America, human rights, and the "war on terror"
(Cross-posted at Uncertainty and confusion...)
Amnesty International just released its 2005 comprehensive report on human rights around the world. I watch C-SPAN a lot now, and the executive director of AI's USA division, William Schulz, was on Washington Journal yesterday morning answering questions from the program's host and callers. Was really interesting, and you can watch it by going to C-SPAN's "Recent Programs" page and finding the today's WJ program with Schulz listed as a guest, then skipping about two hours into the program to when he comes on. Several viewers called in from Mississppi and Alabama and accused him with much flair of being anti-American because he had criticized our country's record and continuing policies on torture, to which he responded very well; citing the Bybee memo, Rumsfeld's instructions on the 27 techniques that could be used in interrogations, the military's refusal to allow Amnesty to investigate the prisons, and so on. I can't find an official transcript of the program anywhere, so I went back and watched the program and recorded some of the exchanges which I thought were most interesting. If you get the chance, though, watch the entire segment.
I haven't read Amnesty's entire report, but I did browse the reports on the countries that I know a little about: Nepal, Sudan, China, Vietnam, Bhutan, Israel, Uzbekistan, to name a few. Below are some sections I found to be interesting; I've italicized the especially important parts.
On Nepal:
I don't want to belabor the point; I suspect most the readers of this blog already understand. Any time you hear a country blaming "terrorists" and doing questionable things in the name of a "war on terror," beware. This is the result of the path the Bush administration chose after Sept. 11 and the media's blind acceptance of its rhetoric. When I first saw "the war on terrorism" or "terror" in the newspaper I thought it was some sort of joke, but I soon realized that the media elite had legimitized this rhetorical ploy as a war that actually exists. In reality, of course, the "war on terror" has always been an fluid, phantom war, one that has no actual boundaries or definite warring sides. I think everyone would be served better if the phrase was simply eliminated from the public discourse; that way we could all speak about particular groups of rebels and fighters, the two separate and illegitimate invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be conflated together as part of some broad war, and you wouldn't have countries around the world conducting what amounts to state-sponsored terrorism in the name of destroying it.
As noted in the Amnesty reports above, the U.S. government gives military aid to both Uzbekistan and Nepal. This leads us to the number one recipient of American military aid: Israel. Here's what AI has to say:
Amnesty International just released its 2005 comprehensive report on human rights around the world. I watch C-SPAN a lot now, and the executive director of AI's USA division, William Schulz, was on Washington Journal yesterday morning answering questions from the program's host and callers. Was really interesting, and you can watch it by going to C-SPAN's "Recent Programs" page and finding the today's WJ program with Schulz listed as a guest, then skipping about two hours into the program to when he comes on. Several viewers called in from Mississppi and Alabama and accused him with much flair of being anti-American because he had criticized our country's record and continuing policies on torture, to which he responded very well; citing the Bybee memo, Rumsfeld's instructions on the 27 techniques that could be used in interrogations, the military's refusal to allow Amnesty to investigate the prisons, and so on. I can't find an official transcript of the program anywhere, so I went back and watched the program and recorded some of the exchanges which I thought were most interesting. If you get the chance, though, watch the entire segment.
CALLER: I was interested in the status of human rights in Tibet. We don't hear as much as we used to about Tibet. If you could possibly address that, thank you.Indeed. I have nothing but respect for Amnesty International, especially after reading Palden Gyatso's book, which he was only able to write because AI secured his release from the prison in Tibet where had been beaten, tortured with the electoshocks mentioned above, and was about to be executed. Gyatso was released in the early '90s, and to hear that those same atrocities are continuing even to this day is depressing. While I've read that the situation in Tibet has improved over the years in some ways, the death of Rinzin Wangyal in February, which I noted on this blog, and this testimony by an Amnesty director confirm that the Tibetan people and culture continue to be repressed, albiet without much noise. I plan to start a Students for a Free Tibet Chapter here in Austin over the summer after I raise some money for the Genocide Intervention Fund.
