RoW as a Western conception?

While reading ch 1 in Johnson last night, about the philosophical origins of the Rules of War, I had flashbacks to my undergrad class on international human rights. Both concepts, HR and RoW, have their philosophical underpinnings in Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, as advanced over the centuries by Christian thinkers such as St. Augustine (of Hippo) and Thomas Aquinas, and Reformation-era thinkers such as Grotius. These concepts later developed into "natural rights," based on God's divinity and creation of people; 'natural rights' are something that are vaguely familiar to us in the form of 'proto-rights.' Johnson talks a bit about this progression in terms of RoW through the centuries to the modern era. Rightly so, as our focus is not on the past but on the present and future.

Having said all of this, there remains the fact that HR and RoW derive from a Judeo-Christian, and later Western, tradition. And unfashionable as it may be, is there not the same tension in the world of RoW as there is in the realm of HR about exactly how universal these principals are?

(This is the part where I remind my dear readers that I believe in the need for respect of RoW and HR, so don't leave me obnoxious posts calling me a fascist and such, cuz I'll delete them. I'm engaging in a thought-exercise-- nothing more, northing less. If your bleeding heart is offended, quit reading.)

In the various debates on the universality of HR, some countries have asserted that "western" HR standards don't apply to them, as they are non-Western cultures. While the motives of the questioning countries must be carefully considered (Burma, China, Iran anyone?), is it not possible that they just might have a point?

Different countries have different cultures and mores. Different things are considered appropriate in different places: in the US it is appropriate for females not to cover their hair when in public, while in religious neighbourhoods in Israel, it is inappropriate for females not to cover their hair in public. Of course, there is a major distinction: what is socially appropriate and what is legally required. If a lady does not cover her hair in a religious neighbourhood in Israel (say she's a visitor), she may be asked politely to cover herself, or perhaps jeered at by the inhabitants. But it's *highly* unlikely she would be subject to arrest (or worse) by the police. Not so in a place like Saudi Arabia, where she could be fined and whipped publically, or in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, where she could be fined, whipped, gang raped or executed for such a "crime." (Or in certain areas of Iraq under the control of religious extremists, where women are routinely murdered for visiting the hairdresser and wearing make-up) (I also have plenty to say about the barbarity that is Shari'a, but that will have to wait for another time)

In a similar vein, countries that have cultures that are more group-focused than individual-focused have different conceptions on what is appropriate treatment for individuals. Some countries with Confusian cultures have made this argument (Burma, China). Assuming that these states are not merely covering up or explaining away their own poor behaviour towards their citizens (a tall order indeed), isn't this a legitimate claim? We Westerners do things our way, they Chinese do things their way. In their culture, what we call "the rights of the individual" are not as strongly emphasised as in ours. So, in their context, it's not improper to treat citizens in a manner that appears more brutesque than in our culture. Why can't HR be relative? And further, what right do we Westerners have to impose our philiosophy on the non-Westerners?

I have to say that these arguments do have a certain ring about them. However, I'm less inclinded to believe them since they appear as a way of brushing off international criticism over how certain governments treat their citizens. I'm not sure that all HR are relative; some might be, especially economic-social ones. But I, personally, believe that all people have a set of fundamental rights, such that they are able to live in peace and with physical security, and not fear mistreatment at the hands of their government (from both what gov'ts do and don't do).

Taking this same concept and applying it to RoW, is it not possible that different societies have vastly different views on appropriate conduct in wartime? Are some of the things that we Westerners find so appalling and repulsive merely a part of another culture's pattern of warfare? Are there certain things that are now banned by the RoW regime a result of modernization of Western warfare, but still are practiced by less advanced militaries (for example pilage for the purpose of supply)? And again, who gave Westerners the perrogative to establish what is appropriate and not?

Hopefully I'll have some ideas on how to answer these questions by the end of the term.