|
Politics of
Human Rights
Allah’s grip is
swift. The most abominable behavior in the eyes of Allah, the
Creator and Lord of the universe, is of arrogance, haughtiness,
and conceit. This was the affliction that turned Iblis into
Satan. This can be safely said without the risk of being refuted
that in every devilish act in the entire history of humankind has
had a key-role for these despicable curses. For individuals as
well as nations, if humility, humbleness and realistic approach
are the steps to progress, then arrogance and haughtiness take
ultimately to confrontation and disaster. According to the Sunnah
of Allah, pride has a fall, sooner or later. This is quite
another thing that those who are imbued with the sense of
righteousness take up the upright and straight path when
admonished, while those who are dominated by evil and who are
destined to humiliation and destruction become more disobedient
and astray with every admonition and warning. They are no
different from the people of Noah (Alaihi Salam) as they are
warned time and again yet every warning only adds to their
disobedience. "We give them warning after warning, but it only
increase their transgression." (Asra 17:60)
Two
Warnings for the United States
The United States
has been served two such warnings in the first week of May 2001
by countries of East and West alike. This reflects the trend of
international opinion, besides being a waking-up call for America
provided that it tries to understand which direction the wind is
blowing and learns a lesson from history.
America has been
proud of its power since after the Second World War. Though this
conceited self-view has always been on the swell, yet it shot up
to new heights after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan, fall of
Communism, and demolition of the Berlin Wall. During these 12-13
years, there has been great commotion about some New World order
and claims about the beginning of an American Century. The
American leadership began to hold that America has become
invincible, that it represents the total wisdom, and that it has
assumed the role of ‘the Emperor’ of the world.
The new American
President George Bush Jr. and his team started giving signals for
solo-flight and got themselves busy in Americanizing the
globalization. They also got bogged down in ripping off the veil
of consultation with the United Nations and other international
bodies and friendly countries that was used to conceal naked
American aggression. Whether it is about nuclear defense shield
or global warming, dangers emanating from million of landmines or
humanity’s war against AIDS and other deadly and contagious
diseases, issues of nuclear policy or of energy policy and its
implications, honoring the past agreements or seeking concord and
consensus in the international community for new ones, trade
sanctions or interference in the internal affairs of a country
and espionage, loyalty with old friends or search for new ones –
the Bush administration adopted in the very first four months
such an approach of self-indulgence and one-way activity that
raised great apprehensions in the ranks of nations, Western or
Eastern all alike. This new aspect of the alarm got itself
manifest during the elections to two important commissions of the
United Nations. The first week of May 2001 thus heralded a new
era in history.
The UN Human
Rights Commission is an active and prestigious body that was
established in 1947 on American motivation under the leadership
of former American President Roosevelt’s wife. It is not only the
most important Human Rights platform, but also one of the few UN
bodies whose mandate is not confined to passing resolutions but
also to carry out investigations into complaints and suggest
policy measures. America has been playing a key-role in it for
the last 54 years; rather, it used to call shots. In elections
(held on secret-balloting basis in which 14 new members were
elected, including three exclusive seats for the Western
countries) to such a body America tasted defeat for the first
time in the course of half a century. United Nations Social and
Economic Council was the electoral college. In the contest,
France got first position with the highest tally (52 out of 54
votes), Austria was second (with 41 votes), and Sweden third (32
votes). Against these successful countries, America could secure
only 29 votes, and lost the election. This is the first American
defeat in the UN bodies during the half century, which has
astonished all – including America itself.
America could not
have yet recovered from this humiliation of 4 May 2001 when it
had to swallow another defeat. It lost its seat in yet another
important UN body, International Narcotics Control Board.
Expulsion by the international community from two such bodies
that were instrumental for the so-called most important pillars
of the American foreign policy, is a humiliating defeat for
America’s reputation around the globe, a retribution of Nature
according to those who are endowed with insight, and an
eye-opener for the American leadership itself.
American
Reaction
The reaction of
the American leadership, media, and interested elements provides
a mirror that shows different facets of America as s super power.
Quite naturally,
the first reaction was of shock, astonishment and surprise.
American leadership was astounded by this unbelievable happening.
Shock was followed by lament and reproach, anger and fury. The
most anguishing was that even the Western nations did not side
with America and their deserting precipitated the defeat. Sweden
and Austria refused to quit despite being pressured. As 43
countries had promised to vote for America, victory looked
likely; but the secret ballot showed only 29 votes. Adding to
injury was the fact that Sudan, Bahrain, South Korea, Chile,
Mexico, Pakistan, and Uganda became members of the commission
after winning elections from their respective regional
constituencies. Saudi Arabia and Iran are among the losers along
with America, although the commotion is on American defeat. A
great debate is raging through newspapers, magazines, and
electronic media around the world as to how impossible became
possible and how a super power like America, which the French
delegate has generously described as the ‘hyper power’, was
subjected to two successive political defeats. In the context of
defeat, the whole spectrum of America’s political and global role
is under discussion and debate and analysts are trying to make a
picture of the coming days. One of the good feature of a free
society is that it allows open discussion and debate on all such
important issues rather than trying to superimpose only the
official version and viewpoint!
An analysis of
the debate in the American and international political circle and
media brings to fore four distinct reactions:
Anger and Fury:
The first and immediate reaction is of ‘playing down’ and
‘ridicule’. Some influential circles in America and a few
responsible individuals and their followers are posing to say ‘so
what?’ with a measure of disdain and indifference as to suggest
that they do not care much about one or two commissions of the
UN. The UN itself is nothing but a place for insipid meetings and
prattle. If it goes without as important a country as America,
this would degrade the UN rather than doing any harm to America.
The American
delegate in the UN Social and Economic Council, James Cunningam
said that they were very much disappointed. The American
President and the Congress expressed anger and rage along with
their disappointment. Congressional spokesperson said: "This
really hurts the credibility of the UN in the congress."
To National
Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, it is not only humiliating to
America, but also harms UN’s own standing. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld has described it as "notably unwise". Not just
official figures but also a great number of political analysts
and newspapers has expressed great shock and anger over the turn
of events lamenting that while America was expelled from the
commission after 54 years, countries like China, Cuba, Libya and
Sudan are still present there!
The majority
leader in the House of Representatives Dick Army has called it
ridiculous. Congress as a whole is posing to ask as to who would
now take the UN seriously. Congress members have taken it as an
‘insult’. (Time, 21 May 2001)
Florida Rep.
Elina Ross said: "It is a travesty that undermines the integrity
and legitimacy of the United Nations system."
Revenge and
Retaliation:
Along with disappointment, anger and fury, another kind of
reaction is of vengeance. The UN and allied countries are not
only subject to complaint; it is rather being asserted that it is
time to give a lesson to the UN by stopping the monetary
obligations to it. America is already a defaulter of the
UN to the tune of $ 1.7 billion. After years of altercations, it
was decided during the Clinton presidency that American liability
would be reduced to 22 percent from 25 percent (which was its
obligation and promise) of the total UN budget and that America
would thus have to pay $ 1.7 billion instead of $ 2 billion. Out
of this amount, it had to pay $ 582 million this year. But after
the defeat, the Congress stopped, as a punitive measure, payment
of $ 254 million, the amount that was due to be paid by the
fateful month. Congress has also declared not to make any payment
to the UN until America is restored its seat on the Human Rights
Commission (this stands a chance of being realized only in the
new elections due next year). The U.S. administration had
beseeched the Congress not to take this punitive measure, but it
did not care and deemed it necessary to express its revengeful
reaction to the development.
Censure and
Accusation:
Third reaction is
accusative in which America and Israel are in the forefront. They
hold that this all happened because America was raising the
issues of Human Rights, which did not go well with others. They
are especially targeting China and France. Official spokespersons
and American newspapers are forwarding the same message and thus
are trying to cover up the defeat. The State Department holds
that the fiasco is the result of American policy on human rights.
The Financial Times, London, writes:
"The outcome is
being portrayed in Washington and the UN as a rebuff of US
toughness on human rights, especially relating to China and
Cuba." (5 May 2001)
Ms. Condoleeza
Rice says:
"The setback
came because US leadership on rights had been too strong for
some countries. I suspect that this was a backlash of those who
don’t like being judged, that perhaps the United States has
been a little too active on the human rights commission."
Washington Post,
New York Times, International Herald Tribune all are coming
heavily on other countries that they become ready to compromise
on the issue of human rights while America remains steadfast and
has, therefore, been booted out from the commission. France is
being taunted for trade interests. Evidences for China, Cuba and
other countries being ‘criminal’ in the human rights context are
piled up. Tossing in anguish, the Israeli lobby holds that
America has been punished for its siding with us and becoming a
wall against punitive activities against Israel. The reality (as
the editorials of the Economist admit), however, is that Sweden
and Austria, who emerged successful unlike America, have been
among those who have adopted quite a strong stand on human
rights. If the issue is about adopting strong position on human
rights, then Sweden’s record is far better than that of America.
The former won and the latter lost.
Not just the
Third World countries are the target of the accusative reaction,
even the European allies are subject to criticism and censure.
While writing in the International Herald Tribune, a pro-Israel
writer William Sapphire has gone to the extent of saying:
"Led by
Communist China and Communist Cuba, and with the support of
French diplomats currying favor with African and Arab
dictators, the United Nations threw the United States off the
Human Rights Commission." (8 May 2001)
The fact is that
European countries played a decisive role in precipitating
American defeat and the same writer has admitted that the 14
countries that had promised to vote for America deserted at the
ripe time. He has demanded that all the rules of secret-ballot be
done away with to identify these countries, even if it needed
CIA’s help or carrying out investigative media exercise after
giving up all norms of journalism. Claims for being principled on
human rights issue and a call to shatter established democratic
norms – all in one breath!
Self-Accountability:
Along with these three streams of reaction, another is the one
where this defeat is considered an admonition. America is being
asked to do self-accountability and the world at large is being
invited to carry out thorough examination and unmitigated
analysis of American policies. The defeat is viewed as a
reflection of international community’s disapproval of American
viewpoint. The US Senator John Keri in his address of 6 May said
that there is a wave of anti-Americanism in the world that
exposes lack of a sense of honesty in the US government. In his
essay "America gets a Wake-up Call on Human Rights" in the
International Herald Tribune, Herald Hong Joko, Professor of
international law at Yale University, has in a strikingly
moderate and logical way asked America to hold its own
accountability:
"The world was
properly stunned last week when the United States was voted off
the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the first time.
Clearly the world was trying to teach the United States a
lesson. But will the Americans learn the right one?
Let us first of
all discuss two possible American reactions. First, that the
humiliating diplomatic defeat does not matter because the
Commission is just a meaningless talk shop. A second more
pernicious reaction would have the United States teach the
United Nations a lesson by withholding back dues on taking
other punitive actions against it.
Last week’s vote
is a wake-up call that the era of automatic global deference to
U.S. leadership on human rights is over." (9 May 2001)
Then, he
touches on various international issues about which, according
to him, America did not care about the feelings of the
international community – these include help to AIDS patients,
provision of food to poor countries, rectification of
international agreements, American apprehensions about
international military tribunal etc. Prof. Herald has advised
America to adopt the course of cooperation and mutual trust
with other countries, not an approach of indifference and
anger. He has concluded his essay with these words:
"Even after
last week’s debacle, the world still wants American
leadership on human rights. The question is: Do Americans
still have the courage and vision to provide it?"
The Financial
Times’ correspondent too thus sums up the debate and message of
political and diplomatic circles:
"This
incident would serve as a wake-up call to the Bush
administration to become more engaged with the world today."
