U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) talks to Youk Chhang, the director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, as she stands among skulls of victims during her visit to Khmer Rouge notorious security prison Tuol Sleng (S-21) in Phnom Penh November 1, 2010. From 1975-1979 an estimated 17,000 people were imprisoned, tortured and killed in S-21, once a high school turned into an interrogation centre, during the Khmer Rouge regime. Clinton's visit to Cambodia is the first by a U.S. Secretary of State since 2003.REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea (CAMBODIA - Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)
By Pooja Kansal
Indian Daily Student
POSTED on Nov. 10, 2010
Once again, political agendas take reign in the realm of human rights.
Last week, Secretary of Statew Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s capital, where she saw the Tuol Sleng prison, which was a holding cell for more than 14,000 people who were subsequently killed. After touring the site and seeing photographs from the Cambodian Genocide, which exterminated 1.7 million individuals, Clinton launched a pro-democracy, pro-atonement rhetoric.
While the point is well taken, it doesn’t seem genuine.
Just eight months ago, Clinton strongly lobbied against the House’s resolution to label the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I as such. Clinton originally encouraged the formation of a commission that would investigate the happenings of the Armenian Genocide but backtracked after realizing the political ramifications of holding Turkey responsible.
Statistics-wise, both events have similar body counts: The Ottoman Turks murdered approximately 1.5 million Armenians, and the Khmer Rouge regime killed 1.7 million Cambodians. So why is there such a difference in accountability?
According to the UN, Cambodia is the fourth least-developed country in Asia, so in terms of trade, the U.S. has little to gain and lose from it. Therefore, condemning its crimes does not come with consequences. If anything, the U.S. scores brownie points in the eyes of its fellow UN nations for being a proponent of human rights, rather than living up to its reputation as a war-waging superpower.
On the other hand, much of the U.S.’s foreign policy initiatives are becoming increasingly dependent on Turkey. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Turkey declared its intentions to be prominent global power and head of predominantly Muslim countries. Turkey boasted having a healthy economy and a prime geographic location that links Asia with Europe.
The U.S. knows it is in a precarious position: If it pushes Turkey’s buttons enough, Iran will become Turkey’s primary ally, causing the U.S. to lose whatever influence it has over its nuclear program. And although Incirlik Air Base is no longer integral to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. has been storing B-61 thermonuclear gravity bombs in Turkey, as well as four other NATO countries since the Cold War.
When the House was debating whether to pass the resolution on the Armenian Genocide last year, many who opposed it argued that it was not a government’s duty to label such events, but rather the historians’.
Is it now acceptable that Clinton is condemning Cambodia’s actions or is that overstepping her job description?
I would argue that it is the duty of everyone — including government officials — to further human rights both in the past and present.
What is unacceptable is to cherry pick when you are discussing justice after genocide, especially when the numbers you are talking about are in the millions.
Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect such consistency from politicians, but it shouldn’t be. If governments agree that it is their role to investigate and vote international genocide or alleged genocide, it is a step forward in the area of human rights, but consistency is a must in order for any of their resolutions to make an impact in history.
E-mail: pkansal@indana.edu
Last week, Secretary of Statew Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s capital, where she saw the Tuol Sleng prison, which was a holding cell for more than 14,000 people who were subsequently killed. After touring the site and seeing photographs from the Cambodian Genocide, which exterminated 1.7 million individuals, Clinton launched a pro-democracy, pro-atonement rhetoric.
While the point is well taken, it doesn’t seem genuine.
Just eight months ago, Clinton strongly lobbied against the House’s resolution to label the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I as such. Clinton originally encouraged the formation of a commission that would investigate the happenings of the Armenian Genocide but backtracked after realizing the political ramifications of holding Turkey responsible.
Statistics-wise, both events have similar body counts: The Ottoman Turks murdered approximately 1.5 million Armenians, and the Khmer Rouge regime killed 1.7 million Cambodians. So why is there such a difference in accountability?
According to the UN, Cambodia is the fourth least-developed country in Asia, so in terms of trade, the U.S. has little to gain and lose from it. Therefore, condemning its crimes does not come with consequences. If anything, the U.S. scores brownie points in the eyes of its fellow UN nations for being a proponent of human rights, rather than living up to its reputation as a war-waging superpower.
On the other hand, much of the U.S.’s foreign policy initiatives are becoming increasingly dependent on Turkey. At the United Nations General Assembly in September, Turkey declared its intentions to be prominent global power and head of predominantly Muslim countries. Turkey boasted having a healthy economy and a prime geographic location that links Asia with Europe.
The U.S. knows it is in a precarious position: If it pushes Turkey’s buttons enough, Iran will become Turkey’s primary ally, causing the U.S. to lose whatever influence it has over its nuclear program. And although Incirlik Air Base is no longer integral to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. has been storing B-61 thermonuclear gravity bombs in Turkey, as well as four other NATO countries since the Cold War.
When the House was debating whether to pass the resolution on the Armenian Genocide last year, many who opposed it argued that it was not a government’s duty to label such events, but rather the historians’.
Is it now acceptable that Clinton is condemning Cambodia’s actions or is that overstepping her job description?
I would argue that it is the duty of everyone — including government officials — to further human rights both in the past and present.
What is unacceptable is to cherry pick when you are discussing justice after genocide, especially when the numbers you are talking about are in the millions.
Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect such consistency from politicians, but it shouldn’t be. If governments agree that it is their role to investigate and vote international genocide or alleged genocide, it is a step forward in the area of human rights, but consistency is a must in order for any of their resolutions to make an impact in history.
E-mail: pkansal@indana.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment