[ 7 ]
International Aspects of Human Rights
The future of our earth may depend on the ability of all [of us] to identify and develop new . . . patterns of relating across difference. The old definitions have not served us, nor the earth that supports us.
 
—Audre Lorde, 1995       
 
 
The focus of the preceding chapters has been on human rights and social work in a single country, with particular emphasis on the United States. Since most social workers will not be working in other countries, it may seem that knowledge about human rights in a global perspective would have little importance, but nothing could be further from reality.
At the international level, the social work profession places great importance on the concept of human rights (Ife 2008). The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) states that social work is based on respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all people and on the rights that follow from this. Human rights documents particularly relevant to social work include
 
 
From this statement by the IFSW, social workers must respect the basic human rights of individuals and groups as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights documents.
Human rights principles contemplate international cooperation and knowledge sharing as a means of realizing human rights for everyone. By recognizing the international aspect of human rights, social workers can establish connections to foreign counterparts and gain important knowledge about common social work issues.
 
 
The Global Perspective of Human Rights
 
Human rights do not exist in a vacuum or simply in a particular country. When considering human rights, it matters what happens in other countries because human rights do not stop at their borders. Therefore, what occurs in China is relevant to the exercise of human rights in the United States and other countries, just as what occurs in the United States is relevant to China and elsewhere.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights addresses the interconnectedness of countries by stating that everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which human rights can be realized (art. 28). This entitlement to a social and international order of human rights imposes obligations on all member countries of the United Nations. Countries must do what they can to promote human rights and create conditions in which human rights can flourish. As a member of the United Nations, the United States has a duty to help establish international norms that allow the exercise of human rights. With its enormous economic, military, and technological strength, the United States is better positioned than most countries to help achieve this goal. In addition to a social and international order that promotes human rights, the Universal Declaration states that everyone is entitled to the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights indispensable to dignity through national effort and international cooperation (art. 22). The United States, with its greater resources, has a duty to cooperate with other countries in bringing about this dignity.
 
U.S. Law Requires Human Rights Reports on Other Countries
 
A U.S. federal law requires the U.S. State Department to prepare annual human rights reports on almost every country. The State Department must then submit these reports to leaders of Congress (U.S. Department of State 2009).
Recent reports addressed “internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (U.S. Department of State 2009). The reports discussed the status of human rights in a particular country, with the focus on political and civil rights, including workers’ rights. Other than whether a country practices free trade as interpreted by the United States, economic human rights rights are not otherwise evaluated.
The U.S. State Department has been issuing these human rights reports for years and not without some irony or hypocrisy. During the term of President George W. Bush (2000–2008), the reports highlighted words like freedom and democracy. No acknowledgment of any U.S. shortcomings was evident in those reports. The most recent reporting period has come under President Barack Obama’s watch, and the tone is more considerate of how other countries may view the U.S. practice of issuing human rights reports on other countries:
 
As we publish these reports, the Department of State remains mindful of both domestic and international scrutiny of the United States’ record. . . . We do not consider views about our performance voiced by others in the international community . . . to be interference in our internal affairs, nor should other governments regard expressions about their performance as such. We and all other sovereign nations have international obligations to respect the universal human rights and freedoms of our citizens, and it is the responsibility of others to speak out when they believe those obligations are not being fulfilled. (U.S. Department of State 2009)
 
Would the United States really be so charitable to criticisms of its human rights records by others? Suppose the European Union each year prepared human rights reports on the United States, from not only a political perspective but also an economic and social viewpoint. The list of human rights violations could be quite lengthy, undoubtedly accompanied by outcries of “mind your own business” from U.S. politicians.
What exactly goes into the U.S. country reports on human rights practices? If a country tends to satisfy most human rights principles from a U.S. viewpoint, then the report will state that the country generally respects human rights. Inevitably, though, criticism follows. Consider the report on Germany:
 
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens. The government limited the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association for groups deemed extremist. There was governmental and societal discrimination against some minority religious groups. Harassment of racial minorities and foreigners, anti-Semitic acts, violence against women, and trafficking in persons were problems. (U.S. Department of State 2009)
 
That is about as good as the reports get. Woe to a country like Iran, which can do nothing right:
 
[The] government of Iran intensified its systematic campaign of intimidation against reformers, academics, journalists, and dissidents through arbitrary arrests, detentions, torture, and secret trials that occasionally end in executions. Executions of defendants who were juveniles at the time of their arrest continued [something the United States also did until 2005—author’s statement]. (U.S. Department of State 2009)
 
No doubt Iran deserves this criticism. But the problem with issuing all these reports is that members of Congress may become shielded from the human rights violations within their own backyard. If all they read are violations by others, a myopic viewpoint may become even more myopic and critical of other countries’ human rights records. Indeed, this type of reporting could actually inhibit human rights, especially in the United States.
 
 
The right to an international order in which human rights can be realized poses great challenges to social workers. Many of them are not involved with international issues, but as a human rights profession, social work inevitably crosses paths with global concerns. Increasing contacts between governments and individuals of other countries have created significant areas of international responsibility for social work, as well as new challenges, by reshaping the social work environment in the following ways:
 
 
The changing social work environment provides numerous opportunities for social workers to reshape the profession into a more diverse and internationally oriented field. The NASW’s code of ethics specifically notes that social workers should encourage respect for cultural and social diversity both in the United States and “globally” (NASW 1996, 6.04c). Other ethical responsibilities require social workers to extend their efforts to assist diverse populations both inside and outside the United States.
The increasing relevance of international issues to the social work profession creates a need for social work students to learn more about the international aspect of the profession. Human rights play a significant role in this area of study.
 
 
The Right to Development
 
Historically there has been strong resistance to the idea of a collective right to development: the right of people in poorer countries to a fairer share of global wealth and resources. The right to development means that wealthier countries, as well as international development agencies and financial institutions, are held accountable for the impact of poverty on human rights. Increasingly, the right to development is also understood to encompass the rights of people in poor and marginalized communities in developed countries.
From a U.S. or European perspective, the right to development may seem irrelevant or unimportant, but conditions in less economically developed countries often affect conditions in Western countries. Consider the circumstances surrounding the sale of illegal drugs brought from Mexico to the United States. If the U.S. demand for these drugs creates gangs or drug cartels that control these drugs, violence can easily affect not just Mexico but also the United States. Furthermore, the cultivation or manufacture of those drugs may be more profitable for those people living south of the U.S. border than other, more legitimate, types of employment. Without serious consideration by the United States of development issues and its own illegal drug use, the impact of the drug trade can cause great harm to U.S. society.
Another example of the interconnectedness of development issues was the threat of widespread anthrax attacks after the September 11, 2001, attack on New York’s World Trade Center. Before that time, the United States usually insisted that poorer countries respect patents on HIV-AID drugs and pay premium prices for those drugs. But because a German company held a key patent on anthrax antidotes, the United States considered ways to avoid the patent and obtain the drugs more cheaply (Ford 2001). After September 11, the “United States and its allies finally gave in to Third World demands that poor countries facing epidemics such as AIDS should be allowed to sidestep international patent law so as to make or buy cheap generic drugs” (Ford 2001, 10).
Unless the haves of the world pay more attention to the have-nots, a system of “global apartheid” may be inevitable. Global apartheid refers to an
 
international system of minority rule whose attributes include: differential access to basic human rights; wealth and power structural racism, embedded in global economic processes, political institutions, and cultural assumptions; and the international practice of double standards that assume inferior rights to be appropriate for certain “others,” defined by location, origin, race or gender. (Booker and Minter 2001, 11)
 
The wealthiest countries in the world have only a small part of the total world population but control the majority of its resources in cash terms and also dominate all major decision-making bodies (Alexander 1996). With this discrepancy in the distribution of resources, it is probably not a question of if, but when, the voices of the have-nots will become much louder.
Human rights principles require attention to the plight of the Third World and to obligations that wealthy countries have to the Third World. A right to development in a fair and equitable global system lies at the heart of human rights. In 1986 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development (UN 1986), which highlighted the human right of everyone to participate in economic, social, cultural, and political development. In addition, the declaration outlined countries’ obligations to create national and international conditions favorable to the right to development. Specific parts of the declaration provide that
 
 
Provisions of this declaration tend to be general and difficult to measure. For instance, “sustained action” to promote the more rapid development of developing countries does not specify what action should be taken. International aid programs often do little to improve the conditions of developing countries, yet a wealthy country providing international aid may believe that it is actually making sustained and effective efforts to develop other countries.
In September 2000, the United Nations passed a resolution known as the Millennium Declaration (UN 2000). This declaration incorporated concepts of the previous declaration on development but stressed broader goals in improving conditions around the world, particularly in less economically developed countries. The Millennium Declaration specifically mentioned the special needs of Africa, such as preventing and treating HIV/AIDS. In putting the declaration into practice, the UN defined eight goals to achieve by the year 2015:
 
1.  Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.
2.  Achieve universal primary education.
3.  Promote gender equality and empower women.
4.  Reduce child mortality.
5.  Improve maternal health.
6.  Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
7.  Ensure environmental sustainability.
8.  Develop a global partnership for development.
 
