Archives

May 2008: Can Liberals and Conservatives agree on human rights?

As a nation, we have an uneven record in dealing with the matter of mass killings in foreign lands. In Bosnia, the United States and NATO made a late but effective intervention. In Rwanda in the mid-1990s, we did nothing while 600,000 died in 100 days. President Clinton called it his greatest policy failure. In Darfur, the U.S. has not considered putting "boots on the ground" to stop the Sudanese national government-sponsored Janjaweed militia from its campaign of terror. The Organization of African Unity has intervened with mixed results, and the United Nations is still pushing negotiations. The next wave of genocide is inevitable.

Political Science doctoral candidate Scott Racek, presenting at the Millersville University Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide, noted that in this arena of foreign policy, the U.S. is ineffective because Congress shirks any role in dealing with such issues. Mr. Racek relates the wisdom imparted by one student of genocide: each Congressman might tell you that "Darfur is not in my district."

But is there a liberal-conservative argument here? Or is this just an institutional problem: our government is unprepared to deal with human rights issues in foreign lands. Are human rights abroad part of our "national interest?" Do conservatives and liberal disagree about this?

Conservative Response

As a people, we object to the behavior of barbarous people, whether they are in Lhasa, Dili, Medellin, or Darfur.

The question is when to put American lives at risk. It should be for a clear purpose, in our national interest (security and the related economics), and it should be doable. We should say no to fights without end where Americans are not threatened.

We need to carefully watch what happens in the region that is the world record-holder for crimes against human rights: Russia. The new regime is either going to right itself or continue on Putin's path. That one may be our biggest threat.

We need to address the greatest threat to human values in this hemisphere: President Chavez of Venezuela. Use our clout to isolate and then get rid of him. We start with his oil: If we don't buy it his regime will fail.

Some conservatives buy into the old isolationist idea. But conservatives of this century must actively attack this century's threats.

— Editor

Liberal Response

Whether it is genocide in Darfur or the oppression of Uighers and Tibetans in China, universal human rights is critical to liberals. It should be central to our foreign policy. We grant that our foreign policy should be based on national interest, but freedom everywhere is in our national interest.

What is NOT in our national interest in most cases is war.

The United States should become part of an international effort against genocide and human rights abuses, and the place to make this happen is the United Nations. If we "go it alone" with economic sanctions, we are at a disadvantage, because nations that do not buy into our approach are free to continue commerce with Iran, Indonesia, or Cuba, while we do not. If we "go it alone" with military force, we make ourselves the aggressors. We also bear the brunt in blood and money. We also yield the moral high ground. Especially the high ground handed us on 9-11 by al-Qaeda.

This is not to say military action never has a role. If we would have toppled Saddam Hussein, a genocidal monster, and turned the nation-building over to the U.N., we would have succeeded in ending an evil while not descending into what we do not do well: trying to mold other nations into a very restrictive mold, and in the process alienating, well, everyone.

Of course, the assumption of many is that liberals must oppose this war, or any, no matter the circumstances. But that is a dangerous view in that denying the military option completely denies the reality of a dangerous world. The liberal view, however, still must keep war as the "last option," not the first.

In Darfur, it is time to put "boots on the ground," in conjunction with the U.N. and the African Union. Action here means an international effort to put U.N. troops between the militias and the victims; sanctions against Sudan's oil revenues (this must include China); U.N. action against perpetrators of crimes against humanity; and economic assistance in the form of official development aid.

As liberals we need to attack the root causes of human rights abuses in the world, and those are two:

• Abject Poverty
• Lack of Democratic Processes

Without democracy, people lack a voice in their own improvement. People without a voice are victims of people who have the power. With two billion poor people in the world, there is great discontent.

Desperately poor people without a voice many times do extreme things to be heard. The long-term answer to human rights abuses is the efforts of the rich nations to liberalize and revitalize the poor nations.

— Editor

Alternative Response

We need to return to the idea of Island America.

We need to deal with our own human rights issues. We need to tame the dominance of big corporations in our elections. We need to reign in government interference in our lives, from exorbitant taxes to restricting gun ownership. We need to limit the ability of the government to spy on us — down with the Patriot Act!

Let us admit that we are human right abusers. Let us fix our own house, and let the Sudanese fix their own.

Only when they attack us need we attack them. Let's get Osama bin Laden. Let's let the Iraqi Sunnis and Shia address their own problems.

We can influence the world best if we clean house and set an example.

