Peace of Mind

On December 10, 1896 Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, died. Nobel, not being satisfied with the sheer destructive power he unleashed upon the world, decided to bequeath his fortune to a series of ill-defined annual prizes.[1] The fifth and final prize was to be given to individuals “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Earlier this month that prize, the Nobel Peace Prize, was awarded to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo for "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China."

Liu, in prison since June 2009, was one the favorites to win the prize last year. Last year’s selection, if you remember, was the source of much criticism. It was awarded to President Obama, who hardly had any achievements to his credit when the announcement was made. This time around it appears the selection committee was trying to make amends by acknowledging an imprisoned dissident who is hardly known outside of human rights circles.

Despite appearances the honoring of Liu is not a break from the pattern that has developed over the last few years. The inclusion of President Obama, Al Gore and the IPCC, and Mohamed El Baradei and the IAEA as Nobel laureates has turned the Nobel Peace Prize into political statement. It is no longer recognition of achievements but a statement of aspiration.

Some have argued this prize will encourage the Chinese democracy movement.[2] This seems unlikely. Most Chinese have never heard of Liu Xiaobo. A more likely outcome is that China will use this as an excuse to imprison and intimidate democracy activists. In fact crackdowns have already begun. The authorities placed Liu’s wife under house arrest before the weekend was over.

Even if the spotlight now shining on Liu is bright enough to empower democracy activists it is still an award for something that has yet to happen.[3] China is not a democracy and although Liu has given a voice to thousands of dissidents it is questionable whether his actions have made China any less authoritarian.

If Liu was not deserving of the prize then who should it have gone to? In my opinion, there was no candidate worthy of such an honor.

These are tumultuous times. To varying degrees armed conflict is being waged on nearly every continent. News of human rights violations becomes more shocking with each passing day. There are good people, great people, working on solutions. But we have not yet fulfilled our potential. Peace has not come to pass in this world. We are a long way from tranquility. I do not mean to diminish the accomplishments of Liu or any other Nobel laureates. Their accomplishments are awe inspiring by any standard.

But the Nobel Peace Prize should be an acknowledgement of a job well done, not a signal of the way we wish things to be or an admonishment of the way things are.

Since 1901 the Nobel Committee has declined to name a laureate 19 times. My hope is that the Nobel Committee does not reward a prize next year or the year after until we find an individual who has made the world significantly better. A year without a laureate does not mean we have failed. It just means we have not yet succeeded.

---

[1] The Nobel Prize in Literature is supposed to be awarded to those individuals who produced "in the field of literature, the most outstanding work in an ideal direction." Sound simple? Then explain why Dario Fo is a Nobel laureate and James Joyce is not.

[2] William Inboden thinks that President Obama should hold a live press conference calling on China to release Liu. How this will lead to democracy is unclear. Also unclear is what dimension Inboden hails from. This reality’s Obama administration cancels meetings with the Dalai Lama and backpedals on statements regarding the yuan. A statements about Chinese political prisoners from the highest levels of government does not really seem like it’s in the cards.

[3] Liu will most certainly not reap the full benefits of becoming a Nobel laureate. The Chinese government will not allow to travel to Oslo to deliver his Nobel lecture nor will he allowed to accept his prize money.

Who Will Think of the Children?

Anyone who knows me knows that I’m a bit of a film nerd. Suffice to say I’ve learned the hard way few things end a conversation faster than launching into a 30 minute lecture on how “It’s a Wonderful Life” is actually an allegory for the evils of capitalism.

What can I say? I have a critical mind. And since my mind is often focused on human rights I tend to interpret movies through that lens. This may explain my recent affinity for horror movies. Horror films aren’t particularly smart films, they don’t require much analysis or thinking. It gets dark, crazy guy kills all the promiscuous teens and/or minority characters, roll credits.

It was with this mentality that I sat down to watch “Who Can Kill a Child?” One of the interesting things about Narciso Ibáñez Serrador’s 1976 film is that it’s not easy to come by. Released in the United States and the United Kingdom under a number of different names, including “Island of the Damned”, it wasn’t released on any home video format until 2007.

The plot is fairly simple. An English couple goes to Spain for holiday. They travel to a remote island where they find plenty of children but no adults. Turns out the kids woke up one night and decided to start killing. Now the couple need to get off the island before they become the next victims.

Despite the title “Who Can Kill a Child?” is not too shocking when compared with recent horror films. There is killing to be sure, but the vast majority of violence is shown off-screen and the gory is quite minimal.

The purpose of the film is not to shock you with gore. No, the purpose is to shock you with the answer to the title’s question. Upon first glance our answer is no one. Killing a child is an act of unspeakable evil. This point is hammered home by the first eight minutes of the film which, using news reel footage, is a chronicle of the toll war takes on children from World War II to Vietnam. But as the film progresses, as the laughter of children becomes a grating noise, we find ourselves hoping the protagonists take out at least one or two brats before the credits roll. In the span of two hours we go from deploring evil to sympathizing with it.

