The U.S. State Department has just created the Commission on Unalienable Rights, which Professor Eric Posner sees as a means for the Trump Administration to attempt to redefine international human rights, all of which was discussed in the most recent post to this blog.
Here are other comments on this Commission.
Aaron Rhodes, Ph.D. [1]
A positive reaction to such a mission for the Commission was expressed by Aaron Rhodes, the President of the Forum for Religious Freedom Europe [2] and author of The Debasement of Human Rights.
He starts by alleging that the U.S.has “embraced moral equivalency in international human-rights institutions, and appeared indifferent to struggles for liberty around the world. The foreign-policy establishment has confused defending human rights with ambitious and costly democracy and nation-building projects. Rather than focus on freedom, they’ve sought to impose particular moral values on other societies.” He also claims that the U.S. has “recoiled from the toxic hypocrisy infecting international human-rights organizations.”
Therefore, according to Rhodes, the U.S. “needs to do more than criticize the international human-rights community; it must develop a human-rights doctrine consistent with the universalism of America’s core political principles—a policy to lead the world toward freedom in the face of rising authoritarianism and decaying international human-rights institutions.”
This does not require a redefinition of human rights, he says, but a return to “human rights . . . [as] a shield protecting individual freedom” with ‘natural law’ and ‘natural rights’ as the core foundational principles of human rights.”
A U.S. Citizen [3]
Disagreement with Mr. Rhodes was voiced in a letter to the W.S.J. from Bob Alexander of Bedford, MA. He said, “The problem with natural rights is that, contrary to Thomas Jefferson, they are not self-evident at all. Philosophers, theologians, politicians and average citizens have wrestled for centuries over whether rights exist, where they would come from and what they would be. Jefferson himself punted on the question when, instead of justifying the existence of rights, he essentially said ‘we believe it’s obvious.’”
“A better approach is to shift the burden of proof to those who want to violate our life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness. Instead of requiring me to justify my rights, require others to justify oppressing me.”
Professor Clifford Bob [4]
Clifford Bob, Professor and Chair of Political Science at Duquesne University, believes that the Commission is “likely to champion the ‘natural family’ and ‘traditional values.” He cites as evidence the Trump Administration’s imposition of a “global gag rule, banning support for international family planning programs that perform, promote or offer information about abortion;” its efforts to purge all U.N. references to “sexual and reproduction health;” and a threatened U.S. veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution on sexual violence in war zones.
According to Bob, the Commission probably will assert that individual self-defense is another unalienable right as a purported basis for opposing international and domestic gun control measures.This possibility was suggested this April at this April’s NRA convention by President Trump’s repudiating the Arms Trade Treaty as a threat to Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms.
Another possible use of unalienable rights could be alleged justification for tougher policies on immigration as impinging on the claimed sovereign right of a people to protect its territorial integrity and established culture.
More generally the Commission, says Bob, will be hostile to economic and cultural rights, as expressed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the U.S. has not ratified.[5]
Reactions of LGBTTQ Groups [6]
Gay-rights groups fear that the Commission “is intended to narrow the scope of American advocacy” for such rights. As Ty Cobb, global director of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “We sincerely doubt that this commission is being organized to ensure that the human rights of LGBTQ people and others who experience extreme violence and discrimination are being protected to the fullest extent.” This concern was heightened by the State Department’s directive this month that the rainbow flag may not be displayed on a ‘public-facing flagpole’ at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world.
Conclusion
As shown by these two blog posts, the Commission on Unalienable Rights already is sparking intense debate. Intelligent, informed additional comments from readers are invited.
=====================================
[1] Rhodes, Pompeo Tries to Rescue the Idea of Human Rights, W.S.J. (June 10, 2019). Rhodes is an American international human rights activist based in Hamburg, Germany and the author of The Debasement of Human Rights: How Politics Sabotage the Ideal of Freedom (Encounter Books, New York), which argues that the fundamental flaw in the Universal Declaration of Human of Rights is mixing freedom rights rooted in natural law—authentic human rights—with “economic and social rights,” which are claims to material support from governments.
[2] The Forum for Religious Freedom Europe is “an independent, secular, civil society formation dedicated to defending the freedom of religion in accordance with international law” that was founded in Vienna, on December 20, 2005. Its mandate is “protection of the right of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief; promotion of basic democratic principles and the Rule of Law; monitoring and documentation of official and public intolerance against religious minorities and advancing public awareness; advocacy with local, national, and international authorities and civil society; promotion of objective approaches to understanding the emergence of new religious movements; [and] supporting the civil society’s ability to pro-actively find solutions to inter-religious conflicts.” In so doing it seeks to promote the vision in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
[3] Alexander, Letter: Self-Evident Truths Not Always So Evident, W.S.J. (June 16, 2019).
[4] Bob, Why Trump’s new Commission on Unalienable Rights is likely to upset the human rights community, Wash. Post (June 6, 2019). Professor Bob also is the author of Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power (Princeton Univ. Press, 2019), which looks at how political forces use rights as rallying cries: naturalizing novel claims as rights inherent in humanity, absolutizing them as trumps over rival interests or community concerns, universalizing them as transcultural and trans-historical, and depoliticizing them as concepts beyond debate. He shows how powerful proponents employ rights as camouflage to cover ulterior motives.
[5] See Multilateral Human Rights Treaties Signed, But Not Ratified, by the U.S., dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 12, 2013).
[6] Londońo, Pride Flags and Foreign Policy: U.S. Diplomats See Shift on Gay Rights, N.Y.Times (June 9, 2019).
7 thoughts on “Other Reactions to State Department’s Commission on Unalienable Rights”