Democracy Promotion & Schulz's Failure

Democracy promotion was main topic in Chapter 2 of In Our Own Best Interest written by William F. Schulz’s. In this chapter Schulz writes it is in America’s interest to promote democracy, and this in turn will help bring more rights to people who live in repressive countries. (Schulz, 48) Schulz also argued that, “More democracy does not always equal more stability any more than more democracy automatically equals more peace. In the long run, however, democratic communities of rights do in fact tend to be more ”dynamically stable” than autocracies.” (Schulz, 59) The arguments he put forward were intriguing to me; however, I felt he purposefully downplayed the difficulty in promoting democracy in order to make the American reader more open to his ideas.
Schulz argues the U.S. should promote democracy and many of his opinions, I believe, take on a realist perspective. This perspective, in International Relation terms, assumes the global system is anarchic and every state’s goal is to promote its own national interest. Schulz’s arguments rely on the U.S. doing what is best for us, but then simultaneously argues that if not the U.S. then either NATO (which is heavily supported by the U.S.) or the UN (where the U.S. has a seat on the Security Council) should intervene. Here we are presented some problems. First, won’t promoting our national interest not necessarily equate with promotion of democracy in other countries? Secondly, I take issue with Schulz saying, essentially, “If you don’t want the U.S. involved in democracy promotion than too bad because they will be involved.” This argument, or assumption, decreases the importance of other actors such as EU, or NGOs.
Schulz wanted the reader, at the end of his book, to think promoting human rights and democracy is in fact in our interest. However, what is in the U.S.’s national interest does not always mean promoting democracy and I believe this can be seen with the comfortable relations the United States has with Saudi Arabia. There a democracy is certainly not flourishing, but U.S. elites are not advocating for an Arabian democracy because of our natural resource needs. Viewing our national interest in economic terms, instead of the moral terms that Schulz hoped to promote, has occurred throughout our history and will continue.
Also, the use of realism has always bothered me and it still does when used within this book. The U.S. should promote democracy because it’s in our interest, but is it not also in other countries interest to promote democratic reforms (the democratic peace theory, after all, does not just apply to the U.S. and another democracy)? Let us assume Britain wanted to promote democracy in the United States, how would this promotion be achieved? Would it come through: election monitoring, promotion of civil society, or perhaps Britain would overthrow our government and install a new and better one? Obviously, the leaders of the U.S. would not allow these scenarios to occur neither would the elites or leaders of ‘problem’ countries. I think this is where Schulz purposefully simplifies democracy promotion. As a citizen I can petition the U.S. government, become involved with educational campaigns, or a NGO but ultimately democracy promotion will be in the hands of my elites and the elites of the problem country. Unlike ending human rights violations, there is no clear stopping point for democracy promotion and it is much less tangible than something like a genocide or FGM. This ultimately means the average U.S. citizen may advocate for democracy promotion but little may be done; moreover, the citizen may never really know if the promotion is accomplishing anything.
Schulz’s audience was U.S. citizens and he argued not every conflict requires U.S. action, but almost every democracy promotion will have a U.S. influence. Historically Schulz is probably correct, but promoting this view discounts the role other countries have played in promoting democracy. Additionally, it puts his American readers in a precarious position that is to either support democracy promotion directly, or indirectly you will have to deal with it. If then Americans view democracy in these terms they will never think about alternative methods of democracy promotion without U.S. engagement.
Finally, Schulz fails to address the idea of democracy itself. The literature discussing the different forms of democracy (for example, Presidentialism v. Parliamentary system, Federalism v. a Confederation) is vast, but Schulz does not address the different forms. Instead, he allows the reader to assume the U.S. liberal, capitalist democracy is the best version and is a cookie cutter model for any country. To me, there are obvious problems with this idea. A simple example of where our democracy may not work well is China. Their sense of communalism is much stronger than the U.S., which might mean they would want a different form of democracy.
I understand Schulz’s goal of this book was to engage the average citizen on human rights issues, but I think in doing so he might have made the reader more ethnocentric in his or her own views. Schulz could have still achieved his goals by incorporating different views of democracy promotion within his book. Specifically, I think of Dr. McMahon’s “toolbox approach” to nation building and democracy promotion. Though Dr. McMahon’s subject matter may be unknown to the average citizen, the overall concept is pretty easy to grasp. Furthermore, had Schulz challenged his own American views then, perhaps, I would have had less issue with his Chapter 2; however, as it stands I find the chapter quite poor.

Death Penalty Discussion

The use of the death penalty is a violation of human rights. “Abolitionists argue that there is no evidence the death penalty deters future crimes; that it violates the sanctity of life, to say nothing of international human rights standards; that innocents can be killed; and the punishment is applied capriciously and tainted with racism (Schulz,170)
The use of the death penalty doesn’t actually have a deterrent effect. The notion that -by executing a murderer, we are preventing them from committing another murder of an innocent person-has the potential to be a true statement. If someone can prove that the criminal was going to murder again than yes, we have stopped him from murdering again. However, just because a person committed once doesn’t necessarily mean they will commit another one. There is honestly no real way of knowing that. The idea of the death penalty having a deterrent effect is debatable. There is no solid evidence showing a correlation between using the death penalty and a decrease in crimes punishable by death penalty. There is, however, evidence that disproves this idea. “Eighteen of the twenty states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states and death penalty states have averaged 9.1 murders per 100,000 and abolitionist states4.9 (Schulz, 170).” In addition, “Texas, which has executed more prisoners than any other state since 1977, has a murder rate more than 25 percent higher than the national average (Schulz).” So with this information in mind, the deterrent effect is not a good reason for supporting the death penalty.
The possibility of innocent murders being executed should be enough to stop anyone from supporting the death penalty. If an innocent person is executed than everyone associated with the case, from the jurors, to the judge and all the way to the person who administered the lethal injection is truly a murderer. There is one piece of evidence that shows how truly flawed the U.S. judicial system really is; As of April, 2009, 138 people exonerated in 26 different states (Death Penalty Information Center). This is an unbelievable amount of people. That could have been 138 innocent people dead but because of some reason, whether it was a new trial or DNA testing or something else, a real tragedy has been diverted. DNA testing, which is responsible for a lot of innocent people being exonerated, is a fairly new technology and wasn’t available twenty years ago. So, just imagine how many innocent people have either been executed in the U.S. or are currently sitting on death row right now.
Another major defect in the use of the death penalty in the United States is, it is used capriciously and is tainted with racism. “…race of the victim of a capital crime is a profound determinant of whether the perpetrator of that crime will be sentenced to death or to a lesser penalty (Schulz, 171). According to statistics provided by amnestyusa.org, “since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants have been executed for killing white victims, although African-Americans make up about half of all homicide victims (amnestyusa.org).”Since 1976, seventy-nine percent of death sentences handed out, the victim has been white. Indisputably the death penalty is penalty is being given in a racially biased way and severely undermines the judicial system as a whole.
The whole idea of the death penalty and punishing murders by killing them is morally challenged. The U.S. is sending the wrong message to society by using the death penalty. It telling society that violence is signifies retribution. It is telling people that violence can solve problems. This is the wrong message to be sending to youth who are taking in these messages. Jeffrey Reiman, Professor of Philosophy at American University, believes, “that the vast majority of murders in America are a predictable response to the frustrations and disabilities of impoverished social circumstances, and since I believe that that impoverishment is a remediable injustice from which other in America benefit, I believe that we have no right to exact the full cost of murders from our murders until we have done everything possible to rectify the conditions that produce their crimes (Reiman, 132).

Republicans Contest Use of Miranda Rights

Along with the Times Square bomb story has come an interesting debate over Miranda rights, as Republicans call the using of these rights a mistake in the case of Faisal Shahzad. However, despite what some Republican representatives, such as Senator John McCain, have said about the danger of using the Miranda warning with terrorist cases, it is still absolutely the right thing to do because it ensures that the person being taken into custody has their rights respected, it ensures that any evidence found can be effectively used against that person in court, and symbolizes the United States’ effort to uphold consistent and fair legal standards. While these Republicans may be correct when they claim that more information can be extracted in instances without use of the Miranda warning, this practice can become discriminatory and defeats the purpose of the Miranda rights.

According to reporters, Shahzad was initially questioned without hearing his Miranda rights based on the safety exception rule, which states that authorities are not required to read a detainee their rights if there is an immediate threat to anyone. After the initial questioning, Shahzad was read his Miranda rights, and continued to cooperate with investigators, admitting to the attacks and claiming that he acted independently. This was all done according to United States law, and was seemingly a job well done by investigators until some Republican representatives decided to call the reading of the Miranda rights a mistake since this was a terrorist case, and investigators were “lucky” that Shahzad cooperated. This desire to deprive someone of their rights reflects the phenomenon of hypocrisy that William Schulz talks about in his book “In Our Own Best Interest.” Schulz points out that the United States, supposedly a champion for human rights around the world, has many areas of human rights that it struggles with as it is, and therefore has lost a lot of credibility in the international realm.

It’s one thing to not read overseas terrorists their Miranda rights (although that’s still wrong, legally and morally), but to suggest not reading them to a United States citizen within the borders of his own country is a clear-cut desire to eliminate someone’s rights. It’s not a bad thing for the Republican representatives to look out for Americans and attempt to gather as much information in the name of safety as possible, but this case may have been the wrong one for them to choose. Not only was Shahzad a United States citizen, but he was completely cooperative throughout his entire investigation according to all reports, and on top of it all, the bomb was a dud.

Miranda rights are important in the United States because they ensure that every person who gets taken into custody for questioning has their rights respected, and they are not taken advantage of by police or investigators. The United States claims to care about rights for its citizens, and this is one area where the government can actually back up that claim. The Miranda rights are also an important tool for immigrants and others who may struggle with the English language or American law.

These rights are also important to the legal system in the United States because, since the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, any information gathered without stating the rights of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments cannot be used against the detainee in court. By reading the Miranda rights, the investigator ensures that any information the person in question is willing to give can be used against them in court, thereby aiding the judicial process while at the same time recognizing rights from two different amendments.

