U.S. promoting Human Rights, is wrong? Options

[Spirited Away]

"Are U.S. Efforts to Promote Human Rights Culturally Biased and Self-Serving?"

That is the question to which the answer would decide our foreign policies as well as why and how other nations perceive us as they do.

So, in your opinions, is there such a thing as universal morality, or do our morals differ so much that, for example: murder, rape, exploitation of child labor, are viewed as 'normal' to some (even hurtful to the economy if child labor is banned)?

Many have said that the US has no right to interfere with how other governments run, but what about in the case of abuse or things that affect humanity and global society?

[ComradeRed]

The United States does not have an obligation, nor a right, to promote human rights abroad, simply because our Constitution which governs the government and military does not authorize the military to be used for such purposes -- the military can only legitimately be used for defense and retaliation. Hence, Department of Defense. However, there are other ways to promote human rights such as free trade which ARE acceptable under the Constitution as well as political realism and also contain more acceptable means. We should promote human rights -- but we should only do so when (a) it does not harm us, and (b) the method was use to promote human rights is just and Constitutional.

[Spirited Away]

What if the in events of another Holocaust?

[CrimsonArchangel]

Let me clarify that I am in no way bashing the US.

That said, the US does not have the obligation to try to stop every war, every conflict and such *by itself*. That is what the UN is for. Yes, the US is a very powerful country and it has a well equipped army, but that doesn't make it the World Police.

In the events of a Holocaust, yes, the US should intervene, but other countries should as well. I mean, if no other country is willing to intervene, then the US would be idiots if they dont. But, again, the US has no obligation to try to stop everything by itself.

[innovation]

surely, this thread has more potential than three replies.

it's really tough to say whether or not "universal" morality exists, but i think that it's usually pretty clear when human rights are being violated, except in controversial cases such as abortion, etc. i'll get back to you on this once i think it over a bit more, but it seems to me that generally, people should be provided with rights to assist their nature so that they have the ability to make their own self-affecting choices. does that make any sense? and as for the child exploitation thing, it's banned in many nations already (up to a certain age.. usually 15 i think?) but enforcement is weak. i don't believe that child labor should be completely banned, but limits should be imposed (especially for working conditions). harsh labor often interferes with a child's natural development, as well as his/her ability to make self-affecting choices, such as what career to pursue, etc. i'm sorry; my ideas are very sketchy right now.. they're in the process of development. ><

anyway, i think that intervention is justifiable when a widespread "crime against humanity" has been committed and the existing government is either unable or unwilling to help the situation. the definition of a "crime against humanity" is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but i don't feel like looking it up. anyway, technical things such as what qualifies as "widespread" is usually left to the discretion of the UN.

and should the U.S. only intervene when "it doesn't harm us?" i mean, in the case of Rwanda, the UN estimated that the lives of about 2500 soldiers could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens. is the U.S. too unwilling to sacrifice?

last random note: i think that nations should be more careful about affecting the neutral culture of another nation when offering aid.

[Spirited Away]

surely, this thread has more potential than three replies.

I think many people either do not care about the matter, or they do not know what to say. But, I'm happy at least one more person cared to answer.

last random note: i think that nations should be more careful about affecting the neutral culture of another nation when offering aid.

Yes.

[pandamonium]

"Are U.S. Efforts to Promote Human Rights Culturally Biased and Self-Serving?"

That is the question to which the answer would decide our foreign policies as well as why and how other nations perceive us as they do.

So, in your opinions, is there such a thing as universal morality, or do our morals differ so much that, for example: murder, rape, exploitation of child labor, are viewed as 'normal' to some (even hurtful to the economy if child labor is banned)?

Many have said that the US has no right to interfere with how other governments run, but what about in the case of abuse or things that affect humanity and global society?

i think we have every right to interfere with other governments. i mean i dont know about bush going to get oil , i say we should try our best to make another solution instead of oil that we can use. it may take a while but we are rich and smart.

now cases like rawanda and holocaust. every human is equal and i believe that they deserve to live. I take a holocaust class and we are learning about the power of silence and how deadly it is.. nobody around germany spoke out and said hey they are killing millions of people but instead they just let them die. Its our job as Americans to protect other humans.Americans should do everything to protect our morals, i believe there are universal morals.

