The United States: Protector... and Violator?

The front page of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Taken from: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

The United States: Protector... and Violator? 

     While reading Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing written by Arabella Lyon and Lester C. Olson, I found their part of their essay made me question if the United States work in advocating for human rights, still held significance after multiple accounts of human rights violations.

"Although the United States has often portrayed itself as the "protector of human rights around the world, in recent years the United States has been condemned internationally for alleged human-rights violations, ranging from torture and sexual abuse to illegal wiretapping and invasions of privacy, all in the name of human security-a fundamental human right declared by the UN." (207, Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing)

      After reading that sentence I felt puzzled. The United States participates in the United Nations general assembly, representatives of the United States were influential in the writing and implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also according to the U.S. Department of State, "The protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago." But it seems they after many known human rights violations, whether they are "alleged or confirmed" seem to point in the direction that the US does believe in human rights, to an extent; if they must violate human rights in order to "protect" the well being of the citizens of the United States of America, they seem to have no issue violating basic human rights.  The Human Rights Watch publishes yearly on how countries have violated human rights and writes a summary an account for each one. I was shocked when I read what is actually considered a violation of human rights. Another notable violation of human rights was committed by the CIA against prisoners of the Abu Ghriab prison in Iraq. The Abu Ghriab violation made headlines but it seemed people turned a blind eye to it because they thought the country was committing these acts in the "best interest" of the United States. Personally, the United States violating human rights seems to change the discourse of human rights and changes the work and legislation the US has tried to accomplish to protect human rights.

     I bring this up in relation to another reading I recently completed, What Is an Author? written by Michel Foucault. In this essay, he mentions the name of an author and how that contributes to the way we interpret a text and go about understanding the meaning behind it. Two areas of the text jumped out at me after reading Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing.

"But if we proved that Shakespeare did not write those sonnets which pass for his, that would constitute a significant change and affect the manner in which the author's name functions." (907, What Is an Author?)

     I applied this back to Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing, when thinking about the United States as an author for human rights. After researching and reading about how the US, in fact, is a violator of human rights, does that change the discourse and the meaning behind the work they have done for human rights? If the author is supposed to shed some light on the text we are reading, then we should feel off-put by reading and learning how the United States is an "advocate" for human rights when they are not only violating the rights of their own citizens, but also the rights of citizens from other countries around the world. Does the fact that the United States violates human rights change the function of their name relating back to being a human rights advocator? To a certain extent, it does, at least in my personal opinion. It seems more like the US is an advocate for human rights until it conflicts what that the government deems to be in the best interest of the "security" of its citizens. 

"These differences may result from the fact that an author's name is not simply an element in a discourse; it performs a certain role with regard to narrative discourse, assuring a classifactory function. Such a name permits one to group together a certain number of texts, define them, differeniate them from and contrast them to others."
(907, What Is an Author?)

     After reading this section of Foucalt's essay, it made me realize that to someone who agrees with the way the US has handled violating human rights, or justifies alleged human rights violation through the "security" of the citizens of the United States may read texts about the US and human rights in a different way than someone who thinks that the US has no justification for violating human rights and are no better than the countries who unashamedly violate the rights of their citizens. When thinking of the US as an author for human rights one might agree, categorizing their work with the United Nations as positive and grouping them with other countries who also hold a high regard to human rights. On the other end of the spectrum, the idea of the United States is an advocate and author for human rights might lead someone to disagree, lumping them into a category with countries who are known for violating human rights.

     When thinking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights texts, the authors do hold some accountability to the text. Without the backing of an organization like the United Nations to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is formed by representatives from countries all over the world, they are considered the authors of the text, in my opinion. Due to this fact, it seems almost hypocritical for a country to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and support human rights in general, only to violate them. I understand that many countries around the world have also faced allegations and alleged human rights violations, not just the United States, but for the fact relating the two texts mentioned the US is an example I have used. I believe that in order to show the world the seriousness of human rights, and how they are not something to be taken light of, countries should not go about violating them, even if the justification is for the "safety" of its citizens. This mitigates the meaning of human rights, which is something that is already not taken seriously enough around the world. Countries who are considered advocates of human rights should do more to actually "practice what they preach". With that being said, I do not have a solution to the problem, it seems unrealistic in today's political climate around the world for a country to not somehow violate some sort of human right.