The US, The Bahamas, and UN Human Rights Reform

by Larry Smith

American embassy officials here are dabbling in a little public e-diplomacy these days.

Last week they scheduled the first ever digital videoconference between Nassau and Washington. Mark Lagon, the State Department’s point man for United Nations affairs, spoke with local reporters and college lecturers about human rights.

Renovating the UN has been a key goal of recent US administrations. Washington, which provides almost a quarter of the UN’s $10 billion annual budget (versus the Bahamas’ 0.013%) , says the 60-year-old organisation must “reform or die”.

And there’s no doubt – as Lagon acknowledged – that the UN benefits developing countries more than rich ones. So it is in the interest of most states to keep the world body effective in dealing with important issues like peacekeeping, human rights, humanitarian aid and economic growth.

According to Lagon, reform of the UN’s human rights system is a top priority for the US: “We wanted a more credible body, with higher standards for membership. One that is less subject to the whims of the world’s worst dictatorships.”

The goal was to scrap the “discredited” 53-member Human Rights Commission and replace it with a smaller body whose members would be elected by a supermajority in the General Assembly. And countries subject to human rights-related sanctions would be barred from membership.

But just last month, the US voted against the new Human Rights Council, arguing that the reforms did not go far enough. As it stands now, any UN member can be elected for a two-year term to the new 47-seat council by a simple majority vote. The first election is set for May 9, and the council’s first meeting will be on June 19.

“We voted against the council, but we have agreed to work with it,” Lagon said during the videoconference. “It was a squandered opportunity for a definitive improvement in the UN’s human rights system.”

The original Human Rights Commission was set up in 1946 to codify policies based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, That document offered a shared vision of a more equitable and just world following the horrors of the Second World War .

A committee led by Eleanor Roosevelt - widow of the wartime US president – and including authors from different regions, spent two years producing a brief text that incorporated values from the world's main legal systems and religious traditions. It was the first time in history that a document had been imbued with universal validity.

In later years the commission was more involved with trying to implement human rights standards by reporting on violations. But its membership always included countries that were chronic violators of human rights themselves, and that worked against the commission’s goals.

For example, Libya was elected to chair the commission in 2003. And the following year, the US walked out following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an “absurdity” in the face of that country’s problems with ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region.

At a special conference in Austria more than a decade ago, the UN began reformulating its human rights agenda. At the urging of the US and others, a High Commissioner on Human Rights was created to spearhead activities throughout the UN system. This was an early attempt to give more direction to human rights efforts

According to John Pace, who was secretary to the commission for the past 16 years, the UN’s human rights approach has always combined “genuine concern for the dignity of the individual on one hand, and a cynical involvement inspired by misplaced considerations of sovereignty on the other.

“It is a historical fact that no state is innocent of serious human rights problems from time to time in its history. That is precisely why international standards have been established and why institutions for their implementation have been devised. After all, these standards were themselves drafted by a commission that included the worst human rights violators of the time.”

He argues that it is wrong to describe the commission as a failed institution, and equally wrong to create a human rights “elite” that would watch over “violators”.

But Lagon pointed out that the old commission met once a year for “six weeks of theatre”. He said the US wanted a full-time council that would actively promote human rights and condemn repressive governments: “The international community should be able to speak out in the worst cases and prevent backsliding.”

Non-governmental organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International support the new council as a reasonable compromise. Analysts say that because the council is an organ of the General Assembly there is now a tacit acknowledgement that violations of human rights are directly linked to international peace and security.

Former President Jimmy Carter and five other Nobel Peace Prize laureates have issued a public statement calling the new council a “significant and meaningful improvement that creates new expectations that members will uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council, and undergo additional scrutiny through a peer review.

"Most significantly, a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can be suspended from the body.”

But the Bush administration thinks it is a weak compromise and says the US won’t seek membership. Last week’s embassy videoconference was part of a US campaign to ensure that chronic rights violators like Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Burma and Zimbabwe are not elected to the new council next month.

“Caribbean nations offer democratic models and can play a substantial role on the council,” he said. “We think it won’t be much different from its predecessor except for the schedule. We hope countries like the Bahamas will get involved and prove us wrong.”

But he was adamant that the Cuban government should not be accorded the legitimacy and respect that election to the Human Rights Council would confer.

