An Open Letter to our National
Embarrassment of a President and his Morally Bankrupt Administration;
I
have watched the majority of what this administration has done with embarrassed
horror. But this recent action has truly taken the cake of what you could do. I
was embarrassed, horrified, but disappointingly not shocked to see that you
have decided to remove the United States from the UN’s Human Rights Council.
This decision is a tragedy on so many levels, but as you and those advising you
clearly do not understand that, it seems a history lesson is in order.
Eleanor
Roosevelt, one of history’s most beloved first ladies, was an undeniable
driving force behind the creation of the Human Rights Council. Her influence
was so important, in fact, that when the International Declaration of Human
Rights was voted in by the UN, Eleanor Roosevelt received a standing ovation
from those gathered. It is her legacy you betray now, Mr. President, with your
decision to remove us from the Human Rights Council. The major powers involved
in the commission were the US, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France,
and China, one of the countries you, sir, protest the presence of.
China
was also involved in the commission created to develop a structure and mission
for the Human Rights Council. The US, Norway, France, Belgium, Peru, India,
Yugoslavia, and the USSR were also involved. At the first meeting of this
commission on April 29, 1946, these representatives unanimously elected E. Roosevelt
as their chair. They got to work immediately on the International Bill of Human
Rights, a document that is of great importance still today. It is a guiding
beacon of human rights goals, and has been the basis of bills of rights in new
nations. The first meeting of this commission took place in Lake Success, New
York. John Humphry compiled a list of rights for the committee to use as a base,
and they discussed it at length. There was tension that easily could have
halted the committee’s work between western and non-western nations. Western
nations were apt to put an emphasis on the rights of the individual when
drafting, while non-western nations were apt to emphasize the rights of the
group. E. Roosevelt deftly steered the commission through these issues, and was
chosen for the team of three delegates who created the first actual draft of
the document. In addition, she chaired the committee in charge of revising their
work.
Through
the entire process, E. Roosevelt was a strong advocate of the people. When
originally offered the position representing the US at the UN, she hesitated.
Though she had been active in the political sphere for years before she went to
the UN, she had concerns about her own qualifications, lacking a background in
either politics or law. This potential deficiency turned out to be one of E.
Roosevelt’s greatest strengths through the process. She was insistent that the
language should be accessible to the common person, that anyone reading the
document ought to be able to understand what their rights were. She regularly
talked her colleagues down from overly-legalistic language and navigated
cultural and economic differences well. E. Roosevelt insisted on a lack of
specific instructions on how to uphold the rights; rather, she believed the
only requirement should be that the rights are upheld. This way, countries
would have the wiggle room to uphold these rights in a way befitting their own
means.
I must
stress that it is impossible to overstate the importance Eleanor Roosevelt had
to the creation of the Human Rights Council. When the International Bill of
Human Rights was passed, E. Roosevelt was given a standing ovation for her work.
It was openly acknowledged that, without her unwavering leadership, the
document that is the cornerstone of the Human Rights Council never would have
been created. Thanks to Eleanor Roosevelt, the US can claim a place in history
as one of the most ardent forces in creating what we are now abandoning under
your leadership, Mr. President.
The
fruits of E. Roosevelt’s labor include 30 International Human Rights. I will
not list the articles here as originally intended due to length considerations,
but I will provide a link to the document in case you feel the need to
familiarize yourselves. I suggest that you, especially, do, Mr. President.
In the
hopes that we can now mutually agree you more fully understand the implications
of your decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council, I will move on to your
officially reported reasons for leaving. According to your release, you believe
the UN needs to end its anti-Israel bias and reevaluate who is welcome on the
council due to the human rights records of some nations included. Even if I
were to believe in the sincerity of these reasons, and I do not, they are poor
reasons to abandon the work we have already done for the council.
First, I
will address your claim that the UN needs to back off of Israel. Again, sir, you
seem to show a blinding ignorance of the history of the UN with this decision.
