On Friday, I was reading this news account of a "Holy Warrier" in Saudia Arabia who has changed his mind regarding his participation in "Jihad" as a result of efforts by the Saudi Government to combat suicide terrorism. It was an interesting story just on a human-interest basis. However, it set forth some facts that I had heard before, but never quite sunk in. For example, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and Saudis make up nearly half of the foreign detainees in Iraq (fn.1).
Those figures got me thinking (which, I aknowledge, sometimes a dangerous thing). We invaded Iraq because of supposed connections between 9/11 and Sadaam Hussein (fn. 2), which there were not (fn. 3). However, there was never any talk of invading Saudi Arabia - despite it being the true hotbed of terrorists bent on attacking the United States. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why that is the case.
Then, the day after the first article, another one came out that expressed the Bush Admininstration's current frustrations with Saudia Arabia's role in Iraq. (fn. 4). I'm thinking, "OK, that's interesting, maybe the government is catching on to where the real problem lies."
Then, low and behold! In today's news there is an article detailing how our government is on the verge of a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, supposedly to counter the threat of Iran (fn. 5).
A little political science and history for you to put this in context:
In the "Realism" model of international interactions (FYI, Condolezza Rice is a "realist"), the only thing that ensures a nation-state's security against other nation-states is its military might. This is termed the "Balance of Power." Nation-states use different strategies to maintain their status, one of which is "soft balancing." "Bleeding" the enemy is an example of "soft-balancing." This is where, instead of fighting the enemy directly, a nation-state funds another group's fight in order to drain the enemy's military might (fn. 6).
This is what the United States was doing when we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden and his group in their fight against the Soviets in the Afghan-USSR war. Unfortunately, years later, Osama Bin Laden used that same training in his current beef with the US.
Before that, we funded Sadaam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war, because while he was a dictator, he was secular. We wanted him to defeat the religious fundamentalists that had seized power from the American-friendly Shah. Then, years later, Sadaam Hussein used that US-provided military might to invade Kuwait.
A week or so back, I got an email from my friend, Steve, who was working on a police-reform project in Pakistan. I asked him to explain what he was doing there and this was his reply:
Well things here are very complicated..we (the US) funded a lot of extremists to fight against the Russians a few years back...Pakistan was the staging point for that effort. That grew into Taliban type of pockets in the west of the country. When the Russians were chased away we left them to their own desires and that's when the Taliban took hold in Afghanistan...now of course we need Pakistan again and those extremist we left behind don't like us much. So there is an internal struggle between the moderates and the extremist elements here. The Red Mosque you may have read about is or was part of that problem.,,,to make it worse it was in downtown Islamabad..the capital...so they could not ignore it..and the government is under pressure from the international community to crack down..so things are a bit dicey right now here...luckily I leave in three days..I'm thinking things might get worse before they get better...
So, if you can take all of that history and combine it with the news reports of our government engaging in an arms deal with the currently main source of suicide terrorism directed against the U.S. and the main source of foregin fighters in Iraq, it just doesn't make sense to me. Is this arms deal going to turn out to be a mistake where these very same arms will be used against our own military in 10-15 years?
Anyway, if you can explain the logic of a double-shot, decalf, non-fat mocha with whip, maybe you can explain this to me.
Footnotes:
fn. 1: See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19990697/
fn. 2: See: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_pr.pdf fn. 3: See: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
fn. 4: See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
fn. 5: See: http://www.forbes.com/topstories/home/2007/07/28/saudi-arms-iran-biz-cx_pm_0728armsdeal.html
fn. 6: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations
Friday, July 27, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Don't you wonder why this even needs clarification?
I am a little confused. Last week there were news stories stating that President Bush "gave the CIA the clarification it was needing" when he stated that "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment" of terror suspects is banned. (See: "Bush bans terror suspect torture.")
The Convention against Torture was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1984; it was signed by the first President Bush in 1988; and it was finally ratified by the United States' Congress in 1994 (fn. 1). Even before that, the United States was a party to the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions, both of which prohibited torture of combatants and those hors du combat during wartime.
Article 2 of the Convention against Torture states:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
When ratifying the Convention, the United States congress further clarified its understanding of the treaty:
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.
