Concluded: IDEOLOGICAL REFUGE v JURISPRUDENCE OF INSURGENCY : CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND UNIVERSALISM IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS DISCOURSE

6. AN X-RAY OF UNIVERSALISM
May we thereby acclaim universalism to be the better ideology for human rights jurisprudential discourse? Probably so, but not without first probing beyond what passes for universalism in the human rights discourse as presented by ‘conventional’ analysis and data. With a language replete with descriptions such as ‘repressive regimes’, ‘last refuge’ Et cetera, relativism would appear truly shabby as many in the western academies and among activists would hurriedly and gladly posit. On critical examination of the ‘neglected’ aspects of universalism in theory and practice however, one is left wondering which ideology serves as a springboard for inflicting greater harm to human life and dignity. This analysis would however involve a consideration of what conventional statistics would neglect.

TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) as an approach to international law magnifies the practical application of the relativist epistemologies in assessing the remote and immediate effects of the Universalist approach to matters of global interest. This approach among other perspectives to appraising human rights records and performances, does not isolate the human rights data and aspects of western Universalist analysis, but takes a composite view of its systemic workings. Thus, the individualist paradigm is conjoined with the commodity and market drive of western ideological form of Neo-Liberalism .

Viewed in this context, the global abuse of human rights resulting from fall-outs of the Euro-American ideology is lodged as human rights statistics linked directly or indirectly to universalism. I postulate in accordance with the trend of TWAIL, that such an analysis would encompass global economic, political, social and environmental relations and their impact on human life in any assessments of human rights. Such a perspective is better positioned to expose the true indices of human rights statistics and violations of any entity in a more translucent manner and without ‘invisibles’.

Global Warming and its effects, commoditisation of the individual and devaluation of the human worth and value as exemplified in the sweatshop situations of Bangladesh and Indonesia all count as indices of the western contrived global system with the universalist background. The effects of imbalanced terms of trade on the economies of nations around the world and the deducible impact this has on human rights performance can be assessed as human rights indices and effects of universalism. The conditions that have been imposed by the IMF and World Bank on countries around the world, especially relating to deregulation in Structural Adjustment Programs and their impact on human wellbeing may well count as necessary accompaniments of the universalist ideology. The cost of creating the paradoxical ‘free markets’, ‘democracy’ and ‘Rule of Law’ may well count.

These perspectives predictably escape the lenses of human rights statistics of the conventional kind. On the contrary, their negative impacts are often counted with the ‘evils’ of the repressive regimes created by the unimpeded movement of capital. Cuba may suffer economic blockade with the intention of creating pressure from economic and social deprivations, but the human rights indices and failures emanating from the policy of blockade will always count as those of Cuba and no one else. A maliciously blind eye is turned to the positive act of economic deprivation. Can the positive decision of an economic blockade be made without envisaging the impact on human life and wellbeing? One doubts that even a cynic could do this! In any case, decisions of such magnitude never fall to cynics or imbeciles, but to reasoning state officials and ‘seasoned’ diplomats.

A recent manifestation of the above trend with an interestingly new twist is the unfolding scene in Cote d’ Ivoire. The manner in which the ‘International Community’ hastily towed the French paths of declaring a winner and according him recognition in total neglect of the judiciary in that country brings in a new definition of the concept of ‘Rule of Law’. How this may be defined in future, one leaves to the scholars who will undertake that task. What is clear however, is that the Ivorian constitutional court is totally ignored by the United Nations, France, Britain, the United States, Canada and many other countries. Can the assertion that this amounts to a profound qualification of the doctrine of the rule of law be meaningfully denied?
In any case, this is a clear illustration of the ‘jurisprudence of insurgency’ in its most brazen manifestation. The call for invasion and ousting of Gbagbo remains loud in spite of his control of the army and what this might entail of the accompanying human disaster. One wonders how many lives would be wasted to impose a leader designated by the ‘powers of the west’ over a population that is said to be equally divided between North and South in total disregard for the Ivorian courts and the fact that the south hosting the capital is the support base of Laurent Gbagbo. Most importantly, one supposes that the casualty resulting from such actions would count as the human rights statistics of Cote d’ Ivoire in the books of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, in view of the invasion that has been facilitated by France and the UN and the numerous killings and accompanying losses.

Adding to these is the invasion of state sovereignty and the disaggregation of the state in a global system that exalts capital over the human person. In this context, the human rights guise hinged upon universalism would appear to be the really dubious ideological cloak vesting institutions, transnational corporations and agencies with a legitimated route for the exploitation of societies whose historical, cultural and (sometimes) religious heritage is alien to Euro-American ideological, political, economic and military dominance. Dubbing universalism as a ‘jurisprudence of insurgency’ would appear justified within this context, for that which meets the eye may not escape a classification as the ‘creation of a global system to serve the goals of socio-economic and political insurgence’, even by the widest stretch of the evasive imagination.

