Human Rights and Cynicism

Lori Allen’s analysis of the interwoven connections and connotations between cynicism and human rights in her book The Rise and Fall of Human Rights: Cynicism and Politics in Occupied Palestine is strikingly relevant in the conversation of paternalism and the idea of the Western savior. The idea of “human rights” as a profitable, capitalist entity informs the viewpoint of cynicism on a regular basis for Palestinian citizens, and for me was a starting point into gaining a deeper understanding of the ongoing conflict. As Allen states in her introduction, “The question is not why the human rights system does not actually protect human rights…. The question, rather, is how such a system that so obviously does not deliver on its promises continues to grow, functioning as if it could fulfill those ideals” (20). This passage strikingly brings to mind the motivations driven by capitalism that we have consistently returned to in our studies. Surely enough, she references this notion directly throughout the text, particularly in chapter two. On page 67 she describes the lifestyles of the “NGO elite” who have made quite a hefty profit off of human rights work, while the fruits of their work have yet to be clearly seen. Allen also states explicitly that one of her main theories regarding the work of human rights is that “the human rights system can promote social justice only when it is understood in explicitly political terms and motivated by political goals” (69). Interestingly, she juxtaposes this theory with her analysis of the depoliticization of human rights organizations in Palestine, which she notes later in the same chapter is in direct correlation with the monetary goals of these organizations (78-79).

For Palestinian political activists, cynicism is sparked by the association of human rights organizations with private donors. “These donor funds have come to be seen as morally dubious, directed by people with private political interests rather than Palestinian nationalist goals” (79). It is rather hypocritical of these organizations to simultaneously reject political affiliation while accepting donations which carry political sway. In this instance, the term “depoliticization” then becomes somewhat of a misnomer. Rather, it is more of a question of who or what is really in control behind closed doors. This reminds me strongly of our discussion of neoliberalism and the commodification of the academy, and in particular, the case of Steven Salaita’s firing. If we ask ourselves who is really in control of organizations we would otherwise trust, it becomes much more difficult to actively participate in said organizations. 

On page 103, Allen delves further into the conflicting nature of human rights work, explaining that while some choose it as a lesser-evil type of alternative to military politics, for others it is an avenue to resources. This leads me to wonder, at what point does the line between the two become blurred? Given the corrupt nature of so many of these organizations, is it always a matter of choosing the lesser evil? “The Westerners’ money that buys the police cars and demands human rights performances is seen as having corrupted both Palestinian political values and the people who are bought and induced to act in insincere, non-nationalist ways” (133). In such a system of functioning, how can the citizens be expected to be anything but cynical and distrustful?