Universal conceptions of human rights should supersede culturally relative conceptions. Discuss. Assess the effectiveness of the international community with reference to the cultural practice of female genital mutilation.

One’s right to life is the right you have for everyone else not to take your life away, and it extends to having the right to be given certain things to preserve your life (that is, to be taken care of so that you won’t die).  Locke’s right to life is both a negative and a positive right.  Your right to liberty is your right to do whatever you want so long as it does not conflict with the rights of others, primarily by causing harm to them or their property.  His right to liberty is a negative right, that is, your right not to have others interfere with you when you are not interfering with them.  An individual’s right to property is the right to acquire unwanted property and to enter into mutual exchange of property, and the right not to have your property taken by others without your uncoerced consent.  Locke suggests that these rights are God-given rights.  These rights are self-evident, that is, no reasonable person would deny them to b true.  Locke argues that it is the principle of majority rule that is used to create a governing body, which in turn will make and enforce societal laws.  

Locke’s theory seems to agree with common sense and is the basis for the both the French and American Declarations on the Rights of Man.  It also includes some idea of inalienable rights and agrees that although any system of government is susceptible to some problems, (majority rule, being no exception), majority rule has the least problems and the best ability to overcome these problems.  On the other hand, a society that is based on majority rule is likely to oppress a minority within that society.  Locke stated nowhere that in exercising the majority rule, there should be a natural right to equality.

Rousseau’s primary work on rights was The Social Contract, published in 1762.  His theory is based on a social contract that would be signed if all the involved parties were free, intelligent, rational and well informed.  Because such a situation is impossible Rousseau’s social contract is hypothetical.  Rousseau does not explicitly use natural rights as a starting point but argues that the strong have always taken advantage of the weak.  As a result, the state of nature he envisions is one in which people are truly free and no one has any right over another person.  Without this freedom, Rousseau believes that people are less than human, and are closer to animals.  He concludes that the people in the state of nature would adopt a social contract that empowered a government to behave in a way which was consistent with the general will- which allows all the people of the society to remain free, even though (and in part because) they are being ruled.

The general will is not the will of the majority.  It is whatever is best for the people taken as a whole, which is not necessarily the will of the majority.  The general will takes everyone’s rights and well being into account, and it cannot be wrong because it is by definition equal and fair to all.  Rousseau’s theory sounds idealistic and impractical.  It is unfeasible idea to base a government and a society on the concept of a general will because it is not viable to take each persons right and well being into account whenever making a decision.

Mill’s main work on rights in On Liberty, which was published in 1859.  Mills believes that a just state will provide a strong assurance of negative rights to all of these citizens, and will interfere as little as possible in the daily lives of its citizens.  He argues that democratic governments are dangerous and cannot be trusted because they are based on majority rule who in the end, will choose to oppress some minority group.  Therefore, to have a just and moral society, individuals must be protected from this potential threat and Mill’s theory is designed to ensure this protection.  Mills in formulating the Harm Principle, declares that we have a right to do anything at all that does not involve harm to others. As such, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.   Harm includes most any form of physical harm, most forms of financial harm.  However, it is difficult to say the extent to which aspects of these categories of harm fall under Mill’s theory as involving harm to others or not.  For example, if people are racist and a black person moves into a white neighborhood, thus reducing property values, how does a government rightfully exercise power to prevent whites from suffering financial harm when the real source of financial harm is not an individual but people’s racism?  Mills is therefore not explicit in determining what actually constitutes harm.  

Mills is not an advocate of natural or God-given rights.  For him, a right is societal and is embodied in a law. For social contract theorists, natural rights are essential, but they are peculiar sorts of entities that are not ever embodied or clearly seen.  From Mills point of view, claiming to have a natural right is sort of like claiming to have an invisible friend that cannot be detected in anyway, not even you have ever seen him/her.  Thus, one must hesitate in basing a theory on something that lacks sufficient evidence.  Mills concept of rights was established in The International Bill of Rights (i.e. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).  The Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent government from infringing on the rights of minorities, and to provide absolute boundaries beyond which government is not allowed to legislate.  

