by Mona Pellerin

Created on: May 12, 2008   Last Updated: September 04, 2010

The moral obligation of every nation is to respect human rights. Within this context, the governing authority, public advocates and the general population must be willing to define and uphold these rights. As we see throughout history that the diminishing of rights always occurs with the poor and weak, who have little or no resources to respond to oppression. The question that is posed to the rest of the world is this: Who is morally responsible for any and all oppression regardless where it occurs?

To say that any one nation is responsible more than another is not an answer because the resources of any one nation will not hold-up in the long-term. Also, the stigma of imperialism always occurs if any one country is too much in the affairs of another. This presents a dilemma and puts countries that have moral consciences at risk of being attacked by rebels who see windows of opportunity due to stretched resources. This also creates conflict within countries who try to assist others when they have problems in their own homeland that need to be addressed.

The best case scenario is to have a global attitude about oppression that is so well-defined that oppressors are highly stigmatized and sanctioned for their actions. This attitude, defined in policy, must be backed by a coalition of world powers to have a significant effect. At the present time, the alliances and partnerships between nations respond more to economies and productions than to the respect for human life. Our global interdependence upon subsistence goods and the independence of powerful nations makes us vulnerable to overlooking some aberrant behaviors. A good example is the Olympic Games in Beijing. The stigmatization of China could have best been served by refusal to attend the games; not by just one country, but by enough countries to make an economical impact. This did not happen.

Americans did a great job in bringing the Darfur events into the public eye. The management of our countries resources, both human energy and finances depends upon wise judgment calls and reserve for the unknown. The responsibility of the global community is to prioritize objectives and until human rights are at the top of the list, we are all vulnerable to acting in behalf of our own countries and the limitations of our abilities to go beyond.

The United Nations, an attempt after WWII to prevent human attrocities is composed of 192 nations. At the World Summit in 2005, one of the reforms was for the international community to be able to intervene with any country where people were experiencing atrocious crimes. Seems appropriate for Darfur. Instead, the United Nations is in debate about its role; whether it should be constrained to humanitarian relief or human rights. Why one is distinguishable from the other is a big question?

Learn more about this author, Mona Pellerin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.