'Western Values'

Recent posts just re-iterate the present issues the world is going through. There are a whole set of exceedingly abused terms that fundamentally arise from Western, Judeo-Christian ethics - terms like ‘un-Australian,’ ‘Western values’ … even to an extent, ‘democracy.

From the set of values that bought the world imperialism, colonial plunder, slavery, pogroms in Europe, genocide the world over, religious totalitarianism …oh, let’s not forget the burning of books… arises the concept of ‘Western values.’ What does it mean, anyway? The colonisers and colonies of the last 50 years are gradually all heading towards Western-style democracy. If the most prosperous country in the world uses it then ‘Hey, it must be THE way.’

Overly simplistic – monetarily rich, morally bankrupt - as a lot of people in India think of the West. Greek thinkers bought us democracy, but look at all the places in the world they invaded. The Foucaldian view is quite contrarian, but I think it has some juice: justice is just a fabrication by the privileged to hold on to power by keeping the less privileged satisfied. Perhaps the same can be said about the ‘right’ to vote.

Justice is so important, that basic human rights are simply the play things of government. From Arundhati Roy’s 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture:

Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is under attack. The assault on vulnerable, fragile sections of society is at once so complete, so cruel and so clever - all encompassing and yet specifically targeted, blatantly brutal and yet unbelievably insidious - that its sheer audacity has eroded our definition of justice. It has forced us to lower our sights, and curtail our expectations. Even among the well-intentioned, the expansive, magnificent concept of justice is gradually being substituted with the reduced, far more fragile discourse of 'human rights'.

If you think about it, this is an alarming shift of paradigm. The difference is that notions of equality, of parity have been pried loose and eased out of the equation. It's a process of attrition. Almost unconsciously, we begin to think of justice for the rich and human rights for the poor. Justice for the corporate world, human rights for its victims. Justice for Americans, human rights for Afghans and Iraqis. Justice for the Indian upper castes, human rights for Dalits and Adivasis (if that.) Justice for white Australians, human rights for Aboriginals and immigrants (most times, not even that.)

It is becoming more than clear that violating human rights is an inherent and necessary part of the process of implementing a coercive and unjust political and economic structure on the world. Without the violation of human rights on an enormous scale, the neo-liberal project would remain in the dreamy realm of policy. But increasingly Human Rights violations are being portrayed as the unfortunate, almost accidental fallout of an otherwise acceptable political and economic system. As though they're a small problem that can be mopped up with a little extra attention from some NGOs. This is why in areas of heightened conflict - in Kashmir and in Iraq for example - Human Rights Professionals are regarded with a degree of suspicion. Many resistance movements in poor countries which are fighting huge injustice and questioning the underlying principles of what constitutes "liberation" and "development", view Human Rights NGOs as modern day missionaries who've come to take the ugly edge off Imperialism. To defuse political anger and to maintain the status quo.