Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Human Rights and Universal Responsibility

big4life

Plat Hero
Platinum
Human Rights and Universal Responsibility
A very interesting paper on human rights by the government of Tibet in exile.

http://www.tibet.com/DL/vienna.html



Non-Governmental Organizations
The United Nations World Conference
on Human Rights
Vienna, Austria
15 June, 1993

Our world is becoming smaller and ever more interdependent with the rapid growth in population and increasing contact between people and governments. In this light, it is important to reassess the rights and responsibilities of individuals, peoples and nations in relation to each other and to the planet as a whole. This World Conference of organizations and governments concerned about the rights and freedoms of people throughout the world reflects the appreciation of our interdependence.
No matter what country or continent we come from we are all basically the same human beings. We have the common human needs and concerns. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering regardless of our race, religion, sex or political status. Human beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and in freedom. As free human beings we can use our unique intelligence to try to understand ourselves and our world. But if we are prevented from using our creative potential, we are deprived of one of the basic characteristics of a human being. It is very often the most gifted, dedicated and creative members of our society who become victims of human rights abuses. Thus the political, social, cultural and economic developments of a society are obstructed by the violations of human rights. Therefore, the protection of these rights and freedoms are of immense importance both for the individuals affected and for the development of the society as a whole.

It is my belief that the lack of understanding of the true cause of happiness is the principal reason why people inflict suffering on others. Some people think that causing pain to others may lead to their own happiness or that their own happiness is of such importance that the pain of others is of no significance. But this is clearly shortsighted. No one truly benefits from causing harm to another being. Whatever immediate advantage is gained at the expense of someone else is short-lived. In the long run causing others misery and infringing upon their peace and happiness creates anxiety, fear and suspicion for oneself.

The key to creating a better and more peaceful world is the development of love and compassion for others. This naturally means we must develop concern for our brothers and sisters who are less fortunate than we are. In this respect, the non-governmental organizations have a key role to play. You not only create awareness for the need to respect the rights of all human beings, but also give the victims of human rights violations hope for a better future.

When I travelled to Europe for the first time in 1973, I talked about the increasing interdependence of the world and the need to develop a sense of universal responsibility. We need to think in global terms because the effects of one nation's actions are felt far beyond its borders. The acceptance of universally binding standards of Human Rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants of Human Rights is essential in today's shrinking world. Respect for fundamental human rights should not remain an ideal to be achieved but a requisite foundation for every human society.

When we demand the rights and freedoms we so cherish we should also be aware of our responsibilities. If we accept that others have an equal right to peace and happiness as ourselves do we not have a responsibility to help those in need? Respect for fundamental human rights is as important to the people of Africa and Asia as it is to those in Europe or the Americas. All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured. The question of human rights is so fundamentally important that there should be no difference of views on this. We must therefore insist on a global consensus not only on the need to respect human rights world wide but more importantly on the definition of these rights.

Recently some Asian governments have contended that the standards of human rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are those advocated by the West and cannot be applied to Asia and others parts of the Third World because of differences in culture and differences in social and economic development. I do not share this view and I am convinced that the majority of Asian people do not support this view either, for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an equal to achieve that. I do not see any contradiction between the need for economic development and the need for respect of human rights. The rich diversity of cultures and religions should help to strengthen the fundamental human rights in all communities. Because underlying this diversity are fundamental principles that bind us all as members of the same human family. Diversity and traditions can never justify the violations of human rights. Thus discrimination of persons from a different race, of women, and of weaker sections of society may be traditional in some regions, but if they are inconsistent with universally recognized human rights, these forms of behavior must change. The universal principles of equality of all human beings must take precedence.

It is mainly the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes who are opposed to the universality of human rights. It would be absolutely wrong to concede to this view. On the contrary, such regimes must be made to respect and conform to the universally accepted principles in the larger and long term interests of their own peoples. The dramatic changes in the past few years clearly indicate that the triumph of human rights is inevitable.

There is a growing awareness of peoples' responsibilities to each other and to the planet we share. This is encouraging even though so much suffering continues to be inflicted based on chauvinism, race, religion, ideology and history. A new hope is emerging for the downtrodden, and people everywhere are displaying a willingness to champion and defend the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings.

Brute force, no matter how strongly applied, can never subdue the basic human desire for freedom and dignity. It is not enough, as communist systems have assumed, merely to provide people with food, shelter and clothing. The deeper human nature needs to breathe the precious air of liberty. However, some governments still consider the fundamental human rights of its citizens an internal matter of the state. They do not accept that the fate of a people in any country is the legitimate concern of the entire human family and that claims to sovereignty are not a license to mistreat one's citizens. It is not only our right as members of the global human family to protest when our brothers and sisters are being treated brutally, but it is also our duty to do whatever we can to help them.

Artificial barriers that have divided nations and peoples have fallen in recent times. With the dismantling of Berlin wall the East - West division which has polarized the whole world for decades has now come to an end. We are experiencing a time filled with hope and expectations. Yet there still remains a major gulf at the heart of the human family. By this I am referring to the North-South divide. If we are serious in our commitment to the fundamental principles of equality, principles which, I believe, lie at the heart of the concept of human rights, today's economic disparity can no longer be ignored. It is not enough to merely state that all human beings must enjoy equal dignity. This must be translated into action. We have a responsibility to find ways to achieve a more equitable distribution of world's resources.

We are witnessing a tremendous popular movement for the advancement of human rights and democratic freedom in the world. This movement must become an even more powerful moral force, so that even the most obstructive governments and armies are incapable of suppressing it. This conference is an occasion for all of us to reaffirm our commitment to this goal. It is natural and just for nations, peoples and individuals to demand respect for their rights and freedoms and to struggle to end repression, racism, economic exploitation, military occupation, and various forms of colonialism and alien domination. Governments should actively support such demands instead of only paying lip service to them.

As we approach the end of the Twentieth Century, we find that the world is becoming one community. We are being drawn together by the grave problems of over population, dwindling natural resources, and an environmental crisis that threaten the very foundation of our existence on this planet. Human rights, environmental protection and great social and economic equality, are all interrelated. I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the is the best foundation for world peace.

This need for co-operation can only strengthen humankind, because it helps us to recognize that the most secure foundation for a new world order is not simply broader political and economic alliances, but each individual's genuine practice of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human happiness, and our need for them lies at the very core of our being. The practice of compassion is not idealistic, but the most effective way to pursue the best interests of others as well as our own. The more we become interdependent the more it is in our own interest to ensure the well-being of others.

I believe that one of the principal factors that hinder us from fully appreciating our interdependence is our undue emphasis on material development. We have become so engrossed in its pursuit that, unknowingly, we have neglected the most basic qualities of compassion, caring and cooperation. When we do not know someone or do not feel connected to an individual or group, we tend to overlook their needs. Yet, the development of human society requires that people help each other.

I, for one, strongly believe that individuals can make a difference in society. Every individual has a responsibility to help more our global family in the right direction and we must each assume that responsibility. As a Buddhist monk, I try to develop compassion within myself, not simply as a religious practice, but on a human level as well. To encourage myself in this altruistic attitude, I sometimes find it helpful to imagine myself standing as a single individual on one side, facing a huge gathering of all other human beings on the other side. Then I ask myself, 'Whose interests are more important?' To me it is quite clear that however important I may feel I am, I am just one individual while others are infinite in number and importance.

Thank you.
 
big4life said:
It is my belief that the lack of understanding of the true cause of happiness is the principal reason why people inflict suffering on others. Some people think that causing pain to others may lead to their own happiness or that their own happiness is of such importance that the pain of others is of no significance. But this is clearly shortsighted. No one truly benefits from causing harm to another being. Whatever immediate advantage is gained at the expense of someone else is short-lived. In the long run causing others misery and infringing upon their peace and happiness creates anxiety, fear and suspicion for oneself.
is this guy talking about ef?
 
Since the other thread got locked before I had a chance to respond to you...

big4life said:
Yeah, humorme goes to church on sunday and talks about how that was how he was raised, then comes on here looking for nude pictures of girls.


The typical church going hypocrit.

Big.....you seem like a nice guy but you and starfish put way too much time and effort into what I do here and on the internet.

If you want me to start a blog so you two can keep up with my whereabouts, I'm sure I could accomodate you but it would be boring to most others who read it.

Star and I have been cross for some time. You only became involved in it because you have an interest in her. Whatever reason you have for pursuing her is your business. If you can't tell she is a loose cannon then you have not been paying attention.

You can bash me all you want and talk about my upbringing or whatever else you want to, it still won't make a hill of beans of what I think about her. If it makes you feel better, get a club and bash away.

I know you are only sticking up for her and she will sit on the sidelines and cheer you on only because she can't argue with any sound reasoning before she starts slinging the "Fuck You's" like it is confetti.

She had my picture in her avatar long before I had my present one. Get your timeline right before you start making assumptions that I had mine before her.

