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.
This blog is an experiment in conversation, education, and debate by a UNA-USA East Bay Chapter Board Member. The blog seeks to engage readers by posting UN related issues and events in order to encourage discussion and analysis. None of the comments or posts in the blog represent the opinions of the UNA-USA East Bay Chapter or the UN.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Saturday, December 18, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 13, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 6, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, December 3, 2010
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.