Human rights idealism - lost forever?

An interesting piece of commentary was posted yesterday on the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty website.

  Joan Baez and Bob Dylan at The March on Washington (August 28, 1963)

You can read it here.

While I agree that "faith in [certain] nonviolent human rights ideals among the young is essential and perhaps that "older Helsinki watchers [should or must] rededicate . . . to the very basics -- freedom of the media and freedom of association," something is clearly missing in this attempt at parallel.

As Ms. Fitzpatrick notes:

"Today, a young Canadian endorses the anarchists’ rampage at the G20 summit in Toronto and meets my expression of concern about violence with a sneer -- "That Joan Baez stuff doesn't work anymore." A young Kazakh public relations expert can reply to my protest about the closure of newspapers with a cynical shrug that "plurality breeds confusion."

First, I think the young Canadian was confused to equate Joan Baez (and that era, presumably) with current human rights realities and struggles in Central Asia or (more than likely) anywhere else.
[One could blame Neil Young, I suppose.]

Moreover, the anti-war movement of 1960s America was just that: Anti-war. Rising during the era of the Vietnam War (1965 to 1973), it was "the largest and most successful antiwar movement in U.S. history." It became the "war at home," rooted in early student radicalism protesting political repression on college campuses and considered to be a direct outgrowth of the Free Speech Movement.

Human rights lies in a broader, often nebulous arena known quintessentially, worldwide today, as: The United Nations. The OSCE with Kazakhstan at its head currently is mere sideshow to that main attraction.
The "spirit" of Helsinki has served its purpose (encouraging and supporting the death of communism) and now also fades in the face of such current, chaotic and challenging realities.

Why are the young not inspired to get involved individually and/or collectively?
I think the answer is certainly that "human rights groups are victims of their own success," in the sense noted, but the solution offered, albeit reflexively (or even reflectively), "Joan Baez stuff" is no solution at all.

In any case, I applaud Ms. Fitzpatrick for her peaceful "protest" in regards to the closure of newspapers and also in highlighting the Zhovtis case. Plurality of voices (via media) are essential for not only developing personal and public clarity, but for freedom and democracy. The young Kazakh public relations expert needs to get a grip as does his government.

Open and continuous dialogue (free press and association, too) serve as the internal and external preconditions for diminishing violence, improving government AND institutional response. It is not the limitations of new technologies that should be our concern, but the quantity, and more essentially, the quality of the message that gets conveyed.