May 26, 2005Amnesty International ReportsAmnesty International came out with it's 2005 report recently. It's broken down by global region, as well as nation. Pretty handy. Here's a pop quiz. Given four nations, tell me which has the longest report about human rights abuses. A) North Korea The answer? Well, it shouldn't be hard. D of course. Allegations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay as well as 40 taser fatalities and using the death penalty draw more ire (as measured by report length) than things like brutally starving an entire nation; genocide (though non dare call it so); honor killings, anti-Christian imprisonment and woman's suffrage. Pop Quiz Number 2. I'll leave it as an excersize to the reader. The actions of a few, a very small few, soldiers (to be punished) seems to rate more words than the official policies of some nations. Go figure. Posted by AlexC at May 26, 2005 12:00 AM |
I blame Sting.
The WSJ Ed Page had a devastating piece on the International Red Cross, and its selective, anti-American leaks.
We don't need Amnesty International, but on some level, it seems that we should support the International Red Cross. Yet all of these organizations will tend (O'Sullivan's law) to be liberal, collectivist, and anti-American.
Posted by: jk at May 26, 2005 11:34 AMOK, I'll play devil's advocate. Perhaps the report writers want to feel their reports have an actual effect, and the only nation of those listed where their report will be read and perhaps acted upon is the USA. I am pretty confident that Kim Jong and the Saudi royals don't spend much time reading, much less considering the information in an Amnesty International report.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at May 26, 2005 7:13 PMNo doubt you're right, Amnesty reports won't sway those who most need it.
The problem is that it provides a public, credible, jaundiced view of reality. "Well, yeah, Saudi Arabia's bad -- but the US is worse." That is more damaging to world freedom than a small improvement in US procedures would be helpful.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2005 11:27 AMThe place where the reports of groups like AI are read, and used to be acted upon, is the UN. AI, like the UN itself, is becoming increasingly frustrated that the unearned guilt they heap upon free nations like the US in order to manipulate the distribution of wealth no longer has the power it had over the last five decades.
In the "Secretary General's (of AI) message" linked prominently from the page of the 'full report' linked by Alex, which begins with the genocide in Darfur and morphs within 6 paragraphs to a denunciation of the "US administration" (abu Ghraib, et. al.), the author laments "the failure to move from rhetoric to reality on economic and social rights." You see, according to AI, and apparently other like-minded institutions, "every person shall have the right to an adequate standard of living and access to food, water, shelter, education, work and health care." Not the right to EARN those things mind you, the right to have them GIVEN, if necessary. Given by whom? Who do you think?
Yet Khan goes still further than espousing Marxism:
"At the national level, the ability of the state to protect human rights is in crisis. In some places, armed groups – warlords, criminal gangs or clan chiefs – hold sway over people’s lives. In many countries, governance has been undermined by corruption, mismanagement, abuse of power and political violence. In a globalized economy, it is increasingly international trade agreements, international financial institutions and big business which are setting the terms. And yet there are few mechanisms for addressing their impact on human rights, and even fewer appropriate systems for accountability."
There is crime in the world, she says. Corruption, mismanagement, tyranny and political violence. Yet who does she hold responsible for such abuses? "Big business" and the free trade mechanisms and institutions that go along with it.
The UN, AI, and the like would find far more power in free societies and the solidarity of the free world if they were not so utterly hostile to the power of an individual's inner freedom. Freedom to earn, to keep, and to defend himself and his loved ones from harm. When the UN starts championing these values, THEN we will see REAL human rights in the world. A good start would be to endorse the March of Freedom that has been sparked by the "US administration."
Posted by: johngalt at May 29, 2005 10:06 AM | What do you think? [4]