Mr. Christophe Peschoux – Former Senior Human Rights Officer
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to the genocide in Gaza. What’s next?
Our very humanity in danger of death…
By Christophe Peschoux
Today, as we speak, thousands of tons of bombs of the most sophisticated technology of death are being poured by Israël over the largest open sky concentration camp of the world – Gaza – decimating the cities, camps, and 2.2 million people – tearing apart, crushing, burning alive, and burying them under tons of rubbles the bodies and lives of thousands of human beings. A genocide is being perpetrated deliberately, before our very eyes, every day for two months now, in “mondovision” by the Government of a State that pretends to be a parangon of virtue and civilisation. And those who have the power to stop this monstruosity – the US, the EU, and other western governments – are not only watching but supporting, arming, financing this orgy of violence and death. After Gaza, the “western world”, which has for decades lectured the rest of the world about civilized behaviour will never be the same. It is a collective political outrage and a moral naufrage. Western governments are showing the hideous face of their pretence to be the craddle of humanism.
*
Five years ago, I was invited by Nankai University in China, to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was an effort to reflect about its relevance in today’s world. My observation at the time was that we – human rights activists, practitioners and thinkers – will not give a new impetus to the worldwide human rights movement by simply repeating worn out slogans like headless parrots, such as “Human Rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrleated and interdependent”. I proposed that if we wanted to assert the continued relevance of the Declaration and convince others of its value – and not simply speak to the converts – we needed to adopt a simpler and more mature approach that required to rejuvenate our understanding of what they are and what they mean in practice in our life – and what it means to be deprived of them. It is when we are deprived of the air that we become conscient of its vital value; it is when the fsh is out of the water, that it realizes the value of water. I proposed to open the debate by returning to what I called the fundamentals of human rights.
The coming of the new tyrannies…
If I have the luxury to speak about human rights today in this conference, it is because I enjoy the remaining privilege of freedom of expression, which is still tolerated in a context increasingly besieged by censorhip and repression. This right may not last long. In my country, France, which unduly pretends to be the “craddle of human rights”, this right is under close watch by the police of thought and all its subsidized minions: the mainstream media and its zealous kapos. Freedom of thought, of research, of exercising one’s critical mind; freedom of questioning official narratives, of unmasking lies, is a fundamental human right, which is indispensable to any human development, be it individual or collective. There is no democracy without informed citizens.
Tyranny, whether it is inspired by secular, ideological or religious beliefs, always needs sadow and lies to cover up and justify its crimes. The most emblematic example is the fate imposed to Julian Assange by the “Western democracies”. Wikileaks was a citizen’s creative and peaceful initiative, which has reinvigorated journalism. It was dedicated to freedom of information in a world where media are controlled by a handful of millionaires, to uncover some of the lies that states cover their delinquencies with. The US, UK and their allies have been deliberatly destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, Yemen, now Ukraine, and blessed Israel’s genocide in Gaza — but Julian Assange has been treated for 11 years like a dangerous criminal in one of “His Majesty” highest security prisons – a Majesty’s family that has been tainted by Jefferey Epstein’s pedophile ring.
History of the UDHR
The UDHR is a short document – 30 articles only. And yet this text has had an amazing progeny. It is today at a turning point. Either it will be buried with the thousands of cadavers of men, women and children in the bombed ruins of Gaza and other devastated countries, or like the phoenix it will rise in horror from the ashes of the cults of death.
For sure, the Declaration was not the first human effort of its kind, when it was proclaimed 75 years ago. 3500 ago in India, the Vedas, the ancient sources of Hinduism proclaimed the oneness of the universe, the sanctity of life, the universality of human nature, and the reciprocity of duties and rights. At about the same time, the Book of Exodus in the Bible proclaimed in the ten commandments, the sanctity of life and listed mutual duties which implied the rights of others. Its main precept was: you shall not kill. You shall not kill. 2600 years ago in Persia, Cyrus the Great, edicted a text that contains the notion of “rights” in reference to freedom of movement, religious tolerance, and a number of other rights. At about the same time, Daoism in China affirmed oneness of all beings, the fundamental dynamics of the opposed and complementary forces of yin and yang, a shared human nature with Nature which can be regarded as prefiguring the modern notions of ecology.
The Declaration is the most recent effort to codify our human nature, and its fundamental aspirations. It wont be the last such effort, for history continues.