While few could object to provisions contained in the Declaration on the Right to Development and the Millennium Declaration, difficulties arise in actually measuring progress toward development and other conditions. Generally accepted statistics—such as gross domestic product (GDP)—do not adequately measure distribution and access to resources. Inequality of resources could be rampant within a country, even though its GDP ranks high among developing countries. To better indicate success in world development and an end to global apartheid, the following ten targets provide specific objectives to measure success:
 
1.  Everyone has enough to eat.
2.  Everyone has access to clean water and sanitation.
3.  Average life expectancy is equal, wherever you are born.
4.  Everyone has access to adequate housing, learning, and health care.
5.  Adult literacy is universal for men and women.
6.  Everyone has an income sufficient to sustain life; income inequality is less than 1:15 worldwide—in other words, nobody earns more than 15 times what another person earns on a worldwide basis.
7.  Average annual carbon dioxide emissions are below the sustainable level, estimated to be between 0.46 and 1.7 tons per person in every country.
8.  All adults have a say in their government and equal representation in international institutions.
9.  All have equal protection of the law.
10. All have equal freedom of movement worldwide. (Alexander 1996, 272)
 
Instead of relying on impersonal and misleading economic figures to measure a country’s development, these measures provide a more complete picture of how a society is faring. In economic performance, the United States always comes out on top or close to the top when measured by such traditional yardsticks as GDP. But how does the United States perform when measured by the preceding ten targets? Certainly, it meets many of those goals—but not all. When measured on a worldwide basis, these targets appear almost impossible to achieve, but they are commendable and worthy of consideration.
The danger of not seriously addressing human development issues lies in the consequences of this neglect: Famine, disease, violence, civil war, terrorism, and many other ills have roots in the global apartheid just mentioned. Social workers thus have a great incentive to broaden their interests and devote their attention to international development.
 
 
Millennium Development Goals: A Work in Progress
 
After passing the Millennium Declaration, the United Nations has made a relatively sustained effort to define goals and implement measures to reach those goals. However, progress toward those goals has not been sufficient to meet all the commitments contained in the declaration. According to Ban Kimoon, the UN’s current secretary-general,
 
Nine years ago, world leaders set far-sighted goals to free a major portion of humanity from the shackles of extreme poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease. They established targets for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women, environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development.
We have made important progress in this effort and have many successes on which to build. But we have been moving too slowly to meet our goals.
We cannot allow an unfavorable economic climate to undermine the commitments made in 2000. On the contrary, our efforts to restore economic growth should be seen as an opportunity to take some of the hard decisions needed to create a more equitable and sustainable future.
The global community cannot turn its back on the poor and the vulnerable. We must strengthen global cooperation and solidarity, and redouble our efforts to reach the MDG’s and advance the broader development agenda. Nothing less than the viability of our planet and the future of humanity are at stake. (UN 2009, 3)
 
The most recent global economic slowdown has made advancement toward the millennium goals even more difficult. And some of the progress that has been made is less evident in sub-Saharan Africa.
Despite concerns that the millennium goals will not be met by the target date of 2015, perhaps the most important aspect of the declaration has been the worldwide commitment to meeting those goals. This commitment reflects concern by the global community that inequality among countries works to the detriment of all.
 
 
International Human Rights Issues Relating to Social Work
 
In contrast to the broad issues of economic aid and social development, specific international human rights issues relating to the social work profession include cultural relativism, globalization, self-determination, social exclusion, and global apartheid. This list of issues is by no means complete, and social workers may encounter many other circumstances that involve cross-cultural issues of human rights. But by understanding concepts like cultural relativism, social workers will be better positioned to address other international human rights issues.
 
 
Cultural Relativism
 
In a strictly technical sense, human rights promote the idea of universality, which, in its extreme form, means that human rights apply to every country and individual without exception. This technical view of human rights has limitations, however, as difficulties often arise when applying or interpreting human rights in a particular cultural setting. Obviously, not all cultures are the same, which presents the dilemma of determining the role that culture should play in promoting human rights. If a country’s cultural norm prevents women from holding political office, should human rights principles of nondiscrimination overrule that cultural norm? Supporters of cultural relativism would claim that culture should prevail over any universal application of human rights. Yet the Platform for Action adopted by the United Nations in 1995 elevates human rights above cultural norms when those norms inhibit or hinder the human rights of women (UN 1996). For example, it is a human right that women not be discriminated against, on the basis of gender, in the workplace and participation in government. Therefore, if local custom frowns on women holding political positions, enforcement of this custom could be a human rights violation.
Cultural relativism received its greatest prominence as a means to counter colonialism. In the 1800s, colonizers believed that their culture was superior to those of their colonies. But in the 1900s, anthropologists questioned this cultural superiority and insisted that each culture had value in itself, a view that at the time appeared innovative and progressive (Roth Pierpont 2004).
In cultural relativism, all points of view are equally valid, and any truth is relative; that is, the truth belongs to the individual or her or his culture. All ethical, religious, and political beliefs are truths related to the cultural identity of the individual or society. Cultural relativism is appropriate in some aspects; for instance, language, food, clothing, art, and architecture differ from one culture to another, and it is desirable to maintain these differences (Pasamonik 2004). Also, cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that none of them can be understood or evaluated without reference to the others and to the cultural whole, the so-called pattern of culture (Lawson 1998, 13).
The phrase “cultural relativism” often creates confusion when discussing human rights. Simply stated, cultural relativism refers to a view that all cultures are equal and that universal values are secondary when examining cultural norms. No outside value is superior to that of the local culture. If the local culture allows female genital mutilation, then the human right prohibiting cruel or degrading treatment should not prevent it. If the culture accepts genital mutilation, then no outside principle should overrule the cultural norm.
When an uninsured American does not receive adequate medical treatment for an illness because he or she cannot afford it, the local culture and legal system should accept that, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to adequate medical care. This is another example of cultural relativism.
The problem with an uncritical acceptance of cultural relativism is the reluctance to examine the societal structure that creates the cultural norm. In discussing cultural relativism, a key question to ask is, Who defines culture and cultural norms (Rao 1995). Whose voices contribute, or are allowed to contribute, to the definition of culture and activities appropriate to that culture? Using the example of not allowing women to participate in policymaking, some might claim that women are not harmed or human rights are not violated under this cultural norm. However, exclusion from a vital societal function can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement, which does violate human rights principles. The claim that women have not participated in policymaking for centuries or decades does not necessarily justify this cultural norm, especially if women have never been allowed to voice their opinions of this norm.
The following are other examples of dilemmas that social workers could encounter in the cultural relativism versus universality debate on human rights:
 
•  A female Cambodian immigrant living in a U.S. city asks for help at a shelter for battered women. The local Cambodian Mutual Assistance Association criticizes this shelter, charging that its focus on counseling the woman on her rights and on preparations for independence are destroying the fabric of Cambodian family and social life.
•  Iranian social work educators were instrumental in bringing family planning services to Iran in the 1970s. Were the mullahs right that this represented a fundamental threat to the Islamic way of life, or was it essential practice to meet the needs of women and their families?
•  West Indian politicians in a U.S. city speak out against the child protection agency’s investigations of child abuse in families using corporal punishment, asserting that West Indians don’t want their children to grow up undisciplined.
•  Local community development workers in Bangladesh encounter a group of enraged local leaders, charging that their micro-enterprise and literacy programs for women are destroying family roles and violating the Koran [Qur’an].
•  Efforts to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment for gays and lesbians encounter hostility in Jamaica, Zimbabwe, the United States, and elsewhere. (Healy 2008, 242)
 
For a Western-oriented social workers, their positions on these situations may seem obvious: Men should not beat women; women should have the family-planning information available if desired; parents should not hit children as a form of discipline; women should be permitted to learn how to read and to have their own business; and gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination. Yet in applying human rights principles, social workers should consider and learn about the cultural aspect of any given particular situation. To do this, a knowledge of culture is crucial.
Like universality, cultural relativism has limits. Balancing of divergent interests is key to addressing these concepts of human rights. The usual criticism of cultural relativism focuses on “Westerners” trying to impose their views on “non-Westerners.” But when Western societies use cultural relativism as a mitigating factor within their own societies, a backlash can occur. “In Germany, in August 1997, an 18-year-old woman was burnt to death by her father for refusing to marry the man he had chosen. A German court gave [the father] a reduced sentence, saying he was practicing his culture and religion” (Namazie 1998).
According to one speaker, cultural relativism promotes this type of crime because it legitimizes and maintains savagery. It says that people’s rights are dependent on their nationality, religion, and culture. It says that the human rights of those of various cultures differ (Namazie 1998). This criticism of cultural relativism is clearly aimed at non-Western cultures. But for many years, southern U.S. states and their representatives strongly opposed the equality and integration of whites and blacks. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United States in 1948, the idea of equality for all and the notion of African Americans’ inferiority led to great conflict in certain segments of U.S. society. Many white southerners strongly opposed the universalism of human rights (McDougall 2004). Promoting cultural relativism in this situation would have defeated the purpose of human rights, since cultural relativism would have legitimatized racism.
 
