The Human Rights Blog

Today marks the 20^th anniversary of World AIDS Day.  Out of the 33 million people, worldwide, who live with HIV/AIDS, the largest concentration can be found in Africa.

I am often asked why certain African countries see disproportionately higher numbers of HIV/AIDS victims than comparable countries around the world.  One of the most important components to fairly and fully answering this question is not typically addressed by mainstream media, surprisingly even on World AIDS Day. With this question and this year’s AIDS Day themes of “universal prevention and human rights” in mind, there is no time like the present to take a closer look at one of the most devastating, yet least talked about, culprits of the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Although rarely discussed outside of the realms of human rights activism and African politics, rape is a major contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Because of widespread social and cultural stigmas surrounding the disease, warring rebel groups commonly use rape to systematically spread AIDS to civilian women and children as a way to completely destroy families and local communities.  In addition, some African countries have developed a “culture of rape” after enduring years of military and genocidal rape, or allowing for the rape of young girls, children and infants as a mythical cure for AIDS.

The Spread of AIDS via rape as a weapon of war:

A primary example of the spread of AIDS through rape as a weapon of war can be found in the war-torn country of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  The DRC has as many as six rebel militia groups.  Within these groups, the soldiers’ rate of HIV/AIDS infection is 60%, which is four times higher than the general population.  These rebel groups also have a long history of using rape as a weapon, which was effective genocidal tool for them fifteen years ago in neighboring Rwanda, the country from whence the rebels came in 1996. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the DRC’s HIV/AIDS infection rate is one of the world’s highest at 1.3 million. (Incidentally, although so many Congolese people are forcibly infected, the DRC ranks in the bottom five of African countries who provide access to antiretroviral therapy.)

The Spread of AIDS as a result of a rape culture:

Adding to the prevalence of rape is the widespread mistaken belief, by both soldiers and civilian men, that intercourse with a virgin is a cure for AIDS.  South Africa is a striking example of a nation that widely believed in The Virgin Cure.  For many years, very young women, children, and even infants were viewed as an HIV/AIDS antidote and were frequently victimized. Those who no longer believe in the Virgin Cure have still seen a lifetime of violence against women and children that largely went unchecked.  As a result, rape has developed into a way of life. A 2009 survey by South Africa’s Medical Research Council revealed that 1 in 4 of South African civilian men admitted to raping a woman or young girl.  As a result, South Africa leads the world in the number of HIV/AIDS infected individuals with 5.2 million.

When considering AIDS in Africa, the focus is usually placed on disseminating shocking statistics, urging people to use condoms, and asking for donations, but the issue of AIDS in Africa is clearly much more complex.  The spread of HIV/AIDS through rape, both as a weapon of war and as a cultural norm, must be explored openly. Missing such a critical component to the HIV/AIDS prevention formula only adds to racial and cultural stereotypes about AIDS amongst Africans.  On this World AIDS Day, I encourage all of us to educate ourselves, not only about “HIV/AIDS facts and stats,” but also about the human rights implications of this disease, specifically the AIDS/rape connection.  Once armed with this knowledge, you will no doubt be able to think about AIDS in Africa from a new, more informed perspective.

Learn More:

Amnesty International Analysis, December 1, 2009

United Nations Mission in the DRC – AIDS Report, December 1, 2009

Google’s links for World AIDS Day 2009: “Learn, act, and give.”

Sign a letter for DRC’s President Joseph Kabila, urging him to bring rapists to justice

LUMO Movie Trailer

Popularity: 1% [?]

This Sunday marks the start of the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World, during which over 1,000 delegates will review The Ottawa Treaty, otherwise known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, or simply The Mine Ban Treaty. With the review conference and President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ceremony just days away, the Obama Administration deemed it an appropriate time to announce its decision to join human rights bastions like China, Pakistan, Cuba, and Myanmar, in its refusal to support The Mine Ban Treaty.   158 other countries endorse the Treaty, including every other country in the Western Hemisphere (minus Cuba) and all our NATO allies.  The decision was made in a brief, closed-door State Department session and no official reasons have since been offered.

