the geneva convention in bagram

In the months following the transition of the detention facility at Bagram airbase from American hands to Afghani, interviews conducted by the Afghan Analysts Network (AAN) of ex-detainees have suggested that very few significant changes have been made within the prison. The U.S. still appears to be in an administrative role and retains the authority to interrogate prisoners —  allegations which, if true, undermine Afghan sovereignty. Further reports claim the existence of a U.S. controlled site known as Tor Jail where prisoners are held for interrogation and are allegedly subjected to arbitrary sleep deprivation before transfer to Bagram. The method by which the Defense Department has responded to these allegations has indicated a distinct shift in how the U.S. justifies state practice and shows an implicit growing concern for international law.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale told AAN that the U.S. has “a number of locations which are classified for obvious security reasons, for transiting and screening (which, as you know, is recognized and specifically mentioned by Geneva), but they are not undisclosed or ‘secret’.”  Breasseale’s appeal to the Geneva Conventions marks an anomaly in U.S. rhetoric when accused of illegality in its treatment of prisoners and the existence of classified sites. Rather than being dismissed as non-applicable, the administration has employed the Convention itself to justify the existence of Tor Jail by insisting it is merely a place for transiting and screening prisoners - a claim negated by the ex-detainee accounts.

A decade ago executive powers in Washington maintained - falsely - that the detainees of Guantanamo Bay were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Bush’s rationale was pursuant to the authority granted by Congress to use all “necessary and appropriate force,” and is a far cry from today’s justification.

The interviews within the AAN report, however, expose today’s justification as a mere legal shield to hide the very conduct which the Conventions themselves prohibit. The reports include one particularly exposing ex-detainee interview; “There was a camera on my face and […] whenever I closed my eyes, they would come very fast.” Such an account satisfies definitions of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” punishments under both the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Both documents bear American signatures. Yet, despite all of this American ink, the signatory has yet to accept the necessary international jurisdiction and hence all possible accountability for alleged violations. Regardless, a lack of legal liability does not negate the existence of these alleged crimes nor the guilt which they accompany.

The United State’s distinctive immunity is not a permanent one. A Defense Department spokesman has made a case pursuant to the Geneva Convention. This is an implicit recognition that there is a compelling need to begin justifying state practice in reference to the foundations of international human rights law. Breasseale’s justification is evidence of a trajectory towards a world where the concept of international justice encompasses the world’s leading powers.

human rights trial in saudi arabia

Two leading human rights activists have been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in Saudi Arabia this past weekend in what is the conclusion of a seven month trial and a further stain on the country’s human rights record. Mohammad al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamed are co-founders of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), which gives aid to the families of those detained by the country that lacks a formal penal code. The sentencing occurred in the midst of two high profile diplomatic visits from the United States, yet neither Secretary of State John Kerry nor Attorney General Eric Holder offered criticism of the country’s abuses. The United States’s silence marks the preservation of a harmful Saudi exception embedded in its attitude towards human rights.

The verdict which al-Qahtani and al-Hamed received on Saturday came hardly as a surprise. Al-Hamed in fact informed the presiding judge in December that two of them were “ready for jail,” a gesture which served to reflect the generally arbitrary nature of Saudi justice. The two men appeared in court charged with undermining national unity, disobeying the ruler, and questioning the integrity of officials - grave accusations in a country where political dissent is seldom tolerated. Nevertheless, the ten year sentence was perceived nationally as severe. Speaking with CNN, Tamara al-Rifai, a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, condemned the sentencing as part of “a systematic approach by the authorities in Saudi Arabia” designed to carry out “the targeting and harassing of activists across the country." Furthermore, al-Rifai insisted that the trial itself has undermined “the Arab Charter of Human Rights to which Saudi Arabia has adhered."

