6.15.2011

INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS: U.S HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS: WHAT IS THE PLACE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY? HOW DO THEY SEE IT? PART II


  
                                       By ARIC JOHN

     Human Rights have emerged as the most paradoxical human relations discourse.  In the period before the Second World War, human rights were considered to be the domain of domestic politics.  The development of international institutions, however, has led to the gradual internationalization of the concepts, so that human rights are no longer regarded as an exclusively internal matter, particularly by the developed world.  Thus, human rights have come to be regarded as legitimate concern of foreign policy.

     At the same time, it is a difficult task to assess the proper place for human rights in the foreign policy of a state, or nation, particularly in that a of super power such as the United States.  There are a number of factors to consider, like the reality of the state or national system.  Also, the diversity of social, economic, and political life on a national level, and the ideas of state sovereignty, which make the incorporation of human rights in foreign policy complex and problematic.  However, human rights have come to occupy a prominent place in United States foreign policy particularly with regard to the Third World.

    The fact was proved in the cold war that advocacy of human rights can be a powerful foreign policy tool which enhances America's role as a world leader and undermines that of its adversaries.  It also adds an ideological and moral component to United States foreign policy.  The slogan of human rights enables the United States to recapture moral leadership in "an international ideological vacuum of sorts".  Further, we believe, that the reasons which the United States has for advocating human rights, are not always solely humanitarian.

    Promoting human rights serves the U.S. national interest, particularly over the long run.  An example of this is America's war on terrorism in Afghanistan.  After fighting an illogical war over a poor Afghanistan, they have captured a number of prisoners whom they do not claim to be prisoners of war.  These prisoners have been transported from Afghanistan to the naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, and are housed in six by eight feet cages covered with metal roof, and razor sharp chain link sides and a concrete floor.

    First, the U.S. declared them as, “unlawful combatants".  These prisoners of indeterminate status would now be tried by a bench of their captors under the amended military law, which denies them the right to engage a council of their choosing at a summary trial, most of whose proceedings would be on camera.  Since the military regulations have been rewritten after the defeat of the Taliban, these would doubtlessly be ex-post facto laws.  These are against what the U.S. Constitution and Article 11 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights portray.  These horrendous acts have prompted an outcry for legal answerability of the perpetrators.

    In the course of my research, I shall ponder over a few important questions, like, what categories of rights are promoted and protected, and what place in U.S. foreign policy decision making is given to human rights?  What purpose does a human rights policy serve for the United States, and what are its implications for the Third World?  Whether the United States foreign policy is dictated by humanitarian concerns or the national interest and in a situation of conflict between the two, which will take precedence?  What human right practices by the USA have been pondered over in light of the Taliban's prisoners of war?

This is

0 comments:

Post a Comment

All comments and feedback appreciated!

Criminology & Justice Headline Animator

Psychology

Law Books

Corrections

Sociology

Crime

Serial Killers

Criminology

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...