U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights

U.S. Faces Doubts About Leadership on Human Rights - washingtonpost.com

According to Column Lynch at the Washington post.com:

"But, as the U.N. General Assembly gets underway this week, human rights activists and political analysts say the new approach has undercut U.S. leadership on human rights issues."


Column Lynch of course is a highly regarded writer at the post so we will not question his analysis, but I am curious why the US is always considered to be the Lone Ranger on Human Rights issues? The examples listed in the article are related to the way in which the US government wishes to handle Darfur, (an on-going human rights nightmare), criticism of the new membership within the Human Rights Council , and last but not least, Sri Lanka. Column has some great points, don't get me wrong, but is it so bad that the US wishes to express an agenda that they deem to be appropriate not only for "international" relations, but also for "US" interests as well? This is the balancing act that every country must consider when they elect to become members of a supranational organizations which are far beyond the scope of nation-state interests alone. There is a certain sacrifice of your "own" state sovereignty that you must make and the United States is the most powerful nation in the world; and having recognized that, our decisions must not be made "lightly."

This is where I think the media sometimes misunderstands the intentions of the United States and questions the Uni-Power status we now hold since the end of the cold-war in 1989. Of course new challenges have arisen since the fall of the great Soviet Empire. Nevertheless, the realm of human rights is undoubtedly still paramount to the US, as evidenced by our recent renewed commitment to the Human Rights Council, and our cooperation with the United Nations overall.

William

United Nations Radio: The US joins the UN Human Rights Council.

United Nations Radio: The US joins the UN Human Rights Council.
This link will of course take you to the sound clip of this monumental occasion; that being the US announcement that came as of yesterday! The US will no longer "observe" but were to become members "officially" of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Politically this is a SIGNIFICANT step for the US.
As an "observer" basically the US has stood by its sovereignty not to be "bound" by customary or international human rights legislation "per say" as the United Nations had previously interpreted it to be. Thus the term "observer" status. This official union by way of this announcement is not to be taken lightly by the rest of the world community-or the US itself; and has tremendous political and legal human rights implications .

Personally my gut feeling is that every Human Rights NGO on this planet, likely is standing on there feet applauding the American decision to get on-board with the United Nations, while also putting aside past differences with them, on other unrelated issues. This will definitely further champion the human rights effort!~

I could not be happier to hear this announcement! I do believe the new and most recent developments (see recent post)at Bagram AFB is a testimony to the United States commitment to human rights, and the new administrations renewed philosophy.

I really applaud President Obama for allowing this to go forward and I am sure that so do many many others worldwide!

William

Human Trafficking, The US Weighs In

We know that absolute evil acts are bound to occur regardless of the country you reside. There are differences in culture, religion, and "relativism" to a particular nation-state's people's "vulnerability", which make them more or less likely to become victims of the human rights abuse term we call "trafficking". Those that would "take advantage" of others less fortunate or otherwise naive to the evils of this world; and there subsequent subjectivity to human rights abuse, have to be approached from many perspectives . These perspectives are relevant also dependent upon your own culture, religion, and so many other variables.
Where I am headed is that the United States not only monitors other countries(rightly so) trafficking of persons, but also maintains a recently developed agency monitoring system, to further enhance and capture data regarding human trafficking here in the US. The legislation already in force regarding human trafficking has already been in force since 2000 with additional legislation added to compliment the original act. That act is entitled VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING AND VIOLENCE
PROTECTION ACT OF 2000. This is an 86 page document that details in depth what the US congress decided to do back in 2000 as the century turned and the problem became to big to not notice. Furthermore, this year money had been allocated to the great Northeastern University which has a great site to detail the who, what, where, and how of human trafficking through funding provided by the US government. Federal Human Trafficking Legislation.
The previous link will take you through the legislation on the books when it was enacted and other relevant topics regarding human trafficking in the US.
Very recently, the State Department released a Trafficking in Persons Report 2009.
Secretary Hillary Clinton was quick to acknowledge: "The ninth annual Trafficking in Persons Report sheds light on the faces of modern-day slavery and on new facets of this global problem. The human trafficking phenomenon affects virtually every country, including the United States. In acknowledging America’s own struggle with modern-day slavery and slavery-related practices, we offer partnership. We call on every government to join us in working to build consensus and leverage resources to eliminate all forms of human trafficking." Again the US has weighed in on this topic you just do not see in the media, read in the daily paper, etc. etc. But, you can not ignore or turn your head because it is happening all over the world.
The links I have provide for you will give you the details of the US plight to apprehend and prosecute human traffickers, who the victims are, where they come from, and the most surprising statistic of all that I found was that in the relatively short amount of time the commission had conducted there study,(from the first link in the title of this post), a very small percentage, only 10%, were confirmed as human trafficking, out of the alleged 1229 cases right here in the US in a manner of a 21 month study.Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
So you see?, we do have a problem with confirmation of alleged cases or so it would seem. This is my opinion of course. I do not know the details at all as to the low confirmation rate and the very high allegation rate. Something is not quite right with these stats. I cant quite put my finger on it...

William