Down with Human Rights
by Joh Domingo
(A
response to the http://www.counterpunch.com/rooij10132004.html )
The
article in the latest issue on Counterpunch called `Amnesty
International: A False Beacon?' by PAUL de ROOIJ is well
overdue and provides clear detail on just why Human Rights
Organizations pose a serious danger to humanity, although this
is obviously not de Rooij's
intention; he simply wants to expose the double standard
employed by Amnesty International when they are dealing with
`savages' as opposed to `Saints'. Nevertheless, it is a timely
eye-opener for all of us, and not only those that mindlessly
parrot `Human-Rights' propaganda.
It
is a belated follow-up to the interview of Professor Francis
Boyle by Dennis Bernstein In the
Summer 2002 Edition of CovertAction
Quarterly.
http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0004573.h
tml
Paul
de Rooij continues in his
discovery of a pattern he first noted (to this writers
knowledge) in his 2002 article entitled `Amnesty International
& Israel: Say it isn't so!', also in Counterpunch, about
this very issue, on http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1031.html
He
seems to be rapidly evolving towards an inescapable
conclusion; despite the well-intentioned involvement of tens
of thousands of activist at the grassroots level to protect
the Human Rights of ordinary people, the fix is in at the top.
I would go further than de Rooij, I
would declare that Human Rights was nothing more than a
propaganda slogan anyway.
The
evidence detailed in the article is no more than the first
whiff of the stench that permeates the Human Rights industry,
which is not only compromised at the top, but is an ideology
rooted in Colonialism. In fact, it is the primary vehicle used
to justify the neo-colonial interventionism currently plaguing
our planet.
It
is unfortunate that despite the plethora of smaller Human
Rights organizations sincerely plugging away at the mass of
injustice facing the world's people, they are minnows compared
to the Human Rights Superpowers; Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch. These smaller groups face the same
juggernaut confronting smaller sovereign nations, as they
contemplate the prospect of Western `Civilizing' missions -
the doctrine is prescribed by those that seek to subdue them.
It
behoves us to deconstruct the edifice of the Human Rights
Industry and examine what oozes out, because clearly, if
innocent people are being crushed by the apparatus of State it
is wrong; we don't need to read the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to know that it is wrong. Why then is the idea
promoted, that Rights that are codified and ratified, provides
protection against abuses? The codification
of these Rights do not protect people who, more often
than not, do not know that they are being killed, to uphold
Rights they did not know they possessed?
At
first glance, it appears that the Human Rights Lobby is driven
by the intention to protect the Rights of others. The
intention is `good', but the road to hell is paved with good
intentions, and usually it is the sentiment behind the
intention that leads us to perdition. The case of Universally
Declared Rights is particularly fraught with complex
implications.
When
a `Right' is declared, it creates an immediate moral
requirement to respect it, and thereafter divides all human
actions into three distinct categories; actions which respect
that Right, actions that violate that Right, and actions which
are neutral with respect to that Right. The declaration of
that Right rarely requires any action from the holders of that
Right, and in fact denies the holder of that Right the right
to renounce it. Implicitly, it promotes and legitimates
actions to enforce those rights on behalf of the holder.
While
it appears to create entitlement for the holder of that
`Right' not to have it violated, the political reality is that
it creates entitlement for others to prevent the violation of
that right. The `right not to be tortured' thus becomes `the
right to prevent torture', which is a hop-skip-and-a-jump to
`the right to bomb torturers', including the right to cause
collateral damage.
The
intent behind the Declaration of Human Rights becomes clearer
when we examine who declares these rights. It obviously is not
the poor oppressed that declare these rights, as is
subliminally suggested by the propaganda, but Governments and
powerful non- Government Agencies. Even then, it is extremely
rare that a non- Western government declares a `claimed'
right, but rather it is declared by powerful Western States,
who explicitly declare these rights to be irrevocable, unable
even, to be rejected by the `claimant'; a blatant violation of
the idea of political freedom.
The
Declaration of a right is comparable to a decree, such as that
given by a sovereign. If we want to know who rules a place, we
ask: "who makes the laws here?" It stands to reason
that he, who makes the laws, implicitly can also legitimately
enforce the law. Declarations of a Human Right are
fundamentally political acts, designed to promote the
political legitimacy of those that enforce them. It is not
surprising that those that police human rights,
are functionaries of the Ruling Elite, rather than champions
of the oppressed. We should not be astonished that the Human
Rights Lobby selects their targets according to the agenda of
the Ruling Elite.
