President Obama on Sri Lanka

President Obama spoke to reporters about the crisis in Sri Lanka earlier today.

Obama urged the Tamil Tigers to stop fighting and release civilians as a first step toward peace. "Their forced recruitment of civilians and their use of civilians as human shields is deplorable. These tactics will only serve to alienate all those who carry them out."

He also said the government should stop the "indiscriminate shelling" and the use of heavy weapons in the conflict zone. He asked the government to give the United Nations and Red Cross staff access to the 190,000 displaced civilians.

"Going forward, Sri Lanka must seek a peace that is secure and lasting and grounded in respect for all of its citizens," Obama said. "More civilian casualties and inadequate care for those caught in resettlement camps will only make it more difficult to achieve the peace that the people of Sri Lanka deserve."

Event in DC: Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?

"Can the Obama Administration Make the UN Human Rights Council Effective?" Friday at 11AM at the Heritage Foundation. It will be webcast on the Heritage Foundation website tomorrow.

More information here.

The Human Rights Council’s first three years have been bitterly disappointing, with the Council continuing the worst practices of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, including stigmatizing Israel and overlooking serious human rights violations by China, Cuba, and other states. These practices led the Bush Administration to distance the U.S. from the Council.

Human rights organizations and nations that support increased U.S. participation with the Council have anticipated that the Obama Administration would reverse the U.S. policy of non-engagement with the Council. On March 31, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fulfilled this expectation by announcing that the U.S. would seek a seat on the HRC in the upcoming May election to “make it a more effective body to promote and protect human rights.”

The UN Human Rights Council replaced the UN Commission Human Rights, which was heavily criticized for including member countries that themselves had dubious human rights records and for being overly politicized and therefore ineffective. Unfortunately, the UN Human Rights Council appears to have the same problems. For example, it was recently in the news for passing a non-binding resolution that condemned "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation. Nevertheless, the Council has a great deal of potential as its inclusiveness offers tremendous opportunities for engaging member states.

But equally crucial to the Council’s credibility and truly universal human rights progress is the continued inclusion of diverse countries and perspectives. The human rights movement has long been plagued by widespread perception that it consists of Western values being imposed by Western countries. Although some believe that human rights stem from natural law—law that exists as part of nature and requires no codification—the movement is ultimately an ideological struggle that requires sustained diplomatic engagement.

The Council’s innovative Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) process—involving a quadrennial review of every UN member state’s human rights compliance—offers a tremendous opportunity for such engagement. Unlike the reviews performed in other UN bodies, the UPR is a state-driven process. Other relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”), play only a limited role.

Although this premise is often cited as an inherent weakness of the UPR, it should instead be viewed as an invaluable opportunity for intergovernmental dialogue and diplomatic pressure where necessary. While independent human rights experts and NGOs are well-suited to providing findings and serving as watchdogs, in the end it is only state and intergovernmental actors who are able to speak from positions of strength.

Because of the membership of egregious human rights offenders and a tone of antisemitism, the US distanced itself from the Human Rights Council. The Obama administration has decided on a strategy of engagement and is seeking election to the Council.

Obama's First Humanitarian Crisis

Mark Leon Goldberg of UN Dispatch, wrote an article for the New Republic on Obama's response to the Sri Lanka crisis, the first humanitarian crisis to take place entirely during his administration. According to Goldberg, the response "augurs well for the place of human rights in American foreign policy."

Over the past four months an estimated 6,500 ethnic-Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka have died at the hands of their own government. Tens of thousands more have been injured. Unlike humanitarian crises in places like Darfur, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, this outbreak of violence occurred almost entirely during President Obama's first 100 days. It is the first man-made humanitarian crisis of the Obama era. So far, the Obama administration's response to the crisis in Sri Lanka is encouraging to those who believe that human rights--in name and deed--should enjoy a prominent place in American foreign policy.

The Foreign Policy blog, Passport, has a response.

First, the Sri Lanka crisis didn't start during Obama's administration; it's been going on for literally decades. This most recent episode has been brewing since the government ended a 5-year truce with the Tamil Tiger rebels in early 2008. Since then, the government has pushed the war into a final phase, vowing to finish the job this February in an independence day address. But the short point is: the U.S., and everyone else, has had a long time to see the current crisis coming. It was no surprise -- or should not have been.

(Image from the TNR story.)

Obama Administration Considering Guantánamo Military Commissions

Apparently President Obama is considering using a military commission system for prosecuting detainees at Guantánamo, despite criticism (including from Mr. Obama himself) that the Bush Administration's commissions did not provide adequate legal protection to the accused.

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

The military commissions, which were established specifically for trying Guantánamo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it would use military tribunals.

Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.

The Bush administration’s commission system was criticized in part because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and hearsay.

Obama Uses the "T-Word"

At last night's press conference, President Obama said the practice of waterboarding is torture.

"What I have said, and I will repeat, is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values," Mr. Obama said. "I do believe that it is torture. I do not think that is just my opinion; that is the opinion of many who have examined the topic. And that is why I put an end to these practices."

President Obama also referred to a post by Andrew Sullivan titled "Churchill vs. Cheney." He said:

"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

Sullivan re-posted it today. A quote:

"As Britain's very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting."