Transcript from GDTV 2009, Human Rights: 'Never Again,' Again and Again, featuring: Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States of America; David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State; Kenneth Roth, President, Human Rights Watch; Brett Schaefer, Fellow, International Regulatory Affiars, heritage Foundation; Karin Ryan, Director, Human Rights Initiatives, Carter Center, and Hurst Hannum Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Transcript:
Ralph Beglieter ACCORDING TO THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS THE MOST TRANSLATED DOCUMENT IN HISTORY. BUT 60 YEARS AFTER COMING INTO FORCE, ATROCITIES CONTINUE TO OCCUR. IS HUMAN RIGHTS A LOST BECAUSE, OR A VITAL BEACON OF HOPE? NEXT ON GREAT DECISIONS.
Walter Cronkite: IN A DEMOCRACY, AGREEMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL, BUT PARTICIPATION IS. JOIN US AS WE DISCUSS TODAY'S MOST CRITICAL GLOBAL ISSUES. JOIN US FOR GREAT DECISIONS. GREAT DECISIONS IS PRODUCED BY THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION, INSPIRING AMERICANS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE WORLD.
Walter Cronkite: FUNDING FOR GREAT DECISIONS IS PROVIDED BY THE STARR FOUNDATION. GREAT DECISIONS IS PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE.
Ralph Beglieter IN SUDAN'S DARFUR REGION, PEOPLE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO A GENOCIDAL CAMPAIGN, BY MOST ACCOUNTS, RUN BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN KHARTOUM. IN CHINA, IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THE 2008 OLYMPICS, BEIJING JAILED AND BEAT PROTESTORS WHO DISAGREED WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY. AND IN THE U.S., WE'RE DEBATING THE USE OF TORTURE AS AN ANTITERRORISM TOOL.
David Kramer: ABU GHRAIB AND OTHERS ARE A REMINDER THAT WE ARE NOT INFALLIBLE,
BUT WHAT WE DO TRY TO DO IS WHEN ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THESE ISSUES, WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY, WE TRY TO CORRECT OUR MISTAKES.
Ralph Beglieter WHEN THE U.N. AUTHORED THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 1948, ITS GOAL WAS TO ESTABLISH THESE RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOR CITIZENS OF COUNTRIES THAT ALREADY GUARANTEED THEM. BUT HOW DOES A SIGNED PIECE OF PAPER TRANSLATE INTO REAL PROTECTION FOR REAL PEOPLE? THE CHALLENGE, THEN AND TODAY, IS ENFORCEMENT.
President Jimmy Carter: THE FIRST AREA OF GUARDING AGAINST HUMAN-RIGHTS ABUSES IS REALLY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AMONG DEFENDERS OR HUMAN-RIGHTS HEROES IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. HELPED, ALMOST INVARIABLY, BY HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, BY THE CARTER CENTER AND OTHER HUMAN-RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NON-GOVERNMENTAL IN NATURE.
Ralph Beglieter THE DECADES AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE HUMAN-RIGHTS DECLARATION HAVE BEEN NO LESS BLOODY AND OPPRESSIVE THAN THE YEARS BEFORE. THE KILLING FIELDS OF CAMBODIA, DEATH SQUADS IN LATIN AMERICA, POLITICAL REPRESSION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA.
Brett Schaefer: WE NEED TO LOOK BEYOND JUST TURNING TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OR TO THE UNITED NATIONS WHEN THERE'S A HUMAN-RIGHTS PROBLEM BEBECAUSE THE U.N. IS NOT VERY CAPABLE OF OVERCOMING THAT KIND OF BUILT-IN RESISTANCE OF THE MEMBERSHIP.
Ralph Beglieter WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATORS? ARE SANCTIONS AND PUBLIC CONDEMNATION ENOUGH? AND IN FIGHTING TERRORISM, ARE COUNTRIES LIKE THE UNITED STATES SACRIFICING CORE HUMAN-RIGHTS VALUES FOR SECURITY?
WHAT ABOUT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS? CAN GROUPS LIKE
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REALLY STOP ABUSES OR JUST DOCUMENT THEM? "NEVER AGAIN," AGAIN AND AGAIN, COMING UP NEXT ON GREAT DECISIONS.
Walter Cronkite: AND NOW FROM OUR STUDIOS, HERE'S RALPH BEGLEITER.
Ralph Beglieter: WELCOME TO GREAT DECISIONS. I'M RALPH BEGLEITER. JOINING US TO DISCUSS THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE GLOBE ARE KENNETH ROTH, PRESIDENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AND HURST HANNUM, PROFESSOR OFINTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE FLETCHER SCHOOL OF LAW AND DIPLOMACY AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY. THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING WITH US, GENTLEMEN.
