The Strategic Use Of Human Rights Narratives In Conflict Zones – OpEd
The stories of human rights are a rather complicated and frequently disputable space in the present conflict areas. Even as such discourse remains critical to the expose of abuses and championing of justice, it is gradually becoming defined by the strategic concerns of rival forces. In weak states where the state authority is regularly questioned, language of rights is not only a moral structure but instrument of influence, mobilization and political legitimacy.
Some of these non-state players such as armed actors and ideological movements have been taught to make their agenda in the light of victimhood and rights denial. Positioning their causes as resisting systemic oppression and presenting victims of said systems, these collectives position themselves to appeal to the international community, civil society and media outlets that are all too willing to broadcast messages of resistance and resistance. Such an opposition is not always in line with ground realities but a tool to undermine the moral authority of the state and reset new terms of engagement. In many cases, these accounts do not consider the self-inflicted violence, social ills or discrimination that a group promotes.
Meanwhile in conflict-prone areas, the government is being confronted with the twin issue of preserving order amid ever-increasing scrutiny. Plans on security like counter terrorism campaigns, arrests, and spying have now acquired not only a perspective on legality, but also on morality. This puts states in a hot seat whereby their capacity to act in the face of internal threats is counter-balanced by international standards of human rights norms even when such threats involve transnational elements or rational insurgents with an ideology in mind.
The increasing influence of advocates networks, digital platforms, and international NGOs, that, directly or indirectly, facilitate the surge of a limited range of narratives only complicates the situation. Such stories are sometimes crafted by political activists who simply position state interventions as systemic violations without taking into consideration the multifaceted environment in which the said interventions take place. This has produced an out of proportion skewed picture where legitimacy of the state is called into question, whilst insurgent, or violent movements are black-and-white only victims.
This does not mean that human rights should not act accountable to the states. True advocacy, on the other hand, is associated with significant importance in securing transparency and justice. Yet, there is also need to question the way such language of rights is used, by whom, to what end and with what consequences. Otherwise, without such an analysis there is a danger that the discourse on human rights would be caught up in power plays and ideological contests, rather than it is supposed to be an instrument of protecting the vulnerable.
Rights-based framing in places of conflict shows the onset of an information battleground, on which legitimacy is increased not only by arms or law but also narrative. Perception is always half a battle in this field. The most successful stories do not refer to the most truthful ones, but those that recall the most, when they help to express or advertise the preconception of authoritarianism, marginalization, or wrongful history.
The moral clarity about human rights in conflict zones, therefore, is not enough because what is needed is rather nuanced. It involves methodical thinking. It is that understanding that narratives are produced, propagated and fought on several fronts, local, national, international, thus one need not face the temptation to take too easy explanations of complex matters. It also highlights the criticality of approaching these stories in a critical way in the case of the state stories or opposition or even transnational networks.
In the end, discrediting human rights as a framework should not be the aim, on the contrary, the integrity of human rights needs to be taken care of. This implies protecting it against instrumentalization as well as being cautious of actual abuses. Whereas in societies where there are conflicts, lives and legitimacy are on the line, truth has to be sought after, not only through advocacy but also through intellectual honesty.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