(5-6 May 2001)
The New York
Times’ scribe Leonard Garment, who has experience in both
fields of law and diplomacy, writes:
"We don’t
know what larger phenomenon the vote reflects. Was it merely
an electoral flirter? Have America’s allies, as unreliable on
human rights, replaced their appeasement of the Soviets, with
appeasement of the Chinese? Was the vote a protest against
globalization? Or, an expression of primal envy, a collective
unwillingness to see this country formed in the American
image? Are we seeing the beginning of a pattern of
provocation that will have the effect intended or not of
fostering an isolationist politics in the United States?" (International
Herald Tribune, 16 May 2001)
Former American
representative to the UN Jane Kirkpatrick raises some important
questions about the future:
"The vote in
the Human Rights Commission makes one wonder if the Unites
States has reliable friends and allies among the democracies.
There is little question that the distance between the United
States and its NATO allies has grown in the last decade. The
European press shows its displeasure in a steady stream of
articles highly critical of the United States and the
"American way"." (International Herald Tribune, 9 May
2001)
The New York
Times has admitted in its editorial that:
"But the
administrative failure to detect and defeat the brewing
rebellion was only one element of an embarrassing defeat.
Even more important was the rising resentment abroad about
America’s often patronizing treatment of the United Nations
and Washington’s disdain for international compacts on issues
ranging from the environment to the use of land mines." (International
Herald Tribune, 7 May 2001)
Another scribe
David Ignatius has thus given expression to his anxiety:
"The United
States accustomed during the 1990’s to thinking of the global
economy as a kind of American sand box. Americans had the
money and ideas, and other nations would just have to play
the game America’s way. But those days of easy American
hegemony may be ending. It is payback time in foreign policy
too. A striking example was to vote to exclude United States
from the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Some
circumstances said the vote reflected the fact that other
countries were tired of unilateral stand by the United States
– in favor of missile defense and against keynote treaty on
climate change, to cite two permanent recent examples. The
lesson for the United States is that globalization is a two
way street. And as another old saying has it: "you’d better
be nice to people on the way up in case you meet them on the
way down." (International Herald Tribune, 7 May 2001)
The French
ambassador attributed his country’s success to their policy’s
being based on dialogue and mutual respect. The British
ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said in his characteristic style:
"The recent votes were a comment on the US relationship with
the rest of the world." (Time, 21May 2001). China said rather
openly that: "The vote was a strong rejection of the US attempt
to use so-called human rights issues as a tool to pursue its
power politics and hegemonism in the world."
Importance of
America’s Global Role
In the light of
these reactions of intellectuals and diplomats of America and
other countries, it would be right to say that America should
not take its defeats in the UN only superfluously. It can be
dismissive under its egotism or by giving justifications and
excuses, but ground realities cannot be overlooked. American
global role is important not only for itself but also for
people around the world. Concealment, taunts, revenge, and
accusations are though understandable, but an obsession with
self-justification and a propensity to avoid deeper analysis of
the feelings and aspirations of the international community
would be a mishap for America itself. This would be the way to
self-illusion and it would have to bear its brunt, along with
the others. These elections to the important UN bodies not only
indicate the direction of the wind, they also highlight the
problems and challenges at the global level. Justification and
concealment can only aggravate the situation, not improve it.
In many
respects, this presents a great opportunity where peoples of
insight around the world should move forward and clearly tell
American and Russian leadership what ails the situation? Where
and How? America is not the other name of the US government or
establishment. It is an important world power and a country of
300 million people, is rich in material resources and hub of
best skills in science and technology. No doubt that those who
call shots in America have particular mind-set and safeguard
special interests. It is this establishment that is the source
of peoples’ problems around the globe. Its noose is tight also
on the American population and it has been playing havoc for
its own interests. A large part of the American people is
victim of its vagaries and moves and it is quite possible that
they aid their voice against oppression along with the
oppressed of the rest of the world. After all, the silent
majority had risen up against American involvement in the
Vietnam War. The number of Muslims in America is ever
increasing and 7-8 million Muslims can be significant in
awakening the conscience of the nation. Today, the media is so
powerful that people all around the world can be addressed from
any corner. In these circumstances, it is in the interest of
America to come out of its shell of self-indulgence and take
out a cool-headed examination of all those factors and causes
that are isolating it from others in the world and are paving
the way for confrontation. Likewise, the interest of the whole
of humanity lies not in confrontation and conflict but in
mutual understanding and dialogue and in identifying, with
evidence and proof, the causes of rot.