SO THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS BEEN AROUND FOR SIX DECADES, AND THE UNITED NATIONS HAS INTERVENED OVER THAT COURSE OF TIME, AS WELL. GIVE US A SENSE OF HOW YOU WOULD EVALUATE HOW THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS HAS BEEN FOR PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD-- KEN?
Kenneth Roth: FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS MOSTLY TO DO WITH ACTORS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
THERE'S A VERY ACTIVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL MOVEMENT THAT HAVE EMERGED OVER THE YEARS. AND IN FACT, IN ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY AROUND THE WORLD TODAY, YOU FIND LOCAL HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS WHO ARE FIGHTING TO DEFEND RIGHTS IN THEIR COUNTRY. THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE IS THAT TODAY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A GOVERNMENT TO CLAIM IT DOESN'T CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. EVEN THE WORST DICTATORS, EVEN SADDAM HUSSEIN, PRETENDED THAT HE RESPECTED HUMAN RIGHTS AND TRIED TO HIDE HIS ATROCITIES. SO THAT GIVES US REAL POWER TO TRY TO FORCE GOVERNMENTS TO LIVE UP TO THEIR PRETENSE,
TO BRING THE PRACTICE IN LINES WITH THESE PRINCIPLES THAT THEY CLAIM TO UPHOLD. NOW, THE U.N. IS A PART OF THAT PROCESS, BUT THEY'RE A FAIRLY SMALL PART.
I THINK IT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO MENTION ARE, SAY, THE PEACEKEEPERS, WHO WILL GO AND STOP THE KILLING OR TRY TO STOP THE KILLING IN EASTERN CONGO OR DARFUR. THERE ARE ALSO, SAY, THE LEADERS, THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR THE HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, WHO CAN USE THE BULLY PULPIT TO TRY TO SHAME ABUSERS. AND THEN YOU HAVE POLITICAL BODIES, LIKE THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL,
WHICH TEND TO PERFORM LESS EFFECTIVELY?
Ralph Beglieter: HURST HANNUM, DO YOU THINK GOVERNMENT'S ROLE HAS BEEN ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZED THERE?
Hurst Hannum: YES, I THINK SO. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT ABOUT CREATING A WORLD ORDER THAT'S ENFORCED BY THE U.N. IT REALLY IS ABOUT PERSUADING GOVERNMENTS TO CHANGE, AND I THINK SOMETIMES WE MISS THAT, BEBECAUSE WE NEED THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, AS GUARDIANS, AS WATCHDOGS, AS, OCCASIONALLY, INTERVENERS. BUT, ESSENTIALLY, THE HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS BEEN ABOUT BRINGING
COUNTRIES ONBOARD, FIRST GETTING THEM TO MAKE A THEORETICAL COMMITMENT TO THESE STANDARDS, AND THEN SLOWLY, COUNTRY BY COUNTRY, USING THE N.G.O.s THAT KEN TALKED ABOUT AND USING THE U.N. WHERE WE CAN, GETTING THEM TO ACT ON THESE PRINCIPLES.
I THINK ONE OF THE UNFORTUNATE THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST TEN OR 15 YEARS, PARTICULARLY, IS THERE'S A MUCH GREATER EXPECTATION ON THE PART OF MANY PEOPLE THAT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE U.N., CAN SOMEHOW COME IN AND THEMSELVES ENFORCE OR CREATE HUMAN RIGHTS. IT JUST CAN'T BE DONE. IT'S A MUCH LONGER PROCESS THAN THAT, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE MADE PROGRESS BETWEEN NOW AND BACK IN 1948.
Ralph Beglieter: HAVING SAID THAT, THE UNITED NATIONS RECENTLY CHANGED--IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS--CHANGED ITS PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING, SWITCHING FROM A 50-MEMBER UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO A 47-MEMBER COUNCIL ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
WE TALKED AT GREAT DECISIONS WITH A NUMBER OF HUMAN-RIGHTS EXPERTS ABOUT THE U.N. ROLE.
LET'S HEAR WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
Brett Schaefer: WHAT HAVE WE SEEN FROM THE COUNCIL? YOU'VE SEEN MINOR RESOLUTIONS,
MILDLY CRITICIZING SUDAN FOR THE SITUATION IN DARFUR, NOT EVEN CRITICIZING THE GOVERNMENT, JUST REMARKING ON THE SITUATION.
MILDLY REBUKING BURMA FOR ITS CRACKDOWN ON PEACEFUL PROTESTORS AND BUDDHIST MONKS. YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANY RESOLUTIONS ON CHINA. YOU'VE NOT SEEN ANY RESOLUTIONS ON NORTH KOREA, NO RESOLUTIONS ON ZIMBABWE, NO RESOLUTIONS ON CUBA, NO RESOLUTIONS ON SAUDI ARABIA, NO RESOLUTIONS ON IRAN. YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES.
