Historically speaking, the West does not have the best track record when it comes to protecting human rights. The West has sacrificed these rights in favour of economic prosperity, whether that “compromise” was made through centuries of colonisation, where the West exploited people from other countries, or the Industrial Revolution and beyond, where it exploited its own citizens. Knowing this begs the question: why should developing countries not be allowed to do the same now?
On the one hand, you could argue that we, as a global society, have evolved since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was signed in 1948, giving all human beings inalienable rights. Allowing certain countries to compromise these rights for economic prosperity would negate the inalienability of these rights. Also ignoring human rights abuses solely because “they did it so we should be allowed to do it now” is a weak argument in favour of allowing human rights abuses to potentially achieve economic gains.
On the other hand, one problem is that the West sometimes sits on its high horse, preaching about the protection of human rights, while it does not hold itself to the same standards. Many big, western companies, whether in the tech industry, in fashion, food production, or the oil industry, just to name a few, seem eager to compromise human rights to prosper economically. Food production is a large sector where workers still have to endure human rights abuses in western countries, like the US or the UK, as of 2021.
As such, the question is not why the developing countries cannot do it now when the West did it for centuries in the past and still does, but rather why are there different standards for different countries? What are the benefits for developing countries in adhering to human rights?
DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR THE WEST AND THE REST
The reason why there are different standards for different countries when it comes to the protection of human rights is simple. A superpower, like the US or the European Union, can implement sanctions that pressure developing nations into compliance. Smaller or less developed countries could implement sanctions as well, however they will not have the same impact on developed nations as they do on developing nations.
Another problem is the way political power is shared in the international community. The UN Security Council has been criticised for decades for how unfairly power is divided. Giving no veto powers to Africa, the Middle East, and South America, and very little to Asia. Most of the power lies with the West. Countries like the US, France, and the UK each have a right to veto sanctions or military action. Meaning that when it comes to different standards on how to protect human rights globally, they make the rules.
Another example that illustrates how there are different standards for different countries is the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court has been criticised for years for focusing on prosecuting war criminals from developing countries, while not one person hailing from a western country has ever had to answer for crimes they committed. The problem here is not because western countries and their citizens have never committed war crimes in conflict. Developing countries simply do not have the same political power as developed countries to avoid being held accountable by the ICC.
COMPROMISING HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
It is important to point out that compromising human rights does not automatically lead to the economic prosperity of the offending country. The West prospered for centuries because, under colonialism, it exploited other countries and their people—not because it oppressed its own. The US, for example, prospered more after the abolition of slavery. This does not only apply to the US. In general, countries with free labour tend to be more prosperous.
When looking at the impact of protecting other human rights, studies have shown that basic rights like freedom of assembly and association, as well as electoral self-determination, have a profoundly positive impact on the economic prosperity of developing nations. Equally impactful is access to basic education and health care. This shows that all countries should be encouraged to protect human rights, because of the economic benefits that can be gained.
When it comes to who benefits from the exploitation of human rights, it is not the country itself that benefits. In the past, the elite few—slave owners, the nobility, or politicians—have economically prospered by disregarding human rights, while the broader public gained very little.
Nowadays, it is still the elite that prosper. Not having access to basic education, health care, or fair wages does not benefit a country at large, as a country needs a strong, broad base of purchasing power to thrive economically over time. If purchasing power is only held by an elite few, the county will still develop, but at a slower rate.
An exception to this is a country like Qatar—the richest country in the world. However, the people being exploited there are migrant workers from countries like the Philippines, Pakistan, or Nepal. It is neither a struggling developing country nor are their own citizens being exploited. This is why compromising human rights leads to economic prosperity in this case. It is like modern colonialism. In the past, colonialism brought about economic benefits for the West, because it exploited other countries and people. In this case, it is the same. Migrant workers in Qatar are not being paid for their work and then return home with debt if they survive.
THE WAY TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Promoting human rights is not only the right thing to do but the smart thing to do in economic terms. However, developing nations should not look to the West as a role model, but rather find a better way to achieve domestic economic prosperity. In the same vein, the West must do more to protect human rights in its own countries and refrain from using sanctions and other measures as means of pressuring other countries into compliance. The measures weaken economies and worsen human rights violations, as it is the most vulnerable that suffer most under sanction regimes.
Instead, developing countries should be given the tools to set up strong and robust human rights regimes, focused on providing the broader public with the autonomy to participate in the economic prosperity of their country, through education, health care, and fair labour standards.
Isabelle holds a MA in International and Comparative Commercial Law at SOAS, University of London and just completed her LLM in Professional Legal Practice at the University of Law, Leeds. Her focus lies on areas such as dispute resolution, the international tribunals and the use of force. She has experience working with refugees in South Africa and the Hague, Netherland.