Despite ardent criticisms, the voices of human rights agencies fell on deaf ears - Kerry and Holder remained conspicuously mute. This American silence exposes an ungrounded fear within US foreign policy that placing importance upon issues of human rights is a distraction from greater concerns within bilateral relations. As Mark Lagon, an Adjunct Senior Fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations, persuasively argues “it is important not to assume that human rights always intrinsically contradict U.S. interests,” and that in reality a lack of human rights turns allies “into pressure cookers ready to blow.” Saudi Arabia is a valuable asset for negotiating the nuclear aspirations of Iran. Regardless, justifying a deafness to injustice through political utility could prove costly in the long run. The liberal voice within Saudi Arabia reflects America’s own political and social standards, and this ought to be recognized. 

President George W. Bush rightly affirmed - though his rhetoric did not cohere with action - that it is a “bigotry of low expectations” to dismiss the governments of the Middle East as incapable of extending human rights to their citizens. If Barack Obama is to act upon his rhetoric of a global upholding of human rights, there can no longer be a Saudi exception. Expressing concerns about the prosecution of liberal reformists would send a needed message of support to Saudi Arabia’s emerging liberal movement.

an expope and personal choice

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s personal decision to renounce the papal role has given the world outside of the Vatican walls a fleeting glimpse of the person beneath the weight of the triple-tiara and the burden of papal duty. A first in 600 years, Joseph Ratzinger’s resignation demonstrates an expression of personal liberty within a church afflicted by sexual abuse scandals and increasing secularism. This radical conclusion of Ratzinger’s tenancy as the bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church has given rise to questions of individualism and personal choice in specific doctrines of the church where such convictions lack. Ratzinger has built a stage on which the future trajectory of the world’s largest faith will be played out.

The late John Paul II’s acclaimed papacy demonstrates a love for theater within the papal role. Where Benedict was a quiet academic and theologian, his predecessor was something of a diplomatic celebrity — images of the late pope kissing the earth of more than a hundred countries are sure to decorate the memories of devoted Catholics more lavishly than Benedict’s more muted gestures. Doubtlessly, John Paul II enjoyed immense popularity during his papacy — his funeral was attended by over four million people and was the largest gathering of any statesman in history. This popularity, however, was merely superficial — and as this appearance faded, the church and the pope who followed John Paul II were haunted by the re-emerged ghosts of sexual abuse and corruption.

Despite the contrast that are often drawn between the last two popes, these two men were far more similar than different. In the absence of an engaging persona or unusual appearance, the reactionary politics that the two men shared became all too obvious — and ardent criticism quickly replaced popularity. Not at all a spectacle of theatrics, Ratzinger’s papacy laid bare the different doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and in doing so exposed them to popular criticism. The denial of personal choice in matters of contraception, abortion, divorce, marriage, suicide and sex portrayed a church that had become increasingly at odds with a world concerned with the liberty of individuals. This contention has exposed a need to recognize the utility of personal choice within the teachings of the church — a need that church leaders in the United States and elsewhere are beginning to recognize.

Upon electing Ratzinger as the new pope, the cardinals praised him as an intellectual and claimed he had shown the compatibility of reason and faith. By resigning, Ratzinger came close to making this claim true. In seeing no reason to remain in office while his health and strength receded, and making the personal decision to act upon this realization, he did much more for the faith than his glamorous predecessor could have hoped to do.

Understanding the importance of personal choice for the individual beneath the triple-tiara could lead to recognition of its importance elsewhere within the Roman Catholic Church.

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, March 7 2013

a 'strongly dissatisfied' beijing

Analysts agree that North Korea’s third nuclear test will prove to be one of the more humiliating events in modern Chinese foreign policy. Following the emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi affirmed that China was “strongly dissatisfied and resolutely opposed,” to North Korea’s actions and called on the country to "stop any rhetoric or acts that could worsen situations and return to the right course of dialogue and consultation as soon as possible.” Although Mr. Jiechi’s statement exhibits the growing exasperation felt by Chinese officials towards their reclusive neighbor and its belligerent manner, it does nothing to herald the arrival of a necessary meaningful reaction. China has been far too silent, and the fear of the presumed bi-products of the collapse of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea do not justify prolonging the country’s muteness.