David Kramer: WE'VE BEEN VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH WHAT SEEMS TO US TO BE AN OBSESSION WITH ONE COUNTRY, ISRAEL, WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN EFFORTS TO CONSTANTLY BASH ISRAEL WHILE IGNORING PROBLEMS ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, AND SO WE HAVE DECIDED THAT OUR BEST APPROACH IS TO DISENGAGE FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.
Jimmy Carter: WELL, THE UNITED NATIONS IS A FOUNDATION OR THE CENTER
OF A GLOBAL EFFORT TO ENFORCE THE 1948 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. WHAT THE CARTER CENTER HAS DONEIS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THOSE WHO ARE NOMINATED AND ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL HAVE SOME ADEQUATE CREDENTIALS AS HUMAN-RIGHTS DEFENDERS, AND NOT, REALLY, GROSS
HUMAN-RIGHTS OPPRESSORS, SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO OUR WORK AT THE CARTER CENTER.
I HOPE ALL THE REST OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT ARE INTERESTED IN HUMAN RIGHTS WILL DO THEIR BEST TO COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS WHENEVER POSSIBLE, TO CRITICIZE ITS SHORTCOMINGS, AND TO TRY TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE INTEGRITY AND THE ADEQUATE FUNCTION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS COUNCIL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Ralph Beglieter: NOW, BOTH OF YOU HAVE SAID THAT THE U.N. IS ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, AND WE HEARD DAVID KRAMER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAY THE U.S. IS JUST GOING TO DISENGAGE FROM THE COUNCIL.
IN EFFECT, DOES THAT MEAN THE U.N. IS USELESS ON THIS ISSUE? IS THERE ANYTHING THE U.N. CAN--A ROLE THE U.N. CAN AND SHOULD PLAY?
Kenneth Roth: NO, I THINK THERE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ROLES FOR THE U.N. TO PLAY. AS I MENTIONED, PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT IS PEACEKEEPING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS POLITICIZED COUNCIL THAT WAS JUST REFERRED TO. THERE ALSO IS THE POSSIBILITY OF SHAMING GOVERNMENTS THROUGH THE SECRETARY, BAN KI-MOON, THE CURRENT SECRETARY GENERAL, OR NAVANETHEM PILLAY, THE CURRENT HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. BUT THE POLITICAL BODIES, INITIALLY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, NOW TRANSFORMED INTO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, HAS BEEN PROBLEMATIC. INITIALLY, IT WAS SORT OF A VICTIM OF ITS OWN SUCCESS. THE STIGMA OF BEING CONDEMNED BY THE COMMISSION WAS SO POWERFUL, GOVERNMENTS WERE SO EAGER TO AVOID IT, THAT ALL THE THUGS OF THE WORLD FLOCKED TO THE COMMISSION AS A WAY OF TRYING TO DEFEAT ITS EFFECTIVE OPERATION.
Ralph Beglieter: TO BECOME MEMBERS ON IT?
Kenneth Roth: TO BECOME MEMBERS. AND THAT IS, IN A SENSE, THE SITUATION WE STILL HAVE TODAY, WHERE THE DICTATORS OUTNUMBER THOSE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS. NOW, THIS NEW COUNCIL IS AN IMPROVEMENT IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.IT MEETS REGULARLY, RATHER THAN JUST ONCE A YEAR. IT ACTUALLY REVIEWS EVERY GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD, NOT JUST A SELECTIVE FEW, SO THERE'S CERTAIN STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND INDEED, THERE'S A NEW SELECTION PROCESS WHERE SOME OF THE WORST OFFENDERS HAVE BEEN SCARED OFF OR DEFEATED IN THE ELECTION.
THAT SAID, THE BAD GUYS HAVE A MAJORITY, AND THE FACT THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS BASICALLY SURRENDERED WITHOUT A FIGHT-- IT HAS NOT EVEN JOINED THE COUNCIL, IT HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO USE ITS DIPLOMATIC CLOUT TO TRY TO MAKE THE COUNCIL EFFECTIVE-- HAS BECOME A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. IT SHOULD BE IN THERE FIGHTING, BRINGING OVER SOME OF THE SWING VOTES THAT ARE WINNABLE, AND THAT'S HOW YOU'D MAKE THE COUNCIL EFFECTIVE.
Ralph Beglieter: HURST, CAN I FOLLOW-UP ON ANOTHER ASPECT THAT WE JUST HEARD IN THE CLIPS, WHICH WAS THE REASON THE UNITED STATES HAS DISENGAGED, ACCORDING TO KRAMER, IS THAT THE U.N. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION BEFORE IT HAD BEEN OVERLY CRITICAL, IN THE U.S. VIEW, OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL. IS THAT A KEY ISSUE TO MAKING, FRANKLY, THE U.N. AND OTHER MECHANISMS ON HUMAN RIGHTS MORE EFFECTIVE? DOES THAT GET IN THE WAY?
