This week, we learned more of the U.S.’s continuing disengagement with U.N. and the Human Rights Council.
US quits Human Rights Council | Human Rights Tribune – www.humanrights-geneva.info
The news that the US has completely withdrawn from the Human Rights Council spread like wildfire Friday afternoon (June 6) through the corridors of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. There was general consternation amongst diplomats and NGOS. Reached by phone, the American mission in Geneva neither confirmed nor denied the report. Although unofficial, the news comes at a time of long opposition by the Bush administration to the reforms which created the Human Rights Council in June 2006. Washington announced from the beginning that the US would not be an active member but its observer status would mean that it could intervene during the sessions. To date even this has rarely happened.
Many Americans on the right do not ascribe any value to the U.N., which is unfortunate considering that the U.S. was a fundamental player in its creation.[1] In particular, Eleanor Roosevelt is well-regarded as a pioneer of human rights in the U.N.[2]
Many Americans also warn against a “one world government”.[3] Now, to the credit of those who see the U.N. in this light, there may be some active in the U.N. who do believe in a one world government.[4] Also to their credit, active argument for the retention of our sovereignty and our national right to defend ourselves and preserve our way of life is needed. A fundamental tenet of the U.N. charter, as promoted by the U.S., is the retention of sovereignty by the member states.[5] Moreover, I believe cultural values differ too widely for unity under one sovereign government. Even if there were a consensus on basic human rights, such a consensus would not in itself be sufficient for stable unity of countries like the U.S. and Iran under one flag. Protecting our way of life requires our continued sovereignty.
But the issue of one world governement versus multiple sovereign governments, while interesting and important, is not an accurate lens through which to view the U.N. The U.N. provides a forum for discussion between nations and mechanisms for norm diffusion, transparancy, and public shaming. While command and control tactics, such as military action, can be effective, they also tend to be resource intensive, preventing such tactics from providing a one-shoe-fits-all solution. For example, the U.S. military–stretched to its limits with ongoing conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan–cannot by itself eliminate all threats to the U.S. Norms, another regulator of human behavior, are necessary. Norms lack the quick and sure solutions military action can sometimes provide, but they do provide a cost-effective means to reduce threats to the U.S. over the long term.
Norms are what the U.N. is really about. Through the U.N., countries may communicate and debate their normative beliefs. Facts about countries are brought to light through the work of U.N. officials like rapporteurs, filings by countries, and the work of NGOs. While the dirt may not be always easily unearthed, when it is, countries may scrutinize a country’s actions against the backdrop of normative beliefs. The citizens of a free country, if personally shamed, can and hopefully will drive change in a country internally.
So we have here a picture of regulating human behavior within a normative framework that some might call Utopian. The normative framework is created through the continuing discussions among the countries. As facts come to light, the discrepancies between a country’s actions and its values will hopefully lead its own citizens to reform their country so that its actions reflect their own values.
There are, of course, weaknesses in this model, however. An agreement on values is not global and is subject to the ebb and flow of national positions over the decades. The facts underlying controversies are often in dispute. Also, citizens may not have sufficient weight within their government to effect change. Moreover, if the citizens reside within a country that disagrees with the standards by which the international community is measuring their actions, they may feel no shame at all. Consider the Guantanamo Bay controversy, for instance. Because of the exigencies of the war on terror, a sizable bloc within the U.S. does not believe the U.S. has acted wrongly. The basic belief is that war is ugly and certain actions may be unpleasant but still crucial for protecting the country’s citizens from harm. These individuals do not feel shame in the slightest and are angry at the suggestion that they should.
However, imperfections and difficulties do not mean that the normative regulation of human behavior via norm diffusion, fact collection, and U.N. shaming mechanisms should be abandoned. It may not be a coincidence that the European community values international organizations more than many in the U.S. do. Since the creation of the U.N. and U.N. derived organizations such as the Council of Europe, full war between European countries on the continent that was the arena for two brutal world wars has ceased. Through the framework provided by these international organizations, these once war-ravaged countries have moved past their conflicts. Differences between European and U.S. views of international organizations may be in part a function of inherent differences in position: a continent of numerous sovereign countries with a long history of warfare versus one country largely isolated on its own continent from the threat of military action from proximate countries with comparable military strength.
