945 era is merely an evolution and branching off of the Western liberal democratic ideology, and as a result, insists that human rights movements are in fact a political ideology centred around Western norms and values. The more I read of Mutua, the more I started to see his side of the debate. While I may not necessarily agree with him, here are some of the thoughts I was having while reading his paper and comprehending his argument:

Is the idea that we are responsible for bringing human rights to the rest of the world (namely the global south) not a continuation of the “white man’s burden,” our crusade to right the “wrongs” in countries, to help the “others” in backward nations. Is this not another form of a Western superiority complex—what we are doing is right and therefore what anyone else does is wrong? From this perspective, we don’t take into consideration the values and cultures of other nations. We are culturally insensitive and only pushing our liberal democratic ideals onto other people, who do not necessarily want it, but only think they do because that is what the “superior” Western cultures are doing. Is it not a form of propaganda?

Also, is it a coincidence that most INGOs concerned with “human rights” have arisen out of the West (as opposed to the global South, or even developed Asian countries such as China, Japan etc.). Why don’t we have as many organizations from the South promoting human rights as we do from the North? Furthermore, why is it that the heads of the these organizations are either “Westerners” or Western educated? Is it because this is the only way to ensure that they will embrace and promote the values Western liberalism?

Mutua also points out that most human rights authors state (whether it be explicitly or implicitly) the notion of an inescapable link between human rights and democracy; it is insinuated that human rights cannot prosper without a democratically elected government in which citizens have the legal right to vote and participate in the democratic process of choosing a leader, who will then govern them, according to the laws of human rights. These authors suggest that a dictatorship will never be a suitable breeding ground for practicing human rights and thus we must turn the world into an entirely democratic system if we want “human rights” to thrive.

I like the idea of cultural agnostics—people who believe human rights would be more accurately defined if different cultures, not just the Western ideals and values, were taken into consideration. Mutua points out that if this were to occur, it is very likely that different cultures would find that they agree on many of the same issues—the important thing here is to incorporate other cultures’ values into defining what a human right is, rather than pushing our Western definition onto them.

The role the United States has played in equating human rights with democracy has also been important to defining human rights in a strictly Western perspective. For example Regan linked democracy with a promotion of human rights when garnering support for the fight against communism: he propagandized that a vote for democracy was a vote for freedom (the fundamental principle of a human right, is it not?) and that it was necessary to save the Soviet people from the political system that was stealing their rights away.

Beyond Human Rights:

From this article I realized it is important to note the distinction between refugee and a stateless person. A refugee is fleeing political, economic, social, or environmental persecution or hazards while a stateless person does not belong to a specific country. It is interesting however that a refugee can decide to become a stateless person, but a stateless person is not necessarily a refugee. Furthermore, it was remarkable that at one time, powers, such as Fascist Italy, could strip a person of their nationality if they committed an act that was un-Italian. This apparently gave the government the right to take away a person’s right to belong to a certain group or classification of people (i.e. Italian).

I was also interested in the rather optimistic notion of creating an “aterritorial” Europe—one without state boundaries that create hostilities between governments and thus refugees would be free to flow in and out of.  This however is a very idealist dream and I severely doubt will be attainable, at least not in my lifetime. There are too many contradicting factors, such as different cultures, languages, religions, beliefs etc. that will keep a landmass, such as Europe, with millions of people from different backgrounds, from melding into one giant super country. The idea of a world without national boundaries however is incredibly enticing. Would that not solve many of our biggest problems today (for instance the fight between Israel and Palestine over recognition of territorial rights)?