Hurst Hannum: THE U.N. IS A POLITICAL BODY, AND IT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. AND IT WILL IDENTIFY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE'S A MAJORITY, AN EASY MAJORITY TO BE FOUND, WHAT IT CONSIDERS TO BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS IN THE WORLD AND FOCUS ON THOSE. WE KNOW THAT THE SITUATION IN PALESTINE DESERVES ALL OF THE ATTENTION THAT'S BEING FOCUSED ON IT. THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT IT'S DISPROPORTIONATE, THAT THERE ARE MANY TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENING ALL OVER THE WORLD.
BUT LET'S THINK BACK A FEW YEARS TO THE ATTENTION THAT WAS FOCUSED ON APARTHEID IN SOUTH AFRICA. THAT, TOO, WAS VIEWED BY SOME AS DISPROPORTIONATE, YET OVER TIME; IT GAVE SUPPORT TO ACTIVISTS BOTH WITHIN SOUTH AFRICA AND OUTSIDE SOUTH AFRICA, WHO, ULTIMATELY, DID REMOVE ONE OF THE TWO GREAT STAINS ON THE WORLD, THE SYSTEM OF APARTHEID. UNFORTUNATELY, THE HIGHER POLITICS INVOLVING OIL, INVOLVING DOMESTIC CONSTITUENCIES, ETCETERA, ETCETERA, IN THE MIDDLE EAST, HAVE MADE THE MIDDLE EAST EVEN LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE NAMING AND SHAMING OR TO THE SPOTLIGHT THAT THE U.N. HAS PUT ON IT.
AND WE, UNFORTUNATELY, HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH PROGRESS IN THAT AREA. SO THINK THE CRITICISMS ARE RIGHT, BUT THEY ONLY GO HALFWAY. THERE IS NO COUNTRY THAT IS IMMUNE FROM CRITICISM. AND TO PULL OUT OF THE COUNCIL, AS THE U.S. HAS DONE, TO REFUSE TO ENGAGE WITH IT, SIMPLY BEBECAUSE IT FOCUSES TOO MUCH ATTENTION ON A SITUATION THAT DOES, AFTER ALL, DESERVE ATTENTION, I THINK, IS A SERIOUS MISTAKE.
Ralph Beglieter: KEN, LET ME COME BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID IN YOUR INITIAL ANSWER, WHICH WAS THAT NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS-- BOTH OF YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS-- NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS REALLY HAVE PLAYED A MAJOR, MAJOR ROLE IN THIS ISSUE OF POLICING AND IDENTIFYING AND CALLING OUT HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
IS THAT BEBECAUSE GOVERNMENTS CAN'T OR WON'T STEP UP TO THE PLATE? IS IT BEBECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE CREDIBILITY AS AN N.G.O. THAN A GOVERNMENT DOES?
Kenneth Roth: WHAT'S INTERESTING, 60 YEARS AGO, WHEN GOVERNMENTS SIGNED ON TO THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY THOUGHT THAT THESE WERE JUST WORDS THAT WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. AND IT WASN'T AS IF OTHER GOVERNMENTS WERE GOING TO ACTIVELY HOLD THEM TO THOSE PRINCIPLES, BEBECAUSE THEY, TOO, WERE HOPING TO GET AWAY WITH HYPOCRITICAL RESPONSE AND JUST KIND OF IGNORE THIS DOCUMENT AND PUT IT AWAY IN THE DRAWER.
AND SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS A GROUP OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS-- MINE, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, IS ONE OF MANY AROUND THE WORLD-- WERE CREATED IN ORDER TO HOLD GOVERNMENTS TO THEIR PROMISES. AND IN MY VIEW, GOVERNMENTS ARE ALWAYS TEMPTED TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS. IT'S ALWAYS EASY TO SILENCE THAT PESKY JOURNALIST OR TO GET RID OF THE OPPOSITION FIGURE AND LOCK HIM UP. AND THE ROLE OF THESE CIVIL-SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS, GROUPS OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC BANDING TOGETHER, IS TO GENERATE PRESSURE ON GOVERNMENTS TO KEEP THEM HONEST, TO HOLD THEM TO THOSE PRINCIPLES, AND TO FORCE THEM TO RESIST THAT TEMPTATION TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS.
Hurst Hannum: BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK TODAY, HUMAN RIGHTS IS BEING
INCREASINGLY CONFLATED WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE IN VARIOUS WAYS, WITH ECONOMIC EQUALITY, WITH RELATIONS BETWEEN RICH AND POOR STATES, WITH INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW. ALL OF THESE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT THINGS.
MARY ROBINSON, THE FORMER HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, WHO IS ONE OF THE EMINENT SPOKESPERSONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOMEONE WHOM I RESPECT GREATLY, HAS RECENTLY SAID THAT CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSES HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. AND I THINK THERE IS A DANGER OF HUMAN RIGHTS ITSELF BEING CAUGHT UP AS A VICTIM OF ITS OWN SUCCESS AS IT BEGINS TO ADD MANY MORE ORNAMENTS TO THIS CHRISTMAS TREE
THAT HAS BEEN FASHIONED BY THE EFFORTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND OTHERS.
Ralph Beglieter: LET'S ZOOM IN FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES ON CHINA, BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT, AND HURST, YOU JUST CAME BACK FROM A COUPLE OF YEARS IN HONG KONG. BECAUSE OF CHINA'S POWERFUL ECONOMIC POSITION ON THE WORLD STAGE, IT PRESENTS PARTICULAR CHALLENGESON THE QUESTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT SOME OF OUR EXPERTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CHINA.
David Kramer: CHINA WILL EVOLVE AND DEVELOP IN ITS OWN UNIQUE WAY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE ARE CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS COMMON TO ALL COUNTRIES THAT RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS, SUCH AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
Brett Schaefer: THE OLYMPICS LED CHINA TO SOMEWHAT SOFTEN ITS STANCE. NOW THAT THE OLYMPICS ARE DONE, THAT ONE LEVERAGE POINT HAS DISAPPEARED, AND I EXPECT CHINA TO CONTINUE TO ACT AS IT HAS HISTORICALLY AND BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO ADVANCING HUMAN RIGHTS.
Jimmy Carter: EXACTLY 30 YEARS AGO, I NORMALIZED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHINA. THERE WERE PRACTICALLY NONEXISTENT HUMAN RIGHTS OF CHINESE CITIZENS. THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF EARNING A LIVING EXCEPT JUST UNDER THE STATE CONTROL. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT HUMAN RIGHTS ON A BROAD BASE.
IF YOU ASK THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN, "WHAT IS HUMAN RIGHTS?" THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SAY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM TO ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THEY'RE ALL POLITICAL RIGHTS, YOU MIGHT SAY. BUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO HAVE FOOD TO EAT, A PLACE TO LIVE, A CHANCE TO EARN A LIVING, A CHANCE TO GET AN EDUCATION, A CHANCE FOR HEALTHCARE. SO THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL RIGHTS ARE ALL LEGITIMATE TO BE CONSIDERED AS BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. UNTIL A COUNTRY OR GOVERNMENT OR REGIME IS ABLE TO HONOR ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, THEN THEY STILL ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TOAND OUGHT TO BE CRITICIZED.
Ralph Beglieter: HURST HANNUM, THAT'S EXACTLY THE ISSUE YOU WERE REFERRING TO A MOMENT AGO.
Hurst Hannum: VERY MUCH SO.
Ralph Beglieter: DO YOU THINK HE'S WRONG?
Hurst Hannum: NO, I THINK PRESIDENT CARTER MADE A POINT THAT MOST PEOPLE FORGET WHEN TALKING ABOUT CHINA. CHINA HAS BROUGHT 200 OR 300 MILLION PEOPLE OUT OF ABJECT POVERTY. THEY HAD, AT LEAST UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY, PAID MUCH MORE ATTENTION TO EDUCATION. HUMAN RIGHTS DON'T ACCRUE TO A GOVERNMENT AUTOMATICALLY. CHINA HAS RATIFIED ONLY ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR HUMAN-RIGHTS COVENANTS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS. IT'S NOT RATIFIED THE ONE ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. U.S. HAS DONE THE REVERSE. CHINA, I THINK, SURPRISINGLY, IN MY VIEW, CRACKED DOWN ON FREE EXPRESSION AND PROTEST MUCH MORE STRONGLY THAN I EXPECTED IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.
BUT CHINA IS STILL AN EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX PLACE, THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. I THINK, FRANKLY,
HUMAN-RIGHTS GROUPS ARE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY, BEBECAUSE WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IN CHINA IS TO TALK ABOUT THOSE OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY'VE ACCEPTED, LIKE THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION, THE RIGHT TO FOOD, THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE, ALL OF WHICH ARE BEING UNDERMINED IN THIS RACE TOWARDS CAPITALISM. AND CHALLENGE CHINA, IF THEY REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EQUAL AND INDIVISIBLE, ON THOSE OBLIGATIONS, WITHOUT FORGETTING ABOUT TORTURE AND UNFAIR TRIALS AND IMPRISONMENT OF DISSIDENTS.
Ralph Beglieter: KEN, WE SAW THIS COME INTO REALLY STARK RELIEF LAST YEAR WHEN THE OLYMPICS WERE UNDERWAY, AND GOVERNMENTS MADE DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER TO PARTICIPATE, NOT TO PARTICIPATE. PRESIDENT BUSH DECIDED TO GO TO BEIJING. DOES THAT ILLUSTRATE THE TENSION BETWEEN THE KINDS OF THINGS HURST WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT?
