Tweet
United Press International/Washington Times
April 12 2005
Outside View: Human rights and wrongs
By Thomas P. Kilgannon
Outside View Commentator
Dulles, VA, Apr. 12 (UPI) -- In the Roper v. Simmons decision handed
down last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, a five-to-four majority,
led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, sought and applied international
standards to their opinion to manufacture a pre-determined
conclusion. Desperately seeking to eliminate the death penalty for
juveniles, the justices cherry-picked interpretations from law
libraries in Europe to rationalize their decision. Roper v. Simmons
has been roundly criticized and rightly so, but if another reason was
needed to explain why the justices should refrain from applying
international standards to the adjudication of U.S. law, you can find
it in Geneva.
There, the U.N. Human Rights Commission is meeting for its 61st
gabfest, and when the curtain was raised on this theater of the
absurd, the members assembled on the dais looked less like a human
rights symposium and more like a casting call for "America's Most
Wanted."
Representatives from Togo, Indonesia, Gabon and numerous other
regimes which routinely torture or oppress their citizens showed up
to pass judgment on the freedom and human rights records of the
world's governments.
In a February cover story, Parade magazine asked "Who is the World's
Worst Dictator?" and listed 20 of the most evil human rights abusers
in the world. Among them are Sudan, which supports militias that are
massacring people by the thousands; and communist China, where slave
labor is common and the death penalty is employed for killing a
panda.
Others which made Parade's list: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,
Swaziland and Cuba, among others. What makes these dictatorial
regimes unique, is that they each enjoy a prestigious membership on
the U.N. Human Rights Commission. In fact, almost half of the
dictators listed by Parade are on the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva.
Last month, the State Department issued its annual report on Human
Rights Practices. It finds that half of the members of the UNHRC --
who are responsible for improving human rights around the world --
have a record on the subject which the State Department judges to be
"poor" or worse.
Analysts at Foggy Bottom report that Sudan is committing "genocide."
In Saudi Arabia, "the religious police continued to intimidate,
abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners." The human rights record
in China is "disappointing."
Overrun with tyrants, the Human Rights Commission is a joke. It took
its shape in part because United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
openly displays his tolerance for dictators and terrorists and is
ignorant of how to use a "bully pulpit" for positive change. Annan's
moral indifference was on display when he recently paid homage to the
grave of the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.
Annan has called for change in the commission, but his
recommendations are fueled more by a desire to keep his job for
another year than to increase the dignity with which people are
treated in repressed regimes.
The ridiculous nature of the commission was on display at the opening
of the most recent session when Cuba's representative climbed upon
his soap box to condemn the United States. Felipe Perez, Cuba's
foreign minister, said the commission "has lost legitimacy," not
because it seats terrorists, but because the United States has
"turned it into some sort of inquisition tribunal to condemn the
countries of the South and, particularly, those who actively oppose
their strategy of neocolonial domination."
But what is really wrong with this situation is that the U.S.
government continues to take its seat on this commission next to
terrorists, dictators and tyrants. The United States invested $10
million in 2004 in the Human Rights Commission -- nearly double the
amount of the second-highest contributor -- and as a consequence, the
tax dollars of the American people are legitimizing dictatorial
regimes. In contrast, Sudan invested all of $2,500 and Armenia a
whopping $1,096 to improve their image. For them, it's a lot more
economical to have the Americans subsidize their supposed human
rights makeover, than it is to retain an expensive public relations
firm.
The Bush administration, which has shown unprecedented courage in
exposing the myths of the United Nations, should resign its seat in
protest, pull our funding from the commission and demand meaningful
reforms before we will invest or participate again. But to continue
to legitimize the world's worst thugs by sharing membership on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission only harms those in repressed countries
we are trying to help and wounds our national pride. It also gives
Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy reason to look to
Zimbabwe the next time he wishes to rewrite a part of the
Constitution.
--
(Thomas P. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, a
foundation dedicated to preserving U.S. sovereignty.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written
by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important
issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of
United Press International. In the interests of creating an open
forum, original submissions are invited.)