The Mine Ban Treaty bans the construction and development of all AP landmines.  State Parties must also promise to destroy all their AP landmines within four years, provide annual transparency reports and offer victim assistance for those devastated by landmine explosions. The Covenant’s inception was inspired by Princess Diana’s 1997 visits to Angola and Bosnia, where she was famously photographed wearing a helmet and ballistic jacket while walking through mine fields.  At the time, Angola had more than one landmine per Angolan citizen, or 10 million land mines, buried in the country while Bosnia had an estimated 750,000.  As a result of Princess Diana’s work and The Mine Ban Treaty, more than 2.2 million AP landmines have been removed worldwide in the past decade.

The United States’ refusal to ratify The Mine Ban Treaty seems a strange turn, even for an Administration that has, thus far, straddled the fence in their approach to human rights. The fact that President Obama intends to send an observer to Cartagena was viewed by most as a positive indication of the United States’ intended support of the Treaty.  Moreover, since the United States has not produced or used an AP landmine in over a decade, and since nearly all of the United States’ allies support the Treaty, it is particularly puzzling that the State Department’s only explanations for this decision are conflicts with current national defense needs and US security commitments.

If the Obama Administration truly wants the world to believe that human rights is, indeed, an “essential element of American global foreign policy,” as Secretary of State Clinton said earlier this year, the Administration must break free of the human rights routine of former President Bush and take substantive steps towards protecting the world’s citizens. The first step could have been an easy one; ratifying a covenant that the United States already follows. How sad that such a perfect opportunity was missed.  Perhaps a second review of The Mine Ban Treaty is necessary not only in Cartagena, but in Washington as well.

Has this post sparked your interest?  Read more at:

The Nobel Peace Prize’s International Campaign to Ban Landmines

The Miss Landmine Beauty Pageant

UNICEF – Landmines pose a particular threat to children

Popularity: 2% [?]

Allow me to posture a scenario for you.

You are the US Attorney General.  Of the 215 inmates still held in Guantanamo Bay, ten are up for trial in the United States.  You must decide who will stand trial in civilian criminal court and who will be prosecuted by a revived military commission.  Among the ten prisoners are a terrorist mastermind, four of the mastermind’s cohorts, the bombers of an American war vessel, and a child prisoner.  As Attorney General, it is your job to decide “who gets tried where.”  What do you do?

US Attorney General Eric Holder recently faced this scenario and made the controversial decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) and four other 9/11 suspects in civilian criminal court. Democrats lauded Holder’s decision, explaining that such a move will restore the integrity of American jurisprudence and “show the world” the power of our judicial system. At the same time, Holder announced that the military prosecution of five other Guantanamo prisoners would resume after being put on hold by President Obama earlier this year.  These five prisoners include the USS Cole bombers and one other – Omar Khadr – a once child-prisoner and Canadian citizen who has been held in Guantanamo for nearly eight years.

The story of Omar Khadr is one that I thought was rather well-known throughout the US.  I was wrong.  I asked some family members if they had ever heard of Omar Khadr, or the “child-soldiers” of Guantanamo Bay. Most had no clue what I was talking about and only a few even recognized the name.  With that in mind, I’d like to share the story of Omar Khadr, a former child-soldier who will soon again face a military tribunal while KSM – the 9/11 mastermind – prepares for a “fair and balanced” civilian trial.

Omar’s Story:

Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen who was born to wealthy, fundamentalist Muslim parents in Toronto in 1986.  He was educated in both Canada and Pakistan, as the family frequently travelled between the two countries.  In 1996, Khadr’s father moved the family to Afghanistan to be closer to Osama Bin Laden.  As a young child, Khadr played with Bin Laden’s children and met many Al-Qaeda members, knowledge which would one day make him invaluable to the United States government.  Because of his financial involvements with Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, Khadr’s father was often away, but returned home in 2002.  Against the wishes of Khadr’s mother, his father ordered him to live with Afghan militants and serve as a translator.  (Khadr’s father told his children that they were to live for Islam, or that he would kill them himself.)

After serving as a translator for a few months, US troops bombed the compound where Khadr stayed. Believing all those inside were dead, a small group of US ground soldiers enter the compound while US troops continued to throw grenades.  Inside, the soldiers found a survivor, an armed Al-Qaeda militant.  After killing the armed man, a US soldier known as OC-1, literally stumbled over a motionless, blinded, and unarmed Khadr, whose back was to the fighting.  Official reports and soldier accounts now prove that Khadr clearly looked younger than 15 and was lying face down; crippled by the explosion, blinded by a grenade, and trapped beneath the rubble. Upon finding his body, OC-1 shot Khadr in the back twice.  After the soldiers determined that Khadr was still alive, they planned to finish him off but were ordered to stop by Delta Force soldiers who arrived on the scene.  An unconscious and badly wounded Khadr was airlifted to the infamous Bagram Internment Facility, where interrogations began soon after he regained consciousness.

At Bagram, Khadr was charged with war crimes; specifically throwing a grenade that killed American medic, Christopher Speer.  Not since the Nuremberg Trials had a child been charged with war crimes. Khadr was kept in a cell with ten adult terrorist suspects and endured numerous forms of torture, even after officials confirmed his age and Canadian citizenship.  (Khadr’s primary interrogator later pled guilty to torturing detainees to obtain confessions.)  The Canadian Embassy sent a letter to the US government to request special treatment for Khadr on account of his age, and asked that he not be transferred to Guantanamo.  Three months later, and without providing notification to the Canadian government, a nearly blind Khadr was transferred to Guantanamo using the same sensory deprivation techniques used on adults.

At Guantanamo, Khadr was treated as an adult, enduring sleep deprivation, beatings, long periods of solitary confinement, threats of rape, shackling, stress positioning, and being dragged in urine like a “human mop,” among other tortures.  A 2003 video excerpt of a four-day interrogation by a US CIA Officer and a Canadian Security Intelligence officer showed a then-16-year old Khadr who was bruised, sleep-deprived, nearly blind and mentally unraveled.  He repeatedly sobbed, “kill me,” and cried out for his mother.

Khadr’s ability to recognize and describe known terrorists has been exceedingly useful to the US and Canadian governments, and Khadr soon became known as “the treasure trove.”  Despite the fact that the Pentagon released evidence confirming that it was the wounded armed militant, and not Khadr, who had thrown the grenade and that friendly-fire more than likely killed Speer, the US still refuses to repatriate him, probably because of his value to US intelligence.  Khadr’s detention clearly violates international treaties to which both the US and Canada are a part, in particular the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and the US government continually refused to recognize Khadr’s status as a child. He remains the youngest prisoner, and only Western citizen, at Guantanamo.

Omar Khadr in Military Court

In response to challenges put forth by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Holder offered no clear baseline as to how he made the decision to send the 9/11 terrorists to civilian court and the other prisoners to revived military tribunals.  Why Holder chose to try KSM in civilian court but decided that a former child soldier should stand trial in front of an “improved” military commission that the Obama Administration discredited only last year is utterly perplexing to me, and highly disturbing.  One thing is for certain, though; if Attorney General Holder and President Obama actually believe that this paradoxical decision sets a shining example of America’s jurisprudential power for the world, they are sadly mistaken. Such a decision, based on nothing but conjecture and Holder’s personal opinion, seems nothing short of flawed.

Although Holder announced that Khadr would face the military tribunal, he managed to stop short of ruling out Khadr’s repatriation to Canada. Holder explained at a press conference in Washington that he is still looking at the Khadr matter and will proceed accordingly as his trial proceeds. If Attorney General Holder and President Obama really want to impress the world with the might of America’s judicial system, I would urge them both to take a long, hard look at Khadr’s case.  Certainly, it should not take the country’s top lawyer to realize that the right answer is to REPATRIATE OMAR KHADR.  Such action is the best way for the United States’ judicial system to serve as a beacon for all nations to follow.

