Terrorizing Human Rights 1

Running Head: TERRORIZING HUMAN RIGHTS

Terrorizing Human Rights

Mark D. Derham

American Military University

 Terrorizing Human Rights 2

Human rights have been a key policy issue since the founding of our great nation.

Historically, human rights have fluctuated from being at the forefront of American policy to

taking a backseat to other larger issues (Papp, Johnson & Endicott, p. 479, 2005). Few would

argue, however, that there is no other issue that should cause our leaders to ignore human rights.

Since the Global War on Terrorism was launched in 2001, the United States has followed a

policy path that some have said turn a blind eye to human rights violations. Many claim that in

order to wage a more effective war, the U.S. has ignored violations by friendly countries such as

Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan that have provided assistance in the war on terror.

Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Chief has stated that many countries used the

announcement of a war on terror as a means to justify their actions that have damaged human

rights (Common Dreams, 2002). It is of course difficult to determine what a violation of human

rights is due to the inconsistent definitions that have been adopted by countries around the world.

In order to establish a better understanding of the problem, a background in the issue is

necessary.

Relativists and Universalists are currently struggling over how to define human rights.

Universalists believe that basic human rights should apply universally to all nations. Relativists

argue that the definition of human rights is more western based, and it does not address the

cultural aspect of most African, Asian and other societies (Rourke & Boyer, p. 496, 2008). The

United States and others also struggle over whether to adopt a narrow or broad definition.

Currently, most U.S. policy tends to side with the narrow definition, which encompasses

“political and legal rights” (Papp, Johnson & Endicott, p. 496, 2005). On the other hand,

developing nations tend to side with a broader definition that “includes economic and social

quality of life concerns” as well as political and legal rights (Papp, Johnson & Endicott, p. 496,
 Terrorizing Human Rights 3

2005). One thing is for sure, human rights violations continue to occur regardless of the

definition.

America has often times taken the lead in protecting human rights worldwide. Examples

of this can been seen in the reason behind America entering World War I, the United States’

support of the United Nations after World War II, and the assistance the U.S. provided after the

collapse of the communist nations in Europe at the end of the Cold War to name just a few

(Papp, Johnson & Endicott, p. 479, 2005). Presidents that have not put human rights at the

forefront of American policy claim that there were much larger issues that had to take

precedence at the time. Most recently, former President George W. Bush’s policies were

criticized due to the partnerships that were formed during the beginning of the War on Terrorism.

Critics claimed that the U.S. had formed partnerships with countries that had a history of human

rights abuse. These partnerships gave the U.S. access to military facilities in key positions as

well as fly over rights. The U.S. went so far as to partner with Uzbekistan; a country many view

as the leading human rights abuser (Democracy Now 2001). Bush argued that it was necessary to

form these partnerships in order to fight an effective war on terror.

Current U.S. policy on human rights has been under fire recently over what many

consider to be the torture of detainees at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Guantanamo

Bay is currently being used to house suspected terrorists, which were captured in Iraq and

Afghanistan, while they are undergoing interrogation and military tribunals. The White House

came under fire over the interrogation techniques that were being utilized by the CIA. The CIA

applied such techniques as water boarding, which simulates a drowning sensation; long time

standing, which mixes pain with sleep deprivation; and the cold cell, which mixes nudity with
 Terrorizing Human Rights 4

extreme cold (Ross and Esposito 2005). Human rights groups were outraged over the revelation

of these interrogation methods.

The new administration under President Obama has already approved legislation that

ceases the use of such harsh interrogation methods. However, halting the torture has not

appeased all the human rights groups. Many still claim that the military tribunals that have been

established in order to try these detainees will not allow justice to prevail. Defense lawyers for

the detainees have been arguing that the majority of evidence against their clients are the result

of these interrogations and the evidence is circumstantial at best. The Obama administration

plans to keep the military tribunals in place with only making a few changes to the policy. These

changes include loosening restrictions on classified information and allowing the detainees to

select their own military attorney (Glaberson, 2009). These changes alone would fall short of

what truly needs to happen at Guantanamo. And that is to restart the military tribunals and put

those detainees that can provide almost no intelligence value due to the length of their stay at the

prison on a fast track trial. Those that still require more interrogation should begin their tribunal

but continue to be interrogated until their intelligence value has been exhausted. Additionally,

the detainees should be pronounced Prisoners of War and be given rights under the Geneva

Convention. This would not only provide a way of protecting human rights for the detainees, but

it would also not hinder the War on Terrorism as greatly as the complete closure of Guantanamo

Bay would.

The War on Terrorism has significantly changed how the U.S. reacts to human rights.

This should no longer continue to be how the U.S. operates. As a country, we should not pick

and choose the times when it is right to stand up for the basic human rights that all people of the

world should enjoy. While the war on terrorism should be at the forefront of U.S. policy, it
 Terrorizing Human Rights 5

should not overshadow what our country was originally founded on, freedom from persecution.

Not only that, terrorism can partly be attributed to the poor conditions that many face on a day to

day basis. Without the U.S. policy focused on fixing the global human rights issues, terrorism

will continue to thrive in Lesser-Developed Countries. I recommend that partnerships with

foreign nations, which continue to violate human rights, that are based on military convenience

be done away. Countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan that continue to violate the human

rights of their citizens should not reap the benefits that the U.S. can provide them until they

change their practices. Aid to Lesser-Developed Countries must increase in order to help those

that suffer under their countries’ leadership. And this aid should flow through the Non-

Government Organizations that seek to help the people that suffer. The U.S. also needs to look

inward at its own policy, and ensure that legislation is in place that will prevent abuses of human

rights, such as those committed at Guantanamo Bay, do not happen again.

Without a doubt, American leaders have always struggled with how much emphasis

should be put on human rights and when other policies should override the human rights issue.

This will likely continue to be an issue that our nation’s leaders will face well into the future, but

none of our leaders should ever settle with the status quo. The United States recently won a great

opportunity when it was elected to a seat in the United Nations Human Rights Council (Morse,

2009). The U.S. now has an opportunity to better influence a multi-lateral approach to human

rights issues that plague many parts of the world. The U.S. can start by addressing the atrocities

that the Sri Lankan government has committed during their fight against the Tamil Tigers

separatist group. More attention must shift to Myanmar where a Military Junta has been in rule

for the past 2 decades and have continued to mistreat their people. Human rights violations will

only be corrected as long as nations recognize their citizens have rights that cannot be trampled
 Terrorizing Human Rights 6

on without repercussion, and the countries that have the power to influence change exercise their

power.
 Terrorizing Human Rights 7

References

Papp, Daniel s., Loch K. Johnson and John E. Endicott (2005). American Foreign Policy:

History, Politics and Policy, New York: Pearson.

Common Dreams (2002). 'War on Terror' Infringing Human Rights, UNHCR Says. Retrieved

May 19, 2009 from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1217-04.htm.

Rourke, John T. and Boyer, Mark A. (2008). International Politics on the World Stage Brief,

New York: McGraw Hill.

Democracy Now (2001). US Ignores Human Rights Abuses in Uzbekistan to Gain Access to

Military Facilities. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from

http://www.democracynow.org/2001/10/4/us_ignores_human_rights_abuses_in.

Ross, Brian and Esposito, Richard (2005, Nov. 18). CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques

Described. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?

id=1322866

Glaberson, William (2009, May 19). Despite Plan, Guantánamo Trials Still Problematic. The

New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/us/politics/19gitmo.html?_r=1&hpw.

Morse, Jane (2009, May 12). United States Wins Seat on U.N. Human Rights Council.

America.gov. Retrieved from http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-

english/2009/May/20090512171515ajesrom0.7585108.html.