| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Examiner Editorial - Human rights groups mum on Iraq progress |
| 2005-09-02 |
| Supporters of democracy in Iraq are being targeted and assassinated by fellow Muslims, while religious and ethnic minorities are being subjected to similar persecution, and women face huge challenges in their uphill struggle for even the most basic rights. Conditions being what they are, one would think that so-called "rights groups" - such as the National Organization for Women or Human Rights Watch - would be standing in solidarity with the people of Iraq, helping to advance their causes and promote their post-Saddam successes, Now there's a novel concept! especially since Iraq lies in a region where liberties don't exist for many. That, however, does not seem to be the case. The sole press release regarding Iraqi women's rights put out by NOW is mostly critical of the Bush administration. NOW blames the administration for the fact that the Iraqi draft constitution does not explicitly mention women's rights and raises the proposition that the Bush administration has either "forgotten" its previous commitment to women's rights or even "purposely set it aside." Since NOW is upset they can't seem to control our constitution, I guess they think they should control the Iraqi document. This despite that Iraqi women are now being encouraged to get an education and represent a quarter of the Iraqi parliament under the new constitution. That's a minimum of 25%, where the actual in the US is 21%, IIRC. Apparently NOW only sees the glass as half-empty. And the glass can never be full with Bush in office. Groups committed to more general human rights are also silent on any progress being made in Iraq. In a 2005 report by Human Rights Watch, the United States military is accused of war crimes generally, if not wholly, stemming from the treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities, including harsh interrogation, exposure to loud music and sleep deprivation. However, the same group fails to give any serious play to Iraqis' newfound rights to freely assemble, peacefully express opinions against their government and travel. And the 2005 report on Iraq by Amnesty International is amazingly similar to that of Human Rights Watch. Are we suggesting plagerism, here? Amnesty - which came under serious scrutiny earlier this summer when it was revealed it compared Guantanamo Bay to a Soviet-era gulag - screams about American abuses, but is largely silent on any human rights advances made thanks to the removal of Saddam Hussein. Well, yeah, but that was last week. Whaddaya done this week, eh? It is disappointing that these groups - which, by and large, do fine work - I suppose the writer would know - apply their charter and mission selectively and fail to support the great successes that have occurred in Iraq following the U.S.-led invasion. Their disapproval of the war in Iraq and by extension the Bush administration (or vice versa) has led to an unfortunate exercise in hypocrisy on behalf at the expense of innocent civilians who would certainly benefit from the added support and exposure these groups could lend them. AI, HRW, and NOW could help in Iraq? Save lives, improve quality of life, encourage growth of the movement, that sort of stuff? What a cryin' shame they don't! Unfortunately, it appears that taking digs and potshots at the Bush administration outweighs the importance of genuinely advocating the rights of the Iraqi people. Right, there is no highlight missing there. That was the point of the editorial. The U.S. military is not the foremost violator of human rights in Iraq. Along with other coalition forces, it has facilitated the development of the democratic process in Iraq, freed the Iraqi press, helped in the distribution of medicine and other humanitarian aid, immunized many Iraqi children against common, preventable diseases and much more. They did? I didn't read about it in the Times. If rights advocacy groups like NOW, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International wish to remain credible, they would do well to focus on - and support - the positive developments from time to time, instead of wasting their political capital on short-sighted objectives. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #2 They lost thier credibility(They never had much)with me a long time ago. |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-09-02 09:16 |
| #1 If rights advocacy groups like NOW, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International wish to remain credible... Sorry, but the word remain implies that still have some credibility. They don't. So the more appropriate line would be ... If rights advocacy groups like NOW, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International wish to reestablish their credibility... |
| Posted by: Thinenter Phineque8219 2005-09-02 09:09 |