 
Guidelines for Balancing Universalism and Cultural Relativism
 
The following guidelines can be used to analyze the preceding example of cultural relativism from a human rights viewpoint:
 
•  Examine closely the history of the cultural practice. What is the background or history leading to the cultural norm that conflicts with a particular human right as established by a declaration or other human rights document? What apparent rationale or reasons have created the cultural norm?
•  Examine the power brokers who determine the cultural norm. Has a democratic process of any kind been instrumental in establishing the cultural norm in question? After analyzing the history and background of a cultural practice, the next step in placing the practice into a human rights context is analyzing who actually determined the cultural norm. Have many voices been included in the establishment of the cultural norm, or does it appear to have been established by only a few segments of society?
•  Analyze the cultural practice within a contemporary human rights standard. What are the contemporary human rights standards against which the cultural practice should be compared? Over time, cultural norms that have existed for many years may appear incompatible with contemporary human rights standards. By analyzing a particular policy or practice by reference to its historical background, relevant democratic factors, and contemporary human rights standards, social workers can better understand the role of cultural relativism in human rights. This analysis also enables social workers to determine whether cultural relativism should control when the policy of practice conflicts with human rights (Reichert 2006, 104–7).
 
These guidelines can be applied to any conflict between universalism and cultural relativism, regardless of country or society. The resulting analysis often finds that cultural relativism rests on an outdated or oppressive foundation.
The human right to participate in an individual’s culture has the same importance as any other human right. Cultural relativism serves as a check on an unrestrained view of human rights but should be viewed critically and not be given an illegitimate priority over established human rights principles. The human right of culture does not validate practices that clearly cause physical, severe emotional, or other harm to another.
 
 
Globalization
 
One of the most widely discussed issues relating to human rights is that of globalization. Although it has not been well defined, globalization is widely used to connote a process of global integration in which diverse peoples, economies, cultures, and political processes are increasingly subjected to international influences.
 
People in small American towns watch television news reports about conflicts in Africa, maker international calls to family members on vacation in Europe, drive cars manufactured in Japan, or go out to eat foods originating in other countries without even thinking about it. Exposure to international events is not limited to the Western industrial nations. Today, rural villagers in India are familiar with the latest trends in European pop music, know about sensational murder trials in the United States, and are in regular communication with family members who work in other countries. (Midgley 1997, xii)
 
Although many governments and people have benefited from globalization, the key human rights issue is who benefits the most from globalization and who defines its goals or rules.
Assume that a shoe company in the United States decides to shift its production to China. The U.S. company has made this decision because of lower costs and fewer workplace regulations in China than in the United States. On the surface, China benefits from this new investment because the inflow of funds to establish a shoe factory creates jobs. In a similarly superficial fashion, by paying workers less and not being subject to strict employment conditions, the U.S. company benefits. The downside is that the U.S. company takes advantage of less stringent employment and environmental laws and low wages, and by allowing the U.S. company to invest in its territory, China may increase pollution and abuses in the workplace that the United States has escaped. In the United States, those who worked at the company lose their jobs and most likely their health care, pension, and other benefits. The bottom line is that globalization often creates both winners and losers. The winners in this example are the executives and possibly the shareholders of the U.S. company and those in China who receive profits from the investment. Chinese workers may now have jobs, but if their working conditions are hazardous or abusive, their health may suffer. The losers are definitely the employees at the now closed U.S. factory and, as noted, possibly the Chinese workers if their employment conditions affect their health.
In addition to asking who benefits from globalization, we might ask, Who defines the goals or rules of globalization? In this example, the Chinese government defines the rules of foreign operations within its territory. The decision to locate a U.S. factory or investment in China belongs to the executives of the U.S. company. In neither instance do workers play a significant role in the decision.
Does the establishment of a factory in China to make shoes for the U.S. market meet human rights principles, according to which everyone is entitled to a social order that promotes the Universal Declaration’s human rights? Unless the U.S. company helps its now unemployed workers find alternative employment and continues giving them their benefits until they find other work, then closing the factory would not promote human rights for those individuals. Also, unless the Chinese government required the U.S. company to provide a safe working environment, a nondiscriminatory hiring procedure, and fair wages, the establishment of a factory in China would not promote human rights for Chinese workers. And if China allowed the U.S. company to pollute the environment, this would be another violation of human rights.
Other aspects of globalization concern international organizations that set rules for international economic development and trade, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO). To receive benefits from these organizations, their members must follow rules. For instance, the WTO sets rules that may not always be in a member’s best interests:
 