WILLAM SCHULZ: Tibet remains a place of real concern to Amnesty International. There continues to be torture, often of Tibetan nuns and monks, some of them very young in age, many who have not committed violent crimes, some of whom may hold a political position at odds with the Chinese government, some who support the independence of Tibet, but who are not themselves involved with violence. that kind of torture which includes the use of electroshock, continues. We also know there are efforts by the Chinese government to undermine if not entirely to eradicate Tibetan culture, to eradicate the cultural roots that support the Tibetan people, by moving Han Chinese into Tibet in large numbers. So Amnesty continues to raise serious concerns about the problems in Tibet...
HOST: The Wall Street Journal on the other hand wrote an editorial, and in just the last paragraph they say "It's old news that Amnesty International is a highly politicized pressure group, but these latest accusations amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda. A "human rights" group that can't distinguish between Stalin's death camps and detention centers for terrorists who kill civilians can't be taken seriously."
SCHULZ: The notion that Amnesty International is pro al-Qaeda or pro-terrorism is about the most absurd charge leveled at Amnesty and believe me, I've heard them all. ... If indeed amnesty and others are not permitted to criticize human rights violations by the United States or its allies in the course of conducting the so-called war on terror, then what do our freedoms mean, what are human rights about? Human Rights provide a universal standard that ought to be applied to all countries and all parties, and that's all that amnesty is about. And those people like Bill O'Reily and others who have claimed that Amnesty is somehow anti-American, I'd like to know where they were when I personally confronted Sudanese officials with their human rights violations in Darfur, Sudan. Where were they when I and Amnesty have been attacking Cuba for its atrocious violations of human rights in Cuban prisons, with the retention of Cuban dissidents. Where have they been when I have been attacking China and North Korea for its atrocious human rights policies. Amnesty is in no way anti-American, we are pro-human rights everywhere.
I haven't read Amnesty's entire report, but I did browse the reports on the countries that I know a little about: Nepal, Sudan, China, Vietnam, Bhutan, Israel, Uzbekistan, to name a few. Below are some sections I found to be interesting; I've italicized the especially important parts.
On Nepal:
The army continued to receive military equipment from abroad, including attack helicopters made in India with parts manufactured by European companies and thousands of rifles from India and the USA.On China:
(RNA), the Armed Police Force (APF) and the civilian police. AI recorded 418 “disappearances” between the end of the ceasefire in August 2003 and 30 August 2004, and the NHRC reported 707 cases over the same period.
Around one third of the “disappeared” were eventually released or located, sometimes after several months in secret detention.
“Disappearances” were facilitated by the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Act (TADA) 2002, which allowed the security forces to arrest suspects without warrant and detain them without charge. Following its expiry, the TADA was replaced in October by a new Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance (TADO), which increased provision for detention without charge or trial from 90 days to one year.
China postponed the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, scheduled for June, but the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) visited China in September.On Uzbekistan:
International human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) continued to be denied access to the country to conduct independent research.
The authorities continued to use the “global war on terror” to justify harsh repression in Xinjiang, resulting in serious human rights violations against the ethnic Uighur community. The authorities continued to make little distinction between acts of violence and acts of passive resistance. Repression resulted in the closure of unofficial mosques, arrests of imams, restrictions on the use of the Uighur language and the banning of certain Uighur books and journals.
Arrests of so-called “separatists, terrorists and religious extremists” continued and thousands of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, remained in prison. Many of those charged with “separatist” or “terrorist” offences were reportedly sentenced to death and executed. Uighur activists attempting to pass information abroad about the extent of the crackdown were at risk of arbitrary detention and imprisonment.
China continued to use “counter-terrorism” as a means to strengthen its political and economic ties with neighbouring states. Uighurs who had fled to Central Asia, Pakistan, Nepal and other states, including asylum-seekers and refugees, remained at serious risk of forcible return to China. China continued to put pressure on the USA to return 22 Uighurs held in the US detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In June, the US authorities stated that the Uighurs would not be returned to China due to fears that they would be tortured or executed.
The authorities linked the attacks to Uzbekistan’s participation in the US-led “war on terror” and claimed that members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Zhamoat had been trained in al-Qa’ida camps in Waziristan, Pakistan. A special commission headed by President Karimov oversaw the investigations into the violence.Notice a trend here? Nepal, China, and Uzbekistan all use the ambiguous "war on terrorism" as the primary justification for their human rights violations, just as we have. While there are separatists and small bands of rebels in all of those countries, particularly in Nepal and Uzbekistan, these governments are evidently using them to dismantle civil liberties and get away with more torture, more unlawful killings, more executions, and more oppression. Uzbek troops just massacred hundreds of civilians in the name of crushing the "terrorists," and yet the White House's first response was to essentially blame the rebels: "We have some concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist group freed from prison." Similarly, the administration has said very little about the terrible situation that has evolved in Nepal since the King dissolved parliament, sent troops into the street, isolated the country from the outside, and declared martial law and emergency powers. How did the King defend his actions? By declaring the parliament's ineffectiveness in dealing with Maoist rebels and annoucing a greater offensive to "destroy the terrorists." Don't forget how we routed the terrorists in Iraq by destroying the city of Fallujah last November.
In June, during the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional “anti-terrorist” centre was opened in Tashkent. The centre was to coordinate the fight of SCO member states – China, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – against the so-called “three evils of extremism, separatism and terrorism” as part of the “war on terror”. During the two-day summit in Tashkent, Uzbek law enforcement forces prevented demonstrators from protesting against human rights violations in Uzbekistan.
Despite Uzbekistan’s cooperation in the US-led “war on terror”, the US State Department in July decided to stop aid to Uzbekistan. The State Department said that the US Secretary of State was unable to certify that the Uzbek government had made “substantial and continuing progress” in meeting its commitments made to the USA under the joint Declaration on the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Framework, signed in March 2002. This followed an unprecedented decision in April by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to cut aid and investment because of the Uzbek government’s failure to meet the EBRD’s human rights benchmarks. However, the Uzbek government continued to receive substantial military aid from the US Department of Defense.
I don't want to belabor the point; I suspect most the readers of this blog already understand. Any time you hear a country blaming "terrorists" and doing questionable things in the name of a "war on terror," beware. This is the result of the path the Bush administration chose after Sept. 11 and the media's blind acceptance of its rhetoric. When I first saw "the war on terrorism" or "terror" in the newspaper I thought it was some sort of joke, but I soon realized that the media elite had legimitized this rhetorical ploy as a war that actually exists. In reality, of course, the "war on terror" has always been an fluid, phantom war, one that has no actual boundaries or definite warring sides. I think everyone would be served better if the phrase was simply eliminated from the public discourse; that way we could all speak about particular groups of rebels and fighters, the two separate and illegitimate invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't be conflated together as part of some broad war, and you wouldn't have countries around the world conducting what amounts to state-sponsored terrorism in the name of destroying it.
As noted in the Amnesty reports above, the U.S. government gives military aid to both Uzbekistan and Nepal. This leads us to the number one recipient of American military aid: Israel. Here's what AI has to say:
The Israeli army killed more than 700 Palestinians, including some 150 children. Most were killed unlawfully — in reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian residential areas; in extrajudicial executions; and as a result of excessive use of force. Palestinian armed groups killed 109 Israelis — 67 of them civilians and including eight children — in suicide bombings, shootings and mortar attacks. Stringent restrictions imposed by the Israeli army on the movement of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories caused widespread poverty and unemployment and hindered access to health and education facilities. The Israeli army destroyed several hundred Palestinian homes, large areas of agricultural land, and infrastructure networks. Israel continued to expand illegal settlements and to build a fence/wall through the West Bank, confining Palestinians in isolated enclaves cut off from their land and essential services in nearby towns and villages. Israeli settlers increased their attacks against Palestinians and their property and against international human rights workers. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes, including unlawful killings; extensive and wanton destruction of property; obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel; torture; and the use of Palestinians as “human shields”. The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity.158 children killed, 150 of those by the Israeli military. Children. Unbelievable.
posted by A at 9:49 PM -
