Home| YooskTV| Members| Public Figures| Features| Search| Journalists| Site Guide - FAQs|
 
  1. I'd like to ask
  3. 407 people in 166 cities are asking questions to 606 people
  2. Login
    Username
     
     Password
     
UK Response to Worldwide Human Rights Violations

UK Response to Worldwide Human Rights Violations 		Presented by
Charlie Perrins 		Submit questions by Nov 30 2008
Interview published on Dec 01 2008
Introduction

Global Human Rights Abuse – Your Burning Questions

By Charlie Perrins

 

Can you rank human rights in order of importance? Can a government ever ethically use torture? Are Tony Blair and George W. Bush war criminals?

Discussions of human rights force us to question our assumptions about democracy, citizenship, politics and law. While the questions listed above may seem straightforward, the answers from the Yoosk panel on global human rights abuse were often anything but.

The panel consisted of Craig Murray - former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and self proclaimed dissident, Dr Stephen Hopgood - political scientist and human rights expert at the world famous School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and Amnesty International UK – the UK arm of the global human rights awareness organisation. Although David Miliband declined to take part in the discussion, questions put to him were dealt with by other members of the panel, and their responses will be shared with readers as soon as possible. 

War Criminals?

 The online debate was opened by a reader asking Mr. Murray whether he believes there are “grounds for going after Tony Blair and George Bush for human rights abuses?” The panellists responded by debating whether sanctions against Bush and Blair could and should be enforced. 

Craig Murray is in “no doubt” that Tony Blair and George W. Bush are “guilty of major breaches of international law”, and defines two specific war crimes: planning an aggressive war and exploiting the resources of an occupied country. Citing the Nuremberg trials and the Hague Convention, amongst many others, he lays out a compelling indictment of the two world leaders and, “on the Nuremberg precedents, their foreign ministers or secretaries of state, their top military leadership and others”.

Sanctions

Dr. Hopgood sets aside the question of legality in the case of the Iraq war, and instead explains how, paradoxically, putting politicians like Tony Blair and George bush on trial for human rights abuse could effectively destroy the international human rights movement.

For Hopgood “politics comes before the law”. By this he means that a legal framework can only exist and be effective if it is “backed by some notion of consent and enforcement.” The various international human rights agreements, treaties and official bodies constitute a legal framework, albeit one not constrained by a state.

“The international human rights regime functions as it does because states like the USA and Britain stand behind it. If you want to get to the situation where you can put the president of the United States on trial [for human rights abuses] then this whole regime is going to collapse completely.”

 Murray and Hopgood were rarely in outright disagreement over the issues raised by readers, but they approached their answers to identical questions in very different ways. Not least in their thoughts on the use of torture by the intelligence services.

Torture 

Craig Murray left the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after alleging that the UK government makes use of intelligence obtained through torture in Uzbekistan. Murray’s opposition to torture appears predicated on the notion that torture simply does not provide reliable intelligence. He recalls the former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, claiming in 2005 that the ricin plot was an example of UK lives being saved by torture: 

“The evidence from the ricin plot came from torture in Algeria… The trouble is, that information turned out to be totally bogus. What nobody remembers about the ricin plot was that everyone was found not guilty of conspiracy. The court found that there was no ricin and there was no plot.”

Hopgood to some extent discards the efficacy of the torture as a factor in his evaluation. He also excuses individuals from the ethical dilemma. Focusing on the state’s position, he says:

“If it is democratically mandated in some way that [torture] is an allowable technique, as I would argue implicitly it is in the United States, where there isn't a massive outpouring of anti torture sentiment, then the government would be acting ethically.”

The key for Hopgood is “full and frank” disclosure by the global intelligence community of their activities. A state needs a democratic mandate in order to claim its use of torture is ethical. Societies can only mandate such activities if they are given all the information and then allowed to make their own choices. Hopgood’s position is deliberately idealised in order to emphasise the classic dilemma: Can a democracy decide to do anything that it wants, or do universal human rights exist which must “trump” democracy at some point?

Broader Horizons?

Readers appeared preoccupied with the concept of human rights as they apply to the recent history of liberal intervention by Western governments. Yooskers are of course most likely to be interested in those things that they have found to be controversial or compelling in reported news. One reader pointed out that the UK government does not intervene consistently where international human rights abuses are concerned. Murray is frank in his response to this. “There are very few direct UK interests at stake in Burma and Zimbabwe. I think that altruistic intervention is something of a myth.”

If the government is ignoring human rights abuse in a dark corner of the world the likelihood is that fewer Yooskers will ask questions on that situation. This is where organisations such as Amnesty International do great work – highlighting human rights abuse where and when the world’s media does not.

