Tag Archives: Human Rights

Global Community, Global Responsibility (Part 3)

Each and every member of the international community must be responsible and consistent, both within its own borders and in its handling of international and foreign problems. (Source: miyabbi.student.umm.ac.id)

This post is a continuation of my previous two posts of the same title. Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here, respectively.

But perhaps more importantly than international interventionary action is a right international mindset toward atrocities and states that have gone bad. Many of the greatest crimes against humanity have been committed by leaders who pushed the limits and received no reprimand. The most frightening example is of course, that of Hitler. After coming to power by completely legal means, Hitler pushed the political and social boundaries in his own country, and no one stopped him from taking complete control of Germany. The fuhrer swiftly expanded his power across Europe, as the Allies flailed in diplomatic inefficacy. This policy of appeasement allowed Hitler’s Germany to grow into a colossally dangerous and destructive force.

Admittedly, there are few people alive in the world today who have as much blood on their hands as Adolf Hitler did. But after the hard lessons learned from allowing Hitler to have his way with the countries around him (at least until he looked to Poland), international leaders can no longer stand back and allow atrocities to happen, whether these are crimes committed against foreign persons or against one’s own people.

As I said at the beginning of this post, the road to international responsibility starts in a country’s attitude toward leaders who perpetrate injustice. If the international community simply sits back and allows a state to commit atrocities, either against others or its own people, the damage is twofold. First, the leader(s) responsible for such acts will see that these can be successfully perpetrated with no repercussion or retribution, at least not from any organization or institution with real power. And second, the rest of the international community risks looking toothless and tame. While the international community shouldn’t come across as hyper-aggressive, it must be not be seen as a powerless objector to atrocities, but rather as a powerful dissuadent from atrocity.

This requires both consistency and enforcement on the part of the international community. Leaders who are considering committing atrocities must be shown that any violent acts they commit will not pay off. If a dictatorial leader (Qaddafi or Mubarak would be examples) believes that he can commit mass violence (whether it is toward a political purpose or any other) without being stopped, then he will. Strong countries and international organizations must show these leaders that any violence they commit will be severely dealt with, no matter what.

This issue is particularly pressing in light of the Arab Spring sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa. As leaders like Moammar Qaddafi cling to power by violently suppressing their people, the international community’s response must be swift and decisive. A lot has already been done in Libya, but it may not be enough (I’m planning to write more on this subject soon!). And after a violent weekend in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, one wonders how long Assad’s schizophrenic alternation between reform and crackdown can go on before it reaches the same breaking point that was reached in Libya.

Without the right mindset and determination behind its actions and sanctions, the international community will never be able to act as a serious roadblock to state-sanctioned atrocities. And this determination and consistency will take some sacrifice, of course. But to be a responsible member of any community, especially one as large and all-encompassing as the international community, one must learn to give up some of their own goals and desires for the good of all.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, International Focus, Politics & Power

Global Community, Global Responsibility (Part 2)

The international community has a responsibility to end state-condoned atrocities in other countries. (Source: Middle-East-Info.org)

This is part 2 of a multi-part post on international responsibility. Part 1 can be found here.

The answer to this question is an unfortunately simple one: Because no one stopped it.

The international community is understandably hesitant to become involved in foreign conflicts and complications. Becoming tangled in another country’s conflict can be costly and often pointless, as the United States has seen in recent years in Afghanistan and, to a certain extent, Iraq. Sorting out other countries’ issues is difficult work.

But other nations must sometimes become involved in a country’s private affairs, even if it’s not very advantageous for the intervening country. I would consider these “private affairs” to be any act of atrocity that is committed, condoned, or simply overlooked by the ruling government. US Vice President Joe Biden had this to say about the actions of Moammar Qaddafi in Libya: “When a State engages in atrocity, it forfeits its sovereignty.”

Sovereignty is a very important concept in international relations. Simply put, it’s the quality of having supreme authority over an area of land and its inhabitants. But a state must earn this authority by being a responsible caretaker and lawmaker for its people. And when a state does not perform this duty, other nations may have to step in to force the issue.

Let me rephrase that: The international community may have to step in (yes, I know I’ve said the words “international community” far too many times!). Just as it is crucial for a country to be personally responsible to have a part on the international stage, it’s important that all countries are collectively responsible for keeping the world a safe place. I ought to say though, that I’m not endorsing a kind of world police, at least not one run by any one country (least not the United States). But perhaps we do need a world interventionary force, to prevent atrocities from being committed.

This force would be multilateral and international, so as not to skew power in any country’s direction too far. It would need to be much quicker to act than organizations like NATO or the UN though, and would probably work best when independent of these organizations. Unfortunately, the United Nations simply represents too many conflicting interests, and takes far too long to come to decisions; it took nearly a million deaths before the UN did anything in Rwanda, and by then it was too late. So perhaps willing and able parties of the international community should form a more fast-acting organization, to quickly strike against state-committed or -sponsored violence.

In fact, NATO did a fairly good job of this recently, in its response to the violence of Qaddafi against his own people in Libya. Even then though, it took far too long for the UN and NATO to step in, and there’s still more that should be done, such as the placement of peacekeeping troops or delivery of additional medical supplies.

