Who’s Responsible for Human Poverty? One scholar’s answer…

By Kristy Crabtree
December 21st, 2008

Recently the United Nations University hosted Dr. Thomas Pogge, the Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University.  Dr. Pogge discussed “Human Rights: the Second 60 Years” during the week celebrating the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Dr. Pogge addressed the future of human rights protections by first recognizing several key questions: what does it mean for human rights to be fulfilled; what are the deficits for each human right; how should human rights be weighted/prioritized; how can we analyze the persistence of human rights deficiencies; and who is responsible for the fulfillment of human rights?  He began to answer these questions by looking at Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration speech addressing the four freedoms.  Dr. Pogge picked out “freedom from want” as the human right deserving of highest priority because of the human cost of poverty.

Next, Dr. Pogge looked at the ways that human rights are violated through: events causally traceable to a human agent; active agency; official capacity; or with the intention or ability to foresee that actions will result in a human rights deficit.  Dr. Pogge recognizes that local factors have some influence on the state of poverty in many nations, but makes the argument that the global institutional order also plays a role in perpetuating poverty.  Ultimately, he calls for the structural reform of global institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF in order for human rights to be fulfilled in a different international order.

Whether or not one agrees with Dr. Pogge he brings up an interesting idea of institutional reform, and as we approach the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it begs the question whether the international laws and accompanying institutions set up are enough to progress toward human rights fulfillment or whether the system needs modifications.

Practical Politics for Protracted Refugee Situations

By Kristy Crabtree
December 11th, 2008

Recently, I had the opportunity to conduct research in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. While many know about the plight of the impoverished in Bangladesh, the presence of the Rohingya refugees has received much less attention. The Rohingya are a minority Muslim ethnic group from the Rakhine state of Myanmar, which borders Bangladesh. Although their roots in Myanmar date back several centuries, the Government of Myanmar does not recognize them as citizens, denying them basic human rights and engaging in systemic persecution of the Rohingya. However, the plight of the Rohingya being “warehoused” in refugee camps in Bangladesh for over 17 years is a common outcome for refugees from protracted conflicts. Around the world there are approximately eight million refugees in similar situations of prolonged displacement. Termed “protracted refugee situations,” prolonged displacement has many negative effects on refugees, host countries, and on the stability of the region.

Two weeks ago, Gary Troeller, former senior executives with the Office for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, unveiled a new book addressing these challenges. Although much has been written about displacement, forced migration, and the practice of “warehousing,” this book is unique in its approach. Instead of looking at protracted refugee situations from an academic perspective, the chapters in the book focus on practical politics, addressing these challenges for an audience of policy-makers. By linking protracted refugee situations to human security, and recognizing the lack of political will, the authors come to the conclusion that to address these issues in an effective way there “needs to be political solutions to political problems.”

For the global population affected by the 33 protracted refugee situations around the world, policy-makers can see throughout the book that these situations are the result of failed states and political impasses from political problems. One of the preliminary steps to addressing this issue the process of sensitization, and Gary Troeller’s book aptly titled, Protracted Refugee Situations, and other documents like the High Commisioner’s Dialogue on Protracted Situations are fitting starting points.

Kansan With Candor

By Tamar Kherlopian
December 11th, 2008

Note: This entry is about PGI Editor Tamar Kherlopian’s experience interviewing John Wilson for the Fall issue of Perspectives in Global Issues. Click here to read the interview.

In a country that is experiencing a resurgence of political interest amongst its youth likened to the pre-Kennedy era, twenty-five year old John Wilson’s campaign for State Representative in Topeka, Kansas represented this generation’s challenge: sustained awareness and activism. I spoke with Wilson just a few weeks before his narrow defeat to Tom Sloane, a fourteen-year incumbent of the position. Probing his motivations to enter public office at such a young age as well as his views concerning sustainable energy, the United States’ tarnished foreign policy, governmental regulation in the private sector, and American youth involvement in social affairs, the political hopeful’s candor and innate zeal for public service became refreshingly apparent. …Perhaps the energy that President-elect Barack Obama mustered, coupled with the awareness that the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina awakened will prove their resilience in the coming years after all, motivating more young American professionals to get involved in service-oriented efforts and careers.