Israel was created following the Holocaust. The idea of Israel emerged from
Zionism among fears of antisemitism that lead Theodor Herzl, a Jewish
journalist, to believe the Jewish people would never survive outside of a
nation of their own. A UN vote created Israel and displaced 700,000
Palestinians. Given this central role the UN played in creating the initial
conflict between Israel and Palestine, it would be egregiously irresponsible
for the UN not to keep a close eye on this conflict. If you do pay attention to
the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel does not look good.
By no
means do I intend to minimize the complexities involved in the Israel-Palestine
conflict. Regardless of how it became one, Israel is an
internationally-recognized nation. The people there can’t simply disappear, so
some sort of mutually-beneficial peace agreement needs to be reached. Divisions
between the Palestinians make it difficult to sit down and have these
negotiations between the two nations, because the Palestinian factions are not
in agreement regarding negotiations, and there is no way to be sure that more
radical factions could be brought in line under any one agreement. Negotiations
are also made more difficult by the lack of trust on both sides, a problem that
you, Mr. President, exasperated with your decision to acknowledge Jerusalem as
Israel’s capitol despite the fact that Jerusalem remains a largely-contested
piece of land.
These
difficulties being acknowledged, it remains that a majority of international
lawyers, including a lawyer hired by Israel, agree that Israel is in violation
of the fourth Geneva Convention with settlements along the West Bank, territory
that is supposed to belong to Palestine. Under this convention, moving
populations into occupied territories is prohibited. Defenders of the West Bank
Settlements claim that the settlements are not in violation, as they are not
forcible military occupations. However, when you have to nitpick a Geneva
Convention, you are walking a thin line into cartoonish villainy. This is not
something we ought to be supporting Israel, or any other ally we might have,
on. If they are being investigated, allow them to be investigated. If they’ve
done nothing wrong, they’ll be fine. But if they have, we should not be
defending those who would ignore human rights.
As to
your second claim, that the US should not be on the Human Rights Council until
sitting countries with poor human rights records have been addressed… Again,
Mr. President, I wonder if you have ever in your life been acquainted with a US
history book. Our country was literally founded on a couple of history’s
greatest human rights tragedies. When Columbus “discovered” our already
inhabited nation it meant mass-death and genocide for the natives. As if that
initial genocide were not enough, our country continued to be built on slavery.
We also had the Trail of Tears, segregation and Japanese internment. Marriage
Equality was passed while I was still in high school. Our own human rights
record is far from spotless, so I do no believe we can claim the moral high
ground as a nation to say which other nations should and should not be allowed
on the Human Rights Council.
But none
of that was you, Mr. President! It’s all in the history books! And I know!
Which is why I’m prepared to bring up your own record as well. Shall we start
with your campaign? I was still in high school for the majority of your
campaign run (the election occurred in my first semester of college), so I was
not aware of the scope of the issues with you that did not affect me, but I
remember being exceptionally worried watching you run as a bisexual woman. In
an interview with FOX “news”, you said that you would consider appointing
justices to the Supreme Court with the aim of getting marriage equality
repealed. That concern of mine was often dismissed as unlikely to come to pass
but given Bermuda’s decision to repeal marriage equality it still seems like a
real concern to me. As though that were not enough reason for concern, you ally
yourself with Vice President Mike Pence, a man whose voting record makes him
anything but an ally to the LGBT+ community.
You were
no better once you took the office, Mr. President. One of your first acts as
president was to sign an executive order pushing the Dakota Access Pipeline
through. Ignoring the environmental implications, this did nothing to improve
our poor human rights record in relation to Native Americans. Standing Rock Water
Protectors came out in droves due to concerns that the Dakota Access Pipeline
would negatively affect the water supply on tribal lands. Protected tribal
areas are already abysmally small in the face of what we took from them. The
decision to push a project through them was nothing short of appalling and does
nothing to distance this administration from our poor human rights records in
regards to native peoples. It also seems questionable under Articles 3 and 25
of the International Bill of Human Rights.
Your
controversial travel ban, focused on predominantly Muslim countries, was
another violation committed by you. This did not go as far as the UN, because
our own Supreme Court ruled this action unconstitutional, but it was in
violation of the International Bill of Human Rights. It violated Article 2,
which states that discrimination based on religion and place of origin is
prohibited, as well as Article 18, which gives citizens of the world freedom of
religion. On that note, this attempted ban also violates the First Amendment of
our own constitution, which also provides freedom of religion. Your lack of
success with this action does not mean you did not make the attempt, and it
does not mean that the American people will forget. You tried to ban immigration
from certain countries based on religion in direct violation of the First
Amendment.
The
third version of this ban, which did make it through the Supreme Court, does
not absolve you of these wrongdoings, partially because we will not forget and
partially because the current ban is equally morally bankrupt. The
administration may have managed to couch your intentions in the proper legal
bubble wrap, but that does not mean we are no longer aware of the affects or
intent of the ban. Adding North Korea and Venezuelan officials and removing
Iraq may make the ban look less targeted, but the fact remains that the ban
still focuses on six Muslim-majority countries. And though language of national
security may have brought the ban past the Supreme Court, we still perfectly
aware that this was a decision based in bigotry. This began with your intent to
ban Muslims from this country. You yourself, Mr. President, have even referred
to the ban as a Muslim ban yourself, as you did in a May 2016 interview with
FOX’s Greta Van Susteren. The ban, even properly legalized, still shows a gross
disregard for human rights on behalf of the administration.
Under
your administration, Puerto Rico was largely left to suffer in the aftermath of
Hurricane Maria. Six months following the tragedy, eleven percent of Puerto
Rico was still without power. Aid was not readily provided, and evidence from
NPR and PBS shows that FEMA lied to Puerto Rico about what aid would be
available prior to the storm. The attention given to Puerto Rico stood in sharp
contrast to the speedy response in Texas. Your response here also showed a
gross disregard for human life. The first day after the hurricane hit, you
spoke about how dedicated you were to helping Puerto Rico rebuild before
spending the weekend golfing. You didn’t have your first meeting about the
situation in Puerto Rico, Mr. President, until the sixth day after the
hurricane had mad landfall. After aid did arrive in the form of 10,000 shipping
containers of food, that food remained stuck in port for lack of resources and
man power that we should have been able to provide. You didn’t make your first
visit to the suffering territory until the tenth day after landfall, sit, and
rather than reassuring a devastated people you made cracks about the affect
this would have on the budget. Even if this could all be overlooked as gross
incompetence rather than willful disregard for human life, the fact that eleven
percent of Puerto Rico was still without power following the tragedy is
telling. One has to wonder why the infrastructure of one of the wealthiest
nations in the world was so easy to destroy completely and has taken so long to
restore. The continued lack of resources in Puerto Rico is a violation of
Article 25 of the International Bill of Human Rights, which tells us that our
citizens should have what they need to survive and be healthy. It is also
telling that you had a meeting about your travel ban the second day after
landfall, before any meeting about Puerto Rico had occurred. Taking rights away
from other people was far more important to you than taking care of the people
in Puerto Rico who were dying.
This is
clearly something you did not want us to be thinking about, Mr. President, as
you also took the time to go off about NFL players kneeling during the National
Anthem on the second day after landfall. As much as I hate to give you or your
advisors credit for anything, Mr. President, this was a pretty savvy move as a
distraction, because, while not as pressing in
the moment as Puerto Rico was, the protest in the NFL was and is important.
They are protesting not the National Anthem, but the way police violence in the
United States disproportionally affects people of color. And the President of
the United States of America verbally attacking people for peacefully
protesting is chilling. While there was no direct violation of the First
Amendment, as you did not use government power to silence the protestors, the
attitude it reveals about protestors is concerning.
