The Human Rights Blog

One of the most pressing issues of today is climate change, the significant increase in Earth’s overall temperature and climate.Typically, climate change is considered an environmental issue, but during her visit to the Philippines last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the Obama Administration joins the United Nations, and other world organizations in viewing climate change as both an environmental and human rights concern.

The results of climate change, which include rising ocean waters, drought, floods, and changing ecosystems restricts peoples’ access to the universally-recognized human rights of food, water, and adequate housing. Extreme climate conditions cause the spread and increased susceptibility to weather-related disease.Those who live in small island countries, women, and certain indigenous people are the most vulnerable groups.For example, the Inuit people of the Arctic regions of Russia, Greenland, Canada and the US, view climate change as an enormous impediment to their cultural survival. Dramatic changes in temperature has caused major shifts in their lands due to rapidly melting snow and ice, and has even resulted in the introduction of new animal species.Consequently, the Inuit people have lost homes, access to work, and the ability to partake in traditional activities like hunting, which is closely linked to their unique cultural identity.

In light of these issues, rethinking climate change from a human rights perspective seems to be a rightly-growing trend throughout the global community.For example, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights advocates a holistic approach to dealing with climate change, one that incorporates its human rights impact and the negative effects it has on societies around the world with the purely environmental concerns.This reasoning is based on the principle that human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, as stated in the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights, which formally reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter in 1993.  

The UN Human Rights Council strengthened their approach this past March with the adoption of a resolution declaring that climate change acutely affects human rights, especially those whose cultural identities are intertwined with the environment.Discussion of climate change as a human rights issue will continue next month in Copenhagen when world leaders from over 40 countries meet for the greatly-anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference.From December 7-18, representatives will hammer out a comprehensive international climate change agreement, using a draft negotiating text that will, for the first time, introduce the human rights aspect of climate change.

While most in the international community can agree that climate change is, at least, an environmental issue with human rights implications, others see climate change as a competing topic; one that may overshadow more “traditional” human rights issues. Others still, such as former President of Ireland and former UN Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, work to promote a “climate-justice approach,” placing human rights at the very center of the climate change debate.As Robinson wrote in her foreword for the report, Climate Change and Human Rights, “[t]he human rights framework reminds us that climate change is about suffering – about the human misery that results directly from the damage we are doing to nature… [I]f we build human rights criteria into our future planning, we will better understand who is at risk and how we should act to protect them.”

Certainly, when put in those terms, it is difficult to deny that human rights and climate change are, if nothing else, irrevocably linked.

Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/christianrevivalnetwork

Popularity: 2% [?]

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. – JFK

On November 9th, the world celebrated the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The Berlin Wall, a concrete and barbed wire barrier that stood as the physical division between East and West Berlin, served as perhaps the most recognizable symbol of the Iron Curtain, separating Western democratic ideology from Eastern communist thought.

In 1989, I was a fourth grade student, anxiously awaiting my 10^th birthday, which was one month away.  The night of November 9th, my Dad and I sat together to watch the ABC Nightly News with Peter Jennings, as we did nearly every evening.  The image I saw that night of ordinary individuals, shouting for joy while busting through the thick, concrete Wall covered in graffiti, is one of the most memorable media images of my childhood.  I was old enough to realize that I was watching freedom in action, which made me happy and excited although I did not fully comprehend the long history that went behind the story.

History of the Berlin Wall

Post WWII, the Allied forces of the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union divided Germany’s decimated capital city of Berlin into four zones.  While the US, French, and British zones became democratic, which allowed for a free-flow of information and ideas, the Soviet’s zone fell to communism.  Wishing to flee from the communist dictatorship, East Germans flocked to West Germany in droves – nearly 1,000 people a day – in the late 1950’s.  In response to the mass exodus, the East German government moved quickly and suddenly to construct a 27-mile long “fence” of concrete and barbed wire, completely dividing the city.  All communication lines between east and west were severed and residents were forbidden to cross the border.  The East German government told the people that the Wall was built to protect them from the West.  Soon thereafter, the East German government restricted all border crossings by barricading East Germany from all sides with barbed wire.  What came to be known as the Berlin Wall went through a series of “improvements,” changing the structure from a makeshift, barbed wire fence to a 12 foot high and over 100 mile long wall of concrete slab with steel girders and smooth pipes lining the top to prevent residents from climbing over the wall.

Conditions within East Germany became even more oppressive thereafter.  Residents lived in poverty and had little access to non-government controlled news and information. The Berlin Wall was guarded by armed East German soldiers at all times, who had authority to shoot those who attempted to defect.  Approximately 5,000 people attempted to escape over the Wall and hundreds were killed during their attempts. Perhaps the most recounted story is that of Peter Fechter, a young man who was shot by guards as he and a friend scaled the Wall.  While his friend made it to freedom, Fechter fell back to the East German side of the Wall where he was left on the ground for over an hour, bleeding to death while hundreds of civilians watched in horror.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall

By the late 1980’s, Communism began to weaken. During a 1987 visit to Berlin, President Ronald Reagan insisted that the Wall be destroyed.  In 1988, Mikhail Gorbachev encouraged East Germany to follow the Soviet Union’s new policies of openness and democratic reform (glasnost and perestroika).  When the border of Austria and Hungary crumbled in September 1989, which allowed 30,000 East Germans to escape, mass citizen-protests against the East German government ensued.  On November 4, 1989, over one million protesters demanded free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to travel.  Then, just as quickly and suddenly as the Wall’s construction commenced 28 years prior, the East German government announced that permanent relocation could begin immediately at all border checkpoints between East and West Berlin.  East Germans, shocked at the news, came to the borders to test the announcement, only to find that they were free to pass.  Soon, thousands of people, hammers and chisels in hand, joyfully chipped and carved away at the Wall while the world watched. The Berlin Wall, which stood as a symbol of communism and oppression for 28 years, was destroyed.

Construction of Another Wall is Nearly Complete

It may be difficult to imagine, but a new wall, which will dwarf the size and scope of the Berlin Wall, is under construction.  The State of Israel began building the Israeli West-Bank Barrier Wall nearly seven years ago to separate Israel from the West Bank.  Expected to be completed in 2010, the West-Bank Barrier Wall is a 400 mile-long, 26 foot-high mixture of fence and barbed wire, four times as long and high as the Berlin Wall.  In addition to the Barrier Wall, certain checkpoints include electric fencing, trenches, underground sensors, video surveillance and sniper towers.

Just as the East German government told its people that the Berlin Wall was a necessary means to protect them from the evils of Western influence, the Israeli government told its citizens that the West-Bank Barrier Wall is integral for their protection from Palestinian terrorists.  While the Israeli government expects the global community to believe that the Wall is a necessity, most in the international community agree that the Israeli government’s explanation is simply an excuse to impose grave restrictions on everyday Palestinian civilians. When complete, Palestinians who live near the Barrier Wall will lose access to their jobs, hospitals, and schools.

Five years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion condemning the Wall as illegal and calling for an immediate cease in construction.  The Court found that the Wall violates international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, and warned the international community not to provide any aid or assistance to Israel for the Wall’s construction.   Since then, few actions have been made to put the ICJ’s ruling into practice and the Israeli government stepped up construction efforts.

Most recently, and in light of the 20^th anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s destruction, Palestinian demonstrators approached the West-Bank Barrier Wall on November 9^th and pulled pieces from the structure using trucks.  Israeli occupation guards quickly arrived and fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the protestors, squashing the protest .  Ironically that same day, President Obama made a video address to the German people, stating, “Today, there still those who live within walls of tyranny; human beings who are denied the very human rights that we celebrate today.  And that is why this day is for them as much as it is for us. It is for those who believe….that walls can truly come down.”

Considering President Obama’s encouraging words and his campaign promises to put human rights on the forefront of American politics, I look forward to the day when we may soon celebrate the fall of yet another barrier to human rights.  This weekend, I encourage you to revisit the history and fall of the Berlin Wall, and then find out what you can do ensure that the construction of similar barriers to freedom are never completed.

You can read more about the 20^th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall:

Take a Tour of the History of the Berlin Wall – The Newseum

The Fall of the Berlin Wall, Your Memories

Find out more about the Israeli West-Bank Barrier Wall:

What is the West-Bank Barrier Wall?

Stop the Wall!

West Bank Barrier Violates Human Rights

Tell President Obama What You Think:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Popularity: 4% [?]

Today, President Obama embarks on his first and much-anticipated presidential tour of Asia.  As part of his nine-day trip, Obama visits China next week to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao.  Definite topics on the table for discussion are the economy, climate change, and the North Korean nuclear disputes.  What remains unclear, however, is Obama’s willingness to press the subject of human rights with Jintao publicly, despite chilling testimony given by Chinese citizens this week during the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission’s congressional hearings.

President Obama said that he plans to mention human rights to President Jintao directly, but he did not elaborate. Likewise, the White House’s explanation of Obama’s new strategic reassurance approach to China relations is ambiguous at best.  White House officials only reveal that the strategy is designed to highlight areas of commonality and face areas of contrast head-on.  Jeff Bader, the National Security Council’s senior director for East Asia, said that Obama will likely address freedom of expression, freedom of religion and Tibet with Jintao.  However, the Obama Administration has made no indication that Obama will talk about human rights publicly like he did during speeches in Egypt, Ghana, Turkey, and at the United Nations, or that he will challenge one of China’s most oppressive and long-standing strategies, the One-Child Policy.

The One-Child Policy, or Family Planning Policy, officially restricts the number of children that married, urban Chinese couples can produce.  The policy was introduced in the 1970’s as a means to combat poverty, pollution, and overpopulation in China.  Since then, the Chinese government has used a variety of harsh tactics to ensure the policy’s success, such as forced abortions, infanticide, and forced sterilizations.  The ancillary effects of this policy include gender preference, child abandonment, and the arrests and torture of pregnant women.

The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearings earlier this week confirm that this policy is still widely-followed. During the hearings, a Chinese woman gave heart-wrenching testimony about the forced abortion of her unborn child. The woman explained that her baby’s body was injected with poison, cut from her womb, and displayed to her in its dismembered form before being thrown in the trash. While the Commission’s findings have since circulated Internet news sources, little mention was made of this topic in mainstream media and TV news reports. This is a far cry from the publicity this policy received nearly fifteen years ago.  In the mid-1990’s, China’s One-Child Policy was discussed in schools and was frequently seen on the news.  In fact, I remember former classmates whose parents adopted Chinese girls who were abandoned as a result of the policy.  Over the last decade, however, the US-government’s stance and thus, the media’s coverage concerning this policy have grown weak.

The US government’s reticence to hold China accountable for their human rights abuses has gone on long enough. Clearly, President Obama must continue to build positive US-China relations, something that President Bush was able to accomplish through his non-confrontational approach of constructive engagement, but does this mean that human rights must continue to take a backseat?  Despite President Obama’s insistence that he will mention China’s human rights abuses to Jintao, critics and Chinese policy experts alike believe that he will not press the issue.  Similarly, Obama’s refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama when he visited the US in October and his plans to skip Tibet during his first Asian tour amid China’s warnings indicate Obama’s unwillingness to challenge China on touchy subjects.

The future of US-China relations is dependent on many, critical issues.  Human rights violations should certainly be among them.  Next week, President Obama has the perfect opportunity to make a strong, public US statement against China’s oppressive policies as well as solidify his own policy objectives towards the treatment of human rights with China.  I hope he will seize the opportunity and run with it.

Popularity: 1% [?]

“Life is the great primary and most precious and comprehensive of all human rights . . . whether it be coupled with virtue honor, and happiness, or with sin, disgrace and misery, the continued possession of it is rightfully not a matter of volition.” — Frederick Douglass

Today, many people across the DC region, who lived in absolute terror for nearly a month in the fall of 2002, celebrate the imminent demise of John Allen Muhammad, also known as the DC Sniper. Despite the fear I felt at the time and my sorrow over the lives that were stolen at the hands of Muhammad, I am not among those pleased by the news. Based on the subject matter of my blog, it should come as no surprise that I strongly oppose the death penalty and view the use of execution as a quintessential human rights violation. I hold this belief for a variety of reasons, but perhaps mostly due to my own basic beliefs that all people are entitled to a right to life, that the value of human life is most precious, and that the death penalty completely devalues this gift. Even the most deviant and destructive members of civilized society have the right to be alive, albeit behind bars. Likewise, I believe that humans inevitably lose a part of their humanity when they decide how and when to take the life of another for the primary purpose of reprisal, without taking into consideration the possibility, no matter how remote, of that human’s chance of rehabilitation or redemption.

I remember the terror that Muhammad and his partner Lee Boyd Malvo (who was 17 at the time) inflicted on me. In October 2002, I was a new college grad who had just officially moved to the DC area from my small hometown in Pennsylvania. After the first few random shootings, I started to feel afraid. I recall sitting with my now-husband at a bus stop in Alexandria City; just the two of us, in the dark, with our backs to trees, protected by only a thin wall of plexi-glass. We were convinced that we were going to die. A week later, my husband and I went to the Honda dealer in McLean to buy his first new car. We followed the salesman’s zigzag walking pattern and made sure to shield ourselves between the cars. At one point, the salesman darted back to the main building to grab some paperwork and my husband and I were left in the middle of the lot only to stare at every white van in sight. Crouching between the cars, I thought about how uncertain everyone’s lives had become. The woman who was gunned down outside of the nearby Seven Corner’s Home Depot shopping center was a former teacher of my husband and his friends when they were in DoD high school in Europe. The bus driver who was shot and killed was a close family friend of my husband’s co-worker. After two more weeks, I called my Mom and told her that I was really scared because like most people in the DMV, I was sure I’d be shot. Later, she told me that it was the first time she ever really heard fear in my voice. Two days later, Muhammad and Malvo were apprehended.

