The Politicization of Human Rights Must End

Human rights are universally acknowledged as fundamental principles that safeguard human dignity, freedom, and equality. However, their interpretation and application often vary across cultures, political systems, and historical contexts. A growing concern in the international community is the politicization of human rights, especially by Western powers, which selectively wield the human rights agenda to target political rivals while ignoring or downplaying violations by allied nations. This practice not only undermines the credibility of human rights advocacy but also exacerbates global divisions, fueling mistrust among nations.

Western Politicization of Human Rights

The West, led by countries like the United States, often presents itself as the custodian of global human rights. Through mechanisms such as annual human rights reports, it regularly criticizes nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, portraying them as violators of fundamental freedoms. However, glaring inconsistencies reveal a troubling double standard.

For example, Israel’s ongoing treatment of Palestinians, including the illegal occupation of territories, displacement of civilians, and restrictions on basic rights, is widely documented by international organizations such as the UN and Amnesty International. Yet, Western powers, particularly the US, continue to shield Israel from accountability by vetoing resolutions at the UN and providing unwavering military and financial support.

Similarly, in India, grave human rights violations in regions like Kashmir, where communication blackouts, mass detentions, and suppression of dissent are rampant, receive muted criticism. Despite evidence of systemic discrimination against Muslims and other minorities, India remains a favored partner of the West due to its geopolitical significance in countering China.

These selective practices erode the moral authority of Western nations in human rights advocacy, casting doubt on their sincerity and intentions.

The Chinese Approach to Human Rights

China’s perspective on human rights differs fundamentally from the Western model. Rooted in its historical and cultural context, China emphasizes collective rights over individual freedoms. For Beijing, economic development, social stability, and national sovereignty are seen as prerequisites for realizing broader human rights.

China asserts that development itself is a fundamental human right. This philosophy is evident in its unprecedented achievement of lifting over 800 million people out of poverty in just a few decades. By prioritizing economic prosperity and infrastructure development, initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are framed as contributions to global human rights by fostering shared growth and reducing inequality.

Furthermore, China advocates for a pluralistic interpretation of human rights, arguing that each nation should be free to define and implement these rights based on its cultural, historical, and socio-economic conditions.

The Islamic Approach to Human Rights

The Islamic worldview offers a comprehensive and balanced framework for human rights, rooted in divine guidance. Unlike the secular, individual-centric Western model, the Islamic approach integrates spiritual, moral, and social dimensions, ensuring that individual rights do not conflict with collective welfare.

Islam emphasizes the sanctity of life, justice, equality, and protection of human dignity. These principles are enshrined in the Qur’an and Sunnah, forming the basis of Islamic governance and jurisprudence. For example, the rights to life, property, and freedom of religion are inviolable, while societal duties ensure that these rights are upheld equitably.

Importantly, the Islamic model also considers the context of cultural and societal diversity. It rejects the imposition of a single, universal standard, advocating instead for mutual respect and understanding among nations.

Western vs. Chinese and Islamic Approaches

The Western human rights framework, primarily shaped by liberal democracies, prioritizes individual freedoms such as free speech, assembly, and political participation. While these rights are vital, the Western approach often overlooks the socio-economic and cultural realities of non-Western societies. Its insistence on universal application disregards the diversity of traditions, religions, and governance models across the globe.

In contrast, the Chinese model emphasizes collective well-being, economic growth, and sovereignty, while the Islamic approach harmonizes individual and societal rights within a moral and spiritual framework. Both models highlight the inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all human rights standard, calling for a more inclusive and culturally sensitive discourse.

The Double Standards in Human Rights Advocacy

The selective application of human rights principles by Western nations often targets countries that resist their geopolitical agendas. This approach undermines the universality and impartiality of human rights advocacy. For example:

• China: Criticized for its policies in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, China’s achievements in poverty eradication and development are largely ignored.
• Russia: Consistently vilified for domestic policies, while similar practices in allied nations are overlooked.
• Muslim World: Countries like Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey are frequently singled out, while abuses in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, allied to Western interests, face little scrutiny.

Such practices reinforce the perception that human rights are less about protecting human dignity and more about advancing strategic interests.

A Call for Broad-Based Human Rights Standards

To address these challenges, it is crucial to move towards a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to human rights. This requires recognizing the legitimacy of diverse cultural, religious, and political systems in shaping human rights frameworks. The following steps are essential:

• Promoting Dialogue: Encouraging conversations among nations to develop consensus-based standards that respect cultural and historical diversity.
• Rejecting Double Standards: Ensuring equal scrutiny and accountability for all nations, regardless of their geopolitical alignments.
• Focusing on Development: Recognizing socio-economic progress as a cornerstone of human dignity and prioritizing global cooperation to address inequality.

Summary

Human rights are a universal aspiration, but their implementation must respect the diversity of human societies. The West’s politicization of this issue, marked by double standards and selective criticism, undermines the integrity of global advocacy. Nations like China and the Muslim world offer alternative approaches that prioritize development, collective welfare, and cultural specificity, demonstrating that human dignity can be achieved through diverse pathways.

The global community must adopt a more balanced and inclusive approach, ensuring that human rights serve as a bridge for cooperation rather than a tool for division. Only by rejecting politicization and embracing diversity can the true essence of human rights be upheld for all.