Your
global gag order, something you are trying to make domestic as well, is a
horrifying assault on the rights of women. This order is a targeted attempt to
take healthcare away from women and other people with uteri. The right to safe,
legal abortion is a right that was upheld in the Supreme Court decision on Roe
vs. Wade based on the Fourteenth Amendment. Forbidding doctors from
recommending abortion as a treatment to their patients is a transparent attempt
at circumventing this decision. The rule would also make it more difficult for
people with uteri to access birth control. Whether you and your conservative
colleagues like it or not, people have a right to abortions. As the president,
sir, it is your job to uphold the laws of the land, not circumvent them. Again,
your actions domestically and abroad with this gag rule also violate the
International Bill of Human Rights. It is in violation of Article 25, which
gives all people the right to proper medical care, as well as Article 27, which
gives all people the right to the benefits of scientific advancement. The rule
skates a fine line on religious freedom both in the United States Constitution
and the International Bill of Human Rights, as I have yet to hear an argument
for limiting access to abortions or birth control that is not rooted in
Christian faith.
Currently,
Mr. President, you are putting children in cages at the border. I do not care
that you signed an executive order ending family separations (an act that you
claimed to be impossible shortly before doing it). You still separated 2,700
children from their parents between October 1st, 2017 and May 31st,
2018. Many of those children are still missing. And the language of your order
was disturbing, to say the least. Detaining families together indefinitely is
not a solution and would constitute a large human rights violation. You are
keeping children in jail, and indefinite detention without a trial is unconstitutional.
The way you constantly attempt to dehumanize immigrants to this country is
appalling. We were all immigrants once, sir. Your wife is an immigrant. Forgive
us for mistrusting anything you do at the southern boarder when you built a
campaign in part on calling Mexicans murderers and rapists. And seeking asylum,
a process you deride, is a completely legal action under Article 14 of the
International Bill of Human Rights, and an action many of these families need
to and are trying to take. Detaining families trying to seek asylum also
violates Article 9, which states that no one should be subject to arbitrary
arrest, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which give people the right to due
process under the law and speedy trials.
How you, as a father and grandfather, can ignore the cries of so many children
is beyond me. If anyone is inhuman here, sir, I would say it is you.
Perhaps
these rampant human rights violations are the real reason you are choosing to
distance us from the UN Human Rights Council, Mr. President. We were already
being investigated by the UN for extreme poverty as of December of 2017. The
report from that investigation was not glowing, to say the least. And the UN
Human Rights Council called for this administration to stop separating children
from parents seeking asylum at the border. It is my sincere hope that we are
investigated for these atrocities as a nation, and that we are held accountable
for what we have done. There is overlap in these issues, in the demonization
and criminalization of immigrants and the poor. These are not issues that
should face one of the world’s richest nations. These are problems that could
be remedied with a little effort and compassion.
More
than being a representative of the state, Eleanor Roosevelt was an activist. E.
Roosevelt organized the Women’s Division of the State Democratic Committee, and
lead the Women’s Trade Union League, the National Consumer’s League, and the
League of Women Voters. She advocated for her husband to appoint more women and
African Americans to positions of power during his presidency. She helped to
create the National Youth Administration and Federal Arts programs, and during
the Great Depression she traveled around the country and spoke to people about
their experiences, publishing her findings in her popular column “My Day”.
Notably in relation to our current issues, in the debate that established E.
Roosevelt’s competency in the UN, she successfully advocated for the
resettlement of refugees created by the actions of the Nazis. She was also
perfectly aware as the International Bill of Human Rights was drafted of the
contemporary issues facing her country, and of the fact that the US would be in
violation given our policies on race at the time, but she was in favor of the
inclusion regardless. No one can deny that she was dedicated to her country,
but more than that she was dedicated to people.
E. Roosevelt was not about to let her government off the hook for its
treatment of its people, even in the face of the international community. Eleanor
Roosevelt’s spirit is what we all need to embrace now in the face of the
horrific decisions of this administration. We are a nation of people, not a nation of subjects, and I believe we have it in us
to learn to care about human beings rather than racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic rhetoric.
In the true American spirit,
Alyssa May White
P.S. As some of us believe in
facts and proper sourcing…
Sources on Eleanor Roosevelt and
the UN:
Alston, Philip. “Extreme Poverty
in America: Read the UN Special Monitor's Report.” The Guardian, Guardian News
and Media, 15 Dec. 2017, www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/extreme-poverty-america-un-special-monitor-report.
(PDF of the International Bill
of Human Rights and the related fact sheet can both be reached through here.)
