speaking up and protection

Whistle-blowers, political groups, and journalists of all countries will find  this  reassuring.  I wonder how many states genuinely "commit themselves to conduct investigations to locate the disappeared person, to prosecute those responsible and to ensure reparations for survivors and their families" I hope many do.

Happy Holidays to all and I hope those, who cannot return home, somehow find solace in this treaty.

Indigenous rights

In diplomacy, the proverbial binary is painted by the non-binding and binding agreement.  The line between nodding one's head and sending troops has been straddled by many countries particularly those flexing soft power muscles like the United States and China.  This Thursday, the United States was applauded for finally signing a non-binding treaty on the rights of nearly 370 million indigenous peoples.  The United States barely recognizes its own Native Americans while China simply refuses to accept that it has any indigenous peoples (being 80% Han casts an enormous shadow over Uyghurs and others).   

When you swing to the non-binding spectrum in politics, a kind of hegemony emerges; powerful nations lead plenary sessions in the UN to draft resolutions but barely take up the cause in the own countries.  Native American water rights, as a stand alone issue, are progressing but despite existing as sovereign nations many Native American tribes find themselves literally downstream of American interests (paper mills, recycling plants, waste disposal plants, etc).  Their geo-spatial rights are second-class at best.

Now, I am not saying that indigenous peoples should revolt or be afforded the full binding rights of sovereign nations.  The central problem is enfranchisement.  Most indigenous peoples remain the invisible minority - gerrymandered to a fate not unlike our racial minorities under any Section 8.  Greater rhetorical demons veiled in the mask of integration (I am looking at you, Europe), diversity (the US), sovereignty (Africa), and non-binding progress scream down any kind of substantive political enfranchisement for indigenous peoples.  India tackled the issue of political enfranchisement by reserving parliamentary seating but this kind of binding resolution draws almost universal criticism.

My concern is that with the economic rise of Southeast Asia or China, the preponderance of human rights resolutions will tip towards issues approved by those nations and in turn lead to the cultural, linguistic - or identity - assimilation of indigenous peoples.  It is no surprise that indigenous peoples tend to be labeled by the moniker "other"; there is little room for the backward heathen in a growing nation.  The rights of indigenous peoples complicate the idea of modernization: employment, entitlements, clean water (look at any MDG and try to achieve it without modern technology).  I personally applaud any indigenous group for forcing this kind of conversation: humanity in preservation.

Now, usually, I look to the reader to decide what is what but I do want to offer a few ideas.  Some nations, like Moldova (I cannot believe I will be using the country as positive example), reserve non-voting seats in their parliament for indigenous populations (the Christian Turks) that maintain their own economic sovereignty not like Native Americans.  Additionally, many nations subsidize cultural preservation.  But, I am struggling with how indigenous peoples can leverage the binding - or in my mind, the economic - to essentially guarantee cultural sustainability in a constantly evolving world.  Otherwise, my central concern is that economic power threatens to creatively destroy indigenous peoples.

The Great Wall

On December 10th, it was international Human Rights Day 2010. Ordinarily, the coincidence of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony with such an observation would be timely, but this year it simply served to underscore one of the more deeply troubling current geopolitical realities: China is big and strong, and it doesn’t like the things we like. Mr. Liu Xiaobo has been given a Nobel Peace Prize, one of an admirable few to ever be awarded the prize while in prison for the very actions that led to his recognition. And of course, China has been bullying, politicking, and refusing access to Mr. Liu Xiaobo, ultimately boycotting the ceremony in Norway and successfully encouraging others (Afghanistan, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Venezuela and Vietnam) to do the same.

Of course, China’s position on human rights is nothing terribly new. The Party has always been accused of human rights violations, of having fuller prisons and more executions than most other countries (and those are just reported figures mind you), and of oppressing and systematically undermining the Tibetan and Uighur minorities. Given that this reaction from the Party was perhaps predictable, it is worth wondering how much the Nobel Prize Committee was itself politicking. But more interesting is the way that China has managed on this topic, as on so many, to garner the support it has. The list of non-delegates above is not a new one, though there may be a few surprise entrants. In some ways, what we’re looking at here is a group of nations who rally behind the Great Wall of Sovereignty, who tend to agree with China’s oft-stated position that the international community does not have a right to interfere with the administration of justice (or really, the administration of just about anything) inside a nation’s borders. But while the rhetoric is transparent, the reality is there is a very powerful nation that is willing not only to simply make up its own rules but is also not afraid to win allies through bold strategic linkages (and award ceremonies) and outright blackmail.

The trouble with China is that a single stand like this appears childish and sloppy to the Western press, or at least to this humble blogger, is all a part of the possible-to-predict and yet still unpredictable pattern of Chinese diplomacy and global policy. We know the kinds of violations that are going on in China, and to me at least, the cries of ‘sovereignty’ seem like a feeble cover-up for the fact that the Party must routinely use oppressive measures and scapegoating to deal with extremely serious internal social and political problems. Yet, China is still big, it is still a major player in regional and global politics, and it can still get a handful of nations (many of which are resource rich and strategically located) to go along with its childish international gestures. The Nobel Prize is one of those things like the Olympics – it is supposed to cross national boundaries and alliances and represent a world that universally recognizes the merits and peace and scholarship. Even if the Committee ‘started it’ the fact that China could use something as innocuous as the Nobel Prize to stage an anti-Western temper tantrum (because honestly, isn’t everything about sovereignty Anti-Western and everything about human rights Western?) is startling and points to deeper rifts. As China’s symbolic stands come even more in line with its questionable practices, the international community is under more pressure than ever to shake off the complicity with which it usually treats China’s willingness to flaunt human rights. Symbols are and have always been power political capital, and China’s boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, and refusal to allow Liu Xiaobo the chance to accept his award on International Human Rights Day should be viewed not as merely a diplomacy snub but a serious issue for the world community. Bullying and complicity are two sides of the same coin. Human beings don’t stop at certain national borders, and human rights cannot be allowed to either.

no joke

For those of you who kept up with the COP15 and are familiar with Kiribati (you need to read Sex Lives of Cannibals if you are not), Tuvalu - the 193rd attendee of COP15, and the Marshall Islands, then this article will be of extreme interest to you:  If seas swallow island state, is it still a nation?

It's clearly a play on the "if a tree falls in the forest" question, but the stakes are much higher - thousands of individuals at risk of losing their nationality.  From what I can gather, there is no law for this kind of event.  Asylum does not cover it.  In fact, I imagine that bordering nations may opt to deny the Marshallese entrance to their countries because of linguistic barriers, employment issues, and one very obvious barrier to integration - they didn't come by choice.  I have yet to formulate an opinion on the subject but decided to post something in case others had any input.

This is proof that Climate Change not only impacts our economics but also our national identities.  Are the Marshallese entitled to keep their national identity?  So far, no country, except for maybe Spain, has done well to integrate such extrastate populations as the Roma (commonly known by the offensive moniker as Gypsies) that maintain an entirely non-national identity.  My head is spinning with comparisons to Yugoslavia, Palestinian Territories, and Australia.  I am actually not sure what to say at the moment and will return with a hopefully cogent expressed opinion.

Reality, Wiki-style

In the interest of commenting on the recent Wikileaks 'revelations' (I think the last time I have heard that word used this often was when I took a Bible class in high school), I stumbled across a fairly interesting topic on the Wall Street Journal's open blog. The Question of the Day asked what kind of impact would the Wikileaks event (I use this in the scientific sense, wherein an 'event' can be anything from a collapsing star to a collision of a few photons) have on international diplomacy. One of the commenters suggested, accurately, that we should not be surprised by much of the content. After all, governments are not unitary actors and they are comprised of people - if no one in national governments dared ever, off the record, to voice their unique opinions, it seems that something fundamentally important about a civil government would be lost. That being said, this individual asked us to remember that "Diplomacy is war by other means."

This is an interesting notion, though the commenter was probably mis-remembering the Prussian Major-General Clausewitz, who suggested that "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

But I think that the tie between diplomacy and war is more complex. After all, if the worst reaction is Vladimir Putin's indignant and only vaguely comprehensible statements, I have only this to say: Does the Russian Prime Minister and former President know what everyone has been saying in front of his back?

What exactly is the relationship between diplomacy and war, (different facets of politics if you will) and how might the Wikileaks event, and reactions to it, help us understand that relationship? It seems to me that Wikileaks reveals much of what is already known - that state actors are primarily self-interested and that it is almost impossible to guess the intentions of other states. It proves that we have been operating in precisely the kind of international system that theorists have suggested we live in. We cannot truly know the intentions and opinions of other nations - the US and Saudi Arabia have to operate according to the official decisions and statements their governments make. It may actually be more surprising that governments are able to keep to coherent policies, given, as I mentioned before, the fact that a government is an institution filled with and shaped by individual human beings. We accept the reality of this every day. It seems that we should expect some level of clashing or rubbing the wrong way, even between nations and individuals with similar goals, who are indeed allied. When a government makes a decision, lives are in the balance. Thus it is no wonder that speculations and worries about Iran's nuclear program are whispered throughout the region. There are reasonable suspicions about the nation's stance, and since nations have a lot to lose, planning and speculating on what to do should it prove that Iran does indeed have weapons seems a natural part of protecting nation security and integrity in a world of uncertainty.