A fear of instability is at the root of China’s silence following the recent events in North Korea. North Korea both acts as a buffer to American interests in the South and its collapse threatens to destabilize parts of the northeast corner of China as an untold number of refugees cross the border. Not only does this pose a threat to the resources and security of the region, but moreover the huge influx of Koreans could lead to a call for independence reminiscent of that of Tibet. On these grounds, China has offered North Korea with diplomatic cover and large amounts of aid so that the country may subsist. Furthermore, China has promised to provide their paranoid neighbor with security should it choose to abandon its nuclear program - an offer not taken advantage of.

North Korea’s behavior has not changed and is itself a cause for instability and an increased American presence in Asia. This year’s State of the Union Address from President Barack Obama was marked with a vow to boost missile-defense capabilities in Asia and “lead the world in taking firm action in response to [North Korean] threats,” - news that needlessly to say was not well-received in Beijing. China’s dedication to peace in East Asia should encourage it to adjust the lens through which it views its neighbor. The 2010 attack onYeonpyeong Island which killed 4 South Korean citizens in addition to recent blunt threats to South Korea and the United States should be evidence for North Korea’s aggressiveness. Rather than a tool in maintaining stability, North Korea is itself the cause of a lot of China’s woes.

Regime change in North Korea should be presumed probable. There is hope for a stable evolution to a humane regime, and yet it would be reckless to not prepare for the worst. The collapse of the D.P.R.K. could be sudden. Despite this ominous future, Beijing has been very reluctant to engage in the dialogue needed to form a coherent plan for the inevitable. China is beginning to risk losing face with respect to the rest of the world and rather than an asset, North Korea has become a liability for the world’s emerging superpower. 

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, Feb. 26 2013

conservatives and same-sex marriage

The rights of same-sex couples in the western world has been marked with recent events in the UK and France. Within two days of each other both governments in London and Paris voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill allowing the marriage of same-sex couples - the 5th and the 2nd of February respectively. Despite this similarity, the public reactions in the two neighboring countries has been drastically different. In London, on the eve of the vote, there was very little public voice in response to the bill. In Paris however, hundreds of thousands of people, spurred on by by the conservative voices within the country, converged on the city in opposition to the new bill. The discrepancy between these two countries reflects a fundamental difference in conservative attitudes toward homosexuals. 

Conservative parties have traditionally had a turbulent relationship with homosexual rights - gay rights has traditionally been seen as a tenant of more liberally minded parties. Nicolas Dhuicq - a member of the French conservative opposition UMP - announced late last year that not only are homosexual parents incapable of teaching their child “what is right or wrong,” but that the children which they bring up are more prone to becoming terrorists. Although such slander thankfully does not reflect the consensus of the UMP, it does show the perceived incompatibility between conservatism and gay rights. 

Gay marriage does, however, fit into the greater conservative ideology of social cohesion and stability - with the family as the bed-rock of a functioning society. The government which passed same-sex marriage in the UK was in fact a conservative one and moreover David Cameron announced that he supported same-sex marriage “because he was a conservative.” The gap which nevertheless exists in the conservative ideology is the insistence that the family with homosexual parents is fundamentally different from the family with heterosexual parents. The reality, however, is that a child born to heterosexual parents has just as much of a chance in becoming a terrorist as a child with homosexuals parents. The value which conservatives find in the traditional family can easily be translated into an equal same value for the non-traditional family. Such an attitude is something which can and should be adopted by France and the United States.

The debate over same-sex marriage has become trivial. The rights afforded to you - as a human being - are not dictated by the person you love. Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony, but it is necessarily a civil one - and it affords married couples the civil necessities of a typical relationship. Rather than meager opinions shouted across the political chambers of western countries, such statements are slowly becoming accepted truths. As both sides of the political spectrum priorities the rights of citizens, this debate can no longer be aligned to a single political ideology. Gay rights is both a liberal and conservative pursuit. 

