[Dean's World] Aziz P: human rights are not zero sum

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
human rights are not zero sum
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1179419263.shtml


   Consider that it is nearly impossible to "compare" atrocities. How can
   any meaningful comparison be made between the horrific human rights
   violations under Saddam's rule and the ongoing violations under the
   grip of anarchy and civil war? And yet, partisans of various stripes -
   for example, anti-war leftists or pro-war apologists - routinely seize
   upon one or the other to make their point that somehow, one state of
   afffairs was "better" and another "worse".

   What is even more disturbing is how perfectly legitimate and morally
   actionable facts get pushed to one side in favor of sexier propaganda.
   For example, during the Persian Gulf war, there were plenty of
   examples of brutality by the invading Iraqi forces; I know, because
   members of my own Dawoodi BOhra community in Kuwait bore witness to
   them. However, that "mundane" brutality was apparently not convincing
   enough. And so we heard the tales of Iraqi soldiers taking hundreds of
   babies out of incubators in Kuwait City and leaving them to die. Of
   course, [1]this never happened - it was in fact [2]pure propaganda of
   the basest sort:

     the incubator story was the centerpiece of a massive public
     relations campaign conducted by Hill and Knowlton [a PR firm] on
     behalf of a group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, for a fee of
     $11.5 million. After the war, the group revealed that it was
     financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government.

   (I am quoting snopes.com and the Christian Science Monitor, here.
   Hardly bastions of anti-war leftism.)

   Now, I repeat - I have friends and family who lived through the
   invasion and based on their factual reports alone, it was obvious that
   we needed to go in and liberate Kuwait. OBVIOUS. The problem with this
   sort of propaganda is that it is not just redundant, it betrays a
   certain lack of trust on the part of those who disseminate it - a deep
   cynicism about the moral judgement of the American people. And I find
   it insulting. Deeply insulting.

   To be honest I was torn about the Iraq war. Ultimately had the
   argument for war been solely based on human rights, liberation of
   Iraq, and national strategic interest in the broader war on terror,
   I'd have been a cheerleader from the start. But the WMD rhetoric
   undermined that, and insulted me, and made me doubt whether the
   Administration really had the vision I wanted them to have, or whether
   they too were just cynics about my moral judgement. Inspire me to war,
   don't try to scare me.

   Here is the [3]human rights record of pre-war Saddam-ruled Iraq, from
   Amnesty International. And here is [4]the modern day state of affairs
   in Iraq (including a nice history previous), again from Amnesty
   International, four years later. Neither is easy, bullet-point
   reading.

   The right question to ask is not "are things better" or "are things
   worse" but simply, "why aren't they MUCH better". Why are women in the
   fire of anarchy today rather than the frying pan of dictatorship
   yesterday? Why are we quibbling over mundane details? Why do we need
   the spectre of "rape rooms" to galvanize our moral conscience?

   In fact, let us consider rape. Is a systematic campaign of
   institutionalized rape enough of a casus belli for moral action? That
   certainly is the implication when someone breathlessly screams RAPE
   ROOMS in a comment thread. If so, [5]then what of Darfur?

     In the killing fields of Darfur, rape is a weapon of war. Tens of
     thousands of women and girls have been subjected to sexual violence
     as a deliberate means of humiliation and degradation.

     The rapists know the immense shame their actions bring to the
     abused women, their children, their families and their communities.
     It is a form of violence that is sexually and emotionally
     devastating to the victims - all the more so because of the
     conservative cultural and religious mores of the Darfur region.

     This Sunday is Human Rights Day. To mark the occasion, there is a
     second Global Day for Darfur; this time focusing on sexual violence
     against women. In London and many other cities worldwide, people
     will be highlighting the mass rape of Darfuri women and the urgent
     need for UN peace-keepers to help halt the violence, both physical
     and sexual.

     Since the Darfur Peace Agreement in May 2006, the reported
     incidence of rape has increased; in the last five weeks alone, more
     than 200 women have been sexually assaulted in and around Darfur's
     largest displaced person's camp, Kalma.

     Implicated in most of these rapes are the Sudanese security forces,
     their allied Janjaweed militias, and police deployed to protect
     refugees. Women also report being forced to exchange sexual favours
     for food and other essential items.

   Rape rooms? what about rape fields?

   Here is where I stand. I advocate withdrawal of the bulk of our forces
   from Iraq, but not all. I advocate a larger military, trained more
   heavily in peacekeeping and civil works than primary combat. I
   advocate boots on the ground, NOW, in Darfur. Not money, not
   logistical support, not coalitions; Boots. on the ground. NOW. That is
   the war I wanted Iraq to be too. And the failure of Iraq - measured by
   the simple metric, why aren't things MUCH BETTER than before - is not
   enough for me to be disillusioned with the idea that sometimes, a
   hyperpower can effect direct change against injustice.

References

   1. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p25s02-cogn.html
   2. http://www.snopes.com/military/stamp.htm
   3. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engMDE140082001!Open
   4. http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140012005
   5. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/12/rape_as_a_weapon_of_war.html