April 12 2005
Outside View: Human rights and wrongs
By Thomas P. Kilgannon
Outside View Commentator
Dulles, VA, Apr. 12 (UPI) -- In the Roper v. Simmons decision handed
down last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, a five-to-four majority,
led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, sought and applied international
standards to their opinion to manufacture a pre-determined
conclusion. Desperately seeking to eliminate the death penalty for
juveniles, the justices cherry-picked interpretations from law
libraries in Europe to rationalize their decision. Roper v. Simmons
has been roundly criticized and rightly so, but if another reason was
needed to explain why the justices should refrain from applying
international standards to the adjudication of U.S. law, you can find
it in Geneva.
There, the U.N. Human Rights Commission is meeting for its 61st
gabfest, and when the curtain was raised on this theater of the
absurd, the members assembled on the dais looked less like a human
rights symposium and more like a casting call for "America's Most
Wanted."
Representatives from Togo, Indonesia, Gabon and numerous other
regimes which routinely torture or oppress their citizens showed up
to pass judgment on the freedom and human rights records of the
world's governments.
In a February cover story, Parade magazine asked "Who is the World's
Worst Dictator?" and listed 20 of the most evil human rights abusers
in the world. Among them are Sudan, which supports militias that are
massacring people by the thousands; and communist China, where slave
labor is common and the death penalty is employed for killing a
panda.
Others which made Parade's list: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,
Swaziland and Cuba, among others. What makes these dictatorial
regimes unique, is that they each enjoy a prestigious membership on
the U.N. Human Rights Commission. In fact, almost half of the
dictators listed by Parade are on the Human Rights Commission in
Geneva.
Last month, the State Department issued its annual report on Human
Rights Practices. It finds that half of the members of the UNHRC --
who are responsible for improving human rights around the world --
have a record on the subject which the State Department judges to be
"poor" or worse.
Analysts at Foggy Bottom report that Sudan is committing "genocide."
In Saudi Arabia, "the religious police continued to intimidate,
abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners." The human rights record
in China is "disappointing."
Overrun with tyrants, the Human Rights Commission is a joke. It took
its shape in part because United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
openly displays his tolerance for dictators and terrorists and is
ignorant of how to use a "bully pulpit" for positive change. Annan's
moral indifference was on display when he recently paid homage to the
grave of the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.
Annan has called for change in the commission, but his
recommendations are fueled more by a desire to keep his job for
another year than to increase the dignity with which people are
treated in repressed regimes.
The ridiculous nature of the commission was on display at the opening
of the most recent session when Cuba's representative climbed upon
his soap box to condemn the United States. Felipe Perez, Cuba's
foreign minister, said the commission "has lost legitimacy," not
because it seats terrorists, but because the United States has
"turned it into some sort of inquisition tribunal to condemn the
countries of the South and, particularly, those who actively oppose
their strategy of neocolonial domination."
But what is really wrong with this situation is that the U.S.
government continues to take its seat on this commission next to
terrorists, dictators and tyrants. The United States invested $10
million in 2004 in the Human Rights Commission -- nearly double the
amount of the second-highest contributor -- and as a consequence, the
tax dollars of the American people are legitimizing dictatorial
regimes. In contrast, Sudan invested all of $2,500 and Armenia a
whopping $1,096 to improve their image. For them, it's a lot more
economical to have the Americans subsidize their supposed human
rights makeover, than it is to retain an expensive public relations
firm.
The Bush administration, which has shown unprecedented courage in
exposing the myths of the United Nations, should resign its seat in
protest, pull our funding from the commission and demand meaningful
reforms before we will invest or participate again. But to continue
to legitimize the world's worst thugs by sharing membership on the
U.N. Human Rights Commission only harms those in repressed countries
we are trying to help and wounds our national pride. It also gives
Supreme Court justices like Anthony Kennedy reason to look to
Zimbabwe the next time he wishes to rewrite a part of the
Constitution.
--
(Thomas P. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, a
foundation dedicated to preserving U.S. sovereignty.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written
by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important
issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of
United Press International. In the interests of creating an open
forum, original submissions are invited.)