CHRC honors prisoner of conscience

In honor of Aung San Suu Kyi’s 62^nd birthday, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC) today celebrated the ongoing battle against the violation of human rights throughout the world. Kyi is a Nobel Peace Laureate that has been imprisoned in Burma for the past 11 years. Her sentence of house arrest has recently been extended for an additional year despite continuous outrage by human rights organizations and governments.

Since 1962, Burma has been ruled by a military junta; a tenure that is marked by the murders of opposition members and the continued incarceration of political dissidents. In the most recent version of the U.S. State Department’s annual country reports on human rights, the Burmese government, with its extensive corruption and abuses of power, has been characterized as a regular violator of human rights, as it continues “extrajudicial killings, custodial deaths, disappearances, rape and torture.”

Members of Congress and various rights groups joined in their praise for Kyi, wishing her the strength to continue fighting against injustice, not only in Burma but across the globe.

For the CHRC press release, click here.

For the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, click here.

House committee addresses possible double standards in global human rights promotion

In a hearing of the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight on Thursday, witnesses discussed the apparent contradictions in U.S. policies towards Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Witnesses included Dr. Amr Hamzawy and Dr. Martha Brill Olcott from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Thomas Lippman of the Middle East Institute; and Thomas Malinowski of Human Rights Watch.

The witnesses all agreed that a double standard exists, and has historically existed, with respect to the three countries. Malinowski emphasized the fact that there has always been a tension in U.S. foreign policy between the belief that promoting human rights is vital to advancing long term interests around the world, and the tendency to forget that belief when short-term interests get in the way. He added, “I don’t believe that the United States should treat every human rights violator in the world in exactly the same way. The strategies the U.S. government chooses to promote human rights should vary from country to country.”

Although the countries of focus were different for each witness, the attitude towards a consistent U.S. policy – in theory – and country-by-country implementation was unanimous. There is no reason why the United States can’t speak honestly, clearly, and publicly about human rights to every government in the world, whether it is friend or foe, the witnesses argued. They also said that not doing so is profoundly harmful to the overall protection of global human rights, as noted in a recent Amnesty International report. The witnesses said that the most effective strategy to promote liberty and human rights is when people around the world believe the U.S. is rising above narrow self interests to defend universal ideals.

According to Malinowski, the Bush administration’s strong public focus on human rights in Iran is entirely appropriate. However, while the American human rights message resonates with ordinary Iranians, he said it is undermined by extensive military exercises in the Persian Gulf and the threat of military force over the nuclear issue. Such threats unite the Iranian people with their leaders and undermine the attainment of human rights protection, Malinowski said.

U.S. aid to Afghanistan marked with conditions

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to make the $6.4 billion aid package to Afghanistan conditional despite criticism from the White House, Reuters reported the same day. The aid package will focus on economic and development projects through fiscal year 2010.

The conditions include barring the distribution of aid to areas where Afghan officials are engaged with the drug trade or are sympathetic to the insurgency. The bill would also call for the Bush administration to report twice a year to Congress on the flow of Iranian arms into Afghanistan.

“We cannot allow a resurgence of the Taliban. If we do, al Qaeda will once again be able to use Afghanistan as a state-sponsored launching pad for terror,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)

The White House responded to the bill, claiming that the conditions set an “unrealistically high bar” and would further harm vital areas in need of assistance.

For the full article, click here.

MP expelled for criticizing Afghan parliament

On Monday, Malalai Joya, a prominent Afghan Member of Parliament, was expelled from parliament for the duration of her term following a television interview concerning the state of the national legislative body in Afghanistan, The Independent reported the next day. During the television interview, Joya characterized parliamentary proceedings as descending to a level “worse than a zoo.” Some MPs went so far as to advocate for the removal of Joya in future elections.