Changing the international climate through norms toward something more conducive to the continued security of the U.S. will almost certainly be gradual. There is still a need for the quick abilities of the military, but gradual change in areas that cannot be addressed through the military is better than no change. For instance, the war in Iraq has highlighted exactly the problems inherent in purely military solutions. The military lacks the resources to eliminate every threat to the U.S. because the threats stem from negative beliefs widely held by individuals in the middle east toward the U.S. It does not matter if those beliefs are accurate or not; what matters is that they are held and promote actions contrary to the security interests of the U.S.
The problems in the middle east are not just due to negative views of the U.S., however. They are also due to norms regulating the proper means for acting on a disagreement. To better our security position, there needs to be changes not only in how we are viewed but also in how individuals that disagree with U.S. positions react in opposition. Widespread normative values can discourage individual violence under the auspices of nontransparent radical groups. Rather than violence, action through democratic means is needed. When a faction loses an election, there should be no bombs. Instead, citizens should complain loudly and turn their attention to winning the next election. Freedom and peace can be found in a deeply entrenched set of norms promoting change through publicly expressing beliefs and organizing behind representatives to effect change through proper democratic channels.
Obtaining a truly global framework of normative values that promotes resolving disagreement through democratic processes will not occur overnight. However, I do believe that we will move toward such a world quicker if the U.S. is an active participant in the discussion. The. U.N. is a forum for this discussion, a means for distributing norms respecting fundamental rights, a way to bring the unsavory to light and to shame countries toward peaceful resolution of disagreement.
The U.N. may not be perfect, but the best way to combat imperfection is through advocacy, not silence or boycott. In this case, boycott is not a desirable means of communicating disapproval or advocating change; boycotting also communicates the message that an ongoing discussion of human rights through the U.N. is unwanted and unnecessary. A better means of disagreement is through active engagement with other countries through international organizations. A country such as the U.S. that reveres freedom of speech and belief should need no encouragement expressing its beliefs. Through this discussion, the U.S. will eventually either persuade or be persuaded.
Either way, it will also be encouraging resolving disagreement through discussion. The more countries choose to debate in the U.N. instead of turn to nuclear weapons programs, the better. The more individuals turn to democratic change rather than violence because of a belief that their government has a voice heard within the global community, the closer we are to peace. As a result, we will be closer to agreement on a basic normative framework respecting human rights and to diffusion of that framework among the citizens of sovereign nations throughout the world.
So one of the biggest problems with the U.S. disengagement from the Human Rights Council is not just our self-imposed inability to persuade other countries. It is not just our seeming disinterest in human rights within the international community. It is not just our rejection of an organization we initially championed. It is our message to radicals that disagreement is best settled by guns and disengagement rather than public discussion.
The U.S. should not be quitting the Human Rights Council. It should be its most vocal member. There is no naivety or loss in a public debate about human rights between nations nor in an accounting of alleged violations when each nation retains its fundamental sovereignty and means for protecting its interests. And by being an active advocate for its understanding of human rights, the U.S. would better its reputation and would promote debate and democratic procedures (even if prone to gridlock) over violence.
[1] See History of the UN (noting that “representatives of 50 countries met . . . . [to deliberate] on the basis of proposals worked out by . . . China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States”).
[3] See, e.g., United Nations | New World Order (”The goal . . . is to eventually merge the U.S. into the “New World Order” – a one world socialist state under the United Nations.”).
[4] See, e.g., Our Global Neighborhood (”The recommendations of the Commission, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a global neighborhood managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals, and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a belief system, which to many people – is unbeievable and unacceptable.”); compare Global Governance: Our Global Neighborhood, Our Global Neighborhood.
Technorati Tags: human rights, human rights council, U.S., quit, quitting, norms, discourse, sovereignty, united nations, U.N., middle east , debate, discussion, violence, democracy, politics
I’m not so sure that we’re not losing all our ways of life after reading this about being forced to study Islamic teachings! Sorry but there is something wrong with this!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/08/lets-protect-our-children-from-islamic-teachings-and-barack-obama-rulings/
I’m not sure what evidence there is to support Obama pushing Islamic teachings on children, given that he is Christian. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with learning about Islam. Our country will not be helped by keeping children ignorant. Given the current conflicts, it is better that the future of our country learns of Islam than is kept in the dark. Moreover, if freedom of religion means anything, if choosing to be Christian means anything, people need to know their choices. Choosing the only option allowed to be available to you is not freedom of will and it is not the Christian leap of faith. It is social programing. Christians have long recognized the importance of freedom of will for making a true choice to follow Christian beliefs. Because keeping children ignorant helps to determine their beliefs through restriction of choices, any choice by these children now or as adults to be Christian would be surface deep, at best. Hence, I think there is a strong Christian argument for learning about Islam.
The following related exchange has occurred so far goodtimepolitics.com:
–goodtimepolitics // June 8, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Luke McCarthy I perfer my children to study the Holy Bible in school not the karan! But if people want to convert to Islam then go ahead but don’t force it onto the rest of us! I have yet to understand why so many blacks convert to Islam when in fact they’re not nuslims!
–Luke McCarthy // June 8, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi, goodtimepolitics. Thanks for having this site. This is a good conversation.
I understand your conflict between your deeply felt personal belief in the truth of Christianity and the feeling that a school teaching about Islam undermines your efforts to set your children on the right path through life. The reason I see teaching Islam as OK is because schools don’t teach it as truth. It is taught from an anthropological perspective as a cultural phenomenon. I don’t think the school would be forcing Islam as truth on your children. But here is an interesting and legitimate question I think you raised: should parents have a 100% say over what is taught to their children? I’m going to think on my response for a few minutes Any thoughts?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
–Luke McCarthy // June 8, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Ok, so I see two arguments against parents having 100% say over what is taught to their children. First, children and families do not live in a vacuum. They live within a greater society that has an interest in the child’s education too. The relevant example here is that given the ongoing conflicts in the middle east, an understanding of Islam is crucial for ensuring the protection of the U.S. Arguably, failing to allow children to gain an understanding of Islam is harmful to our future national security. Hence, society has an interest in teaching children about Islam. Our national interest in our security weighs against a 100% say by parents.
The second argument is that the children, as individuals, may have a moral claim for knowledge, regardless of their parents preferences. Human flourishing may be dependent on being able to learn and form beliefs about the truth or falsity of things on one’s own. Keeping children in the dark hinders their ability to form their own opinions about what is kept hidden from them. Given the lifelong effect of childhood on an individual, this sheltering may have long-lasting detrimental effects on an individual’s developing as a reflective human being.
Now, that second argument needs to be described in much more detail before it can be fully persuasive, but it does give an idea of a second argument that could be made
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Luke McCarthy you say “schools don’t teach it as truth” so how do you know how the schools teach Islamic? We have teachers that teach in many ways! I do not want my children taught corruption and right now the muslims has made a real bad name for themselves. We had over 3000 Americans murder by muslim terrorist, and most muslims would not stand up and condemn the terrorist! No I do not want the Muslims trying to convert my children over to their sick ways!
If a teacher in a public school teaches Islam as truth, parents have a legitimate claim because the school would be violating the First Amendment. In that situation, you have every right to object. But children can easily be taught about Islam without being converted. And teaching them about Islam does not amount to trying to convert them. It is important that our children understand the history of Islam, demographics of those who follow it , and the differences and similarities between Islam and other religions. Otherwise, our children will become adults without a clue what is going on in the world around them.
This exchange has continued at goodtimepolitics’ site. Check it out!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/08/lets-protect-our-children-from-islamic-teachings-and-barack-obama-rulings/
It is blogs such as these that help to fine tune the engines of democracy. The government is nothing more than an instrument of the people. But this only works if the people make their preferences known. Constructive Sovereignty is an emerging theory pioneered by John Maszka intended to address globalization’s increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. The theory maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore, their preferences are not fixed. Since states merely represent the preferences of their constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms their constituency will accept. Rather than push for larger and more powerful international organizations that will impose global norms from the outside in, the theory of Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change must come from the inside out. That is to say, from each state’s own constituency. As each state’s constituents become more and more international, they will become more receptive to international norms. In this way, international norms are embedded and viewed with legitimacy while each state’s sovereignty is maintained and respected.