Tweet
The latest Wikileaks postings have shocked the world. On July 25, Wikileaks posted about 92 thousand pages of US documents on the Afghan War. Besides detailing the actions of US and NATO troops between 2004 and 2010, the war leak has also made public the number of civilians killed during the US-led "war on terror" in Afghanistan. I needn't repeat that killing innocent civilians, let alone children - even during a war - is a crime. The Geneva Conventions have set clear and strict terms on such serious offences.
The war crimes remind us of another war the US jumped into (the Vietnam War). US documents say a large number of innocent civilians were killed by American forces in Vietnam, too. If there is any difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan, it is that US troops are perhaps committing more heinous crimes now because possess much advanced weapons today.
Let's shift to Iraq for another look at war crimes. Countless innocent lives have been lost during the campaigns of the US-led occupation troops in that country. US troops have treated human rights with bullets and bombardments there. But still the US trumpets the cause of human rights, instead of owning responsibility for the evil deeds of its forces.
After the latest Wikileaks postings, the world expected the US government and Pentagon to apologize for or at least regret their actions. But no, they call the leaks "a criminal act", ignoring the atrocities their troops have committed. And not surprisingly, the American media swears by "neutrality" now. Instead of criticizing the US troops for having killed innocent civilians and children, they are focusing on the possible changes in US strategy in Afghanistan.
US leaders are afflicted with a disease called "selective amnesia". They tend to have forgotten what their troops have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But surprisingly, they remember clearly every detail of human rights "abuses" in other countries. If this is not double standards, what is?
The 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices was published on March 11. The US, which presided over the human rights court, condemned almost every country on this planet except itself.
More recently, Human Rights Watch, an organization based in New York, condemned China for its "human rights record". Among other incidents, it mentioned the Lhasa riots of 2008, saying Chinese troops used force to quell "peaceful protesters".
Some Western media outlets have condemned China without any concrete evidence but when it comes to the Wikileaks, the say more evidence is needed to confirm that US troops killed civilians. Is this the objectivity the Western media practices?
When humankind was suffering from the horrors of World War II, the US made significant contributions to improving human rights, both within and outside its borders. Even after peace returned, it helped establish the UN. But after becoming a superpower, it became drunk on its own image and started its perilous tour of self-aggrandizement, trampling human rights left, right and center.
Thanks to US President Barack Obama and his "smart power" strategy, the US projected a better image to the world for a while. But soon the "great nation" returned to unilateralism over human rights and other matters.
Just as several developing countries pointed out at the UN Human Rights Council, the Obama administration still relies more on words than actions on human rights. The present US administration has made little progress on human rights compared to its predecessors.
If the US hopes to regain its immediate post-World War II position on human rights, it has to give up its game of unilateralism and double standards. The Afghan War is an acid test for the Obama administration. And its human rights face depends on how it deals with its own human rights violations.
The war crimes remind us of another war the US jumped into (the Vietnam War). US documents say a large number of innocent civilians were killed by American forces in Vietnam, too. If there is any difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan, it is that US troops are perhaps committing more heinous crimes now because possess much advanced weapons today.
Let's shift to Iraq for another look at war crimes. Countless innocent lives have been lost during the campaigns of the US-led occupation troops in that country. US troops have treated human rights with bullets and bombardments there. But still the US trumpets the cause of human rights, instead of owning responsibility for the evil deeds of its forces.
After the latest Wikileaks postings, the world expected the US government and Pentagon to apologize for or at least regret their actions. But no, they call the leaks "a criminal act", ignoring the atrocities their troops have committed. And not surprisingly, the American media swears by "neutrality" now. Instead of criticizing the US troops for having killed innocent civilians and children, they are focusing on the possible changes in US strategy in Afghanistan.
US leaders are afflicted with a disease called "selective amnesia". They tend to have forgotten what their troops have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. But surprisingly, they remember clearly every detail of human rights "abuses" in other countries. If this is not double standards, what is?
The 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices was published on March 11. The US, which presided over the human rights court, condemned almost every country on this planet except itself.
More recently, Human Rights Watch, an organization based in New York, condemned China for its "human rights record". Among other incidents, it mentioned the Lhasa riots of 2008, saying Chinese troops used force to quell "peaceful protesters".
Some Western media outlets have condemned China without any concrete evidence but when it comes to the Wikileaks, the say more evidence is needed to confirm that US troops killed civilians. Is this the objectivity the Western media practices?
When humankind was suffering from the horrors of World War II, the US made significant contributions to improving human rights, both within and outside its borders. Even after peace returned, it helped establish the UN. But after becoming a superpower, it became drunk on its own image and started its perilous tour of self-aggrandizement, trampling human rights left, right and center.
Thanks to US President Barack Obama and his "smart power" strategy, the US projected a better image to the world for a while. But soon the "great nation" returned to unilateralism over human rights and other matters.
Just as several developing countries pointed out at the UN Human Rights Council, the Obama administration still relies more on words than actions on human rights. The present US administration has made little progress on human rights compared to its predecessors.
If the US hopes to regain its immediate post-World War II position on human rights, it has to give up its game of unilateralism and double standards. The Afghan War is an acid test for the Obama administration. And its human rights face depends on how it deals with its own human rights violations.