Human Rights and the Hurricane

Like many who watched the television in horror back in 2005, I had hoped for a silver lining to the cloud that was Hurricane Katrina: perhaps the sudden, naked reality of the poverty that destroyed the lives of so many African Americans in New Orleans and the coming efforts to rebuild the city would allow us to have an important discussion in this country about the seemingly unbreakable bond between race and class. Now almost three years later, New Orleans is still in shambles, recovery efforts have been unfairly implemented, and we haven't had that important discussion about race. In fact, if Barack Obama ends up being the nominee for the Democrats, we may not get a discussion of Katrina in racial terms as much as in accountability terms. It would be quite foreseeable that Obama's handlers would steer the discussion away from the more racially divisive language to appeal to well-meaning whites who believe Obama is a post-racial candidate. (This is not a disparagement of Barack Obama, just a statement of political probabilities.) Accountability is much easier - we're more comfortable with blaming poor leadership and compartmentalizing the event rather than seeing this thing that already seemed too big as representative of an even larger problem.

Someone is talking about it, though. Last week, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issued a report and a request to the United States government to stop the demolition of public housing units in New Orleans on the grounds that it violates the human rights of African Americans.

More after the jump...

"A number of reports suggest that federal, led by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and local government decisions concerning public housing in New Orleans would lead to the demolition of thousands of public housing units affecting approximately 5,000 families who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. The demolition of the St. Bernard public housing development apparently commenced the week of 18 February 2008 and others are planned for the Lafitte, B.W. Cooper, and C.J. Peete public housing developments. Meaningful consultation and participation in decision-making of communities and families affected by these demolitions and related redevelopment proposals appears not to have taken place. While we understand the intention to replace the demolished housing, we understand that only a portion of the new housing units will be for residents in need of subsidized housing and the remainder will be offered at the market rate. Further, we understand that the new housing will not be available for a significant period of time nor will there be one for one replacement for housing units destroyed. These demolitions, therefore, could effectively deny thousands of African-American residents their right to return to housing from which they were displaced by the hurricane. The authorities claim that the demolition of public housing is not intentionally discriminatory. Notwithstanding the validity of these claims, the lack of consultation with those affected and the disproportionate impact on poorer and predominantly African-American residents and former residents would result in the denial of internationally recognized human rights."

The UN has been involved for some time with the status of refugees from New Orleans, and have called several officials from the US government to testify in Geneva. In response to the report, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) issued a press release calling for Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations of the UN for not focusing on the right priorities. An interesting point is made in the release:

"What the U.N. has said here today is nothing new, nor does it offer any reasonable or constructive assistance to bing about a successful resolution to this issue. It simply serves as another reminder that this organization is out of touch," said Vitter. "Thankfully, this report has no authority. But this report does serve one purpose: it serves as a useful glimpse of what the future holds if we allow the Law of the Sea Treaty to be ratified. The LOST treaty would grant international organizations like the U.N. the legal authority to interfere in our matters – with possibly drastic consequences."

It goes without saying that we have a complicated relationship with the UN. We were one of the founding states, and our funding constitutes a huge portion of the UN budget. We have previously acted, however, to act as an exception to UN rules. We were one of the last developed countries to ratify the UN Convention on Genocide, for example, for fear that other states could retroactively accuse the US of genocide for its internal practices. It's not surprising that we have trouble with someone outside "our immediate family" criticizing us about our internal politics and culture. We think racism is a part of every day life in America, a seemingly incurable (but not untreatable) disease. Racist actions in America are systemic problems, not human rights issues.

Or are they? Perhaps we should embrace this, rather than questioning the motives or the focus of the UN. It could provide an opportunity to foster a discussion of race and poverty as a larger American problem, but could also be a leadership opportunity for the nation on human rights in general. Findings like these, whether we take them seriously or not, send messages abroad, and attacking the UN in committee or threatening to remove funding sends the wrong message when many of our international relationships are on a knife's edge.

If we want to pursue human rights issues internationally, especially those that align directly with our national interest, we will have trouble ratcheting support from our allies if our human rights wrinkle was ignored because we got to play by different rules. Multilateralism will be the name of the game from here on out if we want to get anything done, and we will make a better case to other nations if we take reports like this seriously. Our public diplomacy, additionally, is hurt if we are perceived to be a racist country (making Barack Obama the president will help, but it won't fix everything). How other countries perceive us does matter, and I believe this is something we should be talking about in the upcoming election. (Both Democratic candidates could use talking points on public diplomacy, something both of them, especially Hillary Clinton, lack.)

And it's quite possible that speaking of race in this country and using the language of human rights could be an important sobering discussion for the country, one that move us past the dismissive excuse that race discrimination is just an unfortunate part of American life. Maybe someone like Barack Obama could talk about this, framing it as a break from the past and a new way forward. Hillary Clinton could certainly use the opportunity to shore up support among African-Americans, a community she has become alienated from.

And for the American public at large, it would allow us to come to a greater global understanding of something whose magnitude we didn't fully realize until we saw it on the news: that the refugee crises, the poverty, and the class divisions we've seen in other countries happen here too, and for all it's exceptionalism, America is one nation in a world full of them.