Tweet
Indiana Daily Student, IN
Nov 11 2010
Ulterior motives for interior affairs
By Pooja Kansal | IDS
POSTED AT 05:15 PM ON Nov. 10, 2010
Once again, political agendas take reign in the realm of human rights.
Last week, Secretary of Statew Hillary Rodhq,Clinton visited Phnom
Penh, Cambodia's capital, where she saw the Tuol Sleng prison, which
was a holding cell for more than 14,000 people who were subsequently
killed. After touring the site and seeing photographs from the
Cambodian Genocide, which exterminated 1.7 million individuals,
Clinton launched a pro-democracy, pro-atonement rhetoric.
While the point is well taken, it doesn't seem genuine.
Just eight months ago, Clinton strongly lobbied against the House's
resolution to label the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottoman
Turks during World War I as such. Clinton originally encouraged the
formation of a commission that would investigate the happenings of the
Armenian Genocide but backtracked after realizing the political
ramifications of holding Turkey responsible.
Statistics-wise, both events have similar body counts: The Ottoman
Turks murdered approximately 1.5 million Armenians, and the Khmer
Rouge regime killed 1.7 million Cambodians. So why is there such a
difference in accountability?
According to the UN, Cambodia is the fourth least-developed country in
Asia, so in terms of trade, the U.S. has little to gain and lose from
it. Therefore, condemning its crimes does not come with consequences.
If anything, the U.S. scores brownie points in the eyes of its fellow
UN nations for being a proponent of human rights, rather than living
up to its reputation as a war-waging superpower.
On the other hand, much of the U.S.'s foreign policy initiatives are
becoming increasingly dependent on Turkey. At the United Nations
General Assembly in September, Turkey declared its intentions to be
prominent global power and head of predominantly Muslim countries.
Turkey boasted having a healthy economy and a prime geographic
location that links Asia with Europe.
The U.S. knows it is in a precarious position: If it pushes Turkey's
buttons enough, Iran will become Turkey's primary ally, causing the
U.S. to lose whatever influence it has over its nuclear program. And
although Incirlik Air Base is no longer integral to U.S. efforts in
Afghanistan, the U.S. has been storing B-61 thermonuclear gravity
bombs in Turkey, as well as four other NATO countries since the Cold
War.
When the House was debating whether to pass the resolution on the
Armenian Genocide last year, many who opposed it argued that it was
not a government's duty to label such events, but rather the
historians'.
Is it now acceptable that Clinton is condemning Cambodia's actions or
is that overstepping her job description?
I would argue that it is the duty of everyone - including government
officials - to further human rights both in the past and present.
What is unacceptable is to cherry pick when you are discussing justice
after genocide, especially when the numbers you are talking about are
in the millions.
Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect such consistency from politicians,
but it shouldn't be. If governments agree that it is their role to
investigate and vote international genocide or alleged genocide, it is
a step forward in the area of human rights, but consistency is a must
in order for any of their resolutions to make an impact in history.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=78374
From: A. Papazian
Nov 11 2010
Ulterior motives for interior affairs
By Pooja Kansal | IDS
POSTED AT 05:15 PM ON Nov. 10, 2010
Once again, political agendas take reign in the realm of human rights.
Last week, Secretary of Statew Hillary Rodhq,Clinton visited Phnom
Penh, Cambodia's capital, where she saw the Tuol Sleng prison, which
was a holding cell for more than 14,000 people who were subsequently
killed. After touring the site and seeing photographs from the
Cambodian Genocide, which exterminated 1.7 million individuals,
Clinton launched a pro-democracy, pro-atonement rhetoric.
While the point is well taken, it doesn't seem genuine.
Just eight months ago, Clinton strongly lobbied against the House's
resolution to label the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottoman
Turks during World War I as such. Clinton originally encouraged the
formation of a commission that would investigate the happenings of the
Armenian Genocide but backtracked after realizing the political
ramifications of holding Turkey responsible.
Statistics-wise, both events have similar body counts: The Ottoman
Turks murdered approximately 1.5 million Armenians, and the Khmer
Rouge regime killed 1.7 million Cambodians. So why is there such a
difference in accountability?
According to the UN, Cambodia is the fourth least-developed country in
Asia, so in terms of trade, the U.S. has little to gain and lose from
it. Therefore, condemning its crimes does not come with consequences.
If anything, the U.S. scores brownie points in the eyes of its fellow
UN nations for being a proponent of human rights, rather than living
up to its reputation as a war-waging superpower.
On the other hand, much of the U.S.'s foreign policy initiatives are
becoming increasingly dependent on Turkey. At the United Nations
General Assembly in September, Turkey declared its intentions to be
prominent global power and head of predominantly Muslim countries.
Turkey boasted having a healthy economy and a prime geographic
location that links Asia with Europe.
The U.S. knows it is in a precarious position: If it pushes Turkey's
buttons enough, Iran will become Turkey's primary ally, causing the
U.S. to lose whatever influence it has over its nuclear program. And
although Incirlik Air Base is no longer integral to U.S. efforts in
Afghanistan, the U.S. has been storing B-61 thermonuclear gravity
bombs in Turkey, as well as four other NATO countries since the Cold
War.
When the House was debating whether to pass the resolution on the
Armenian Genocide last year, many who opposed it argued that it was
not a government's duty to label such events, but rather the
historians'.
Is it now acceptable that Clinton is condemning Cambodia's actions or
is that overstepping her job description?
I would argue that it is the duty of everyone - including government
officials - to further human rights both in the past and present.
What is unacceptable is to cherry pick when you are discussing justice
after genocide, especially when the numbers you are talking about are
in the millions.
Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect such consistency from politicians,
but it shouldn't be. If governments agree that it is their role to
investigate and vote international genocide or alleged genocide, it is
a step forward in the area of human rights, but consistency is a must
in order for any of their resolutions to make an impact in history.
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=78374
From: A. Papazian