End 'ugly' human rights record, group urges Obama

[struggle4progress]

Source: CBC

Human Rights Watch is urging Barack Obama to end the "ugly record" of complacency and abuse under U.S. President George W. Bush and make human rights a top priority ...

The annual review of human rights practices around the world blamed Bush for ignoring some of the most basic requirements of international human rights law in its fight against terrorism following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ...

The report says the Bush administration undermined the United States's global influence on human rights issues ...

As a result, the report said, the human rights agenda is being set by countries that would leave human rights to the discretion of individual countries, such as Algeria, China, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/14/human-rights-watch.html

---

Taking Back the Initiative from the Human Rights Spoilers
World Report 2009
Introduction By Kenneth Roth

A government's respect for human rights must be measured not only by how it treats its own people but also by how it protects rights in its relations with other countries. As we commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the response of governments to the plight of people abroad is often anemic. Indeed, it is a sad fact that when it comes to this international protection of rights, the governments with the clearest vision and strategy are often those that seek to undermine enforcement. The days are past when one would look to Washington, Brussels, or other Western capitals for the initiative in intergovernmental discussions of human rights. Today, those conducting the most energetic diplomacy on human rights are likely to reside in such places as Algiers, Cairo, or Islamabad, with backing from Beijing and Moscow. The problem is that they are pushing in the wrong direction.

These human rights opponents defend the prerogative of governments to do what they want to their people. They hide behind the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and Southern solidarity, but their real aim is to curb criticism of their own human rights abuses or those of their allies and friends. The activities of these "spoilers" have come to dominate intergovernmental discussions of human rights. For example, they have ended United Nations scrutiny of severe repression in Uzbekistan, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. They have mounted intense challenges to criticism of the Burmese military and possible prosecution of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. And they have deeply compromised the new UN Human Rights Council.

The reason for their success lies less in the attractiveness of their vision than in the often weak and inconsistent commitment of governments that traditionally stood for the defense of human rights. It is not as if the people of the world are suddenly enamored of dictatorship and repression. Their desire for basic rights remains unchanged, whether in the displaced persons camps of Darfur, the tribal areas of Pakistan, or the prisons of Egypt. Rather, the vigor of the anti-human rights campaign is, ironically, a testament to the power of the human rights ideal. The spoilers would hardly bother if the stigma of being labeled a human rights violator did not carry such sting ...

... governments that care about human rights worldwide retain enough clout to build a broad coalition to fight repression-if they are willing to use it. Instead, these governments have largely abandoned the field. Succumbing to competing interests and credibility problems of their own making, they have let themselves be outmaneuvered and sidelined in UN venues such as the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, and in the policy debates that shape multilateral diplomacy toward Burma, Darfur, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, and other trouble spots ...

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79269