Human
Rights are invariably promoted as being embodied in Democracy,
but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far from a
democratic document. It is not even Universal.
Yet, the Human Rights lobby claims that it is morally binding
on the whole world, forever.
Diplomatic
representatives of UN Member States, as it was constituted at
the time approved the document in 1948. In many cases the
victorious Allies installed the governments of the represented
States and their colonial overlords represented many of
today's countries. The populations of
Germany
and
Japan
were not represented, and the political
status of the inhabitants of entire continents, meant they
were excluded. Far from `claiming' the Rights contained in the
Declaration, most of the World's population never saw the
text, before it was approved. The text is still not available
in most of the languages spoken by the world's population. It
is not available in Mandarin, nor is it available in Swahili.
No
provision was made to periodically review the Declaration, nor
does any mechanism exist to revise it. There is no appeal
against the enforcement of its provisions, nor is their any
provision to appeal its content. The Universal Declaration is
considered to be beyond any appeal, nay, beyond any legal
procedure.
Human
Rights is a universal doctrine that was imposed by political
tradition that is rooted in the broad liberal tradition, which
has now been co-opted by the neo-liberalism adopted by
Interventionist States seeking the implementation of
neo-colonialism. It fosters the notion that no alternative
ethical value system exists outside Western neo-Liberalism.
Certainly Shariah fails to pass
muster, let alone Confucianism or Nihonism.
The cultivated myth is that Human Beings demanded their Human
Rights, and the UN graciously consented. The reality is that
the Great Powers issued a decree, and proceeded to enforce it
in furtherance of their agenda.
The
imposition of Human Rights, is the
imposition of a political ideology. It is no accident that
supporters of Human Rights are also supporters of the Free
Market, Democracy and an Open Society. Most recent military
interventions were justified on the grounds of Human Rights,
and also sought to bring Free-Market economies into the
countries that were a victim of the intervention. If you buy
the concept of `Claimed Human Rights', you buy the whole
neo-liberal package whether you want to or not.
October
13, 2004
Double
Standards and Curious Silences
Amnesty
International: A False Beacon?
By
PAUL de ROOIJ
Given
the current escalation of Israeli depredations in
Gaza
and the daily
US
bombings of Falluja, it is
interesting to examine Amnesty International's (AI) statements
on the situation. AI is widely viewed as an authority on human
rights issues, and thus it is of interest to analyze its
output on these recent events. Careful scrutiny of AI's record
reveals that, its typical response to the daily obscene deeds
by either Israeli or US armies is a few barely audible
ruminations with an occasional lame rebuke. The impotence of
these responses raises many questions.
Occupation
with human rights?
Consider
the title of a recent press release: "Israeli army must
respect human rights in its operations" [1]. According to
AI, the Israeli depredations on occupied land are acceptable
as long as they "respect" human rights. This is
analogous to recommending that a rapist should practice safe
sex [2]. It is also difficult to imagine that a military
occupation could ever be imposed while observing "human
rights".
Consider
the context. During September 2004 the Israeli army killed on
average 3.7 Palestinians per day; it injured an average of
19.3 p/day; it demolished many houses affecting the
lives of thousands; it has transformed vast areas of
Gaza
into a denuded moonscape. It is also clear that these gruesome
statistics will be worse in October. The Israeli Defense
Minister Shaul Mofaz
openly states that the Palestinians should be punished, and
the measures advocated entail collective punishment. The
entire Palestinian population is taken hostage; pressure is
exerted on them as a whole. Ethnic Cleansing is on going, and
the construction of the grotesque wall stands as proof of the
criminality of this policy.
Given
the devastation inflicted by the Israeli army and clear
violations of international law, one would expect at least a
tiny condemnation. However, this is the extent of AI's
reaction:
"[AI]
is concerned that the Israeli army's use of excessive force in
this latest incursion in the Gaza Strip will result in further
loss of lives and wanton destruction of Palestinian homes and
property. Reprisals against protected persons and property are
prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and
Israel
is obliged to ensure that any measures taken to protect the
lives of Israeli civilians are consistent with its obligations
to respect human rights and international humanitarian law.
