Since the French helped out against the British way back when, should they have a say on US matters? or was the debt cancelled when the US helped the French in the two World wars? Or is it now the US who can have a say in France and make them drink coke with their cake?
A couple of points–IIRC it wasn’t a UN mission in Kuwait, it was a coalition of nations to defend Saudi and stop aggression by Iraq/Saddam.
A great deal of the nations involved in the coalition happen to be Arab countries, where, likewise, the women do not have the right to vote.
Our costs for the defense of Saudi/liberation of Kuwait was offset, at least partially, by Saudi and Kuwait.
Should we have a right to tell Kuwait what to do? If we do, then what about the other nations involved? Who has the final say? Or is it a mash of all the thoughts of the liberating countries?
I would say the main reason we (the US) where there was to ensure the (as it is) stability of the region. The region’s stability is important for a couple of reasons: we (the US) have treaties binding us to the defense of certain nations, and, (let us be realistic) we get a large amount of oil from the area-and hopefully an ally won’t be as willing to f*ck us as an enemy would be.
As for my personal opion of the OP, yeah it would be nice if Kuwait gave women the vote-but I would also point out that not all of the Kuwait women want it.
I’m just wondering where this came from. First off. What does it matter if not all the women want it. That’s like saying sure, it’d be nice to free the slaves, but some of them are happy?
Second. Where do you get any information that not all of them want the right to vote. Could I see a sight or a quote?
I would say the “statue of limitations” runs out when the “liberated” territory has a stable government of their own that obeys international law and conventions for human rights.
oldscratch I think that there is quite a difference between slavery and sufferage, nonetheless, what I was trying to say that it is their culture and therefore have different ideas that differ from ours or others. While we may condemn them it doesn’t give us the right to force them to change.
I don’t have any hard numbers on how many women are in favour of the vote or not. I was pulling the info out of my head from something I saw on CNN, however, here is a quote and cite for you demonstrating that not all Kuwaiti women want the vote:
http://www.usinfo.state.gov/vitalvoices/globet.htm
(emphasis mine as well as NGO definition)
http://www.usembassy.ro/USIS/Washington-File/300/99-06-30/eur312.htm
(I think this may be a paraphrase of the statements above)
While not quite as blunt as I had posted earlier from my (often wrong) memory, but along the same lines.
Also, I noticed an earlier statement from you about the amount of people who can vote in Kuwait.
True, very few in Kuwait can vote. By Kuwaiti laws only men over 21 who have been citizens for at least 20 years can vote. I saw a cite where this equated to an electorate of 135,000 out of a country of 2 million.
Now, although the parliament turned down women sufferage right now, I believe the Amir has promised sufferage in 2003
While it’s not right now, it does appear that it will happen and having made the decision internally it doesn’t have the taint of something being forced upon them by outsiders.
This kind of reminds me of that German dude….Albert Shweittzer (can’t recall the spelling) who wandered around Africa in the 19th century preaching Christianity to the natives - dragging a piano. During slavery.
It’s incredible arrogance to think that not only is one way of life better than that of another culture’s but also that the other, lesser culture, should cease after thousands of years because it offends our transient value system. However, we do think screwing the ozone and polluting and raping the world of its resources in the name of capitalism is fine – this week.
When exactly did women get to vote in the West – about 100 years ago on average, when did blacks in the South get to go to school alongside white’s, when did the Brits start addressing Catholic rights in the North of Ireland. Arab culture is religion - it is not some transient notion of equality that we might feel good about today or this decade but the product of thousands of years.
Of course, there is a ‘Human Rights’ issue – but who wrote and determined those rights and who is wanting to impose those ‘Rights’ because they think it’s right. Personally, I can draw a distinction - albeit sometimes uncomfortable - between the indigenous culture of Kuwait on the one hand and Balkans (read: Western European culture) type abuses of Human Rights on the other.
Cultural Imperialism leads to the death of indigenous culture and a potentially soulless existence - ask the Aborigines, Maoris, native Americans, even an African leader with a westernised name and, for goodness sake, wearing a suit.