“The US will not be pleased if others won’t work with us for a democratic transition in Cuba. And it is important how the Bahamas would vote if Cuba tried to get on the council. Don’t do it just because we tell you, but think about it.”

Critics of US policy have cited detention practices at Guantanamo Bay (which a UN study denounced last year) as evidence of American double standards on human rights. The US base at the southern tip of Cuba has been used to hold 700 “dangerous terrorists” screened from among 10,000 fighters captured during the Afghan war that followed 9/11.

They are detained as “enemy combatants”, but American officials say the International Red Cross has full access and meets with every detainee regularly, while thousands of journalists and legislators have also been able to visit the camp. Hundreds of detainees have been released or transferred (and more than a dozen have since been recaptured for engaging in terrorist activities).

“We want to be as transparent as possible and it is appropriate for questions to be asked about the human rights policy of any nation as well as its treatment of prisoners,” Lagon said. “Our Supreme Court is grappling with these issues openly right now, but shouldn’t this belong in the category of the law of war?

Others have pointed to the egregious abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American personnel at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison camp in Baghdad. The US government has stated that it does not authorise interrogations involving cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and recent legislation passed by Congress has codified that policy.

“These are crimes and violations of the policies of the United States, and the US has vigorously investigated, prosecuted and taken action against those responsible,” officials say. “More than 100 US service members have been held accountable. The military chain of command immediately launched an investigation before this matter ever became public.”

This points up the authentic difference between the world’s democracies and those unaccountable regimes that are the most systematic abusers of human rights and that often threaten the security of neighbouring states.

Critics of American “exceptionalism” claim the US uses human rights as a justification for intervention. But clearly, human dignity requires the right to life, liberty and security. And as the Universal Declaration says:

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which (these) rights and freedoms can be fully realized.”

A strong civil society and independent media are essential to achieve these conditions. As Lagon said: “We want to help the UN live up to its founding principles more satisfactorily. Freedom is universal and should not be seen as a cultural export of the US.”

The State Department is resorting to more public e-diplomacy activities like the Lagon videoconference as a way to maximise its budget. And the speakers are not limited to those who express official points of view, we are told.

More than 400 videoconferences were held around the world last year. They featured American academics, government officials, authors and others on topics like democracy, human rights, press freedoms, environmental protection, and HIV/AIDS.

“Now that we have videoconferencing capability, we will put together a series of programmes for Bahamian media and civil society,” an embassy spokesman told Tough Call. “Suggestions are welcome.”

The next videoconference will focus on World Press Freedom Day – May 3 - under the theme “media and good governance.”

Comments

[Bahamerican]

This is propaganda nonsense from the US government. All this lip-service about how the UN should be this and that, when they were abruptly slapped in the face by the Bush administration with the start of the war, going against the global agenda? Sorry, I'm not sold.

The US should have had sanctions imposed on them for the complete disregard and disrespect they showed towards the UN with their actions. Had any other country on this planet, done what they did, Washington would have been raising hell to impose sanctions.

Just another media blitz to make it seems as if the US actually is 'concerned' about something else other than the oil and money lining the pockets of the politicians. How do people swallow this rubbish so willingly? One of my parents is an American, so I feel as though it is my duty to cry out when my own government is trying to rape it's people and the rest of the world, of it's rights.

[larry Smith]

I thought this was a balanced discussion of the context.

It's unfortunate that the US has such crass concerns - unlike other countries.

See the recent post on the context of Condoleeza Rice's visit to Nassau.

[Bahamerican]

Oh yes, the post is a very balanced discussion of the context, I just don't buy into the attitude of genuine concern that the U.S.A. is trying to communicate.

What makes this situation brim over with hypocrisy, is that the US government refuses to take nuclear action, off the list of options for dealing with Iran. All while professing to be concerned about reforming the UN and it's mission dealing with human rights...

Am I missing something here?

Again, I am not sold and I refuse to believe ANY kind of political 'talk' by the U.S.A. until their fundamental values behind their physical actions are aligned with the gospel they seem to be professing to everyone else.

[Bahamerican]

One more thing...

To me, it is nothing more than an 'insult' to our interests as a country, when the secretary of state for the U.S.A. flies down (for the first time, since...wait for the first time ever) for a '30 minute' conversation with our national leaders.