Kenneth Roth: IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO RELY ON POWERFUL WESTERN GOVERNMENTS TO USE THEIR CLOUT, VIS-À-VIS CHINA'S HUMAN-RIGHTS RECORD, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL TOO EAGER TO GET THE NEXT CONTRACT OR THE NEXT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY.
Ralph Beglieter: OTHER INTERESTS PLAY IN--
Kenneth Roth: OTHER INTERESTS PLAY IN. AND SO WHEREAS WE WOULD ORDINARILY SAY, GO TO WASHINGTON AND SAY, "HELP US WITH BURMA," OR "HELP US WITH ZIMBABWE," WE CAN'T GET THEM TO EFFECTIVELY HELP US WITH CHINA, BEBECAUSE THEY'RE TOO INTERESTED IN PURSUING OTHER GOALS. SO THAT SAID, THERE IS STILL MUCH THAT CAN BE DONE IN CHINA. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU ASSESS THE COUNTRY, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S BEEN PROGRESS NOT ONLY ON THE ECONOMIC FRONT THE WAY PRESIDENT CARTER JUST REFERRED TO, BUT ALSO JUST IN TERMS OF PERSONAL LIBERTIES.
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO TRAVEL MORE FREELY, TO CHOOSE THEIR JOB, TO CHOOSE WHERE THEY'LL LIVE, TO CHOOSE WHERE THEY SEND THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL, ALL BIG THINGS. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE EFFORT TO SPEAK OUT OR TO ORGANIZE AROUND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, TO FORM A LABOR UNION, TO DO A TALK SHOW LIKE THIS ONE, TO EVEN DO A BLOG, YOU CAN VERY QUICKLY FIND YOURSELF ARRESTED. AND THERE IS A REAL NEED TO PUT PRESSURE ON CHINA, NOT SIMPLY BEBECAUSE THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, THAT THESE ARE RIGHTS THAT THE CHINESE PEOPLE DESERVE TO HAVE RESPECTED, BUT ALSO FRANKLY, BEBECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT CHINA'S GOING TO SOLVE ITS INTERNAL-STABILITY PROBLEM. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING BEIJING TODAY IS INSTABILITY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSED BY CORRUPT LOCAL OFFICIALS.
AND IT'S TOO BIG A COUNTRY FOR BEIJING TO JUST ORDER THESE PEOPLE TO STOP. THAT HASN'T WORKED FOR YEARS. THEY NEED TO, IN A SENSE, ENLIST LOCAL PEOPLE POWER AND LET THE LOCAL POPULATION
SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CORRUPT OFFICIAL, BRING THEM TO COURT, WRITE ABOUT THEM IN THE PAPER, AND, FRANKLY, I THINK THAT THAT SORT OF SELF-INTERESTED ARGUMENT MADE TO BEIJING IS WHAT WILL PREVAIL OVER TIME WITH THE RISKS INVOLVED.
Ralph Beglieter: THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAS LONG BEEN A CHAMPION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, FINDS ITSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE ITS REPUTATION ON THAT SUBJECT IS A BIT TARNISHED.
GREAT DECISIONS EXAMINES SOME OF THOSE CHARGES THAT THE U.S. HAS UNDERMINED ITS CREDIBILITY ON HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT IT CARRIED OUT IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
LET'S HEAR WHAT SOME OF OUR EXPERTS HAD TO SAY ON THAT SUBJECT.
Karin Ryan: THE VERY PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAVE BEEN GUTTED WHEN YOU SAY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR NATIONALITY, CAN BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND THIS IDEA IS CONDONED BY THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE URGING THE NEXT PRESIDENT TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING TORTURE, AND THAT CONGRESS MUST DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO RATIFY THAT DECISION.
Man: BY NOT BEING A GOOD MODEL ITSELF, BOTH AT HOME, THE PATRIOT ACT, AND ABROAD, ABU GHRAIB AND OTHERWISE, AND GUANTáNAMO, THEY HAVE LOST THEIR CREDIBILITY.
David Kramer: I DON'T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS SAYING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS PERFECT, WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR EVERYBODY. I WANT TO ADMIT RIGHT UP FRONT THAT WE HAVE OUR PROBLEMS, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THEM, AND WE HOPE THAT OTHER COUNTRIES WILL LEARN NOT ONLY FROM OUR MISTAKES, BUT ALSO FROM THE GOOD PRACTICES WE HAVE IN PLACE.
Brett Schaefer: THE U.S. IS HEAD-AND-SHOULDERS ABOVE OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD IN TERMS OF ITS OBSERVANCE AND HONOR OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THE U.S. WENT THROUGH A JUDICIAL PROCESS TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT IT SHOULD DO WITH GUANTáNAMO, AND THAT PROCESS ENDED UP WITH A RESULT THAT WAS AGAINST THE POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION. AND SO IN THE U.S., THE SYSTEM PROCESSED IT, IT WORKED, AND WE ABIDE BY THE RESULT OF THAT. THIS IS ACTUALLY HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. TOO MANY COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RESEMBLING THAT.