Additionally, these rights guarantee more fair legal standards in the United States, preventing uneducated or otherwise ignorant individuals from being abused through the legal process of being investigated and taken to court. The rights require that the investigator tell the person in custody that they have the right to remain silent if they choose, and also that they will be represented by an attorney whether they have money to afford their own or not. Fair legal standards are another thing that all Americans enjoy, yet this is only the case because it is applied universally only with the safety exception.

The denial to read a suspect their Miranda rights before investigation is another rights violation that can be used against the United States by any nation that it wishes to influence. Rights violations in the United States drastically lower the ability for the country to spread human rights to countries that desperately need it, and, as Schulz claims, countries are unwilling to follow hypocritical examples such as that of the United States. The United States government must be more careful with its criticisms and denials of rights if it wants to become a significant player in the international world of human rights, and the restriction in the use of Miranda rights is only a step backwards for the country.



Condon, Stephanie. “Faisal Shahzad Was Read Miranda Rights After Initial
Questioning,” CBS News. May 4, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com
/8301-503544_162-20004108-503544.html

Schulz, William F. "In Our Own Best Interest: How Defending Human Rights Benefits
Us All." Beacon Press, Boston, 2002.

HR in the News: Times Square car bomb criminal charged with "attempting to use a WMD"

This article from the Guardian casually states that Faisal Shahzad, the man who confessed to constructing the bomb in a 1993 Nissan Pathfinder in the middle of Times Square, was “charged yesterday with terrorism and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.” I have no problem with the United States government charging Shahzad with terrorism, attempted murder, attempted MASS murder, anything you want to call his attempt at the killing of a large number of Americans in the middle of New York on Saturday. However, am I the only person to have found the charge of “attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction to be shocking, if not problematic?

I feel as though this story is an example of the United States again giving other nations, particularly our enemies, something to hold against the United States. This is because the bomb inside the car, according to experts, could have only produced a very small explosion, potentially only killing the nearest passersby. If every explosive of this same size or potential killing capacity is now considered a WMD, it seems as though the United States has been supplying WMDs to countries all over the world for many years.

I am still hopeful that this charge is erroneous, not because I want Shahzad to have a lesser sentence, but because I do not want other countries to begin exploiting the “new” definition of WMDs as related to this case.

Liberal Democracies and Human Rights Violations

Throughout the semester in this class, there has been much information read and posted about human rights violations in the lesser developed, less liberal regions of the world. Citizens in many nations today still suffer many abuses, from female genital mutilation still being somewhat widespread across Africa, to prisoner abuses in Zambia, and forcible relocation of the homeless, poor, and suspected thieves of Rwandan society to an Alcatraz-like island facility where they can be "rehabilitated." Many nations have also tried to outlaw homosexuality, making this lifestyle punishable by arrest or even death. And nations such as Iran and Rwanda have put down political dissent, showing no tolerance for differing opinion and (in the case of the former) attacked and killed their own citizens.

But there have also been detailed abuses of human rights, even in countries that are fully fledged liberal democracies and therefore should not be doing such things. The persecution and violence against GLBT people in the United States is more common than might be believed, and frequently done by police officers, members of society who are supposed to uphold the law and safety of citizens rather than trample them. Police-initiated brutality against GLBT people make up only two to four percent of reported incidents, but in reality, constitute at least 40 percent of police-initiated violence incidents (Amnesty International). Abuses by U.S. soldiers against prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan is also well known, due to incidents at Guantanamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib scandal, among others. And the recent Arizona immigration bill allows for much more strict policies against illegal immigration from Mexico. Law enforcement can stop a Latino person if the officer simply suspects that the person is in the state illegally, which raises fears that this new law could lead to racial profiling.

The United States is certainly not the only guilty liberal democracy of violating human rights in this day and age. Multiple countries in Europe are moving to repress and restrict aspects of Islam. France and Belgium are both deciding upon measures that would ban the Islamic burqa in public venues. While leadership here believes the burqa is an "attack on women's rights," the banning of a cultural practice of Islam is in turn an attack on the right to religious freedom, criminalizing a practice that, while controversial, does not pose any direct, hostile threat to people or to society (Crumley). Switzerland has taken a slightly different direction, but one that is no less alarming, as the country has passed laws by popular vote that prohibit the building of minarets. Normally a country known and renowned for its tolerance and neutrality, the Swiss citizens have somehow decided that increasing the number of minarets is intolerable (with only a small amount of them existing currently) and is something that represents a threat to their national identity (Altikriti).

Many dictatorships and fledgling/illiberal democracies around the world take a lot of heat for human rights abuses, and rightfully so, as many terrible things do occur under such regimes. But shouldn't liberal democracies who point out these abuses look to themselves for these things, as well? Even liberal democracies, it seems, are not immune to intolerance and can use elements of its democracy to trample human rights when it sees fit. The minaret ban in Switzerland, for instance, was done by popular referendum, getting the support of 57% of the voter turnout (Altikriti). It is often the case that Western liberal democracies champion human rights and press less powerful, less developed nations around the world to change their practices and actions in order to respect these rights. But what happens when these Western liberal democracies fail to practice what they preach? Who is to enforce or dictate the upholding of human rights on these nations when they violate them, sometimes quite flagrantly?

While it is true that international groups and other countries can point out these abuses and try to hold Western liberal democracies accountable, the Western liberal democracies must ultimately hold themselves accountable and address these issues from within. Political tolerance of outgroups is something that still needs to be encouraged and practiced. If different groups are understood to not be a threat to the current society and lifestyle, negativity and suppression are likely to decrease as a result. And while there is no real power of its enforcement over any country, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still something to be closely adhered to, as even these liberal democracies seem to have forgotten some of its tenets. At the very least, if these issues cannot be fixed, it would help the liberal democracies to save face to try and address them, since nobody likes listening to a hypocrite. The fact that a nation might be a liberal democracy is not a guarantee that human rights violations will not be perpetrated by these countries, which is something that must be observed and heeded by all liberal democracies.

Works Cited:

Altikriti, Anas. "Minarets and Europe's Crisis." 2 Dec 2009 (aljazeera.net).

Amnesty International USA. Stonewalled. New York: Amnesty International Publications, 2005 (http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/stonewalled/report.pdf).

Crumley, Bruce. "France moves closer to banning the burqa." 23 Apr 2010 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100423/wl_time/08599198387100).

Human Rights in the News: Iran Abuses

While this week has been all about nuclear weapons and the attempt of the UN to keep the proliferation of WMD's from escalating, especially in Iran, Faraz Sanei's article reminds us that we cannot forget about the blatant, gross human rights abuses at the hands of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Including but definitely not limited to violence towards and imprisonment of journalists, human rights activists, minorities and more. Further, Iran executed 388 people in 2009, many of whom protested the failed election last year, while still others were killed for "enmity with God". The article highlights that Iran faces the Human Rights Council in Geneva and has made no real reform that the Council previously demanded. It also calls for the "United States and other countries [need] to keep up the pressure"; but I'm wondering what this means exactly? Certainly the U.S. can apply little to no pressure with regards to Iran's death penalty policy. And while we can and should call for the release of political prisoners and freedom of press, what can be done? Historically we have proven inept to apply the right kind of pressure. While the abuse and injustice in Iran warrants serious rebuke, what actions are necessary? Surely it is not enough for "the people of Iran [to] know that the world has not forgotten them".

Views on Women and LGBT Individuals

We have spent a fair amount of time in class discussing the treatment of members of the LGBT community. Our readings on the treatment of LGBT individuals were particularly graphic and spurred some of our most emotionally charged classroom discussions. Likewise, there has been good discussion on both this blog and the class's associated twitter account of the issue of rights for homosexuals and gender minorities. In my opinion, though, we have largely missed out on the opportunity to discuss the treatment of women in the context of human rights.

One reason that the issue of women's rights is overlooked by the general population is the mistaken belief that women have all the rights they need and that everything is fine and dandy. While there are plenty who hold this belief, I suspect they are less well represented among a group of people engaged in the study of human rights. It is more likely that we did not discuss the particular case of the treatment of women because the unique case of women is actually not all that unique. The human rights violations we have discussed have been perpetrated against various manifestations of the Other: racial minorities, recent immigrants, members of the LGBT community, prisoners and death row inmates. Women can very easily be considered the universal Other. Given the patriarchal nature of all human societies, women are constantly in the outgroup. Because human rights violations are generally perpetrated against those in the outgroup, by discussing one particular form of human rights violations, we are in effect discussing every other form of human rights violation.

I do feel, though, that there exists a special relationship between the treatment of members of the LGBT community and the treatment of women. Hostility toward gays, lesbians and gender minorities is rooted in misogyny. For example, men who adopt what is seen as a woman's sex role or who seem in some way effeminate are subject to particular scorn. Contempt for members of both groups largely springs from a traditional understanding of masculinity in particular and gender roles in general. Narrow, inflexible views of appropriate or acceptable appearance and behavior based on biological sex are the root issue of both forms of prejudice.

The solution to both misogyny and homophobia is not just acceptance of those who are different from oneself. More fundamentally, the strict policing of gender roles must end. We should see the world not so much in terms of women and men, but rather in terms of people. We should open our societies up to the full array of human potential. People should be free to dress and act however they like. Individuals should be free to choose any consenting partner.

Admittedly, such an approach will require a substantial shift in societal conceptions. However much I welcome this change, I do not expect that it will happen overnight. In the interim, measures must be taken to ensure that the rights of women and members of the LGBT community are protected. The issue of expanding rights to include LGBT individuals was the topic of both a recent blog post and past twitter and class discussions. In theory, I am of the opinion that we already have all the rights we need; we just need to apply them. In fact, the whole issue seems incredibly simple: These are human rights. These people are human. These people have human rights. To add to the canon of human rights seems especially unnecessary since we are still not applying existing rights, which the new rights would likely echo.

In practice, however, I do favor legislation in support of both women and members of the LGBT community. If nothing else, the act of codifying into law the rejection of prejudice and discrimination gives advocates something to point to in order to legitimize their claims to rights. Doing so would demonstrate our commitment to human rights. Enacting legislation in support of the rights of women and LGBT individuals would also obligate our government to act in defense of the rights of members of these groups. Although we should not need legislation on the rights of women and members of the LGBT community, the unwillingness of society to afford members of these groups the rights that are due to all human beings necessitates such action.

As a side note, in the event that anyone is still checking the blog, can we all agree to stop referring to adult women as girls? Despite how offensive it is, it remains strikingly commonplace.

LGBT Rights: To extend or not to extend?

Human rights, as discussed, encompass dozens of cultural and societal norms; these norms are political and moral, concerned with the interactions between people and with how the government treats its citizens. These rights are inherent within all people and have been set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with a number of other international treatises. While there are certain, rare circumstances where a number of rights may not be absolute, for example the right to freedom of movement may be lost temporarily for committing a crime and being sentenced to prison, for the most part our human rights remain undiminished for the duration of our lives. So then, theoretically once a norm is deemed a right and added to some form of legal or international doctrine it becomes a permanent right for everyone. But what happens when the traditions or culture of a society actively target one specific group of people and work towards the deprivation of some human right, and worse yet, succeeds. Is it then required or desired to take measures in order to expand rights to that group, assuring they are recognized and protected. Or does the act of specification in fact hinder the innate concept of human rights, that everyone is afforded the same rights?

Historically the United States has addressed these questions with the expansion of full, equal rights to women and again during the civil rights movements of blacks in the 1960's; and we must again engage in this discussion as we consider the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons in contemporary America and abroad. Ideally it would be enough to point out that human rights are inclusive of all people, no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, sadly though our own history has proven it is not. Therefore, I think we have the responsibility to our fellow men and women who may identify themselves under the umbrella of LGBT to specifically extend the rights everyone else is imparted.

It was important in passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments for inclusion of blacks and the 19th Amendment for women, that these groups were recognized as minority groups who were being targeted by the majority. Following this some will argue that the LGBT movement should not be compared to the women and black civil rights movements, however I think this group encounters the same types of issues those groups did. Openly gay citizens are prohibited from serving in the military, same sex marriage is illegal in all but a handful of U.S. states, and benefits offered to heterosexual couples are not extended to their gay counterparts. These are government hindrances of well established rights to public service, to marry and found a family, and equal recognition under the law (UDHR). Not to mention the harassment and physical abuse still suffered by LGBT persons at the hands of fellow citizens, a direct violation of their right not to be subjected to torture or cruel punishment. All of these injustices occur because gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people belong to a different sexual orientation-- this encapsulates the epitome of a minority group. The U.S. Supreme Court even decided in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) that Colorado legislation preventing gay and lesbians from claiming protected status to be unconstitutional. This sets up the case to be made for extending rights specifically to LGBT members as a targeted group.

Due to the tradition of mistreatment, it is our duty to pass legislation extending full rights and setting up full protection of those rights to the LGBT community; including but not limited to full marriage and benefits rights, the right to serve in the military, and protection from abuse based on sexual orientation and identification. Some may lay claim that legislation directly setting a group apart defeats the purpose behing universal human rights, but I think this is a shortsighted and naive view point. In the end, most important is the recognition that all people, no matter what the circumstances, have the same rights and equal protection of them. Unfortunately law and treatises explicitly aimed at certain groups is necessitated by our culture and society; moreover legislation is not enough, a shift in our society and its views is also compulsory. To accomplish this the LGBT community must be willing to dialogue with those groups and people who believe them to be evil or sinners or what not in an attempt to alter opinion. And I think to a large extent this is being done and has been on going for a while. Evidenced by the growing number of young people open to the pursuit of gay rights and a changing public opinion over the past decade. Traditionally American culture has been slow to welcoming groups that represent difference from the status quo, we're especiallys slow in recognizing the rights of those people, and for this reason it is unavoidable that we specifically expand rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, in the name of human rights.

Cultural Unrest or Natinonal Security?

In class we have been studying the aspect of cultural traditions affecting a wide range of human rights. There has been extreme controversy that has accompanied attempts to address these human rights issues; however, there has been strong opposition towards these resolutions. A great example of this situation continues to evolve in the European country of Belgium. On April 30, 2010, the lower house of the Belgium parliament voted in favor of a new legislation that bans females from wearing full-face veils in public, which is considered to be an essential religious and social tradition in Islamic cultures. In class we have been discussing the ideas of cultural and religious traditions in the context of human rights, and this current dispute in Belgium has turned into a critical example of how these ideas can either be used by governments to increase their power, or to curb cultural practices that hinder human rights.

According to Edward Cody of The Washington Post, “Belgian lawmakers on Thursday passed a nationwide ban prohibiting women from wearing full-face Islamic veils in public places, the first move of its kind in Western Europe” (Cody). With the extent of a legislation, which “will be imposed in streets, public gardens and sports grounds or buildings ‘meant for public use or to provide services’” (Ollivier), it is crucial to identify why the parliament passed this legislation and also what the veil is believed to mean in Western states, such as Belgium. According to Amnesty International, “Belgian politicians have argued that the law is necessary for public security and to protect women from being forced to wear full-face veils” (AI). It has been recognized by supporters of Western cultures that many Islamic traditions are used to subjugate women and promote a patriarchic society. However, according to Cody, the legislation is a “response to growing irritation in Belgium and other West European countries over the increasing numbers and visibility of Muslims whose customs and attitudes often present a challenge to the continent’s largely Christian heritage” (Cody).

The supporters of this new legislation defense that this law is necessary to preserve public security have come under attack by many different groups across the globe. According to Cody, “The center-right Reform Movement party, which introduced the legislation…called the measure a message to Islamic activists that Belgium will not tolerate challenges to its national values” (Cody). This expression of non-tolerance contradicts those freedoms and rights that Western cultures hold to high regards. According to Yann Ollivier, who quotes Amnesty International’s John Dalhuisen, “A complete ban on the covering of the face would violate the rights to freedom of expression and religion of those women who wear the burqa or the niqab” (Ollivier).

This legislation also appears to be unconstitutional according to the Belgium Constitution. It is seen that in Article 10 “Belgians are equal before the law”, in Article 11 “Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized for Belgians should be ensured without discrimination. To this end, laws and decrees guarantee notably the rights and freedoms of ideological and philosophical minorities”, and in Article 19 “Freedom of worship, public practice of the latter, as well as freedom to demonstrate one’s opinions on all matters, are guaranteed, except for the repression of offences committed when using this freedom” (the Constitution).

These are essential aspects of the Belgian culture that the supporters of the legislation are trying to protect, however, these rights should extend to those Belgian citizens who follow the Islamic culture. When it comes to the argument of Articles 10 and 11, Amnesty International states “Though the law is worded in general terms so as to criminalize any covering of the face that would prevent identification, it is clear from the parliamentary debates that the law’s main aim is to prevent Muslim women from wearing full veils as the burqa or the niqab” (AI). This legislation was purposely worded in order to indirectly discriminate against the Muslim culture and beliefs and in turn violates both Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution. In the case of Article 19, which appears to allow the new legislation based on the defense of security, Ollivier states “There is no link at all between crime and wearing the burqa or niqab” (Ollivier).

This legislation comes at a time when cultural intolerance is not in the best interest of the
European countries. According to Souad Barlabi, who was interviewed by Yahoo News, “We feel under attack” (Ollivier). Human Rights Watch commented, “At a time when Muslims in Europe feel more vulnerable than ever, the last thing needed is a ban like this…Treating pious Muslim women like criminals won’t help integrate them” (Ollivier). Many believe by legally discriminating against this Islamic cultural practice, the efforts Belgian and other European countries will not help to create an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance. It is important in the upcoming months that European countries begin to learn from history and other countries such as the United States, when it comes to integrating different cultures into their own.

Sources:

1. Amnesty International USA. “Belgium votes to ban full-face veils”. April 30, 2010. http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2010043016615&lang=e

2. Cody, Edward. “Belgian lawmakers vote to ban full-face veils in public”. The Washington Post. April 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904504.html

3. Ollivier, Yann. “Belgium’s Muslims lash out at ban on Islamic veil”. Yahoo! News. April 30, 2010. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100501/wl_afp/belgiumpoliticsreligionislam

4. The Constitution. http://www.fed-parl.be/gwuk0005.htm

Human Rights as a Matter of Political Interest

In the final chapter of William Schulz’s book, In Our Own Best Interest, Schulz describes a need for a “new realism,” one that takes into account human rights as vital to national security and not in opposition to it. Arguing that promoting human rights is in the United States’ interest seems to work well theoretically, and there is also something to be said about the average American, through common sentiments and recognition of human plight, who may in fact be supportive of promoting and defending human rights abroad. However, reading a few recent articles from the New York Times, along with readers’ responses, proves insightful into how human rights play out in the political agenda, and what might have to be done to inspire a deeper American interest in promoting human rights.

In two recent articles in the New York Times, “Obama backs down on Sudan” and “Obama marks genocide without saying the word,” we see a non-committal tendency towards human rights on the part of the president concerning these two issues, particularly in comparison with language used during the campaign season. In the first article, Nicholas Kristof writes that while campaigning, Obama wanted the United States to apply considerably more pressure on Sudan. However, to quote the article, “Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness.” ¹ This statement begs the argument, who are we to be the one to stand up and defend these rights? Is it the sole responsibility of the United States? Surely not, but it is indeed our concern and in part, our duty. The concern seems to be there, especially as Obama made statements in his campaign in regards to the specific humanitarian crisis in Sudan and how the United States should do its part. The question is whether the concern displayed by the president in campaigns and as a general rule is simply a political tool, or if, in terms of our national interest and interest in defending human rights, the concern merits action.

Obama is also known to have said while campaigning that he would call the Armenian genocide by what it was, a genocide of Armenians by the Ottomans. But in an all too familiar debate on word usage, he refrained from using the word “genocide” on April 24 in marking the anniversary, an omission that did not go unnoticed. “When he was running for president and seeking votes from some of the 1.5 million Armenian-Americans, Mr. Obama had no qualms about using the term genocide and criticized the Bush administration for recalling an ambassador who dared to say the word.”² Now, on the anniversary of the genocide’s beginnings, Obama as president clearly has qualms. This highlights the inconsistencies found in political discourse, and on the broader scale how it is always easier to say one thing and do something else, or to think one thing and say something else.

In a letter to the editor concerning the first article on Sudan, Stephan Pechdimaldji analyzed this particular situation well in my view, saying, “Sadly, human rights has become a political football in our country, where candidates looking for votes and campaign money promise to condemn those responsible for committing genocide and then bow to geopolitical pressure once in office.” ³This is a major concern, for if candidates looking for votes push (to some degree) human rights, then that correlates with an air of concern on the part of American citizens. Why then, in even the little things (little as opposed to direct military action for example) such as using the word genocide, does the United States bow to pressure?

The truth is people don’t always do what is in their self-interest, eating right for example and exercising to lead a long life and avoid health complications. So while I understand Schulz’s argument outlined in his book, I would also have to take into consideration that the United States isn’t always going to do what is in its self-interest, especially if it requires a certain level of forthrightness, dedication, moral sense, and commitment, and also if that self-interest is more in the long-term and not specifically affecting us in the present. Human rights do need to become a higher concern, and tying them to national security would do the trick, but in reality, they are a promotional means to show concern, to win sentiments, or what have you, and have yet to become a matter of urgency. It would take a bold move, or numerous bold little moves, to jumpstart human rights as a matter of national importance. The president could start by naming genocides and applying what pressure the U.S. can muster on countries with human rights abuses; the media could provide further discourse with the American people to bring it to our attention; and if the American people need theoretical reasons for promoting human rights then rely on whatever argument is applicable. Self-interest is a good one, as Schulz would agree.

¹http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/opinion/22kristof.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20backs%20down%20on%20sudan&st=cse

²http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/world/europe/25prexy.html?scp=1&sq=genocide%20obama%20&st=cse

³http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/l26kristof.html?scp=2&sq=human%20rights&st=cse

Schulz, William. In Our Own Best Interest. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Attacks on Girls at 3 Afghanistan Schools

At three high schools in Afghanistan, poison was blown into the schools causing vomiting and fainting. 124 girls had to be taken to the hospital. Although the Taliban has denied responsibility, the girls and teachers are certain the Taliban was responsible for the attack. Toxicologists are investigating, but it is not yet clear how the poison was released. What is clear is that this was an attack against innocent, defenseless people. The teachers and girls who were attacked at the schools had done nothing to warrant this attack. They only wanted to better their lives and opportunities. Surprisingly, the attacks have not weakened the overall resolve of the students or their parents. While some parents are wary as to whether or not to send their daughters back to school, 80% of the student body of one school showed up to school. Some of the girls see getting an education as their way of getting revenge upon those who are attacking them. Their resolve is truly remarkable. These students recognize that they are the future of Afghanistan and believe that the risk is worth getting an education. Stories of attacks on innocent girls, and how common such attacks are, make me realize how lucky I am to live in a country where girls can get an education without fear of attempts on their lives.

Iraq: Detainees Describe Torture in Secret Jail

More news has come out about torture in Iraq. The article comes from the Human rights watch news. It talks about how many officials, at all levels were involved, and this will be looked at very closely as more stories get out. Detainees were being held in a secret Baghdad detention facility were hung upside-down, deprived of air, kicked, whipped, given electric shocks, and sodomized. The article also stated, “Most of the 300 displayed fresh scars and injuries they said were a result of routine and systematic torture they had experienced at the hands of interrogators at Muthanna.” Of the 300 people 42 were interviewed by humans rights watch. The article tells some of the stories they were told by the detainees. It is disturbing thinking that even after the confessions were made, false or not, the torture continued. Some people were forced to sign false statements and accused of aiding and abetting terrorism. Each story was different but in the end all the stories were the same. Torture may not be very powerful when it comes to the use but when it comes to human rights and the basic rights you have it’s become a very powerful and disturbing tool today.

Homosexuality in Uganda and Cross Cultural Dialogue

A proposed bill in Uganda would ban gay rights advocacy in Uganda and suggest the death penalty for a homosexual with HIV engaging in sexual relations. It is currently a crime to be homosexual in Uganda. Lou Engle, an evangelical of Kansas went to speak in Uganda about this proposed bill and the “courage” of the people in fighting for God’s will. This shows how cross cultural dialogue can be limited in widening discussion about any given topic. Other topics talked about in this speech Sunday were witchcraft and corruption. Although it may seem like something of the past, the pressure on homosexuals in Uganda and prejudice against them is very great. In the New York Times article, “ In Uganda, Push to Curb Gays Draws US Guest” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/africa/03uganda.html?ref=world) by Josh Kron, he describes those opposed to the new legislation not picketing but says they, “roamed the grounds quietly, watching from a distance.” Should the international community address this issue? Ugandan legislators say that “no amount of aid cuts or foreign pressure would dissuade them from passing the bill.” Is there another way to approach this issue or is this something Ugandans will solve internally when their history allows it? Could cross cultural dialogue with a wider scope than evangelicalism be useful in this context? How would it be initiated constructively?