The Declaration did not come up out of the blue. It was the offspring of a long tradition. It was the fruit of an old tree that had been cultivated by generations of men and women struggling to preserve what they felt to be their humanity, against our very inhumanity. But it came up after the absolute naufrage of WWII – the worst human-made catastrophe ever imposed by Western Governments to rest of humanity. Its proclamation of universality reflected the horror inspired by the universality of evil in humans – the positive of our negative. A moral reaction to human immorality.
*
In Europe, the elements the Declaration can be traced back to the British Bill of Rights (1649). It sought to limit the powers of the King, to establish the right of property, free elections, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, trial by jury, right to petition, and prohibition of torture. They can be traced to the French Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) when the bourgeois class overthrew the old feudal order. It sought to define precisely the content of the rights that all human being were endowed with; to turned them into positive law; to integrate them to the Constitution; and to proclaim the twin universality of rights and duties. It could also be traced to the US Bill of Rights (1791) and its 10 amendments to the Constitution. They guaranteed personal rights and freedoms, sought to limit the government’s powers, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the people.
It is these reasons that modern human rights have been associated with Europe and the US, and labelled “Western”. But this is also, and more importantly, because these norms of political behaviour have been shamelessly used by western governments with variable geometry – applying outside their borders multiple standards, according to their interests. But it is not because they have been misused by these states, that they are wrong.
Are human rights universal?
Now, let me ask the question: Are Human Rights truly universal? I personally believe that they are. But because I think they’re universal doesn’t mean they are. 75 years after it was adopted by the UN in 1948 the question seems provocative. Did not the authors of the Declaration, which include scholars and diplomats from China, Lebanon, India, Chile and other states at the time, settled the question once for all?
And yet, I think it is urgent to revisit that debate in order to remind ourselves what human rights are, what is their meaning, practically: in our life, individually and with others, in society. For human rights, as a minimal expression of what is required to be and feel human, are a whole: they concern each of us, in our living integrity, and all of us at the same time. They are both an individual and collective ideal, and founded on what we share in common.
The fundamentals of human rights
To revive the notion of human rights, it is necessary, I think, to bring the discussion back to their fundamentals. The question underlying the universality of human rights is: is there a universal human nature? You are Iranians, the sons and daughters of one of the oldest civilisation; not far away from Iran, is Iraq, another craddle of civilisation, where script and agriculture were invented; I am French coming from a late nation in history, at the western tip of the Euro-asian continent. What do we – you and me – have in common ? Do we share share with the other peoples of the earth a common humanity? What do the people, who still live naked in the forests of Amazonia or Iryanjaya, have in common with us, the Inuits of Greenland, or those who live on the fiftieth floor of a tower of glass and steel in an ultra-modern city?
If we all are different, the question is settled. There are as many “natures” as there are people. To each his rights according to his village, his city, his region, his country, his customs, his social rank, his wealth, his fortune or his physical strength. This would mean that history, context, strength and wealth are what make rights. But if we are so different from each other, why do we understand each other when we take the care to listen to each other? Is there anything that binds us and brings us to discuss this subject here in this room today ?
If we share a common humanity, what is it made of? Can we take a piece of paper and list its main features? It is a useful exercise that I like to do with students when I teach in China or in Europe. It brings us to the essentials – the tea and the rice.
Let me ask you several questions: who in this room would readily renounce his or her right to life? Simple question. Deep implications. Who in this room would happily accept to be tortured; or to be thrown in prison without the right to defend yourself in front of an independent, impartial and competent judge ? Who would accept to live in the street, without a home to feel secure? Who would accept to have only a meal a day, and sometimes none? Who would accept to drink filthy water? What would you think if you had no place to wash? Would you agree to work 15 hours a day in a sweat shop or a factory, in conditions that undermine your health and life? As students, academics or civil servants, would you like to be deprived of your rights to think, to research, to write, and to freely exchange ideas and information? Would you accept to be denied, you or your children, access to school, university, Internet ? Which father, mother, would agree to see his/her child, dying in their arms, because they are too poor to afford medical care? Who would be happy to be deprived of your right to assemble with others to form associations, trade unions to defend what your are attached to: your language, your traditions, your culture, your cuisine, your environment, your conditions of work, your art, your litterature, your music, your poetry — your ways of life?
These are not rhetorical questions: they are practical ones: they are in my view the human rights questions – and their obvious responses. Human rights are not abstract concepts but very concrete realities. The right to life, to water, to food, to shelter, to bodily integrity, to security, to work, to liberty, to fair trial, to freedom of speech and to educate your children in your own language, to health… Are these “western notions” alien to the civilisation of Iran, or do they reflect profound aspirations that you as Iranians, and me as French, share? Is not the realization of these aspirations that enable us to be, to feel humane, true to ourselves, and that makes life more precious because more enjoyable?
