US Human Rights Standards Are an 'Elastic Ruler'

Published in The People's Daily
(China) on 10 August 2013
by Zhang Hong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Keith Armstrong.
In its final judgment, Russia has decided to grant temporary asylum to Edward Snowden, resulting in a cancellation by U.S. President Obama of a one-on-one meeting with Putin. Obama also complained that Russia occasionally slips back into a "Cold War mentality."

Apparently, the U.S. has forgotten its own past self-aggrandizement as the guardian of "human rights," forgotten that people like Snowden are precisely the ones who should be protected under its own banner of human rights and forgotten that it has provided refuge for many dissidents from other countries in the name of human rights.

At this point, everybody seems to have grown accustomed to the two-faced nature of the U.S. when dealing with these "human rights," of which the U.S. itself is the standard-bearer.

In fact, the U.S. chooses to turn a blind eye when confronted with many people's most fundamental right to exist.

These past few days, the skies above Yemen have once more seen frequent drone activity in the wake of U.S. warnings of an impending attack by the terrorist organization al-Qaida.

In America's war on terror, the role of drones has been among the most controversial subjects. Drones are known as "death from above," as they are seen as an effective weapon against terrorists due to their capability of precision strikes on targets without the need to put their operators in harm's way. However, the fact that drones can enter other countries' airspace at any time and cause collateral damage — mass casualties among ordinary citizens, including U.S. citizens — has also caused a flood of controversy domestically.

Since Obama took up residence in the White House, U.S. anti-terrorism operations have become increasingly reliant on drones. Obama has previously spoken out in defense of these unmanned aircraft, calling them legal, effective and necessary tools. Still, after coming under heavy domestic and foreign pressure, Obama proposed a new strategy for the war on terror in May of this year, including the implementation of more stringent restrictions on the use of drones.

However, some are uneasy that since the U.S. sounded the alarm warning of an impending terrorist attack, drones have seemingly "justifiably" appeared in force once more. According to the U.S. media, a U.S. drone strike on Aug. 7 killed at least seven members of al-Qaida in Yemen, the fifth such strike in less than two weeks.

Drones may truly serve an important function in attacking al-Qaida and others whom the U.S. sees as enemies. However, the U.S. "signature strike" policy allows drones to open fire on ordinary people whose identities are unclear, making the probable death of innocents from drone strikes all but certain. But this so-called "collateral damage" is apparently an acceptable price to pay in the eyes of the U.S.

According to data from Foreign Policy magazine, 3,600 people have been killed by U.S. drones, cruise missiles, gunships and special forces in non-battlefield settings since 2002. Nobody is certain how many among them were innocents who became collateral damage. Additionally, based on CIA estimates, 150 of the 600 people whom the U.S. killed in Pakistan in a 14-month period from 2010 to 2011 were designated as "other militants." This suggests that the majority were collateral damage.

Quite obviously, not all people are equal. Some people's lives are nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of the U.S., no more than a litany of numbers, cold and unfeeling.

These are America's so-called "human rights."


  俄罗斯最终还是决定暂时收留斯诺登了,结果就迎来了美国总统奥巴马的“小小”抗议:取消与普京的一对一会晤。而且,奥巴马还埋怨俄罗斯时不时就会退回到“冷战思维”。

  美国似乎忘记了自己一向以维护“人权”的姿态自诩,忘记了斯诺登这样的人本来正是自己“人权”大旗下应该保护的人,忘记了自己曾经多次以“人权”的名义收留了别国的诸多持异见者。

  对于美国在面对自己所扛“人权”大旗面前的两面派作风大家似乎已经见怪不怪了。

  事实上,美国在面对许多人最基本的生存权时,都选择了睁一眼闭一眼。

  这几天,在美国拉响“基地”组织恐怖袭击的警报之后,也门上空又迎来了频繁的无人机袭击。

  在美国的反恐战争中,无人机的角色一向是争议最大的领域之一。无人机被称为“天上来的死神”,因为可以精确打击目标又不会造成操作人员伤亡而被视为反恐利器。然而,无人机随意出入他国领空,误杀大量平民甚至美国本国公民,即便在美国内部也争议不断。

  自奥巴马入主白宫以来,反恐愈发依赖无人机。奥巴马也曾为无人机辩护,称其是合法、有效且必要的关键手段。不过,在国内外的压力之下,奥巴马今年5月提出了反恐战争的新战略,其中包括对无人机的使用进行更为严格的限制。

  然而,令人不安的是,在美国敲响恐怖袭击的警钟之后,无人机似乎又“理直气壮”地频繁出现了。

  据美国媒体报道,美国7日在也门的无人机袭击杀死了至少7名在也门的“基地”成员,而此次袭击已经是不到两周里的第五次袭击了。

  无人机在打击“基地”组织等美国眼中的敌人时或许真的起到了重要作用。然而,美国的“特征攻击”政策允许无人机向身份不明的平民开火,这注定了无人机袭击会带来无辜平民的伤亡。只是,这些所谓的“附带牺牲品”在美国眼中却似乎是可以接受的代价。

  根据美国《外交政策》杂志的数据,从2002年起,美国在非战争的背景下通过无人机、巡航导弹、攻击机和特种作战部队共杀死3600人。没有人能确定,这其中有多少是无辜的“附带牺牲品”。另外,根据中央情报局的估计,从2010年到2011年的14个月的时间里,美国在巴基斯坦通过无人机杀害的600人中有150人被定性为“其他激进分子”。这也就意味着,多数人是“附带牺牲品”。

  很显然,人与人不是平等的。有些人的生命在美国眼中不过是“附带牺牲品”,不过是一串冰冷的数字。

  这,就是美国所谓的“人权”。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands

Zimbabwe: What the West Doesn’t Understand about China’s Growing Military Might

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons