Reclaiming Human Rights in a Changing World Order

                 This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2022 at   https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022-10-10-reclaiming-human-rights-changing-world-order.pdf

                 Increasingly, democratic governments, including the original architects of the liberal system have become enablers in the dissipation of the protections of human rights. This book build on both the theoretical and day-to-day causes of weakening human rights commitments and practice to produce original policy recommendations to policymakers, activists, and academics for future action and research. The recommendations highlight the multidimensionality of the challenges and the responsibilities of stakeholders to rise to them. This book seeks to provide actionable proposals. They include the reframing of competition among global powers; reforming of the multilateral system; and adapting public debates to the threats of populist nationalism. We need look no further than the recent developments in Europe to understand both the relevance and urgency of this book. As we go to print, thousands of innocent lives are being lost in Ukraine. The invasion provide a clear example of what happens when a leader believes he is unconstrained by any political checks, independent media, or civil society. What lies at the core of the definition of human rights in a liberal democracy is the right and the ability for individuals to lead a life of liberty and opportunity, without abuse by the powerful or dominance by the majority. It is the job of government to provide the institutional framework and policies to deliver these human rights for their citizens. As this book reveals and explains, the tide has now turned for three reasons. First, the rise of China under the Communist Party of China (CPC) has offered an alternative path to politicians around the world. The CPC is offering a model that others may try to emulate. And it is incentivising others to prioritize political and economic control by offering large amounts of aid and investment to governments around the world. Unfortunately, corrupt politicians like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Najib Razak in Malaysia used Chinese financing to help entrench their political power while undermining human rights in the process. Second, technological advances have facilitated these efforts to centralize political control, with China again both leading the way and facilitating others. The fact is, whether autocratic leaders fail or succeed in delivering economic progress is not the point; their priority is always the same: not to relinquish power. Third, since the mid 2000s, the upholders of the U.N. Declaration of H.R. have become ambivalent about supporting the principles they had previously championed. Russia's invasion of Ukraine hsd reunited the liberal democracies in the defense of their political systems, as well as their sovereignty.  The deepening divide between these two systems is eroding the operating of multilateral institutions, not only the political ones, such as the U.N's Security Council and Human Rights Council, but also the economic ones, such as World Trade Organization. Globally the threats to the international rights regime today are multiple and complex. These threats to the rights framework are emerging from three new directions: increased geopolitical competition with new powers whose views are at odds with human rights obligations, the rise of xenophobic and populist movements, and the spread of surveillance technologies. More than simply challenging individual norms and institutions, these factors are undermining the consensus that developed around human rights since 1945. Despite the success and enduring popular commitment to human rights, the infrastructure of rules, processes, and institutions, and efforts to apply these norms in world affairs and domestic law and policy have eroded in recent years. Thirty years on from the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, the consensus around human rights has frayed. President Biden came into office promising to do all in his power to repair damages on the human rights regime. The new administration pledged to reinstate U.S. support for multilateralist approaches and institutions and to repair human rights defeciencies at home. The Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked that he would place democracy and human rights at the center of its foreign policy. Putin's domestic political rhetoric has capitalized on this wounded national pride and nursed it with a romanticized narrative of the Soviet legacy. He has repressed domestic opposition instead of purging corruption. Russia has turned into a Kleptocracy within which an anticorruption activist such as Navalny was able to become an international figure challenging Putin's regime. In January 2021, over 200,000 protesters gathered across Russia, to demand the release of opposition politician Navalny. Borrowing from the Soviet era, Russia has also instrumentalized laws to restrict opposing voices and democratic participation in politics. Media and academic freedoms have also been severely curtailed during Putin's regime, and strict regulations have been imposed on internet service providers and social media. It is no secret that, over the last decade, Beijing and Moscow have become more vocal in their questioning of the value of democracy and political rights. They are now emboldened geopolitically and actively seek to undermine democracy as part of their challenge to U.S. global leadership and the normative fabric of the international order. Internationally, China and Russia have promoted new counternorms that oppose universal rights by invoking sovereignty and security, the notion of civilizational diversity, and the importance of traditional values. Advocates and policymakers have been slow to recognize the sustained challenge that this counterordering entails. It is a challenge that will not simple fizzle out or depend on which country gains the upper hand in this era of renewed great power competition. Rather, advocates of human rights regime will have to step up and confront large swaths of illiberal order, now ensconced in the fabric of global governance, that were previously neglected or just diplomatically ignored. A world in which we can no longer assume that networks of global governance will function to suport human rights requires some bold action on behalf of governments, human rights defenders, and foundations. I propose four approaches: 1) Pursue comprehensive engagement with new regional bodies.  2) Be prepared to pick sides domestically.  3) Human rights donors should rescale globally.  4) Reforming the U.N. Human Rights Council. Western governments are paying increased attention to the ethical and human rights implications of emerging technologies. In their 2021 Digital and Technology Ministerial Declaration, the G7 member countries created the "Framework for Collaboration on Digital Technical Standards." The framework referred to internet protocols and standards for technologies as areas that "could affect values as open and democratic societies." This attention appears directly linked to a set of proposals that China submitted for the Standardization Unit of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the U.N. agency tasked with overseeing international cooperation in the telecom sector. The development of New IP has not happenned in isolation. China's intent to become a "tech superpower" has lead the country to invest heavily in smart tech, including 5G, big data, and cloud computing. While the economic incentives behind standards-setting efforts are clear, Chinese tech also represent a means to export Chinese cybernorms. Weak privacy protections, disregard for anonymity, and tolerance for surveillance are the distinctive features. In countries where Chinese equipment is already installed, deployment of New IP may only require software updates. Similarly, Russia is challenging the existing procedures to manage the internet globally. Surveillance is only permissible if it is limited in scope and duration, targeted, and subject to independent authorization and oversight. According to U.N. human rights council arbitrary surveillance, interception of communications, and collection of personal data are all violations of the right to privacy. The erosion of mechanisms that help protect anonymity could have a significant negative impact on dissidents, human rights defenders, journalists, and activists, all of whom rely on these tools to communicate freely. It would also jeopardize all internet users by rendering them vulnerable to state interference. New IP's surveillance capabilities would not only have an impact on individuals' right to privacy, but would also interfere with other civil and political rights that are essential for democratic societies.