If it was bothering you so much, you could have pmed me and I would have considered taking it down. Don't bother with any pm's now.

If the Mods want to take it down then so be it. Looks like they already have. I'm finished with you and her. She can run onto other threads and bash me all she wants and you can too for that matter.

Hypocrits are everywhere...even in your own mirror.
 
I thought it was ok, but he was just preaching to the choir. Only people that already support this kind of behavior would be moved by this speech. What are needed are speeches and information that appeal to fence sitters or dictator apologists. We need speeches that would make violent rebels or dictators question their own methods.

As it stands we are in an age where developed world countries really are starting to take human rights seriously. We don't do nearly as much as we should do, but for virtually all developed countries human rights plays a central role in foreign affairs. Hell even some of the most evil countries of 70 years ago like Japan, Germany or Italy are now strong proponents of human rights. Using that as a yardstick it is not unrealistic to think that in 2060 China, Sudan, Myanmar or North Korea could be a beacon of promoting global human rights.

Human rights are necessary for virtually everything good for a society. R J Rummel has done alot of research and he has found that liberal democracies generally tend to

Not declare war on each other
Not have famine
Have more economic growth
Inhibit internal civil war and repression


However if you have human rights but you also have a country full of disease and poverty, human rights won't accomplish shit. In a country like that people will gladly trade in their freedom of speech and freedom to assemble to an impotent president for a dictator in exchange for a hospital and food for their kids. So you can't promote human rights w/o promoting economic growth at the same time.
 
ok... what makes anyone think we are entitled to any 'right'? who defines what a 'right' entails?
 
p0ink said:
ok... what makes anyone think we are entitled to any 'right'? who defines what a 'right' entails?

A general consensus. There are no rights at the biological core of life, nonetheless most people will agree that certain behaviors and forms of suffering should be off limits across all cultures.

Were it not for people fighting for 'rights' we'd all still be living in the stone ages under brutal dictators.

Universal declaration of human rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Most people will not disagree with most of those rights.
 
Lao Tzu said:
A general consensus. There are no rights at the biological core of life, nonetheless most people will agree that certain behaviors and forms of suffering should be off limits across all cultures.

Were it not for people fighting for 'rights' we'd all still be living in the stone ages under brutal dictators.

Universal declaration of human rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Most people will not disagree with most of those rights.

so, the general consensus is what decides what is right and wrong, correct? what if we all decide raping, murdering, and eating babies is 'good'? does that make it so?

are you also arguing that 'rights' are given to us by governments and other world bodies?
 
p0ink said:
so, the general consensus is what decides what is right and wrong, correct? what if we all decide raping, murdering, and eating babies is 'good'? does that make it so?

are you also arguing that 'rights' are given to us by governments and other world bodies?

Hmmm. Well abortion is considered murder by some. And in some cultures they feel it is ok to kill someone before they turn 50 because they possess the same body in the afterlife.

However, go find me a country where the majority of people are in favor of torture, prohibition of emigration, forcing people to join political parties, preventing education, a corrupt legal system, etc.

The UDHR was not written by governments. It was written by people. Besides, many governments today are liberal democracies (about half) so when they write something to one degree or another it represents the will of the people. There is a world of difference between a dictatorship of the proletariat like the USSR and a respectable liberal democracy like Norway.

What is your ideal situation for international relations? Would you desire national soveriginity in all facets of politics so that no external country could interfere with internal situations? that is far worse than the situation you oppose, because you are giving more power to governments than people who want to enforce human rights feel they should have. People who want to enforce human rights feel that governments should be accountable to their citizens to a degree. By opposing a general consensus on human rights you are saying 'let anyone take over any country by force and do whatever they want' which is the opposite of libertarianism. International human rights laws are meant to apply to dictatorships, not libertarian countries or liberal democracies. Things like the UDHR are meant to apply to countries like North Korea or Myanmar, not to the US or Canada. If you oppose international human rights laws you are indirectly in favor of allowing oppressive, non-libertarian countries to exist freely and without consequence which doesn't make sense in light of your libertarian slant.
 
Lao Tzu said:
bump. Are p0ink and I the only ones with actual responses to this?

You're the only one that makes any sense.
 
p0ink said:
so, the general consensus is what decides what is right and wrong, correct? what if we all decide raping, murdering, and eating babies is 'good'? does that make it so?

If we all decided it was good we wouldn't be debating whether it was good. As darwin said in one of his books

"If . . . men were evolved from bees instead of apes, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering."
 
Top Bottom