Arshad Mahmood Awan
In his recent address at the annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HR Council), Volker Turk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, painted a grim picture of the global landscape, stating that the international system is currently in turmoil. He argued that human rights are being stifled, especially in a world increasingly dominated by authoritarian regimes. While his concerns may be valid, it’s important to critically examine the broader context of his remarks, including the evolving global order and its implications for human rights, as well as the realpolitik dynamics at play.
Volker Turk, as the HR High Commissioner, occupies a position that is not elected by the public, but selected through a process that involves short-listing candidates by the Human Rights Council, with final approval from the General Assembly. Appointed for a fixed term of four years, Turk’s role is steeped in geopolitical realities and negotiations between various global powers, each vying for influence. Though the process is designed to ensure a fair geographic rotation, it is not without its share of political maneuvering—a reminder of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. While Turk is a qualified lawyer from Austria, it’s essential to consider that his perspective is inevitably shaped by his personal background and experience, as well as the geopolitical environment in which he operates.
Turk’s claim that the international system is in upheaval is not without merit. However, while upheaval traditionally carries a negative connotation, it is essential to recognize that this change could signify a shift toward a more multipolar world order—a transition that some may view as a correction to the previous unipolar dominance of Western powers. Over the last few decades, the West has repeatedly intervened in the affairs of sovereign nations, often under the guise of promoting democracy or humanitarian intervention. These actions have contributed to the rise of authoritarian governments in many parts of the world, but they have also fueled resistance against what many perceive as Western hegemony.
This transition toward a multipolar world is evident in the growing influence of countries like China, Russia, and India, which challenge the Western-led global system. These nations are increasingly positioning themselves as alternatives to the unipolar dominance of the West, advocating for a new order based on their own values and interests. The global power dynamics are evolving, and many countries that have historically been subject to Western interventions are now asserting their own sovereignty and seeking alliances outside the Western sphere of influence.
In the context of this shift, the rise of authoritarian regimes is not necessarily a result of some global conspiracy but rather a reflection of the growing desire for nations to chart their own courses without external interference. Authoritarian leaders, especially in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and parts of Asia, have capitalized on the desire for stability and national sovereignty. While these leaders often suppress dissent and limit individual freedoms, they also position themselves as defenders of their nations’ autonomy in the face of foreign interference.
One of the most pressing issues Turk highlighted was the migration crisis, which he linked to the erosion of human rights in many parts of the world. He argued that the influx of migrants into Europe is a direct consequence of the actions of Western powers, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where interventions have destabilized entire regions. This influx has become a central issue for far-right parties in Europe, who have capitalized on growing public dissatisfaction with immigration policies.
Countries like France and Germany, which have historically been welcoming to migrants, now face intense political pressure from far-right parties advocating for stricter anti-migration policies. These parties have gained significant traction, particularly in the wake of the refugee crisis triggered by conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The rise of these parties has sparked a broader debate about national identity, economic stability, and security.
Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:
In countries like Germany, where the far-right party AfD has proposed measures such as blocking Russian gas imports to counter the economic fallout from the war in Ukraine, the debate over migration is deeply intertwined with broader economic concerns. High levels of unemployment among nationals and the strain on public services due to the arrival of large numbers of migrants have fueled anti-migrant rhetoric. This shift toward nationalism is part of a broader European trend, where governments are increasingly reluctant to embrace immigration, citing concerns about economic integration and cultural assimilation.
While far-right parties are often criticized for their xenophobic and exclusionary policies, it is crucial to understand the root causes of their rise. Many citizens in European countries are dissatisfied with the status quo, feeling that their governments have failed to address pressing economic challenges. The increasing influence of the far-right represents a rejection of the traditional political establishment, which many believe has mishandled issues such as migration, unemployment, and national security.
The United States, which has long been a champion of liberal democratic values, now finds itself at a crossroads. The policies of the Biden administration, particularly in relation to the war in Ukraine and its stance on Russia, have faced growing criticism from within the US and abroad. Critics argue that the US, by ignoring Russia’s security concerns regarding NATO expansion, has contributed to the current crisis. This argument traces its roots to 2014, when the US and its NATO allies decided to ignore Russia’s warnings about encroaching on its border. The subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine are viewed by some as a direct consequence of Western interference in regional geopolitics.
While many in the West refuse to acknowledge the US’s role in escalating tensions with Russia, it is undeniable that the failure to engage in diplomatic solutions and the collapse of the Istanbul agreement in 2022 exacerbated the conflict. The failure of the Biden administration and the UK government under Boris Johnson to support a negotiated peace deal led to unnecessary loss of life and further territorial losses for Ukraine.
This situation has created divisions within the US itself, particularly regarding former President Donald Trump’s calls for negotiation with Russia. Trump’s willingness to engage with Russia is often viewed as a rejection of the bipartisan consensus that has traditionally supported a confrontational approach to Moscow. However, this approach, as Trump suggests, may be the only viable path to avoid further escalation and to stabilize the situation in Ukraine.
Domestically, the US faces growing criticism of its so-called “deep state” — the bureaucratic and military elite that wields significant influence over foreign policy decisions. Critics argue that this shadow government has played a significant role in shaping US interventions abroad, from Iraq to Libya and Syria, with devastating consequences. The rise of economic migrants to Europe is a direct consequence of these interventions, which have left countries in the Middle East and North Africa in ruin.
While the US mainstream media continues to attack Trump for his executive orders and unorthodox approach to governance, it is crucial to acknowledge that his administration’s efforts to streamline the government and reduce its size were a response to the growing influence of the deep state. By signing numerous executive orders, Trump aimed to shift power away from entrenched bureaucrats and restore executive control.
For countries like Pakistan, which have been directly affected by global political shifts, the situation is particularly challenging. The influx of over three million Afghan refugees and the ongoing threat of terrorism have placed immense pressure on the country. Pakistan’s foreign policy, which focuses on attracting foreign investment through non-binding memoranda of understanding, has struggled to keep pace with the rapid changes in the global landscape.
As Pakistan seeks to navigate this paradigm shift, it is essential to consider the broader geopolitical and economic implications. The country must strike a balance between fostering international partnerships and addressing the domestic challenges posed by the influx of migrants, rising terrorism, and economic instability. Moving forward, Pakistan must carefully evaluate its foreign policy strategies, ensuring they align with its long-term national interests in a rapidly changing world.