HR in the News: U.N. Says Congo Rebels Killed Scores in Village

Two things jump out in this article about a recent massacre by the Lord’s Resistance Army in the Congo, the first sentence and the last. First: “United Nations officials said Saturday that the Lord’s Resistance Army rebel force killed up to 100 people in a previously unreported massacre in the remote northeastern corner of this country.” In class recently, we were discussing the Congo and how it’s hard to imagine the sheer number of those killed, comparatively imagining everyone in the city of Lincoln were dead. When reading this, the “previously unreported” nature of this massacre applies to a lot more than this horrible occurrence, embodied by a picture of a woman stripped of her lips and an ear, it applies to the ongoing nature of Congolese massacres we have the hardest time comprehending.
With the last sentence, it would seem there is no hope of things changing. Mr. Holmes, speaking of the LRA, leaves readers with the quote: “They have an amazing capacity to regenerate themselves, especially by kidnapping children.” This lack of hope is depressing, and its very depressing nature may cause readers to ignore articles of its likeness. The trouble is, no matter how gripping this article may be, in the vast realm of online articles, it will be overlooked more often than naught. The appeal to our sentiments, portraying those hundreds killed through a few individual descriptions such as the woman in the picture, makes it a little easier to tug our heartstrings without resorting to data and statistics saying simply 100 people were killed.
How do you feel after reading this article? How does it affect you?

Preschool Children Attacked in China

Recently in China there has been a spree of violent attacks on school children. Most recently 5 preschoolers were hit with a hammer before the instigator started himself on fire. In the New York Times article, “Chinese Preschoolers Hurt in New Attack” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/world/asia/01china.html?ref=world ) Michael Wines reports that mental illness is largely ignored in China. He says, “In June in the British medical journal The Lancet, estimated that 91 percent of the 173 million Chinese adults that are believed to suffer mental problems never receive professional help.” On the other hand, the gunman of the Von Maur shootings in Omaha in 2007 was a ward of the state. He had been through many facilities meant to help the mentally ill provided by the state and still not received the care he needed.
When families are unable to provide for themselves, does the state have a role to step in and provide services like counseling and rehabilitation? Who is to determine when a family is unfit to provide for themselves? What responsibility does the state have to provide resources for the mental health of its citizens? Mental health and community perception and involvement are related. A group of mentally and physically healthy people are better equipped to address the challenges of living in a community. It is important for everyone that the mentally unstable receive care, not only because they could become victims of violent attacks, but also because it is unsupportive of justice to ignore the suffering of others.
Addressing mental illness can help a community avoid problems and make them more capable of addressing the problems there are. What are effective types of care that the state could provide? How would they differ culturally? Is supporting access to effective mental health resources a legitimate way of addressing societal problems and human rights? In some places, one could argue that widening education opportunities is a great resource the state could provide to meet these aims. In societies were women are less educated, like Afghanistan, there is often more instability and violence. Educating women and improving schools are ways to support good mental health that so benefits society.

HR in the news: Iraq must protect civilians at risk of deadly violence

This article looks at the human rights abuses being suffered by civilians in Iraq. The article focuses on civilians who are especially at risk of attacks because of their political activities; their identity, gender or sexual orientation; or their situation as displaced people. Most of the killings are carried out by armed groups although some of the killings are the work of security forces, militia, foreign troops and even other civilians. The article also gives a few recommendations for reducing the amount of these human rights violations some of which include immediately disarming all militias and end the identification of religious affiliation on identity cards.

Throughout the article it is mentioned that the Iraqi government and authorities need to do more to provide security and help to the people subject to these abuses. Nowhere in the article does it mention the U.S. military providing either of these. Is the U.S. military not partially to blame for these abuses? Now I realize this was a problem in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, however, I wouldn’t find it surprising if the amount of human rights violations has increased since then. So, if this is indeed true, shouldn’t the U.S. military be held accountable as well?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/iraq-must-protect-civilians-risk-deadly-violence-2010-04-27

HR in the news: In Nigeria, no peace from police officers

Police and security forces in Nigeria are routinely engaging in random violence that results in hundreds of killings annually and few are brought to justice. Shootouts in which bystanders are killed are common. Civilians who refuse to pay bribes to police at roadblocks are sometimes shot. Torture in police custody is frequent, according to a December Amnesty International report titled "Killing at Will." It cites numerous cases in which men were arrested, taken to police stations and never seen again. Police "often claim that the victim was an armed robber killed in a shootout or while trying to escape police custody," the report says. Noting that the law permits officers to shoot suspects who try to escape or avoid arrest, the report says, "In practice, [this] lets the police get away with murder." Although figures on extrajudicial killings are difficult to estimate, Human Rights Watch listed 7,186 "armed robbers" killed in shootouts with police from 2000 to 2004.

The Nigeria government, being a democracy, needs to hold police accountable for their actions. Police are meant to provide security to civilians and uphold the law. Nigeria is a breeding ground for human rights violations with some of the more significant ones being harsh and life threatening prison and detention center conditions; human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution and forced labor; societal violence and vigilante killings; child labor, child abuse and child sexual exploitation; female genital mutilation (FGM); domestic violence; discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, region and religion. So, with all of these human rights violations what are Nigerians to do when they need protection from the police as well?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/africa/la-fg-nigeria-police18-2010apr18,0,2204084.story