Moved by Movement

By Dan Logue
December 10th, 2008

Note: This entry is about PGI Editor Dan Logue’s experience interviewing Rabin Subedi for the Fall issue of Perspectives in Global Issues. Click here to read the interview.

Since interviewing Rabin, I’ve had some time to really think about the actual events in Nepal last spring.  It’s really a remarkable event that was so ground up that I truly think it will ultimately work out in the end.  The Nepalis have taken ownership of the process and decided to do it in their own way.  That seems to be the only way that democracy ever sticks.

Rabin told me he’s sent the link from the preview to friends and family and I guess it has gotten a very welcome reception.  Not that I read my own press or feel that it really has anything to do with me, but it’s nice to know that I was (in some small way) able to get this story out and put a humanity to it.  The story was pretty much buried in obscurity by the US media, which is really a disservice considering how much we Americans go around touting democracy.  Maybe it was because the US didn’t seem to have that much to do with it??

For me this recent movement just proves the point that democracy can’t be a top-down or imposed concept.  It needs to be organic and have its own flavor based on national culture and history.  Nepal had made attempts at democratization years past, but it didn’t stick.  Obviously, the population as a whole wasn’t fully ready for it.  But this time they ran with it and were successful.  Hopefully it will be a good sign for other countries around the world.  The US very much has a role to play in the consolidation phase.  It’s not enough just to have elections, there needs to be assistance in building this new civil society and helping to iron out the inevitable bumps.

This will probably sound cheesy and overly sentimental, but I think the basic human story is easily the most important.  Having gotten to know Rabin and hear his story really showed me just how important this movement is to his country, and him. Being a human rights lawyer gives him a front row seat to the workings of the new republic.  What also makes it interesting is that he has a young son whose future just became that much brighter.

Delay Prosecution to Save Lives in Darfur

By Jennifer Dunham
November 25th, 2008

The panel of International Criminal Court judges weighing whether to indict Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes related to the conflict in Darfur will reach a decision in the coming months. It is expected that the judges will allow the case against Bashir to go forward (ICC judges have granted all previous requests for indictments by Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo)—a move that is vigorously opposed by Sudan and its friends in the African Union, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. As the judges consider the evidence, Sudan and its allies have been lobbying for the United Nations Security Council to use its power under Article 16 of the ICC’s Rome Statute to delay an investigation or prosecution for up to 12 months at a time. It is in the interest of the people of Darfur that the Security Council votes in favor of such a delay.

The situation in Darfur is bleak. At least 300,000 people have died and roughly 2.5 million have been displaced since the conflict started in 2003. The refugee camps are plagued by insecurity; there have been widespread reports of rapes of civilians, attacks on aid workers and other violence. There is strong evidence that government-backed militias known as the janjaweed are behind much of this brutality. So the supporters of the ICC’s case against Bashir—such as human rights groups and many Western nations—are more than justified in their desire to bring him to trial.

However, unless the international community is prepared to unilaterally send a substantial number of heavily armed troops to the region to quell the fighting and provide security for civilians—an extremely unlikely scenario—then the next best option is to engage the Sudanese government and the numerous rebel factions in peace talks, and to work on deploying in full the 26,000-member U.N.-AU peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, authorized by the Security Council in 2007. The Sudanese government has made it clear that it will not support either initiative if Bashir is indicted, and has even threatened to increase violence against civilians, humanitarian workers and the 10,000 peacekeepers that have already been deployed.

Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, the current AU chairman and one of the continent’s most respected leaders, made a strong case for deferring Bashir’s case in his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 23. He argued that an indictment would “complicate the deployment of UNAMID and the management of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.” He rejected the notion that deferment meant “condoning impunity,” asserting, “We are simply concerned with the best possible sequencing so that the most immediate matters of saving lives and easing the suffering of the people of Darfur are dealt with first. Getting the support and cooperation of the government of Sudan is a matter of essence.”

