On Powell's intro to the recent US-Published Country Reports on Human RIghts Practices 2002

national | miscellaneous | news report Tuesday April 08, 2003 17:48 by jm

I guess sometimes it's OK to lie.

A brief analysis of some of Mr. Powell's opening remarks on the US-sponsored Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2002.

I just wanted to make a few observations and comments on last week's (31 March 2003) Country Reports on Human RIghts Practices 2002... specifically to analyse some of Mr. Colin Powell's remarks in its opening statement. I will quote rather extensively from the document itself, but the full version is available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18132.htm .

paragraph 1: "The year 2002 offered a stern test for the advancement of human rights by the United States of America. This is not necessarily because human rights violations grew in number or severity – although there is no lack of challenge in that area – but because we have been given greater opportunity to make good on our commitment to uphold standards of human dignity and liberty."
I start with this paragraph because it really sets the whole tone of the intro. Essentially it is a useless blanket statement which neither admits nor declines to admit US complicity in any of the to-be-mentioned atrocities. Of course, I also include it as a joke, since it certainly cannot be taken seriously.
paragraph 2: "Elsewhere in the world, we set our sights on further extending the blessings of liberty and security, and demonstrating not only that they are compatible, but also interdependent."
By interlinking the terms "liberty" and "security", Powell has attempted a linguistic coup, one which will of course be obvious under close examination. At first glance, it sounds fine - you need to be secure so that you can have liberty, right? Well, sort of. See, Powell's quick equation does not pay attention to the implications of the second term, which is "security". In order to have this amorphous thing called "security", one must have something to do the securing. Powell walks right over the question of security enforcement, and what it means. Since security cannot exist without a something to do the securing (we'll leave the question of exactly *what* is being secured [liberty, obviously] off to the side for now), then we need to identify these 'securers'. Now, if they act in the interests of the world ("We advance these goals not as exclusively American interests..." end of paragraph 2) then they must act in a representative capacity, since they will be securing 'our' liberty. What is clear through the mass movement against US-led aggression (recently in the anti-war movement across the globe) is that it is a non-representative capacity that these security forces act in. That's interesting. One would think that it would be seen as a *human right* to choose those who might protect our security. Regardless of any other concern, this non-representation should give the Powell, and the US, pause before they continue to discuss human rights. Of course it doesn't. Paragraph 3 mentions "full objectivity" must be utilised by the US if it is to address and ameliorate the human rights of the world. Obviously. And this is not the case, as a blind eye has been turned to America's own complicity.
paragraph 4: "We have taken this responsibility with a deep and abiding belief that human rights are universal."
This would possibly lead one to ask why the US has let so many different UN conventions on human rights fall by the wayside If you ask why I include the nuclear and land mine treaties as human rights issues you need to examine the victims and potential victims of each. The US has not signed a large number of these, a long list and commentary are at this address: http://www.wedo.org/wssd/neglect.htm . To give a short list: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, signed but not ratified; Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; The Ottowa Treaty (landmines); Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed not ratified; Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to do with death penalty); International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid... the list goes on. Apparently they're not *that* "universal".
later in paragraph 4: "But their [human rights] protection worldwide serves a core US national interest."
Really? What is the "core" interest? The transnational corporations which play such a heavy part in US policy, who fund such a large part of the powerful congressional lobbying groups, do not support the principles of human rights. This can be seen by a slight [not even thorough] analysis of the current so-called neoliberal trade system, which essentially gives transnational/multinational US based corporations the freedom to set up in the third world and exploit its labor force. Governments are often used to keep workers in line and do not foster these cherished US values of inviolable human rights in their respective regions.
I can continue farther into the document, but I'll leave it at this for now. Of course, you can find it in its entirety by following the link at the beginning.