Implications of the UDHR
Now, let’s return to the Declaration: what does its 30 articles say? Exactly the same. The few rights that I have just mentioned are spelled out in it, like a minimum programme of humanity, for humanity. Read it again, and pick up one right that you would happily dispense with. Let’s do the exercise, today, this evening, when you have a moment. It is worthwhile. Think about each of the rights in the UDHR, and relate them to your life. Don’t they correspond to your aspirations? Are not these aspirations common to all human beings? Universal means common to all, applicable to all, without discrimination. Their realisation is historically progressive. It implies a society of truth, justice and equity.
Despite our differences of birth, geography, history, climate, language, culture, wealth, preferences, etc., the rights in the UDHR reflect common aspirations that we all share, to enjoy the basic conditions of living that make life decent and dignified “free from fear and want” . They reflect our common aspiration to be treated with respect by others – and in particular by the State – and to treat others the same way.
A fundamental principle underpinning human rights is that “my freedom can only be limited by your freedom, and vice versa”, because we live with otheers, in society. Another key principle is: “do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you”. This is meant in the third term of the French republican motto: Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Long before, 2300 years ago, the Chinese confucian notions of ren or brotherhood said the same.
Legal norms, principles, values and aspirations
Human rights are norms of behaviour that were formulated to regulate the relationship between people and the state. They are aimed at limiting the powers of the state. We know from experience in every society that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Underpining these norms are principles. Example: you shall not kill. And underneath these principles there are values. And inspiring these values are aspirations.
What are these aspiration sans values ? Life, of liberty, of integrity of the being (body and mind, which are one), of freedom of conscience, thinking and expression; the values of the dignity of work; of sharing, of respect and of being respected, of duty, of relating to others, and contributing to the world, the society we want to live in – starting around ourselves, in our family, our immediate neighbourhood? Are not they common to all of us and societies ? Don’t they bind us all in a web of mutual rights and duties toward each other ?
Can’t they be found in all wisdoms of the world ?
Are not they aspirations and values that we would not renounce to, without feeling mutilated of a part of ourselves, without forsaking what make life decent, dignified, enjoyable and creative.
Human rights and humanitraian norms under attack
Today, human rights and humanitarian norms are being attacked everywhere like never before. Let’s look at how the wars are conducted in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Lybia and Ukraine, where they are indiscriminaely buried with civilians, homes, schools, hospitals, water plants, ambulances, etc.
The worst example today is the treatment by Israel of the people in Gaza labelled as “animals” since the brutal and indiscriminate armed attack by the joint Palestinian resistance groups on 7 October 2023. I have said elsewhere that any act of violence aimed at terrorising people to force them into obedience is abhorrent and cannot be justified under any circumstance. It dehumanises the victims and the perpetrators. It dishonours any cause, whatever noble.
What happenes in Gaza is the epitome of the sheer and unrestrained brutality of a powerful militarised State that pretends to embody “western civilized values”. If this continues, these norms, which are a fragile rempart against bestiality, will become a thing of the past, an obsolete accessory relegated into the dusbin of history. But if this becomes so, I let you imagine what life and the world will be without these safeguards ? If force makes right – the right of the strongest – we are no longer in a human society, but in a state of nature: every man for himself, and glory to the strongest, the most brutal – is that the kind of world we want to live in ?
Who attack human rights ? States primarily – nearly all States today — and in their wake, folowing their example, other actors. The irony – apparent only – is that these states includes those, which, with one hand continue to strive to maintain their arrogant economic dominance and power interests in the world, while using the other hand to contribute to build the current international human rights framework that constitutes today’s UN normative system.
The changed nature of state
Why is it so that after having been proclaimed as an ideal to preserve our shattered humanity 75 years ago, international human rights and humanitarian norms have become the subject of contempt ? There are several reasons; but ultimately the response boils down to a simple observation: states respect human rights to the extent that they coincide with their interests. This is the dividing line. It is one of the lessons that I learnt in Cambodia over 11 years of human rights work there, and in several other countries. A lesson which is universally applicable.
If human rights are being trampled upon today, it is also because the nature of state has changed in the recent decades. The modern theory of state inherited from European enlightenment thinkers – such as Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau – based on the separation of powers to avoid their concentration in a few hands, as a rempart against tyranny, is undermined. The notion of social contract, whereby the state is a neutral arbitrator of the conflicting interests in society, and is invested with the monopoly of legitimate constraint against the delivery of justice, is no longer, either. Justice and peace against a strong but benevolent Government protecting everyone equally, is becomig a thing of the past. This is the craddle of the new wars to come.