Israel
should immediately allow international human rights and
humanitarian organizations to enter the Gaza Strip. At present
[AI] delegates and staff members of other international
organizations are denied access to the Gaza Strip."
Note
that this lame statement was uttered in reaction to the attack
on Jabalya, an onslaught which Dr.
Mustafa Barghouti described as
follows: "
Sharon
's
tanks are rampaging through Jabalia
and Beit Lahia,
just as they did in Khan Yunis, Rafah
and Beit Hanun.
The simple fact is that
Sharon
is doing to
Gaza
what he did to the
West
Bank
in 2002." [3] AI's hypocrisy in issuing this limp
statement is evident when it is compared with the press
release analyzed below.
Double
Standard?
In
May 2004 AI issued a press release headed "AI condemns
murder of woman and her four daughters by Palestinian
gunmen." The body of the text contains the following
condemnation:
"Such
deliberate attacks against civilians, which have been
widespread, systematic and in furtherance of a stated policy
to attack the civilian population, constitute crimes against
humanity, as defined by Article 7 (1) and (2)(a) of the 1998
Rome Statute of the International Criminal."[4]
So,
when Palestinians kill some civilians, then it constitutes a
"crime against humanity" -- one of the most serious
crimes under international law, and a precursor to genocide.
But, when
Israel
kills far more civilians "in furtherance of a stated
policy" (the phrasing AI used against Palestinians) to
"exact a price" (to use the words of Israeli Defense
Minister Shaul Mofaz
[5]), all that AI can do is to wring its hands and worry about
"the Israeli army's use of excessive force". Thus,
we see that AI does not hesitate to use against Palestinians
terms, such as "crime against humanity", which it
has never unambiguously leveled
against
Israel
.
Note
that the Israeli woman killed by Palestinians in the above
episode was a settler. Thus, AI was stretching a point a to
call her a civilian -- settlers are armed and they consider
themselves, when they feel like it, the shock troops of an
expansionist zionism whose stated
goal is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from, at least,
all the land west of the River Jordan.
Regarding
the Palestinian attack, AI also states: "deliberate
attacks against civilians, which have been widespread,
systematic and in furtherance of a stated policy to attack the
civilian population." Whoa! It is astonishing that such a
description was added to its accusation pertaining a
Palestinian attack, but at the same time, it is not willing to
classify any Israeli actions as "systematic, deliberate
and widespread [etc.]". AI portrays Palestinian violence
as worse than Israeli violence, and this amounts to a clear
double standard.
Neglecting
settler violence?
On
Sept.
27, 2004
a settler from the Itamar
settlement killed a Palestinian in cold blood, and the Israeli
authorities even sought to exempt the settler from house
arrest; at most -- though not likely -- he will be charged
with manslaughter [6]. While AI was willing to issue a press
release about the settler woman and her kids who were killed,
it was not willing to issue any statement about this incident.
What makes this neglect curious is that around the same time
it issued a press release regarding an abducted CNN stringer
-- someone who was eventually released unharmed [7].
Researching
AI's public record reveals an odd sense of proportion in
selecting which events it chooses to discuss.
It
seems that AI regards settlements as mere misplaced suburbs,
and its residents as just some Western suburbanites. For some
settlements, this may be the case, but several settlements are
home to racist zionist fanatics.
Jeff Halper, the director of the
Israel Committee Against House
Demolitions, observes that there is now a second generation of
settlers, those born in the settlements; he calls them the
"clockwork orange" settlers who are more extreme,
racist and violent than their predecessors [8]. The clockwork
orange settlers frequently violently harass Palestinians,
demolish homes, and occasionally kill with impunity. This
context raises questions about AI's repeated calls to exempt
settlers from Palestinian retribution.
During
the second intifada, AI has not
issued any statement about settler violence.
What
happened to the supreme crime?
AI
is not an anti-war organization, and this stance creates
numerous contradictions. With the onset of the
US
war against
Iraq
,
it issued statements about the means the
US
would employ in warfare, but curiously, AI didn't condemn the
war! This is particularly curious given that the war was one
of aggression and thus constitutes a supreme international
crime. This is what Prof. Michael Mandel (Prof. of Law at
York
Univ.