The true horror in the film lies not in the violence, but in the realization that the answer to the title question is anyone, everyone. Children are casualties of war, true, but they are also victims. After the dust is settled and the peace is signed they are the ones who will suffer the most in the aftermath. Be it psychologically or physically. And it’s not just violence that claims children. Suffering can be found in relatively peaceful countries.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child may be the most ratified human rights convention in history but it also may be the least enforced. Just in Nepal, for example, between 2002 and 2006 over 22,000 children were forcibly recruited as soldiers. Australia’s policy of asylum detention has systematically denied children of number of rights, including depriving children of a family environment.

Children deserve a better world. A world where the answer to “who can kill a child” is honestly “no one.”

Really Wrong About Human Rights

Last week the Philadelphia Inquirer published an interesting “article” by Roger Pilon, vice president of the Cato Institute. Mr. Pilon makes the following points-

1. Muslims have rights, but they apparently lack the ability to make good decisions (and that’s just the first paragraph!).
2. Equality before the law is good. As long as the US says so.
3. Economic, social and cultural rights are socialist plants.
4. Human rights will destroy the world.

Let’s all give Mr. Pilson a hand for making some very excellent points. And by “excellent” I mean completely crazy and without any factual basis whatsoever. Let’s roll up our sleeves and wade into the nutso.

“Even the current controversy over an Islamic center near ground zero isn't about the right to build there; it's about the wisdom of doing so.”

I could go on and on about this, but let’s just leave it at no, it’s not about “wisdom.” If it was then we’d stop building churches in the land of the Crusades.

“Or consider this point: ‘Asian-American men suffer from stomach cancer 114 percent more often than non-Hispanic white men.’ That's a human-rights problem?”

Why, yes, yes it is. Many countries do not provide adequate health care to minority groups. The UN recognized this when they wrote Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. “

Unfortunately, the US is not a party to the ICESCR. This, however, does not invalidate Article 12(1) as a human right. In fact, even as just a plain signatory the US is obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”

The US is not a state party to a number of human rights conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does this mean children have no rights? Of course not. The US, like it or not, is a member of a global community and 160 of those members, a clear majority, agree with Article 12(1). Among those that don’t? Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Burma. Pilon has some fun taking pot shots at human rights violators sitting on the Human Rights Council. He falls to recognize that the US finds many of these countries allies in opposition to the ICESCR.

“History has shown that nations that promise everything as a matter of rights have provided little but the oppression required by that misconceived goal. We should not abandon a distinction at the core of our political order that has enabled us to be both free and prosperous — much less do so in the good name of human rights.”

History has shown this? Oh really? Where exactly? Yeah, that’s what I thought. On the opposite side of the spectrum, India is not only a party to the ICESCR, but has also enshrined in its constitution such rights as health care (Article 47) and fair wages (Article 43). So far India has not descended into anarchy.

The tragedy would not be to designate too many rights, but to divide rights into classes or categories. Human rights are indivisible and universal. It is not up to one country or individual to decide which are good and which are less so.

Dial M for [Conflict] Minerals

Enough’s Conflict Minerals campaign reached a fever pitch this past week with a protest at Washington D.C.’s new Apple store, a spoof Mac commercial, a Nicholas Kristof op-ed and consideration of a conflict minerals bill in Congress.

The evolution from “blood diamonds” to “blood phones” (ugh) is easy to trace. Not many people interact with diamonds on a daily basis, but the vast majority of Americans own at least a cell phone and a computer. The reservoir of white person’s guilt runs deep; it is just a matter of finding a way to tap it. This is how it’s done- Send a text today? That text helped finance millions of rapes in the Dark Continent. Bad hipster.

Unfortunately, the so-called “conflict minerals” may not be involved in conflict. As Texas in Africa points out, there is no direct causal relationship between the mineral trade and violence in the DRC. Even if there were reliable data demonstrating a direct link, conflict minerals advocates have failed to make a convincing argument that electronics suppliers are using minerals originating from the DRC. Apple is notoriously secretive, especially when it comes to the identity of its suppliers. When the iPhone 3G was released a list of suppliers was supposedly leaked and subsequently debunked. The Enough Project even admits the supply chain lacks transparency. And while it’s true the DRC has a number of tantalum mines, the primary source of the world’s tantalum is Australia. Mines also exist in China, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Thailand and Malaysia. Now ask yourself, if your job was to keep the tantalum flowing would you rather deal with the DRC or Australia?

