Defending Human Rights in Iraq!/Defending Human Rights in Iraq? (You choose, I can't)

Someone shared with me the position that one of the more important aspects of the war in Iraq was in defending the Human Rights of Iraqi citizens. So, I'm going to look for some of my own answers.



My pre-disposition: this statement was downright silly, because of the well publicized and weekly (if not daily) violations of basic Human Rights of the greater Iraqi population.

• Which Human Rights are we talking about?


• What's Bush's stance? What's the dissenting stance?
  
  President Bush Discusses Iraq Policy at Whitehall Palace in London
  
  The deepest beliefs of our nations set the direction of our foreign policy. We value our own civil rights, so we stand for the human rights of others. We affirm the God-given dignity of every person, so we are moved to action by poverty and oppression and famine and disease. The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings. Together our nations are standing and sacrificing for this high goal in a distant land at this very hour. And America honors the idealism and the bravery of the sons and daughters of Britain.
  
  
  Since the liberation of Iraq, we have seen changes that could hardly have been imagined a year ago. A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. More than 150 Iraqi newspapers are now in circulation, printing what they choose, not what they're ordered. Schools are open with textbooks free of propaganda. Hospitals are functioning and are well-supplied. Iraq has a new currency, the first battalion of a new army, representative local governments, and a Governing Council with an aggressive timetable for national sovereignty. This is substantial progress. And much of it has proceeded faster than similar efforts in Germany and Japan after World War II.
  
  
  
  US ignors Human Rights Lessons
  
  International security depends on containing these conflicts, and doing so requires clear rules about whether, when, and what type of "humanitarian intervention" may be justified to protect human rights. Here are four:
  
  
  
  • First, large-scale genocide or crimes against humanity are being committed.
  
  
  • Second, the conflict is creating major regional instability, which the neighboring countries want to contain by supporting a multilateral intervention sanctioned by the United Nations or a regional organization like NATO.
  
  
  • Third, intervention is not likely to lead to wider conflict -- for example, by stimulating increased terrorism or provoking other countries to enter into the hostilities.
  
  
  • Fourth, the planned scale, duration, and intensity of the intervention are sufficient to achieve the objective of saving lives and rebuilding the country.
  
  
  
  Bush's preemptive regime-change invasion of Iraq failed to meet these criteria. The military operation was conducted unilaterally by the United States and Britain and was strongly opposed by countries throughout the region, the Muslim world, and beyond. Despite Saddam Hussein's appalling history of human rights abuse, there was no evidence last spring that his regime was engaged in continuing genocide that required immediate military action. (Saddam's genocide against the Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims following the Gulf War should have been prevented by international forces in 1991.) In fact, Saddam's human rights record was used by Bush largely as an afterthought to make up for his administration's failure to produce evidence of weapons of mass destruction. [continues...]


• What signs does the Iraqi government show with their regards to defending Human Rights?
  
  Amnesty International deplores the removal of a key human rights provision from the final draft Constitution
  
  Amnesty International is concerned that an important human rights provision contained in previous versions of Iraq's new draft Constitution was excised from the final draft, which was handed to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in Baghdad this week for printing and distribution.


• Which Human Rights were Saddam and his regime voilating?


• Which Human Rights are being voilated now?


• Can voilations of Human Rights be measured to the degree that we can say that Iraq is better or worse off now?

In a few hours of research, I'm having a very hard time finding people talking about America's beneficial contributions to Human Rights in Iraq. I retract my previous statement, "downright silly". I do think that my friend's statement was unfounded, and much to his credit I didn't take the time to hear more about his views. And this I do regret. Thankfully, I still have time to find out.


An unrelated article I wished to link for future reference:
Democracy cannot coexist with Bush's failed doctrine of preventive war