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, Feb. 14 2013.

google maps imaging further skews u.s. perception of north korea

Early this week, Google lifted the veil shrouding the world’s most secretive country with its detailed map of North Korea. Featuring roads, railways, hospitals, schools, and even the occasional restaurant, the country above the South is no longer an empty white area. Although this may be a massive step toward Google completing its mission of “providing people with the most comprehensive, accurate, and easy-to-use modern map of the world,” one must ask who this map was made for. Internet access in North Korea is of course restricted to the very elite, and tourists visiting the very secretive country would hardly be in need of a map with their very knowledgable government-provided guide. Rather than convenience the citizens and tourists of North Korea, Google has begun to force the secretive and backwards DPRK closer to the precipice of modern civilization and has taken a large step toward unveiling the crisis in the North to the general conscience.

Among the landmarks now labeled in North Korea, perhaps the most striking and uncomfortable are the fully labeled prison labour camps which appear as light grey areas. Among the rows of uniform rectangular buildings which occupy Camp 22 in the North-East corner of the country on the border with China, one can now see, labeled, the “Office of Gulag Director,” the “Guard’s Restroom,” and the “Pharmaceutical and Food Factory” where prisoners labour. Far from a convenience, these labels make real what was previously limited to the rants of human rights activists and fringe protesters. The same medium which allows us to find the nearest Starbucks can now be used to expose the humanitarian crisis of our generation. 

The nighttime satellite image of North Korea remains an empty void. NASA’s new image of the Korean peninsula re-affirms the north’s status as an awkward blank above a glittering and prosperous south. It is an expanse which appears from space as nothing more than what may be a body of water between South Korea and China, and also where twenty four million people may live unnoticed by western eyes. What Google has done is fill this void in the eyes of the general public, and identify signs of life in a country where these signs have long been few and far between.

This is not the first time that this dark space on the world’s map has been filled in. “North Korea Uncovered,” created by a former PhD student of John Hopkins University, Curtis Melvin, is the product of years of research in the analysis of satellite photography and eye-witness reports, and is above all a valuable tool for those who wish to further understand the issue at hand. Despite Mr. Melvin’s map being more detailed and more accurate, it is the accessibility of Google’s which gives it the potential to become a catalyst in public awareness.

Speaking with the New York Times, Mr. Melvin commented that Google’s map “provides the umph to get more people focused on the issue.” Only time can tell, and yet the sardonic comments posted through Google’s user-generated review section seem to suggest that at least people have noticed. “Looking for some alone time? No worries all families are separated upon entry. Who knows what adventures await you in North Korea's leading death camp.”

The west has become somewhat of an audience to a mischievous caricature of North Korea, and laughing at the inanity of the DPRK and its leaders has become entertainment. One would be hard pressed to find someone who does not smirk at the idea of Kim Jong-il’s birth being foretold by a swallow and then marked by the appearance of a double rainbow over a mountain. And yet the dark contrast between such a fairytale and the utter depravity which is the reality in North Korea should press western audiences to perhaps adjust their viewpoint. Since he has become the supreme leader, Kim Jong-un has given a shoot-to-kill order to soldiers patrolling the border, overseen the successful launch of a rocket which could lend itself to long range missile technology, and promised future testing in nuclear devices. Perhaps our smirks should begin to show some concern. The thousands of people weeping at the death of Kim Jong-il - rather than it being merely something strange or even comical - demonstrates the extent to which the cult of personality has been allowed to permeate the minds of a whole nation.

The value found in Google’s new maps can only be realized in our reaction to them.  When the UN special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea, Vitit Muntarbhorn, reported that the country was “sui generis (in its own category),” and recommended that it be placed at a top priority, his voice fell on mostly deaf ears. The darkness which shrouds North Korea, however, is beginning to brighten. March of this year will see the next session of the UN Human Rights Council, and it is a prominent opportunity - albeit one which is long overdue - to begin an inquiry into crimes against humanity in North Korea. We can not wait for the DPRK to wither away naturally; history judges harshly those who in possession of evidence choose not to confront the criminals.

