Seventy-five years ago last week, UN member states meeting in Paris adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was not a binding law, only a statement of principle, but it was the first declaration to embed an ancient moral ideal of human equality into the new architecture of international law established in response to the genocidal nationalism that had left so much of the world in ruins after World War II.
This new moral universalism asked us to turn our backs on our instinctive partiality for members of our own tribe. It asked us to look past salient differences — race, creed, gender, class, national origin, language — and contemplate our shared humanity. Many at the time wondered whether we were capable of such a radical experiment.
As Hannah Arendt observed in 1948: “It seems that a man who is nothing but a man has lost the very qualities which make it possible for other people to treat him as a fellow man.”
Illustration: Yusha
The defenseless prisoners of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp had discovered that their claims as human beings — to pity and decency, let alone to rights — meant nothing to their tormentors. Only if such defenseless people had a state to protect them, would they be safe, Arendt said. The universal human being in all of us would have “the right to have rights” only if we all enjoyed the protections of citizenship.
Until 1989, the declaration’s utopian hopes were confined largely to the West. Former colonial peoples had never been part of the original negotiations that led to the declaration, and in the early decades of the Non-Aligned Movement, they generally resented Western criticism of their new regimes.
Meanwhile, nation-states across the Soviet empire contested the UN declaration’s legitimacy outright. The USSR and its satellites had abstained from the original vote, believing that the socialist rights they advocated were superior to the individual rights enshrined in the declaration. Only after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 did it become possible to believe that the whole world had at last embraced moral universalism.
Of course, such optimism seems hopelessly naive today, given the situation in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, Myanmar and elsewhere. The legal architecture built after 1945 to prevent the recurrence of our barbarous past appears to be in ruins. Russia’s war on Ukraine contravenes the UN Charter, Hamas’s own founding charter explicitly calls for the elimination of the Jewish people and Israel’s bombardment of Gaza seems cruel and unwise — even if it skirts accusations of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.
To blame this state of affairs on previous and current leaders might mask a larger truth: that the moral universalism of human rights asks more of most human beings than they can manage. Anyone who is not Palestinian, Jewish or Israeli ought to find moral universalism a relatively easy discipline. Yet consider how the world has divided into rigid camps as the Gaza catastrophe has unfolded.
For those living through the current nightmare, exhibiting a universalist empathy seems like a nonstarter. On one side, a people who live with the ancestral memory of the Holocaust cannot be expected to feel anything but dread after Hamas’s atrocities on Oct. 7. To seek revenge — or at least to re-establish deterrence with an overwhelming military response — is only too human. On the other side, a people who are descendants of refugees driven out of Mandate Palestine in 1948, and who have now been under continuous bombardment for weeks, cannot be expected to relate to any pain or fury other than their own.
If there is a lesson in all this, it is not to jettison the moral intuition that underpins human rights. Look closely and you will find that compassion and empathy are as resilient as cruelty and vengeance, even among those trapped in the cauldron of war. You will see Israeli and Palestinian moral universalists still committed to peace with justice. They are the ones who vindicate the sentiment underlying the Universal Declaration.
A remarkable feature of this catastrophic conflict, stretching back to 1948, is that there has never been a shortage of moral universalism on either side. The real problem is not the absence of empathy or compassion among those caught in the conflict (although recent events have certainly sapped these moral resources). Rather, it is the presence of malignant, murderous spoilers on both sides. The fate of two leaders who did make peace — former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, killed by a Jewish extremist, and former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, killed by Islamist fanatics — has been a powerful deterrent even for those who know that peace is the only viable path for their people.
Unless we concede that Rabin and Sadat’s shared vision died with them, the moral writ of the Universal Declaration remains valid in its insistence that all human beings suffer alike. Peace can still be achieved through the mutual recognition of pain and loss, but not until the spoilers on both sides — the settlers rampaging the West Bank and driving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government toward annexation and expropriation, and the jihadist militants who want nothing but to destroy Israel — are beaten.
By itself, moral universalism commits us simply to recognize the humanity of others and the reality of their suffering. The Universal Declaration tells us we should respect the rights of others and ensure that they are not violated. It does not tell us how. For that, we must engage in politics, where hard choices impose themselves.
That brings us back to Arendt’s critique of moral universalism — that in the absence of a state with the authority to recognize and uphold rights, a person is “nothing but” a human being. By this logic, the two-state solution in the Middle East is the only path to peace and justice, because statehood is the only guarantor of universal human rights. Only through two states can the spoilers be defeated — and the moral universalism of the UN declaration finally win out.
Michael Ignatieff, professor of history and rector emeritus of Central European University in Vienna, is a former Canadian politician and author of On Consolation: Finding Solace in Dark Times and Isaiah Berlin: A Life.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
RSS