The area of international law is simply fascinating. It is this humongous conglomeration of treatises and conventions meant to govern the behavior of one nation towards another. The most interesting part is that none of it means a damn thing. Okay, okay. Don't get too excited. We pretend like it means something. The U.S. invokes the appropriate international legislation when it is appropriate and disregards other legislation when convenient. But so does everyone else, so its okay.
If you are clamoring for examples of this, we only have to look as far at the war in Iraq. According to the many tenets of international law, the invasion was clearly a illegal in terms of violating the rights of a sovereign nation. There has been some argument to this and unfortunately the ones who use this argument the most are dressed in camoflauge shirts that read "Impeach Bush Now!" Frankly, I still don't get that one. While it is often hard to separate legal and political issues, my statement that the Iraq War is an illegal one is rooted in international legal definition rather than in U.S. definition of the war. When other countries invade each other, it is much easier to see the non-legality of the action, its not so easy when there is perceived self-interest such as the need to protect ourselves from alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Now that the invasion of Iraq has been completely botched, there have been grumblings of invading Iran on a number of grounds, not the least of which is the admitted development of a nuclear weapons program. After the first inklings of this developing situation, I bristled with irritation and foreboding. Then I paused to remember Iran's policy on homosexuality. Iran's policy says, in short, that if two dudes are found naked under one cover without good reason, they can choose death by hanging, stoning, being halved by a sword, or being dropped from the highest perch. It is both unclear what constitutes a "good reason" or where exactly "the highest perch" is located.
Now it does take four witnesses to prove homosexuality under Islamic law, which Iran has adopted. Charges are often fabricated against gays because it is, after all, difficult to get four witnesses together to find two guys under one cover. The first two witnesses usually spoil the hunt.
In spite of the sheer idocracy of the law and the requirement for invoking it, Iran continues putting gays to death for the crime of homosexuality. A year and a half ago there was a highly publicized case of two teenagers who were lovers in life and, by way of hanging, in death. And that was after 14 months of imprisonment and 228 lashes each.
So where is the U.S.'s outrage? Where is our proclamation that we will come to the aid of the people of Iran and stop that same atrocities we held up for international scrutiny in Iraq? Do we only make a case when we are about to invade? Why were other nations such as England, France, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden more up in arms than the U.S. about the deaths of gay teenagers? Maybe it is because the U.S. is still in the process of coming out.
In the United States, we can't talk about Matthew Shepard without proclaiming that we don't care that he was gay. We can't talk about HIV without saying its not just a gay disease. We can't talk to someone who's gay without telling the story about our one gay friend. The U.S. hasn't grown up enough to accept the presence of the gay among us to go out on a limb and advocate for queers in another country. We just aren't there yet. Sure, we can invade another country in search of weapons that may, well, not exist, but we don't want to create an international scene about a couple of little queers.
When the U.S. decides that international law is not a tool of convenience, but an unbreakable convenant between sovereign entities, it can only come to the conclusion that those covenants must be enforced. Human rights treaties, nuclear proliferations treaties, and trade regulations must one day carry equal weight when the United States decides which laws it is going to enforce. The deaths of a couple of queers must someday spark the same furor as the threat of developing a weapons program. Until then, when it comes to the equal application of international law, the U.S. will continue to suck. That is okay thought, because right now, everyone else sucks more.
If you are clamoring for examples of this, we only have to look as far at the war in Iraq. According to the many tenets of international law, the invasion was clearly a illegal in terms of violating the rights of a sovereign nation. There has been some argument to this and unfortunately the ones who use this argument the most are dressed in camoflauge shirts that read "Impeach Bush Now!" Frankly, I still don't get that one. While it is often hard to separate legal and political issues, my statement that the Iraq War is an illegal one is rooted in international legal definition rather than in U.S. definition of the war. When other countries invade each other, it is much easier to see the non-legality of the action, its not so easy when there is perceived self-interest such as the need to protect ourselves from alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Now that the invasion of Iraq has been completely botched, there have been grumblings of invading Iran on a number of grounds, not the least of which is the admitted development of a nuclear weapons program. After the first inklings of this developing situation, I bristled with irritation and foreboding. Then I paused to remember Iran's policy on homosexuality. Iran's policy says, in short, that if two dudes are found naked under one cover without good reason, they can choose death by hanging, stoning, being halved by a sword, or being dropped from the highest perch. It is both unclear what constitutes a "good reason" or where exactly "the highest perch" is located.
Now it does take four witnesses to prove homosexuality under Islamic law, which Iran has adopted. Charges are often fabricated against gays because it is, after all, difficult to get four witnesses together to find two guys under one cover. The first two witnesses usually spoil the hunt.
In spite of the sheer idocracy of the law and the requirement for invoking it, Iran continues putting gays to death for the crime of homosexuality. A year and a half ago there was a highly publicized case of two teenagers who were lovers in life and, by way of hanging, in death. And that was after 14 months of imprisonment and 228 lashes each.
So where is the U.S.'s outrage? Where is our proclamation that we will come to the aid of the people of Iran and stop that same atrocities we held up for international scrutiny in Iraq? Do we only make a case when we are about to invade? Why were other nations such as England, France, Ireland, Italy, and Sweden more up in arms than the U.S. about the deaths of gay teenagers? Maybe it is because the U.S. is still in the process of coming out.
In the United States, we can't talk about Matthew Shepard without proclaiming that we don't care that he was gay. We can't talk about HIV without saying its not just a gay disease. We can't talk to someone who's gay without telling the story about our one gay friend. The U.S. hasn't grown up enough to accept the presence of the gay among us to go out on a limb and advocate for queers in another country. We just aren't there yet. Sure, we can invade another country in search of weapons that may, well, not exist, but we don't want to create an international scene about a couple of little queers.
When the U.S. decides that international law is not a tool of convenience, but an unbreakable convenant between sovereign entities, it can only come to the conclusion that those covenants must be enforced. Human rights treaties, nuclear proliferations treaties, and trade regulations must one day carry equal weight when the United States decides which laws it is going to enforce. The deaths of a couple of queers must someday spark the same furor as the threat of developing a weapons program. Until then, when it comes to the equal application of international law, the U.S. will continue to suck. That is okay thought, because right now, everyone else sucks more.
No comments:
Post a Comment