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, Feb. 6 2013.

reacting to rape in india

In the wake of the trial covering the recent rape and murder of a 23 year-old woman in Delhi, the western media has brought about some ill-minded commentary. Certain publications have taken to blaming misogyny in India on Islam and the supposedly radically different outlook which Muslims have compared to the rest of the world. Rather than show this fanciful claim to be false, perhaps it would be better to simply point out that all five of the men who are accused of carrying out the attack are Hindus and that (according to the 2001 census) 13.4% of the country is Muslim - hardly a majority. Using Islam as a scapegoat here cannot be justified.

Rather than asking why India is a misogynistic country and then blaming one cultural foundation or another, one should pursue the means to real change.

The rape of late last year is not the first to receive national publicity in India. In 1979, a sixteen year-old girl named Mathura was raped by two policeman who were later acquitted because the girl was not a virgin at the time the rape took place. After large scale protests, and coverage from India's media, there were significant changes to the law. In 1983 a provision was made to the Evidence Act which states that if a woman says that the sexual intercourse was not consensual, then the court is to take the statement at face value and presume that what she says is the truth. Such a victory should not be seen as minor. Not only does this provision show the power which protest holds for real legal and social change, but it also more importantly empowers the victim to point out her attackers and identify them as rapists.

Since 1979, India has grown in affirming the status of woman as equal to men. The year 1984 saw the end of the 15-year premiership held by Indira Ghandi - the world's longest serving woman prime minister. The 1990s saw the creation of numerous NGOs concentrating on woman rights (such as the Self Employed Woman's Association). 2001 saw the government declare the Year of Women's Empowerment followed by the enacting of the Women's Reservation Bill in 2010 which retains a minimum of 33% woman membership in parliament and other state legislative bodies.

These milestones reflect the growing trend towards equality in India, and even perhaps suggest that the real catalyst for change is real legal action as apposed to the criticism of out-dated cultural foundations.

What is true is that India is a deeply divided country. Cultures of misogyny and patriarchy are prevalent with some - and yet it would appear that the ideals of equality and egalitarianism are prevalent with much more. In trying to explain the cultural cause for misogyny in India we always find ourselves lacking in explanation. Rather than attacking the supposed root of a problem we will lose ourselves in petty arguments and achieve nothing but the explaining away of the problem. If India is to enjoy real change, and if the west wants to help her achieve it, then all we should do is support the protestors on the street calling for a judicial system which represents the beliefs of the growing majority. Anything more or less would be damaging.

different perspectives

My girlfriend always talks to me about religion. Before you think she's a Jehovah's Witness or an over-zealous evangelical, let me explain. She's studying theology at university, and so when I say religion I really mean high theological issues. One running argument which we have is the use of religion in modern day society - she sees religion as intrinsically useful as it helps people live and grow. Rather than about subscribing to a set of belief or dogmas, religion is more of a 'guide' or rather a certain perspective through which one can see and order the world. In such a way she offers a redefinition of religion - one centred not around dogma, nor even notions of faith, but rather simply of world outlook. My rebuttal would be to see that this all sounds like an illusion which can be used to make sense of a purely nonsensical world. When I look at nature and the general makeup of things, I don't see order - I see chaos. Animals become extinct, we die of preventable disease in our old age after we've lost a large majority of our sensory capabilities. None of these things suggest any sort of intelligent designer - let alone a benevolent one.

I misunderstood what she had said, however. Her argument is not a teleological one - nor is it one for the existence of God(s). Rather, it is a defence of a perspective - one which can be likened to a preference and more importantly a way of life. When it comes down to it we are all forced to form the conditions and logical processes which then set out to create an order out of the chaos in front of us - and religion is one such order. There is hence dialogue between religion and secularism. Rather than see the two perspectives at complete odds, perhaps we should begin to focus on their similarities. They are after all different perspectives to the same view.

north korea and china

There exists camps where the children of political dissenters are born and are raised in a state of absolute ignorance to the external world and the humane customs which occupy it. Here the children and their parents work from 5:30 in the morning until midnight in mines under the threat of torture or death while living on rations of cabbage and corn. There exists cities where the streets are all but deserted and restaurants where customers - who are exclusively foreign - may frequent once every two months.

