The protection and observance of human rights is a complex task on a global scale since countries’ cultural, political, and ethical norms differ from those defined by international laws. At the same time, international organizations make efforts to help people worldwide avoid the negative consequences of the violation of their rights. However, as Polman and Hopgood’s works demonstrate, the practices and principles of international organizations and institutions actually are often far from the humanitarian goals they advocate.
The main idea of ​​Hopgood’s articles is that the practices and principles of human rights, which are fundamental in the modern world, are dying, which is confirmed by various manifestations. For example, Hopgood notes that the adoption of laws and statutes is an essential element of the protection of the rights, but it does not mean that they will not be violated (13). In other words, the difference between enacting laws, taking regulatory action, and enforcing them is enormous. For example, despite the fight against female genital mutilation, some African countries have still not abandoned this practice (Hopgood 13). For this reason, the second sign that Hopgood points to is pushback from many states, which American and European organizations cannot effectively fight (14). For example, the prohibition of homosexuality in many countries of Africa and the Middle East, the restriction of China and Russia’s citizen’s freedoms, and the dictatorship of Africa and Latin America. According to Hopgood, this manifestation and development of many non-European countries with other systems of value, often based on religion, will lead to a multipolar world and a Neo-Westphalian system (18). In other words, human rights will no longer be viewed as universal and binding, which will fundamentally change the system of interaction between international organizations and institutions.
At the same time, Polman also argues that the current system of humanitarian organizations working to help and protect people’s rights has many shortcomings. One of the author’s central theses is that nongovernmental organizations are commercial, and this feature determines the directions and some principles of their work. For example, organizations choose those conflicts that will attract more public and donor attention because this helps them to get more return on funds. For instance, Polman tells about the Hutu children who were passing exams thanks to humanitarian aid, although the Tutsis did not have books or the opportunity to study (49-50). This fact is one example that organizations unevenly help in different conflicts. In addition, for the same purpose, organizations engage the media and manipulate facts. Polman cites the example of a cholera outbreak in a refugee camp in Rwanda when the media attributed people killed by Hutu extremists to the victims of the disease to raise more funds (39). At the same time, the author does not claim that organizations are not useful but discloses that their motives are often selfish.
Moreover, Polman also demonstrates that, in some cases, humanitarian interventions can do more harm than good to people. The first example is that, in some cases, organizations are forced to pay terrorists to deliver humanitarian aid. This situation happened in Sri Lanka in 2004 when Caritas paid 25% extra to the Tamil Tigers (Polman 160). Thus, the organization provided the terrorists with resources that they could use for the war. Another factor is that the assistance is not always qualified, but the organizations usually do not bear responsibility for their mistakes. For example, the European Commission sent food with radioactive contamination traces to Africa (Polman 91). However, these mistakes are rarely covered in the press, and the error of treatment by one volunteer can go completely unnoticed. Consequently, humanitarian aid recipients can suffer more harm than benefit to life, health, and human rights in practice.
Analyzing both authors’ work, one can come to the general conclusion that the processes of protecting and observing human rights have many shortcomings in real life. Polman demonstrates the internal reasons why humanitarian missions are of limited use to protect human rights or at least the bare minimum for life. Commercial nongovernmental organizations manipulate the facts to raise funds that often do not reach the beneficiaries (Polman 231). In the other case, even if funds are sufficient, they are used in places where this assistance is popular but not necessarily severely needed. Moreover, such help can even harm people due to the mistakes of organizations. These deficiencies are latent to the public and undermine the effective operation of organizations. At the same time, Hopgood points to external reasons for the ineffectiveness of modern institutions, which are more global. The discrepancy between the generally accepted norms based on the European value system, as well as the lack of effective sanctions, leads to a large-scale violation of human rights by countries. Such a trend is a progressive process that will be difficult for the European and American governments to overcome.
Therefore, taken together, the ideas of Polman and Hopgood demonstrate that the fight for human rights and its visible progress is more optimistic than it actually is, and the recipients are more a tool for creating a positive image of this struggle. While in some cases, organizations and institutions benefit people in critical situations, globally, these changes are insufficient. However, criticism and changes of humanitarian organizations can improve the situation slightly and really bring help to the suffering people and protection of human rights.
Works Cited
Hopgood, Stephen. “The Endtimes of Human Rights”. Changing Perspectives on Human Rights: Debating The Endtimes of Human Rights, edited by Doutje Lettinga and Lars van Troost, The Strategic Studies Project, 2013, pp.11-17.
Polman, Linda. The Crisis Caravan. Translated by Liz Waters, Metropolitan Books, 2010.