I nearly missed something very interesting while scanning a New York Times editorial by Thomas Friedman: he quotes Iraqi prime minister Nuri Maliki on human rights…
Friedman argues that an open election in Iraq has a greater chance of producing regional change than the Afghan elections, and his perspective encompasses the recent Iranian elections, too.
It is because you have access to the internet that you are able to read this post. Having access to the internet allows you to learn about important issues and world events as they unfold, participate in public debates, and find opportunities for employment and collaboration in your community. However, access to the internet is also largely restricted to those who have the financial resources to pay for the necessary technology and service. This has led to significant divides in communication equality for historically-marginalized communities, such as low-income, indigenous, Latino, and African-American communities. The Media and Democracy Coalition has written a very powerful letter on this subject to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in regards to the necessary policies that would prevent non-discriminatory practices by internet service and wireless providers. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all people have the right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits (Article 27). What is the role of the U.S. government in ensuring that all people have access to advancements in communication, regardless of where they live or how much money they have? How does access to the internet influence the the realization of other human rights? More generally, how are communication and human rights interconnected?
Here’s an interview by PBS Newshour’s Margaret Warner in which she explores multiple allegations concerning election fraud in the recent Afghan elections. It’s an excellent interview, and I think it illustrates what makes me crazy about this issue. Her subjects are Peter Galbraith–former US Ambassador to Croatia and recently-fired head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)– and Assistant Secretary General Edmond Mulet. Galbraith has very publicly accused U.N. Special Representative Kai Eide of mishandling efforts to prevent election fraud and helping cover it up after the fact. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon fired Galbraith, claiming this was due to a personality clash between Galbraith and Eide.
The New York Times reports on the issue here.The Newshour’s interview transcript is here.
I am stupefied when I try to follow the politics surrounding election fraud. Shouldn’t an election boil down to some simple logic and counting? I know this is a drastic and naive over-simplification, but how can free elections happen when an assistant secretary general of the UN is hiding behind political sophistry?
In Dharamshala and around the world, Tibetans and their supporters take to the streets to protest China’s 60th anniversary. Meanwhile, in Tibet, travel restrictions are in place that ban foreigners and journalists from entry between September 22 and October 8th. What human rights issues are at stake for the Tibetan exiles? Should the Chinese government violate the right to free movement to foreign travelers, even for the purpose of maintaining ’social order?’
-Senator Chuck Hagel, R-NE, September 12, 2001
The events of September 11, 2001, have had a direct impact on the relationship between the government of the United States and its citizens. The most basic civil rights are civil liberties; those rights that protect people from their own government. Civil liberties protected in the United States include the right to due process, the right to free speech and assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to equal protection under the law. One of the many tragedies of 9/11 has been the government’s widespread disavowal of these civil liberties. The Bill of Rights, the founding document of the U.S. government which speaks most directly to the issues of civil liberties and human rights, has been shuttered for nearly a decade now by the USA Patriot Act, passed one month after 9/11. Those rights which went unquestioned at the close of the 20th century have since been jeopardized with practices such as unreasonable search and seizure, government spying, closure of government proceedings and documents, and the encouragement of pointing fingers. Where they have taken place, these practices have largely been justified with reference to the USA Patriot Act, some of the provisions of which will expire at the end of this year. Both Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union have active campaigns for turning this into an opportunity for a revision of the Act in its entirety.
September 11 is now a national holiday called “Patriot Day;” let us not forget that true regard for one’s country means the preservation and defense of the rights we call civil liberties.