For more information about Omar Khadr and child soldiers, please take a look at the following:

The Omar Khadr Project

The Child as War Criminal – 2007 NY Times opinion article by Syracuse University Law Professor David Crane

Interview with Omar Khadr’s sister, November 2009

Popularity: 1% [?]

Welcome to Part II of the “Human Rights Informational Series.” Last week, I posted the five essential things I think everyone should know about human rights.  This week, I’ve included the five essentials to understanding treaties , which may be particularly useful information for budding human rights activists or those who simply want to build a stronger foundation in human rights.

Part II – The Five Essentials to Understanding Treaties

1. Treaties are…

According to the The Vienna Convention, a treaty is a written, international agreement between states (countries) that is governed by international law.  In order for a state to be bound to the treaty and its obligations, the treaty must be ratified by the state and entered into force.  States that sign a treaty, but do not ratify, are not bound to it by international law.  Likewise, a treaty that has been ratified but not entered into force is not binding.  For example, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was signed by the United States, but never ratified.  Thus, when the CRC was entered into force, the US was not bound to it.

Once entered into force, all states that ratified the treaty must perform the treaty’s obligations in good faith, or pacta sunt servanda, which is Latin for “agreements must be kept.” If a state does not perform the treaty in good faith, a case may be brought against the state in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

2. Treaty disputes are settled by the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ is the primary international court of the United Nations, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.  The ICJ has a panel of 15 elected judges who resolve treaty disputes between nations.  However, in order for the ICJ to preside over a state, the state must have accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction. This can be accomplished in three ways, but most commonly, a state agrees to the ICJ’s jurisdiction through a clause in the treaty, or jurisdictional clause, giving the ICJ authority to resolve potential disputes.

3. States can’t agree to just anything.  Restrictions do apply.

According to The Vienna Convention, a treaty that derogates from peremptory norms is void.  Peremptory norms of international law, or jus cogens, are certain standards accepted by the international community, which cannot be violated by any state and thereby provide limits to international treaties.  An actual list of limitations does not exist; rather, case law precedence, social customs and political standards set the peremptory norms.  Thus, treaties that allow for genocide, slavery, certain war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., are automatically void ab initio because they conflict with peremptory norms.

4. What does the United States Constitution say about treaties?

Article 6 of the US Constitution states that the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.  Article 2, which is also known as the Treaty Clause, explains that the President has the power to make treaties by and with the advice and consent (two-thirds) of the Senate.

As “Chief Diplomat” of the United States, the President also has constitutional authority to enter into Executive Agreements – accords with other nations without the advice and consent of the Senate. Such agreements are usually made for political, foreign-policy reasons and are typically used in limited capacity.

5. Even though treaties are the supreme law of the land, not all treaties prevail over US law.

Treaties are either self-executing or non-self-executing.  A self-executing treaty does not require federal legislation in order for the treaty to have the effect of law.  Simply put, once the United States ratifies a self-executing treaty, the US must automatically abide by the treaty’s obligations.   A non-self-executing treaty, on the other hand, requires that additional federal legislation, called “implementing legislation” be enacted to essentially write the treaty into law.

It is particularly important to know and understand that human rights treaties that are ratified by the United States are always non-self-executing.  Again, before a human rights treaty becomes the supreme law of the land in the United States, Congress must first pass implementing legislation.  (Incidentally, it is for this reason that I happen to find the United States’ failure to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child exceedingly perplexing, since ratification alone would not cause the CRC’s obligations to trump US law.)

For more reading about treaties, please take a look at the link below:

The International Law of Treaties

Popularity: 1% [?]

The world’s most persecuted ethnic group is one with which many people are unfamiliar – The Roma – descendants of Punjabi warriors who left Northern India towards the end of the first millennia to escape the spread of Islam. The Roma are the largest ethnic minority population in Europe, with approximately 12 million living throughout the European Union.

