Thread by @husnayn_

The functionality of the globalisation of "human rights" discourse for the west | 🧵

Most people don't understand the inherent politicisation in the discourse of human rights as preached by the western superpowers - and therefore end up falling for the illusion of benevolence

from the western end.

When west exports its value systems to "third-world" or developing nations, its assumed by laymen in naivety that the sole purpose of such 'educational schemes and moral frameworks' is the betterment of their society.

This is because such a discourse in wrapped in so many layers of subliminal incentives that the layman cannot imagine a superior civilisation lending the moral ideals it uses for its own people to third world countries except due to a maxim such as "Love thy neighbour".

What goes unnoticed are the power dynamics attached to such generous exportation of "Human Rights Discourse" to other nations - that help the west play the politics of legitimising/de-legitimising the practices of all the others in a language of ethics.

What this means is that once an imperialist regime alters the socio-ethical value framework of its targeted state at the very ground-root level, making it an exact copy of its own socio-ethical model, it paves the way for its justified intervention on ethical grounds of that

targeted state - since it builds into the masses of that state a complacency for intervention on "humanist grounds". This happens because now the targeted nation thinks like its soon-to-become imperial interventionist master and because the imperial state had already

turned the masses regarding socio-ethical issues, into a follower of its own framework - they wouldn't protest any of their interventionist actions/policies on ethical grounds and instead welcome the imperial power as their moral saviour.

Inviting whole-heartedly their policies on social, economic, religious and cultural issues as a sign of good-will, which the target themselves understand and (mis)judge to be for their own benefit and since their own frameworks

have been aligned with (made subservient to) the value systems of the western interventionists they lose the capacity to neutrally judge these policies as subjects external to it.

And consequently, only so much criticism can arise when you are to analyse policies that are a product of the value-system you yourself got gradually indoctrinated into.

Now in such a circumstance, the targeted nation had already lost its own value-system that (acting as a parallel/distinct framework) carried the spirit that was needed to analyse/criticise the western humanist theory - & instead is indoctrinated into adopting the western

worldview regarding rights of humans under the guise of "Lending a hand of help (i.e their own framework of thought) on moral grounds".

In such a scenario the target itself revolts against, not the interventionist, but what's left of its own intrinsic value-system, for its judging criteria is the (imported) standard of the western power and whatever therefore contradicts the understanding of the imperial

power, is judged to be wrong/evil. Hence the masses end up opposing their own former value-system which is the only source of revolt against the imperial power and supporting the external western powers against their own people on "humanist" grounds.

The decisive factor for ethico-political and social decision-making doesn't then remain in the teachings and legacy of one's own tradition that has sustained that society for ages but falls into the conclusions of the logic of the interventionist.

So, by the politics of human rights discourse as in foreign policy, the west deludes its targets into an active demand for western intervention into ones own affairs as an ethical arbitration from a civilisation that is believed to be superior on moral grounds.