Delaying Bashir’s case does not mean that he will never face justice. Given the volatility of Sudanese politics, Bashir’s position will undoubtedly weaken—especially if he is not able to use the ICC case to drum up nationalistic support. Some may point out that past African despots were allowed to escape justice by going into exile. But this pattern is changing. The Liberian civil war ended when President Charles Taylor agreed to resign and take refuge in Nigeria in 2003. He spent three years in comfortable exile before being arrested and taken to The Hague for trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. His arrest came after Liberia was on track to peace and stability.

Convincing the Security Council to invoke Article 16 may not be as difficult as it appears. Among the permanent five, China and Russia have already expressed support for a deferment. France and Britain have indicated that they would vote in favor if Sudan makes certain concessions. South Africa and Libya have already declared their support, and it is reasonable to expect Vietnam to vote with China, and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, to also back a delay. Ironically, the U.S., which has refused to become a party to the ICC, may be the most recalcitrant on this issue. It abstained from a July 31 vote on renewing UNAMID’s mandate due to language simply noting the AU’s objections to Bashir’s indictment.

Bashir’s case is not a question of justice versus peace. The priority in any conflict must be the security and well-being of civilians. The Security Council should consider carefully whether this priority is best served by indicting Bashir. There is a time for prosecuting the perpetrators of the crimes in Darfur, and that time will come when the fighting has stopped.

Yahoo, China, and the Global Online Freedom Act

By Brianna Lee
November 18th, 2008

The name Shi Tao might not ring a bell anymore today, but simply mention the vague phrase “the Yahoo-China incident” and ears will perk up in recognition. The 2004 debacle over Internet giant Yahoo disclosing personal information about Tao, a dissident blogger in China, which resulted in his arrest and 10-year prison sentence by Chinese authorities, has all but been forgotten. Following the incident, Yahoo was hit with a barrage of criticism from human rights groups for failing to protect privacy and freedom of speech for its users, and even Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang (who announced his resignation earlier today) apologized in tears to Tao’s family.

Nevertheless, the Yahoo-China event sparked an outrage that only continued to swell with the compromising actions of other technology companies, such as Google’s decision to provide a special, filtered search service for China users (skewing results for such queries as “Tiananmen Square” and “Falun Gong”) or Skype’s decision to censor text messages. China has been the main focal point for the international debate because of its unique position as a country filled with lucrative investment opportunities but laden with harsh, repressive controls on speech and press. Nevertheless, its controversial interactions with global Internet giants provide crucial implications for the rest of the world.

Four years after the controversial Yahoo-China incident, amidst a slew of scholarly debates, corporate guilt, and human rights protests, a potential remedy is on the brink of fruition. The Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA), sponsored by U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey), seeks to hold technology companies liable for infringing on freedom of speech and user privacy in their countries of operation. The bill was passed in the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in October 2007, and it is currently awaiting a floor vote. GOFA is accompanied by the Global Network Initiative, a set of guidelines adopted by Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and a host of other companies, NGOs and non-profits in an effort to promote wise decisionmaking and accountability when dealing with speech repression and privacy infringement around the world. (Reporters Without Borders, however, has opted not to endorse the Principles encompassed in the GNI, criticizing its vague language and weakness in providing meaningful protection for speech rights.)

Whether or not GOFA will curttail the problem of Internet complicity with speech restriction, or if it will make any impacts on online free speech, obviously lies in the details of the Act itself. While GOFA has been roundly supported by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and human rights groups such as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists, it has been criticized by others for its vague language. GOFA stipulates that Internet companies may not disclose personal information or infringe on speech rights for any “Internet Restricting Country” — any country that “systematically and substantially restrict[s] internet freedom.” This still leaves room for censorship in countries that do not fall under this category. (In 2003, Yahoo! was ordered by a French court to restrict French users from accessing an eBay site selling Nazi memorabilia — can France be listed as an “Internet Restricting Country”? Probably not — censorship approved.) It also states that these companies are allowed to disclose information for “legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes” — another vague phrase that can be widely interpreted. GOFA does have some very promising initiatives, however; one of the highlights of the Act is its setup of an independent agency to actively monitor search filtering policies and develop global strategies to combat state-sponsored information blockages.