Now, onto the diplomacy bit. In a world where you can not truly know your neighbor's intentions, it seems to me like diplomacy is an excellent alternative to war. War is a continuation of politics, according to Clausewitz. This means that there is some sense in which 'normal politics' do not include violent conflict. This seems to fit with intuitions. Diplomacy, then, seems rather than a means of war to be a part of 'normal politics.' Again, this fits with intuitions - meetings between leaders, ambassadors and translators, economic aid and trade treaties seem to be a part of normal interactions. What Wikileaks revealed, to me, was how vital this system is, and how much of it may well be an illusion. Nations simply cannot, without knowing the full intentions of all other nations, trust one another completely. The price is, potentially, too high if that trust is violated. However, nations enter into alliances, treat with one another, buy and sell weapons of war, trade technology, and train allied military, and exchange students to educate one another. Wikileaks reveals the fear, the uncertainty, that is inherent in the system - reality may change tomorrow, simply because NO nation is completely, 100% forthcoming about its intentions. But by following along with these coherent policies, individuals are doing their best to prevent the disintegration of relations into war. Politics as usual means advancing your interests in a mutually beneficial way, through some sneaking and some openness, from anticipating the other guy's move based on what he's said and done in the past. Wikileaks highlights the most frightening aspects of politics as usual - that alternative to obeying coherent policy and trusting the other guy - is war. What matters is less what nations speculate about other nations, but whether or not their outward posturing suggests continuing peace and cooperation. Realizing that every country has a government built of people might make us more aware of the fragility of international diplomacy, but I, for one, think it changes nothing, and perhaps serves to remind us that we live in a dangerous world, and we need those diplomatic, ‘normal’ political ties to have any hope of functioning.

developing world vs. developed world

Kiva has its own blog and I found this post rather on the mark.  If anyone wants an "outsider's" point of view of the developed world, please check this out:

A Ugandan's perspective on the differences between the developed and developing worlds, courtesy of Kiva. 

The future of humanitarianism?

I do not know how the UN is doing it: raising funds and staying on track to meet the MDGs considering the economic collapse in Greece, the threat of the same in Ireland, and well...the whole global economic crisis.  The UN does manage its own budget, per se, but is entirely dependent on its member nations opting in.  By extension, the humanitarian efforts spearheaded by the UN are entirely dependent on those same members.  I can't speak about other countries (I can only make an inductive leap regarding the same unemployment troubles in Spain) but want to ask the question about whether or not the current economic environment will have a lasting effect on humanitarianism?  I ask because: do depression era generations donate?  I don't know.  Any want to share some ideas?  

To recycle a few of the conversations in this blog, I wanted to bring up two subjects.  One of the posts dealt with the potential power of international courts (an ICC with teeth) and the other with a possible secession vote looming in the Sudan.

I am a firm believe, by virtue that I studied Economics, that economic sanctions are the true teeth within the UN. In fact, these kinds of sanctions could be motivating the rather uncommon and unorthodox rapidity of voting for a new constitution in Madagascar.  The AU and aid donors took a stand in front of a coupe carried out two years ago.  So, two questions come to mind:  why aren't sanctions used more often?  and do we only use sanctions on countries that are not economic heavyweights?

The second subject of this post is simply to update the readers about the possible secession of southern Sudan from Sudan.  I would make a crack about post-colonial studies getting a boost from this one...but...oops, I already did.  In all seriousness, I am not quite sure what to make of this and cannot wait to see how it plays out and if it will indeed be beneficial to southern Sudan.

Water as human right?

For those of you familiar with the UDHR, you know there are amazing articles within the document espousing economic (wages, labor), medical (treatment, provision), and other novel but traditionally unrecognized human rights.  Dr. Peter Gleik, President of the Pacific Institute, recently wrote an article about how the UN is making another philosophical leap in the realm of human rights.  The UN's binding resolution on July 28th marks a turning point; clean water is a human right.

