The USA and Human Rights

USA voted off the UN Human Rights Commission in 2001

At the beginning of May, 2001, the United States lost its seat²⁴ on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the first time since the panel's founding in 1947. (The Human Rights Commission assigns investigators to probe abuses around the world.) Human Rights Watch did note the irony at how a nation like the United States could be voted off but how Sudan and other human rights violators were to be added in²⁵. (Although, one could argue that no countries should be admitted in, in that respect!)

The U.S. claimed it was the victim of other nations ganging up to get them off the commission so they themselves were less scrutinized. Yet, that didn't explain why their friendly countries voted them off. The U.S. was voted off by their allies (not by their enemies, as commonly held, because the voting is based on regions, as Foreign Policy In Focus²⁶ clarifies.)

Critics had pointed out that the U.S's recent go-alone stances on many international issues had been factors as well. Examples include not supporting the international criminal court²⁷, not supporting the international landmine²⁸ treaty, its stance on the death penalty, not paying its dues at the U.N. (leaving it to others to make up in some way, especially European nations), backing down from Kyoto²⁹, and so on.

Admittedly, the U.S. has been more vocal than many nations on some human rights issues, but when it has come to major initiatives and substantial changes to promote and support human rights, the U.S. has, as mentioned above, often been alone, acting in their own interests³⁰, as some examples throughout this web site will show.

Moreover, being voted off, the US Congress decided to withhold $244 million in dues owed to the United Nations³¹. As the previous link suggests, this is a very arrogant stance. If other nations were to do such things, they would be rightly criticized of bribing or bullying to get their way.

On the same day, the commission also voted the U.S. off the International Narcotics Control Board³².

(While there are many sources that have documented the US support and violations of human rights outside its borders, one place to start is the Noam Chomsky³³ web site. Other issues covered in this web site also involve the United States. The resources provided in those sections also describe human rights violations and actions, as well as those of other nations.)

In 2002, the U.S. were voted back onto the Commission.

International Human Rights Treaty Obligations

It is interesting to look at the USA's position on some of the standard international human rights treaties, given the US's vocal position on human rights and insistence that it is the premier promoter of human rights.

The United Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights web site shows the status³⁴ of ratification of the principle human rights treaties³⁵. Of the twelve main treaty bodies, the United States has only signed the following, but not ratified them (as of 21 August, 2002):

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights³⁶
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women³⁷
• Convention on the Rights of the Child³⁸

Additionally (also as of 21 August, 2002), they have not either signed or ratified the following:

• The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families³⁹ (MWC), which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1990 and will enter into force when at least 20 States have accepted it;
• The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights⁴⁰ (OPT), which is supervised by the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider, as provided in the present Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.
• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty⁴¹ (OPT2).

Many nations have not ratified and/or signed these last three, but the US does stand out in this area overall given the position it claims to lead. Some of the reasons of not signing these include geopolitical reasons, internal politics etc. In a couple of cases, it could be argued that given the strong US Constitution, that some of these do not need to be ratified. However, it would be an even stronger and more responsible step to ensure that these are ratified due to that reason.

There are a number of situations today that would leave the US in an uncomfortable position if it had signed and ratified these. For example (and the following is an extremely small and simplified set of examples on what is a complex subject)

• Many immigration policies for migrants are harsh and often they do not have all the political rights and protection needed.
• Some asylum seekers are simply denied entry based on where they are from. Contrast Cuban and Haiti asylum seekers. Cubans are usually given the right to enter, due to political differences and to show the humanitarian nature of the US. But compare this with Haiti where the US are supposed to have restored democracy (actually, they have opposed it and promoted dictators that are in line with the US's commercial interests there -- mainly cheap, exploitable labor and resources). Hardly any Haitans have been allowed onto US shores in comparison. (For more about that, check out the Haiti⁴² section on this web site.)
• The death penalty is a known issue. In fact, it is interesting to see the number of reservations⁴³ by many other countries that signed the above conventions. Many friendly nations of the US also raised concerns on the US's decision not to observe the article that would prevent the use of the death penalty on children under the age of 18. (In the previous link, go to the Objections sections to see this.)
• As many people have commented upon for years, (and detailed for example in this report⁴⁴ from Human Rights Watch), US labor standards are poor, despite rhetoric of the opposite, and often violate basic rights.

That is not to say that other countries do not have problems with their policies. Indeed, in some areas, the United States fairs better than others who have ratified some of these treaties. The point then, is not to do some US-bashing, but more to highlight some of the reality of the US's human rights situation, versus the rhetoric that it portrays to its citizens and others.

It is noted and accepted that throughout this web site, there are more examples using the United States on various issues. Reasons are numerous, including:

• That there is more published information and research on the United States that is readily available
• The US has been the most influential nation around the world and continues to be so -- it's policies, actions, inaction and rhetoric therefore affect everyone around the world
• If the United States claims to be the beacon for human rights promotion around the world, then it only makes sense that it must be subject to detailed analysis and criticism itself. This is especially so if all other nations were to follow its examples -- to do less would be to lower the high standards, which are the rhetoric, from being a reality, within both the United States and elsewhere.

The Clinton Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention

Shortly after the Kosovo crisis ended, the Clinton Administration came out with the Clinton doctrine. This doctrine basically stated that the United States would forcefully intervene to prevent human rights abuses when it can do so without suffering substantial casualties, without the authority of the UN Security Council.

This is a pretty serious precedent for a powerful country to set as it in effect undermines international law and treaty obligations. The US has in the past been extremely selective in the determination of where humanitarian intervention (or even just concern) is needed. Allies of the US have often been gross human rights violators, but those abuses have been conveniently ignored by the US to be able to pursue its national interests (i.e. economic liberalization of other nations, ensuring resources that the US needs remain as cheap as practically possible and so on). In some regions, the US continues to provide arms to allies that use them to commit gross violations of human rights (and that in effect, helps the US pursue its national interests. After all, why else would they knowingly support human rights violators?).

Without the authority of the UN Security Council basically implies another step to undermine the UN. It should be noted that the UN does have its flaws which need to be addressed (for example, the U.N. Security Council, plus the idea of 5 permanent (nuclear) members of the Council, is not exactly very democratic). However, it also is the main international body set up to promote universal human rights.

The US was key in helping set it up shortly after the second World War. Various UN treaties and charters, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US has signed, form parts of international law which all member states are bound to. So, to prevent human rights abuses by by-passing the United Nations suggests that the definition of human rights which the US wishes to uphold is different to what they helped create and sign. It also suggests that the US has other motives when it will choose to intervene.

See Humanitarian Military Intervention⁴⁶, Vol 5, Number 1, 2000 from Foreign Policy in Focus, for additional information. As it suggests, the US should not employ military force for alleged humanitarian reasons without the explicit approval of the Security Council and should end military support of nations committing serious human rights violations as well as strengthen its own participation in international human rights agreements.