Human rights in Iraq after the war Essay

The Americans are fairly blunt about promoting their corporate interests. A USAid spokeswoman was quoted recently pointing out that it should not come as a surprise that all of the companies short listed for work in Iraq are American. Her advice to non American companies is to pressurize their own governments. And this is driving the agenda of the European Union meeting in Brussels. President Chirac and others opposed to war have declared that while they condemn this war, they are willing to work with the UK and US on the reconstruction of Iraq. No doubt the popular sentiment in Europe favours providing support to the Iraqi people after a terrible devastation has been wrecked upon them. However, these governments are also under pressure to provide a role for their corporations in post war Iraq, a resource rich country. Thus, before the war has ended, the more divisive fight over the spoils of war has already started. In the now marginalized United Nations lies France and Germany’s best hopes of making the division of the loot somewhat egalitarian. But the Americans are prepared, more than ever, to brush away the UN, and impose direct rule on iraq. The British are hoping to receive their fair share of the crumbs for their loyalty. However, this comes at the heavy cost of alienating Britain from the rest of Europe. It is likely that this battle to divide the spoils will lead to important decisions concerning the future of the United Nations as well as the future relationship between America, Britain and Europe. OREND’S THEORY ON RECONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF HUMAN RIGHTS All human beings have human rights. However, human rights do not necessarily embrace anything and everything the anybody wants. Human rights are merely limited to those things which are both vitally needed and which can be provided at reasonable cost. A claim is at the core of any right, and that a claim is necessarily a claim on someone or something, in connection with some sought-after action or benefit, some good or policy. There is no such thing as a holder of a right without a correlative bearing any duty. The acts of the US and UK in Iraq after war can be considered as too much abuse to the basic human rights of the Iraqis. The Reconstruction being done to foster an economic advantage deprives the Iraqi of their basic economic benefits necessary to alleviate their lives. There is a plain disregard of a multi-aspect needs of the Iraqis for preservation, liberation, unification, democratization, and self-identity. The reconstruction projects are simply not directed towards the development and enhancement of the fundamentals of human existence and human rights. The excessive desire of the US government for profit and gains violates the basic principle of human rights, as according to Professor Orend, that is to love a â€Å"minimally decent lives†. Professor Orend holds a human right to be â€Å"a high-priority claim, or authoritative entitlement, justified by sufficient reasons, to a set of objects that are owed to each human person as a matter of minimally decent treatment†. He then asserts that to hold human rights â€Å"one must be biologically human, one must avoid violating another’s human rights, and one must have fundamental interests in, or vital needs for, living a life of minimal value. † Both formulations are valuable definitions and form a strong basis upon which to ground claims of rights. This requires a life that does not yearn for any excessive economic gains and benefits, unlike what the US Government and its cronies are manifesting. A life of simplicity within the level of a minimally decent lives requires only just enough resources to support the basic services and development of the State. It does not necessarily imply taking advantage of another’s ordeal just to promote one’s excessive economic needs. Orend shows who bears what duties in relation to human rights, questioning whether individuals or institutions are responsible for ensuring human rights. Orend concludes that both institutions and individuals bear responsibility for ensuring human rights on both a national and international level. This duty, he argues, directly correlates to one’s ability to affect human rights. So, while the duty of an individual is different from the duty of a multinational corporation, which in turn is different from the duty of a nation or international institution, all of these entities are responsible for ensuring that human rights are respected. Following on from this, Orend argues that post war reconstruction must occur via the established media of international law and governance but with the added insights of practices such as philosophy, human rights, history, public policy, and political science. It cannot be simply held and carried out purely for purposes of gains. There must be concerted and united efforts of all institutions and individuals of the word to perform their respective duty proceeding from the basic moral duty of respecting the basic dignity and rights of the Iraqis. All aspects must be duly considered in order to come up to a broader and complete plan of binging in reconstruction in Iraq. References: 1. 1. Fagan, Andrew. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Human Rights. Human Rights Center: University of Essex. 2006. http://www. iep. utm. edu/h/hum-rts. htm 2. Orend, Brian. Human Rights: Concept and Context. Petersburg, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002. http://www. du. edu/gsis/hrhw/booknotes/2004/zwiebach-2004. html.