Public health is a stark example. Diseases that are under control in the developed world cause millions of premature deaths in the developing world. One of the main reasons is a group of WTO patent-protection laws that have had a substantial impact on the price of drugs within the developing world where people’s need for drugs is great and their ability to pay is not. (Levinson 2001, 5)
 
The HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa illustrates how WTO patent rules can benefit wealthy countries and punish developing countries. Under these rules, all WTO member states are required to grant at least a twenty-year patent protection in all fields of technology, including drugs. These rules prevent other member countries from producing or importing cheap generic copies of otherwise patented drugs. If a country violates these rules, it may be subject to harsh penalties (Levinson 2001). The inability to afford drugs for treating HIV-AIDS becomes a life-or-death matter. If countries that cannot afford to purchase high-cost patented drugs for treatment are not allowed to produce those drugs or to import generic substitutes without incurring a severe penalty, then most likely no treatment will be available. The result is a knowing complicity in the deaths of millions of HIV-AIDS victims just for the sake of protecting the profits of Western drug companies that own the patents to these desperately needed drugs. Within the last few years, in a concession to this criticism of protecting patents, Western drug companies have agreed to provide needed HIV-AIDS drugs to countries at substantially reduced prices. But even at reduced prices, many countries may not be able to afford the drugs without financial assistance.
Even with restrictions on membership in international organizations, however, developing countries generally do increase the overall wealth of their citizens (Economist 2001, 67). In countries that have not “globalized” their economies as much as others, income per head has shrunk, and the number of people in poverty has risen. In countries that increased their international trade, income per head rose, as did levels of life expectancy and schooling. These comparisons can also be misleading, however, because they do not address progress among specific groups, such as women or minorities. Greater national wealth may not be a reliable indicator of a uniform benefit to society, since certain groups can fall through the cracks in the distribution of that wealth.
Globalization presents the social work profession with significant human rights and ethical challenges. It can bring many benefits to all countries, but at the same time, globalization can be disruptive and lead to human rights violations of individuals and communities.
 
 
Self-Determination
 
The concept of self-determination appears prominently in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other UN documents. In the context of human rights and the individual, self-determination refers to the right of an individual to freely develop his or her own personality and essentially make his or her own choices in life (UN 1948, art. 22). Self-determination also refers to the right of “peoples” to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development” (art. 1, para. 1).
Social workers frequently encounter self-determination in “end-of-life” decisions. The social work profession strives to enhance the quality of life; to encourage the exploration of life options; and to advocate for access to options, including providing all information to make appropriate choices. Competent individuals should be able to make their own choices, but only after being informed of all options and consequences (NASW 2009, 114–20). Whereas self-determination in this situation focuses on the individual, human rights issues of self-determination tend to focus on groups or countries.
On a group level, peoples have the right to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. Social workers may encounter a minority group within a state that feels totally estranged from the majority. How much freedom should the minority group be given in determining their political status? Should every minority group be allowed to secede from a country and create a separate state? In the United States and other countries, government has given indigenous and aboriginal peoples some authority to develop their own political entities and to create a nation within a particular area. To some extent, Native Americans have been allowed to determine their own policies within what is known as a reservation. Even though Native Americans may be allowed to “freely pursue” their economic, social, and cultural development on their reservations, the economic and social conditions there frequently result in high unemployment and alcoholism (Van Wormer 1997). The reservation concept might appear to be a proper method of achieving self-determination, but Native Americans might also feel trapped on the reservation. Indeed, Native Americans, especially younger ones, may view the reservation as nothing more than a sop to appease them and a cruel trick played on them by the U.S. government.
 
Native Americans: A Forgotten Minority
 
People traveling through the United States often encounter areas “reserved” for Indians, or Native Americans. Many of these areas are in desolate, off-the beaten-path locations that do not interfere with more economically developed regions. While some might say that these reservations allow the Native Americans to shape and run their own communities, others could say that their primary purpose is to keep Native Americans “out of sight and out of mind.”
Regardless of how we interpret the reservation system, what seems particularly noticeable is how some regions of the country incorporate Native American history into memorials and parks. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, the figure of General George Custer is legendary. By any interpretation, Native Americans would not view General Custer as one of their friends, for in the late 1800s, Custer led an expedition to remove Native Americans from the Black Hills in order to allow unrestricted gold mining there by white settlers. In the famous Battle of Little Big Horn, the Indian chief, Crazy Horse, and his followers killed Custer and his men. The U.S. Army later defeated the Native Americans and took Crazy Horse into custody, where he himself was killed in a purported escape attempt.
But instead of viewing Custer as a questionable figure, the state of South Dakota celebrates him, naming a park, town, and other sites after him. Custer State Park even offers a rewriting of history in its main visitors’ center. On the wall, various plaques summarize the history of how settlers came to the Black Hills looking for gold. Because the intrusion of whites into this area violated the agreements between the Native Americans and United States, the U.S. government “renegotiated” those agreements with the Native Americans to legalize the gold rush. In other words, the U.S. government made the Native Americans an offer they could not refuse. This unlikely version of history takes no account of the Native American viewpoint.
Attempts to encourage self-determination among Native Americans and other groups can be self-defeating if the purpose or result is merely to isolate the group. When promoting self-determination, the dominant group should do this in a manner that retains the dignity of the minority group.
 
