RSS

September 3, 2009

Adrian Nelson

It is very difficult fo rme to take these comments seriously. How can anyone suggest that Germany take Guantanamo prisoners when this is an American problem? Germany,, as well as Europe, should follow its own path on human rights and shouldn't get invloved in this issue with the US.

Further to this, the suggestion that we should confront states that violate human rights is naive at best. States have interests and often these dictate that we must deal with states that we don't necessarily agree with. I would personally be quite happy for my country to deal with Burma if it was in the national benefit to do so.

September 3, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I find that contrary to the arguments advanced by Mr. Nelson, I almost completely agree with Herr Nooke.

The US does belong on the UN Human Rights Council and it can help make a difference, and the Obama administration surely can use the help of european nations in closing down Guantanamo Pay and in other matters. I was very disappointed earlier this year to see many of Obama's diplomatic proposals more or less rejected out of hand by the same people whoso eloquently denounced his predecessor. Herr Nooke points out that it is not enough to talk well, action is needed as well.

There are many registrants on this forum who argue passionately that the UN must be strengthened. What Herr Nooke is arguing for is a reversal of the largely successful efforts undertaken early this decade to drive the US out into the cold, to punish the US for refusing to toe the line set down by the European Bloc in the UN and elsewhere.

That diplomatic offensive largely did not fulfill it's goals. It was meant to isolate the US by radically cutting it's influence in the UN. The US took the bulk of it's diplomatic effort away from Turtle Bay, and the UN became even more of a European ghetto than it was before. If the UN is to work at all it cannot be the puppet of one region, but that is largely what it became. If Europeans wish the UN to be a living body, they must surrender control and persuade states outside Europe that it can be a fair, balanced meeting ground unbiased toward any single bloc of countries. That has not been accomplished yet, but comments such as the ones made by Herr Nooke may show there is room for this to occur.

September 3, 2009

Member deleted

While I agree with Nooke's three pillars - Credibility, Cooperation, and Confrontation - in theory, I also believe that the implementation thereof leaves many questions unanswered.

Credibility is, perhaps, the most effuse and potentially difficult of the three to define and, thus, to put in place. The obvious solution is to use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a baseline for Domestic Human Rights policy, which would in turn act as a measure of a state's credibility. However, this presents a problem with interpretation of the Declaration itself. Article 5, for example, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," but what constitutes cruelty?

It's probably safe to say that both the United States and the European Union would agree that prisoners should have a modicum of rights while incarcerated, such as access to clean water, appropriate levels of nutrition and exercise, and access to the judicial system in some form. But many member of the EU would also say that later executing that same prisoner constitutes "cruel and inhuman" behavior, while the United States has defended what it sees as its right to impose Capital Punishment. Such contradictions in cultural attitudes towards Human Rights would hamper any attempts to create such a baseline, but even if such a system could be put in place, what about those states that fall below the standard? The action of the Military Junta in Myanmar might be considered deplorable when contrasted against the UDHR, but does that mean that it should have no place in the discussion? If so, what chance (however improbable) does that leave for a peaceful transition to civilian rule?

Cooperation, the second of Nooke's pillars, also raises concerns. That Multilateral action must be the cornerstone of any Human Rights agenda has become a near universal understanding within the International Community, but at least two questions still require answers.

The first: Will the International Community really be represented by this plan? In his interview, Nooke makes it a point to focus on US-EU relations and their reliance on one another as partners in Human Rights going forward. However, that Western focus is precisely the exclusionist mentality that needs to be left behind in order to ensure that the International Community as a whole feels that they have both an interest and a say in Humanitarian Affairs.

The second question is equally important, and that is: Are there situations in which unilateral action is acceptable? The invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 is quickly becoming the paradigm of how unilateral action cannot be tolerated, and has brought lasting criticism on America’s reputation. However, after multilateral discussion regarding the Rwandan genocide in 1994 resulted in inaction, many now criticize the United States (including many domestic groups) for not acting unilaterally to end the conflict. Why does one situation seem to warrant unilateral action and the other condemn it?

The last of the three pillars – Confrontation – is probably a misnomer (the likely culprit being the alliteration shared by the three). The word itself carries with it such a negative connotation that it would likely be a huge point of contention, particularly among states and organizations who do not share the belief that strong-handed and hostile actions are a viable option for promoting Human Rights. It is important here to get the terminology correct and, alliteration aside, what I think Nooke is trying to express with this pillar is more akin to Interaction. Interaction would signify a broad scale of methods used to promote change – with negotiations on one end, military intervention on the other, and sanctions and other tools spread throughout the center.

However, without knowing just how broad that scale is, and each method’s relative location, it’s difficult to gauge how effective it may be in promoting Human Rights. How long should negotiations continue before imposing sanctions? How long before intervention? Does one form of Interaction preclude another? And what about states which, like Ethiopia, refuse to discuss their Human Rights policy with the International Community?

