Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to how the 2013 Human Rights Reports is the foundation of U.S. foreign policy and a statement to the world that the U.S. is watching to make sure foreign governments protect the human rights of their citizens (Photo Credit: Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images).

At long last, the 2013 country reports documenting global human rights trends has been released by the U.S. Department of State.

This year’s report, which was first produced during the Carter administration, is as important for what it does not say – or perhaps how it says it – as it is for what it says. In looking back at events in 2012, the report highlights several alarming trends, first what can only be described as a growing assault on civil society and human rights defenders.

From questionable lawsuits against people who are no longer alive in Russia, to legislation severely restricting foreign funding for human rights work, as well as narrow limits on the scope of issues that rights organizations are allowed to address in Ethiopia to considering legislation to force human rights groups that do receive some financial support from foreign institutions to register as foreign agents in Kenya, the efforts to undermine the ability, rights and legitimacy of civil society to operate freely is growing and raises several concerns over how well the peoples in those countries can enjoy any of their rights. When one adds the statistics detailing the crackdown on the media and journalists, the risks inherent in seeking to enjoy freedom of expression reach a new level of clarity.

The 2012 entries are also a powerful reminder of the widespread issue of discrimination and violence against women and members of the LBGTI community. While some individual attacks and incidents managed to emerge in the global media as happened with the brutal rape case in India, the daily barrage of harassment and attacks and the lack of accountability that women suffer continued from Egypt to Mexico to the DRC.

The report also documents the deliberate targeting of members of the LGBT community by governments in direct violations of their obligations to protect the rights of all people regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender identity.

It is therefore disappointing that this important document is largely ignored by the very government that produces it. The gap between what the reports document and the imperatives they convey for what U.S. policy should be toward a government that is committing human rights abuses and what U.S. policy is continues to grow. Military support for Bahrain and Egypt continues even as the governments in both countries seek to gut civil society, restrict freedom of expression and maintain impunity for violations of the security forces. The same report that castigates the government of Venezuela for restrictions on association and expression continues to arm the government of Colombia despite the armed forces’ direct links to human rights abuses and the government’s failure to being those responsible to justice.

Today Secretary of State John Kerry and Asst. Secretary of State Uzra Zeya both spoke to how these report were the foundation of U.S. foreign policy and a statement to the world that the U.S. is watching to make sure that foreign governments protect the human rights of their citizens. It is time that the United States held its foreign and domestic policies to the same standards.

© YURI CORTEZ/AFP/Getty Images

Could the NRA’s opposition to an arms trade treaty have consequences for US security?

There are many confusing messages coming from the National Rifle Association with regard to the effort to forge a global arms trade treaty. The NRA poo-poos arguments that point to the incredible human suffering the unregulated global arms trade is causing, including the thousands of children who are forced to become soldiers. The NRA also continues to deliberately and falsely claim that the treaty will undermine gun rights in the United States, in spite of the fact that the draft treaty text from the July United Nations conference reiterates that the treaty’s ambit is the arms trade between nations, not within them.

Underpinning the NRA’s view of the treaty and the world is that any effort to restrict small arms and conventional weapons is bad, as it undermines individual security, which can only be safeguarded by arming the “good guys.” If this is the case, then what does the NRA have to say about the recent events that transpired in Algeria and are still unfolding in Mali?

Mali’s chronic Touareg separatist insurgency morphed into the seizure of the northern half of the country in late 2012, when the Touareg allied themselves with Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an armed extremist Islamic group bent on establishing a state based on strict implementation of Sharia law and creating a new front against the enemies of Al-Qaida. It is arguable that successful seizure of half of the country had as much to do with the enhanced military capacity of rebels as it did the performance of the Malian armed forces. But while details are still being unearthed, most experts believe that this critical military firepower came from Libya, following the fall of Gadhafi.

The fact that the Touareg have fallen out with their new military partners and that French and Malian armed forces are now pushing their way north and retaking the country, still leaves the people of northern Mali bearing the brunt of the harsh implementation of an extremist interpretation of Islam. At the same time, while it is probable that the French military intervention will eventually oust AQIM from Mali, many governments including the Obama administration, are extremely worried that they will just move on and spread their armed struggle to Niger, Mauritania and even Northern Nigeria in the process building more launch pads for Al-Qaida and other armed groups.

One of the connecting lines between what was once a simmering separatist movement in a desolate part of West Africa and the specter of the entire Sahel region sprouting Al-Qaida spin offs is the proliferation of small arms. If a regional conflagration sounds alarmist, the same stream of trafficking that is propelling AQIM appears to have also contributed to the bloody hostage crisis in Algeria.

