Ending Western 'Doublespeak'?

Amnesty International today presented its latest annual report. It criticised human rights violations from Colombia to North Korea, but singled out Western countries – yet again – for their stance in the fight against terrorism. Amnesty’s Secretary General, Irene Khan, focused on two issues. The first was that of Western ‘doublespeak’: portraying themselves as champions of democracy and human rights, they are flying prisoners around the world for interrogation by states with a track record of torture and abuse. Khan said there was evidence that at least seven European countries had sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the use of their airspace for so-called extraordinary rendition flights. Second, and perhaps more worryingly, Khan believes that Western countries’ hypocrisy on questions of human rights has encouraged other states to lower their own standards. In countries like Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan and North Korea, Khan says, governments felt they had impunity to act against their own citizens because of the double standards they see in the Western response to terrorism. No doubt Irene Khan is right to raise these issues. Perhaps, though, she should have pointed out some of the more encouraging developments as well. For example, it seems obvious that even the position of the United States has shifted in the years since 2001. The idea of the ‘war on terror’, which was born in the wake of 9/11, is no longer the paradigm under which the White House operates. There is more sensibility now of the need for an ideological as well as a military campaign, and of the fact that the former can contradict the latter. Moreover, political enthusiasm for the more drastic measures in the fight against international terrorism has ebbed away. In 2001, who would have thought that Tony Blair would publicly call on George Bush to close down Guantanamo? Much, of course, still needs to be done, but it is fair to say that there has emerged a consensus among Western leaders that terrorism cannot be defeated unless the fight against it becomes consistent with the values they claim to promote. In this respect, it is instructive to read a recently published interview with the chairman of the European Parliament's foreign relations committee, Elmar Brok, in Spiegel Online magazine. Brok recently visited Guantanamo as part of an EU delegation. He believes that most U.S. officials now understand how Guantanamo has undermined American credibility, while a majority still considers the inmates to be dangerous, and would strongly resist the idea of releasing them. In Brok’s view, what’s needed is a process whereby Guantanamo can be phased out whilst making sure that no dangerous individuals are set free. Needless to say, it would also have to be a mechanism which allows the Americans to save face. In practical terms, Brok suggests a gradual transfer of control from the Americans to an international authority, which would regularise inmates’ presence and introduce a robust legal process. The proposal may only have a small chance of becoming reality. What it illustrates, though, is a willingness to engage constructively with American concerns, which many human rights campaigners are unfortunately still lacking. If any progress is to be made in ending Western ‘doublespeak’, it will be by helping Western governments get off the hook where they realise they need to change their ways. Indeed, it is one thing to criticise Western governments for getting it wrong on human rights. It is another – even more intricate – matter to say how they can put it right.