In spite of the fact that American policy makers have not always lived up to the high ideals epitomized in the Constitution, this country was still respected around the world for its commitment to protecting its citizens' human rights. In several instances, founders of newly emerging nations have demonstrated their regard for America's special association with ideals of freedom by basing their sets of laws on those in the document created by this country's Founders.
Some time in the next few weeks, the vast apparatus of the US State Department will disgorge a large report grading the human rights performance of pretty much anything worth calling a country. The Americans, being Americans, have been producing these reports annually since 1977, all the better to nudge the rest of us towards the apex of human endeavour Americans like to believe they embody.
If the world's only superpower feels like using its global dominance to embarrass dictatorial regimes for abusing the rights of the humans they rule, more power to it. For all its faults, the United States has long embodied an enviable set of rights and freedoms, at least in theory. So if it wants to promote those freedoms abroad by setting itself up as a beacon of governing excellence, why shouldn't it? The trouble is, as any parent knows, nothing undermines a reprimand more than the realisation that the accuser has behaved like the accused. And that is why, thanks to the recent behaviour of the Bush Administration, this year's State Department report is going to have far less sway.
The department's publications are known formally as Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. And every year, their release sets off a great bout of bleating from those mentioned. . . . But this year, the US itself has changed so much that the cries of hypocrisy from abroad will carry far greater weight than they should.
In last year's report, for example, the State Department gravely commented on the difficulties in getting a fair trial in Iraq where there are "special security courts" which "hear cases in secret" and, worse, "many cases appear to end in summary execution, although defendants may appeal to the President for clemency". That president would be Saddam Hussein, a man second only to Osama bin Laden in contemporary America's pantheon of evil.
What will the department say this year, now that the Bush Administration has responded to the September 11 terrorist attacks by setting up military tribunals where suspected terrorists can be tried secretly, after which they can be put to death with their only avenue of appeal being the president or defence secretary?
We await with interest. . . .
Then there is press freedom, another topic that always features heavily in the State Department's reports. Last year, the department found that in Malaysia "government restrictions, pressure, and intimidation led to a high degree of press self-censorship". In Singapore, the department reported there were "informal methods of government influence, that continue to restrict freedom of speech and the press significantly."
Normally, one couldn't imagine this sort of criticism ever applying to the American media. Yet after the September 11 attacks, President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleeza Rice, had a conference call with representatives of the five major television networks in which she asked them to "exercise judgement" about airing videos of Osama bin Laden.
And amazingly, all five networks--ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN--agreed that really, it was probably quite sensible to check such broadcasts. For those of us who have long admired America's attempts to act as a force for human liberty around the world, it is not just extraordinary. It is sad.
View Printable Format