Those who hoped that things would improve after the fall of Muammar Gadaffi – who after amassing his own arsenal, went on to arm groups in Chad, Sierra Leone and Liberia –were given a rude awakening about why we need a robust Arms Trade Treaty. Clearly, no one thought about the potential flow of weapons from Libya to Mali, and if they did, no effective action was taken to prevent it from happening. A year later, the African Union, the UN, France and the United States are concerned enough that a military force is already in Mali, driving out AQIM and plans are urgently being pushed to have a larger African force in place in Mali before the end of the year.

In a world run by the NRA, there would be no restrictions on the sale, gift, and transfer of small arms or conventional weapons. Arms brokers would be able to sell their wares to people like Muammar Gadhafi, and they would eventually end up in the hands of people like Charles Taylor of Liberia or Mokhtar Belmokhtar who orchestrated the hostage raid in Algeria. The NRA’s leaders may not know or care who these men are, but clearly the rest of the world and the US Secretaries of State and Defense know the kind of mayhem that they could cause should they continue to have the ability to purchase missiles and assault guns over espresso.

No one can know definitively whether an ATT would prevent any of these men or others from acquiring arms, wreaking havoc on people and becoming a major threat to stability. But at the very least, the ATT could slow down these transfers, and make the easy availability of weapons to human rights abusers a little more difficult and save some lives in the process.

On the other hand, the ATT could be the difference between peacefully resolving an internal struggle over inclusion, decision-making and economic marginalization and facing the spread of Al-Qaida in a region where shortcomings in governance and human rights are intertwined with shortcomings in military capacity. We won’t know unless we try. If opposing extremist forces is in the interest of the United States, then ending the laissez faire trafficking in small arms and conventional weapons should be just as important.

Sometimes doing the right thing is also the smart thing.

The late U.S. Representative Thomas Lantos

Late last week, Congress reclaimed some of its human rights mojo when the bi-partisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) announced its new Defending Freedoms Project. The TLHRC was established in 1983 by the late Rep. Thomas Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to have served in Congress.

The project kicked off with the TLHRC co-chairmen Frank R. Wolf adopting Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng and James P. McGovern taking on the case of jailed Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab.

The goal of this new partnership is to increase respect for religious freedom and other human rights around the world through a focus on individual cases of human rights defenders and those who have been unjustly imprisoned for exercising their human rights. Members of Congress will “adopt” at least one political prisoner, using their clout to highlight each case and push for an end to the human rights violations to which the highlighted individual is being subjected.

The launch of the Defending Freedoms project coincides with Amnesty’s annual Write#4rights, when AI members around the world will write letters to highlight the plight of individuals who are at risk for simply expressing themselves and seeking to enjoy their human rights.

By working on behalf of behalf of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, participating members of Congress will also encourage countries to draft laws and adopt policies protecting freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from torture and ill-treatment, the right to a fair trial and other universal human rights.

The launch took place a day before a report by Amnesty International was released detailing increasing attacks against human rights defenders in Latin America, just one stark reminder of the need for leadership and an increased focus on human rights by the United States and the international community.

The Lantos Commission, US Commission for International Religious Freedom and AIUSA hope to grow this initiative and pair more congressional offices with prisoners of conscience to advocate publicly for their release and push for systemic reforms.

Amadou Maiga from Mali , who has lost friends in conflict, speaks in front of a mock graveyard across from the United Nations (UN) which represents those killed by arms everyday around the world. The group Control Arms set up the campaign to help draw attention to the issues of deaths by guns and other armaments. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

On November 8, the international community took an important step and recommitted itself to trying to rein in the unregulated global trade in small arms and conventional weapons. With a strong show of consensus, 150 countries signed on to a resolution that will restart negotiations in March 2013. There were no votes cast in opposition.

With the negotiations now scheduled, President Obama and his administration are presented with another chance to show leadership on the global stage and to answer the question of who actually drives U.S. foreign policy: the U.S. gun lobby or the President. On no other issue is this question as under scrutiny as the ATT, coming to a head when the U.S. delegation pulled a July surprise and torpedoed the negotiations in the last hours of the conference.

Predictably, with another conference scheduled, opponents to the treaty have launched incensed attacks that discard fact in favor of hyperbole. Among the consistently factually-challenged assertions is that the treaty will take guns out of the hands of U.S. citizens. Another piece of baseless propaganda revives the claim that any support of such a treaty is tantamount to trading away U.S. sovereignty.

