PHA-Exchange> Food for a deceptive thought

[claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn]

Human Rights Reader 79

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE “WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION”: 

1. In world affairs parlance, often particular words, short phrases and 
slogans  briefly (or not so briefly) become fashionable; it may seem they do 
little harm. But, beware, thought is dependent on words. Cooked-up slogans can 
cover, hide and divert from reality. Many words and phrases are symbols and 
reflections of conceptual frameworks and economic and political schemes that 
influence (and can even distort) the political discourse and practices the 
world over. (Do ‘”the axis of evil”, “coalition of the willing” and “pre-
emptive defense” ring a bell?). With a good propaganda apparatus, these 
phrases can defend the indefensible. 

2. Human rights (HR) work is not immune to such deceptions. Governments, 
international financial institutions (IFIs) and many a development agency or 
trans-national corporation (TNC) have indeed kidnapped and are misusing terms 
such as  “democracy and HR”, “human development”, “human security” and even 
plain “human rights” and “peace”.  So, it behooves us to openly unmask these 
deceivers by denouncing the abstract and/or biased contexts in which they are 
using these otherwise very precise terms. After all, our disagreements with 
them are not only reflections of their verbal ambiguities. 

3. Language has been a political weapon for ages. Used as such, it is not out 
to prove, but to sell --and, in doing so, it can devaluate any existing 
intelligent political discourse.  This “double-speak” can and eventually does 
become intellectual dishonesty at its most perverse. Beware: Those who control 
the language, control the agenda. (J. Stauber, S. Rampton and E. Partridge)

4. Our mistake too often is that we think that facts can counter these slogans 
and will surely set us free
eventually! Many of us have, at some point in 
time, thought that if we can only get all the facts out there in the public 
eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. But it has 
been and is a vain hope. When the facts do not fit the frames of important 
duty-bearers, the frames are kept and the facts are ignored. Frames matter; 
once entrenched, they are hard to dispel. A good part of the rulers’ 
conceptual framing is unconscious (as is ours!). The question is: How much do 
we have to change where-the-prevailing-values-are-taking-us to advance in our 
HR work? (G. Lakoff)  [A good start is to say that the (new) HR framework will 
have to conform with what has been agreed to in the major UN conferences and 
Covenants over the past 20 or more years].

5. I think we simply have to analyze these conceptual frameworks to uncover 
which biases their proponents are coming from --and that is a political act. 
(*) Such an awareness does matter. Being able to analytically dissect and then 
to coherently articulate what is going on in the ‘frame’ in the background can 
change what is going on
if we choose to engage in the needed political debate 
that brings the underlying motivations to the fore! Such an exercise will also 
help us bring clarity to those leaders who hope to get concessions from 
governments that (passively at least) support the neo-liberal order for lack 
of alternatives.___________
(*):“The rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer”: Typing this 
popular slogan into Google gives over 34,000 hits.
  

6. In HR work, we acknowledge that most governments still need to address many 
unresolved questions about rights. Political leaders thus have to be well 
briefed in advance, and persuaded of the case for HR so that, once and for 
all, the HR perspective enters their ‘frames’. 

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn 
_____________________
Mostly taken from the South Letter, the South Centre’s magazine, issue 39, 
2003.



------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Netnam-HCMC ISP: http://www.hcmc.netnam.vn/