American
Hegemonism
No doubt that
America has raised voice for democracy, freedom, and human
rights, yet the majority of international community finds it as
lacking in sincerity, honesty and transparency. America itself
has undergone periods of British and French colonialism. It
achieved independence by breaking the shackles of colonial
powers and that is why the oppressed nations of the world began
to take it as their companion in the journey to freedom. Why
the same nations consider America a colonial power and are
distancing themselves from it. America used to be reckoned as a
champion of the right of self-determination, why it is no
longer trusted in matters of human rights. The problem is not
restricted to cold-shouldering landmines issue, slackness on
issues of environment and global warming, or endeavors aimed at
getting rid of international obligations. Those who have
identified these issues as causing the rift have shown a
propensity to oversimplification. We think that by carrying out
an open analysis of the circumstances at this critical juncture
without any let-up and diminution, the Muslim world’s political
and intellectual leaderships should bring into the notice of
American leadership and those who ponder and reflect the
reasons and causes of rot in world affairs as well as
exploitation and corruption in human society.
Need for a
Radical Change
No doubt that
America is the most powerful country in the world today,
politically, economically, and militarily. Yet, it is also a
reality that it is not the favorite or is especially liked by
the world. However high might be the level of its prosperity,
it weighs little in the scale of humanity. Good people are
found in every country and society, but America’s image in the
world is more of ‘the ugly Americans’. While accepting its
claims of championing the cause of democracy, freedom, and
human rights and admitting a few good results of experimenting
with these values on the American soil, it cannot be denied
that the countries that have had or are under American
influences have lost much and gained little. Naked aggression,
subjugation, plunder and pilferage that were the hallmarks of
the game of the past colonial powers, are the features of the
American game, albeit garbed under illusory dogmas and
good-sounding avowals. Exploitation has changed its forms, but
its substance is the same. The need, therefore, is to unveil
the facts and uncover the real features of the global role of
America without diminution so that real problems of today’s
humanity and its troubled soul are understood. America should
realize that sentiments against it are not the reflections of a
revengeful politics, but of rejection of its policies and
performance. It would have to induce significant changes in its
thought and action if it really wants to have relations of
friendship and cooperation with the people of the world. The
problem is not merely of big and small, or of powerful and
weak, it is about the principles and the foundations of
inter-state and inter-nation relations that could pave way for
establishing lasting peace and justice in the world and world
resources are utilized for welfare and betterment of all of its
inhabitants, no one is forced to beg for charity and mercy but
all live an honorable and dignified life.
This is the
yardstick against which a system’s success or failure, a
society’s health or lack of it, a civilization’s being
ennobling or exploitative, can be assessed.
Why the
Distrust?
The firs and
most important reason for distrust and unease with America is
its resolve and goal of attaining global supremacy. Free
competition in the arena of thought and ideologies, trade and
cooperation in economic sphere, understanding and cooperation
for common objectives and collaboration in the field politics –
are desirable and essential for all people of the world. A
nation’s or a state’s attempt to control others by sheer force
and forego their stakes and claims for the sake of its own
interests is disastrous for international community and a
nefarious form of colonialism.
America is the
colonial power of the day and its political, economic,
cultural, and military policies are all tools for colonial
ambitions. This is why its claims for democracy, freedom, human
rights, and social uplift neither have any appeal nor do they
bring about a change for betterment in the life of nations. A
nation’s endeavors to control others could only result in
confrontation and bickering, and this is what is happening. How
can the situation change by mere change of actors, and without
changing the way of life. Whether the Spanish, Portuguese and
Dutch colonialism or British and French colonial era, whether
colonizers are Russians or American, and whether German and
Japanese endeavor for supremacy or hegemonic ambitions of
Israel and India – the issue is only one and the same: to
subjugate others and to rule and establish supremacy on them
through sheer use of force. The fact is that America is engaged
in establishing its supremacy on other countries for promoting
its own interests in spite of its tall claims of freedom and
human rights. Unless this situation changes, rosy words and
pledges cannot change the yoke of subjugation into garland.
Contradictions
in American society and politics are not the subjects of our
deliberations, here. Our topic is not the European nations’
occupation of American lands, treatment meted out to the
original local people (Red Indians), trade in slaves from
Africa, or formation of a society on the basis of race and
color. We are not discussing their liberation war,
constitutional democracy, free market economy, or Monroe
doctrine, either. The starting point of our discussion is the
20th century post-First World War (1914-1918) era.
At the beginning of this era, America had emerged as a champion
of certain principles that in particular included independence
of subjugated nations and freedom of the international
community through international law and world institutions, and
peace. President Woodrow Wilson’s principles of politics and
formation of the League of Nation was a good start, but the era
that ushered in after the Second World War (1939-1945) has not
been transparent.
Democracy,
freedom, human rights, and world peace through the United
Nations remained the declared objectives of this period, yet
the Cold War turned the world into a wrangle not only of
ideological but also of political and economic interests. From
a colony, America sprang into a world power. It assumed the
very colonial features and traits that were previously the
hallmarks of the past hegemons. Apparently, this War was waged
to protect the world from the darkness and gloom of Communism
and to usher in an illumined era of freedom, but in reality
this democratic cloak was concealing despotism and tyranny. The
contradictions, disputes, and disasters that mark the politics
of past 60 years are traced as propping up from the Cold War.
Post-WW II
Strategy
While the
strategy devised after the Second World War for a new world
system included establishment of the United Nations,
Declaration of Human Rights, formation of International Court
of Justice, and new global financial institutions, also very
important was the veto power to five countries in the UN
Security Council, which was the real authoritative body, and
American and Russian planning for their respective global
supremacy. George Kenan provided theoretical foundations for
American external politics that has three pillars:
- The Status
of a Global Power: The task before America is how to
establish itself as global power in the war-infested world.
Kenan declared quite clearly that a real foreign policy is
about achieving power and consolidating it. The security of
America lies in making the gaining of power a focal point and
to give up chasing unreal and unclear concepts of human
rights, standard of life, and promotion of democracy.
- Economic and
Political Supremacy: The imbalance in economic and political
power is a reality. At the end of the Second World War,
America accounted for only 6.3 percent of the world
population but was in possession of 60 percent of total
wealth of the world. In the words of George Kenan the real
objective of America in the emerging world order was to
devise a system of relationships where this imbalance could
be maintained and perpetuated in such a way that no threat
and obstacle comes in the way of America’s national security.
To realize
this America has to have access to those resources that are
needed for its economic and political stability.
The
‘protection of our resources’ had a central stage in Kenan’s
political map of the world. It called for safe international
routes, open routes for trade and military transportation,
cooperative governments in the countries whose raw material
and energy is required, and assured functional supply-lines.
In this context, the national movements that talk about
national and state interests can prove an obstacle. To avoid
this it is necessary to purge these countries from ‘communist
elements’ and to recognize such despotic governments as may
be useful and under which ‘our’ interests are safe without
any pricks of conscience and with priority. ‘We’ should
promote private investment, inflow of foreign exchange and
market economy. (ref. Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky, p
49; and Brave New World Order by Jack Nelson, p 43).
- Military
Siege: To erect a political and military siege around
communist countries so that communist revolution does not
reach other countries. This can be done by establishing a
labyrinth of defense and economic pacts. This is the strategy
of containment in the light of which NATO, SEATO, CENTO,
Baghdad Pact and such other blocks were created.
|