Representatives of the US State Department have just appeared before the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to answer questions from, among others, Cuba, Iran and North Korea.
If it wasn't serious the hypocrisy would be funny:
""Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.”
Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.”
North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.”
Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”"
The UN has a gift for inappropriate appointments. North Korea is not only on the Human Rights Council. It was appointed to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development even though many of its people routinely suffer from starvation because of the regime's totalitarian nature.
An interesting editorial in yesterday's Washington Post argues that a $30m investment could mean that fifty million extra people in repressive regimes could have access to Twitter. Apparently the US State Department has the money within its budgets for this very purpose but has not yet disbursed it.
The Global Internet Freedom Consortium and similar groups have developed the capacity to give citizens of China, Burma, Iran, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes free access to internet services like Twitter. The Consortium declares its mission with these powerful words:
Writing in June, Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times described the power of these "censorship-evasion technologies".
Last week was a big week for President Obama's mission to show that US foreign policy will be very different under his administration. On climate change, 'torture', Cuba and relations with other American states he communicated his change agenda. The BBC communicated all four shifts:
On climate change... "The US government is to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, having decided that it and five other greenhouse gases may endanger human health and well-being. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the move following a review of the scientific evidence. The decision marks a major change from the Bush presidency, when the EPA argued it could not regulate CO2 because the gas was not a pollutant."
Publication of 'torture' memos... "The US has published four secret memos detailing legal justification for the Bush-era CIA interrogation programme. Critics of the programme say the methods used amounted to torture. President Barack Obama has also issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employees will be prosecuted for their role in the interrogation programme."
"President Barack Obama has said the US seeks an "equal partnership" with all the nations of the Americas. Mr Obama said in particular that he wanted a thaw in relations between the US and Cuba, having earlier shaken hands with one of the US's harshest critics, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez."
A easing of restrictions on Cuba... "US President Barack Obama has approved measures that will allow Cuban Americans to travel more freely to Cuba, his spokesman has said. Cuban-Americans will also be allowed to send more money to relatives in Cuba. The move, announced by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, comes after Mr Obama last month signed a spending bill easing some economic sanctions on Cuba."
Writing in the Financial Times Clive Crook attempted to define an Obama foreign policy doctrine. He identified a key ingredient as personal warmth:
"Mr Obama’s willingness to start anew, ask what works, offer respect to governments that crave it (even if they may not deserve it) and patiently seek progress where he may is refreshing.
One aspect of this pragmatism is the president’s desire to build alliances and cool old enmities, and work towards US aims through co-operation rather than confrontation. The trouble is, most US presidents – including Mr Obama’s predecessor – felt the same way until the world beat it out of them. Foreign policy doctrine is put to the test only when co-operation in pursuit of mutual interests fails to achieve results, and the hard choices that Mr Obama insists he is willing to make actually present themselves.
Though it is much too soon to write off Mr Obama’s friendly overtures, you could hardly describe them so far as a notable success. He travelled to Europe this month and received ovations at every step; presidents and prime ministers jostled like giddy teenagers to be photographed with him. Yet he went away with nothing: no co-ordinated fiscal stimulus; no meaningful commitments of new military support in Afghanistan. Judged by the outcome, could his predecessor have done much worse?
The world agreed that North Korea’s missile test should be opposed; the US even hinted it might shoot the rocket down. The launch went ahead without repercussions. The US and its allies could not agree on a response.
The world believes that Iran should be stopped from developing nuclear weapons, but the allies drag their feet over sanctions."
