Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Tue109 2018

Last update19:14 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Human Rights
Who is America to judge?
Who is America to judge?
After Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and extraordinary renditions, other countries now challenge America?s standing on human rights
The US state department’s annual human rights report got an unusual amount of criticism this year. This time the centre-left coalition government of Chile was notable in joining other countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela and China – who have had more rocky relations with Washington – in questioning the moral authority of the US government’s judging other countries’ human rights practices
Saturday, March 14,2009 04:25
by Mark Weisbrot Guardian

The US state department"s annual human rights report got an unusual amount of criticism this year. This time the centre-left coalition government of Chile was notable in joining other countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela and China – who have had more rocky relations with Washington – in questioning the moral authority of the US government"s judging other countries" human rights practices.

It"s a reasonable question, and the fact that more democratic governments are asking it may signal a tipping point. Clearly, a state that is responsible for such high-profile torture and abuses as took place at Abu Ghraib and Guant?namo, that regularly killed civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and that reserved for itself the right to kidnap people and send them to prisons in other countries to be tortured ("extraordinary rendition") has a credibility problem on human rights issues.

Although President Barack Obama has pledged to close down the prison at Guant?namo and outlaw torture by US officials, he has so far decided not to abolish the practice of "extraordinary rendition", and is escalating the war in Afghanistan. But this tipping point may go beyond any differences – and they are quite significant – between the current administration and its predecessor.

In the past, Washington was able to position itself as an important judge of human rights practices despite being complicit or directly participating in some of the worst, large-scale human rights atrocities of the post-second world war era – in Vietnam, Indonesia, Central America and other places. This makes no sense from a strictly logical point of view, but it could persist primarily because the United States was judged not on how it treated persons outside its borders but within them.

Internally, the United States has had a relatively well-developed system of the rule of law, trial by jury, an independent judiciary and other constitutional guarantees (although these did not extend to African-Americans in most of the southern United States prior to the 1960s civil rights reforms).

Washington was able to contrast these conditions with those of its main adversary during the cold war – the Soviet Union. The powerful influence of the United States over the international media helped ensure that this was the primary framework under which human rights were presented to most of the world.

The Bush administration"s shredding of the constitution at home and overt support for human rights abuses abroad has fostered not only a change in image, but perhaps the standards by which "the judge" will henceforth be judged.

One example may help illustrate the point: China has for several years responded to the state department"s human rights report by publishing its own report on the United States. It includes a catalogue of social ills in the United States, including crime, prison and police abuse, racial and gender discrimination, poverty and inequality. But the last section is titled "On the violation of human rights in other nations".

The argument is that the abuse of people in other countries – including the more than one million people who have been killed as a result of America"s illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq – must now be taken into account when evaluating the human rights record of the United States.

With this criterion included, a country such as China – which does not have a free press, democratic elections or other guarantees that western democracies treasure – can claim that it is as qualified to judge the United States on human rights as vice versa.

US-based human rights organisations will undoubtedly see the erosion of Washington"s credibility on these issues as a loss – and understandably so, since the United States is still a powerful country, and they hope to use this power to pressure other countries on human rights issues. But they too should be careful to avoid the kind of politicisation that has earned notoriety for the state department"s annual report – which clearly discriminates between allies and adversary countries in its evaluations.

The case of the recent Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela illustrates the dangers of this spillover of the politicisation of human rights from the US government to Washington-based non-governmental organisations. More than 100 scholars and academics wrote a letter complaining about the report, arguing that it did not meet "minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy or credibility".

For example, the report alleges that the Venezuelan government discriminates against political opponents in the provision of government services. But as evidence for this charge it provides only one alleged incident involving one person, in programmes that serve many millions of Venezuelans. Human Rights Watch responded with a defence of its report, but the exchange of letters indicates that HRW would have been better off acknowledging the report"s errors and prejudice, and taking corrective measures.

Independence from Washington will be increasingly important for international human rights organisations going forward if they don"t want to suffer the same loss of international legitimacy on human rights that the US government has. Amnesty International"s report last month calling for an arms embargo on both Israel and Hamas following Israel"s assault on Gaza – emphasising that the Obama administration should "immediately suspend US military aid to Israel" until "there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses" – is a positive example.

The report"s statement that "Israel"s military intervention in the Gaza Strip has been equipped to a large extent by US-supplied weapons, munitions and military equipment paid for with US taxpayers" money" undoubtedly didn"t win friends in the US government. But this is the kind of independent advocacy that strengthens the international credibility of human rights groups, and it is badly needed.

Posted in Human Rights , Torture  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
"We control America" -Israel’s stranglehold over US politics
Hamas: American visit to Gaza Strip step in the right direction
Repairing American public diplomacy
Repairing American Public Diplomacy in the Middle East
Palestinian-American Recounts How Israel Killed his 11-year-old Son in Gaza
Mohamed Khodr - Bush’s Farewell to Israel: The Genocide of Gaza with American Arms
Where is your conscience america?
Voices of America: U.S. Public Diplomacy for the 21st Century
Resolving America’s Islamist Dilemma:Lessons from South and Southeast Asia
Sawasya Center Condemns U.S. Violation of Civil Rights of Arab American Scientist
US Presidential Elections and American Foreign Policy
What "Change" In America Really Means
US expatriates, Egyptian locals hail Obama the "American Dream"
Purchasing voters’ votes in America…and neglecting electronic voting in some states
MB in Syria Condemn American Attack
To be American and Muslim (it’s about time)
Exceptional Security Measures In Tanta To Protect American Ambassador On Visit
The End of American Hegemony
American Islamic Congress Hosts Capitol Hill Forum on Democracy and the Future of HR in Egypt
When Will America wake up from her slumber?
American extremists use Islamic extremism to fuel anti-Muslim hate
Arab & Muslim Americans are our best assets to win the War on Terror
GOP should accept Muslim-Americans
Muslim Brotherhood Denounced 9/11, U.S. Reaction Fueled Anti-Americanism
Muslim Americans assert patriotism on Sept. 11 anniversary
Abdul Aziz Demands Rights of American Warship Victim
The Egyptian Police Cancels the Videotaping of some of the Programs of the American Satellite Channe
American Jews and the Palestinians
Changing the Image of the “ugly American”: Interview with Keith Reinhard
Awkaf: Israeli violations in occupied Jerusalem American backed
Is the World Ready for a Black American President?
American Politics, Terrorism and Islam: Part 1: What’s wrong with jaw-jaw?
American Politics, Terrorism and Islam: Part 2: Who’s a Terrorist?
John McCain’s Arab-American problem
McCain Rejects Hagee: How Long Before Major American Jewish Groups Do the Same?
All the World’s A Stage: America’s Image in the Muslim World
Something to Think About: Where Have All the American Muslims Gone?
The Republican Erosion of America
Hamas: McCain’s statement proves no hope in American foreign policy change
Jimmy Carter: American Disgrace