1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.” (UNCAT, Article I)

UNCAT stipulates that states signing onto this convention are required to have measures of their own in place that deal with torture within and outside their borders. Also, states are required to have laws that take steps towards the rightful punishment of those who are guilty of torture. There are 142 nations that have ratified this convention while another 9 are signatories who have yet to ratify it.

For more information on the UN Convention Against torture, please visit: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Geneva Convention

The Geneva Conventions is a group of four conventions that were written to deal with humanitarian issues. The topic of torture, however, was not the focus until the third and fourth conventions were adopted in 1929 and 1949, respectively.

The Third Geneva Convention was adopted to address the treatment of prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention, on the other hand, further elaborates and extends protection to people not covered under the third convention. The convention says that states occupying a foreign territory have the responsibility of protecting the rights of the citizens within the occupied borders. In essence, all people detained by the occupying force are protected under the Geneva Conventions (1).

Many, however, believe that the Geneva Conventions have only applied to those countries which have no ability to defend themselves, that is, those who do not have international power to “opt” out of the conventions. Some highlight Rwanda as an example. In this situation, the former Rwandan government no longer exists and has no power to “free” themselves of being tried under the Geneva Conventions. The United States, on the other hand, has had many recent instances which people have condemned as torture, but movement towards punishment has yet to take place.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and is directed as "constituting an obligation for the members of the international community"…essentially, all human beings. The declaration has served as the foundation for the original two legally-binding UN human rights covenants, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

INTERNATIONAL REPERCUSSIONS

European Response

European response to recent American scandals has been anything but welcoming. European diplomats and the population have expressed a “moral outrage” with the recent news that the CIA has operated covert prisons in Europe and secretly transports terrorist suspects through European airports. Fearful that “European values” had been violated, Franco Frattini, European Commissioner for Justice, threatened Poland and Romania (nations where the CIA had transported prisoners) with "serious consequences," as well as a possible "suspension of voting rights" in the European Union. In fact, according to a recent Op Ed article in the Wall Street Journal, “Anti-Americanism is so prevalent in Europe that it has permeated almost all areas of public discourse--from arts to politics to economies” (Wall Street Journal, “Europe's 'Moral Outrage'”)

In addition, several European officials have launched a series of investigations in response to the “Secret European prisons” scandal. Currently, there are at least six investigations into the suspected CIA flights through Europe. The UK Parliament has formed a nonpartisan committee, the Council of Europe is also conducting an inquiry, as well as a few committees in Germany and Italy (Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects and U.S.-EU Relations)

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9350/

Effects of Torture on US foreign Policy

The use of torture by the United States negatively affects its foreign policy goals in several ways. The United States has long been an advocate of human rights protection, “between 1948 and 1984, the U.S. was in the forefront of international efforts to eliminate the practice of torture in the countries whose governments still resorted to such a barbaric practice. Thereafter, the U.S. monitored such prohibited practices and denounced them consistently in the congressionally mandated Department of State’s Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” (2). However, since the adoption of practices of torture in the Global War on Terror, other countries increasingly perceive any actions in the defense of human rights by the US to be hypocritical. This weakens the US’s ability to promote respect for human rights abroad and renders all agenda that center around democracy promotion suspect in the view of the international community.

The Human Rights Watch's World Report 2005 urged another country to step up and replace the US as the lead defender of human rights. However, any country with the necessary amount of influence has instead emulated Washington, and thus, human rights standards around the world continue to suffer (3). Other governments such as Iran, North Korea, Malaysia, and Russia have justified their own human rights violations by deflecting criticism back onto the US or by using the United State's own excuses. For example, the Russian abuses in Chechnya are explained as the work of soldiers who are bad apples, not a result of government policy (4).

Furthermore, actions that violate international law are “rapidly draining the reservoir of international goodwill that makes the United States' status as a superpower acceptable to the world” (5). With increasing frustration with American dominance acting imperviously to international norms, “Washington will face greater resistance and find it harder to attract support. Americans will feel increasingly threatened in such a world, but trying to counter these threats alone will merely exacerbate the fear of U.S. power and isolate the United States even more" (6). This situation is especially precarious given security threats such as terrorism and nuclear proliferation that must be countered through multilateral actions. Given these situations, the Bush administration must take action to resolve “the staggering contradiction between its unapologetic proclivity to violate individual rights in the name of fighting terrorism and its preaching to others that liberty is an antidote for terrorism” (7). If it does not, the US agenda abroad will continue to suffer.

Written by : Eric Chow, Julie Faller, Catherine Fong, and Othman Ouenes

References

(1) “Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by US Forces.” 2002. Human Rights Watch. 1 December 2006.

(2) M. Cherif Bassiouni. “The Institutionalization of Torture under the Bush Administration,” in Symposium:“Torture and the War on Terror” (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2006) 391-393.

(3) "European Union." Human Rights Watch World Report 2005. January 2005. 1 Dec.
2006. http://hrw.org/wr2k5/darfurandabughraib/7.htm

(4) "Human Rights and the Future of Abuse." NPR. 25 Jan. 2005. 1 Dec. 2006.
http://www.aresearchguide.com/12biblio.html#b

(4) Stephen Walt. “Taming American Power,” in Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2005.

(5) Ibid

(6) Thomas Carothers. “The Backlash Against Democracy Promotion,” in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006.