PARIS, Feb. 6 -- Representatives from 57 countries on Tuesday signed a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations.
Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable." In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment, except to say that the United States helped draft the treaty but that the final wording "did not meet our expectations." The Associated Press reported that McCormack declined to comment on whether the U.S. stance was influenced by the Bush administration's policy of sending terrorism suspects to CIA-run prisons overseas, which President Bush acknowledged in September.
"Our American friends were naturally invited to this ceremony," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said after the signing here. "Unfortunately, they weren't able to join us. That won't prevent them from one day signing on in New York at U.N. headquarters, and I hope they will."
Some U.S. allies in Europe also declined to join, among them Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy.
The convention defines forced disappearance as the arrest, detention or kidnapping of a person by state agents or affiliates and subsequent denials about the detention or location of the individual. The treaty, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December, has been pushed for nearly a quarter-century by rights groups and the families of individuals who have disappeared at the hands of various governments. It also addresses the international debate over the rights of terrorism suspects.
Well, of course there was no way that the government could sign this treaty. After all, if signed (and, eventually, ratified) treaties carry the force of US law, then the government would pretty much have to arrest itself once the treaty got through the Senate. And given that they've cooperated with the US on these issues, it would be, at the least, impressively hypocritical for Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy to sign the treaty.
What I don't understand is this:
...At a separate gathering, a non-binding accord banning the use of child soldiers was signed here Tuesday by representatives of 58 countries, including African nations that have been harshly criticized by the United Nations and human rights groups for arming children. The United States did not participate, saying that it objected to some of the wording of the documents but that it remained committed to its treaty obligations on the issue.
What could they possibly object to? We neither use nor advocate the use of child soldiers. All I can think is that it contains language about the detention of children captured on the battlefield, and that we do participate in. (I would like to hope that we don't torture children, but given the knowledge of what was allowed and encouraged at detention facilities in Iraq, that would likely be a forlorn hope.)
One of these days, we'll actually be able to sign treaties again, and behave with some sort of dignity and honor in international relations. That day, clearly, has not yet come.
Posted by iain at February 08, 2007 10:23 AM
