Who has more rights to human rights?
One of the achievements of its propaganda and diplomatic machinery Washington believes that once, after a meeting in Helsinki in 1975, he managed to turn the so-called third basket of the outcome of the meeting (humanitarian) in the main. Decade after decade, the United States used the "third basket" as an important weapon of foreign policy influence. Tectonic upheavals produced in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at the turn of the 80-90s. Of the twentieth century, Americans have convinced the effectiveness of their chosen instrument … In the end, Washington began to claim almost a monopoly in the field of human rights and the role of final arbiter in determining who observes them and who is not. And the more the accusations put forward by others, the more America limping own practice in this area. Claims to absolute truth of how and absolute power absolutely spoil. Russia has tried to respond to the constant assaults in the address, but somehow sluggish, the principle of "you do not touch us, and we will not touch you." And the ice seems to be broken.
October 22, 2012 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation introduced the first special report on the situation of human rights
Among the most serious challenges facing America — the growing social inequality, discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds, the practice of indefinite detention without charge, bias justice, operating outside the law in prison, torture, the impact of government agencies to court processes, weak penal system, violation of freedom of speech, Internet censorship, legalized corruption, limiting voting rights of citizens of intolerance based on race and ethnicity, the violation of children's rights, the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, leading to human rights violations in other countries, kidnapping , tracking of dissidents, the disproportionate use of force against peaceful demonstrators, the use of the death penalty to minors and the mentally ill, etc.In this case, the international legal obligations of the United States, is still limited to participation in only three of the nine core human rights treaties that provide control mechanisms.United States has yet to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1979, the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their family members in 1990, the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons and the 2006 Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 2006
Forced to answer the questions rather sarcastic one of the Russian liberal newspapers about the fact that before, say, Russia considered the subject interference in internal affairs, and now she took it, the main developer of the report, Commissioner for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs K. Dolgov said : The main idea is that Americans continue to position itself as the inappropriately absolute authority and unquestioned leader in the field of democracy and human rights. They are involved in mentoring, trying to teach others how to build them in their democracy and ensure human rights. They do it often rudely ignoring the basic international law principle of state sovereignty. Often their attempts to concerns about human rights in other countries bordering on outright interference in internal affairs. Russia, too, with that faced and is facing. This, in particular, one of the reasons why the decision was made to wind up operations in Russia by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). At the same time, the Americans, according to the report, there remains really a very difficult situation with human rights. (1)
It should be recognized that the priority in the audacity to talk to America about what other "always wanted but hesitated to ask," still belongs not Russian, and Chinese. Already a number of years for each of Americans report on human rights in China, Beijing promptly submit its scrupulous and scathing analysis of how the situation is in this sensitive area in the United States. As a result, relations between America and China, the topic is present mainly in the propaganda, in inter-state relations it is practically not find. Suffice it to someone from the Americans to raise this issue at any level of negotiations, as he immediately handed English translation of the huge Chinese folio sins of the U.S. counter-proposal and talk about it. And, indeed, why not? Acts as a magic cure. The enthusiasm of the Americans immediately disappears. An example is certainly instructive.
The first U.S. reaction to the Russian report goes on until about the same scenario. October 23 at the question about the report at a regular briefing was forced to respond to a State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said that since the text is not familiar, but the appearance of such studies welcomed, as the U.S. — an "open book" and strive to improve their society. Well, it is commendable, except that it turns out that this report is "closed", not even opened. In this case, Nuland said that the United States open to the world to see. Thus, the OSCE in November, "as always", sends back to the election observer mission, which, for example, in Russia, "encountered resistance to their work." (2) And here is what the question. Believing in them cobbled together a perfect image of American democracy, the State Department has "not smell under an" own country. And after allin some states in the U.S. have threatened the OSCE monitors prison, "if they dare to come to the polls".
At the hearings in the State Duma on human rights in the U.S., was invited Ambassador of that power, the famous theorist and practitioner of human rights, Michael McFaul. However, he did not show up, which is very significant. Hosting the numerous comments on all issues on his blog and on Twitter ambassador on this topic has been silent. Is he no longer interested in it? Or do not expect to hear anything new about the human rights situation in their own country? Then it turns out that he was either knowledgeable about existing violations and he just ashamed, or he does not want to hear anything about them, and then it is hypocrisy. The ability to notice the straw in another's eye, not seeing the beam in their own, — a characteristic feature of many generations of American politicians. Doublethink (by George Orwell) organically inherent in them from the time of the founding fathers. George Washington, for example — "the herald of freedom and democracy," but he's planter and slave-owner, who kept in the basement of his home prison with instruments of torture for misbehaving slaves (it recently, archaeologists have unearthed) and sent expeditions to different parts of the country to capture that belonged to him personally runaway Negroes. At this duality of American democracy has drawn attention Alexis de Tocqueville.
A number of publications in the United States have responded to the report in the spirit of "propaganda." Thus, the "Los Angeles Times" believes that "the tone, vocabulary and spirit" of the docu
ment submitted to the State Duma, was a "propaganda attacks reminiscence of the Cold War era." (3) The newspaper did not even try to refute or at least make out a given fact or conclusion. Only because if you evaluate the output in Russia in light of the report on human rights in the United States as a return to the Cold War, it turns out that the United States itself that war never stopped.
But the long-term reports The Christian Science Monitor, Fred Weir in Moscow believes that the report "well-documented" and "professionally written". Basically it is based on a U.S. non-governmental and academic sources, and put in it the problem of "quite familiar to any well-informed Americans." (4)Russian do not try to say something new America, writes Fred Ueyrd, they want to encourage her to change your angle of view and look at Russia without prejudice. They broaden the debate by pointing out that, before lecturing others, the United States should solve their own problems numerous. In the past, said Ueyrd, the Soviet propaganda machine was also trying to resort to this method, but rather unsuccessfully. Who answers Moscow is much more ambitious Russian really feel that their perception of America is far from correct. Yet American correspondent noticeably desire of the Russian side to move the debate "behind closed doors". And this is an echo of her past, which have proven to be ineffective approaches. For the White House this transfer simply does not make sense, since the subject of human rights is a tool, not an end in itself policy. To urge Americans to give up their decades of proven tools useless, it can only be countered own active position. Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — a worthy and successful example of such action. Firmness and consistency in defending the positions stated in it are not only important in terms of effective management of information warfare, but also to confirm the equality of rights of states — members of the international community. For it is impossible to ensure equal respect for human rights in the world, if not the equal rights will be respected, including the freedom of speech, states in which "these men" live.
Put a claim? Be so kind as to listen to and counterclaims. And so every time, no exceptions. Refusal — application inequality, which is also a form of violation of the rights of states and the people they represent, the fact that "was heard the other side." Audiatur et altera pars — a basic principle of democracy.
(1) "Kommersant-Online", 29.10.2012