Apparently, Joya, a strong voice for women’s rights, has angered her male counterparts on numerous occasions. To make matters worse, the speaker of the upper house responded to the interview with a letter to the speaker of the lower house stating that “If the lower house does not take a decision about her, we will take a decision.” Despite a lack of grounds for suspension, Speaker Yunus Qanooni sought to have Joya brought before a court for defamation.

“Talking about women's rights in Afghanistan is a joke. There really have not been any fundamental changes, the Taliban were driven off by the Americans and the British but then they were allowed to be replaced by warlords who also simply cannot see women as equals,” Joya said. “Those of us who speak up are targets. My friends and colleagues have been assassinated. They have tried to kill me four times; the last attack was in Kabul which is the capital of this country which is supposed to be secure and democratic. And then if you try to speak up in parliament their first reaction is to try to gag you.”

For the full article, click here.

Hearing addresses question: Do negative views of U.S. policy bolster support of extremism in Muslim countries?

Thursday, in a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, Dr. Steven Kull, the director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), testified on the connection between anti-U.S. policy, attitudes and extremism. Through surveys and focus groups in Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco and Pakistan, Kull assessed responses concerning U.S. policy, attitudes and terrorism to test the hypothesis that negative feelings toward the U.S. drive Muslims into the arms of extremist groups such as al-Qaeda.

The results were insightful and contrary to much of the political rhetoric involved with discussions of extremism within Muslim countries. Kull found that the majority of respondents in Egypt (93 percent), Indonesia (66 percent), Morocco (76 percent) and Pakistan (67 percent) had unfavorable views of the current U.S. government, however, only 1 in 7 respondents agreed with the methods and views of al-Qaeda. When asked why anti-U.S. attitudes exist, many pointed to their sheer disappointment with the policy and actions of the current U.S. government, as well as to hypocrisy related to the Middle East, particularly with regards to the America’s handling of the occupation in the Palestinian Territories. Kull also pointed out that a majority of the respondents in the four countries believed that there was common ground by which to establish peace and collaboration with the U.S.

Kull posited advice for future policy decisions by noting that “when the U.S. acts on its own initiative, without multilateral approval, these public feelings are also apt to be highly focused at the U.S. itself.” In closing, Kull added that the best course of action for America should be “to provide reassurance through credible evidence that the U.S. has not targeted Islam itself.’

For information on this hearing, click here.

For detailed data concerning the in-depth surveys conducted by Dr. Kull, click here.

Committee on Foreign Affairs, MESA Subcommittee Hearing: “Public Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia: Is the message getting through?”

State Department officials assess public diplomacy in Middle East and south Asia at congressional hearing

In a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing today, a discussion on the effectiveness of various public diplomacy projects brought together Members of Congress, representatives from the State Department and members of the broadcasting community. The focus of the hearing was to bring forth awareness of the successes and short-comings of public diplomacy within the Middle East and South Asian regions.

Chairman Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) opened the hearing by expressing his support for expanded emphasis on public diplomacy efforts and a diminished emphasis on waging war, citing the successful use of diplomatic projects during tense periods with the former Soviet Union. Ackerson, along with Congressman David Scott (D-Georg.), maintained the need for grassroots efforts as a means of positively impact international attitude towards American ideals and values, particularly in the Middle East. An increase in public diplomacy, in coordination with a change in foreign policy, was agreed to be the best course of action in an era in which global public opinion of the U.S. is at its lowest and global terrorist attacks are at their highest.

According to the State Department representatives present, three measures must be achieved in order to meet the demands of a bolstered interagency public diplomacy strategy: further development of education and cultural exchange programs such as the People to People Program and the new addition of the Fulbright Program for Pakistan; expanded communications initiatives that would include more local TV time to facilitate citizen discourse; establishment of a more substantial focus on “Diplomacy of Deeds” to accompany radio and television projects.

The witnesses also expressed their desire to further develop “Interfaith dialogue” programs to stress that the present tension in U.S./Middle East relations is the product of a refusal to tolerate extremism rather than a war against Islam.

For more information regarding this hearing and to access transcripts, click here.