— Editor

Author

Comments

Lindsey C.
6/1/08

I think the idea of the "Island of America" is preposterous. It is the responsibility of man to protect each other from the forces of evil, as it were. The world is becoming more and more blended and though the borders between countries remain, the fusion of culture leads to a fusion of moral standards. Even though it is arguable that a country should not imposed their morals and ethics on another, it is inevitable. I do agree with the liberal view that a country cannot stand alone militarily or economically when fighting for human rights. I also agree with the fact that human inequality and the lack of freedoms and rights stems from the poverty and the lack of democratic justice in a country. I find that the conservative view is right in that there must be a clear objective to what Americans are fighting for when fighting for human rights in a country. In Iraq, though, I feel it will be a seemingly endless war.

Gary Johnson
6/1/08

In the liberal response, the editor states that:

"If we "go it alone" with military force, we make ourselves the aggressors. We also bear the brunt in blood and money. We also yield the moral high ground. Especially the high ground handed us on 9-11 by al-Qaeda."

I would argue that the U.S. has already lost the moral high ground. We have an Administration that not only justifies but practices torture, an Administration that sends prisoners to other countries to be tortured, a leading Presidential candidate who abandons his own convictions about torture for political gain, a Supreme Court justice who believes that torture isn't punishment and therefore permitted by the Constitution, and a Congress that refuses or is ineffectual to stop the practice. We have lost our right to claim the moral high ground.

The Bush administration has finally acknowledged that they sought justification for torture. The people involved new it was morally wrong, contrary to the American view of justice, and abhorrent to the people of the United States. But was it legal? Did the President have the power to authorize the use of torture? They turned to the now infamous Bush Administration lawyer John Yoo who authored a memo defending the power of the President to authorize the military to perform "harsh interrogation techniques," a euphemism for torture, against enemy combatants. According to Yoo, torture of enemy combatants is not only permitted by the Constitution, al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Conventions and the "authorized" military personnel are not subject to federal or international laws. Although Yoo's memo was eventually withdrawn because it could not withstand scrutiny, America's status around the world had already been significantly damaged.

Of course, justifying the use of torture is very different from the actually practice. Many times, President Bush has emphatically stated that the United States does NOT torture. We now know that torture has been used on prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib by military and CIA personnel. We know that the CIA has used torture on prisoners located in "black sites" around the world and we know prisoners are sent to other countries where the U.S. knows torture is practiced. The extent of these offenses may never be known. The videotapes of the "interrogations" have been destroyed.

With so many new revelations coming to light on the Administration's policy on torture, why has Congress failed to act? Neither the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) nor the Military Commissions Act (MCA), passed by Congress and signed into law, actually prevent the President from authorizing the use of torture. The DTA did not cover the CIA and the President used a signing statement to ensure he has the power to disregard it. The MCA, although compelling in its stand against torture, provided, in writing, the President with the authority to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." Congress failed to curb the power of the President. John McCain, a leading Presidential candidate and firm in his opposition to torture, handed the President the justification to legally continue its policy on torture.

Adding to Congressional ineffective actions to curtail the Administration's policy on torture, the U.S. Supreme Court avoids the issue. By refusing to hear the appeal for Khaled el-Masri, who claims he was abducted and tortured by the United States, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the case on "state secrets privilege," which shields government actions from judicial review. Justice Antonin Scalia recently expressed his position on torture. According to this outspoken justice, torture is not only justified in certain situations, it is not prohibited by the Constitution because torture is NOT punishment. With the position of one of the Supreme Court's most influential justice, it is doubtful the court will take a strong position against torture.

According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Torture does make the United States safer. It should be rejected as a form of interrogation or punishment under all circumstances. Torture is unconstitutional, illegal under U.S. and international law, and it's immoral. It can only tarnish our image as a beacon of justice and human rights around the world and, taking a phrase from President Bush, embolden our enemies. Torture not only endangers our soldiers on the battlefield, it raises the threat level for terrorist attacks on American soil. The only way to recapture the moral high ground is to renounce and reject all forms of torture.

Matt H.
5/26/08

It seems that as Americans we do feel a certain responsibility to protect others which stems from our status as being a world superpower. However, I feel that the Conservatives' questioning of using American lives to protect foreign ones is an important hesitation in this matter. Sending American troops to a foreign nation such as Sudan will virtually guarantee the deaths of American troops. In such a situation, the United States Government would be putting saving the lives of foreign peoples, such as the Sudanese, as a priority above that of preserving American lives. In my eyes, the United States can survive without a pristine international image; I feel that intervention abroad does not do anything to further the interests of Americans, a priority which should be at the top of the United States Government's list.

Alex E.
5/21/08

The world has seen many human rights abuses and several cases of genocide in the 20th century alone. Millions died in the Holocaust, in Rwanda, and due to the purges and famine under Stalin and Mao. Now the world faces a new crisis-Darfur. The most disturbing thing, I think, is that while America and other nations have continually repeated that "we will not forget" the victims of previous atrocities, and will attempt to prevent future ones from occurring, we are once again standing idly by while genocide is occurring. The U.N. has been slow to act, and while we have stood by waiting, hundreds of thousands have already died, and the crisis is not yet over. If there has ever been a test of the U.N.'s readiness in dealing with an international crisis, this is it-and the U.N. has failed.