If there were to be an independent, international coalition specifically set up to counteract state atrocities, mass violence could be stopped much sooner and more effectively. Assuming that specific guidelines were set in place, and all participating nations agreed on which actions constitute atrocity, this peacekeeping force might have the power to stop many humanitarian crises. The key to this would be fast, decisive action against state atrocities; dictators tend to commit these violences on their own people after the international community does nothing to stop earlier offenses.

Looks like this post is going on to a third part! Check back soon for part 3!

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, International Focus, Politics & Power

Global Community, Global Responsibility (Part 1)

The international community is continually becoming more tightly-knit, but that comes with a great deal of responsibility. (Source: icicp.blogspot.com/www.icicp.org)

Our world is growing increasingly global and interconnected. Countless alliances, agreements, treaties, and organizations bind together countries and peoples all around the planet. Many companies are turning abroad to emerging markets to expand their business. It’s now almost commonplace for a student to spend months or even years studying abroad.

The degree to which the many diverse groups of people around the world are connected is astounding. We’ve managed to cross many lingual, social, religious, and cultural barriers as the world continues to become more globalized, or as Thomas Friedman might say, flat.

Globalization brings with it a plethora of advantages and advances that not only offer more opportunity to those in emerging countries but give us a chance to understand each other more. Perhaps more importantly, it has allowed many countries around the world to move past dangerous nationalism and allowed international cooperation where it hasn’t existed before.

I’m majoring in International Studies at my university, so I believe that an examination of these changes is critical, not only for gaining a better understanding of the politics and economics of the world, but for understanding the people of it. And though I’m nowhere near graduation or a full knowledge of international relations, I feel that I’m beginning to realize something about our trend towards the global.

As nations continue to draw more connections to one another, they become beholden to an increasingly high standard of responsibility and accountability. As a nation moves outside of itself and reaches out or is reached out to by other parts of the world, its standards must be carefully examined. The more involved a country is on the international stage, the higher its national credibility must be. Once a nation becomes globally active, it can no longer make decisions based entirely on its own needs and desires, nor can it expect to avoid all international scrutiny.

Yet many members of the international community are not living up to the standards that they should be expected to adhere to if they want to receive recognition from other countries. In a way, these governments – such as those of North Korea, Rwanda and Serbia in the 1990s, Sudan, and Libya, as well as countless others – want to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. They want or wanted to have a presence on the international level (and have that), but are or were unwilling to live up to the standards that such nations must hold.

The nations I listed above have had in the past or currently have grievous human rights violations staining their records. But in each of these circumstances, the international community either spent weeks, months, or years deliberating about what to do, or is still doing nothing. Why is this? Why were 800,000 Tutsi people killed in Rwanda before anyone put a stop to the violence? Why was Slobodan Milošević allowed to stay in power in Serbia after massacres of Bosnian Muslims, when 3 weeks of NATO bombing stopped him later? Why are people still being killed in Darfur?

I’ve decided to split this post into multiple parts, as it seems likely to become rather lengthy, and I haven’t published in some time. Check back soon for part 2!

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, International Focus, Politics & Power

Seeking the Spiritual: An Introduction

Just an idea. (Image is public domain)

(This article is the first part of an indefinitely long series I’m starting that I’ll call Seeking the Spiritual. These articles will be placed in their own category on the site, and each will be tagged with that same title, for easy finding. These articles will be different from the rest of the site, in that they’ll be a more personal exploration of spiritual ideas, with a focus on informality and honest opinion. I’m particularly interested in getting more people writing for this series/section, so please let me know if you’re interested. Contact info is on the “About the Author” page. Enjoy!)

RELIGION. It’s a big word, with a huge meaning (magnified by its typing in CAPS LOCK). It’s undeniable that religion plays a huge role in the lives of millions, if not billions of people across the world. It takes all kinds of different forms, and is expressed in almost every way imaginable. To many, religious faith or tradition is the single most important and valuable thing in life, and governs most, if not all actions.

But what is it about religion that makes it so damn controversial? Why is it that people have been killing each other for millennia over these things? The answer, at least the way I see it, is pretty simple: Most people are sure that their religion is the right one, and everyone else’s is wrong.

This is hardly something new or original, I know. People love being right about everything, from sports to politics to philosophy to God. Humans have an inherent need to know what they can cling to, what they can know is right and good, and what can give them meaning in this life and right thinking about the next one. So they look for these things. Some find them in the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the Apostle Paul. Some find them in the prayers and pillars of Islam. Some find them in the Eightfold Path and meditation of Buddhism. And there are countless other ways in which people experience the spiritual and the divine.

The problem and conflict between different religions and religious groups comes when they can’t agree on where and how people should find this meaning. More importantly though, it comes when people insist that only their view, only their way could possibly be right. This is an exclusivist tree that inevitably sprouts branches of intolerance, bigotry, and sometimes even hatred. So many religious people (though, to be fair, the greatest perpetrators tend to be associated with Christianity or Islam) are so concerned about making other people believe the same thing as they do that they forget that the world is populated by human beings, not numbers.