States in Europe, are no longer neutral institutions at the service of the common good and the public interest. They have been gradually captured by powerful forces – national, multinational corporations and private financial mafias – that have managed to take control of state institutions, to serve their own private interests. The largest of these corporations have become more powerful than the most powerful states, and can bring government to their knees. Their activities deploy above existing laws. They are not accountable to anyone except to their shareholders, for whom rights and public interest do not really count. What matters is private profit, unlimited: to accumulate wealth in order to increase power, and to increase power to increase wealth, and thus more power. On this highway of crude dominance, human rights, which are about comons and sharing, are the enemy : they are sacrificed on the altar of the adoration of the “Golden Calf”.
This is happening today. We are experiencing an accelerated return of tyranny.
States as instruments of private interests
Through the emergence of these powerful global actors and under their organized action, states’ sovereign powers are being undermined, and sometimes reduced to empty shells: what is left of them is some social welfare filets to avoid rebellions, and repressive violence if people rebel. Without the reguatory role of an independent, sovereign state, there are no human rights. The State as the organized instrument of public interest, remains the guarantor of the rule of law and of our rights, through the constitution, domestic laws, policies, institutions, justice and enforcement mechanisms. If such a state is weakened to the point that it cannot guarantee the protection of rights, what will happen? The law of the strongest will prevail: this is what we are witnessing with horror in Gaza.
The law of the sole profit is leading the world to a disaster – we are seeing this every day. To the proponents of that neoliberal ideology – the ideology of the privatisation of life and the world – the state is an embarassment when it comes to accumulate profit; even if they resort to its intervention in periods of crisis; and use it to promote, protect and defend their interests . Without an independent and impartial state, which embodies the public good, human rights become the privileges of the 10% controlling the wealth produced by the 90 % others.
There are other factors which are contributing to the deliberate weakening of the state to turn it into an instrument at the service of the promotion and protection of the interests of the powerful “elites”, and behind them what some are calling the “deep state”: the capture of the executive, the parliaments, the courts, the police, the army, the media, the secret services, the use of fear and terror — and last but not least, unfortunately, through what French author La Boétie wrote in his famous short essay in 1548: The discourse of the Voluntary Servitude. Yes, voluntary servitude, lover of all tyrannies. But this would be too long to expose today. They will be the subject of a future expanded reflection.
Conclusion
I will conclude, against this somber backdrop, with two factors of hope: the first is the common aspiration of people the world over to a dignified life; the second is the advent of a multipolar world, which echo this common aspiration.
We cannot but observe around the globe, that people are rising everywhere and continue to find in human rights – in the UDHR and its conventional breed – the language through which to express their profound aspirations to freedom, equality and justice, to be respected and treated with respect, and to become or remain the actors of their life in a world where others, above them, are writing the scenario, and dispossess them of everything.
For those who are increasingly marginalized in their own society, claiming their rights means reclaiming their lives, of which they are being dispossessed in the name of modernity, progress and the new horrifc utopia of transhumanism. That utopia means the transformation of societies – and soon or later, humanity itself – into an uprooted and atomised mass of docile particles of producers-consumers. This is not a science-fiction: it is happening every day; under the lofty inspiration of the World Economic Forum and its Great Reset plan.
Those at the top know this, fear these revolts, hence their war to the people of the world, to terrorise us and reduce us to docility, obedience and servility. That war started with the “War on terror” in 2001, the spread of organized terrorism from Syria to the capitals of Europe, and the array of security legislations that have been passing to fetters our rights and liberties, the Covid-19 tyranny, and the embrigament in new cusades.
What we can to observe globally is a double, dialectical, movement towards human rights: powerful attacks from the top but hopes and relentless demands at the bottom, from a generation to the next. What we are observing, under a renewed, more complex form, is the return of the old notion of “class struggle” between the indecently rich and the indecently poor — between the possessors of the wealth and resources, and the dispossessed – in the context of abysmal economic and social disparities and the disintegration of the “middle class”. The “social question”, that ferment of history is back on new tracks. No wonder that in this new chapter of human history, between the forces of oppression and those of emancipation, more and more people turn towards the advent of the hopes and promises of a multipolar world, under the impulse of the BRICS cou tries. This is an alternative to the old arrogant and declining imperium. A new common agenda. Will this agenda hold on to its prommises? We shall see – and also should act to its venue.