Part Three of The Hypocrisy of the U.S. in International Standards
The U.S. is seen as the leader of the free world, the country that other countries look up and aspire to. It is the representation of freedom and democracy. If any country hopes to achieve legitimization (other countries view a country as truly democratic with goals in mind to create a better world order for those citizens and all humans, as well as have an accepted authority) in the international order it needs to please the United Nations (U.N.), though really it needs to please the U.S. The easiest way to this this then would be to mimic the U.S. While the U.S. and U.N. maintain rigorous standards for international legitimization and relations, the U.S. is a bit hypocritical in this approach. It argues that countries must sign the various resolutions, declarations, and conventions the U.N. creates in order to prove their commitment to democracy and thus their legitimization. The U.S., however, has opted out of many important and sometimes obligatory laws. Some of these include: the Law of the Sea Treaty, human rights treaties (on children, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and those experiencing enforced disappearance), conventions (against discrimination against women, cluster munitions, and against torture), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Mine Ban Treaty. Part Three will feature the Cluster Munitions Treaty, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions (also known as CCM) was adopted in 2008 banning the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of cluster munitions because they release many tiny bomblets over a wide area, thus threatening civilians both during attacks and afterwards.
Two main reasons the U.S. didn’t ratify the treaty is because the U.S. is a main manufacturer of cluster munitions and they are seen as having military value. The U.S. produced an alternate treaty called the Convention on Conventional Weapons which is weaker than the CCM with lower standards that U.S. policy already requires.
The largest reason the U.S. should ratify the treaty is because of the humanitarian implications of these bomb; the U.S. cannot say it is the leader of human rights if these “coward’s bombs” are still used in a normalized status.
This next topic is a bit different from the others because it is optional, but it’s a heavy topic that deserves a heavy conversation. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (also known as OPCAT) was adopted in 2002 as a human rights convention. If it were ratified it would commit member states to creating an independent oversight group to ensure and prevent people within that country from being tortured.
The Bush Administration declined to ratify this treaty because the independent inspections would be intrusive, the prisoners already have enough opportunities to complain about abuse, and the protocol would be intrusive to U.S. states’ rights.
The benefits of ratification include legitimization and confidence in that state by the international community. OPCAT seeks to improve the Convention against Torture (that the U.S. did ratify; also known as CAT) and thus provides measure to ensure better compliance with CAT.
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (also known as ICPPED) was enacted in 2010 to prevent forced disappearances (secret abductions or imprisonment by a state or political entity) because it is defined in international law as a crime against humanity.
A likely reason the U.S. was apprehensive the supporting the document is that U.S. intelligence services are known for running black sites and secret prisons. Also likely is the fact that law will not be enacted for quite some time, as President Trump is looking to review black sites and may have them reinstated. A main issue with treaties like this is the possible threat to sovereignty. This argument has little pull in the international community, however, and is seen as highly hypocritical as the U.S. serves to undermine other countries’ sovereignty in the name of human rights (such as Iran and Syria). Of course, though, why would a country want to give up any power that could give it leverage over other entities, as secret abductions and black site threats would be sure to do.
The U.S. pushes for developing countries to seek legitimacy by adopting U.N. resolutions, and while it supports these resolutions, it will not commit to them. Does this mean the U.S. is losing legitimacy in the international sphere? For Part One, Part Two, and Part Four of this conversation, please click on the links.