**
Well the universal rights of man have been acceptable for quite a while, not just recently. Also, the kuwaiti denial of universal sufferage is not indicitive of their culture. There are muslim countries that practivce universal sufferage. Your argument doesn’t hold water. They are denying freedom to a specific element of the population. How you can justify that by appealing to cultural differences is beyond me. That’s like saying that slavery was justified because it was culturally acceptable in america.
**
This same argument could have been used to justify apartheid. Don’t tell me you supported the South African government’s “cultural” perogative in that institution.
This made me laugh. Do you know what Kuwaiti culture is like? It’s pretty westernized already. And what universal sufferage has to do with Cultural Imperialism is beyond me. Maybe you’d care to explain the link.
London_Calling, you raise some valid points about cultural differences, but let me use this example.
When South Africa practiced apartheid, most of the world ostracized that country. Why should denying rights to women be any more acceptable than denying rights to a portion of the population determined by racial characterisitcs?
I just remembered a quote that sums up london-callings position. This was writen regarding freedom of the press, but it can easily be substituted for freedom to vote.
“No man opposes freedom; at the most he opposses the freedom of others. Every kind of freedom has therefore always existed, only sometimes as special prvilege, at other times as a general right.
…The question is not whether freedom of the press should exist, for it always exists. The question is whether freedom of the press is the privilege of a few people or the privilege of the human mind. The question is whether one side’s wrongs should be the other’s rights. The question is whether “freedom of the mind” has more rights that “freedom against the mind”.”
In other words, should people be considered equal or not. Do you support freedoms and rights for everybody or freedom and rights for only a select few.
oldscratch - Justifying a culture it is not so difficult if you accept that the society of which that culture is a part reflects the religious teachings of the appropriate text (the Koran). The mind set is very different from ours: Unlike the West where religion, law and common culture are (often) drawn from a variety of origins (political, economic, social ‘evolvement’) and then interact to produce ‘society’, the Koran defines everything – it is the single font which defines the society. It is more than, as you have it, culture.
**oldscratch- Well the universal rights of man have been acceptable for quite a while, not just recently. **
Which do you mean – Blacks voting and pursuing education in the South, women voting, Rights of Native Americans. It’s, as I say, a transient value system – 30 years ago our definition of ‘Rights’ was quite different. Remember John Wayne – all American hero making a film career out of killing savages ?
Things have changed ? No. Take Kosovo. According to the terms of the International Convention on Human Rights, those refugee’s had a RIGHT to go wherever the hell they wanted – they filled all the specified criteria that we defined and signed up for. Yet we wouldn’t let the vast majority of them anywhere near our respective countries. If that’s not a denial of human rights – West European citizens denied refuge by the West while escaping very clear oppression - I’m not sure what is. That’s last year.
“ Also, the kuwaiti denial of universal sufferage is not indicitive of their culture. There are muslim countries that practivce universal sufferage.”
Yes, there are Islamic countries who are more liberal than is Kuwait but they are still Islamic. The UK doesn’t fry criminals, we don’t allow guns, in the UK two years ago the Church finally allowed women to become priests, France allows single sex marriages. All of those examples mentioned are variations of the general single theme – denial or acceptance of ‘Human Rights’. Fact is: Kuwait is still a religious society irrespective of how they interpret the Koran.
Taking Arnold’s and oldscratch’s points on South Africa together.
I refer back to too my previously drawn distinction. It is sometimes uncomfortable but there is a whole lot of difference between three models:
(1) a wholly indigenous and ancient religion based culture/society (Kuwait),
(2) outsiders of an entirely different, transient and largely secular or non-religious culture/society, wanting to tell the former how they should be doing things (cultural imperialism), AND
(3) post-colonists imposing a denial of fundamental human rights on an entirely different culture/racial group within that society for the purposes of economic gain i.e. South Africa under Apartheid. This third group, to hark back to our ‘transient value system’, reflects the situation in the North of Ireland, Blacks in the South, Native Americans, Aborigine’s, Maori’s, etc, etc, until very recently. But we’re different now ? How the Mexican’s doing in California, the Turks in Germany, North African’s in Southern France ??
I’m not saying what’s happening in Kuwait is fine and dandy. What I am saying is it’s up to the women of Kuwait to affect change from within – just as (for example) the Suffragette’s did. Anything else is mind boggling cultural arrogance by us, the wonderfully enlightened West.
