Re: Koh's article in the economist from a couple of weeks ago ... 1) We are the most visible outlier. For all of their atrocities, Messieurs Qaddafi et al have kept a much lower profile than us. Whether or not that's a communication issue is debatable, but I would think the world is right in holding us to a slightly higher standard of behavior than Turkmenistan?
2) We may disagree on the validity of freedom from want -- I for one believe in freedom of opportunity rather than want. The latter is nonetheless a freedom, and one that we're not very good at providing (again, relative to other rich democracies). Merely pointing out that our track record on economic human rights is suspect does make a strong case, but is factually correct in and of itself. 3) Take it from someone who grew up in communist Russia -- without freedom from fear, all other freedoms are meaningless. Fear is what challenges and questions every other promise that this nation has made to its people ... That's why some people are up in arms about things as trivial as library background investigations. That is Koh's strongest point that renders everything else as back up evidence. 4) The Chinese regime has run over students with tanks 14 years ago and counting. A lot of these guys (including the boss) are out of power, and China (however frustratingly) is making a transition towards a MORE (relatively) democratic society without submerging in a Russia-like bedlam. As far as Russia in Chechnya, Turkey in Kurdistan, Pakistan in Kashmir, etc, yes, Mr. Koh could and perhaps should have used those examples. It has been this nations policy to justify the means by holding up the end for the past 160 years, and it has piled up a solid track record of more good ends than bad. However, as they say in the mutual fund business, past performance does not guarantee future returns. It has worked for us in the past, but nonetheless contains moral and strategic flaws that should be and were pointed out. Lastly, this administration has been notoriously cavalier about how it presents its actions to the world. I have said to you (John) time and time again, the longer I hang out in this little world of ours, the more I am convinced that the wrapping matters more than the gift therein. What we do is often masked, distorted and undone by how we do it. In this light, a photo opportunity with the United Nations would have been more than appropriate. Good night, Andrew Medvedev Boston, Massachusetts -----Original Message----- From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:00 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rights to Remember (Harold Hongju Koh) I think that I have as much respect for _The Economist_, which I read religiously each week, as anyone on this List - but I must admit that I was embarassed to read this piece a week or two ago. It is not so much that _The Economist_ is printing a critique of the Bush Administraiton's policies on civil liberties - their editorial Board does that regularly enough - but rather my incredulity that they could find this ridiculousness worthy of devoting three pages of magazine space to. First, I hope that it is self-evident to everyone here that when Mr. Hoh writes that the US has moved from being the most visible supporter of international human rights to, and I quote, "its most visible outlier" - he is clearly lacking in all credibility as a sincere appraiser of the situation. In a world population by such nations as the DPRK, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Turkmenistan, and Zimbabwe - to call *the United States* the most visible human rights outlier should leave everyone absolutely speechless. Meanwhile, Mr. Koh's very understanding of human rights is also suspect. He frequently hints at international covenants enshrining "freedom from want" - but to the best of my knowledge, that has pretty much been a European "human rights" construct, and indeed, the United States has regularly shied away from codifying such "economic human rights." Mr. Koh's lack of specifics on this point, other than a vage reference to The New Deal further confirms my suspicions on this point. He furthermore accuses the Bush Administration of reducing America's "human rights presence around the globe" - which I find very difficult believe, and somehow connects this to Bush's policy of prioritizing "freedom from fear" above the other fundamental human rights of "freedom of speech, religion, and from want." (apparentlly freedom of the press and expression didn't rate for him, among others) I'll concede right now that if you follow this "logic," you are one step ahead of me. In addition, given only a short space in which to present his case Mr. Koh recurringly resorts to very strange examples. For all I know, the Pakistani population of Atlantic County, NJ has decreased by 50% because the only Pakistani couple living there got a divorce. At any rate, why the population of Pakistani immigrants in a single New Jersey county is of even the remotest interest goes left unsaid. The examples become a bit more frequent for Mr. Hoh when he seeks to indict Bush for providing "cover to many foreign governments who want to use "anti-terrorism" to justify their own crackdowns on human rights." Of course, one of these examples is of Australia which if you think about Mr. Hoh's previous statements is just a little bit funny. Is Australia *really* seeking cover for crackdowns on human rights from the actions of Mr. Bush? Indeed, if that is a little bit funny, how about the fact that the other examples of human rights crackdowns come from countries that have been cracking down on human rights for generations. For example, he cites the recent three-year extension of Egypt's emergency law, without ever mentioning that it has been in effect since at least the early 1980's. Not exactly a lie on Mr. Hoh's part I guess, but not exactly the truth either. Yet, this is not even Mr. Hoh's worst sin..... Mr. Hoh appears to sincerely believe that a Chinese regime which has run over unarmed students with tanks is somehow seeking cover for their policies from the actions of Mr. Bush. Again, not only does all of this not make sense, but it is so ludicrous as to call into question Mr. Hoh's credibility. Lastly, I ask all of you to apply your critical faculties to what is surely the most absurd of Mr. Koh's statements, even after considering all of the above. Mr. Koh, when asked to lay out the one way in which he would have changed history to prevent what he consideres the diastrous current state of the affiars - the very first thing that he proposes is that on 12 September 2001 the President of the United States should have immediately scheduled a photo opportunity at the United Nations. Yes, Mr. Koh, surely that would have changed everything. JDG _______________________________________________________ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
