After the barbaric conflicts in the first half of the 20th century (AD) with millions of victims, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 67 years ago. The new code summarized fundamental views “on the rights to which every human being is entitled without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
In an interview for this year’s Human Rights Day, philosopher and political scientist Frieder Otto Wolf says that humanity cannot rest on past achievements. Wolf believes that the generations living today will first have to “show that they too can carry forward the hope for humane changes in the human condition.”
What is today’s International Human Rights Day from a humanist perspective, i.e. is it more of a day of celebration, commemoration or mourning from your point of view?
Frieder Otto Wolf: Unfortunately, from a humanist perspective, today cannot be celebrated as a public holiday. The situation of humanity is far too serious and critical for that. Progress has certainly been made since slavery and racism were constitutive of the European empires of the modern era. But today we are not only facing an unresolved economic and ecological structural crisis, which also affects the very poorest in Europe and in Germany the most severely; there is also a series of wars in whose origins and in whose conduct Germany and Europe are decisively involved – and also the repercussions of these international crises in the form of a wave of refugees to Germany and Europe. And while this backlash is certainly also due to the fact that the refugees – and their families – have themselves assessed their situation and taken the initiative to flee, it is therefore not comparable to the kind of informal declaration of war on the basis of which Al Khaida and the so-called IS – which French and English friends now refer to as “Daesh” in slangy Arabic in order to deny it the undeserved title of a state – are terrorizing the citizens of Europe.
So the day should rather be seen as a day of mourning?
This year’s December 10 can probably be regarded as such for two important reasons: Firstly, as we all know, human rights are obviously always and inevitably among the first victims of every war. In Germany and Europe in particular, many have entered into wars in recent months, and Germany and Europe themselves are obviously among the main perpetrators. And secondly, the course of the Paris climate summit shows just how far removed our governments currently are from being able to act effectively in response to the challenges posed by the complex crisis. Nevertheless, we should not see today as a day of mourning: The battle to be fought for human rights is far from successfully concluded – but it would also be completely wrong to simply give up on it now. Even without a heroism of “Despite everything!”, it is worth remembering the tasks and opportunities that the implementation of human rights as such still presents us with. Even if this sometimes seems to go beyond the horizon of our governments, as is being painfully demonstrated in Paris in view of the climate issues, humanity as a whole faces the challenge of overcoming the current crisis constellation in a sustainable and viable way. This must be an irrefutable imperative for humanists and will probably remain so for a long time to come.
You have now mentioned some facts and problems that must cause us concern. If people also tend to repress unpleasant things, do you see any aspects that could make the day more positive?
In fact, I also see reason for hope: for example, in the voluntary commitment of many helpers, without whom the official structures for receiving people who have fled to Germany and Europe would have collapsed long ago; in the refusal of many people, especially in Germany, to embrace a logic of warlike escalation right now; in the sustained commitment of many civil society initiatives to start doing something to tackle the climate crisis on their own initiative, without waiting for their own state, the EU or the international community. And it is thanks to initiatives and movements that have been fighting for Human Rights Day at the UN since the late 18th century that it even exists today. If we do not give up today, we can certainly achieve something comparable to these pioneers.
With the many problems that you have just touched on, where should humanists currently focus their efforts?
I am not sure whether this can be answered in a globally uniform way – I will therefore limit myself to arguing from the perspective of German humanists. By defending human rights, which apply worldwide and to everyone, German humanists can and should actively work to prevent absolute poverty, combat the causes of flight, grant asylum and overcome the causes of war. I think that Germany, as one of the richer countries in a rich Europe, has a duty here – which, however, also applies in its own country, towards those who are already affected by poverty and marginalization, as well as towards those who seek refuge in this country. What about the
topic of the current report by the International Humanist and Ethical Union
i.e. the oppression and discrimination of non-religious people worldwide? What importance do you currently attach to this?
For us as German humanists, the discrimination and persecution of non-religious people is of course a central task of our concrete solidarity. In this sense, we will, for example, quite naturally advocate that such structures of oppression are not reproduced when taking in refugees. Or we will continue to engage in international solidarity with people who are persecuted and discriminated against in their countries for such reasons.
Quite a few people see traditional religions, and monotheistic religions in particular, as the main opponents to the realization of human rights as they were once laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Less religion, more human rights – is it that simple from a humanist point of view?
Even though I think it is quite right to reiterate here that the advocacy of human rights is neither of religious origin nor is it particularly prominent in the Christian churches – non-religious intellectuals and politicians developed the idea of human rights and it was precisely the Christian churches that acted against it for centuries – I believe that the reverse thesis, as it were, that religions and in particular the Christian churches are the actual problem to be solved in order to comprehensively enforce human rights, is historically and factually incorrect. Unfortunately, human forms and structures of rule have repeatedly trampled on human rights, not only in the dark past but also in the civilized night of the 20th century, even without seeking religious legitimation. And it would be strategically quite wrong to dispense with religious and ecclesiastical people, who since the Protestant politician William Wilberforce have really made a great and lasting commitment to human rights, as allies in their enforcement. Conversely, we cannot claim that non-religious people or even scientists are immune to racism and false totalizations of political violence – I only have to recall the fatal role of so-called Darwinists and eugenicists in the authoritarian and fascist movements and states of the last century. Here we will have to conduct a difficult debate about which forces have actually made it more difficult and in some cases prevented the implementation of human rights and the political development of citizens’ rights in modern democracies since the end of the 18th century. And how, in contrast, an effective alliance of all those people can actually be built up and made effective who are at least of good will in the sense that they are seriously and consistently committed to the implementation of human rights. Incidentally, in my view this is no longer simply a question of humanist morality but, at the latest since the declaration of human rights by the UN and the entry into force of several generations of international conventions on human rights, refers to applicable law – even if its enforcement is still more than patchy.
What gives you hope that we could emerge from today’s hyper-complex problem situation, as you have now presented it, with good results for the majority of people?
My hope is based on the historical experience that even in the night of the 20th century, many people were prepared to help or stand by people in their elementary human rights or at great risk – and to resist inhumane politics and power structures in general. Even if we are fully aware of the differences in the motives of those involved, it was an undeniable historical achievement of humanity that it was able to prevent a permanent seizure of power by fascism as well as the continuation of a deeply anti-human colonial system or the stabilization of the Stalinist perversion of a policy that went beyond the rule of the capitalist mode of production. However, as the Cold War and the new era of globalization of capitalism have shown, humanity can by no means rest on its laurels. Our generations will have to show that they too can carry forward the hope of humane changes in the human condition.
So where to start?
This sounds more difficult than it is: the very first steps for a humane commitment are usually obvious – it is always a matter of standing by those whose human rights are directly threatened. Beyond this, there is certainly also a need for concrete political strategies, which we as humanists will not be able to agree on easily. However, we will be able to recognize that, on the one hand, such specifics of political strategy are absolutely necessary, even if we cannot find a common basis for them, and that, on the other hand, political opposing positions must also be dealt with and wrestled with respect – and that the postulate of respecting human rights must not be overridden by strategic or even tactical considerations. A political debate in which humanist principles are brought to bear as criteria would then offer a better chance for viable solutions – that is, for solutions that can actually achieve a humanization of the conditions in which we live as human beings: In other words, in which we have the choice to lead our lives in a truly self-determined and self-responsible manner in our respective life contexts.
The questions were asked by Arik Platzek.