Jimmy Carter: THE NUMBER-ONE TOOL IN PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD IS TO SET AN EXAMPLE. THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE MAJOR NATION ON EARTH THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND PERMANENTLY, WITH A DEEP COMMITMENT, HONORS EVERY HUMAN RIGHT THAT'S SPELLED OUT IN A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION. IN THE PAST, QUITE OFTEN, THAT HAS BEEN THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE RESTORED UNDER THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
Ralph Beglieter: HURST HANNUM, YOUR VIEW OF THAT. DID THE SYSTEM WORK IN THE UNITED STATES?
Hurst Hannum: THE SYSTEM WORKED IN A TECHNICAL, JUDICIAL SENSE, PERHAPS BETTER THAN PEOPLE EXPECTED, BUT THE EXAMPLE SET BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OVER ITS EIGHT YEARS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT ITS 60th ANNIVERSARY IN 2008 WAS, IN FACT, WORSE THAN ITS 50th ANNIVERSARY TEN YEARS EARLIER. THAT, COMBINED WITH THE RISING INFLUENCE OF RUSSIA AND CHINA CONTRIBUTED TO A WORLD, I THINK, WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS IS MORE POLITICIZED, IS LESS RESPECTED THAN BEFORE, PARTLY BEBECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE OF EXAMPLE, BUT ALSO PARTLY BEBECAUSE THERE'S A TENDENCY TO EXPECT EVERYONE TO INTERPRET HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SAME WAY. HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL, BUT THEY'RE NOT ABSOLUTE. ALMOST EVERY HUMAN RIGHT LEAVES ROOM FOR LIMITATIONS BASED ON PUBLIC MORALITY OR PUBLIC ORDER. AND THOSE ARE TERMS THAT CAN BE ABUSED, AND THEY OFTEN ARE.
BUT THEY ALSO LEAVE ROOM FOR CHINA OR INDONESIA OR KENYA TO INTERPRET THINGS A BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE UNITED STATES DOES, AND FOR THE U.S. TO INSIST, FOR INSTANCE, ON A DEGREE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION THAT WOULD BE ANATHEMA IN MANY OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE HATE SPEECH IS CRIMINALIZED, AND IT'S NOT HERE. THE U.S. NEEDS TO SET AN EXAMPLE, BUT IT HAS TO BE ONE, NOT OF BEING THE ONLY COUNTRY ON THE HILL, BUT OF A COUNTRY AROUND THE HILL THAT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME FRIENDS, AND IT HASN'T DONE THAT.
THE UNILATERALISM HAS AFFECTED NOT ONLY HUMAN RIGHTS BUT INTERNATIONAL LAW, GENERALLY, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE US AWHILE TO RECOVER FROM THAT.
Ralph Beglieter: KEN, YOUR ORGANIZATION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, ISSUE ANNUAL REPORTS AND PERIODIC ONES, AS WELL, ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD. HAVE YOU FOUND THAT YOUR VOICE HAS BEEN MADE LESS EFFECTIVE BY THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO?
Kenneth Roth: IT DOESN'T HARM MY ORGANIZATION, BUT IT DOES HARM THE MOVEMENT, BEBECAUSE WE HAVE-- REALLY, FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY DEPENDED ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A POWERFUL VOICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. AND SECOND, THE UNITED STATES, AS THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL GOVERNMENT, IS A POWERFUL EXAMPLE.
AND LET ME GIVE YOU JUST A SENSE OF HOW THIS PLAYS OUT. I WAS IN EGYPT A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND I INITIALLY MET WITH THE U.S. AMBASSADOR THERE, AND I SAID, "ARE YOU STILL ABLE "TO PROTEST "EGYPT'S PERVASIVE TORTURE "AND ITS PERVASIVE DETENTION OF SUSPECTS WITHOUT TRIAL?" AND HE HAD TO ADMIT, SORT OF SHEEPISHLY, NO, HE COULDN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT ANYMORE, HE HAS NO CREDIBILITY WHEN THE U.S. DOES THE SAME THING BACK HOME. I THEN WENT AND MET WITH THE EGYPTIAN PRIME MINISTER, AND IT WAS AT A MOMENT WHEN EGYPT WAS ROUNDING UP SUSPECTS, AND WE KNEW THEY WERE BEINGTORTURED. AND I SAID, "MR. PRIME MINISTER, "WHY ARE YOU TORTURING THESE PEOPLE?" AND WITHOUT SKIPPING A BEAT, HE SAID, "THAT'S WHAT BUSH DOES." NOW, THAT'S A CHEAP ANSWER, DOESN'T JUSTIFY IT AT ALL, BUT IT ALLOWS HIM TO DEFLECT CRITICISM AND MAKES IT EASIER FOR HIM TO AVOID THE SHAMING THAT IS OFTEN ONE OF THE BEST ANTIDOTES WE HAVE FOR GOVERNMENTS' TEMPTATIONS TO VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS. THAT'S A REAL LOSSFOR THE MOVEMENT.