So if the U.N. cannot act, do we have the responsibility to do something to stop the crisis? And if so, how? I believe the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes." The only reason atrocities like these occur is because other so-called "civilized" nations stand by and do nothing to stop them. If we are going to help the victims in Darfur, the help we send needs to be fast and effective in order to save as many lives as possible (and the number of lives we're talking about saving could be hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions). Military intervention is the only course of action that satisfies these requirements, but a "peacekeeping" force is not the answer-peacekeeping forces can only take military action if they are fired upon, and an offensive strategy is needed in this situation, not a paralyzed group of soldiers. And military intervention for a just cause sends a strong message to the rest of the world-genocide will not be tolerated. Of course, we cannot respond to every human rights abuse case in the world; we simply do not have the resources. Perhaps another solution exists-maybe we could create an international coalition of nations that would collectively contribute military support to proactively go after human rights abuses in the world, and would do so whenever military action is deemed warranted and necessary to immediately halt a large loss of life.

There is a reason we learn about the Holocaust and Rwandan genocides in History class-so that these terrible events will not repeat themselves in the future. As a nation that stands for freedom and human rights, we need to back up this rhetoric with actions. There is no place for isolationism anymore in our globalized society.

Trevor H.
5/21/08

I agree with the liberal view on this topic. I can understand how putting American lives at stake is bad, yet it is necessary. People in Rwanda and Darfur were being slaughtered every day. They are just as much humans as you or me, and if a few Americans must give their lives to save a few thousand, that's not just sacrifice, but heroism.

Erica W.
5/21/08

Obviously genocide is wrong and should never be committed. I think however, to stop this continuing problem we should put sanctions on countries with politically unstable governments or countries with future expected acts of genocide. Once an atrocity has begun I think we should use our contacts and sources to provide refugees with shelter in other countries. Also if any country has begun committing acts of genocide, we should completely cut off trade with the country.

Ana V.
5/21/08

I am leaning towards the alternative view point. It would be wonderful, and a great idea, if the United States could give aid to countries that are in desperate need of it. However the United States should also focus on the welfare of its people. There are many people in our country who could use aid that is given away to a foreign place. Maybe the United States should step down from Iraq and start a new campaign in an area that would appreciate our help.

S. Kuhn
5/20/08

I agree more fully with the liberal response then the conservative response, but I believe both have failed to address the full issues, merely skirting around them. Of course as any human being should, we must object to groups that do not consider human rights, but the world's fate lies in how we approach each individual case.

Africa is the poorest continent, as a whole, by far. This is undisputable. In 2000, the U.N. created a series of goals known as the Millennium Development Goals. These goals included eradicating extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. While they are extremely prestigious goals, they have true purposes and so they should be assisted, not hindered. However, the MDG's require a significant portion of richer countries total Gross Domestic Product, about 0.5%. The U.S., currently, only donates about 0.07% of its total GDP. If poor countries are assisted with basic needs such as food and water, there will be less need for war. So instead of going to war over every little thing, why not just reduce the causes of war?

Some people may disagree with this and say that groups such as the Janjaweed (Darfur, Sudan) run rampant across the continent, destroying families and any chance of development. This is true and had we started helping those countries earlier, we would have prevented mass genocides such as the current one in Darfur. This is not to say we cannot still help them now. In this case, I agree with the liberal response, war is not in our national interest. Other options must be looked for, such as sending in a U.N. peace keeping force, to separate the slaughters from the people being slaughtered. Poor nations such as Sudan can be helped, but the key is economic reform, not war.

Also, we cannot rebuild nations alone. In George Bush's inaugural address, he stated simply "This nation (the U.S.) is not a nation-building country." Worldwide support should not be a benefit any longer. It should be a necessity in every case. While we may have ousted a dictator in Iraq, we also created a terrible civil war that will rage on for years. This is because while we may have support from allies, such as Britain, it was mainly a U.S. vs. Iraq war. The U.N. was created to prevent further world wars and should not be taken lightly. Some may argue that the U.N. takes too long or is not helpful, but if countries actually put their trust in it, it can be a very efficient body.

Here I must address the Conservative response's lack of knowledge on the subject of Venezuelan oil. Venezuela provides the U.S. with about 10% of its total oil consumption every year. Cutting this oil off would cripple our economy and it is not guaranteed that we could satisfy our cravings for oil in the Middle East. Also, cutting off the oil means that even more people temporarily lose jobs in Venezuela, spiking the poverty levels. Once again, I believe our faith should lie with the U.N. It is well known how deep Chavez's hate for the U.S. runs, so the U.N. would be much more efficient in making demands of his administration.