[larry Smith]

well actually she didn't fly down to see our national leaders. It was a meeting with caricom. And I am told that as these things go, the time allotted was appropriate - most of the prep is done in advance.

[Bahamerican]

30 minutes? If so much of the prep is done in advance, and with all of this video conferencing technology...it's still feasible to fly somewhere to talk for 30 minutes?

I understand your point and in no way invalidate your sources of information of course, but I am still not sold.

[larry Smith]

I think you must be referring to the separate courtesy call she made on our PM during her visit.

[andrew allen]

As the US remains the most significant threat to the "human rights" it constantly publicly espouses (in order to justify its imperialism), it is diffucult to take seriously anything that comes from its diplomats regarding the UN.

[Bahamerican]

The deeper questions remain: Is it simply because of funding that no national leaders will speak up to such a blatant contrast within the American government agenda? Why does the world stay quiet and still ceremonially roll out the red carpet with sealed lips, whenever 'talks' or 'forums' of the sort are initiated?

Why does the global political community, pretend as if this fodder-like dog and pony media show is not happening?

Why is it that no nation has the backbone to openly criticize the United States on the open media floor of any house, or meeting?

[Rick Lowe]

Andrew:
You always seem so hypercritical of the United States while giving ourselves and Cuba a pass.
In other words it appears you make excuses for our failures but not theirs.
Why is that?
Or am I wrong?

[andrew allen]

actually, I certainly do not give us a pass. But I do question to what extent there is yet an "us" to either credit or criticise.

As an entity evolving out of a colonialist past, there are many directions we can take. We cannot claim (as the US does) to stand for anything unequivocally yet.

Yes, there are failures and successes. There are wrong turns, missed opportunities etc. I comment on these all the time.

But our overriding pitfall would, in my opinion, would be to fall into the blunder of becoming either an uncritical clone of our closest, most influential neighbour or to give its propaganda the kind of merit that even educated people in obsequious old england dismiss as laughable.

The US has a failed, uncritical and compliant media that is fundamentally corrupt and owned by rich interest groups. Its masses are lulled into an incredible ignorance about the world and are therefore unwitting putty for the manipulative political interest that control them. Brainwash propaganda and oversimplification of issues are routinely used to ill effect by sinister interest groups, be they apologists for israeli terrorism or cuban american politicians.

That kind of situation does not simply correct itself, especially in an atmosphere of free markets and low public investment. So right-thinking non-Americans must hope that the intervention of a more responsible and patriotic leadership at all levels of American society will help to bring it into line. But it is really not our business. Just as it is not our business what Cuba does internally.

What IS our business is to ensure that we are not sucked into it. Replaying the cold war or reviving hostility to china or cuba based on some moronic miami politicians' irresponsible hogwash is not in the interests of The Bahamas.

Neither is playing to the US' manipulative and cynical use of international bodies, while it commits the most egregious breaches of international law taking place today.

We know that undermining UN bodies (and disguising the exercise as an attempt at "reform") is a favourite tactic of the current administration. We should not give such tactics a veneer of legitimacy by humoring the politicians who propose them.

[Bahamerican]

"What IS our business is to ensure that we are not sucked into it. Replaying the cold war or reviving hostility to china or cuba based on some moronic miami politicians' irresponsible hogwash is not in the interests of The Bahamas."

Well stated. How do we go about this? What methods can we employ as a nation responsible for the political awareness of it's own people, to ensure that our society is not 'hood-winked' (so-to-speak) into swallowing this trash?

The stronghold of American based tourism, also scares a lot of Bahamians in political positions, into not speaking out against actions of the U.S., what are some of your ideas on ways to change this?

I think, one good step is to strengthen our relationship with countries like Cuba, based on our own initiative and guideline of morality, not on what guidelines of the U.S. dictate and despite their opinion of it (as long as it is within play of international law of course). So far, I think we're doing a good job of that..

What else do you feel, we can do with respect to such issues?

[Rick Lowe]

Dear Andrew:
It is you that implies people think America is perfect. That is far from what has been stated.
Personally, I do not agree with the war and "state building".
However, I do see America as better for the individual than Cuba or China. And you have agreed with me on this point, unless I am mistaken.
We do not want to get sucked into supporting Cuba or China with their ideas either wouldn't you say?