The US shouldn’t behave as a self-proclaimed human rights judge. The US has never hesitated to point the finger at other countries’ human rights and to advocate that “human rights are superior to sovereignty” when it serves its own interests. But the US has refused to sign some of the major United Nations human rights covenants. On March 18, the UN Human Rights Council made 228 proposals for the US to improve its own human rights conditions, including urging Washington to ratify some key international human rights treaties, improving the rights for minorities and reducing racial discrimination. However, the US refused most of these proposals on the grounds that its human rights allow no intervention from the outside.

The double standard embraced by the US testify to the fact that human rights are being used by some countries as a tool to interfere with others’ internal affairs and the idea that “human rights stand higher than sovereignty” has become a political slogan for some to justify their hegemonic activities.

Until the outbreak of World War II, Western countries were still enmeshed in their history of colonialism, racial discrimination and outside aggression. The widespread national liberation and democratic movements across the world following the end of World War II quickly resulted in the collapse of the West’s long-held moral excuses that were used to justify their past crimes and “use of force” and it turned to concepts, such as “humanitarian intervention” and “human rights are superior to sovereignty”, as the main means to regain their lost moral dominance and maintain their dwindling domain of influence throughout the world.

By using abstract terms and their own criteria to define the concept of human rights, Western countries have attempted to completely separate human rights from sovereignty and then cause conflicts in specific countries and regions from which they can benefit and achieve their own political purposes.

Human rights in individual countries can only be realized and protected in a sovereign country, when there are still strong and weak countries and when hegemonic activities and power politics still prevail.

A country belongs to all its people and the country’s sovereignty is the concentrated embodiment of its collective human rights. The existence of sovereign nations constitutes the foundation of the current international society and under this precondition human rights conditions worldwide have made continuous advancements.

In the absence of sovereignty, a country will have no ability and means to protect the human rights of its people. From Kosovo to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, under the pretext of “human rights being superior to sovereignty”, Western countries have chosen to use guns and bombs against the governments of these countries to realize their own ulterior motives. But the use of force has failed to bring the people in these countries improved human rights, on the contrary it has plunged them deep into humanitarian disasters and cost many their lives.

Protecting human rights is a universal pursuit of people of all countries across the world. But if this issue is rigged by a handful of countries as the excuse to interfere with other countries’ internal affairs, the human rights of these countries and their people are ignored.

Military interventions under the guise of moral slogans are in essence a kind of neo-colonialism.

Yes!, Gamarala is my grand dad and I am a baby,and looking for his love and affection.

Thanks!

The Paradoxical Commandments by Dr. Kent M. Keith

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

Dear Yapa is just looking for some love and affection on this forum, and the more ridiculous the assertion, the more likely he is to get some reaction.

You, ‘wanna-be’ DJ protege/side-kick,are nothing but a Casual Deconstructionist; Offer nothing of value. And to take an arrow from your quiver, your statement proves just the kind of semi-educated obstructionist dissenting opinion that castrates any form of critical thinking beyond simple indecision. If I can put it in the mother tongue ‘Yanne koheda? Malle Pol’ 😀

Hey GV readers!! I think Yapa is suggesting that Human Rights issues shouldn’t be debated at the UN HRC. Yes! lets discuss Human rights issues at the next summit on UN’s World Food Program!!

Thanks!

Those bloody fools think that the ra in the cat’s mouth also should follow the sober behaviour of the cat.

The cat can sing purrr..! purr….!! with the rat in its mouth, but the unacceptable behaviour of the rat is the natural indication of the disastrous state it is in.

That is Ethics and Morality of cats!

Thanks!

Correction….

“It might punish the human rights violators and human rights record will be straightened, but if the problem is not properly solved what is the guarantee that same causes may lead to same results in the future.”

Should be corrected as,

“It might punish the human rights violators and human rights record will be straightened, but if the problem is not properly solved what is the guarantee that same causes may [not]lead to same results in the future.”

Thanks!

So, what I think is human right protection can work parallel to the effort of finding a long lasting solution, but it should not be taken as the first priority, and at least it cannot work as an obstacle to the main process. Human right protectors cannot work mutually exclusive to the main process of finding a long lasting solution and it should reinforce the main process. If human rights protection or any other effort though taken in good faith, if works as a barrier to the priority, I don’t think it can be hailed for any reason.

We must be able to identify our priorities correctly. You should not take the 9th priority as 8th priority. Every priority has a proper place to stand. If we take 10 as 01 and object or act as an impediment to 01, that activism we cannot accept as progressive. A finger cannot act against the whole body.

Thanks!