The post war human rights ideology is arguably now over and there is a need for new thinking

July 2023

The post war settlement and the introduction of a ‘rules based order’ for international affairs is arguably now in terminal decline. The creation of the United Nations and the introduction of the Universal Declaration seemed to usher in – many thought – a new way that governments would deal with each other and settle disputes through negotiation. The carnage of the Second World War in which millions of lives were lost was supposed to be a cathartic moment in world history, an event no one wanted to see repeated. Respect for human rights would be a core feature of how people lived around the world.

Recent history casts doubt on this idea and the rise of countries such as China, a post Stalinist Russia and the wealth of Saudi Arabia are beginning to show that the comforting idea of the rules based order is under considerable threat. More and more countries are showing that they can exist quite happily in the world by ignoring nearly all considerations of human rights and a democratic norms. China’s treatment of its Uighur minority has received wide coverage with nearly a million people being subject to so-called ‘re-education’ in an attempt to mould an entire population away from its beliefs and culture. They have almost eliminated any semblance of a free democracy in Hong Kong. Myanmar has brutalised its Rohingya minority forcing huge numbers out of the country. The treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the creation of what is effectively an apartheid state, shows that even a country with a powerful democratic system can behave badly towards those they wish to marginalise. We could quote other examples including Türkiye, Syria, Libya and more recently, Tunisia where in their different ways, human rights and the treatment of its citizens are a long way from the intentions of the Universal Declaration.

Sportswashing

We have discussed sportswashing in several previous posts and in particular, Saudi Arabia with its funding of Newcastle United football club for example, and hosting a Grand Prix, tennis and golf tournaments and other sporting investments. Since early 2021, they have invested at least £4.9bn ($6.3bn) in various sporting events and are currently seeking to purchase the footballer Kylian Mbappé from Paris St Germain for a reported €300m. For them it buys kudos. The sums are so large that a significant number of sports stars are willing to overlook any considerations of human rights and sign up for the various lucrative deals on offer. The extent of their denial of rights can be seen in a report by grant Liberty.

Commercial activity

It would be unfair to heap blame on sports stars alone. After a brief lull following the murder and dismemberment of Adnan Khashoggi, western firms are all too willing to get involved in the many deals and contracts on offer from the kingdom. Even architectural practices are lured to the many contracts of offer as part of the massive half a trillion dollar Neom development being proposed in south west Saudi. We have been happy to supply Saudi with a variety of weapons and personnel to enable it to carry on its war in Yemen creating what, according to the UN, is the worst humanitarian disaster in modern history. In addition to football clubs, the Saudi investment fund is being eagerly welcomed to Teesside.

The significance of the change has not really been taken on board. Saudi’s enormous wealth, China burgeoning power and the increasing post-colonial confidence of countries like South Africa, means there has been a shift away from the ‘Washington consensus’. Human rights have little if any role to play in most of the Gulf states. Opposition is banned, torture is widely practised, human rights activists harassed or arrested and media tightly controlled. A similar story exists in China which operates as a one party state and where human rights norms are largely ignored.

Countries like the UK seem almost to have given up on any pretence that human rights form part of their decision making and in our relations with these countries. In a sense, it is part of our national decline particularly economically. In a word, we can no longer afford to pick and choose. If we want investment in our country, especially in less popular areas (economically speaking) then if a country like Saudi has the money then so be it. If we want sell arms then we must hold our noses and sell to more or less anyone who needs them. Noises are made about export controls and end user certificates, but the pressure is to steer round them not to use them as a force to limit their sale. The recent loss of the court case concerning arms sales to Yemen is a case in point. It is not just the government’s failure to properly consider human rights issues and the terrible effects of bombing in Yemen, but the judges seemed also to push reason to one side in their judgement.

Post war consensus

Post war and in the half century or so which followed, was a period of hope and a belief that human rights could be encouraged around the world. It was not all plain sailing and it took a long time for oppressive states like East Germany to collapse along with other east European states to gain freedom from the Soviet Union. Many countries achieved independence from the colonial powers, France and the UK principally. The UN and its various agencies was able to pursue policies and programmes of benefit to millions of people, tackling polio for example.

In recent times, the leadership of US is coming under strain. Internally, it is struggling with the very concept of democracy. European states are far from united and although there has been some unity in the response to the invasion of Ukraine, they seem far from making the weather as far as human rights and the rule of law are concerned.

What is interesting about sport is the lack of conscience or morality among a significant number of sporting people. If the money is sufficient, they accept the gig, with seemingly no compunction. That women are treated as second class citizens, executions are carried on at an horrific rate, sometimes in public, torture is routine and LGBTQ people are punished or imprisoned, seems not to trouble them. The question is whether this reflects the zeitgeist of the population at large? Are people no longer interested in human rights considerations in our sporting and commercial actions? Have we reached a point in our history where we no longer believe in things which were always said to be a key part of the British character: decency, fair play and respect for the underdog? It would seem so. If the public is more concerned with entertainment and the success or otherwise of their team or sporting hero, who can blame the sportsmen and women taking the millions of riyals on offer?

There does need to be a rethink of our approach to human rights. The belief in largely state led approaches, through treaties, declarations, legal actions and the like, is no longer sustainable especially if the states concerned are more concerned with economic pressures than with the rights of people often far away. The centre of gravity has to a large degree shifted away from the West to countries like China, the Gulf states, Russia and non-aligned countries like Brazil. Some of these countries have a different concept of rights and see Western countries only too willing to turn a blind eye if contracts and sufficient money is on offer. It would seem a little foolish to continue pursuing the post-war ideology in a world which has substantially moved away from those ideas.

Sources include: Amnesty International; New Statesman; Guardian; CAAT, Grant Liberty