“OHCHR | Statement on Visit to
the USA, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Extreme Poverty and Human Rights*.” OHCHR | Convention on the Rights of the
Child,
www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22533&LangID=E.
Silver, Marc, and Nadia
Whitehead. “The U.N. Looks At Extreme Poverty In The U.S., From Alabama To
California.” NPR, NPR, 12 Dec. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/12/12/570217635/the-u-n-looks-at-extreme-poverty-in-the-u-s-from-alabama-to-california.
“Universal Declaration of Human
Rights - FDR Presidential Library & Museum.” Home - FDR Presidential
Library & Museum, fdrlibrary.org/human-rights
Sources on Israel-Palestine:
Beauchamp,
Zack. “What Are Israel and Palestine? Why Are They Fighting?” Vox, Vox, 31 Mar. 2014, www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro.
(Fourth Geneva Convention can be
accessed from here.)
Sources on Puerto Rico:
Florido, Adrian. “6 Months After
Hurricanes, 11 Percent Of Puerto Rico Is Still Without Power.” NPR, NPR, 7 Mar.
2018, www.npr.org/2018/03/07/591681107/6-months-after-hurricanes-11-percent-of-puerto-rico-is-still-without-power
Meyer, Robinson. “What's
Happening With the Relief Effort in Puerto Rico?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media
Company, 4 Oct. 2017,
www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/what-happened-in-puerto-rico-a-timeline-of-hurricane-maria/541956/.
Sullivan, Laura. “FEMA Blamed
Delays In Puerto Rico On Maria; Agency Records Tell Another Story.” NPR, NPR,
14 June 2018, www.npr.org/2018/06/14/608588161/fema-blamed-delays-in-puerto-rico-on-maria-agency-records-tell-another-story.
Source on the Dakota Access
Pipeline:
“These Are the Defiant ‘Water
Protectors’ of Standing Rock.” National Geographic, National Geographic
Society, 26 Jan. 2017, news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/tribes-standing-rock-dakota-access-pipeline-advancement/.
Sources on zero-tolerance
policy:
“Affording Congress an
Opportunity to Address Family Separation.” The White House, The United States
Government, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/.
Lind, Dara. “The Trump
Administration's Separation of Families at the Border, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 11
June 2018, www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents.
Savage, Charlie. “Trump's
Executive Order on Family Separation, Explained.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 20 June 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separation-executive-order.html.
“UN Calls on U.S. to Stop
Separating Children from Asylum Seekers | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada,
5 June 2018, www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-criticism-us-child-separations-1.4691801.
Source on Pence’s LGBT+ record:
Drabold, Will. “Mike Pence: What
He's Said on LGBT Issues Over the Years.” Time, Time, 15 July 2016,
time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/.
Sources on the “travel” ban:
“Donald Trump Full Interview
With Greta Van Susteren (5-11-2016).” YouTube, YouTube, 11 May 2016,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=abXAx_wCSoE&feature=youtu.be&t=3m9s.
“Opinions.” Home - Supreme Court
of the United States, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx.
“Timeline of the Muslim Ban.”
ACLU of Washington, 26 June 2018, www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban.
Sources on the gag order:
Britannica, The Editors of
Encyclopaedia. “Roe v. Wade.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica,
Inc., 22 Dec. 2017, www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade.
“More than Two Hundred Members
of Congress Oppose a Title X Domestic Gag Rule | U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan of
New Hampshire.” Home, 15 May 2018,
www.hassan.senate.gov/news/press-releases/more-than-two-hundred-members-of-congress-oppose-a-title-x-domestic-gag-rule.
Planned Parenthood. “Trump-Pence
Administration Introduces Nationwide Gag Rule.” Planned Parenthood, National -
PPFA, 22 May 2018,
www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/trump-pence-administration-introduces-nationwide-gag-rule.
“Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 15 May
2017, www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/05/270866.htm.
“Trump's 'Mexico City Policy' or
'Global Gag Rule'.” Human Rights Watch, 14 Feb. 2018,
www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/trumps-mexico-city-policy-or-global-gag-rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment