Iraq ambassador/nominee dodges fire on the hill

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The U.S. may be one step closer to sending a new ambassador to Iraq. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee convened on Wedneday to vet Ambassador Designate Christopher Hill. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) recognized the importance of getting a new ambassador to the region with expedience, but certain Senators have expressed concerns about Hill’s past.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who should be noted is not on the Committee, several weeks ago promised a fight in the Senate confirmation process because of actions that transpired while Hill was heading the six-party talks concerning North Korean nuclear disarmament. Brownback felt that Hill had misled Congress on his intentions to confront the issues of Human Rights with North Korea during the negotiations, since those issues ended up not being addressed.

Hill responded to Brownback’s concerns during the hearing today, and said that although he had agreed before Congress to address human rights, the process was stalled before the issue could be discussed. Human rights would have been on the table during the restoration of diplomatic ties with North Korea, Hill said, but that phase would have come only after the verification of North Korea's nuclear assets, and that verification never took place. Hill had planned on supporting initiatives from then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to put together a human rights program to tie progress in human rights reform to better diplomatic ties. Hill said today that America’s relationship with North Korea would not be normalized until North Korea completely did away with its nuclear stockpiles, and Hill could not fulfill his promise to Congress until the stockpiles had been eliminated.

It’s uncertain when the Senate confirmation vote will take place. There has been talk concerning delaying the vote until after the upcoming Congressional recess.

International Commission of Jurists: U.S. needs to put an end to its human rights violations

The ICJ held a panel today at the Brookings Institution consisting of human rights experts, judges, and lawyers from around the world, who for the past three years have investigated over forty countries treatment of human rights in counterterrorism efforts. The report found that counterterrorism policies put international legal respect for human rights in jeopardy. The panel was the first presentation of the report to a U.S. audience, thus the focus was on U.S. obligation to end its practices since the “war on terrorism” was coined, that the state of war provides justification to set aside human rights safeguards.

The panel reports that human rights violations in counterterrorism come in many forms. Individuals are abducted and held in secret prisons, being tortured and ill treated, not given access to lawyers, courts, or fair trial. Additionally, the culture of secrecy has become pervasive to the point where “innocent victims find themselves with no avenue for redress.”

Suzanne Spaulding, Principal of Bingham Consulting Group, explained that by declaring a “war on terror,” the U.S. put human rights into jeopardy because collateral damage is accepted much more in war time and the president is given significant power and fewer checks and balances. Of the increase in presidential power, Spaulding stated, “I think that is one of the most damaging consequences of our having taken this very broad, global ‘war on terror’ approach.” Spaulding concluded that she feels very “gratified” that President Obama has not used the term “war on terror.”

Robert Goldman, Professor of Law at American University, outlined the process that should be taken when a human rights violation occurs. “When there is a serious human rights violation the remedies are clear. One, there has to be effective access to court.” When the government tries to plead “state secrecy” for actions which it knew were illegal, it is “utterly inconsistent with human rights law.” Second, in order to go along with international human rights law, each case deserves “thorough and impartial investigation.”

Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, presented the fact that some U.S. representatives have argued that human rights law does not apply in times of war. He then read the recommendation of the panel to the United States as a response to this point of view: “The incoming U.S. administration should reaffirm the U.S.’s historic commitment to fully uphold and faithfully apply international humanitarian law, the laws of war, during situations of armed conflict and recognize that human rights law does not cease to apply in such situations.” The concluding argument is that while the U.S. is at war, and must use force, this force needs to be “necessary and appropriate.”

Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi addresses human rights in Iran

Today at the Carnegie Endowment, renowned human rights leader Shirin Ebadi spoke of the growing problem laws in Iran violating human rights. She pointed out the differences that arise between what the laws enforce and the facts of Iranian society. For example, according to Iranian law a woman's life is valued as one-half of a man; however sixty-five percent of university students are women.

Ebadi has faced many challenges as a human rights leader in Iran. Her organization, the Center for Defense of Human Rights was closed this month by the government. However, her dedication has not wavered, and the activity of the organization continues. "The defenders of human rights in Iran face danger all the time," she stated.

Ebadi called for a dialogue between civil societies in the U.S. and Iran, stressing the importance of this dialogue not only occurring on the governmental level. "I don't think that there are differences that cannot be resolved. I think what exists is just a misunderstanding," she explained.

Using culture as groundwork for development

Today, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released The State of World Population 2008. The UNFPA held a discussion on how to use culturally sensitive approaches that are essential to understanding legal, political, economic and social power relations instrumental to development.

According to a UNFPA press release, the report suggests that partnerships—for example between UNFPA and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—can create effective strategies to promote human rights, such as women’s empowerment and gender equality, and end human rights abuses like female genital mutilation or cutting. The press release said power relations mold gender dynamics and underlie practices such as child marriage (a leading cause of obstetric fistula and maternal death) and female genital mutilation or cutting.

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said “UNFPA will be funded. The president doesn’t have to do anything. He just has to let the will of congress go through.” Maloney was a very strong supporter of this new report that believes by “embracing cultural realities, you can reveal the most effective ways to challenge harmful cultural practices and strengthen beneficial ones.”

Azza Karam, Ph.D., Senior Culture Adviser at UNFPA, brought up an example of this cultural development integration in Ethiopia. International aid organizations spend thousands to millions of dollars on medical clinics in Ethiopia, especially for safeguarding childbirth methods. Yet many NGOs find that the clinics are rarely used. By using what UNFPA calls a “cultural lens,” an NGO would find that many women are choosing to perform home births instead because “they believe it’s a part of their culture.” If the NGO uses UNFPA’s cultural lens method, they could work with a religious leader who performs the teen-marriages that lead to young pregnancy to prevent the marriages from happening in the first place. This is a way of what Pauline Muchina, Ph.D., Senior Partnership Adviser at UNAIDS, called using culture as the fundamental groundwork for development.

Workers in Burma victims of abuse by country's military

Co-Founder and Executive Director of EarthRights International Ka Hsaw Wa says the way workers in Burma are treated by the military are unbearable. He also says that American companies in Burma don't do anything about it. (1:18)