Contemporary Discussions on Human Rights

Contemporary rights theorists have adopted the distinctions on rights discussed earlier.  They too accept that rights are either positive or negative.  These ideas of human rights were formulated and given content during the 2nd World War and its aftermath19.  In Nuremberg, the Allies included crimes against humanity among the charges on which the Nazi leaders were tried20.  The United Nations Charter declared that promoting respect of human rights was a principal purpose of the United Nations Organization21.  Today, rights theory continues to have practical political applications, just as it did in the 18th century22.  

The most important example of this is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 wherein the human rights idea found its contemporary expression. Whereas 18th century rights theorist focused on the “natural rights”, the Universal Declaration focuses on our particular status as humans, thereby terming those “natural rights”,  “human rights”23.  Many elements of the Universal Declaration draw on classic concepts, such as the equality of people, the inalienable nature of rights, and the fact that these rights cut across all political boundaries24.  However, unlike the 18th century models, which articulated only a few rights, the Universal Declaration lists several rights.  Along with rights to “life, liberty and the security of persons,” all humans have specific rights against enslavement, torture, arbitrary arrest, and exile25.  We have a cluster of rights regarding due process in prosecution, such as the presumption of innocence26.  There are also a series of liberty rights involving the right to movement, to marry, to have a family, to divorce, to freedom of thought, and to religion practice27.  

There are political rights to participate in “genuine elections” and cultural rights to develop one’s personality28.  Economic rights include the right to work, to favourable pay, to join trade unions, and to paid holidays.  Human beings also have welfare rights to social security, to health care, to special assistance for childcare, and to free education (See Appendix A, pages 32 – 37, for a full description of the rights under UDHR)

Numerous other covenants and conventions were also derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The two main ones are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (ICECSR).  Although few if any countries today adequately abide by all of these rights, the Universal Declaration sees these as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”29.

Universalism, Cultural Relativism And Human Rights

Universalism and Human Rights

Implied in one’s humanity, human rights are inalienable and imprescriptible:  they cannot be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they cannot be lost by having been usurped, or by one’s failure to exercise or assert them30.  These rights are deemed to be universal, that is, they belong to every human society31.  They do not differ with geography or history, culture or ideology, political or economic system, or stage of societal development32.  To call them “human” implies that all human beings have them, equally and in equal measure, by virtue of their humanity – regardless of sex, race, age; regardless of high or low “birth”, social class, national origin, ethnic or tribal affiliation; regardless of wealth or poverty, occupation, talent, merit, religion, ideology or other commitment33.  Human rights are rights; they are not merely aspirations of the good34.  To call them rights implies that they are claims “as of right”, not by appeal to grace, charity, or brother hood or love; they need not to be earned or deserved35.  When a society recognizes that a person has a right, it affirms, legitimates, and justifies that entitlement, and incorporates and establishes it in the society’s system of values, giving it important weight in competition with other societal values36.  The idea of human rights implies also some system of remedies to which individuals may resort to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled or be compensated for their loss37.  It is these universal rights that are embodied in the International Bill of Rights.

Cultural Relativism and Human Rights

Some scholars argue that human rights are culturally relative instead of universal.  This is given justification because they argue that human rights are basically a western concoction that is not applicable to non-western societies that base their understanding of rights collectively, not individually, and are bound by their cultural and traditional practices. According to Moha Ennaji, “cultural relativity means that the social values and moral codes indicate a wide range of cultural diversity, which should be beyond the criticism of outsiders….In relation to human rights, the philosophy of cultural relativism means that different cultures and societies have developed over historical periods different attitudes to the notion of human dignity or human rights”38.  

If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy39.  Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to state discretion, rather than international legal imperative40.  By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards41.  This is played out in reality when we examine the human rights violation practiced by many states. In these states, human rights are a far from being non-discriminatory and states retain the right to determine what rights their inhabitants can and cannot exercise.  All over the world people are discriminated against based on their sex, race, social status, religion, etc.  Women are discriminated against in Africa, for example, female circumcision in Kenya, Children are discriminated against in China when they are used to perform child labour; in India, based on the caste system, your social class determines your access to society’s opportunities and individuals that embrace any other religion than Muslim are punished and often times killed. These are just a few examples.  

