Many of the posts focus on the context of the UDHR, such as the ambiguous terms and their interpretations as well as the grounds on which many of the rights are established. In general I believe these Universal laws need to be in place and have sound reason to be. Despite whatever we may find wrong or inconsistent with these rights, they exist because in some way or fashion there have been clear and repetitive violations of these rights universally. However, not many of the posts seem to question the United States’ commitment to these rights, when as a country, the U.S. violates a majority of these rights daily.
I do not understand how a group of countries can come together to determine how it’s their personal duty to uphold these rights, when there is not clear evidence or support that they themselves govern themselves by these same laws. The U.S. has a strong reputation for being a powerful country that intervenes on the behalf of other countries when in need, yet from the inside looking out, many of the causes are based on self-interest. Many of the international issues the U.S. frowns upon are happening in its own backyard, yet the United States can sign an agreement that it will uphold a series of rights to protect every other nation. This makes no sense to me. The very basis of these rights being enforced and protected by countries that have no grounds to enforce their protection, is like giving criminals the task to establish laws and rights that protect violators of the law, and then have them commit to enforce these laws and rights. If I am a violator of the rights I’m claiming to protect, how can I properly and consistently ensure I will hold others to the true standard?
There are so many sayings about how one must first be in the position to help himself before he can help others, and I feel that any of these proverbs can apply to the United States’ commitment to upholding the UDHR. Before even considering signing this pledge, the U.S. should have been in a position in which the country itself reflected the same values and rights stated in the UDHR. Because this is not the case, Americans like many other citizens of other nations are still experiencing violations of their rights, under government officials that fail to recognize that rights are being violated and that a document such as the UDHR even exists.
How do you feel about the U.S.’s pledge to uphold the UDHR? Do the violations of rights in our country reflect the U.S.’s ability to uphold the universal rights else where?
I definitely agree with your idea that the US needs to work on itself before it can begin to enforce all of the rights listed in the UDHR, but at the same time, I would be more worried about the US if they had not signed the Declaration. Like you (and I'm sure most of the people in our class), I am very skeptical of US intervention in other countries because the US generally gets involved when they have something to lose or gain. It is never truly to help the other country, but at the same time, I think the US has ideals it is trying to work towards. And when I say the US, I don't just mean the government. Many citizens are very aware of the injustices that occur and are fighting to make the country a better place. Without the UDHR, it would be harder to back up some of the issues people are fighting for. I think that if people are working towards an ideal, that's better than nothing. As long as the US agrees to the Declaration, I will feel at least a little more at ease than if they denied it completely.
ReplyDeleteI never really considered that aspect of their involvement, but you're right. The United States' commitment to the UDHR allows for us as citizens to work toward making the country better despite its shortcomings. It's an unbalanced scale, but it's still attempting to go into a positive direction. Thanks Michelle.
ReplyDelete