Navi Pillay Against Universal Human Rights

June 10, 2011

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on Syria:

"It is utterly deplorable for any government to attempt to bludgeon its population into submission, using tanks, artillery and snipers. "I urge the government to halt this assault on its own people's most fundamental human rights," Pillay said.

Why please is it supposed to be special if some regime kills "its own" people? Saying such obviously implies that a regime killing other people is of less concern.

Bush said 'Saddam kills his own people' and then joined him in that effort. Did the fact that Bush came from the outside and killed foreigners make his murdering a lesser crime?

Using such propaganda term is despicable. Especially when used by someone who should be concerned with universal human rights.

Posted by b on June 10, 2011 at 06:21 UTC | Permalink

Comments

This right wing mantra of looking after your own, and my family closer to me than the rest of mankind, seems to be the new international ethics. It is tribal.
Europe is having a lot of African refugees killed by not saving them from unsafe boats in the Mediterranean. That is one of the real tragedies of all this and none of these civilian loving politicians seem to worry about them or do anything for them.
Wars are planned and then sold to the electorate – saving civilians and fighting for the right of women for left wing liberals, glory to the nation and accumulation of power and wealth for the right wing, defending women from rape for both, depending who is in power.
These useless NATO bombing campaigns should have been an issue immediately after Kosovo, they are not military, they are designed to terrorize people to surrender – the following is
retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie’s take, the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/natos-libya-hope-strategy-is-bombing/article2054254/
Libya is after Kosovo the third time I am watching this type of useless (and criminal) air campaign without “boots on the ground” – Lebanon, Gaza before. All these campaigns were lost in the sense that the attacker was worse off after than before.
And the attacked had politically a stronger hand than before.
I guess, this “they are killing their own people” is owned to the frustration that all the – too – expensive high-tech gear is useless against cheap weapons owned by people prepared to die. And that the attackers are seen as the killer and not the tribal leaders who refuse to surrender.
And yes, I do think that NATO politicians feel good that they are not killing their own people. They know that they are killing other people.
It is the new tactic: Do what as I tell you or I bomb. You do not mind, you murderer, you are killing your people.
Now new and old media come in, shouting murderer. There is a reason Al Jazeera has an important part in this. The good thing is NATO has to be very careful about the photos coming out. Everybody has got a mobile and a camera nowadays. However, there has to be real blood. This is a war of showing wounds now.
Militarily I am quite sure Gaddafi has all the positions he needs. Western left wing liberals loose as lots of civilians get killed. Right wing conservatives loose as they have to pay for these wars with their taxes. The only profiteurs I can see is the weapons trade. They win every single time.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2011 9:03 utc | 1

I’m sure that, as the earlier commentator noted, there is an essentially tribal element to this style of rhetoric.
However I am not sure it is helpful to assume that this type of thinking dominates the minds of all who use the troublesome phrase in question.
I think that the crime is not more egregious but since governments are supposed to be instituted among people for the defence of those people’s rights, it is more obviously egregious a crime for their own government to kill them.
It is a self-denial of that government’s legitimacy – an aspect of political reality that all the governments of the world – and especially those claiming to be liberal, democratic, and etc – should take notice of.
Because failing to note this reality ensures that it will, eventually, bring about the demise of that government, and possibly of that type of government. Such upheavals can bring about positive results but are often accompanied by short-term pain for many, with death for some.

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Jun 10 2011 12:30 utc | 2

Let’s not get too wrapped up in tribal analysis. Pillay is simply repeating the propaganda line put forth by Obama and the “international community:”
“YOU can’t kill your own people.”
The implicit message: “Only WE can do that.”

Posted by: JohnH | Jun 10 2011 14:19 utc | 3

They don’t seem to have a problem with the Bahrain royalty killing their ‘own people’. But, wait those are ‘shiites’ so they are not their ‘own people’ just a lower subhuman class. I forgot that as good supremacist imperialists they use a sectarian and tribal bias on their vision of the world.
I’m reassured now. So they are at least consistent. Not.
So I will rephrase as ‘only WE decide who can or can’t kill people and which people’.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 10 2011 14:46 utc | 4

ScuzzaMan, it depends on the type of conflict resolution in your society. Me, I can solve my conflicts by going to a lawyer or by peaceful organising. When I find out that other people think I am crazy, I give up. I do not get a gun and try to kill somebody. In my country, Germany, when there is a shooting, it is the end of that political movement,because people just do not tolerate it (we have this history of armed conflict, you know). I understand the US is different, though not Britain, the police there actually is very intelligent about hiding their guns.
In the Orwellian reinterpretation in Libya, a civil war is relabeled as a head of state perversely killing his own people.
Ethically, civil war parties, revolutionaries and the state kill. So, if you rise up in a revolution, or start a civil war, you have to weigh your chances, if you really are with the back to the wall, if can get a solution by other means etc. Automatically, when revolutions or civil wars happen, people represent their side only. And ethics involve mainly the “other” side. To quote my compatriate civil war victim Rosa Luxemburg “Freedom is always the freedom of your opponent”.
To use splits in a society and set people against each other, so that they have the power of decider or mediator, is fundamental colonial technique, and it is no accident that it is the British and French who are involved (Turkish, Russians and Chinese are not different in that respect, I understand) This colonial technique is completely unethical.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2011 15:19 utc | 5

Excellent point, b. Precisely, and of course, we know the answer. This individual couldn’t give a wit about Human Rights….and notice I don’t use Universal, because that notion is inherent in the term….for them to distinguish it as Universal Human Rights is to be redundant. This bastard only uses the term Human Rights as a rational for violence….which, as you say, is despicable, but not surprising….afterall, it’s how the game is played. Let’s end the game, once and for all.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jun 10 2011 16:03 utc | 6

@ #3 & #4: Exactly!

Posted by: ben | Jun 10 2011 16:13 utc | 7

Back to Main