Against universalism stands the practical impossibility of enforcing what has been declared ‘universal’ . Human casualty records in the trail of efforts to enforce doctrines emanating from universalism such as Humanitarian Intervention, Responsibility to Protect and Preventive Strikes under umbrellas of ‘Coalitions of the willing’ may not be ignored. Civilian casualties in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be waived either, as stark cases of military insurgence which may not be denied even by the most subjective standards. The Libyan situation depicts a scenario where the ‘International Community’ acting with universalist ideals, would not settle for any negotiation that sees Gaddafi remain in power ‘no matter the cost’! This calls to question the priority accorded human life vis-a-vis politico-economic interests of more powerful countries.

In testing the tenors of cultural relativism and universalism in the face of scathing criticisms, one may seek to stretch the validity of the two by hypothesising a reversal of the geo-politics of the ‘universalised’ ideology: Was the Middle East to be the dominant ideological, military, political and economic force playing Euro-American roles of the last few centuries: a hypothesised reversal of the outcomes of Lepanto and Vienna battles, and was the UDHR to be drafted within this context, what would it look like? And what would be the likely response of the west?

Many historians view the Battles of Lepanto in 1572 and Vienna in 1683 as the key events that preserved Europe from being converted to Islam by the once invisible Ottoman Navy and Army. Were the fortunes of those two encounters to be reversed, one may arguably suppose that like Constantinople and the once overwhelmingly Christian East, Europe would have been predominantly Muslim today. Put another way, if the tenets of Islam were to be the founding principles of a UDHR and resultant laws to be ‘enforced’ in Europe and America, what would be the result? One would reasonably suppose that the arguments for relativism would be most advocated by those who, in the Euro-American academia, political arena and economic fields today advocate universalism? This scenario would seem to reverse the trend today and thus sustain both universalism and relativism perhaps with few but deeply significant variations.

In the same vein, the Tunis Declaration , San Jose Declaration , Bangkok Declaration and the 1981 Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights are votes for the argument presented above. Beyond these and towing a little of the path of positive law , we may seek to probe further by asking: to what extents are the ‘Universal Regimes’ universally enforceable? Do declarations change the facts of existing and differing cultural perception of norms around the globe? It would seem therefore, that shredding all that can be taken off the merits of relativism leaves a lot more that may not be lightly neglected, and which a meaningful global perspective of law, politics anthropology and sociology would be loathe to neglect.

7. POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR A GLOBAL APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS
What kind of global order would an unapologetic universalism produce? Something like ‘your terrorist is my freedom fighter’? Would this fashion a world with countless cultural, religious, economic and ethnic martyrs? A world where suicide is espoused in the 9/11 mould in defence of ‘normative treasures’? Perhaps this could be, and probably not exactly. We may well ask the pertinent question: Is there a universal standard? And must we fashion one if one does not exist and do everything to impose same irrespective of the costs? I leave these questions with the rhetoric effect they exude.

On the other hand, would a universally relativist world produce anything better? A world in which every ‘sovereign’ is free to treat people as its own particular perception of what is ‘the norm’ dictates? Should we deny a man the right to change his religion because a culture to which he belongs prescribes a death penalty for so doing? Should the Japanese girl of the 21st century be subjected to kidnap and rape because her culture requires a man to assert his ‘dominance’ in this way? Should the world see as ‘just’ every system of values that produces profound and legitimate cries of anguish, protest, dissent and pain because of a universalisation of cultural relativism? One would be swift to doubt this in the face of undeniable leadership rascality and inhuman repression by political proponents of cultural relativism.
Indeed, some have argued that the two are reconcilable with common points hardly disputed . Some scholars say the thrust of division is the political agenda of the sides involved; a refuge for scoundrels (Relativism) and a ‘jurisprudence of insurgency’ (Universalism) masked in notions of the interest of communities and of mankind.
The policy implication and proposition for a global approach in addressing the human rights discourse would seem to be an integration of the merits of universalism and with those of relativism in genuinely confronting human rights at a global plane. Whether the politics of the matter allows for this is quite another incisive, winding and thorny discourse.

8. CONCLUSION
If cultural relativism was merely a worthless fortress and last refuge of scoundrels in power exploiting people and creating the most repressive living conditions, little effort would be required to dismantle what may be left of this fortress ideologically, anthropologically, legally, sociologically and politically. If universalism was truly a pure and unsoiled ideology devoid of dark and relatively invisible turns and corners, no efforts however titanic, may successfully be exerted to bring her to relative disrepute. The voyage so far however reveals much to the contrary in both cases, much tenor left in relativism alongside revealingly murky turns in universalism.

After all, both ideologies may have a lot of good for humanity in shredding many of their aspects and confronting the human rights discourse in concert. This task may not be reasonably envisaged without many aspects of international and global relations being implicated. This would seem like an ideological truce at the utter decimation of none, and at considerable expense to both universalism and cultural relativism as widely conceived and advocated.