I see how we would have no right to deal with other countries that has nothing to do with us, this can also offend the other countries and their laws, like how they think they should deal with death rape and abuse. I mean what if countries like spain had a say in us going to war. we would totally ignore them.

surely, this thread has more potential than three replies.

jese september 9. i never seen this topic.. its a good one

[kisstharingz]

I don't think the US has any business interfering in other affairs. I mean, yeah in instances like the holocaust, the whole world should be involved, but in disputes between countries, we should let them handle their own problems. What if we end up causing more problems than what was there already?

[Spirited Away]

I don't think the US has any business interfering in other affairs. I mean, yeah in instances like the holocaust, the whole world should be involved, but in disputes between countries, we should let them handle their own problems. What if we end up causing more problems than what was there already?

and once again, what if handling their own problems escalate to something like the holocaust?

[kisstharingz]

and once again, what if handling their own problems escalate to something like the holocaust?

did you not read my entire post? It said "of course in instances like the holocaust"

[Spirited Away]

ah thank you!

but then when should countries begin to interfere? when it already is another holocaust, or shouldn't countries prevent it from being one at all?

[kisstharingz]

ah thank you!

but then when should countries begin to interfere? when it already is another holocaust, or shouldn't countries prevent it from being one at all?

You make a good point, you never know when one can break out...I guess I never thought of it that way. You're right

[innovation]

well, i think that there are human rights watches that keep track of areas where ethnic or religious hostility is arising so that the international community is aware of problematic regions.

[pandamonium]

ah thank you!

but then when should countries begin to interfere? when it already is another holocaust, or shouldn't countries prevent it from being one at all?

i dont think we cant prevent it. cause if we do it would be like the US turning into a monopoly or like a dictator of all other countries.

[Spirited Away]

i dont think we cant prevent it. cause if we do it would be like the US turning into a monopoly or like a dictator of all other countries.

oh, well what about "countries" in general and not just the us?

[innovation]

i don't think we can prevent all genocidal deaths, but i think that if the UN were a bit more active and efficient, the international community could prevent a lot of deaths.

[DizBukHahNi]

Genoncide can be averted, but are there nations anywhere who would care to send enough support and on time? The UN nowadays is far less effective than it should be, especially after the Iraq affair and Oil for Food scandals slowing the humanitarian effort even more.

Also enforcing Human rights and giving aid is very difficult. Anybody remember Black Hawk Down? We went in to help but 20 americans were killed in the process? Simply by saying that we should go in is easier said than done and sometimes lossing people is a price Americans, or any other country for that matter, are not willing to pay.

Edit: I have an article that supports why the UN is as effective as it should, unfortunately its not an isolated incident



Diggers in Timor 'sex' clash
Mark Dodd
March 21, 2005

AUSTRALIAN soldiers drew arms to protect themselves from Jordanian peacekeepers after a Digger blew the whistle on other Jordanian soldiers’ sexual abuse of East Timorese boys.

Corporal Andrew Wratten had to be evacuated and Australian commandos sent to protect Diggers in Oecussi, an East Timorese province in Indonesian West Timor, after he told the UN of the pedophilia that occurred in May 2001.

The Australians drew their Steyr assault rifles after being confronted by Jordanians armed with M-16s, in an escalation of verbal threats triggered by the later betrayal of Corporal Wratten by a Jordanian officer in the Dili headquarters of the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor.

Corporal Wratten, who was working at a fuel dump in the enclave, was told by a group of children that Jordanian soldiers had offered food and money in exchange for oral sex and intercourse.

The allegations involved East Timorese minors, all boys, the youngest of them just 12 years old.

“Wratten informed PKF (peacekeeping force) that he had been receiving complaints from local children about Jorbatt (Jordan Battalion) abuse,” said a senior UN official who was based in Oecussi at the time.

“A Jordanian officer in HQ informed Jorbatt that he had ratted on them. Wratten and his guys manning the helo (helicopter) refuelling pad in Oecussi town started getting threatened. There was one occasion where Aussie Steyrs were pointed at Jorbatt and Jor-batt M-16s pointed at Aussies.”

sex scandal article source

[pandamonium]

oh, well what about "countries" in general and not just the us?

i dont get what you mean.

[innovation]

^ she means, should nations in general (not JUST the U.S.) intervene in order to promote human rights.

nations need to be more willing to sacrifice lives in order to promote human rights. i mean, that's why soldiers even became soldiers-- as a declaration of their dedication to peacekeeping causes. and if not for the moral cause, nations should be willing to contribute out of selfish causes. the international community is becoming increasingly "one world," and this er.. "interlinked-ness" means that a disaster in one nation will eventually affect other nations, as well, economically, politically, culturally, etc.