Is there really anything that surprising about this? Surely it just demonstrates that the people who pay (or claim to pay) most attention to the behaviour of states, either at the abstract academic level or in the study of really-existing human rights, know that states lie about what they do and why they do it. I am reminded of Chris Brown's quip that Chomsky is a 'saloon-bar realist' on precisely these grounds (although, of course, he was in disagreement).

Is the real difference not simply that 'proper' realists see this hypocrisy as necessary and structural while human rights defenders hold out hope for progressive change? Even then I think there is a certain shared perspective in that many human rights defenders feel that the best way to achieve their aims is to build popular movements which constrict or bypass the state, rather than taking the more standardly 'liberal' view that capture of the state can advance human rights.
PabloK | Homepage | 05.23.08 - 9:23 am | #