Recent decisions by President Barrack Obama and continuing revelations about former President Dick Cheney strengthen the argument that we need a US Truth Commission to cleanse the national soul and pave the way for freedom to be restored.
"The truth shall set you free" is not an injunction that is tied to any "religious" insight into life, but a maxim whose legitimacy is established by simple logic, the most basic moral values for the good life and the need for periodic or continual cleansing of sins/mistakes that inhibit future possibilities for right actions that promote human freedom and the protection of human rights.
President Obama's backtracking on the decision to release photos of detainees requested by the ACLU under the Freedom Of Information Act, the similar backtracking on the terrorism tribunals at Guantanamo and the revelation of Dick Cheney's direct involvement in ordering torture not for national security concerns but to support his own policy decisions provides the latest evidence that a comprehensive Truth Commission to determine possible US involvement in human rights violations is necessary because the official and unofficial centers of power will not allow it to happen according to law or by means of their own policital will.
This is not a matter of whether or not the truth will come out. Frank Rich, in a recent New York Times editorial, notes that Obama's decision, supposedly to protect US troops from increasing anti-American sentiment across the globe, is a "fools errand" becuase the photos will eventually come out. So, Rich argues, it is better for the President and the nation to get on the side of truth and transparency from the beginning. The same is true about a Truth Commission. It is not that the Truth Commission will have to uncover the truth; the truth will be uncovered. The Truth Commission would serve to put our people, our nation, our country on the side of truth and human rights instead of on the side of the Cheney crowd who denies the importance of human rights and covers up all the dirtly tricks to violate them. President Obama is not one who, as far as we know, could be subject to the investigations of the Truth Commission, but he makes himself complicit in the cover up with these recent decisions. Cheney, on the other hand, plays both sides to his advantage, asking for release of memos when he thinks they will support him, but having a perfect record as Vice-President in denying all request for information that could unveil the truth.
The trouble with the Cheney record and the Obama decisions is that while politicians are protected and the troops are seemingly supported, the country is damaged and we, the people, are denied knowledge of what is being done in our name around the world. And, since National Security is always cited as the reason for violations of human rights, the Truth Commission could help us redefine this term in a way that actually protects our security instead of protecting those who violate it. The agreement of the world on the international treaties for Human Rights is based upon a sound assumption: there is nothing more important for national or human security than respect for human rights. Every known national leader who violated human rights from Idi Aman to Pol Pot argued that national security trumped human rights. In the end it was never National Security that motivated these leaders, but personal power and hiding the truth.
If the United States stands for freedom, the place to begin to earn that reputation is to honor the age-old wisdom that "the truth shall set you free." The fear that a Truth Commmision would damage our reputation is exactly the kind of logic that leads to slavery. If we fear the truth, then slavery is our destiny.
Showing posts with label Human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human rights. Show all posts
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Human Rights Hypocrisy
The annual US State Department Report on Human Rights has just been made public. It is too early to know if this, like many previous reports is tainted by ideological or national security concerns, criticizing those who are our political enemies and going light over the faults of those who are our friends and allies. In one sense, it coes not matter. The question of truthfulness is certainly not determined by US State Department dictamens. There are many good, honest independent groups who can do this. The question if "credibility." And it is on that point that that the US reports is, has always been and will continue to be in the category of "hypocritical", not "credible."
The Washington Times report on the State Department findings wants to use it as a way to criticize Hillary Clinton's recent statements in China about human rights not interfering with other developing agendas. So the Times quotes an Amnesty International source to make their point: "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific. "But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future U.S. initiatives to protect those rights in China."
I am not sure what role T. Kumas plays with Amnesty International, assuming the Times correctly quotes and identifies him, but his statement does his organization no good service by tying its credibility to the credibility of the US.
Clinton, by the way, maintains that human rights is very important to her personally and to the US State Department under her leadership.
The guy from Amnesty is wrong. What meaningful and credible stand can a country like the US which has not even signed many of the most crucial and significant UN Human Rights treaties make to any country in the world? I will not even mention that many independent human rights groups are currently making assessments of who in the previous US government to bring to international courts on charges of violations of human rights and even crimes against humanity. Then add Guantanamo. But, really, even before the Bush administration decided that the only human right that mattered was their right to do unto others before they do unto us, the credibility of the US has always been in question because of its lack of commitment to basic human rights witnessed by the lack of its signature on many of the treaties. this may also explain why the report of the US State Department has always been more reflective of political concerns rather than objective monitoring and evaluation based on human rights criteria.
I guess I am old fashioned or out of tune with reality, but I had the impression that first you had to demonstrate your commitment to human rights (by signing basic traties accepted by considerable number of other states in the world) and, then, demonstrate that you actually respect them before you go around pronoucing on how others respect human rights.
I am confident that human rights violations are growing in China (many credible sources have documented this fact). I am not confident at all that whatever the US State Department says about Human Rights has much more reach in the world other than that, in times of economic trouble, it creates and supports some number of jobs in order to create the report.
If Clinton and the Washington Times (sic) are really concerned about human rights they can begin by joining together in a campaign to get the Congress to sign, let's see, there are so many, but lets begin with the UN Treaty of the Rights of The Child (President Clinton signed it but the Congress did not ratify). That would be a first step back toward credibility.
The Washington Times report on the State Department findings wants to use it as a way to criticize Hillary Clinton's recent statements in China about human rights not interfering with other developing agendas. So the Times quotes an Amnesty International source to make their point: "The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific. "But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future U.S. initiatives to protect those rights in China."
I am not sure what role T. Kumas plays with Amnesty International, assuming the Times correctly quotes and identifies him, but his statement does his organization no good service by tying its credibility to the credibility of the US.
Clinton, by the way, maintains that human rights is very important to her personally and to the US State Department under her leadership.
The guy from Amnesty is wrong. What meaningful and credible stand can a country like the US which has not even signed many of the most crucial and significant UN Human Rights treaties make to any country in the world? I will not even mention that many independent human rights groups are currently making assessments of who in the previous US government to bring to international courts on charges of violations of human rights and even crimes against humanity. Then add Guantanamo. But, really, even before the Bush administration decided that the only human right that mattered was their right to do unto others before they do unto us, the credibility of the US has always been in question because of its lack of commitment to basic human rights witnessed by the lack of its signature on many of the treaties. this may also explain why the report of the US State Department has always been more reflective of political concerns rather than objective monitoring and evaluation based on human rights criteria.
I guess I am old fashioned or out of tune with reality, but I had the impression that first you had to demonstrate your commitment to human rights (by signing basic traties accepted by considerable number of other states in the world) and, then, demonstrate that you actually respect them before you go around pronoucing on how others respect human rights.
I am confident that human rights violations are growing in China (many credible sources have documented this fact). I am not confident at all that whatever the US State Department says about Human Rights has much more reach in the world other than that, in times of economic trouble, it creates and supports some number of jobs in order to create the report.
If Clinton and the Washington Times (sic) are really concerned about human rights they can begin by joining together in a campaign to get the Congress to sign, let's see, there are so many, but lets begin with the UN Treaty of the Rights of The Child (President Clinton signed it but the Congress did not ratify). That would be a first step back toward credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)