Taken literally, the human rights concept of self-determination can result in any group qualifying as a “people” and being allowed to establish their own country or self-governing unit. Palestinians, Macedonians, Albanians, Native Hawaiians, French Canadians, and numerous other ethnic groups the world over all could claim the human right to determine their own political status and freely pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.
The logic of this human right is compelling but also seems to challenge the universality principle. Granting political status to individuals and groups with a common ancestry, religion, language, history, and other attributes has merit. But if human rights apply to all, regardless of origin or culture, then should self-determination occupy a primary role in human rights? Should the focus not be on ensuring the economic, social, and cultural rights of everyone rather than encouraging “peoples” to separate themselves from mainstream society? Should government policy not encourage Native Americans to adopt customs and language of the dominant culture, a policy that would most likely facilitate their achievement of economic, social, and political rights? If only the minority group would become more like the dominant group, then human rights would become much less messy. Cultural relativism concerns would diminish, and universality would become much easier to accomplish.
The drawback to ignoring the issue of self-determination becomes evident when considering assimilation into the dominant culture. While all peoples are entitled to economic and social human rights, without self-determination those in authority can belittle or diminish the importance of individuals and minority groups. Drafters of human rights documents clearly recognized the danger of promoting a dominant culture over a less prominent group. On both an individual and group level, self-determination contains important human rights principles in international social work.
 
 
Social Exclusion
 
Another social work concept closely linked to human rights is social exclusion, a term describing segments of the population who cannot take advantage of the opportunities available in society (Gore 1995). Social exclusion can lead to destructive consequences if allowed to fester.
Reference to social exclusion originated in France in the 1970s and was originally applied to disadvantaged or marginalized social groups, such as people with mental illness, drug problems, or family difficulties. In the 1980s, social exclusion evolved to refer to the new poverty associated with technological change and economic restructuring (Gore 1995, 1–2; Healy 2008, 363). Social exclusion expresses the loss of social opportunities available in the society and can be found at any level of society, both national and global:
The growing gap in wealth between the richest and poorest nations and between the richest and poorest segments of the population within nations is a major indicator of social exclusion. Refugees, migrants, and the displaced are often excluded from all benefits of citizenship—sometimes for their lifetime and even the lifetimes of their children. This is especially true of the undocumented. In the globalization of economies and institutions, social exclusion can be applied to analysis of trade, aid, migration, debt policies, and the like. The concept also is linked to other concepts: the socially excluded include those who are excluded from human rights and those who are excluded from security (Healy 2008, 364).
Social exclusion represents the opposite of what human rights mean. The goal of human rights is to give everyone a minimum basis for existence, which includes economic security and human dignity, political participation in society, and protection of the minority culture. Social exclusion violates all these human rights.
The consequences of international social exclusion can be devastating. Individuals who have no outlet to voice grievances or who receive inadequate compensation for their labor can never lead full lives. Some individuals may turn to violence as a reaction to their exclusion from society. In any case, those who fail to obtain a stake in the fruits of society will always lead a marginal existence.
Social workers should examine the circumstances of social exclusion. Viewing social exclusion in a human rights context can help them understand the actual and potential harm caused by this phenomenon. Human rights are meant to give everyone with political, economic, social, and cultural rights that ensure the participation of society’s marginal individuals and groups. Social exclusion violates the entire premise of human rights. By promoting human rights, social workers challenge circumstances of social exclusion.
 
Global Apartheid
 
The development of the world into different societies poses extraordinary challenges for both current and future generations of social workers. Perhaps the term that best encompasses these challenges is global apartheid:
 
Global apartheid, stated briefly, is an international system of minority rule whose attributes include: differential access to basic human rights; wealth and power structured by race and place; structural racism, embedded in global economic processes, political institutions, and cultural assumptions; and the international practice of double standards that assume inferior rights to be appropriate for certain “others,” defined by location, origin, race, or gender. (Booker and Minter 2001, 11)
 
The concept of global apartheid brings home underlying issues prevalent in international social work. Is one society or culture more deserving than another? What obligations do those in relatively wealthy countries have with respect to less wealthy countries? From a human rights perspective, social workers have a duty to learn about social issues affecting other cultures and societies. The social work profession must work toward a cooperative world society, one in which global apartheid has little or no part.
 
