May 27, 2004
MUMBO-JUMBO
Human rights climate 'worst in 50 years' (Simon Jeffery and Mark Oliver, The Guardian, May 26th, 2004)
Amnesty International today claimed that governments and armed groups such as al-Qaida were putting human rights and international humanitarian law under the greatest pressure for more than 50 years. [...]The 2004 annual report documents human rights abuses in 155 countries including execution, detention without judicial process, hostage taking and "disappearances" by state agents.
It condemns attacks by al-Qaida and others as "sometimes amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity" but says principles of international law that could prevent such attacks were being undermined and marginalised by powerful countries such as the US.
"Governments are losing their moral compass, sacrificing the global values of human rights in a blind pursuit of security. This failure of leadership is a dangerous concession to armed groups," said Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International.
"The global security agenda promoted by the US administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Violating human rights at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses has damaged justice and freedom, and made the world a more dangerous place."
The attacks of 9/11 forced us to confront the power, hatred and popularity of the Islamic movement. Since then, perhaps an even greater shock has been to see just how many in the West have had their critical faculties so badly warped by abstract, soft-leftist drivel. That these statements from Amnesty International don’t even make sense does not mean they won’t resonate with millions.
We tend to imagine that appeasement in the 1930's was an expression of collective fear whereby people cowered in their homes and, somewhat guiltily, refused to concern themselves with Hitler’s threats or his victims. In fact, it was an aggressivly idealistic force that was marked by a gradual demonizing of those victims, a preoccupation with the “underlying causes” of totalitarianism, a scorning of moral distinctions, utopian dreams and a constant blaming of all things Western and democratic for– well, just about everything. For many, it was an inspiring, cutting edge cause that filled young and not-so-young hearts with a sense of noble purpose and the conviction they were fighting for a just and peaceful world.
Isn't saying that worldwide civil rights are under the greatest pressure seen in at least 50 years just another way of saying Bush=Hitler?
Posted by: David Cohen at May 27, 2004 4:25 PMI assume that the T-word is never used within this farce (tragedy?) of a document.
Posted by: brian at May 27, 2004 4:51 PMVarious writers like to make some sort of point by saying that a single division, brigade or even platoon in response to Hitler's militarization of the Rhineland would have stopped him dead in his tracks.
What we have seen in the last couple of years is what would have really happened next if France, Britain or the US had enforce the Versailles treaty terms on the Germans. Let's not forget that the West failed to act in the first place because of the large pacificist Left in their midst prevented such actions in response to provocation. in a climate of pacts to "outlaw war" and resolutions "to not fight for King and Country" and the League of Nations still considerd to be useful, we'd have seen the Left go just as shrill as they do today. But the great thing about being on the Left is that since you produce the historians, no one ever really calls you to account.
OK, I'll bite: the human rights situation as influenced by the War on Terror is worse than -
China under the Cultural Revolution?
Tibet at the tender mercies of those same Chinese?
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?
The Soviet Gulags in the last days of Stalin?
Cuba at any point in the last 50 years?
The American South prior to the Civil Rights Act?
North Korea, Laos - heck, nearly all of Asia at one time or another?
I'm sure you can think of others; nearly all of these took place in totalitarian states, and all are brushed aside in this report. Their blindness to these excesses brings doubt to the rest of their findings, to put it very mildly.
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at May 27, 2004 11:36 PMAmnesty International believes that international law can prevent attacks by al-Qaeda ?!?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 27, 2004 11:40 PMRaoul:
That is an excellent description of the appeasement period. The tenth chapter of Paul Johnson's Modern Times goes into detail on how every segment of craven, Britain-hating, League of Nations-trusting, guilt-induced British left-wing opinion went into overdrive to "understand" Hitler and to oppose any military buildup in response to his threats.
Right after reading this particular chapter, I was talking to my parents and they asked me why I seemed to be in such a bad mood. I was spitting tacks.
Expecting leftists to heed these lessons would be expecting them to value common sense over shrill emotion, which we have repeatedly seen is asking for waaaaaay too much.
Posted by: Matt at May 28, 2004 12:07 AM