The EU has initiated its own Global Online Freedom Act, modeled after the American draft, to provide the same obligations for European Internet technology companies.

Whether or not GOFA or the Global Network Initiative will deliver on their promises of protecting Internet speech and anonymity, they are crucial and laudable steps to promoting a freer cyberspace for debate and dissent.

Read more about the GNI and GOFA:

The Global Online Freedom Act
The Global Network Initiative
Altruistic Or Not, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo Pledge Human Rights Efforts
Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft’s Privacy Plan

Global Reactions to President-Elect Obama

By Brianna Lee
November 9th, 2008

(photo courtesy of the Huffington Post)

Last Tuesday was undeniably a historic night for the United States in the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the USA. Heralding Obama’s entrance to the White House as an end to the policies of the deeply unpopular Bush administration, millions of American citizens as well as global onlookers reacted with ecstatic joy, optimism, and nervous hope for the new President. Kenya, the home country of Obama’s father, declared Thursday, November 6 a national holiday. The city of Obama, Japan cheered on their namesake (and in another part of Japan, this video sprang up). The new President-Elect received congratulations from nine world leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy (prime minister of France), Angela Merkel (German chancellor), Stephen Harper (Canadian prime minsister), Lee Myung-Bak (President of South Korea) and Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister).

Obama’s new foothold in American foreign policy was also tested in his receipt of a congraulatory letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which marked the first time an Iranian leader has congratulated the winner of an American election in decades and sparking the possibility of diplomatic talks between the two countries. In the letter (translated here by the Washington Post), Ahmedinejad advised Obama to “choose to honor the real interests of people and justice and equity over the insatiable appetites of the selfish minority.” Obama has not officially accepted the congratulations, saying that he would instead review the letter closely first.

As the new president assembles his new administration, international hopes remain high. Obama’s reaction to Ahmedinejad’s letter has sparked some doubts that the new administration would significantly improve US relations with the Islamic world. Some have noted that Obama’s appointment of pro-Israel Rahm Emanuel as his new Chief of Staff indicates that his policies towards Palestine will remain no different from that of past administrations.

The new President’s first priority, of course, is aiding the recovery of the troubled American economy, and he is rapidly putting together a transition team to smoothe the process as much as possible. Soon, however, Obama will have to turn outwards and face a world that has extraordinarily high and hopeful expectations for him. In the past, Obama has shown the calm-headedness and efficiency to face off against (and defeat) the insurmountable challenges of the Clinton campaign and the Republican party. Whether or not he can channel those skills into an effective foreign policy to regain the United States’ favor in the world remains yet to be seen in the coming months.

“Another Future in Another Country:” Rohingya Refugee Voices

By Kristy Crabtree
November 1st, 2008

In the muddied setting of an overcrowded camp, Jhora Shama crouches on top of a square of bamboo, while curious neighbors, friends, and family swarm into the darkened room to hear her story. At once the room is packed and smoke fills the open spaces between bodies, until there is barely breathing room. As Jhora begins her story, nods of recognition move through the crowd, no doubt her fellow refugees share the same experiences. Jhora has been living in this 150 square foot hut with twelve other family members for about forty days, although she’s been living illegally in Bangladesh for 16 years. Jhora is an unregistered refugee and part of an ethnic Muslim minority, called the Rohingya, who originated from the Rakhine state of Myanmar. She fled to Bangladesh after her family’s farm was ransacked, their livestock confiscated and her husband tortured. Since then, life in Bangladesh has been “day to day,” as she explains, “there is no future to plan.”

The Rohingya have been subject to this dilemma for decades; the choice between languishing inside the confines of a camp, living without documentation or legal protection in a foreign country, or living under a regime that not only refuses to recognize the Rohingya as citizens but systematically persecutes them. Jhora likened the choice between living in Bangladesh or Myanmar as a choice between jumping into the “river or the sea;” and fellow refugees have echoed this sentiment as well. Conditions in the unregistered refugee camp are far below the minimal international standards for protection, and those living in the registered camps are only recently starting to see improvements after living in dismal conditions for 17 years.

