Peacekeeping And The Universal Essay Research Paper

Peacekeeping And The Universal Essay, Research Paper

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights cam into

existence on December 10, 1948 when the General Assembly of the United Nations

adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following

this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicise

the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated,

displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational

institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or

territories." The idea was to proclaim a set of rights to which all

peoples of the world were entitled. The truth of the nature of the world and of

society in general is that this declaration is not always upheld in all of the

member countries of the UN. Fascist regimes still exist, ethnic cleansing still

goes on, and people are still persecuted for their beliefs. The question is

what should be done when a government refuses to uphold the declaration and

instead persecutes, discriminates, or treats members of its own society in a

cruel and or inhuman manner. Is it just for the United Nations to authorise

military action against these countries. Should the UN use destructive force to

insure that citizens are not tortured, or harmed unjustly by their governments.

Is it just for force to be used to prevent harm. The ethics of this question are far reaching and have a major impact on

the way that a UN mission to various countries to protect citizens takes place.

A poll being conducted at http://www.cbcnews.cbc.ca asked readers the following

question; .Is NATO justified in launching strikes against Yugoslavia.. The

tally after was that 58% of people who filled out the survey thought that NATO

was justified in using air strikes, and 42% were against, an interesting

outcome. The general public seems to be divided on the issue as to whether or

not military action is justified. The question behind that question though, is

what reasons that those against the action are against it. Are they ethically

against the use of force or are they voting no because they are just tired of

the whole conflict and would just as soon that we pulled out of the area all

together and let the problem and the people involved take care of themselves.

The fact that a large portion of the population has this feeling is something

to be considered also. Are we as say a western society justified in our

decision to create a Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our decision to

enforce this declaration onto other countries. Is it a violation of the

principles of non-interference in countries internal affairs. A question that

could almost be asked is, where do we get off making a declaration like this

and expectation the rest of the world to follow it just because we say that it

is right. What prerogative have we to push our view of what is right and what

is wrong on the rest of the world. It is fair to say that in the case of this

issue basic human decency allows us to make this kind of a declaration. There

comes a point where someone must stand up and take a stand for those that are

under the heel of a regime or force that is bent on their destruction, or the

disregard of their human rights. There is often little contention about the issue

when the targets are strictly military. A cheer goes up when a weaponry plant

in Kragujevac or an aircraft factory in Pancevo is hit. The mission is

justified and we are doing an excellent job and the mission is an important and

valid one. However when mistakes happen in war, as they always do when a

missile goes off course and a civilian target is hit why is it that the entire

mission and the ethics of the entire mission are called into question. While I

do not wish to say that it is ok for civilian targets to be hit, it is a given

that missiles are going to go off course and that bystanders are going to be

affected in a conflict. Whether it is the families of those killed at the

weapons plant and their loss, or the loss of the families of those who work at

that plant, how is it that the ethics behind the whole mission are suddenly

called into question. What has changed in the reason for the mission to take

place besides the fact that we now have to deal with the fact that innocent

people died and will die in any conflict. The fact remains that we felt that we

were justified in the fact that we wanted to use force in order to make sure

that the rights and freedoms of the individual were never trampled on in that

country again. ........... On the side that is for

the use of military force in order to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, there is the argument that there must be some consequence to violations

of this statute. There is really no point or little use in creating a Universal

Declaration of Human R

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать