Political controversy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has reignited this past week with President Obama’s decision to reverse a two year order that prevented new charges from being brought against prisoners while a review of detainee policy was conducted. In rescinding the 22 January 2009 executive order, President Obama is permitting Defense Secretary Robert Gates to bring new cases against suspects at the facility. Defending the administration’s decision, President Obama attempted to reinforce how important the rule of law is for the United States in succeeding at its endeavors:
“I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of the justice system – including Article III courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened.”
Though he is correct in his statement, this has become empty rhetoric from an individual that has gone from ‘closing the facility in one year’s time’ to ‘closing the facility at some point’. The negative impact and terrible consequences Guantanamo Bay has had on the United States, the Western world, the democratic process, and the rule of law cannot be ignored; continuing to detain individuals indefinitely without due process undermines the most basic principles of justice and undercuts the central tenants of human rights law. Justice Kennedy was corrected when he stated:
“What matters is the unchallenged and indefinite control that the United States has long exercised over Guantanamo Bay…Perhaps, where detainees are taken from a zone of hostilities, detentions without proceedings or trial would be justified by military necessity for a matter of weeks; but as the period stretches from months to years, the case for continued detention to meet military exigencies becomes weaker.”
Commentators have enumerated the reasons for closing Guantanamo Bay – symbolism of Muslim abuse, discontent from allies, blatant disregard for international law – yet have relied upon the politics of fear to legitimize the detention facilities continued use.
Leaders in Washington have continued to decry the ebbing influence of the United States in the international system; the fear of a Beijing Consensus and the false perceptions of an autocratic revival has led many individuals to strive to find ways to make America a leader once more. One easy are in which the United States can truly move the world community forward is in the realm of international law – particularly human rights law.
The fight for human rights must no longer be solely perceived as an abstract struggle pertaining to political freedoms and crimes against humanity; for many people throughout the world it is a struggle for survival. In many countries, the fight for human rights centers on a population’s efforts to combat corruption and abuse from local or national leaders, as well as combating trafficking, slavery, arbitrary arrest, extrajudicial actions, and numerous other assaults on an individuals socio-political, economic, or cultural freedoms.
International human rights efforts have succeeded in laying the groundwork to combat many abuses occurring around the world – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and numerous conventions focused on women, children, the disabled, torture, and discrimination – but the efforts are only the beginning of a long, arduous fight to instill freer societies throughout the world. It was hoped that with the nearly universal acknowledgment of these documents the atrocities of the past are not repeated. Many individuals that drafted these documents succeeded in instilling human rights norms into national and international laws.
The conventions and doctrines that have been established since the end of World War II, an improvement to an otherwise anarchic system, continue to fail the individuals that need the support and defending the most. A report – ‘Making the Law Work for Everyone’ – issued by the United Nations Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor stated that nearly one half of the world’s population remains outside the protection of the law; meaning the laws created by the above stated international conventions fail to protect a large portion of the world population. In thus, the individuals that need the help the most are not able to receive it.
The central issues standing in the way of defending people’s socio-political, -economic and -cultural rights are the defense of state sovereignty over foreign intervention, the central governing authority’s reinforcement of a country’s corrupt national institutions, and the lack of proper enforcement.
Another issue at hand is that there are numerous individuals leading public institutions and private organizations that do not adhere to the concept of human rights, reducing what should be the application of universal rights to nothing more then a political spectacle. The United Nations Human Rights Council has been at the center of this conversation numerous times, for there are many countries that are seated on the council that are unwilling to chastise allies instituting abusive policies or amend their own disastrous laws. These national leaders seem more interested in condemning the international community then they are in remedying violations in their own countries.
For many leaders propaganda and control of information, allowing the central authority to coerce individuals into adhering to questionable policies or programs, is the way to control a nation’s population. However, authoritarian regimes continuing the legacy of the colonial era are more willing to perpetrate abuses against their own people in order to demand obedience.
Many nations that came into being in the post-colonial era kept the institutions that were put into place by the colonizers; institutions that were developed to protect the administration in power. This gave the authoritarian leaders the opportunity to ensure the country served their narrow interests. Though the institutions that govern many countries in the developing world were of their own making; many nation-states in the developed world continue to criticize lesser-developed countries that fail to adhere to the basic pretenses of human rights.
The problem with this criticism is that the developed world is at odds with the prospects of defending human rights while it attempts to continue the fight against world’s fundamentalist and terrorist organizations. Upon taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama stated, in his inaugural address, that the United States needs to reject “the false choice between [its] safety and [its] ideals”.
The United States seems to have the rhetoric in place, but it has become increasingly easier for countries to lock away individuals for known or perceived terrorist ties; instituting a universally applied apathetic approach to defending human rights for anyone in the international system.
This statement comes at a time when the international system has witnessed numerous authoritarian governments use the struggle against violent non-state actors as a justification for undermining human rights policies. In the same regard, the international community (read: the West) has willfully ignored established international law, at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, as well as streamlined some of the rights of its own citizens.
The world had seen the new President of the United States conduct a speaking tour to Accra, Cairo, Moscow, Oslo and Shanghai to reinforce existing international human rights declarations and promote the United States’ movement back toward a democratic society. President Obama’s attempt to move from abstract to action seemed to have stalled shortly after his arrival in office, and the longer the administration goes without picking up its human rights push the more likely it will ignore the topic for the remainder of their tenure in office.
In order to remain un-biased, not all has been lost as the Obama Administration has viewed the International Criminal Court's role in the Sudan and Congo positively, signed the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and recommitted the United States to the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.
Even with these actions, the issues at hand that remains is whether the new administrations is willing to adhere to the United States commitment to international law, as well as other long-standing world issues, such as the continuous review of banning anti-personnel landmines.
Moreover, the languished response by the United States of America in signing the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women* or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child** is very disconcerting. There has also been no movement from the administration to pressure Congress into passing these pieces of legislation even if President Obama signs them.
Human rights are not an issue that can continue to be ignored by the leaders in the international system. The abuses and corruption that occurs worldwide affects the stability and security of the international system and undermines the future progress of all nation-states.
Under the new administration, the United States seemed to be interested in being at the forefront of instilling international human rights standards and strengthening current human rights norms, though the moves of the Obama Administration in the last week has proved the contrary. The progress being touted by the Obama Administration is not what is expected of an administration that wanted to inspire others to adhere to the letter of the law; ensuring military tribunals are fairer while leaving the detention facility open is not progress – it is merely a rouse to justify the administration’s lack of effort.
In order to move forward in developing a strong adhere to international human rights policies, the international system needs a leader that will move beyond rhetoric and begin to show progress through action, even if the issue does not garner strong political support at home. America is looking for an opportunity to establish itself as a leader in the international system, and this is it's chance to succeed in that endeavor.
* Other nations that have not signed on to the convention: Iran, Nauru, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga
** Only one other nations has refused to sign on to the convention: Somalia