Do Dictators Even Care About Human Lives? - Pouya Arjomand

Do dictators even care about human lives? - Pouya Arjomand - 2004-01-01. I have long been accustomed to living in ashes, my chest is full of pain, and my heart is full of hatred. Again, I am alive, but in my wish, there is no life. Like every living being, I too have a heart in my chest. Do dictators even care about human lives? As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 'the right to life, liberty, and personal security is a human right.' In an earthquake-prone country like Iran, this right means that every individual should have the opportunity to live in a house that is resistant to earthquakes, and if an earthquake disaster occurs, there must be a relief system in place that guarantees the individual's right to life and security. Governments and authoritarian movements, especially in Islamic countries, oppose the provisions of the universal declaration of human rights under the pretext that their countries have their own characteristics. They defend the notion of cultural relativism. This position in the human rights discussion means that there is no general and universal interpretation of human rights. From this perspective, cultural characteristics are paramount, not general and universal views on freedom and human rights. Naturally, characteristics must be considered, but not to counter the general interpretation of human rights, but to enrich its specific interpretation. In this regard, examining the issue of earthquakes from the perspective of human rights provides a clear example. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and personal security.' In an earthquake-prone country, this article can be interpreted as: every individual must have the opportunity to live in a house that is resistant to earthquakes. In the event of disasters such as earthquakes, there must be a relief system that guarantees the life and security of citizens. Guaranteeing rights is naturally dependent on economic, technical, and organizational capabilities. These capabilities potentially exist, and there are countries that have provided good models in this regard. Japan, whose people live with earthquakes, is a good example. The United States as well. The recent earthquake in California had the same intensity as the Bam earthquake. There, two people died; in Iran, at least twenty-eight thousand. It is not enough to state that the United States and Japan are advanced and wealthy countries. Iran is not a poor country; it has people ready to cooperate and a multitude of specialists in all necessary fields to deal with the disasters caused by earthquakes. The budget that is spent on limiting the rights and freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if spent on the national defense of citizens to cope with earthquakes, would prevent disasters like the Bam earthquake from being so catastrophic. It is the right of citizens to ask why they do not have security against earthquakes in the twenty-first century. Why are governments preoccupied with how to prevent freedom of expression, assembly, and organization, censor books, and close newspapers so that people do not become aware of their rights? The right to life and personal security is a fundamental human right. In our time, where this right is trampled upon in a matter of seconds, resulting in the loss of twenty-eight thousand lives, there is undoubtedly a fundamental problem in the field of human rights.