|
Friday, May 30, 2003 |
|
Re: G8 counter-summit begins today 1:01:09 PM 
|
|
Re: Wagging the dog 12:59:35 PM
|
|
Re: Human rights are not a luxury for good times Dear Friends: Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, eloquently speaks on the necessity of balancing national security with freedom and human rights. In waging war on terror, all too often freedom is the first casualty. Human rights advocates have long been wary of the way in which governments interpret and implement their security agenda. All too often security measures harm the innocent as well as the guilty. And all too often political leaders exploit public fears and prejudices to avoid accountability and promote their own interests. Governments are not entitled to respond to terror with terror. Human rights must be upheld at all times, including times of danger and insecurity. They restrain governments from actions that harm, and provide the standards for accountability. They empower people and give them the freedom to choose, to challenge and to shape their own destiny. If the quest for a safer world is to succeed, human rights must lie at its heart. __________________________ Amnesty International Security for whom? A Human Rights response A message from Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General As I write this message, I remember Claudine, a six-year-old girl whom I met when I visited Burundi last September. She was one of the survivors of a massacre by the Burundian army, in which more than 170 people had been brutally killed 10 days before my arrival. She could not recall her family name, but she remembered in vivid, painful detail the way in which her grandfather, parents, sisters and baby brother were bayoneted to death. She described how she herself was wounded but managed to escape by crawling between the legs of the soldiers. When I raised her case with the President of Burundi, he told me that the army had been fighting a civil war for the past 10 years to make the country secure from "rebels". It was apparent that Claudine's own security did not feature in that larger national security strategy. As I write this message, the shadow of war darkens over Iraq. Military action is being contemplated in order to make the world more secure. Some 26 million Iraqi women, men and children who have risked terrible human rights abuses at the hands of their own government for several decades, who have suffered the impact of economic sanctions for more than a decade, face an uncertain fate. The only certainty is that if war comes, some of them will die. They could be killed by the fighting, or they might be killed by the Iraqi security forces if they dare to rise against the Iraqi government, or they could die if they flee and neighbouring countries refuse to grant them asylum, as happened in 1991. Last year the international community waged a war in Afghanistan. That war too was fought in the name of security. An unknown number of civilians died in the bombing raids and hundreds of prisoners reportedly suffocated to death in sealed containers. Many Afghans continue to live precariously as large parts of the country remain insecure and under the control of commanders known to have perpetrated appalling human rights abuses. Human rights advocates have long been wary of the way in which governments interpret and implement their security agenda at the national and international levels. All too often security measures harm the innocent as well as the guilty. All too often political leaders exploit public fears and prejudices to avoid accountability and promote their own interests. Our fears were once again confirmed over the past year as the drive for security gained greater momentum around the world. A combination of forces sought to roll back the human rights gains of the past five decades in the name of security and "counter-terrorism". But the restrictions on liberty have not necessarily led to increased dividends on safety. Greater emphasis on security, far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights and undermining the rule of international law; by shielding governments from scrutiny; by deepening divisions among people of different faiths and origins; and by diverting attention from festering conflicts and other sources of insecurity. The establishment of the International Criminal Court, the coming into force of the agreement aimed at ending the use of child soldiers and the adoption of the protocol to allow international inspection of places of detention were important gains for human rights in the past year. On the other hand, the blatant disregard and virtual contempt which many governments displayed for international human rights and humanitarian obligations were a major setback. At a time of heightened insecurity, governments chose to ignore and undermine the collective system of security which international law represents. Draconian measures by democratic as well as autocratic governments to intrude and intercept, to arrest and detain suspects without trial and to deport people with no regard to their fate, weakened human rights protection of individuals as well as respect for the standards of international law. The USA continued to detain prisoners from the war in Afghanistan in defiance of international humanitarian law, turned a blind eye to reports of torture or ill-treatment of suspects by its officials and allies, and sought to undermine the International Criminal Court through bilateral agreements. In the process, it undermined its own moral authority to speak out against human rights violations in other parts of the world. Action that makes people feel insecure cannot make states or societies secure. Because of the real or alleged actions of a few individuals, entire communities identified by race, religion or national origin are being viewed with suspicion. The result is growing unease and uncertainty among large sections of the population. Racial profiling and detention of immigrants in the USA, and labelling of refugees and asylum-seekers as "terrorists" in Europe have compounded the stigmatization. In a climate of increasing xenophobia and racism, asylum-seekers are being sent back to face imprisonment, torture or death and violent attacks on members of minority communities are on the increase. Whipping up public fears in the interests of short-term political or electoral gains is a dangerous business. In the course of the past year, ethnic and religious tensions in countries like India, Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire demonstrated the dangers of accentuating the divide between citizen and immigrant, people of different faiths, rich and poor, north and south. Exploiting the international climate favouring "counter-terrorism", many governments reinforced and renewed their crack-down on political opponents and others whose loyalty they doubt, such as trade unionists, journalists, religious and racial minorities, and human rights defenders. Our country reports illustrate numerous examples where, citing national security, government forces acted with impunity to kill, rape, torture and abduct. The tragedy of Claudine was repeated many times in many places during 2002. Amnesty International does not challenge the right of governments to act against criminal and political violence by armed groups and individuals. On the contrary, we call on governments to protect people in accordance with the law. We consistently and strongly condemn attacks against civilians as a grave abuse of their human rights. We remind armed groups and those who support them of their obligations not to target civilians whatever the circumstances. However, human rights abuse by armed groups is not a licence for governments to ignore their own obligations. Governments are not entitled to respond to terror with terror. They are obliged at all times to act within the framework of international human rights and humanitarian law. The people who organize and perpetrate bombings of buses in Tel Aviv or a discotheque in Bali, who ambush and kill civilians in Burundi, or who take hostages in a theatre in Moscow must be brought to justice in accordance with standards of fair trial. So too must the Israeli soldiers who carry out unlawful killings in the Occupied Territories, the Indonesian police who torture in Aceh and Papua, the Russian security forces who rape villagers in Chechnya. By denying justice and perpetuating impunity, many governments have both undermined their international human rights obligations and contributed to the cycle of insecurity, violence and violations. The focus on national security has diverted attention from some very real threats that affect the lives of millions of people. The real sources of insecurity for many people lie in the failure to halt the unimpeded flow of small arms, to eradicate extreme poverty and preventable diseases, to arrest and treat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and deal with the social dimensions of globalization. Real security will remain illusory, especially for the poor, so long as police, courts and state institutions in many countries remain inept or corrupt. Many women will continue to feel insecure as long as they are unprotected from violence in their homes and communities. Amnesty International's campaign on Russia has highlighted the failure of the parliament to adopt legislation to criminalize domestic violence, despite 50 drafts, in a country where some 14,000 women die at the hands of their partners or family members each year. Addressing these diverse sources of insecurity requires commitment and investment by governments and the international community in all human rights economic, social, cultural, civil and political. It requires establishing or strengthening institutions that can protect human rights. New resources are being directed to security police and "counter-terrorism" agencies. Where is the new money, however, to strengthen the UN's human rights machinery which has been grossly under-funded for years? Where are the new resources to help countries build fair and effective justice and policing systems? Where are the funds to meet the social needs of poor and marginalized communities? Where is the political will and public awareness to combat violence against women? Global insecurity, far from diminishing the value of human rights, has actually heightened the need to respect them. A more secure world demands a paradigm shift in the concept of security, a shift that recognizes that insecurity and violence are best tackled by effective, accountable states which uphold, not violate, human rights. Unless that shift happens, security will be a skewed concept, bringing in its wake greater insecurity. Throughout the past year, Amnesty International has relentlessly challenged the narrow focus of the security agenda. Our members have lobbied governments, armed groups, corporations and others to promote and protect human rights around the world. Achieving real change in the lives of people is the measure of our success. This report documents achievements as well as disappointments. It records the efforts of our members to campaign for change, to demand justice, to expose the travesty of political rhetoric, to hold governments to account and above all, to tell the story behind the statistic, to give voice to the voiceless. Human rights are not a luxury for good times. They must be upheld at all times, including in times of danger and insecurity. They restrain governments from actions that harm and provide the standards for accountability. They empower people and give them the freedom to choose, to challenge and to shape their own destiny. They provide a framework for constructive dialogue between governments and peoples. If the quest for a safer world is to succeed, human rights must lie at its heart. © Amnesty International ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 12:58:47 PM
|
|
Re: Amnesty International annual report Dear Friends: In its 311-page annual report, Amnesty International states that the US war on terror has actually made the world a more dangerous place in which to live. "It has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict," it said in a statement. "The overwhelming impact of all this is genuine fear across all sectors of society." Amnesty International is the world's biggest and most respected human rights group. _______________________ Reuters May 29, 2003 'War on terror' Makes World More Dangerous - Amnesty International LONDON: Washington's "war on terror" has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from scrutiny, Amnesty International said yesterday. Releasing its annual report into global human rights abuses in 2002, the London-based watchdog also urged the world to do more to sort out Iraq's problems now the Gulf War is over. In one of its most critical sideswipes yet at Washington, Amnesty said the bid to stamp out terror in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, had largely backfired. "It has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins, sowing the seeds for more conflict," it said in a statement. "The overwhelming impact of all this is genuine fear across all sectors of society." In response, the US government said it was committed to international human rights policies and obligations. "We reject any criticism, any allegations, that our human rights efforts have diminished. Amnesty International's particular charges are incorrect," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told a daily briefing. "The war on terrorism has not detracted from our strong and steadfast commitment to human rights and democracy," he added. Amnesty also said the world was not doing enough to solve post-conflict problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, both bombed and invaded by US-led forces. Amnesty, which has become the world's biggest and most respected human rights group since it was founded over 40 years ago, highlighted the plight of over 600 detainees in a US military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have been held without charge or trial since the end of the war in Afghanistan. "While claiming to bring justice to victims in Iraq, the United States has actively sought to undermine the International Criminal Court, the mechanism for universal justice," it said. State Department spokesman Boucher responded by saying the United States had respected due process, international humanitarian law and "continued to maintain a system that respects clear legal authority...." Amnesty's 311-page report was not concerned solely with the crises triggered by the attacks of September 11. It said the intense media focus on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 meant human rights abuses in Ivory Coast, Colombia, Burundi, Chechnya and Nepal had gone largely unnoticed. @Reuters. All rights reserved. ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to: Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact: Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 12:57:37 PM
|
Last update: 6/3/2005; 8:12:07 PM .