Read the resolution, it's quite intriguing especially each country's justifications for abstaining; except, the United States did not submit for record their explanation.  Water, water purification, and access to potable water will undoubtedly shape international politics.  For instance, during a trip to Jordan, I was informed that the Hashemite Kingdom would dry out its existing underground water wells in less than 20 years.  That's awful.  But, claiming clean water as a right redefines economic responsibility across numerous nations facing the same kind of fate as Jordan.

 What do you think?

World Philosophy Day

Many of the popular UN celebrations tend to revolve around end-goal celebrations such as Human Rights Day or International Day of Peace.  While important, we tend to forget that these are philosophies.  And, philosophies challenge us to ask the kind of questions we don't tend to us ask when celebrating those above mentioned goals.  I really do believe Philosophy Day should merit the same kind of attention as Human Rights Day or International Day of Peace; at the very least, we need to understand from where those two concepts derive.

I was first exposed to the challenges of rapid urban development by its resolution in Providence, RI: inclusionary zoning, Section 8 Housing, green roofs, mixed income housing, fish emulsion for urban gardens, etc. My first international exposure to the same issue was in the Republic of Moldova; I was asked to come up with a few funding ideas on how to resolve a district's water crisis. That's how I found Cities Alliance and rapid urban development has been stuck in my head since then.

Having been accused of rampant skepticism (thanks Katy), I feel the urge to explain where I believe the power of the UN truly lies: resolving the challenges of growth. To me, that's the key. We face obstacles to the MDGs, human rights, and peace because of the invariable fact that resources are limited and global population growth shows no signs of slowing down. The question of sustainability is always on every development officer's mind. For example, even if we could reduce child hunger this year, can we do it again next year? It's not the goal, it's the method of achieving that goal. That is why I firmly believe that guiding the way in which we grow is paramount. It may be a naive inductive leap, but urban development can be inclusive, equitable and scaled up.
What do you all think?

Flesh and Teeth

As this blog has been tending towards the question of international justice, and coming to some sound but somewhat discouraging conclusions, I thought I should point out when, it appears, the UN is getting it exactly right. Since July, an independent court comprised of Cambodian and international personnel has been trying senior Khmer Rouge leaders for war crimes and violations of international law. Though cynics might argue that it is too late to hand down judgments so long after the fact, I tend to think that it does indeed make a powerful statement. There is no statute of limitations on national memory, and, as such, crimes as heinous as those committed by the Khmer Rouge regime cannot go ignored.

But there is more at work here than simply bringing international criminals to justice. One of the main functions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC is to help institutionalize a set of norms for country behaviors and interactions. National governments tend to send confusing signals - the US condemning human rights violations and sanctioning North Korea, for example, while at the same time maintaining brisk and happy trade relations with China, another human rights offender. This is because nations have multitudinous, conflicting interests, and, regardless of how you view policy machinations, no country can achieve all of its objectives simultaneously.

The international organizations that countries and concerned citizens create have a significantly more focused role, especially when it comes to human rights. They set the norms by which individuals and nations can judge the behavior of other bodies in the system. Putting war criminals on trial is an unambiguous sign that shows what sorts of policies and actions are not allowed by these norms, and strengthens and further defines the image of what the world Ought (capital "O") to be. It is less that the UN has a freer hand when it comes to international trials (though it certainly does), or that it's multilateral bent gives it more international legitimacy and the moral high group (although that is a key reason for its existence). What the UN is able to do is establish and reinforce a vision of the world in which human rights violators are punished and governments are held responsible to a higher authority. Every time more details of that vision are made manifest, the very notion of international justice itself becomes less chimera and more of a concrete - and achievable - objective of the international landscape. The system may lack consistent enforceability (see Moldova and Rwanda/Uganda/DRC posts) but considering international justice is an invention of the international system, it needs to be made real before we can expect it to have much bite.

Are we still fighting the Cold War?

Hello dear readers!  I am posting Kathryn Lindquist's opinion piece titled "Fighting Old Wars".  She presents a view of the war in Afghanistan and our struggles in Pakistan through the visor of Cold War military history.

“But above all, UN Day is a day on which we resolve to do more, more to protect those caught up in armed conflict, to fight climate change and avert nuclear catastrophe; more to expand opportunities for women and girls, and to combat injustice and impunity.”

I'm glad Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon places the rights of women/girls on the list of priorities with climate change, armed conflict, and nuclear catastrophe. We tend to forget how soft power can have as much harm on individuals, women and girls especially, as hard power has on the lives of any population.

a Palestinian state?