,
Toronto
)
had to say about the matter:
When
the attack was launched, stern warnings were issued to all the
'belligerents' by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
[...], reminding them of their duties under the laws and
customs of war. But neither said a single word about the
illegality of the war itself or the supreme criminal
responsibility under international law of the countries that
had started it. [9]
And
pertaining to the press releases AI issued during this period:
Amnesty
also questioned whether the required precautions were being
taken to protect civilians, and called for investigations into
civilian deaths like those at the
Karbala
checkpoint, and the shooting of demonstrators in Falluja.
But never once did Amnesty International [...] mention the
fundamental reason why none of the incidents really had to be
investigated at all -- namely that all of this death and
destruction was legally, as well as morally, on the heads of
the invaders, whatever precautions they claimed to take,
because it was due to an illegal, aggressive war. Every death
was a crime for which the leaders of the invading coalition
were personally, criminally responsible. [10]
Again,
AI ruminations amount to recommending the "rapist to
engage in safe sex" -- no mention of the crime! Even
though AI often refers to international law to issue its
statements, when it comes to US depredations, then even
supreme crimes are not mentioned.
Another
double standard?
Consider
AI's statement issued regarding the situation in
Darfur
:
"The
United Nations Security Council should stop the transfer of
arms being used to commit mass human rights violations in
Darfur
[AI] urged today while releasing a report based on satellite
images showing large-scale destruction of villages in
Darfur
over the past year."[11]
The
situation may be awful in
Darfur
,
and the measure suggested may be warranted. However, the
curious aspect of this statement is that AI has never called
on the UN or any other body to impose an arms embargo on
Israel
,
although there are ample grounds for such a recommendation.
An
American academic inquired about this double standard, and she
received the following answer from Donatella
Rovera, AI's principal researcher
on Israel-Palestine:
"The
situations in
Sudan
and in
Israel-Occupied
Territories
are quite different and different norms of international law
apply, which do not make it possible to call for an arms
embargos on either the Israeli or the Palestinian side. The
West
Bank
and Gaza Strip are under Israeli military occupation (not the
case for the Darfour region in
Sudan
).
Hence, certain provisions of international humanitarian law,
known as the laws of war (notably the 1907 Hague Convention
and the Fourth Geneva Convention) apply in the
Occupied
Palestinian
Territories
(and not in the Darfour
region)." (email communication
July
5, 2004
).
AI
is couching its double standards in dubious legalese, but consider
what Prof. Francis Boyle (Professor of International Law at
Univ.
of
Illinois
Champaign
)
has to say about Rovera's
statement:
This
is total gibberish. When I was on the Board of Directors of
Amnesty International USA near the end of my second term in
1990-92, we received the authority to call for an arms embargo
against major human rights violators, which
Israel
clearly qualified for at the time and still does -- even under
United
States
domestic law. Of course no one at AI was going to do so
because pro-Israel supporters were major funders
of Amnesty International USA, which in turn was a major funder
of Amnesty International in
London
.
He who pays the piper calls the tune -- especially at AIUSA
Headquarters in
New
York
and at AI Headquarters in
London
.
What
about the prisoners?
The
core of AI's efforts have to do with "prisoners of
conscience", prison conditions, and torture. So, it is of
some interest to determine how this issue is dealt with
pertaining Palestinian prisoners and the Abu Ghraib
torture scandal [12]. The table below provides some context
for the Palestinian prisoners.
Number
of Palestinian Prisoners (
July
8, 2004
)
Total
|
5,892
|
Children
(age < 18)
|
351
|
Women
|
75
|
Age
> 50
|
42
|
42
Violation of accords [1]
|
433
|
Pct
of prisoners put on trial
|
25%
|
Administrative
detention [2]
|
786
|
Notes:
[1] All prisoners held prior to the signing of the Oslo
Accords should have been released. [2] Administrative
detention is illegal under international law. Administrative
detention orders may last for up to six months, with
Palestinians held without charges or trial during this period.
Israel
routinely renews the detention orders thereby holding
Palestinians without charge or trial indefinitely. During this
period, detainees are often denied legal counsel. Source: http://www.nad-plo.org/faq1.php