Ralph Beglieter: THERE'S BEEN A LONG TENSION, REALLY, DECADES WORTH OF TENSION, OVER WHETHER TO USE U.S. MILITARY FORCE TO ENGAGE IN HUMAN-RIGHTS CORRECTIONS AROUND THE WORLD. THAT WAS THE CASE IN BOSNIA. IT WAS THE CASE IN SOMALIA.
IT'S BEEN THE CASE IN THE MIDDLE EAST SOMETIMES. KEN, DO YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT, IN HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, THAT THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAS THE MILITARY CAPABILITY TO DO IT, SHOULD BE USING THAT POWER
IN SUPPORT OF HUMAN RIGHTS?
Kenneth Roth: HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH DOES, AT TIMES, ADVOCATE HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION. WE DID IT IN THE CASE OF THE GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA, WE DID IT IN THE CASE OF THE GENOCIDE IN RWANDA. THERE HAVE BEEN SELECTED OTHER CASES WHERE THERE IS MASS MURDER GOING ON, AND ONLY MILITARY FORCE WOULD BE CAPABLE OF STOPPING IT, SO WE'RE NOT A PACIFIST ORGANIZATION.
WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS A ROLE FOR MILITARY FORCE TO SOMETIMES STOP MASS ATROCITIES. NOW, IT'S BEST WHEN THAT HAPPENS MULTILATERALLY, BEBECAUSE THERE'S GREATER LEGITIMACY IN A MULTILATERAL MILITARY ACTION THAN FOR ONE GOVERNMENT TO JUST GO IN ON ITS OWN AND CLAIM TO BE SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS, BUT IT REALLY IS PURSUING, SAY, AN AGENDA OF TOPPLING SADDAM,OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. ONE OF THE LESSONS, THOUGH, I THINK IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, CERTAINLY UNDER THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT WE, FRANKLY, NEED THE REST OF THE WORLD TO COOPERATE WITH YOU. THE PROBLEMS FACING THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER IT'S FIGHTING TERRORISM OR MANY OTHER THINGS, REQUIRE COOPERATION.
AND IF YOU ARE NOT SUBSCRIBING TO THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS THAT MOST GOVERNMENTS SUBSCRIBE TO, IF YOU CLAIM TO BE ABOVE THE LAW, IT'S HARDER TO ENLIST OTHER GOVERNMENTS IN ACTIONS THAT ARE REALLY IN YOUR INTEREST. SO THE UNITED STATES, POWERFUL AS IT IS, IS NOT POWERFUL ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE WORLD ON ITS OWN. IT NEEDS PARTNERS, AND IF IT WANTS THOSE PARTNERSHIPS, IT HAS TO BE WILLING TO PLAY BY THE RULES THAT EVERYBODY ELSE DOES, WHICH MEANS RESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS EVEN IN THE FACE OF MAJOR CHALLENGES LIKE TERRORISM.
Ralph Beglieter: HURST HANNUM, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE FLETCHER SCHOOL OF LAW AND DIPLOMACY AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY, AND KEN ROTH, PRESIDENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH IN THE UNITED STATES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOTH OF YOU, FOR BEING WITH US ON GREAT DECISIONS. AND THANK YOU, AS WELL, FOR JOINING US ON GREAT DECISIONS. WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT TIME.
I'M RALPH BEGLEITER.
Walter Cronkite: TO LEARN MORE ABOUT TOPICS DISCUSSED ON GREAT DECISIONS,
VISIT OUR WEB SITE AT www.GreatDecisions.tv.
TO ORDER A COPY OF THE GREAT DECISIONS BRIEFING BOOK, A D.V.D. SET OF THIS SERIES, OR JOIN A GREAT DECISIONS DISCUSSION GROUP IN YOUR AREA,
CONTACT THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION.
FUNDING FOR GREAT DECISIONS IS PROVIDED BY THE STARR FOUNDATION.GREAT DECISIONS IS PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATIONWITH THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE.
NEXT TIME ON GREAT DECISIONS:
Jimmy Carter: EGYPT HAS ALSO BENEFITED TREMENDOUSLY FROM BEING GUARANTEED PEACE. SO THEIR ECONOMIC PROGRESS HAS BEEN GOOD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP TOTHE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN STABLE, AND ALTHOUGH THAT PEACE BETWEEN EGYPT AND ISRAEL IS KIND OF A COOL PEACE, OBVIOUSLY, EVERYBODY AGREES IT'S BETTER THAN WAR.
Walter Cronkite: NEXT TIME ON GREAT DECISIONS.
Captioned by Sound writers™