Human Rights: Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism

How can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse world?  Proponents of cultural relativism argue that human rights as understood in the West are not necessarily applicable to the third world or the non-Western societies on the grounds that their philosophical basis is different and perhaps opposite42.  African societies, for example, are not based on individualism while Western conceptions of human rights are based on the self-governing individual43.  Within this framework, Jack Donnelly takes this further and divides the doctrine of cultural relativism into “strong” and “weak” cultural relativism44.  Strong cultural relativism implies that culture is a determining factor for the validity of a moral code or social norm; in other terms, moral rules and social values are culturally determined, but the universality of human rights serves to control the possible exaggeration of relativism45.  Weak cultural relativism means that human rights are essentially universal, but admits that culture is an important source of exceptions in the interpretation of human rights46.  He argues for weak cultural relativism, in which culture is an important ingredient, but without neglecting or ignoring the universality of human rights47.  

The United Nations Charter commits the United Nations and all Member States to action promoting “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms”48.  As the cornerstone of the International Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms consensus on a universal standard of human rights49.  According to Charles Norchi, the Universal Declaration “represents a broader consensus on human dignity than does any single culture or tradition”50.  Universal human rights are further established by the two international covenants on human rights (ICCPR and ICESCR), and the other international standard-setting instruments which address numerous concerns, including genocide, slavery, torture, racial discrimination, discrimination against women, rights of the child, minorities and religious tolerance51.  Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration reinforces the universality of human rights, stating, “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated”52.  Therefore, political, civil, cultural, economic and social human rights are to be seen in their entirety53.  One cannot pick and choose which rights to promote and protect54.  They are all of equal value and apply to everyone55.

Everyone is entitled to human rights without discrimination of any kind56.  The non-discrimination principle is a fundamental rule of international law57.  Non-discrimination protects individuals and groups against the denial and violation of their human rights58.  To deny human rights on the grounds of cultural distinction is discriminatory59.  Human rights are intended for everyone, in every culture60.  Human rights are the birthright of every person61.  If a State dismisses the universal human rights on the basis of cultural relativism, then rights would be denied to the persons living under that State’s authority.  The denial or abuse of human rights is wrong, regardless of the violator’s culture62.

Universal human rights reflect the dynamic, coordinated efforts of the international community to achieve and advance a common standard and international system of law to protect human dignity63.  These rights have an inherent flexibility to respect and protect cultural diversity and integrity and the instruments designed, establish minimum standards for economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights64.  Within this framework, states have maximum room for cultural variation without diluting or compromising the minimum standards of human rights established by law65.  Cultural consideration in no way diminishes State’s human rights obligations66.  Every human being has the right to culture, including the right to enjoy and develop cultural life and identity67.  Cultural rights, however, are not unlimited and the right to culture is limited at the point at which it infringes on another persons human right68.  No right can be used at the expense or destruction of another, in accordance with international law69.  As such, claiming cultural relativism as an excuse to violate or deny human rights is an abuse of the right to culture70.

Cultural rights do not justify torture, murder, genocide, and discrimination on ground of sex, race, language or religion, or violation of any other universal human rights and fundamental freedoms established in international law71.  Any attempts to justify such violations on the basis of culture have no validity under international law72.  Additionally, the argument that human rights is more of a western than a non-western concept is no longer valid because most non-western or third world societies, such as Africa and Jamaica, have undergone a rapid process of Westernization, and many are at least partially Westernized73.

According to Jack Donnelly, human rights are ultimately a profoundly national, not international issue74.  In an international system where government is national rather than global, human rights are by definition, principally a national matter75.  States are the principal violators of human rights and the principal actors governed by international norms76.  Who can force a government to respect human rights?  The struggle for international human rights is, in the end, a series of national struggles which can either be supported or frustrated by international action77.  As a result, the moral universality of human rights, which has been codified in a strong set of authoritative international norms, must be realized through the particularities of national action78.  

According to Diana Ayton-Shenker, “traditional culture is not a substitute for human rights; it is a cultural context in which human rights must be established, integrated, promoted and protected.  Human rights must be approached in a way that is meaningful and relevant in diverse cultural contexts.  Traditional cultures should thus be approached and recognized as partners to promote greater respect for and observance of human rights”79.  In concluding, she says, “Greater understanding of the ways in which traditional cultures protect the well-being of their people would illuminate the common foundation of human dignity on which rights promotion and protection stand.  This insight would enable human rights advocacy to assert the cultural relevance, as well as the legal obligation, to universal human rights in diverse cultural contexts.  Recognition and appreciation of particular cultural contexts would serve to facilitate, rather than reduce, human rights respect and observance.  Working in this way with particular cultures inherently recognizes cultural integrity and diversity, without compromising or diluting the unquestionably universal standard of human rights”80.  

Therefore, although the cultural aspects of human rights can be used as the foundation for recognizing and progressing towards universal human rights; where cultural practices will serve to disadvantage or discriminate against other individuals, universal conceptions of human rights should take preeminence.

Assessing the Effectiveness of the International Community:  The Case of Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia81.  The most severe form is infibulation82.  This procedure consists of clitoridectomy (where all or part of, the clitoris is removed), excision (removal of all, or part of, the labia minora), and cutting of the labia majora to create raw surfaces, which are then stitched or held together in order to form a cover over the vagina when they heal83.  A small hole is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to escape84.  (See Appendix B, page 38, for some pictures of FGM).  FGM is practiced extensively in Africa85, in some countries in the Middle East, in parts of Asia and the Pacific, North and Latin America and among immigrants in industrialized countries like Canada, Sweden, USA and Netherlands.

The type of FGM practiced, the age at which it is carried out, and the way in which it is done varies according to the female’s ethnic group, the country and area (urban or rural) of residence and their socioeconomic provenance86.  The procedure is carried out mainly between the ages of four and eight but according to the World Health organization, the average age is falling87.   FGM may be carried out in the female’s home, in the home of a relative or neighbour, a health centre or a specially designated site88.  The person performing the mutilation may be an older woman, a traditional midwife or healer, a barber, or a qualified midwife or doctor89.  The event is sometimes associated with festivities and gifts and females have little or no knowledge of what will happen to them but they are encouraged to be brave90.

FGM has some severe physical and psychological effects.  There is a lot of secrecy that surrounds FGM and as such data is difficult to collect.  Nevertheless, physically, FGM can lead to death91.  During the mutilation, pain, shock, haemorrhage and damage to the organs surrounding the clitoris and labia can occur92.  Consequently, urine may be retained and serious infections can develop93.  Also, if the same instrument is used on several girls without sterilization, the spread of HIV is increased94.  First sexual intercourse can only occur after gradual and painful dilation of the opening left after mutilation and during childbirth, existing scar tissue on excised women may tear and cause difficulties for labour95.   Psychological effects of FGM are more difficult to investigate than the physical ones and only a small number of clinical cases of psychological illness related to FGM have been reported96. However, personal accounts of mutilation reveal feelings of anxiety, terror, humiliation and betrayal, all of which would be likely to have long-term negative effects97. (Appendix C, page 39, gives Hanna Koroma’s testimony of the psychological and physical effects of FGM).

FGM is practiced for several reasons. Firstly, FGM retains cultural identity and thus defines who is in the group98.  According to Jomo Kenyatta, the late President of Kenya, FGM was inherent in the initiation which is in itself an essential part of being Kikuyu, to such an extent that “abolition..will destroy the tribal system”99.  An Egyptian woman in reference to her young daughters said, “of course I shall have them circumcised exactly as their parents, grandparents and sisters were circumcised.  This is our custom”100.  FGM is often deemed necessary in order for a girl to be considered a complete woman, and the practice marks the divergence of the sexes in terms of their future roles in life and marriage101.  Secondly, FGM preserves gender identity102. The removal of the clitoris and labia, viewed by some as the “male parts” of a woman’s body, is thought to enhance the female’s femininity, which is synonymous with docility and obedience103.  In the words of another Egyptian woman “We are circumcised and insist on circumcising our daughters so that there is no mixing between male and female…An uncircumcised woman is put to shame by her husband who calls her “you with the clitoris”.  People say she is like a man.  Her organ would prick the man…”104  Thirdly, FGM is done to control women’s sexuality and reproductive functions105.  In many societies, FGM is justified on the basis that it reduces a woman’s desire for sex, therefore reducing the chance of sex outside marriage106.  Preventing women from having “illegitimate” sex, and protecting them from unwilling sexual relations, are vital because the honour of the whole family is seen to be dependent on it107.  Fourthly, FGM maintains hygiene, aesthetics and health. According to Mrs. Njeri of Kenya, “Circumcision makes women clean, promotes virginity and chastity and guards young girls from sexual frustration by deadening their sexual appetite”108.  Cleanliness and hygiene are other reasons for FGM coupled with the perception that women’s unmutilated genitals are ugly and bulky109.  Finally, FGM is sometimes based on religion and is practiced by a few Muslim societies and by the minority Ethiopian Jewish community110.

FGM becomes a human rights issue because it “is an issue that concerns women and men who believe in equality, dignity and fairness to all human beings, regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic identity.  It must not be seen as the problem of any one group or culture, whether African, Muslim or Christian.  FGM is practiced by many cultures.  It represents a human tragedy and must not be used to set Africans against non-Africans, one religious group against the other, or even women against men”111.  Daily, thousands of females are targets for mutilation112.  Like torture, FGM involves the deliberate infliction of severe pain and suffering with life threatening effects113.  This violence has been systematically inflicted on millions of women and girls for centuries and governments in the countries concerned have done little or nothing effective to prevent the practice114.  FGM has only recently found place on the international human rights agenda115.  This is due to the fact that FGM is encouraged by parents and family members, who believe that they are doing the best for their girls, and thus becomes a private issue and also because FGM is rooted in cultural tradition116.  Outside intervention in the name of universal human rights risked being perceived as cultural imperialism117.

Today, the human rights implications of FGM are clearly and unquestionably recognized at an international level118.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the cornerstone of the human rights system, asserts that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights119.  It protects the right to security of person and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment120.  The traditional interpretation of these rights has generally failed to encompass forms of violence against women such as domestic violence or FGM121.  This arises from a common misconception that states are not responsible for human rights abuses committed within the home or the community122.  More recent instruments are more specific and affirm that FGM, and other forms of violence against women and other harmful traditional practices, is an assault on the dignity, equality and integrity of women and an insult to human rights123.

FGM is rooted in discrimination against women124.  The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981), details measures that have to be taken to eliminate discrimination125 (See Appendix D, pages 40 – 41, for a summary of this document). Gender-based violence is recognized as a form of discrimination which seriously inhibits a woman’s ability to enjoy the full range of rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men126.  The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the monitoring body of the Convention has succeeded in issuing several recommendations relating to FGM127.  The provisions of the Convention are strengthened and complemented by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women adopted by the General Assembly in 1993128(See Appendix E, pages 42 – 48, for a sample of this document).  It addresses gender-based violence “both in public or private life”, and includes within its scope FGM and other traditional practices harmful to women129.  The Declaration sets out an internationally recognized framework for action by governments130.  It details the measures states should adopt to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence131.  The UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, resulting from the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, contains a clear condemnation of FGM as a from of violence against women and reaffirms the responsibility of states to take action to curb such violence132.  The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (see Appendix F, pages 49 – 50, for a summary of this document) was the first binding instrument explicitly addressing harmful traditional practices as a human rights violation133.  It obliges governments to “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”134.

FGM as a human rights issue has gained international recognition but the work is far from complete.  The fact that FGM is a cultural tradition should not deter the international community from asserting that it violates universally recognized rights.  In 1997, three UN Agencies – the World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund and United Nations Population Fund, revealed a Joint Plan to bring about a major decline in FGM within ten years and to completely eradicate the practice within three generations135.  The plan emphasizes the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, and the importance of teamwork at a national, regional and global level.  This teamwork would bring together governments, political and religious institutions, international organizations and funding agencies136.  The plan takes a three pronged approach:  educating the public and law makers on the need to eliminate FGM; “de-medicalising” FGM – that is, tackling it as a violation of human rights as well as a danger to women’s health; and working with the entire UN system to encourage every African country to develop a national, culturally specific plan to eradicate FGM137.  

Now that FGM as a human rights issue has been reflected in international instruments, the challenge is to ensure that those instruments are translated into effective action at the national level138.  This goal can only be achieved in collaboration with the national and international non-governmental organizations that has persistently been at the vanguard of raising awareness, lobbying and other eradication efforts139.  FGM as a human rights perspective cannot be viewed in isolation from other forms of violence and discrimination against women, from the vulnerability of children to abuse, and from issues of access to education and economic development140.  According to Nahid Toubia, “A global action against FGM cannot undertake to abolish this one violation of women’s rights without placing it firmly within the context of efforts to address the social and economic injustice women face the world over.  If women are to be considered as equal and responsible members of society, no aspect of their physical, psychological, or sexual integrity can be compromised”141.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (02/1996), “It is unacceptable that the international community remain passive in the name of a distorted vision of multiculturalism.  Human behaviours and cultural values, however senseless or destructive they may appear from the personal and cultural standpoint of others, have meaning and fulfill a function for those who practice them.  However, culture is not static but it is in constant flux, adapting and reforming.  People will change their behaviour when they understand the hazards and indignity of harmful practices and when they realize that it is possible to give up harmful practices without giving up meaningful aspects of culture”142.

Female genital mutilation is a horrendous practice that demonstrates unfair, unequal treatment to women while inflicting unbearable pain and suffering on women.  While cultural practices should be respected, it is very difficult to do so when one set of persons are clearly discriminated against. No one should be forced to undergo such horrific treatment in the name of cultural preservation.  It then becomes the responsibility of the international community to ensure that the rights of these women to fair and equal treatment are respected and preserved by national governments.  The international community, however, has to work with national governments in order to achieve this goal.  It also needs to implement enforcement mechanisms that will force national governments protect the rights of individuals.  

CONCLUSION

Human rights are obviously an important and contentious issue.  Early liberal philosophers such as Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke claimed that we have a natural or inalienable right to self-preservation, freedom, life, liberty and property.  Utilitarianists such as Mills denounced natural rights and proclaimed that an individual’s right is not to harm others and to be protected from the abuses of government.  Other early philosophers such as Bentham and Marx also ridiculed the concept of natural rights and chastised the individual who thought that he/she had the right to speak out against the society that nurtured him or her.  Early concepts of natural rights were inscribed into both the French and American Declarations on the Rights of Man.  These early discussions were not without flaws as discussed earlier.  Contemporary discussions on human rights embraced some of natural rights beliefs of early philosophers, added some additional rights and termed the whole thing human rights.  These rights were then inculcated within the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other Covenants that were derived from it, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  These contemporary arguments concerning human rights were deemed as universal, possessing a western bias.

Human rights is contentious in that central to it is the arguments supporting and opposing the universality or cultural relativity of human rights.  In assessing these arguments it seems as if the general belief is that national governments should have the right to procure the cultural rights of its citizens just as long as it does not result in harmful practices or elimination of other human beings.  This was clear in the examination of the case of female genital mutilation.  Here, the international community that is perceived as upholding universal human rights should protect the citizens from the abuses of their national government.  As a result the United Nations has designed several declarations and one convention to advise government to procure the rights of women and also to protect them from harm.  However, the monitoring bodies set up to ensure that governments follow these procedures usually end up making recommendations.  There is hardly any means of enforcement.  Although states, once they are a party to a declaration or a Convention should uphold its contents, this is hardly the case in reality.  In the face of the UN Initiatives, female genital mutilation is still practiced in several countries across the world.  Some countries, however, have abided by these UN attempts.  Djibouti, Kenya and Ghana have outlawed female genital mutilation but this does not prevent it from being practiced143.  