My great-grandfather was a Cigany (Hungarian Roma) who came to America at 18 years-old with only his violin and the clothes on his back. Very tall, thin, handsome, and dark, my Great-Grandfather Holti stood out amongst Berwick, Pennsylvania’s immigrant population of Italians, Carpatho-Rusyns, and Poles. Although he was quiet and gentle, most viewed him as a dangerous man with “strange talents” (referencing his ability to graft a tree to produce four different types of fruit) and who played bizarre music on his violin. Because of fear and prejudice, my great-grandfather and his children faced many forms of mistreatment; from being banished from church to being stoned in the streets. While the discrimination against our family faded over time, my grandfather’s tale is similar to present-day accounts of abuse found across the Atlantic.

Throughout history and still today, the Roma experience some of the worst forms of persecution and disenfranchisement on earth – slavery, genocide, systematic segregation, extreme poverty, public humiliation and racism. Shortly after settling in Europe, the Roma were enslaved by the Romanians because of their dark features and seemingly strange lifestyle and language. Roma slavery lasted nearly 500 years until Romanian abolitionists, influenced by the United States’ anti-slavery movement, gradually freed the Roma in the mid-1850’s. After enduring subsequent banishments, imprisonment, and social exclusion, Roma suffered multiple periods of genocide; most notably Spain’s “Great Gypsy Round-up,” where Spanish Roma (gitanos) were captured and systematically separated by sex to avoid further procreation of the Roma race, and the “Gypsy Genocide” by the Nazis during WWII, in which 500,000 Roma were killed while thousands of others were used as subjects in genetic “race” testing.

Though many years have passed since the days of Roma round-ups, the Roma continue to suffer horrible human rights abuses, ironically at the hands of countries that boast the most progressive human rights policies in the world. Many Europeans harbor extreme prejudice towards Roma people because of pervasive cultural stereotypes. Hate crimes against the Roma are widespread and violent, as evidenced by a killing spree of Roma people in Hungary this year. Roma children in Europe have little access to adequate education, making their primary school completion rate equal to that of many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Most Roma children attend segregated schools and those who participate in Europe’s mainstream schools are routinely placed in special education classes for the developmentally disabled.

In addition to citizen-prejudice, Roma families are often subjected to extreme EU member state policies. For example, 27 Roma-owned homes were demolished by Bulgaria’s Burgas municipal government just this fall. As a result, nearly 200 Roma people, including 80 children, were forced to the streets because no housing alternatives were provided. Even though the European Roma Rights Centre sent four letters of concern to Bulgaria’s Interior Minister, these families have yet to receive reparations. An example of the most controversial measure taken by an EU member state is Italy’s Ethnic Registration policy, which requires Italian Roma to register with the Italian government and submit to fingerprinting.

While conditions remain difficult for the Roma, there is some evidence of improvement. Just last week, donors in Brussels announced that over €25 million in funding will go towards the Roma Educational Fund. Still, while most measures are designed to help the Roma directly, most do nothing to change negative, long-standing stereotypes, which is the true catalyst for change. And, while the European Union strongly condemns all forms of violence against the Roma, public, blatant racism against them largely goes unchecked. For example, during a concert in Bucharest this past August, Madonna, who is adored by most Europeans, was booed offstage after she told the crowd of 60,000 that discrimination against the Roma in Eastern Europe “made her sad.”

The answer to protecting the most persecuted people in the world is a two-fold process: Educate and mandate. Europeans must be educated as to the true nature of Roma culture and identity. Public humiliation and violence against the Roma must not only be denounced by the European Union, but also punished by the European Commission. Likewise, European and Roma children alike should be taught Roma history, including the Roma Holocaust experience, and must be made aware of the Roma’s influence on European culture and society.

Do you agree that the Roma are the most persecuted people on the planet? Learn More About the Roma:

Hope for the Roma

Opre, Roma!

The Decade of Roma Inclusion

European Committee on Romani Emancipation

Popularity: 8% [?]