The alleged threat to the Second Amendment is a red herring, as the treaty does not impact gun domestic ownership laws. The draft text unambiguously states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.” The fact that nothing in the treaty will undermine the sovereignty of the United States has been reiterated by U.S. officials ad nauseam, but clearly the facts are not really the issue for the opponents of the treaty.

In addition to creating a fictitious threat for domestic consumption, opponents do not acknowledge that the current lack of regulation of the global arms trade is contributing to one person being killed every minute, or roughly 500,000 deaths each year. It contributes to the displacement of 43 million people annually and to the 250,000 child soldiers currently serving in 19 different countries.

It is one thing to have a differing opinion about a foreign policy issue but it is another to attack an initiative that seeks to address a gaping need for millions or people and mislead people into thinking that their constitutional rights will be sacrificed if a treaty is secured. 

The arms trade treaty is aimed shutting down the black market for arms at the global level, currently facilitated by irresponsible decisions by governments, who flout or ignore their obligations not to contribute to human rights violations. It is fueled by loop holes in the current international regime regulating global arms sales, transfers and other exchanges and the lack of enforcement by governments of the regulations that do exist.

In the next few months there will be more histrionics and alarms about the so-called impending colonization of the United States. This from the same people that claimed that claimed the U.S. had secret planes flying over the country, spying on God knows what and that is the tragedy. While no one has illusions that the treaty will be a panacea or a silver bullet that brings about world peace, it will bring some pressure, transparency and accountability. In conflict and post-conflict areas like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia for example, even that little bit can make a huge difference.

In the end, the people who stand to gain from continuing the status quo are human rights abusers, warlords, and arms dealers. The resounding consensus on the resolution to return to the negotiating table to address such a challenging issue is a clear confirmation that everyone agrees something has to be done.

The United States, as the largest producer of arms, has to decide whether it leads the global community to secure a treaty that regulates the arms trade and protects human rights or whether the National Rifle Association runs U.S. foreign policy.

Take action: Tell Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ‘No more arms for tyrants!’

Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. © Amnesty International

In a victory for children in war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo, the DRC government recentlysigned a plan of action with the UN to eliminate the recruitment and use of child soldiers in their military forces, including a first-of-its-kind plan for protecting children from sexual violence.

This historic step comes after several years in which the Government of the DRC had part of its US military aid withheld under the landmark Child Soldier Prevention Act (CSPA). Moving forward, it is imperative that the world and the United States keep a close watch to ensure there is a robust implementation of the national action plan including, for example thorough screening processes to prevent child soldiers recruited into the M23 rebel forces from joining the DRC military. It is arguable that given the links between M23 and the government of Rwanda restrictions on US aid should also considered for Kigali.  Whether there is effective pressure on Rwanda and M23 or not, the decision to grant the DRC a partial waiver, allowing some military assistance to go forward must be leveraged to keep the government of President Kabila on track with further incentives tied to specific benchmarks.

While developments in the DRC represent a step forward more can and must be done in particular in Yemen and South Sudan where the Obama Administration recently renewed waivers under the CSPA for both countries and for Chad, which was removed from the sanctions list altogether.

While Chad was removed from the list of states that had US military assistance suspended, based on progress toward eliminating the practice in 2011 recent, UN reports indicate that this assessment may have been premature.

The Administration’s argument that South Sudan is not technically subject to the CSPA because they were not a country until after the law went into effect might meet a legal standard of credibility but it does not do much for the children of South Sudan nor does seem  portray US leadership on this critical issue in a very positive light.  There may be legitimate humanitarian and national security reasons to allow military aid to South Sudan but the Obama administration must do  more to prevent the use of child soldiers in this war-torn country including by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army.

Finally, Yemen was granted a full waiver on national security grounds, despite the fact that children continue to be recruited into government armed forces. Once again the rights and the future of the children of Yemen have been trumped under a now all too familiar argument.

Withholding portions of military aid is not a cure-all, and other means of pressuring these governments must be implemented, along with incentives. Simply discounting the rights of these children is shortsighted and undercuts the credibility of the Child Soldier Prevention Act and US leadership on the issue. It is encouraging that progress is being made in the DRC; the US must continue to do everything in its power to protect children across the globe from being forced into armed conflict.

The 2012 elections are taking place against the backdrop of unprecedented turmoil and challenges to the respect and promotion of human rights and arguably a vacuum of leadership in support of those principles domestically and internationally.

One need only look at the headlines in the news to see examples of where the human rights analysis is missing.

Click image to download a set of 4 Bingo cards you and your friends can play at home!

There is the ongoing crisis in Syria, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in the brutal crackdown by the government following protests for political reform.

There is the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and the implications for women’s rights even as the U.S. and its allies negotiate their withdrawal.

There is the 10^th anniversary in January of the arrival of the first war on terror detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility, which passed with little discussion or debate, followed last month by the death of Adnan Farhan Latif, who had been held there for over a decade, without ever being charged or brought to trial.

Amnesty International USA has published 12 for 2012, twelve questions that focus on the missing human rights agenda in the 2012 elections. The questions are aimed at encouraging the current political debates to ask the candidates whether they will commit to ensure that the Unites States will be a champion for human rights and include questions on closing Guantanamo, ending unlawful killing with drones, adopting a global Arms Trade Treaty, supporting the International Criminal Court, pursuing human rights-based immigration reform, signing an Executive Order on human rights, and several others.

What you can do

The first presidential debate will take place on Wednesday, October 3 at 9PM EST and will be moderated by Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour.  Help us put human rights in to the 2012 election. Tell Mr. Lehrer (onlineda2@newshour.org or tweet @newsHour) to ask the candidates one of these 12 important questions.  For example you could tweet:

Jim Lehrer @newshour ask candidates do u support immigration reform that meets #Humanrights? @amnesty

You can also download and share our Presidential Debates Human Rights Bingo cards to follow along at home!

Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s taciturn, ironfisted ruler, passed away after 21 years of increasingly autocratic rule, leaving the country and its global allies at an interesting and rare crossroads: Will the country continue along its current path of political authoritarianism and its extensive machinery of suppression, or will we see the rights of Ethiopian people restored in an more transparent, accountable political system?

Zenawi’s passing marks a major transition point in terms of political leadership and governance in sub Saharan Africa, as he was part of a third generation of  post-colonial leadership that succeeded in  establishing themselves on the global stage while creating governments that systematically  stripped individuals of their rights and then of their freedom.

Zenawi along with Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jerry Rawlings of Ghana were touted in international circles as the new generation of leadership for Africa, the unspoken subtext being that as “enlightened strongmen”, they were- just what Africa needed.   These men also astutely milked that status and developed alliances with major donors while in return securing carte blanche support for their actions inside their respective countries.

\Meles supporters highlighted his economic record and compared him to his predecessors, who set alarming watermarks for repression and human rights abuses including the Red Terror of the regime of Haile Mengistu Mariam and the late Emperor Haile Selassie, whose prisons also bulged with dissidents.

The record of human rights reversal in Ethiopia is unfortunately extensive and dispiriting.

Following elections in 2005, widespread protests broke out after the opposition accused the government of falsifying the results. Nearly 200 protesters were killed when security forces opened fire on the crowds in Addis Ababa. Tens of thousands of people were arrested across the country and high profile treason trials took place of leading opposition members, journalists and human rights activists. The 2010 elections took place in a context of intimidation resulting in the government claim of victory with 99.5% of the vote.

The Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, passed in 2009, is sweeping legislation that led to trials of journalists and opposition members.  It effectively criminalizes Freedom of expression– peaceful opposition to the government or calls for peaceful protest are being interpreted as acts of terrorism. The law includes an excessively broad provision on what constitutes terrorist activities which can be used to criminalize peaceful and legitimate activities. The definition of “encouragement of terrorism” makes the publication of statements “likely to be understood as encouraging terrorist acts” punishable by 10 to 20 years in prison.  These provisions mean that critics of the government such as journalists, members of civil society and political opponents can be charged for encouraging terrorism based on the government’s discretion.  Since early 2011, over 100 journalists and political opposition members have been arrested and subsequently prosecuted, charged with terrorism and other offenses including treason.

The Charities and Societies Proclamation, also passed in 2009, has been an all-out assault on civil society. Throughout Ethiopia, human rights organizations struggle to operate due to severe restrictions placed on their work by the law.  Restrictions include denying human rights organizations access to essential funding and endowing the government’s Charities and Societies Agency with sweeping powers to interfere in the operations and activities of human rights organizations, which among other concerns further endangers victims of human rights violations by contravening essential principles of confidentiality.  This law has forced organizations to cut programs, close offices and lay off staff.  Using the law, the government has frozen the assets of the country’s two leading human rights organizations.

Torture and other ill-treatment by the Ethiopian authorities continues to be a consistent theme in the U.S. Department of State’s annual human rights reports. According to the 2011 report:

“Significant number of the journalists and opposition members cited above spoke of torture or other ill-treatment during interrogations.  Detainees reported beatings, including with pieces of wire, metal and furniture; suspension by the wrists; sleep deprivation; and being held in isolation and in complete darkness for prolonged periods. Many reported being forced to sign confessions and other documents that would later be presented against them as evidence.”

The 2011 DoS report also notes that there were an estimated 86,000 persons in Ethiopia’s prisons, and refers to the use of unofficial places of detention in military camps and private buildings, wherein torture is reported to take place. The unofficial nature of these detention facilities only increases the risk that detainees will be subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment.  Adding to the problem is the lack of effective action by the courts and the lack of access by independent monitors to detention facilities.

This same 2011 report pointed out that in November 2010 the UN Committee Against Torture noted that there were “numerous and consistent reports” about the government’s “persistent failure” to investigate allegations of torture and prosecute perpetrators. And the “the absence of information on cases in which soldiers and police or prison officers were prosecuted, sentenced, or subjected to disciplinary sanctions for acts of torture or mistreatment.”

The Ethiopian government has a track record of forcible displacement, evicting tens of thousands of people during 2010 from five regions of Ethiopia due to government development projects.

By whatever measure, the report by the U.S. Department of State echoes reports by Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch and is pretty damning. If one were to look at the diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Ethiopia, one would think that that Washington remains mired in its rosy tinted view of Meles as one of the drivers of what was billed in the 90s as the “African renaissance”.  One need only look at the last G8 Summit, where Meles was one of four African heads of states invited to attend, and the foreign assistance Ethiopia has continued to receive from donor countries, be it for food security or for military purposes.

It is against this background and in the face or armed insurrection in several regions of the country and an opposition that does not have any space to speak or differ with the government that the United States faces an Ethiopia on the verge of change and uncertainty.  The simplistic reliance on “strongmen” to keep order, do the bidding of Western allies and be given free reign inside their borders  has been exposed as  doomed to failure in dramatic fashion in the Middle East and North Africa.

If selecting  a new Prime Minister  were not enough of an opportunity, Ethiopia could also be looking for a new head of the army, a new Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and a new president for Oromia regional state- all significant positions that could play a role in helping the country change course.   It is long past the time that the international community, including the United States, lived up to its rhetorical commitment to human rights and helped the Ethiopian people establish a government that is accountable to the rule of law, transparent and committed to protecting  the human rights of the Ethiopian people.

Countries in several parts of the world grapple with the horrific problem of the use of child soldiers exacerbated by the unregulated flow of weapons. © AFP/Getty Images

As world leaders meet in New York this month to negotiate the first ever global arms trade treaty, the Internet has been buzzing with conspiracy theories that such a treaty would infringe on Second Amendment rights in the US.

This is a fallacy, driven at best by misinformation and at worst by a deliberate effort to undermine the treaty. Given the incredibly lucrative arms trade estimated to exceed $60 billion annually (with the US exporting 34% of all weapons) it’s not a surprise that such a misinformation campaign has taken the Internet by storm.

Here let me break down fact from fiction.

Will the ATT stop the sale of handguns in the US?

NO it will not.

The UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

No ATT can therefore infringe on that exclusive right. To that end, all the papers circulated by the Chair of the UN ATT (Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina) process clearly reference that right.

Further, Ambassador Moritán has stated that the definitive goal of the small arms treaty “is to try to have common standards to be applied by all countries when they export or import weapons.”

Furthermore, about the ATT, the State Department has said:

“There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.”

What the ATT will do

It will stop the black market in arms on global level.

Every minute, someone dies from armed violence. Because of the out-of-control worldwide arms trade thousands more are injured, raped, forced into becoming child soldiers and worse.

While the international community regulates things like bananas and dinosaur bones, there are virtually no global rules for the trade of products designed to kill and injure.

There are several factors contributing to the crisis that is being caused by the global trade.  Key among those are:

• Irresponsible decisions by governments – who regularly flout or ignore their obligations not to contribute to human rights violations;
• Gaping loop holes in the current international regime regulating global arms sales, transfers and other exchanges and,
• A lack of implementation by governments of the regulations that do exist.

These factors contribute to and facilitate the black market as well as the terrible human rights abuses linked to this trade.

An ATT would improve transparency and accountability, and would establish common standards to regulate the different kinds of transfers that make up the global arms trade.

A robust ATT will require governments to establish stronger, more rigorous systems to manage and regulate their countries’ export and import of weapons and munitions.

In short, the ATT will help keep weapons out of the hands of the worst human rights abusers and save countless lives.

Amnesty activists descended on Times Square the week before Arms Trade Treaty talks began in New York. © Bob Scott

Earlier this week, world leaders officially opened the negotiations at the UN to forge an historic global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to regulate the international arms trade.

The negotiations cap a 10-year effort led by organizations, including Amnesty International, and a small group of progressive governments that have been fighting for the treaty despite skepticism of those countries involved with the incredibly lucrative arms trade estimated to exceed $60 billion annually.

The outright opposition from the largest producer of small arms, the United States, has been a critical point of contention is moving the Treaty forward. The administration of G.W. Bush rejected the idea of regulating arms, in effect removing the US’ 34% share of global arms market from inclusion in any global deal.

The Obama Administration reversed course and committed itself to securing an ATT, but until April 2012 rejected the inclusion of ammunition in a possible treaty or the need to have human rights at the heart of the document.  The challenge for the US is whether it will be a passenger along for the ride or whether it will help shape a document that will save the lives of millions of people.

Despite this, the ATT process ground its way forward and now is center stage before the global community awaiting the final two critical ingredients:

Political Will and Leadership, commodities that are currently in short supply in too many places to count.

On Tuesday, Amnesty International and coalition partners delivered over 600,000 petitions to UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon calling for a strong Arms Treaty.  The petition drive took just 3 months and ignited activism from Mali to Bangladesh. It gave voice to communities that are rarely heard in the corridors of power and all too often ignored by the media, even as recently as today.

Activists in bodybags outside the UN building in New York call for a strong arms trade treaty. © Control Arms Coalition/Andrew Kelly

Why has this issue triggered such a response?

Because this treaty is our treaty.

These are our mothers, sisters, daughters who are being raped.

These are our relatives who are living in camps, having been displaced from their homes.

These are our children whose lives are being stolen as they are turned into killing machines and losing not only their childhoods, but more often than not also their futures.

These could be our families and cousins who do not even have the bittersweet mercy of being able to bury loved ones either killed in dark anonymity or slaughtered, nameless, in a massacre.

The question is whether these truths will be enough.

This is what a strong Arms Trade Treaty can do:

• Curtail the transfer of weapons to those who commit human rights abuses,
• Close loopholes in the regulation of the global trade in small arms and conventional weapons and,
• Create stronger mechanisms to help governments comply and implement their obligations.

The question is now in front of all of us whether we will be the change that we want to see or whether we will allow our leaders to fall short.

Somali refugees wait in line for water.

Slowly but surely, the U.S. intervention in Somalia has reverted to a military-security focus, abandoning the Somali people to a dreadful fate.

Back in February 2010, reports indicated that Washington was imposing “impossible” conditions on aid deliveries for Somalia and holding up tens of millions of dollars of desperately needed food based on accusations that it would be diverted to terrorists.  However, according to the UN official in charge of humanitarian efforts in Somalia, the accusations of aid diversions to terrorists were “ungrounded.’

And a few month later in June, even after reports of the Somali government employing children as young as thirteen in the military, the United States authorized arms sales to Somalia for some 40 tons of arms and ammunition.

Unfortunately, the “new U.S. policy on Somalia” doesn’t stop with weapons sales to a corrupt government and the withholding of aid to starving people.

In June, Somalia witnessed the first U.S. drone strike within its borders, near the southern town of Kismayo. The strike targeted two alleged leadership figures in the Haraket al-Shabaab al Mujahedin, popularly known as al-Shabaab, thought to be in contact with Al Qaeda, and with fugitive radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.  Recently, the drone-strike “phenomenon” has been permeating the news because of the high risk of civilian casualties. While no civilians were reported killed in this particular drone strike, the first accidental death cannot be far off (if the United States’ military history in Pakistan is any indication).

If the United States somehow felt its presence was missed in Somalia, it has reportedly answered these sentiments by opening and operating a secret CIA base in a remote corner of Mogadishi’s Aden Adde airport. Recent articles published in The Nation and the New York Times claim that the U.S. has CIA operatives on the ground helping Somalia security forces question detainees for information on Al-Shabaab.

As another famine tears its way through the war-torn country of Somalia, the United States’ actions in this country have gone from noble to mercenary. No longer does the U.S. adhere to international law. If we expect the United States to set global standards, we must first hold ourselves to a human rights standard that is worth emulation.

CORRECTION:  This post was updated 8/18/11