Therefore, can someone please explain something to me. If the United States has not been engaged in illegal torture for the past six years, why exactly does a treaty that we have been a party to since 1994 suddenly need clarification by the President?
Fn. 1: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
The Convention against Torture was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1984; it was signed by the first President Bush in 1988; and it was finally ratified by the United States' Congress in 1994 (fn. 1). Even before that, the United States was a party to the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions, both of which prohibited torture of combatants and those hors du combat during wartime.
Article 2 of the Convention against Torture states:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
When ratifying the Convention, the United States congress further clarified its understanding of the treaty:
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.
Therefore, can someone please explain something to me. If the United States has not been engaged in illegal torture for the past six years, why exactly does a treaty that we have been a party to since 1994 suddenly need clarification by the President?
Fn. 1: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Does half the population of the United States have to die before we get it?
Because of the enormous cost to human life (72 million dead) during WWII, the United Nations was created. Originally, the UN's primary focus was to promote peace and security - and has now expanded to include such missions as finance (World Bank) and trade (World Trade Organization), etc.
In regards to Human Rights, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It was not considered to be a binding treaty, however, in recent years some courts have given taken it as binding authority of international human rights norms. All member states of the UN agree that
"THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
If you read it, you'd be surprised - even as Americans - of the fundamental human rights that you are denied. Here is the link: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Following adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two treaties were created that make up the "Bill of Human Rights." They are the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html) and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html). Both were adopted by the UN in 1966.
The United States didn't sign either treaty until 1977 when finally signed by President Carter. However, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights didn't have legal force until 1992 when finally ratified by Congress. Of course, we reserved the right - along with Human Rights Powerhouses China and Saudi Arabia - to execute our own citizens. Congress has never ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights. This is not surprising given our country's long history and present state of racism - and our cultural values that poor people somehow deserve to be poor because they haven't "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps like the rest of us."
Following passage of the two "pillars," other treaties were passed such as:
The Convention against Genocide (passed by UN and signed by US president 1948; finally ratified by congress in 1988 - yes, it's not a typo - it took our Congress 40 years to agree that Genocide was bad.)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (passed 1998, signed 1995 by US president; never ratified by Congress. There are only two countries in the entire world who have not ratified this convention: The United States and Sudan. But, why care about those little pip-squeaks anyway? After all, they don't vote.)
The Convention Against Torture (passed 1984, signed 1988; ratified by Congress 1994 with the following reservation, "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States." This basically means that if the United States determines that torture is permissible under the Constitution, the United States cannot be held accoutable under the terms of the treaty. Makes you feel really safe doesn't it that your own government is going to be the one to decide whether their torture of you is legal?)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (passed 1979, signed by US president 1980; never ratified by Congress. Why should they? After all, congress is primarily composed of rich white men, not to mention most Corporate officers and executives.)
I could go on and on and on....
By contrast, most European nations have signed every single one of these treaties and more. Rather than having the petulant "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" (stomp right foot here!) attitude of the United States, many European Countries have provisions in their constitutions making the laws of their lands subordinate to International Human Rights treaties. For example:
The Australian Constitution of 1928 states, "The generally recognized principles of international law are integral parts of the Federal Law."
The Phillippine Constitution of 1987 states, "The Phillippines...adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land."
The Russian Constitution of 1993 states, "The commonly recognized principles and norms of international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system."
The German Constitution of 1949 states, "The general rules of public international law constitutes an integral part of federal law. They take precedence over statutes and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory."
The Italian Constitution of 1959 states, "Italy's legal system conforms with the generally recognized principles of international law." (Conformity between the two means that rules of municipal law which are contrary to customary international law "must be eliminated.")
The Greek Constitution of 1975 states, "The generally recognized rules of international law...shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of law."
The Slovenia Constitution of 1997 states, "Statutes and other legislative measures shall comply with generally accepted principles of international law..."
The Irish constitution, Japanese constitution and Hungarian constitutions all have similiar provisions.
One interesting bit of information is that not only has Europe adopted these treaties and standards as part of their national law, they created the European Court of Human Rights, which gives their citizens a right to redress wrongs by the government. Where would you go as an American if your human rights (but not civil rights) were violated? That's right - NOWHERE.
As I mentioned before, WWII claimed 75 million lives, of which "only" 406,000 were Americans. To put this in perspective for you, it would be as if, given current population numbers, one-half of the United States was wiped out in 4-6 years' time. Remember, this came within two decades after WWI - "The War to End All Wars - which had similiar devastating effects.
Would we then be more willing to cooperate on an international level? I hope that it doesn't have to come to that for us to see the light.
In regards to Human Rights, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It was not considered to be a binding treaty, however, in recent years some courts have given taken it as binding authority of international human rights norms. All member states of the UN agree that
"THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction."
If you read it, you'd be surprised - even as Americans - of the fundamental human rights that you are denied. Here is the link: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Following adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two treaties were created that make up the "Bill of Human Rights." They are the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html) and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html). Both were adopted by the UN in 1966.
The United States didn't sign either treaty until 1977 when finally signed by President Carter. However, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights didn't have legal force until 1992 when finally ratified by Congress. Of course, we reserved the right - along with Human Rights Powerhouses China and Saudi Arabia - to execute our own citizens. Congress has never ratified the Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights. This is not surprising given our country's long history and present state of racism - and our cultural values that poor people somehow deserve to be poor because they haven't "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps like the rest of us."
Following passage of the two "pillars," other treaties were passed such as:
The Convention against Genocide (passed by UN and signed by US president 1948; finally ratified by congress in 1988 - yes, it's not a typo - it took our Congress 40 years to agree that Genocide was bad.)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (passed 1998, signed 1995 by US president; never ratified by Congress. There are only two countries in the entire world who have not ratified this convention: The United States and Sudan. But, why care about those little pip-squeaks anyway? After all, they don't vote.)
The Convention Against Torture (passed 1984, signed 1988; ratified by Congress 1994 with the following reservation, "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States." This basically means that if the United States determines that torture is permissible under the Constitution, the United States cannot be held accoutable under the terms of the treaty. Makes you feel really safe doesn't it that your own government is going to be the one to decide whether their torture of you is legal?)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (passed 1979, signed by US president 1980; never ratified by Congress. Why should they? After all, congress is primarily composed of rich white men, not to mention most Corporate officers and executives.)
I could go on and on and on....
By contrast, most European nations have signed every single one of these treaties and more. Rather than having the petulant "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" (stomp right foot here!) attitude of the United States, many European Countries have provisions in their constitutions making the laws of their lands subordinate to International Human Rights treaties. For example:
The Australian Constitution of 1928 states, "The generally recognized principles of international law are integral parts of the Federal Law."
The Phillippine Constitution of 1987 states, "The Phillippines...adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land."
The Russian Constitution of 1993 states, "The commonly recognized principles and norms of international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system."
The German Constitution of 1949 states, "The general rules of public international law constitutes an integral part of federal law. They take precedence over statutes and directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory."
The Italian Constitution of 1959 states, "Italy's legal system conforms with the generally recognized principles of international law." (Conformity between the two means that rules of municipal law which are contrary to customary international law "must be eliminated.")
The Greek Constitution of 1975 states, "The generally recognized rules of international law...shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of law."
The Slovenia Constitution of 1997 states, "Statutes and other legislative measures shall comply with generally accepted principles of international law..."
The Irish constitution, Japanese constitution and Hungarian constitutions all have similiar provisions.
One interesting bit of information is that not only has Europe adopted these treaties and standards as part of their national law, they created the European Court of Human Rights, which gives their citizens a right to redress wrongs by the government. Where would you go as an American if your human rights (but not civil rights) were violated? That's right - NOWHERE.
As I mentioned before, WWII claimed 75 million lives, of which "only" 406,000 were Americans. To put this in perspective for you, it would be as if, given current population numbers, one-half of the United States was wiped out in 4-6 years' time. Remember, this came within two decades after WWI - "The War to End All Wars - which had similiar devastating effects.
Would we then be more willing to cooperate on an international level? I hope that it doesn't have to come to that for us to see the light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)