Now America Can Right Its Wrongs
There is no doubt that Team Obama is committed to global justice
President-elect Obama is the living embodiment of what human rights
can do - the product of Brown vs Board of Education and the
achievements of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. His victory is
greeted by a world where suddenly the American flag is waving not
burning, in the expectation that he will somehow right the wrongs of
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, of Bush administration defiance of the
United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. There is no doubt that Team
Obama is committed to global justice: how can they re-engage with the
struggle to achieve it?
Firstly, by supporting the International Criminal Court. The treaty
establishing it was signed by President Clinton before he left office:
George W Bush "unsigned" it, then approved the American
Service-Members Protection Act (Jesse Helms's "bomb the Hague"
bill) which empowered him to use force to free any American charged with war
crimes. This puerile behaviour continued for several years, with the US
threatening to withdraw aid support from any country that joined the court.
Despite this bullying, 108 states have by now ratified the court's statute,
and the US will have a new opportunity to negotiate terms for its own
membership at the 10-year review conference, to be held in Uganda in 2010.
The ICC is now up and running, with several Congo war lords on trial for
recruitment of child soldiers and an indictment confirmed against Ahmed
Harun, whom the prosecutor alleges is the architect of mass murder in
Darfur. The US has a moral duty to help the court at this juncture, because
Darfur was referred to it by the Security Council in 2004 after Colin Powell
had accused the Bashir government of genocide. It will now need American
muscle to pressure Sudan to surrender Harun, who has been elevated to
minister for humanitarian affairs, from which post he now interferes with
aid efforts. The outcome of Harun's trial would decide whether the
prosecution's genocide charge against Bashir himself should proceed.
The Obama administration will have no difficulty in closing Guantanamo. But
how can the US atone for the use of torture on Donald Rumsfeld's watch? By
ratifying the Torture Convention, for a start. And then by taking an
initiative that would, for the first time, provide a meaningful safeguard
for its prisoners of war, namely by waiving its right to confidentiality in
Red Cross prison visitation reports.
The importance of such a step cannot be overestimated. Whenever Rumsfeld was
asked about treatment of prisoners, he would claim that they could not
possibly have been tortured because they were regularly visited by the Red
Cross. The truth, of course, was that they were treated inhumanely, as the
Red Cross in fact reported. But because of its insistence upon
confidentiality, its reports were sent in utter secrecy to commanding
officers, who, in the case in the case of Abu Ghraib, chose to ignore them -
until one leaked to the Wall Street Journal.
Then there is the death penalty. The US, in the engaging company of Iran,
China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is one of the big five executioners. Obama
cannot change his countrymen's attachment to capital punishment: Bill
Clinton had to sign the death warrant for an insane man, Ricky Roy Rector,
to clear his path to the White House, and during this campaign Obama was
forced to promise that he would not interfere with some states' plans to
execute child rapists. What he can do, however, is to use federal powers to
stop the execution of foreign nationals who have been convicted in breach of
international law, usually by denying them consular access when arrested,
contrary to the Vienna Convention. There has been a number of such
executions, condemned by the International Court of Justice and "regretted"
by a Bush administration that did not lift a constitutional finger against
them. There are more in the death row pipeline, and Professor Obama - for
many years voted the best constitutional law lecturer at the University of
Chicago - might find a way to stop states such as Texas putting his country
in breach of the law of nations.
One bad idea that gained traction from Democrats and Republicans in the course
of the election campaign was to replace the United Nation with an
organisation open only to democracies. There might, however, be some point
in creating an alliance that could deal with two rights which the UN has
proved utterly incapable of protecting, namely to representative government
and to freedom of expression. The British Commonwealth has abjectly failed
in these respects too. (See Fiji, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Singapore, etc.) An
American-led alliance might succeed, at least in simple matters such as
forcing the army dictatorship in Fiji to hold elections. (This could be
achieved overnight, if the US, Australia and New Zealand combined to
threaten airline and football isolation.)
The Bush administration regarded international law as a set of rules that
applied to other countries. Team Obama will want to engage with it: Harold
Koh, former assistant secretary for democracy and human rights, is predicted
to be its first Supreme Court appointment; David Sheffer, Clinton's war
crimes ambassador, is tipped to be Obama's UN ambassador; Susan Rice and
Samantha Power, who will both be important players in the new
administration, have in the past urged US action to stop genocide. They are
unlikely to leave this task to ragtag UN peacekeepers from poor countries,
who go nervously and without proper equipment to places such as Darfur and
the Congo where there is no peace to keep.
The world this week has such great expectations of Barack Obama that he may
well disappoint: some problems, especially in Africa, are intractable and he
has a recession topping his agenda. But it is unlikely that this heir of
Franklin "Four Freedoms" Roosevelt and of John "Ich bin ein
Berliner" Kennedy will abandon the dream of a international community
based on the rule of law. It will be his contribution to the global struggle
for justice that will decide whether his election goes down not only in
American history, but in the history of the world.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President-elect Obama is the living embodiment of what human rights
can do - the product of Brown vs Board of Education and the
achievements of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. His victory is
greeted by a world where suddenly the American flag is waving not
burning, in the expectation that he will somehow right the wrongs of
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, of Bush administration defiance of the
United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. There is no doubt that Team
Obama is committed to global justice: how can they re-engage with the
struggle to achieve it?
Firstly, by supporting the International Criminal Court. The treaty
establishing it was signed by President Clinton before he left office:
George W Bush "unsigned" it, then approved the American
Service-Members Protection Act (Jesse Helms's "bomb the Hague"
bill) which empowered him to use force to free any American charged with war
crimes. This puerile behaviour continued for several years, with the US
threatening to withdraw aid support from any country that joined the court.
Despite this bullying, 108 states have by now ratified the court's statute,
and the US will have a new opportunity to negotiate terms for its own
membership at the 10-year review conference, to be held in Uganda in 2010.
The ICC is now up and running, with several Congo war lords on trial for
recruitment of child soldiers and an indictment confirmed against Ahmed
Harun, whom the prosecutor alleges is the architect of mass murder in
Darfur. The US has a moral duty to help the court at this juncture, because
Darfur was referred to it by the Security Council in 2004 after Colin Powell
had accused the Bashir government of genocide. It will now need American
muscle to pressure Sudan to surrender Harun, who has been elevated to
minister for humanitarian affairs, from which post he now interferes with
aid efforts. The outcome of Harun's trial would decide whether the
prosecution's genocide charge against Bashir himself should proceed.
The Obama administration will have no difficulty in closing Guantanamo. But
how can the US atone for the use of torture on Donald Rumsfeld's watch? By
ratifying the Torture Convention, for a start. And then by taking an
initiative that would, for the first time, provide a meaningful safeguard
for its prisoners of war, namely by waiving its right to confidentiality in
Red Cross prison visitation reports.
The importance of such a step cannot be overestimated. Whenever Rumsfeld was
asked about treatment of prisoners, he would claim that they could not
possibly have been tortured because they were regularly visited by the Red
Cross. The truth, of course, was that they were treated inhumanely, as the
Red Cross in fact reported. But because of its insistence upon
confidentiality, its reports were sent in utter secrecy to commanding
officers, who, in the case in the case of Abu Ghraib, chose to ignore them -
until one leaked to the Wall Street Journal.
Then there is the death penalty. The US, in the engaging company of Iran,
China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is one of the big five executioners. Obama
cannot change his countrymen's attachment to capital punishment: Bill
Clinton had to sign the death warrant for an insane man, Ricky Roy Rector,
to clear his path to the White House, and during this campaign Obama was
forced to promise that he would not interfere with some states' plans to
execute child rapists. What he can do, however, is to use federal powers to
stop the execution of foreign nationals who have been convicted in breach of
international law, usually by denying them consular access when arrested,
contrary to the Vienna Convention. There has been a number of such
executions, condemned by the International Court of Justice and "regretted"
by a Bush administration that did not lift a constitutional finger against
them. There are more in the death row pipeline, and Professor Obama - for
many years voted the best constitutional law lecturer at the University of
Chicago - might find a way to stop states such as Texas putting his country
in breach of the law of nations.
One bad idea that gained traction from Democrats and Republicans in the course
of the election campaign was to replace the United Nation with an
organisation open only to democracies. There might, however, be some point
in creating an alliance that could deal with two rights which the UN has
proved utterly incapable of protecting, namely to representative government
and to freedom of expression. The British Commonwealth has abjectly failed
in these respects too. (See Fiji, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Singapore, etc.) An
American-led alliance might succeed, at least in simple matters such as
forcing the army dictatorship in Fiji to hold elections. (This could be
achieved overnight, if the US, Australia and New Zealand combined to
threaten airline and football isolation.)
The Bush administration regarded international law as a set of rules that
applied to other countries. Team Obama will want to engage with it: Harold
Koh, former assistant secretary for democracy and human rights, is predicted
to be its first Supreme Court appointment; David Sheffer, Clinton's war
crimes ambassador, is tipped to be Obama's UN ambassador; Susan Rice and
Samantha Power, who will both be important players in the new
administration, have in the past urged US action to stop genocide. They are
unlikely to leave this task to ragtag UN peacekeepers from poor countries,
who go nervously and without proper equipment to places such as Darfur and
the Congo where there is no peace to keep.
The world this week has such great expectations of Barack Obama that he may
well disappoint: some problems, especially in Africa, are intractable and he
has a recession topping his agenda. But it is unlikely that this heir of
Franklin "Four Freedoms" Roosevelt and of John "Ich bin ein
Berliner" Kennedy will abandon the dream of a international community
based on the rule of law. It will be his contribution to the global struggle
for justice that will decide whether his election goes down not only in
American history, but in the history of the world.
