|
|
|
International Law I am disappointed at the Bush Administration's lack of respect for international law. There may be reasons to withdraw from or not participate in international agreements, but these reasons should be well stated so as to maintain respect for law. As with domestic law, those who have the most to gain from respect for law are the richest parts of the community. They are the ones who are the most likely targets of outlaws, terrorists, and other villains. The Bush Administration seems to think that the US is safer if it relies on vigilante justice enforced by violence. This is certainly the attitude it adopted in thumbing its nose at the UN Security Council before the war on Iraq. However, centuries of experience indicate that it is preferable to rely on law rather than violence for protection, which is one of the advantages of living in a civilized society. Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War The Geneva Convention contains a number of laws regarding prisoners of war. Article 5 states:
Ari Fleischer, the President’s press secretary, has refused to state that the U.S. is honoring the Geneva Convention with regard to all prisoners at Guantanamo, although he has said that they are being treated humanely. At his March 24, 2003, briefing, there was the following exchange:
The White House states that in Guantanamo, Taliban prisoners will be treated in accordance with the convention, although they will not be accorded prisoner of war status. The U.S. distinguishes between the Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners, although neither group was wearing military uniforms when they were captured, which the U.S. first claimed meant that they should all be treated as terrorists rather than soldiers. In any case no "competent tribunal" has determined that they are not POWs subject to the Geneva Convention. Certainly the U.S. as the richest, most powerful nation in the world could afford to give all of these poor Afghans (and other nationalities) the benefit of the doubt, and should adhere to the letter of the law to protect any of our troops captured during a war. We would not have to let them go, but treating them as POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention would counter suspicions that we are torturing them. The US announced on May 5 that it was releasing 22 detainees from Guantanamo, although it failed to give any detailed information about their release. This is progress, but the US should drop the secrecy around these prisoners, or ideally either release them all, or treat those remaining according to the Geneva Convention. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations The Vienna Convention contains laws regarding the exchange of consular officials between nations. Article 36 provides:
The United States has failed to adhere to the Vienna Convention in the treatment of foreign civilians arrested for ordinary crimes in the U.S. In particular, President Bush’s decision not to respect the Vienna Convention regarding the execution of Mexican national Javier Suarez Medina last August led to the break in cordial relations between the United States and Mexico and between President Bush and his former friend Mexican President Vicente Fox. Bush’s snub of Fox in that Vienna Convention case led to Mexico’s failure to support the U.S. in the second UN Security Council vote on Iraq, complicating the beginning of the U.S. war with Iraq. According to the American Society for International Law:
When I was a vice-consul in Brazil many years ago, I insisted several times under the Vienna Convention on forcing Brazilian police to allow me to visit Americans who had been arrested there. I believe that this may have protected the Americans from being mistreated while in Brazilian custody. I don’t know what would happen if an American vice-consul made a similar argument today because the US Government has been flaunting this convention. I would guess that today Brazilian police would be more likely to obey the law than American police. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty In 2002 the Bush Administration formally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It gave the required notice in December 2001 for the withdrawal to become effective six months later. In response, in June 2002 Russia announced that it would not be bound by the 1993 Start II agreement that outlawed multiple-warhead missiles and other especially destabilizing weapons. The ABM Treaty may have been outdated, but a better approach would have been to negotiate an end to it or its replacement with some less restricting agreement, rather than just unilaterally abrogating it. Kyoto Protocol to Climate Change Agreement In 2001 the Bush Administration announced that it would not support the Kyoto Protocol to the Global Climate Change Agreement. His father signed the Climate Change Agreement at a UN conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The Kyoto Protocol, implementing the earlier 1992 agreement, was reached in 1997 and signed by the Clinton Administration. Most "civilized" countries support the protocol -- western European countries, wealthy Asian countries, etc. According to the UN, although the US has not ratified the Protocol, 108 other countries have, making up 43.9% of global emissions, which means that it has not yet entered into force, because it requires ratification by countries making up 55% of emissions. The US is of course the largest polluter, emitting almost 6 billion tons per year of carbon dioxide, according to the BBC. As with the ABM treaty, the US joined pariah countries, rather than civilized countries, in not participating in the agreement.
|