Conference on U.N. & The Future, Feb. 1-2, 2002

Report on Committee on Country, Culture, & Self

by Nora Grady; Rosati-Kain High School, 2003

The conflict between human rights and national sovereignty is as old as human history.  In 1948, the United Nations (UN) was created to help settle this conflict.  However, in 1948, the world was a very different place than it is now in 2002.  While the conflict between human rights and sovereignty still exists, in many ways it is a very different struggle.  In early February of 2002, the Committee on Country, Culture, and Self  convened  at the Conference on the UN & the Future.  This committee, comprised of both delegates and citizens of:  Pakistan, Vietnam, Rwanda, USA, France, South Africa, Argentina, UK, Japan, Australia, Jamaica, Egypt, India, Russian Federation, Mauritius, China, Ireland, and Sierra Leone met to discuss the issues of culture, sovereignty, human rights, and their relationships.

The arduous task was opened with a broad discussion of possible topics for debate.  Through this discussion it was decided that, before a topic could be chosen, several items had to be clarified.  These points were: punishment for human rights violators, the definition of culture, the coexistence of sovereignty and human rights, and revision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Charter of the United Nations (Charter).  The committee broke into small groups for an unmoderated caucus to discuss these issues.  Each group was given one of the topics and had about thirty minutes to discuss and come to some type of conclusion.  At the end of discussion each group presented the information gathered to the rest of the committee.

The first presentation was on the definition of culture.  This group defined culture as:

• An abstract that is made up of predominating factors, attitudes, and behaviors with which a group of people identify.  These factors, attitudes, and behaviors include, but are not limited to:  political parties, religions, languages, financial status and occupation, ethnic heritage, location, rights in society, education, family background, and personal beliefs/ values. The group also defined self as a combination of cultural identification, national/ ethnic identification, and personal identification.  This means that a person’s self is influenced by their self-image, the cultures with which they identify, and the nation or ethnic group with which they identify.

Then came the presentation from the group discussing revision of the UDHR and the Charter, specifically Article 1 of the Charter.  Article 1 deals with the purposes of the UN.  This group decided that the Charter defines how the UN should enforce the UDHR and that the UDHR should be applied first to nations/ peoples/ cultures and then to individual people.  This means that on issues of human rights violations the UN should exercise its power over a nation in violation first.  Then, once an aid relationship with the nation has been established the UN may be called upon to prevent a culture or social/ ethnic grouping from violating rights in that nation.  If aid is given in this manner it can drastically reduce infringement on national sovereignty.

Third came the group discussing the coexistence of sovereignty and human rights.  Their conclusion was that in the UN’s and the world’s current states it is very difficult, if not impossible for sovereignty and human rights to coexist.  They established that one is preserved at the expense of the other in most all cases, and that more often than not, sovereignty is preserved while human rights suffer.  The group stated that the UN’s goal should be either to determine a way for them to coexist or to determine which should be preserved over the other.

Last was the presentation from the group discussing punishments for human rights violators.  Their conclusion was that the UN may intervene if a nation readily admits that human rights are being violated with in the nation’s boundaries, and if the nation in question willingly accepts UN aid.  Also, a special international court should be established specifically for the trial of human rights violators.

After all presentations had been given, the committee set the agenda for further debate of these issues.  First on the agenda was the definition of culture.  Discussion went quickly, as all were content with the definition and it was ratified 15 - 0 - 0.  The second point of the agenda was human rights violations.  Discussion seemed to be heading towards the eternal circle of the sovereignty vs. human rights struggle.  As a result the topic was remanded to an e-mail ring (yet to be set up) by a vote of 13 - 0 - 2.  Up next was the revision of purposes of the UN.  This topic came to be known as the ideal focus of the UDHR.  It was stated as “[The UN should]... work to focus on what specific countries are doing in violation of human rights before focusing  on violations committed by individuals.  This proposal was passed (count not available).  Finally came the discussion of sovereignty vs. human rights.  Since it was established that in the current state of affairs, the two cannot coexist, it was proposed that the UN work towards globalization, or creating a “world government.”

This idea caused heated debate.  On one side were the “globalists”, seeking a World Cooperation Organization.  They wanted to set up a world government based on aspects of the current United States government, such as nations taking on the role of state and the system of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and tyranny and a military set up similar to the US military - one federal military made up of soldiers from all nations and also each nation having its own forces, much like the US National Guard.  This military would be a line of defense until there was no one left to defend against, at which point it would become a sort of international “police force.”  There may eventually be no one left to defend against because globalization would not occur over night.  It would be conducted on a volunteer basis, meaning nations would not be forced to join, but as membership grew, the other nonmember nations would become jealous and/ or overpowered by the conglomerate, and eventually every nation would join.  This global government would ensure that sovereignty and human rights would no longer clash because there would be a supreme law code.  However, in opposition to the “globalists” were the “sovereigntists.”  This group preferred to keep the global situation as is.  They felt that no country would agree to giving up most of its sovereignty.  They preferred to keep what they have and work out for themselves how to deal with human rights violations.  Some issues of concern which they broached were the type of government  to be used, the type of law to be used, and whether or not Western views of human rights should be used or if a “blending of cultural views” would be possible.  As a result of these inquiries a proposal was written by the “globalists” stating that: Over the next ten years, the UN shall create and operate an investigatory committee to research and fact find governments, sovereignty, human rights, their relationships, and the possibility of integrating these ideas into a world union.  The committee shall be comprised of one delegate from each member nation, and on a volunteer basis, one citizen from each interested non-member nation.  This committee shall be funded by a .5% dues tax and any volunteer donations.  Once the ten year period is ended, the committee’s findings shall be presented to the UN. After a few moments of final debate, the proposal passed by a vote of 11 - 0 - 4, and thus ended the committee meeting. The Committee on Country, Culture, and Self tackled issues that have been under scrutiny for hundreds of years.  They did so in a calm, organized, concise manner, and came away with some clear-cut definitions and some tantalizing new ideas.  It seems that the teamwork and compromise exhibited during the conference is a mirror of the ability of nations to compromise in reality.