As the first year of Kim Jong-un’s leadership in North Korea comes to a close, we inevitably look at what has elapsed. Needless to say the media has done its fair share in publicising his reign and creating a mockery of what is in actuality a crisis. The Onion ran an article in which it deemed Kim, “the Pyongyang-bred heartthrob,” to be the “sexiest man alive” - and Chinese state media quickly relayed the Onion article as ‘truth.’ In response to the 5.6 million online votes which granted Kim the prize of being the winner of TIME’s annual “Person of the Year Reader’s Poll” - the magazine was forced to publish a rather embarrassing explanation. The article began with, “Kim Jong-Un is having a good year,” but then quickly moved on to assert that “this doesn’t mean Kim is TIME’s Person of the Year,” and that “the choice is made by the editors of TIME, and will be revealed Dec. 19 on the Today show.”

The west has become somewhat of an audience to North Korea’s mischief, and laughing at the inanity of the DPRK and its leaders has become the entertainment. One would be hard pressed to find someone who does not smirk at the idea of Kim Jong-il’s birth being foretold by a swallow and then marked by the appearance of a double rainbow over a mountain. And yet the dark contrast between such a fairytale and the utter depravity which is the reality in North Korea should press western audiences to perhaps adjust their viewpoint. Since he has become the supreme leader, Kim has tightened the border, given a shoot-to-kill order to soldiers patrolling the border, and oversaw the successful launch of a rocket which could lend itself to long range missile technology. Perhaps our smirks should begin to show some concern.

How does a country like North Korea sustain itself? The logical answer to such a question is that it doesn’t. De facto absolute monarchies have become an anomaly in modern society - hereditary dictatorships have long been shown to be unsustainable in the face of popular sovereignty. The French Revolution is perhaps is the most obvious example of this fact. Yet, since its formal declaration in 1948, North Korea has remained a single-party state with a de facto hereditary monarchy - why?

Although the popular conception of North Korea is one of a hermit, a more accurate conception - at least for the purpose of discerning its sustainability - would be that of a parasite. The DPRK prides itself on its supposed self-sustainability, and yet this is a fiction. The fact is that the regime relies heavily on foreign aide and support from both humanitarian organisations and political allies. The former of these donors are necessary for the survival of innocents trapped in the prison nation, and yet the latter only serves to sustain this prison. China is the most prominent of North Korea's allies - and similarly also their most valuable friend and donor.

Since the Korean War, China and North Korea have enjoyed close diplomatic relations, and have in the last decade dramatically increased the amount of trade between the two countries - 30 fold between 2002 and 2012, 1.4 million dollars to 42 million. Although such a number is high - and, as Pyongyang begins experimenting with some economic reform, a good omen for future Chinese entrepreneurship in the country - one must question if it outweighs the human suffering felt by millions.

Such a question, however, is purely rhetorical and one must accept that rarely does such a question lead to any actual change. Let us therefore take a different route. In order to argue for China to disconnect itself from North Korea, one should begin by looking at the alternatives. North Korea's demise should be presumed inevitable - no matter what amount of money you throw at it, de facto hereditary governments cannot survive, especially those which are abusive and rely on fear. It's no good, however, waiting around for the inevitable to happen while countless more suffer and die at the hands of criminals. We should therefore look for a catalyst - China.

China's relationship with North Korea has grown increasingly unstable. After condemning the recent rocket launch and the DPRK's insistence on maintaining its nuclear weapons program, Beijing is beginning to risk losing face with respect to the rest of the world. It is no longer worth sustaining the decrepit country as an increasingly worthless buffer to American interests in South Korea. China has been put in far too many awkward situations. In 2010 the United States along with South Korea accused the North of sinking a South Korean ship with a torpedo. After being pressured to agree with these allegations, China refused. Later in 2012, the North Korean government was accused of sabotaging a 40 million dollar Chinese investment in the country. These blunders are becoming far too frequent, and would lead one to believe that perhaps China would benefit greater from a more sustainable neighbour - perhaps a North Korea run under a South Korean-like system.