SPECIAL REPORT / ON THE STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS : The Two Sides of Humanity : We Still Resist Full Compliance With World Covenant

Unlike many nations, the United States has a Bill of Rights and civil-rights laws, along with independent courts available to remedy abuses. What has been lacking until recently, when the United States finally ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights after more than 25 years’ delay, is any recognition that this country must account to the world for its human-rights practices.

The covenant is part of an international bill of human rights, introduced after World War II, to provide universal standards for the rights of all people in the world. The belated participation of the United States in this important treaty is a significant step in the advancement of an effective international system for the protection of human rights.

The problem is that the United States has not really accepted international scrutiny of its own human-rights record. The Bush Administration conditioned its acceptance of the covenant on a series of restrictions designed to ensure that U.S. law and practice would not be affected by our participation in this treaty.

For example, the covenant’s prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment might give victims of police brutality more support than they have under our Constitution. The Bush Administration insisted that the United States would accept the covenant only to the extent that it did not require more than the U.S. Constitution did in prohibiting police brutality, a position consistent with the Justice Department’s hands-off position on local police abuse during the Reagan and Bush administrations. (The prosecution of four Los Angeles police officers on charges of violating Rodney King’s civil rights was a major exception to that policy.)

The covenant also prohibits the execution of juvenile offenders, embodying an international consensus on this issue (which is also reflected in California law). But many states cling to this barbaric practice, and the Bush Administration refused to accept the prohibition when ratification of the covenant was being considered. Is the execution of children who kill so fundamental to American values that we cannot accept this international norm?

The Bush Administration also ensured that the covenant could not be invoked by litigants seeking to vindicate their rights in U.S. courts. Our acceptance of the covenant was largely symbolic. It was not intended by the Bush Administration to change the status quo in any meaningful way. To correct this, there will be legislation introduced in Congress--the International Human Rights Conformity Act--to remove the limitations on our ratification of the covenant and to give teeth to their implementation. Passage is essential if our commitment to human rights is to be considered genuine by the international community.

The Clinton Administration should also prod Congress to complete the final steps in our ratification of the international Convention Against Torture.

The United States is required to file its first report on its compliance with the covenant in September. Is it too much to hope that the President will apply the same candor to U.S. rights violations as he has on the economy?

In his confirmation hearings, Secretary of State Warren Christopher affirmed the Clinton Administration’s commitment to the international system for the protection of human rights.

The United States must not only put that commitment into practice in its foreign policy; we must uphold the same commitment at home. The human-rights standards that we apply to Bosnia or Beijing must also hold in Los Angeles and Miami.