posted 12-13-2002 12:33 PM            

Human Rights: Reality v. PR
John Gershman, December 12, 2002

Fifty-four years ago this week, international respect for human rights was just an idea. On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt was perhaps the most prominent American involved in drafting the declaration. The deliberations included major contributions from the governments of Chile, Cuba, Panama, the United Kingdom, and the United States, elements drawn from the constitutions of fifty-five nations, and recommendations from various nongovernmental human rights organizations and private citizens.

Today, international support for human rights is cause for both concern and celebration.

Fortunately, public support for the principles of human rights remain strong in the United States. A recent summary of polling data from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes finds that a significant majority of U.S. citizens believes in the idea of universal human rights that are intrinsic, rather than granted by governments. Asked in a November 1997 Hart Research poll, "Do you believe that every person has basic rights that are common to all human beings, regardless of whether their government recognizes those rights or not, or do you believe that rights are given to an individual by his or her government?" 76% said that every person has such rights, while 17% said that such rights are granted by governments.

Awareness of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, is low. Asked by Hart Research in November 1997 whether "there is an official document that sets forth human rights for everyone worldwide," only 8% named the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, in a subsequent question, when told of the existence of the Declaration, another 24% said they had previously been aware of it. Also, in the same poll, 83% said that the fact that the U.S. has agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a very (53%) or fairly (30%) strong reason for the U.S. to do "more to protect human rights in the U.S."

According to polling data, there is strong support for U.S. foreign policy that promotes human rights abroad. In a June 2002 poll by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR), an overwhelming 90% said that "promoting and defending human rights in other countries" should be an important goal for U.S. foreign policy. Only 10% said that it should not be an important goal. In every quadrennial survey conducted by the CCFR since 1974, more than 80% have said this goal is important, and the percentage saying it is very important has climbed to 47% in 2002 from 39% in 1998 and 34% in 1994.

But despite the strong popular support for human rights principles and a belief that the United States should promote human rights at home and abroad, there are a number of areas where U.S. human rights practice trails international human rights practice. More distressingly, the Bush administration has been engaged in a process of undermining certain institutions of the international human rights regime.

A partial list of failings in U.S. human rights policy, drawn from a more detailed discussion in a recent Amnesty International report entitled USA: Human rights v Public relations, includes:

* In 2002 the Bush administration has approached governments requesting them to enter into agreements that they will not surrender U.S. nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to the new International Criminal Court.
* The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has criticized the Bush administration's handling of immigrants detained in post-9/11 sweeps and has called upon the administration to "take the urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay determined by a competent tribunal." More than 600 detainees held in the U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay remain in legal limbo, without access to the courts or lawyers. Some have been held for almost a year, with no prospect of release or trial.
* The U.S. has failed to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights, which it signed 25 years ago;
* The U.S. is one of only 23 countries not to have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. While initially supporting ratification of the Convention, the administration has recently backpedaled on its support due to opposition from right-wing anti-choice activists.
* Although 145 countries have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the U.S. has not, 25 years after signing it;
* The Bush administration has opposed the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which aimed at providing a system of unannounced visits to places of detention, such as police stations and prisons, and was approved by UN General Assembly's Third Committee in early November 2002 despite U.S. opposition;
* In May 2002, Somalia signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child and indicated its intention to ratify it. Once it does so, becoming the 192nd state party to the Convention, the U.S. will be the only country not to have ratified this fundamental treaty.

The implications of a Bush administration unchecked in its assault on international human rights norms and institutions are severe. As Amnesty International noted, "When any state, let alone a country as powerful as the USA, insists on its right to adopt a selective approach to international standards, the integrity of those standards is eroded. Why should any other state not then claim for itself the prerogative to adhere to only those portions of international human rights law which suit its purposes?"

In his December 9th message proclaiming Human Rights Day & Bill of Rights Week, President Bush noted that "America has pledged to support all individuals who seek to secure their unalienable rights." Yet this statement stands uneasily with efforts to weaken key elements of the institutions established to protect and promote international human rights. As a recent report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations noted, many people in the Middle East, and other regions "do not trust what we say because they feel our words are contradicted by our policies." This is perhaps most apparent in the area of human rights, where rhetoric and policy have diverged widely under this administration.