Of all the pillars, Confrontation – or Interaction – leaves the most questions unanswered, and yet it’s likely the most indispensable of the three. The idea of making any steps towards better Human Rights without first seeking to interact with the State itself is at best folly, at worst criminal. The trick will be deciding how best to balance the methods available and to choose the ones that will best help facilitate change.

Nooke’s pillars do what all pillars are meant to do – provide strength and support, in this case to an idea for a better International Human Rights policy. However, what pillars cannot do is bend, and I would argue that a certain degree of flexibility will be essential in forming a worldwide agreement on these issues.

September 4, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

"Are there situations in which unilateral action is acceptable?"

Unilateral action is both; unacceptable - and equally mandatory.

You have Rwanda, where it was the latter, followed by Iraq, the former. The single invariant in all times and places, is that the US will be considered to be in violation of International Law and all the laws of human justice and morality at all times.

The next time another devilish crisis brews up, the wise Presidten will replay "after you meinherr", and "Sorry: I've given up war crimes for Lent". Even if it isn't Lent.

September 4, 2009

Member deleted

So you're saying that it's America's unspoken role to be the hated but necessary unilateral actor in the World? I'd have to agree, though, ideally, I'd like to see that change. The real question, then, is if the United States will always be considered in violation of International Law, will its credibility ever be such that it can participate in peaceful Human Rights advocacy, a la Herr Nooke's ideas above?

Personally, I feel the failure of UNAMIR in 1994 was more of a result of fatigue within the World from a number of parallel conflicts - the former Yugoslavia, Mogadishu, and even the first Iraq war, to name just a few examples. Europe, like America, was still getting used to the end of the Cold War and more conflict was the last thing on their agenda. Had the fighting in Rwanda occured 2 years earlier or 2 years later, there would have been a better response from the International Community. The lesson learned is to not let fatigue caused by other conflicts shroud our eyes from problems facing the rest of the World.

September 5, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

"So you're saying that it's America's unspoken role to be the hated but necessary unilateral actor in the World?"

Not really. There is a kind of parable here, if you look at it correctly.
.
Two men. One clearly saw 800,000 people being murdered to death because of their race. He stood by and did nothing.

The second man saw another mass murderer at work, and somewhat opportunistically, and with no doubt impure motives - ended the reign of terror.

Which one does the 'world' (defined as EU elites) lionize, and which does it condemn?

Compare and contrast: Rwanda and Abu Ghraib (II). One caused 800,000 deaths, the secon probably - zero deaths. Which one was almost immediately forgotton and which one will be remember virtually forever?

Wehn you answer the questions I pose you will have a more profound understanding of modern humanitarianism.

September 6, 2009

Member deleted

"Which one does the 'world' (defined as EU elites) lionize, and which does it condemn? "

Well, first off, let's try to get away from defining the World as EU elites - that little misnomer isn't helping anyone.

The answer to your question is that the first man - Clinton - has been lionized and that the second man - Bush - has been condemned. But, Clinton hasn't been lionized because of not acting unilaterally in Rwanda, just as Bush hasn't been condemned simply because of the invasion of Iraq - you're presenting a false syllogism. The fact is that Clinton learned from his mistakes and Bush did not, which is why the first man is lionized and the second condemned.

Also, for the record, I would argue that Abu Ghraib absolutely cost lives, not least of all American lives, as it gave a stronger recruiting tool for Fundamentalists against the US Forces, not to mention the damage it did to any subsequent efforts the US will make towards peace. And neither will be forgotten, so I'm not exactly sure to what you're referring there - Abu Ghraib is still very much on the minds of anyone involved in trying to stabilize Iraq (and the greater Middle East in general) and Rwanda has remained an indelible scar on the collective conscious of Western Humanitarians - in the same vein as Biafra and Cambodia - and has fueled public awareness of later conflicts, such as Darfur.

September 7, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

Clinton did not only fail to act unilaterally in Rwanda - he failed to act at all. Except perhaps a few feeble verbal protests. He failed to put together a coalition of countries to take action. really he failed to try.

Did Clinton learn from his 'mistake'. Perhaps. He did act in Kosovo. Eventually. But if Kosovo had gone down as swiftly as Rwanda did, it would have occured before he could get the lead out and act.

You assert that Bush 'didn't learn from his mistakes'. I can only agree; he failed to learn from Iraq and invaded Iran, and what a disaster that was.... Oh, he didn't? Fancy that.

He failed to change his strategy in Iran and kept on with the same old... Oh, he did change that? To General Petraeus 'surge'. And it (mostly) worked.

He kept his first cabinet on and didn't replace Powell and Rumsfeld with Rice and Gates? Oh he did do that? And changed the diplomatic strategy also.

Both men changed their strategies, but on the face of it Bush changed a lot more than Clinton did.

Abu Ghraib certainly cost any lives, estimates range to between 100,000 to 250,000. But not
under the US occupation. Under Saddam.

Under Bush it is notorious for those pictures of Lynddie England and her friends putting inmates through silly and demeaning postures. For which they were duly tried and punished.