President-elect Obama is the living embodiment of what human rights
can do - the product of Brown vs Board of Education and the
achievements of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. His victory is
greeted by a world where suddenly the American flag is waving not
burning, in the expectation that he will somehow right the wrongs of
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, of Bush administration defiance of the
United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. There is no doubt that Team
Obama is committed to global justice: how can they re-engage with the
struggle to achieve it?
Firstly, by supporting the International Criminal Court. The treaty
establishing it was signed by President Clinton before he left office:
George W Bush "unsigned" it, then approved the American
Service-Members Protection Act (Jesse Helms's "bomb the Hague"
bill) which empowered him to use force to free any American charged with war
crimes. This puerile behaviour continued for several years, with the US
threatening to withdraw aid support from any country that joined the court.
Despite this bullying, 108 states have by now ratified the court's statute,
and the US will have a new opportunity to negotiate terms for its own
membership at the 10-year review conference, to be held in Uganda in 2010.
The ICC is now up and running, with several Congo war lords on trial for
recruitment of child soldiers and an indictment confirmed against Ahmed
Harun, whom the prosecutor alleges is the architect of mass murder in
Darfur. The US has a moral duty to help the court at this juncture, because
Darfur was referred to it by the Security Council in 2004 after Colin Powell
had accused the Bashir government of genocide. It will now need American
muscle to pressure Sudan to surrender Harun, who has been elevated to
minister for humanitarian affairs, from which post he now interferes with
aid efforts. The outcome of Harun's trial would decide whether the
prosecution's genocide charge against Bashir himself should proceed.
The Obama administration will have no difficulty in closing Guantanamo. But
how can the US atone for the use of torture on Donald Rumsfeld's watch? By
ratifying the Torture Convention, for a start. And then by taking an
initiative that would, for the first time, provide a meaningful safeguard
for its prisoners of war, namely by waiving its right to confidentiality in
Red Cross prison visitation reports.
The importance of such a step cannot be overestimated. Whenever Rumsfeld was
asked about treatment of prisoners, he would claim that they could not
possibly have been tortured because they were regularly visited by the Red
Cross. The truth, of course, was that they were treated inhumanely, as the
Red Cross in fact reported. But because of its insistence upon
confidentiality, its reports were sent in utter secrecy to commanding
officers, who, in the case in the case of Abu Ghraib, chose to ignore them -
until one leaked to the Wall Street Journal.
Then there is the death penalty. The US, in the engaging company of Iran,
China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is one of the big five executioners. Obama
cannot change his countrymen's attachment to capital punishment: Bill
Clinton had to sign the death warrant for an insane man, Ricky Roy Rector,
to clear his path to the White House, and during this campaign Obama was
forced to promise that he would not interfere with some states' plans to
execute child rapists. What he can do, however, is to use federal powers to
stop the execution of foreign nationals who have been convicted in breach of
international law, usually by denying them consular access when arrested,
contrary to the Vienna Convention. There has been a number of such
executions, condemned by the International Court of Justice and "regretted"
by a Bush administration that did not lift a constitutional finger against
them. There are more in the death row pipeline, and Professor Obama - for
many years voted the best constitutional law lecturer at the University of
Chicago - might find a way to stop states such as Texas putting his country
in breach of the law of nations.
One bad idea that gained traction from Democrats and Republicans in the course
of the election campaign was to replace the United Nation with an
organisation open only to democracies. There might, however, be some point
in creating an alliance that could deal with two rights which the UN has
proved utterly incapable of protecting, namely to representative government
and to freedom of expression. The British Commonwealth has abjectly failed
in these respects too. (See Fiji, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Singapore, etc.) An
American-led alliance might succeed, at least in simple matters such as
forcing the army dictatorship in Fiji to hold elections. (This could be
achieved overnight, if the US, Australia and New Zealand combined to
threaten airline and football isolation.)
The Bush administration regarded international law as a set of rules that
applied to other countries. Team Obama will want to engage with it: Harold
Koh, former assistant secretary for democracy and human rights, is predicted
to be its first Supreme Court appointment; David Sheffer, Clinton's war
crimes ambassador, is tipped to be Obama's UN ambassador; Susan Rice and
Samantha Power, who will both be important players in the new
administration, have in the past urged US action to stop genocide. They are
unlikely to leave this task to ragtag UN peacekeepers from poor countries,
who go nervously and without proper equipment to places such as Darfur and
the Congo where there is no peace to keep.
The world this week has such great expectations of Barack Obama that he may
well disappoint: some problems, especially in Africa, are intractable and he
has a recession topping his agenda. But it is unlikely that this heir of
Franklin "Four Freedoms" Roosevelt and of John "Ich bin ein
Berliner" Kennedy will abandon the dream of a international community
based on the rule of law. It will be his contribution to the global struggle
for justice that will decide whether his election goes down not only in
American history, but in the history of the world.