The U.N. and other global organizations are where we must place our faith. The U.S. can no longer run on its own as an independent giant. While we may hold sway in some things because of superior military, we should never rely on this, but rather take the moral high road. Fixing the world's human rights problems lies in the economic success of poor countries. We must assist in this by increasing our aid instead of spending it on military projects.

Chris W.
5/19/08

Like all humane people, I believe that genocide is wrong. It is a fact, however, that this belief alone will do nothing to stop it. There is no sane reason for why it happens. So what is the solution to genocide? There isn't one. Genocide can only be stopped if the will of those committing this atrocity decide to stop. Some people may call me a pessimist, but I am only telling the truth.

Grady M.
5/19/08

I believe that we have to take care of problems in the U.S. before we go over to other countries and fix their problems, but since we are already in Iraq, we should stay until the job is finished. We can't just pull out our troops now because then the lives that have been taken will have been for nothing. I feel that we need to finish the war on terror before we start to help the people in Darfur.

Eric P.
5/19/08

I am leaning towards the alternative view point. It would be wonderful if the United States could give aid to countries that are in desperate need of it. However the United States should also focus on the welfare of its people. There are many people in our country who could use aid that is given away to a foreign place. Maybe the United States should step down from Iraq and start a new campaign in an area that would appreciate our help.

Bonni D.
5/17/08

I agree partially with both liberal and conservative views. We need to help any people who are suffering and being systematically killed during genocidal missions — not because we are Americans but because we are human. However, at what point do we realize that we are one country and it is not our job to save the world all on our own. What responsibility do other nations have to fix their own conflicts? When will other countries aid us in keeping peace? Where does the United Nations and NATO come in to all of this? Too often it seems the U.S. must bear the burden of the world all on our own (and we have our own issues, some of which have resulted from meddling). The only solution that makes sense to me is to evaluate each crisis individually. To decide when it is genocide and when we are meddling. There are unanswered questions that the world must come together to answer. In America liberals and conservatives must find middle ground and unite in order to find the answers we seek.

Xiao Z.
5/15/08

I agree with the Liberal's viewpoints because as we see "genocide" going on around the world, it just isn't right to ignore it. Unlike the Conservatives who think that the United States should not take the risk of helping with human rights, because it might put the U.S. at risk, liberals on the other hand think the U.S. should become part of an international effort against genocide. This is a good way to approach the situation of genocide and human rights abuses.

Jesse G.
5/15/08

I follow the conservative views on the issue of Human Rights. When a situation such as genocide occurs, I believe it is in our best interest to get involved, and potentially risk American lives. Genocide isn't the only issue though. The Conservative response also touches on keeping an eye on Russia and it's pathway toward corruption following Putin or actually righting itself becoming a successful nation. The bottom line is when it comes to Foreign Policy, or International Crises it is in Americas best interest of what's good for America.

Shauna E.
5/15/08

I think we waited too long to help out the Jewish people during the Holocaust and shouldn't repeat what already happened, or at least not let it get to that point. In the United States everyone being equal is very important and I think we should reinforce that by internationally spreading the concept. I think we should most definitely do whatever we can to stop the cruelty.

Kelly H.
5/15/08

I believe that if human rights are violated or another genocide happens like the one in Rwanda that we as a country should step in and squash the inhumane movement in its tracks. We should not worry about public relations but use our resources to do good and save lives.

Marcus S.
5/15/08

I believe that if civil rights are ignored or another Genocide happens like the one in Rwanda that we should step in as a country and rise against the inhumane movement and help the persecuted people.

Stefan P.
5/15/08

I believe that many problems are created because organizations and governments find excuses for why they should not cooperate in issues. Darfur is a genocide, and members of the U.N. took a vow after the holocaust to stop genocide whenever it occurs. Countries always try their hardest to not call anything genocide because they know that they will be obligated to help. Conservatives and liberals have a common duty to stop tragedies and genocides like Darfur, so the issue of whether they CAN agree should be answered with a definite yes because it is a common duty that the U.S., as a member of the U.N., has sworn to.

Madalyn C.
5/15/08

I don't think that Conservatives and Liberals will agree on the ideas or views of human rights. I think that the U.S. should have acted sooner in Darfur than they have and done more to help considering it is still going on. I also noticed that it is rarely on the news, concluding that we need to pressure our media to cover the tragic events so everyone can see what is going on in Africa so we can fight to end it as fast as possible considering the thousands of lives at stake. If this does not end soon millions more people will die from the genocide going on.