While I’m still unsure of my own personal beliefs on many things, the last thing the world needs (unstable as it is) are people who are too busy shouting about the virtues of their faith and the shortcomings of others to listen to anyone else.. The only way our world can truly move forward, or could possibly become a place of freedom and peace, is if people of all faiths are willing to lay aside their differences and recognize that all people have a freedom to believe what they choose. As soon as religion becomes harmful, manipulative, or conquesting, it truly becomes poisonous.

Leave a comment

Filed under Seeking the Spiritual

Blood in Tahrir

Egypt has been in turmoil for 11 days now. What started as smaller, peaceful demonstrations against Mubarak’s regime have grown exponentially to encompass the entire country. More than 2,000 American citizens have been evacuated from Cairo, and more on their way out.

But things took a terrible and bloody turn on Wednesday. As thousands upon thousands of anti-Mubarak protestors assembled in Tahrir Square, near the center of Cairo, armed “supporters” of Mubarak began to enter the square as well, after disembarking from buses that pulled up nearby. The men carried chains, rubber hoses, knives, clubs and all kinds of other makeshift weapons. At first, they simply chanted in support of Mubarak. But, as if each of them were following orders, they all began attacking the anti-government protestors at 2:15 pm, throwing rocks, pieces of metal, and all kinds of projectiles. There’s little suspicion among the anti-Mubarak group that these men were what are called “baltageya,” plain-clothes hired arms for Mubarak. In a way, they’re mercenaries. After a while, the anti-government protestors began to fight back, returning the attacks against the mercenary protestors. The battle raged well into the night, eventually progressing to use of homemade firebombs and live arms fire. More than 800 people were injured and at least 8 killed.

And the army just watched.

While the government-sanctioned violence in Tahrir was atrocious (in fact, President Obama has openly broken ties with Mubarak’s Egypt), it’s really not all that surprising. At this point, Mubarak has huge amounts of pressure on him from all sides: The United States, other important countries like Germany, Britain, and France, and most importantly, his own people. The bloodshed on Wednesday was tragic, but it showed the dedication of the Egyptian people to their cause of democracy. They’ve battled through brutal riot police and now their own fellow Egyptians (hired thugs really), and many of the anti-government protestors have said that they’ll either get the democracy they want or die right there in Tahrir Square. That’s dedication.

Mubarak’s already given significant ground to the protestors, but it’s not enough. It’s been made abundantly clear by the Egyptian people that his time is up, and they seem determined to keep the pressure on him until he steps down from power. It’s only a matter of time until his time is up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Revolutions & Revolts

And You Thought America was Uptight!

Before I get started discussing this, I’d like to say that I know this is old news, so please refrain from telling me to pick up the paper. That said, this news is still sadly relevant! In fact, it’s come to the forefront again very recently. So hear me out.

Homosexuality and homosexual practice has always been a point of contention in Africa, especially in recent years. The general sentiment in many African countries (most notably Uganda) is that homosexuality is not just wrong, as many Americans feel, but an outright abomination and crime. In October 2010, the magazine pictured here (not the Rolling Stone you’re thinking of) released the names and addresses of 100 “Top Homos” in Uganda under an injunction to “Hang Them.” One of the people named in the article (and pictured on the cover) was David Kato, a gay rights activist in Uganda who was beaten to death with a hammer just 3 days ago in his home.

It’s been proposed (and perhaps not wrongly so) that the flames of anti-gay sentiment in Uganda were stoked in large part by a number of evangelical Christians that have helped “encourage” the evangelical Christian community in Uganda to view homosexuality as an aberration, an unnatural way of life, and of course, a sin. In the thinking of such blameless souls as Rick Warren, homosexuality is against the grain of normality, and is thus not something that need be considered a human right. To slather icing on the cake, a number of American evangelical leaders have popularized the idea that homosexuality is the immediate precursor to the dissolution of the African family. In the words of the minister of ethics and integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.” Classy guy, eh?

Ya know, this sounds pretty similar to what the Evangelical movement is seeking to achieve on American soil. Fundamentalist Christians have for years been striving to exorcise homosexuality from the US, but this isn’t a fight reserved just for America. No no, the “gay agenda” must be rooted out across the globe, according to folks like Scott Lively.

And Uganda seems to take this as a sacred and blood-soaked duty. The president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, drafted a bill that threatens to drastically expand the penalties that can be imposed on gays in Uganda, up to and including capital punishment. Besides that, the bill, if passed, would call for homosexual Ugandans who have fled the country to be deported for punishment. But wait, it gets better! Museveni made the decision to bring this bill about after being converted to Christianity by American evangelicals. Regardless of who actually drafted the bill, none of these “good Christians” have voiced strong opposition to the bill, at most discouraging Parliament from such drastic measures. Similarly, none will say that Museveni’s insanity toward gays was at all inspired by them.

Yet more proof of the destructive capabilities mustered by members of the American evangelical movement. All we can do now is hope and pray that this bill never passes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Rights, Religion & Reason