Free Breaking News

Support free news online by subscribing today!

Human Rights Hypocrisy and Unjustified Condemnation

THE PHILIPPINE Constitution lists press freedom as a basic right of Filipinos, on par with the right to life, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and freedom from involuntary detention and torture.

KASAMA Vol. 18 No. 4 / October–November–December 2004 / Solidarity Philippines Australia Network

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. This is the generally accepted concept of Human Rights.

The Real Issue of Human Rights

The real issue is the interpretation of this concept and its application. There lies the greatest challenge and controversy about human rights. How it is interpreted and whether it is closely applied or not makes the greatest impact as to the realization of its nature as well as conforming to the call of upholding them.

The Philippines is in fact among those notorious for being unable to uphold human rights and have a cultural difficulty in accepting human rights. Despite this the United States, who is a major proponent of human rights is now expecting the Philippines to improve on its human rights record. Since it has a new administration and the same is popularly held as pro human rights.

Does the U.S Have the Right to Preach about Human Rights

There are two points to consider and one  is the assessment as to whether the United States has the moral and political high ground to preach about human rights and their protection. The facts point out that the United States neither has the moral fibre nor the political background to insist on human rights with regards to other countries.

They are a country that has as much if not more cases of human rights violations compared to the Philippines. Their wars have caused indiscriminate deaths all to further their pursuit of victory against real as well as imagined enemies. They have abused and mistreated individuals they detained under the suspicion of being its enemies in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo Bay. They have fostered conflict that resulted to the undignified way of life in almost every region in the world. They have in short never have substantially done what they preach and insist on other countries like the Philippines.

Does U.S Support the Act of Human Rights?

The second point that would be taken up would be that the United States has in fact indirectly supported governments that were violators of human rights, not supported effort to better protect human rights and indirect propagate human rights abuse globally. The United States has the facade that it is pro human rights but in fact does not really act on this image it propagates. It refused to sign into the international law creating the international court that would try violators of human rights.

It has pursued its own interests even if they had to deal with, install and support regimes that are repressive and are foremost violators of human rights. Did it not support Saddam Hussein before? Has the United States turned over to the international community its military personnel who have violated human rights? In fact, it’s own citizens have massive issues about human rights as well.

July 26, 2010 Posted by | Society | , , , , | Leave a Comment

Iran Threatened to Oust Foreign Oil Firms

Iranian Oil Minister Masoud Mirkazemi, seen here on July 5, has warned that Tehran will blacklist foreign firms like Russian energy giant Lukoil that pull out of projects because of sanctions against Tehran

Peter Ward on Mar 21, 2010

Bedevilled by a quarter-century old diplomatic quagmire with the United States, Iran’s foreign policy establishment has had to take into consideration the potential costs and benefits of a U.S.-Iraq war with respect to the integrity of its southern borders and the consequences (unintended or otherwise) of Iran’s complete encirclement by a pro-U.S. security belt comprised of Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Iraq. To avoid this “nightmare scenario,” Iran has engaged in an active “preventive diplomacy,” also called “active neutrality,” in the hopes of achieving a peaceful disarmament of Iraq, commensurate with its prevailing image, power, and prestige as a regional power. In essence, this has meant a greater status quo role for the Islamic Republic, contrary to its negative labelling as a “rogue” state by Washington policymakers.

As of late 2002, Iran held 90 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, or roughly 9% of the world’s total. The vast majority of Iran’s crude oil reserves are located in giant onshore fields in the south-western Khuzestan region near the Iraqi border and the Persian Gulf. Iran, which was the world’s fourth largest producer of crude oil, averaged about 3.72 million barrels per day. Iran’s economy relies heavily on oil export revenues – around 80-90 percent of total export earnings and 40-50 percent of the government budget.

Iran is most concerned with the new security challenges posed by the U.S. military presence across Iran’s national borders in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is, however, a historical legacy at play as well with their concomitant historical traumas. Iranians have been wary and sensitive to the presence of foreign armies along their immediate borders and incursions into Iran proper since the Qajar dynasty suffered two humiliating defeats at the hand of the Tsarist armies in the nineteenth century.

In this sense, more than any other, the current planning for an attack on Iran is fundamentally driven by concern over the safety of U.S. energy supplies. And all one need do is substitute the words “Iranian mullahs” for Saddam Hussein, and you have a perfect expression of the Bush administration case for making war on Iran.

So, even while publicly focusing on Iran’s weapons of mass destruction, key figures are certainly thinking in geopolitical terms about Iran’s role in the global energy equation and its capacity to obstruct the global flow of petroleum. And so, while oil may not be the administration’s sole reason for going to war with Iran, it is an essential factor in the overall strategic calculation that makes war likely.

Furthering aggravating the scenario is the recent report that Iran will blacklist foreign firms like Russian energy giant Lukoil that pull out of projects because of sanctions against Tehran. It is said that if one of the companies acts against Iran, it will be forced to consider the reality and put that company on a blacklist.

July 22, 2010 Posted by | News | , , , , , | Leave a Comment

Justice for Srebrenica

A woman mourns at a grave at the Lion's cemetery in Sarajevo

Source Mikhail Evstafiev

War crimes are any of various crimes, such as genocide or the mistreatment of prisoners of war, committed during a war and considered in violation of the conventions of warfare. A war criminal is someone who has been convicted of war crimes, crimes which violate international treaties and rules of engagement during periods of war. Typically, war criminals are prosecuted by third party courts or through specially established tribunals and conventions in their nations of origin. Some notable war criminals include Slobodon Milosevic, Hideki Tojo, and Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately for their victims, many war criminals successfully evade justice.

Recently Bereaved families and survivors came to bury hundreds of victims of the Srebrenica massacre Sunday as world leaders demanded the arrest of the general whose troops killed the 8,000 Muslim males 15 years ago. Tens of thousands of people, including European leaders, gathered near 775 green-covered coffins on the anniversary of the worst single atrocity on European soil since World War II. “We recognise that there can be no lasting peace without justice,” US President Barack Obama said in a speech read out at the Potocari graveyard near the town of Srebrenica. This meant the “prosecution and punishment of those who carried out the genocide,” he said. “This includes Ratko Mladic who presided over the killings and remains at large.”

A proper investigation into the activities of an accused war criminal can take months or years. Some war criminals are active members of their governments, and during the period in which the crimes concerned were committed, the war criminal may have had the support of his or her government. This often means that the actions of a war criminal are well concealed and covered up, making it extremely difficult to build a case. Testimony from victims can be an extremely useful tool, as can forensic examination of mass graves and suspected sites of criminal activity. A war criminal can be convicted of “crimes against humanity” such as genocide, along with crimes of aggression and failure to follow established military protocol. As one might imagine, the punishments for war criminals vary, depending on the type and magnitude of the crimes they are convicted of. Many countries have set up special tribunals for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting war criminals after periods of prolonged warfare, especially civil war.

These persons charged with war crimes have to be made accountable for their atrocities since their offense is not only to their victims but the whole of humanity.  Their acts of brutality and violence are so grave that it just not hurt their victims but wounded the whole of humanity.  Their liability far extends to their function and roles that they were fulfilling. They are monsters and their acts should serve as examples of the inhumanity that man can do to his fellow man. The only consolation that we have is that we learn from them so that in future generations there may be no other like them.

July 19, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , | Leave a Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.