Ultimately, this has forced the Rohingya to live in a state of uncertainty – without hope for any real solution to their displacement and without the tools to become self-reliant. Perhaps the remarks of the Rohingya themselves are the best evidence of this gap in protection. Abu Khatul, a registered refugee in UNHCR’s Kutupalong camp, lamented to me, “I tried to go back once [to Myanmar] and it was the same as before, but here, in Bangladesh we are just passing time. This is life? We have no soil under our feet. Nothing is ours- it’s an uncertain life. We can’t go back there, but here we’re not living, not working, we have no resources, and not all our needs are met. I am hopeful in another future for another country.” While other persecuted groups from Burma, like the Chin and the Karen have been resettled in the U.S. in large numbers, the plight of the Rohingya has largely been ignored.

Listening to Jacob Zuma

By Jennifer Dunham
November 1st, 2008

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I went to hear Jacob Zuma, the president of the African National Congress (ANC) and most likely South Africa’s next president, speak at NYU. A highly controversial figure, I’d read much about his charisma and popular appeal, as well as his legal troubles—including some alarming statements about women and HIV made during his 2006 trial for rape, in which he was acquitted.

In his prepared remarks, Zuma gave an insightful overview of the progress South Africa made since the end of apartheid in 1994, and of the challenges the country still faced. He described “a country of stark contrasts,” in which great wealth existed alongside abject poverty. He spoke of the nation’s “two economies”—one informal, the other formal—and the difficulties of moving between the two for the millions who had little formal schooling under apartheid.

On South Africa’s high HIV/AIDS rate, he said the ANC had a “comprehensive program to tackle AIDS, with specific targets”—a refreshing change from the policies of the recently ousted President Thabo Mbeki.

On the touchy subject of Mbeki, who in September was asked to resign early by the ANC in a move engineered by Zuma’s supporters, Zuma pointed out that, if a sitting president had been asked to resign in most other African countries, a civil war would have exploded. Mbeki’s departure, Zuma declared, was an example of the “maturity of democracy in South Africa.”

I must admit that I went into the talk prepared to dislike Zuma. But as he spoke, Zuma gave the impression of a man who was keenly aware of the challenges he faced, and was both realistic and hopeful about the prospects for change. Interestingly, he made a point of introducing the other ANC leaders in the audience, stressing the “collective” nature of the party. I left with the impression that, despite my personal distaste for aspects of his past, Jacob Zuma could very well prove to be a capable president of South Africa and possibly even a force for change on the continent.

The Tainted Milk Scandal

By Florence Au
October 25th, 2008

Imagine that you are the parent of a 1 year old and you live in China. In the last few months you had to take the train into Hong Kong to stock up on (or hoard) huge cans of baby formula because you don’t trust the ones that are produced in your city.

The Tainted Baby Formula Scandal was made public after the Beijing Olympics - although several victims have openly said that they tried to alert the authorities well before the start of the Games, but were effectively thwarted/ignored. It should be apparent to the global community at large that this is the PRC’s most significant food safety crisis in decades. Here are some reasons why.

1) The government’s recognition that the adulterated milk is the result of an underground network operation implies that there are loopholes in the government’s regulation of health and safety

2) Sanlu is a leader in the $18 billion Chinese dairy industry and its chairwoman was a party official who was appointed by the government

3) Health officials have found traces of melamine in diary derivatives exported to Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, France and Philippines, magnifying the scope of contamination

4) In 2007, Premier Wen Jiabao made a public pledge to overhaul safety regulations for food, drugs and other products in response to the May 2007 pet food safety issue in North America. In light of this pledge, it is difficult for the public to remain objective on the effectiveness of the government’s policy.

Realizing this, the government has enacted ‘damage control’ measures really quickly which included the sacking of various city officials in which Sanlu is based. However that is not enough – there is some much needed overhaul of the entire dairy industry starting from the small scale dairy farmers to the government inspection board to the foreign ownership of Chinese dairy companies.

In a rare display of humility, Wen Jiabao has openly admitted to the Chinese government’s inadequate supervision of the industry. Although the repercussions of this will be felt throughout China for months to come, the world will definitely be waiting to see how the government attempts to restore confidence given the publicity of the case and the damage it has done to China’s reputation.