Did Abu Ghraib II (Dumb and Dumbererer) indirectly cause deaths? Perhaps. It raised feelings higher, and may have caused some incidents which would otherwise not have happened otherwise. Hard to judge. You can't prove it is so, but it's not completely unreasonable.

But not at least 100,000 deliberately tortured to death, as under Saddam. But if you viewed reports in the slanted western press, you would be justified in believing that what Lynddie and company did was FAR more henious than what went on before. It was massively overhyped, the previous used of Abu Ghraib barely mentioned in the western press.

So perhaps we can equally blame the western press for grossly misreporting the Abu Ghraib story? I think so. They are at least equally negligent with the Bush administration.

Rwanda is not an 'indelible scar' any more than Biafra and Cambodia were. In all three cases nobody lifted a finger to stop it. Which shows we didn't learn from Biafra. We forgot about Biafra, and then Cambodia.

The next time somebody decides to murder a million people the same thing will happen. We will moan a bit, watch it happen, and move on. Cover your ears, the screaming will end soon.

If Rwanda really was 'an indelible scar' we would be seeing active measures in place by now to stop the next one dead in it's tracks. Plans drawn up, supplies in place, possible situations wargamed out. Units from US, UK, Germany, France, Canada trained and ready to go. Treaties and agreements between countries detailing who contributes what.

See any of that? Nope. We haven't learned. So the next time it happens the US President will face an awful choice. Act unilaterally, and destroy his presidency and his reputtion. Or cover his ears and be lionized. as Clinton was.

September 7, 2009

Urs Schrade, University of Heidelberg, Silver Contributor (36)

In order to bring the discussion back to the issue of human rights:

In general I agree with Mr. Nooke and think US participation in the next session of the UN Human Rights Council could help to change the rules and procedures within the UN system. But I wouldn't be too optimistic as the basic question remains, to what extend states will follow the rules and procedures of the UNHRC, if they clash national interests.

It is Mr. Nelson's point, that is not easy to dismiss: States are always acting in order to pursue their own intrests and if own intrests clash with the concept of HR the latter miss out. I think we should focus in our discussion on this problem and try to figure out a way to escape this dillemma. Though, the question that needs to be answered is: how can we make the pursue of human rights a stake for states that can rival with economic and security interests?

I think that US participation in the next sesson of UNHRC is a good thing, but I seriously doubt that this will lead to a major change in US HR-behaviour, particularly if HR clash with US-security concerns.

September 7, 2009

Clayton Macdonald, , Silver Contributor (35)

I disagree with Nooke's claim that cooperation is not the goal. He may be interpreting cooperation as equivalent to capitulation and/or appeasement. Nevertheless, his rejection of cooperation as the goal is very precisely a rejection of peaceful and democratic resolution of disputes. By definition, democracy is a cooperative enterprise: it can be nothing else. As soon as cooperation is thrown out the window, so is rule of law under democracy and, very specifically, so is maintenance of egalitarian norms of human rights.

The great problem today is not an excess of cooperation, but its abysmal absence. Instead, we too often obsess about, and accede to, the “rights of states” and allow for the “states' interests” as if the state was a superior entity or even an entity at all. Unfortunately, those who identify themselves as the state have managed to get a firm grip on the throats of Earth's inhabitants and are not inclined to let go.

The realist political faction will argue, "that's the way it is and its dreaming to consider anything else," and, perhaps, they are right; I would still argue there is a place for dreaming. If – and I suppose that's a big if – egalitarian human rights are a common desired norm, then the solution to getting them is not likely to be found by asking the current states to accept higher risk; that would be a downstream solution unlikely to ever succeed. Rather, we need to find upstream solutions. A small part of developing those upstream solutions is for each of us to wholeheartedly embrace cooperation.

September 14, 2009

Günter Nooke, German Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid

Of course, cooperation is the base of the international community, the common ground for states acting within the framework of the UN. But: cooperation in itself is not a goal - and cannot be a goal!

Some of our positions are simply not negotiable. In the field of fundamental human rights there is not much space for negotiations - we can talk about procedural topics, but the main contents are non-negotiable - which is just another word for: universal.

What we often see in the international human rights' field, is negotiations about basic contents - and if we have a resolution that for instance covers 95 % of our ideas of freedom of expression, this might seem as a succes for human rights at first sight -- but it simply means a loss of 5 % of the content we understand as being non-negotiable. If we celebrate this kind of success for quite a while, let's say 10 times, it means losing 50 % of the content of a right we always considered to be universal. Or simply the total loss of the idea of universal human rights. So, sometimes we must refuse to reach this kind of cooperation successes. Cooperation sometimes means making a compromise, where compromises mean giving up principles in the long run.

Negotiations on a draft resolution on freedom of expression between the US and Egypt have so far resulted in an interesting paragraph: "Recalling that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and that States should encourage free, responsible and mutual respectful dialogue." I leave it to you to judge whether this formulation is beyond our red lines or not.