David Miliband (show answers)
  1. keithwhu asked David Miliband: "Do you think that for one country to criticise the human rights record of another country, that country should itself have an exemplary record on human rights? If so, could you give some examples of any..." Show more »"Do you think that for one country to criticise the human rights record of another country, that country should itself have an exemplary record on human rights? If so, could you give some examples of any countries with an exemplary record?" Show less »
  2. David Miliband answers: "Click "video icon" to view answer."
  4. Is this a good answer?    3    1
  5. 0 comment   |  Topic: World Affairs   |   Email to friends
Craig Murray (show answers)
  1. paulo123 asked Craig Murray: "Is it any worse to torture someone yourself than to allow them to be tortured by another person/country?"
  2. Craig Murray answers: "No. I think certainly if you had the power to stop it you should stop it. If you are encouraging the torture by another country, as I would argue the United Kingdom was in Uzbekistan for example, by being..." Show more»" No. I think certainly if you had the power to stop it you should stop it. If you are encouraging the torture by another country, as I would argue the United Kingdom was in Uzbekistan for example, by being a regular and reliable customer for the intelligence it produced, then I would think you are morally just as culpable. If it is going ahead without your encouragement, I would argue you have a duty to try to stop it. "Show less«
  3. Is this a good answer?    0    0
  4. 0 comment   |  Topic: World Affairs   |   Email to friends
  6. paulharnby asked Craig Murray: "having read the Guardian account of your experiences, would you recommend a career in the Foreign Office and why?"
  7. Craig Murray answers: "I think if decent people decided they weren't going to work for government at all that would simply make the situation worse. So I wouldn't recommend people to boycott the Foreign Office or government..." Show more»" I think if decent people decided they weren't going to work for government at all that would simply make the situation worse. So I wouldn't recommend people to boycott the Foreign Office or government service in general. "Show less«
  8. Is this a good answer?    1    0
  9. 0 comment   |  Topic: World Affairs   |   Email to friends
  11. bonzo1 asked Craig Murray: "Do you believe there are grounds for going after Tony Blair and George Bush for human rights abuses? Are there any leading figures you think might have human rights cases to answer?"
  12. Craig Murray answers: "I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of international law Tony Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of major breaches of international law, which in the past have been shown to be breaches that can..." Show more»" I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of international law Tony Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of major breaches of international law, which in the past have been shown to be breaches that can be sanctioned, where action can be taken. I think the first reference for that has to be the statutes of the Nuremberg tribunal, which made absolutely plain that launching an aggressive war and planning and conspiring an aggressive war, including not using diplomacy in good faith, was a war crime, in fact was the most fundamental war crime. I think the launching of the war against Iraq on the basis of lies, and the fact that they sought an aggressive war against Iraq for a long time is undoubtedly a sanctionable war crime, and that's the most important answer. There are then further breaches of international law. Under the Hague convention, once you have occupied a country it is illegal to exploit its resources, or to change its laws. The Hague convention of 1907 is quite explicit on that point. And when Bush and Blair obtained the legalisation of the occupation of Iraq, post-facto, by a Security Council resolution, that Security Council resolution specifically said they must abide by the Hague convention. They nonetheless went on to break the Hague convention by privatising hundreds of Iraqi companies and giving their assets to American companies, which was done by the US provisional administration, and was a despoliation of Iraq, contrary to the Hague convention. So, you’ve got two areas there, launching an aggressive war and then economic exploitation of a conquered country, both of which are plainly illegal in international law. And in both areas Bush and Blair, and on the Nuremberg precedents their foreign ministers or secretaries of state, their top military leadership and others are plainly guilty. "Show less«
  13. Is this a good answer?    0    0
  14. 0 comment   |  Topic: World Affairs   |   Email to friends
  16. hanoian asked Craig Murray: "Do you support the policy of liberal intervention and if so, which heads of state would you like to see removed? If not, then what is the alternative?"
  17. Craig Murray answers: "No. I don't support the policy of liberal intervention. I think in practice it really doesn’t work very well. Obviously there is a spectrum of cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan at one end, to perhaps..." Show more»" No. I don't support the policy of liberal intervention. I think in practice it really doesn’t work very well. Obviously there is a spectrum of cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan at one end, to perhaps Kosovo and Sierra Leone and you find people who argue that liberal intervention is justified in some cases, and not in others. My view is to be very cautious about it always, partly because people very seldom welcome occupiers as liberators, which is the major lesson of Iraq. You have to be certain that loss of life caused during the liberal intervention is going to be outweighed by the improvement you are going to bring to the situation, and you get into the difficulties of weighing up the Utilitarian argument - is it really worth killing fifty thousand people to ameliorate the lives of a million? Also, of course, you have the whole concept of international law. The rather painstaking build up of international law, which had been led by countries like the United Kingdom, has been somewhat demolished by the behaviour of the United States and the UK in recent years. We've absolutely smashed through the UN charter through our invasion of Iraq without security council authority and we have effectively torn up documents like the UN convention against torture, the Geneva conventions, the Hague conventions, and numerous others. One of the great difficulties with interventionism is that very often it is predicated on an over simplistic analysis of the problem that you are trying to solve. For me this was the biggest single failing of Tony Blair's foreign policy. He saw the world significantly in black and white terms, and in quite complex conflicts he would ask - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, in effect. Then we would perhaps intervene on behalf of the good guys. But the sad truth is that in conflict situations there seldom are any good guys. "Show less«
  18. Is this a good answer?    0