You know what London_Calling, I’m going to disagree with some of your points. However, I want you to remeber that I do not support the “west’s” right to tell Kuwait to let women vote, I agree with you it’s hypocritical. However, that doesn’t make what Kuwait does in any way justified. Now let’s go over some of the points.
**
Orientalism. Edward Said disposed of this theory rather handily in some of his books. No, they are not monolithic societies. There are quite a few outside influences and cultures that have influenced Kuwait. It’s not some pristine culture cut off from all outside influences. Seeing it as such is a form of cultural imperialism, like those stupid world music albums.
**
It is not a transient value system. You are mistaking government policy for values. Just because the government does something it is not the belief of the majority of people. evidence? The majority of people wanted universal sufferage in Germany in the 1840’s of course the government was an absolutist one, but that didn’t invalidate the notion of universal sufferage. Just becuase a western european government denies rights, it is not ok for a kuwaiti government to do the same.
**
Untrue. Only about 35% of the population is native born. The society has as much basis in British imperialism as it does in anything else. The state of Kuwait was created by the british.
**
Whatever. There is no religous basis for denying women the right to vote. I’m not sure what you mean by transient? And the cultures really aren’t that different.
You are making excuses for denying freedoms to a group of people. No matter how you want to dress it up that’s all you are doing.
“Untrue. Only about 35% of the population is native born. The society has as much basis in British imperialism as it does in anything else. The state of Kuwait was created by the british.”
If only 35% are native born then 65% don’t have to subject themselves to the laws. They can get the hell out - they’re there by choice – and not part of the Human Right’s question.
As for the rest:
Dear Mr President,
It has come to our attention that your society does not recognize the sacred nature of cows. This offends us and is fundamentally against our value system. We impose upon you the obligation to elevate the cow to a constitutionally recognized and appropriate status or we will no longer supply the West with oil.
Furthermore, you may feel all is not equal here in the Middle East but that doesn’t matter. In fact, we also don’t like the way you don’t accept single sex marriage, fry criminals, deny Human Rights to refugee’s and oppress various other minorities in many ways. Be as we wish you to be, Mr President, not as we are.
Please understand, America is an evil society and we are doing this in your own best interests.
In Praise of Allah
Guy with headdress, Kuwait City.
(I’m allowed to mix Hinduism and Islam to make the point - aren’t I ?)
I’m sorry. Native born should have read native kuwaiti. My mistake.
As for your dreadfull mixing of offensive cultural sterotypes, uuummm, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with that one.
Just the absurdity of a superficial, ‘liberal’ ideology, with little regard or respect for understanding, arrogantly imposing on another.
And those who think that the Kuwati Supreme court is right justifies the absurdity of a superficial, ‘conservative’ ideology, who thinks that justice is about ‘just us’.
London_Calling, you’re saying that a country should be able to decide on its own what basic rights its citizens have. I disagree. With that way of thinking, countries would never intervene in case of human rights violations.
While I’m not saying that any one country should impose its moral code on another, an international organization like the United Nations, which has members from the vast majority of internationally recognized national governments, should be able to determine policies for its member states, and Kuwait is a member state of the United Nations.
Referring to the link above of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, I will quote the following articles:
Are you saying that you disagree with some of these articles, or that member states of the United Nations should feel free to ignore them?
Some of your other arguments say “well other countries also have problems with equal treatment of all citizens.” How is that a justification for denying women the right to participate in government?
Neither of the above, Arnold. I’m saying Governments have always ignored the idealistic principles stated in the Declaration – yours, mine, all the members of the UN Security Council, Kuwait and everyone else in between.
The declaration was forged in the post-war determination of all nations to start anew. Idealistic but full of holes – it was never intended to be any more than a Declaration of Intention It’s completely unworkable but in the terms it’s presented to us by our governments (when it suits them) they are able to justify intervention and we are all impressed with the morality of our latest crusade. Use it to look at ourselves and things get pretty ugly.
For example, what’s more important do you think, the right to marry the person you love (breach of Article 16 with respect to gay marriages), the right to the education your ability merits (that has a life time effect – breach of Article 2), the right to be defended by someone of equal ability to the prosecution (especially if the verdict could be death – breach of Article 7) or the right to vote (breach of Article 21 with respect to people in prison – and women in Kuwait)
So, if we’re still addressing the OP, the Declaration is, IMHO, a red herring. – a self-grandising propaganda tool wheeled out by our Governments.
Arnold, the key to my understanding is the recognition that law in Kuwait isn’t made - they already have their law. It is the Koran. You don’t change that because another secular society wants you to anymore than the US would re-define the Constitution to appease them.
Yes, there are more liberal interpretations of the Koran than that offered by the Kuwaiti court. There are also more liberal interpretations of gay rights (France), universal education on demand (Sweden), the right to comparable legal representation (here and elsewhere, in theory), and much else. And don’t forget and looking at recent history, what we think is a ‘Right’ or otherwise has a pretty good chance of changing in the next 20/30 years.
In my view, what this comes down to is this: It is up to the women of Kuwait to persuade the courts that the interpretation of their equivalent of the Bible AND Constitution combined – the two things that define the fabric of that society - needs to be revised.
and i meant to finish with…otherwise we might as well go back to the German dude playing his Christian piano in the midst of slavery.
London_Calling, you say that Governments have always ignored the idealistic principles stated in the Declaration. Are you saying that’s right, or that we should accept or tolerate that?
I personally deplore the human rights violations that I see in western european countries, as much as the ones I see in other parts of the world. I still disagree with your position that says “Western European countries do not have a perfect human rights record so they can’t criticize another country’s human rights violations.” If some Kuwaiti said to you that (to take an example that may or may not be valid) muslims do not have full freedom of religion in France, would you tell them “that’s none of your business because in Kuwait you don’t allow women to vote?”
By the way, I’m not sure what you mean when you say “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is completely unworkable” so I can’t really address that statement.
You raise the issue of which right is more important than the other: voting, gay marriage, education, etc… I hate to think that one should “pick and choose” amongst human rights to figure out which one is more important. I personally think the right to life is the most important and fundamental right. But they are all important. Realistically though if you want to fight for human rights you should probably pick your battles if you want to achieve small victories. For example, in Amnesty International’s current campaign on Saudi Arabia, the organization decided that there are some issues they simply won’t address because it would be counter-productive at this point. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the other rights are less important.
Calling the UDHR “a self-grandising propaganda tool wheeled out by our Governments” is an unnecessary belittling of that document in my view. First of all, the document was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, not only by western european countries. Secondly, countries that disagree with the rights included in that document are not obligated to join the United Nations. If they do, in my opinion they should strive to adopt the Human Rights ideals espoused by the organization they have chosen to join. And if you want to argue that not all countries in the world respect the UDHR, I am quite willing to agree with you. That doesn’t mean I’m going to throw my hands in the air and say “human rights violations are OK.”
You say “in Kuwait their law is made - it’s the Koran.” I don’t see how that is relevant. If a country has laws that contravene internationally recognized human rights, then they should change the law even if it has a religious “justification.”
Yes, the definition of rights may change over the centuries. The founders of the USA patted themselves on the back for creating a society of “free men”, even though women were not allowed to participate in government and slavery was legal. That doesn’t mean that all their ideas were hypocritical and therefore useless. Many of the rights guaranteed in the USA constitution are important ideas that would (and should) apply to any country.
And yes, there are more or less liberal interpretations of what human rights should entail. That doesn’t mean that “anything goes.” For example, some countries do not interpret “the right to life” as forbidding the death penalty, other countries do. One should not conclude from that that a government should feel free to commit genocide.
Your final statement: “it should be up to the women of Kuwait to fight for their rights” seems cold and indifferent to me. I don’t see why when a group of people have injustices perpetrated against them, the rest of society (or the world) should say “that’s their problem, they should be the ones to deal with it.” As a member of Amnesty International I believe that it is the responsibility of everyone to help protect the rights not only of yourself, but of others. The idea that human rights in other countries are none of our concern is an outmoded way of thinking, and the UDHR seems to me an acceptable basis (at this point in history) for determining what is a human right.