In total, 10 people were killed, 3 were seriously injured (including a child) and an entire metropolitan region was shook. Malvo escaped the death penalty since he was a minor at the time the shootings were committed. Muhammad was taken to Virginia Beach in order to receive an impartial jury. There, he was sentenced to death for killing Dean Harold Meyers in Manassas, Virginia.

In 2008, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia were the only countries who imposed more judicially sanctioned deaths than the United States. While the United States largely remains a retentionist country, 139 others have abolished the death penalty, either in law or in practice. Moreover, The International Criminal Court cannot and will not subject any criminals to the death penalty, even those who committed genocide, war crimes, and the most egregious crimes against humanity. Across the Atlantic, the European Union made the abolition of member states’ death penalty practices a pre-condition for entry into the bloc. Our North American neighbors, Mexico and Canada, will not extradite individuals to the United States unless guarantees are made that the death penalty will not be sought. Perhaps most telling, the American Bar Association called for a death penalty moratorium through their long-standing Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project.

In the United States, the connection between “the death penalty” and “human rights” is not often made. Rather, when speaking of the death penalty, US policy makers and politicos often refer only to the constitutional rights or civil rights of the individual, which pushes the human rights aspect to the periphery and narrows the death penalty debate to one focused on race and class alone. I ask everyone, no matter your stance, to consider the death penalty as intersecting with the sphere of human rights. I also challenge everyone to consider the sort of society in which you prefer to live; one that is concerned solely with “retribution and deterrence,” as stated in Gregg v. Georgia, or one committed to assessing appropriate punishments, promoting rehabilitation and recognizing the possibility of personal reconciliation.

If you are interested in learning more about the death penalty as a human rights issue, please read the following in addition to the hyperlinks provided above:

Amnesty International – The Death Penalty v. Human Rights

Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

Policies of Religious Groups Towards the Death Penalty

Popularity: 1% [?]

On November 20^th, 193 countries will celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the most rapidly and comprehensively ratified treaty in history of the world – The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).  Two countries, however, will sadly miss out – Somalia and The United States of America.  Embarrassingly, the US stands with Somalia as the only two countries on the planet that have not ratified the CRC. What’s even more embarrassing is that Somalia has an excuse. Since a Somali government did not exist at the time of ratification, the country literally could not ratify the treaty.

Throughout history and still today, many societies believe that children are without rights, likening children to property, such as cattle or dogs.  The CRC is a legally binding, international treaty that recognizes basic human rights for children, such as the right to survival and the right to be free from abuse and exploitation.  Since ratification, the CRC has been integral in helping countries and international organizations shape new laws that protect children from horrors like forced conscription, child labor, disease, abuse, and more.  While many of the world’s children still suffer enormously at the hands of adults, the CRC stands as a symbol of hope and a guide towards positive changes for the protection of children worldwide.

How disgraceful that for 20 years, the United States has essentially stood alone as an opponent of a treaty designed to recognize the human rights of children.  How pitiable that US critics of the CRC point to the potential loss of US sovereignty as their primary reason to reject a treaty that aims to protect the lives of children.  How highly misguided of others to seriously believe that the CRC is anti-American and anti-family!  How can a treaty, which recognizes a child’s right to live freely, without torment or neglect, be considered anti-family?  True, a parent’s right to raise their child as they see fit is protected by the Constitution.  However, I have yet to see concrete evidence of how the CRC, which promotes children’s rights, would undermine parents’ rights? Do critics actually want us to believe that the two notions are mutually exclusive?

President Obama and emerging others, such as child rights champion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), don’t seem to believe this either.  Earlier this year, the Obama Administration voiced its dedication to move human rights back to the front burner of American political debate, and specifically mentioned the CRC.  This year, change was promised to us all, including children.  In keeping with this promise, it is high time for the US to take substantive steps towards ratification of the CRC before our nation goes down in history as the only democracy in the world that denies the concept of children’s human rights.

Front page photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Popularity: 2% [?]