 
Summary
 
Most social workers will probably not work outside their own country of origin. Nonetheless, all the concepts described here—globalization, cultural relativism, self-determination, and social exclusion—address issues common to human rights. Understanding these concepts is crucial to a familiarity with human rights.
While this chapter has focused on the international perspective of human rights, it is true that viewing human rights as an international concept simply misses the point. No distinction should be made between human rights in the United States and human rights somewhere else. Although differences in culture may require diverse applications of human rights, their underlying significance transcends borders and cultures. Human rights belong to everyone, wherever they live.
 
 
Questions
 
1. “Human rights involve only those events happening in other countries.” Do you believe this statement is correct? Give reasons.
2. Is there a distinction between international social work and domestic social work?
3. How would you measure “development?”
4. What does the term global apartheid mean?
5. Overall, do you believe that globalization has benefited the world? What are some negative aspects of globalization? Positive aspects?
6. What is meant by “cultural relativism?” Should cultural practices take precedence over human rights principles?
7. Explain the concept of self-determination on both an individual and a national level, including the connection to human rights principles.
8. Does social exclusion conflict with human rights?
9. The International Code of Ethics specifically refers to human rights, but the NASW’s code of ethics makes no mention of human rights. What might be the reasons for the presence of human rights in the international code and the absence of human rights in NASW’s code?
10. Why is it important for social workers to learn about social work in other countries?
 
 
References
 
Alexander, T. 1996. Unravelling Global Apartheid. An Overview of World Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Booker, S., and W. Minter. 2001. Global apartheid. The Nation, July 9, pp. 11–17.
The Economist. 2001. Globalisation and prosperity: Going global, December 8–14, p. 67.
Ford, P. 2001. Injustice seen as fertile soil for terrorists. Christian Science Monitor, November 28, pp. 7, 10.
Gore, C. 1995. Introduction: Markets, citizenship, and social exclusion. In Social Exclusion: Rhetoric, Reality, Responses, ed. G. Rodgers, C. Gore, and J. B. Figueiredo, 1–40. Geneva: International Labor Organization/International Institute for Labor Studies.
Healy, L. 2008. International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ife, J. 2008. Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ISFW (International Federation of Social Workers). 2004. Ethics in Social Work, Statement of Principles, para. 3. Available at www.ifsw.org, under the heading ethics (accessed September 21, 2010).
Lawson, S. 1998. Democracy and the problem of cultural relativism: Normative issues for international politics. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations 12 (2): 251–71.
Levinson, M. 2001. Mismanaging globalization. Dissent, fall, pp. 5–7.
McDougall, G. 2004. Shame in our own house: How segregation and racism have fed U.S. resistance to international human-rights treaties. American Prospect, October, pp. 21–23.
Midgley, J. 1997. Social Welfare in Global Context. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Namazie, M. 1998. Cultural relativism—This era’s fascism. Available at http://www.hambastegi.org/english/selectedarticles.culturalr.htm (accessed October 30, 2003).
NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 1996. Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
——. 2009. Social Work Speaks: National Association of Social Workers Policy Statements, 2009–2012. 8th ed. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Pasamonik, B. 2004. The paradoxes of tolerance. Social Studies 95 (5): 206–11.
Rao, A. 1995. The politics of gender and culture in international human rights discourse. In Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, ed. J. Peters and W. Wolper, 167–75. New York: Routledge.
Reichert, E. 2006. Understanding Human Rights: An Exercise Book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roth Pierpont, C. 2004. The measure of America: How a rebel anthropologist waged war on racism. New Yorker, March 8, pp. 48–63.
UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 10, 1948. GA.Res.217 AIII. United Nations Document a/810. New York: United Nations.
——. 1986. Declaration on the Right to Development. GA Resolution 41/128. Adopted December 4, 1986.
——. 1996. The Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action. Fourth World Conference on Women, September 4–15, 1995, Beijing. New York: UN Department of Public Information.
——. 2000. Millennium Declaration. Resolution A/55/L.2. September 8, 2000. Available at http://www.un.org.millennium/bkgd.shtml (accessed September 11, 2009).
——2009. The Millennium development goals report. Available at http.www.un.org/millenniumgoals/reports (accessed September 11, 2009).
U.S. Department of State. 2009. Diplomacy in action: Human rights. Available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt (accessed September 11, 2009).
Van Wormer, K. 1997. Social Welfare: A World View. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.