Political India: Engaging America

From The Hindu

A top United Nations official has said that he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the United States government,” after attempting to meet with Bradley Manning, the former army intelligence officer incarcerated on suspicion of leaking government data to Wikileaks, the whistleblower website.

The comments by Juan Mendez, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, came even as allegations of inhumane treatment of Mr. Manning by the Pentagon have intensified.

In particular Mr. Mendez was said to have been frustrated by the fact that although most governments permitted unsupervised visits to detainees, officials at the military facility in Quantico, Virginia, where Mr. Manning is being held in solitary confinement, have denied Mr. Mendez’s request to make an “official visit.”

Mr. Manning’s defence attorney, David Coombs, said that the Pentagon allowed for two types of visitors for a detainee – “authorised” and “official,” and the “critical distinction between the two is that official visits are privileged and not subject to Brig monitoring.”

Mr. Coombs further said that the government’s insistence on an “authorised” visit by Mr. Mendez and others, including U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and a representative from Amnesty International, was based on the notion that these individuals were not visiting on “official government business.”

“Such an authorised visit, of course, will be subject to Brig monitoring and can be used as evidence against PFC Manning in a court-martial proceeding,” Mr. Coombs explained.

Mr. Mendez further said that, “A private visit means with a guard;” however he added that his mandate was to conduct unmonitored visits and he would continue to press for an unmonitored visit. “I am insisting the U.S. government lets me see him without witnesses. I am asking [the U.S. government] to reconsider,” Mr. Mendez was quoted as saying.

Regarding the purpose of his visit with Mr. Manning, Mr. Mendez said, “I am acting on a complaint that the regimen of this detainee amounts to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or torture … until I have all the evidence in front of me, I cannot say whether he has been treated inhumanely.”

The latest controversy over Mr. Manning’s allegedly cruel treatment by the U.S. Department of Defence follows an earlier high-profile resignation by a senior State Department official who criticised the Pentagon’s actions. Last month State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley resigned after calling the Pentagon’s actions “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

Earlier this week, a group of 250 legal experts including a former professor of President Barack Obama wrote a letter condemning Mr. Manning’s treatment and in January a non-profit group called Psychologists for Social Responsibility wrote an open letter to Secretary of Defence Robert Gates saying that it was “deeply concerned about the conditions under which PFC Bradley Manning is being held.”

Concerns surrounding inhumane treatment have focused in particular on Mr. Manning’s solitary confinement for approximately 23 hours a day in a cell approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length and allegations that he is stripped naked every night and prevented from resting and sleeping.

Yet according to reports Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, denied these allegations saying, “We cannot, under Quantico brig practice, guarantee the U.N. special rapporteur an unmonitored visit. At Quantico, such a guarantee is only reserved for attorney-client communications.”

He further added that there was a lot of “misinformation” about Mr. Manning and insisted he was neither in solitary confinement nor stripped naked every night. “Except for a brief period about a month ago, and for reasons of Manning's own physical safety, Manning does not sleep naked. Nor is Manning awakened every five minutes by brig personnel. These facts are simply not true,” Colonel Laplan said.

From The Hindu

After days of prevarication through the peak of the Libyan crisis, the United States government finally moved on Friday evening to impose unilateral sanctions against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi.

The Obama administration’s latest move came even as the United Nations Security Council planned to reconvene on the subject of violence in Libya and the consequent prospect of UN sanctions.

In a statement on Friday U.S. President Barack Obama said, “The Libyan government’s continued violation of human rights, brutalisation of its people, and outrageous threats have rightly drawn the strong and broad condemnation of the international community.”

Indicating the U.S. intention to coordinate its punitive actions with the international community Mr. Obama said that his administration would work closely with the UN and other allies in this regard.

Meanwhile the UNSC, including India, contemplated further sanctions against the Qadhafi government for its violent repression of protestors in Tripoli and elsewhere.

Maria Luiza Ribetro Viotti, who holds the rotating UNSC presidency for February, said in a statement that the Council was poised to consider a draft resolution on Libya on Saturday and action was “possible” against Tripoli given that “there is a sense of urgency,” regarding developments in that country.

In comments to media Ms. Viotti warned that the situation in Libya was deteriorating with reported violations of human rights, adding, “The [UNSC] draft resolution includes targeted measures aimed at putting an end to violence and [achieving] a peaceful solution to the current crisis, and ensuring accountability of the Libyan people.

In imposing a freeze on all assets and property of certain individuals and institutions linked to the Qadhafi regime Mr. Obama said in an executive order that his administration had found that “Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, his government, and close associates have taken extreme measures against the people of Libya, including by using weapons of war, mercenaries, and wanton violence against unarmed civilians.”

In the order Mr. Obama said the he further found that “there is a serious risk that Libyan state assets will be misappropriated by Qadhafi, members of his government, members of his family, or his close associates if those assets are not protected.”

Given these circumstances, and the fact that growing numbers of Libyans were seeking refuge in other countries from the attacks, the deterioration in the security of Libya posed a serious risk to its stability and to the national security and foreign policy of the U.S., Mr. Obama concluded, and this justified the imposition of sanctions. Meanwhile the State Department confirmed that it had completed the withdrawal of its embassy personnel from Tripoli and suspended all embassy operations effective February 25th.

From The Hindu

Technical problems with simultaneous translations plagued the post-state visit press conference with United States President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao on Wednesday.

Yet the fact that many of the technical snags occurred when Mr. Hu faced questions on China’s human rights record was a fact that left many observers wondering about their timing.

The first set of comments on the thorny bilateral issue of human rights in China, by President Obama, passed through the sound systems unscathed.

Clearly enunciating the U.S. support for human rights and expressing hope that China would do the same, Mr. Obama said that during the state visit, “I reaffirmed America’s fundamental commitment to the universal rights of all people. That includes basic human rights like freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association and demonstration, and of religion – rights that are recognized in the Chinese constitution.”

On the steps forward, he added the U.S. and China had agreed to move ahead with a formal dialogue on human rights and new exchanges to advance the rule of law “while acknowledging there are going to be areas where we disagree.”

He was quick, however, to add that the U.S. recognised that “Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, [and] the U.S. continues to support further dialogue between the government of China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve concerns and differences, including the preservation of the religious and cultural identity of the Tibetan people.”

Yet the reporter to whom Mr. Obama had responded had also asked Mr. Hu about how he would justify China’s record on human rights, and if Mr. Hu thought that was a legitimate concern of the American people – yet no answer was forthcoming from the Chinese President, who instead responded a question from another reporter.

But there was no avoiding the issue when a second reporter reiterated his colleagues question and specifically requested a response from President Hu, who then replied, “First, I would like to clarify, because of the technical translation and interpretation problem, I did not hear the question about the human rights... As you raise this question, and I heard the question properly, certainly I am in a position to answer that question.”

Mr. Hu then explained that in over eight meetings he had held thus far with Mr. Obama, China had not shied away from discussing human rights and its position was that “China recognises and also respects the universality of human rights. And at the same time, we do believe that we also need to take into account the different and national circumstances when it comes to the universal value of human rights.”

However while he stressed that China was a developing country that was currently in a “crucial stage of reform,” and still faced many challenges in economic and social development, he conceded, “And a lot still needs to be done in China, in terms of human rights.”

China was willing to continue to have exchanges and dialogue with other countries in terms of human rights, and we are also willing to learn from each other in terms of the good practices, Mr. Hu said, specifically saying that although there were “disagreements between China and the U.S. on the issue of human rights, China is willing to engage in dialogue and exchanges with the U.S. on the basis of mutual respect and the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”