On taking up the Presidency of the United States of America the Obama Administration (unlike the Bush Administration), decided it was time to return to the table of international politics and take part in the UN Human Rights Council.
On the international stage, the entrance of the United States into the UN Human Rights Council is a big step for the United Nations. As part of its commitment the US recently submitted its first Universal Periodical Review (UPR), taking a step towards multi-lateral decision making. It is also the first sign of a possible shift in the United States' historical stance to events not American.
Back in 2003 Ms Samantha Power, Director of Multilateral Affairs for the National Security Council, wrote a detailed piece on the history of United States foreign policy towards genocide. Ms Power showed a consistent invocation of isolationist stances by the US, even where lives were very likely to be lost. There is even a suggestion that the resolve of the aggressors was strengthened by American inactivity (Power, 2003). I find it worrying to see resolve can be strengthened by an inactive vigilance.
Particularly so since, as individuals, studies have often shown us to be no more disposed towards intervention. Studies show our chances to help are often dependent upon a whole variety of factors and tripping over any of them can trigger a non-responsive behaviour (Latané & Darley, 1970; Davidio & Penner, 2004).
Some studies also show that self-perceptions of our own competence and qualifications when dealing with situations can affect our response (Baron & Byrne, 1991). This all provokes some questions:
+ Can some combination of cost-reward analysis and a perceived lack of authority go some way to explain US bystander disinterest in all things not American?+ Is a standing policy of intervention necessary to counter those who would use violence or intimidation and other abusive threats to get what they want?+ And finally does intervention in a situation always mean physical or violent counter-threats? Is it ever enough to make those who threaten aware they are being watched?
Whatever the explanations, with one gesture the United States has changed things. In joining the council it has thrown its not inconsiderable power behind United Nations led, peaceful, diplomatic resolutions. This act gives hope to individuals the world over in their struggles. The task before the US and the world now is to determine how effective these resolutions can be.
I'd like to think it could be enough to make the world aware that we're watching, but I am wary lest I let the Bystander Effect transform into 'Bystanders Affect'. Some examples of organisations I can think of in Britain today that are promoting active watchfulness are Bridlington's Community Wardens, the Met Police & CSOs on the beat and of course cameras. It has been said that the price we pay for democracy is our vigilance. But how effective can our vigilance be?
===========
References:
===========
For more on United States participation in the UN HRC:
+ Samantha Power's '"A problem from hell": America and the Age of Genocide'; Harper Perennial; 2003. See an extract at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2003/05/b228409.html
+ Bibb Latané & John Darley's 'The Unresponsive Bystander: Why does he not help?
'; Apple-Century-Croft; 1970.
'; Apple-Century-Croft; 1970.
+ J.F.Davidio & L.A.Penner's 'Helping and Altruism'; in M.B.Brewer & M.Hewstone's 'Emotion and Motivation
'; Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
'; Blackwell Publishing; 2004.
+ R.A.Baron & D.Byrne's 'Social Psychology (6th ed)
; Allyn & Bacon; 1991.
; Allyn & Bacon; 1991.
+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Daily Show clip from March 9 2010 with Marc Thiessen
+ Jon Stewart discusses Safety; Funny Guy Jon Stewart Makes Deadly Serious Points, Newsweek
+ John Philpot Curran, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" from the speech 'Right of Election', 1790; Published in 'Speeches on the late very interesting State trials
', 1808.
', 1808.
An interesting view on American policy, and how it affects us and, by association, the free world.
ReplyDeleteBut it will be interesting to see how, or indeed IF, Obama's actions are reflected in American psyche. Inherently, I believe that Americans are insular and look only at their own plight, caring not a jot for anyone else; which leads me to think that the average American on the street and in the trailer park won't give a (God)damn about other countries - unless there is something in there for them, and unless they can unleash the full might of the United States on them.
So Obama's actions will be largely ignored in the land of the free (Guantanamo excepted) because there is no wielding of the mighty sword of justice held in Liberty's hand, and there they are all too busy looking after the one number that matters to them in a Boomtown Rats-stylee!
Obama is good for America and he is good for the rest of the world, but do a lot of Americans see it that way? The gung-ho approach of Mr Bush (who says Americans have no sense of irony? Two full terms???) is still reflected in the eyes of many of the good 'ol boys and girls, and the mere fact that Sarah Palin is being considered a reasonable choice for future president is scary.
I'm not holding my breath. Other countries probably should!