So, it goes without saying that the Israeli-Palestinian situation always stirs debate. I really wonder what kind of discussion/debate/ridiculous antics will arise when Palestinians ask the Security Council to proclaim a state in Gaza and West Bank.

Come on, if that doesn't get someone to respond, I don't know what will.

Germany and integration

Germany is, in my opinion, one of the most thoughtful and active members of the UN. In fact, just recently, the country won one of the rotating seats on the Security Council and signed a cultural relations pact with India. With its economic leadership and truly introspective foreign policy (it once opened debate on whether or not its troops should use force if sent for peace keeping missions), Germany can be considered the "model" member. If you are a savvy reader, you know that the other shoe is about to drop. Chancellor Merkel claimed the multicultural experiment, that is Germany, has utterly failed. I know a little bit about the political discord that has been brewing between Germans and Turkish immigrants. I also understand it takes a bit of a leap to use domestic framework as a way of measuring future foreign policy. But, I cannot help but ask whether or not a country's internal politics can sharply transform its foreign politics. The debate surrounding "non-integrating" Muslims (see: mostly Turks) has been ongoing and existing concurrently with Germany's remarkable activity in the UN. This brings us back to the Sovereignty-Unity balance within the UN.

Do you believe that domestic and foreign policy can be philosophically exclusive?

I spent nearly two years in the Republic of Moldova so this article caught my eye and made me think. In the country, Human Trafficking, which is funded by outside sources, represents a kind of "black" market economy that pays police to turn their heads and coopts many politicians. In fact, Moldova was a Tier 3 country, the lowest rating, regarding Human Trafficking in 2008 until it barely squeezed by for a Tier 2 rating in 2009. I have a lot to say on the subject but want to pose questions instead: Can the ICC be effective in places where corruption and violation of human rights are so entrenched? Can it stand against crippling institutional memory and grow beyond political nicety into actual implementable power?

I am not sure. I tend be idealistic and subscribe to such day-dreams as the 2048 Project but on other hand am skeptical about the possibilities in countries where I have real experience.

Southern Sudan

A few months back, there were rumblings in southern Sudan about a possible secession vote in January.  I could link to a few articles like this one but those rumblings have already turned into reality.  The UN Security's Councils brief stop in Juba, the southern capital of Sudan, clearly marks how serious of an issue possible secession represents.  Southern Sudan controls nearly 80% of crude oil production in all of Sudan.  Unlike the cases of East Germany or Transnistria, southern Sudan also has a larger population along with a heavily developed industrial sector.  If the vote turns out in favor of secession, northern Sudan will face almost certain economic hardship.  What are your thoughts?  America fought a war for a reason not unlike the one facing Sudan.  Will the Comprehensive Peace Agreement protect the results of the vote?

Expectations and the UN

There have been a slew of articles recently posted in the NYTimes about the Rwanda, Uganda, DRC triangle of genocide, rape, and general violence. It caused quite a stir.

It all started with a UN report on possible cases of genocide committed by Rwandan rebels; the report itself was altered after Uganda threatened to pull its peace keepers in response to how the country was also mentioned. The first report was dead-on. It explained why the UN's peace keepers are ineffective in the DRC and why they cannot prevent genocide, rape, and general violence.

These articles stand in stark contrast to the not insubstantial peace keeping success in such former violence-riddled countries as Liberia. With positive coverage, for example how the MDGs are progressing, the UN has not suffered much Nasa effect, where only failures are printed. But, I guess I want to ask what the expectation is with regard to peace?

While on an intellectual level I agree with the excuses: women don't confess to male peace keepers about being raped, information does not travel fast enough in the bush to arrest rape gangs before they act, and new gangs commit unpredictable acts of genocide and rape on a whim to win concessions from government bodies, I expect more. I expect more because the UN has implemented successful all-female police units in countries with high crime, high rape gang statistics. Cell phone technology is ubiquitous and is leveraged in remarkably rural settings for simple communication such as ordering medication. Lastly, this really isn't a shock. We know what's going on, at least to the extent where and how the instability is manifesting itself. Even Economists agree on individual country's peace index.

What do you think?

the first official posting

Hi UNA-EB members, community, readers, and more!

This blog is a place of discussion, thoughtful discourse, and intelligent debate.  In that spirit, I want to post a paper produced by a very bright former UNA-EB volunteer, Shilpa Muralidaran, who spent the summer of 2010 delving into the Israel-Palestine Debate.  

This is a test post!  Welcome to the UNA-EB Blog!