The International Community has also affected the African nation (the main offender of FGM) to the extent that along with establishing an African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights via the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the OAU also adopted (but have not enforced) an African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child144.  This latter Charter is similar to the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and states that “any custom, tradition, cultural or religious practice that is inconsistent with the rights, duties and obligations contained in the present Charter…shall be null and void”145.  Additionally, a Protocol on Women’s Rights to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights has been accepted and will be submitted to the OAU for adoption146.  All of this is promising but we see that these actions must move from mere rhetoric to action if FGM is to be eradicated.

Human rights are very important.  No human being should be forced to suffer unnecessary treatment that will serve to inflict any form of harm, danger or that which reduces persons right to life.  In the end, for the international community to become effective in the matter of human rights, it has to have the cooperation of national governments.  On the other hand, the international community cannot allow the lack of cooperation from national governments to prevent it from saving people from cruel and inhuman treatment.  

In terms of FGM, “global action is necessary if the practice is to be eradicated immediately.  While internationally agree human rights standards provide a basis and justification for international intervention, those best placed to set the direction of the campaign are the grassroots activists and community workers with a presence in the areas where FGM is practiced.  The role of the international solidarity is to complement and support the work carried out locally by providing technical, methodological and financial support, and undertaking international advocacy and lobbying"147.  Human rights protection and promotion will take both national and international efforts but where national efforts fail are tend to be unwilling, international efforts should take precedence and intervene to protect nationals from the abuse of their governments.

On the other hand, female genital mutilation is usually upheld and practiced by women and the belief of societies that engage in this practice claim that it is a form of cultural retention.  The problem arises when some of these women do not have a choice in what happens to them.  It is therefore important that research and education play a key role on the path to the elimination of FGM.  Women and the society they live in will be able to make a more informed choice if they are exposed to the physical and psychological effects of FGM.  From a culturally relative perspective, human rights are not really universal because of their western bias (maybe they should be renamed international).  However, the rights that the various human rights instruments promote should be a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”.  

As was said before, cultural practices are important in terms of human rights and these instruments give allowance for the practice of such.  Nevertheless, this permission should not serve to discriminate against others to the point of inflicting undue harm or punishment.  One might argue who determines what rights are universal or why should cultural conceptions of human rights matter?  We must realize that this world is interconnected and as such what one state does will have an impact on the other.  A government should recognize that if its inhabitants realize that they can be treated better based on their exposure to external cultures, they will fight for this right.  This was the case of slavery.  People got tired o being treated less than human beings when they got a glimpse of how a human being should be treated.  As a result, there were many revolutions and bloodshed until slavery was finally abolished.  This was again the case of apartheid in South Africa where blacks were discriminated against and fought to regain equality.

I will admit that the concept of human rights originated from a western standpoint but I don’t believe that the contents of human rights are so terrible that they serve to compromise the welfare of a country’s inhabitants.  There might be some hypocrisy in the whole matter too.  The western countries basically became developed or successful on the violation of human rights.  Many western countries benefited from slavery and the whites benefited from apartheid in South Africa.  Now it seems as if they are suddenly experts on how a government should run its country.  On the other hand, no system is perfect and each country should take the interest of its population as first priority at all times.  This again depends on the country of reference.  However, not because a country benefited from the same things that they are now fighting against means that they are wrong in their current views.  Non-western countries can learn from western conceptions of human rights and help to create a better society for their nationals.  However, this demands the cooperation of the government and his/her willingness to work assiduously to change the beliefs that have been inculcated in the lives of the people.  In doing so culturally relative conceptions of human rights can be refined to meet universal conceptions.  Where culturally relative conceptions are hostile and serve to discriminate against individuals, universal conceptions should gain prominence.  One just has to take a look at a photograph of a woman who has experienced female genital mutilation to come to this conclusion.

ENDNOTES

---