This paper tries to explain the connection between human rights and politics. I agree that human rights may be viewed as politics. This is justifiable because of the depiction of human rights organizations when faced with challenging situations. There is a lot of talk about the need to uphold human rights while nothing quantifiable can be brought to book regarding the matter. In current essay, I am in total agreement with Michael Ignatieff that it is time that people acted on their moral conscience rather than engage in politics of human rights.
Everyone looks forward to a decent life to his or her satisfaction. This grows by the existence of human rights. The best description of human rights lies with the United Nations. They are defined to be the rights that are basic to all human creatures, regardless of racial background, gender, native origin, native language, religion, and other consideration. Human rights are not yet defined to have boundaries as they move our daily lives.
The irony posed by the issue of human rights is that people are constantly dying from acts against human rights. This is despite the fact that these organizations are at the forefront in the awareness of the need to uphold human rights. For instance, the human rights movement took its time to act on the tragedy in Bosnia. Moreover, over 800,000 people were victims of the Rwanda barbarism. This is a clear illustration that human rights are only politics that keeps running in the media each passing day. When faced with the real challenges, there is hardly anything to report regarding actions initiated to take care of the situation on the ground (Lamarche).
Other examples that tend to illustrate the fact that human rights are viewed as politics include the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States of America. Numerous immigrants are still being remanded without being presented in the courts over the attacks. This begs the question if the human rights movements have forgotten to rescue them from the nightmare they are in at the moment. However, nothing is being done (Claude).
Within it, the human rights have their own controversies. Many human rights activists are observed by Asians, Muslims, and other people from Western countries for having overrated goals with no limits. Human rights have their own politics where the fundamentals suffer to qualify the intention of some persons. Human rights have become an idol. The subjects to this declaration of human rights follow it later in the sense that their survival depends on it. In simple terms, they worship it.
Human rights have no real idealism in their application just like politics (Michael 6). Liberty is a case, where people have self-government with sovereignty. This goes in relation with human rights, as it is to be achieved for self-government to survive. Democracy gives birth to a free society, where everyone enjoys fulfilling human rights. People in the world pose diverse cultural values, which are to be met by them in daily life. One culture may get in conflict with the other, which leads to their insecurity.
Human rights have become a pragmatic agent, just like the philosophy of politics. So many criticism, sanction, and intervention have been brought to light in acknowledgement of oppression of some person. This is the other goal of human rights as a political tool.
In any case, during unfairness in ideas there exists an elaborate step, which may include political legalities, human rights covenant, and the measure of enforcement of human rights. The moral obligation of human rights has no intention of moving activities out of the political arena, but to get them distinguish others. Human rights have democratized international politics, which can bear state leaders, such as the campaign of Soviet Jews. For instance, Americans more rarely get to have faith that both, their civil and political rights are viable legally than the international covenant rights. Human rights take different dimension in the society, and here they take the form of becoming less imperial in the process of becoming more political.
The Kordich’s consideration is a scenario where human rights came to be a political humanitarian tool to rescue the oppressed. Most human rights deprecations have severe and unfair cultural outcomes just like politics. This has led to the cultural values of some countries or organizations to image human rights as nothing at all short of the Western imperialism. An essential political image of human rights among many people takes into consideration fact that it is an opposing creed and has its universal understanding been rejected. Many of the powers, whose direction lives by human rights activation, are at the verge of conceding (Hannah 69).
The human elements and covenant have to be made universal. I agree that this is an awakening call for these movements to come out strongly and pursue the goals, under which they were formed. This will ensure that they are not just talking without actions. They should carefully go back to the drawing board to see what they should be achieving. These movements need to act rather than filling innocent individuals with expectations.
From all the description above, we figure out that human rights relate to politics. They are also politics. Human rights are for humans, as well as politics is, and they revolve around us. Despite all this eventualities, critics still believe in the fact that human rights are not political. Their mind lies on the side that politics infringes on human comforts while human rights protect it.