ASU Caring About Human Rights Violations Discussion Responses – Description
I am posting 2 separate posts that need to be responded:
Each reply will get 3 points if it engages the post to which it responds in a meaningful way and based on the readings. The purpose of the reply is to discuss the way the post understands or applies the reading. Suggestion: your task will be easier if you read through a number of the posts and choose the ones to which you have meaningful things to reply. Reading just two posts at random and responding to them might appear as an easier shortcut, but it may make it actually more difficult to write a reply.
The best replies are the ones that encourage reflection, for example by saying things like (these are illustrations, not templates!):
I think that you got this particular part of the argument from the readings not fully accurately…
Your post made me rethink the way I understood the reading in that….
I agree with the way that you understand this piece of argument from the reading but I don’t think that it applies to the example you bring up…
I think that the two authors that you mention actually present different arguments….
Replies that engage the argument without circling back to the readings are expected to get 2 points.
Replies that are general and do not add anything meaningful are expected to receive 1 point (things like “I fully agree,” or, “I like what you wrote,” or, “this is exactly what I think.” Of course, each of these can be part of a good reply, but they cannot be the entire reply since they can apply equally to any post and do not demonstrate engagement with the argument).
post #1. There is a moral obligation to boycott any international event when there are severe human rights violations taking place in the hosting country. It is commonplace when these situations occur that countries that are attempting to participate in events (such as the Olympics) are barred from participating. The idea should be absolute, though, and should include nations in the global north. If there are humanitarian crises that occur within the United States, events hosted by the United States should be subject to boycotts by the international community as well.
Bringing attention to humanitarian crises can be challenging, specifically when nation-states of high influence are involved. Such is the case with the Uyghurs in China. China commands considerable influence globally, and thus, advocating a boycott of the Olympic games is a tangible way of educating the population of the world about the terror being caused there without significant geopolitical implications. This connects with Beitz’s ideas of human rights violations gaining international attention regardless of whether a tangible solution is brought forward (Beitz, 2003). It relies on the concept of shaming a nation by defacing their national image globally (Ignatief, 2003). This tactic is a valuable tool when engaging with powerful nations, as it can cause hesitation amongst those doing business with China (in this case), as their awful record on human rights will be made clear. The added benefit in this situation is that if the United States (the global hegemon) conducts a boycott of the Olympics, the rest of its allies in the global north are likely to follow. This could lead to a level of pressure applied to China, forcing them to reshuffle their strategy regarding the treatment of the Uyghurs without the need for intervention.
The readings suggest, though, that this idea of operating through the lens of shame is not always effective for engaging in a world where brutality and human rights violations regularly occur. What I found specifically profound was the intention of utilizing an International Criminal Tribunal (Ignatief, 2003). This, as a concept, is a perfect solution for dealing with global injustice, as it would remove the influence of powerful nations and attempt to look at geopolitical situations objectively. It would remove the influence of nations such as China (AND the United States) from being able to ensure they were not held accountable for egregious actions regarding humanitarian crises.
This builds into the second piece of the prompt, regarding a hypothetical British diplomat having to consider whether it is just to boycott the United States in addition to China because of the terror caused through drone strikes and the sheer number of executions that occur inside the nation. This would be sound moral conduct, as brutality occurs in the United States (specifically when the implications of the drone strikes are included). Politically, however, this is an unrealistic hypothetical. The prompt does not specify that the diplomat *must* be British, but if they hail from western Europe, they are beholden to the United States in a way that they are not to China. This is relevant because it defines why hypocrisy exists on the geopolitical stage. When China commits atrocities, they must be boycotted (because the global north has a vested interest in punishing China). When the United States commits atrocities, the global north plays apologetics for them because it is in their best interest to maintain power.
post #2 I had trouble deciding how to answer this question; it was very challenging to not answer the question from a political lens and to stick to evidence from the readings. Although the 2022 Winter Olympic Games have already transpired and the United States did not boycott, based on the insights gained from the readings, I don’t think that the United States would have ever boycotted them. I think that the United States boycotting the games would have been met with intense hypocrisy from the rest of the world. We are not immune to violating human rights, especially of non-Americans. As Ignatieff writes, “Persons who care about human rights violations committed against Palestinians may not care so much about human rights violations committed by Palestinians against Israelis, and vice versa” (Ignatieff, 2003, p.9). It is no secret that the United States and China have a tense history. To put it bluntly, I am not sure if a boycott would have made much of an effect aside from furthering the dislike that exists between the two powers. Realistically, condoning China’s treatment of certain groups such as the Uyghurs and Kazakhs by boycotting likely would not prevent any further human rights infractions. Though a different context, when Russia was banned from participating in the Olympic Games in 2019, though it was global news, it did not do much to cause any significant changes. Obviously nor did it prevent Russia from committing any further crimes.
It was also challenging to answer this question using primarily the readings and not basing my answer on a political perspective. A European diplomat with access to the Amnesty report highlighting explicit and conscious human rights violations committed by the United States would need to decide if boycotting China would require their government to also boycott the United States. Based on the provided readings, the answer to the European diplomat’s question would be that the European government would need to boycott both China and the United States for each nation’s respective human rights violations. Similar to my reasoning for the United States not boycotting the Olympic Games hosted by China, it would be hypocritical of the European government to boycott only one nation when both have committed extreme wrongdoings. “The demand for respect for individual human rights occurs within the framework of the sovereignty of states, and often a state that abuses human rights remains a better option for its citizens and for the rest of us than anarchy or collapse into long-term civil war” (Appiah, 2003, p.101). Though arguably “easier” to boycott only one country or even neither, one could say that the European government itself commits a human rights violation for condoning fellow nations’ heinous actions.
The post ASU Caring About Human Rights Violations Discussion Responses first appeared on .