I’m probably the furthest thing from a free market capitalist, but I can’t help but wonder how something akin to the Kimberly Process would impact the economics of cell phones. Certainly not every mine is controlled by bloodthirsty warlords. Would a more stringent auditing process force down the already miniscule wages mine workers are paid? Are we trading our piece of mind for someone else’s quality of life? More worrisome is whether Enough’s demands would force cell phone prices up. My pockets probably won’t be hurting, but what about those in the developing world? They are far from a silver bullet, but cell phones are, without argument, a transforming force for many in the developing world. They have revolutionized banking, microfinance, the reporting of human rights violations, and access to medical care. Will a demand for conflict free minerals turn manufacturers to employ more expensive suppliers in parts of the world where these minerals are more difficult to extract?

Even if Apple, Intel, Microsoft and other electronic companies adopted Enough’s suggestions about transparency and certification with minimum costs it is unlikely this would lead to a drop in violence. What would lead to a drop in violence? Investment in infrastructure, good governance, ending the culture of impunity, tackling the illegal arms trade (hell, even the legal arms trade) or any number of other programs that don’t involve a dubious linkage between bloodshed and a popular consumer product.

Failure is an Option

For the past two weeks a major sports athlete’s indiscretions have dominated the news cycle. The sheer amount of coverage if perplexing not because everyone seems to think should have an opinion about one man’s private life but also because we seem genuinely shocked about this man’s fallibility. Human beings fail. This is not news nor is it a revelation.

On December 3^rd, an alleged mistress was set to give a press conference. On another continent a bomb went off in the Hotel Shamo, killing nearly half of Benadir University’s Class of 2009. Here were 24 human beings who saw pain in the world and wanted to end it. This was only the second medical class to graduate in Somalia in the last two decades. Here were two dozen people who saw the myriad problems in their homeland did not abandon it, did not look for greener pastures. They were making a stand. But this is not news.

No, failure is news. And such is a reminder of our failure. We have failed Somalia. We have failed Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Burma, Sudan, Fiji, Guinea, Chile, Argentina, Selma, Alabama and Newark, New Jersey. And the list does not end there.

Perhaps if we dedicated half of the resources we are currently using to crank out golf and sexual innuendo jokes we would have been able to make 1996 the year we eradicated poverty instead of just passing a toothless resolution. On the other hand only 27 years passed between the International Year of Disabled Persons and an international convention on the rights of disabled persons, so hey maybe they can look forward to actual change in the next three to four decades.

On the 61^st anniversary of the Universal Declaration we should remember our failures. We should remember how many people still are born into slavery, how many governments refuse to allow their citizens privacy, how many journalists risk their lives every day reporting on rights violations. And while we remember all those we failed let us commit ourselves to a single success this year. Let this be the year that all of us take a stand.

Red, White, and Truth

Earlier this year Senator Leahy called for the establishment of a "truth commission" to investigate crimes committed by the Bush administration carried out during "The Global War on Terror." Aside from a committee hearing and a House bill that failed to gain any traction, the idea of prosecuting US government agents for gross human rights violations faded away. That is until late last month when Attorney General Holder officially opened an investigation into whether any CIA interrogators crossed legal boundaries.

This investigation poses an interesting question--should we investigate the crimes of past administrations? The answer is, of course, an absolute yes. Even if they were done under the guise of protecting American lives the actions of leaders should not be immune from scrutiny and, if necessary, prosecution. However, in this case a truth and reconciliation commission would be an error.

To begin with, American society does not place very much value on truth and reconciliation commissions. This is not to say restorative justice is without its merits or even that one theory of justice is better than another. The opinion of the average American is that criminals should be punished, they should not spend months recounting their crimes and then receive immunity. Widespread support of the death penalty is but one example of the rigid view Americans have justice. For many citizens a TRC would not bring sufficient legal closure to the crimes in question.

A critical element of restorative justice is that the victims and the prepetrators establish a dialogue. However, in the case of this proposed committee the only dialogue will be between different branches of government. Those who were tortured will not have an opportunity to address their traumas or demand confessions from their interrogators. The US government would be putting the US government on trial. One political party would be tsk-tsking another. It is an act of political theater in the highest degree. Prior TRCs, like those in South Africa and East Timor, are a symbolic breaks with the past and a declaration to the world that new states have risen from the ashes of the old. A commission established by the United States would have no such symbolic weight.

Another critical element of TRCs is the confessional aspect. Confessions and testimonies create an unassailable historical record and contribute to the victims sense of healing. There is a repentant aspect to this--perpetrators need to admit they committed wrongful acts. I cannot speak to the thoughts of all the interrogators, but based on recent statements by a high-ranking Bush administration official there appears to be no form of regret for the possible illegal actions taken. I realize Senator Leahy was careful to designate his proposed commission only a "truth commission", leaving out any reconcilation aspect. But again, as discussed in the paragraphs above, just airing the truth lacks any closure.

It is obvious that any human rights violations committed by the Bush administration cannot go unpunished. Those who responsible must answer for what they have done. The two paths proposed have their strengths, but they also have their weaknesses. We should find a solution where justice is pursued, but not weighed down by politics.

An Open Letter to the President

Dear President Obama:

Recently you have been accused of being a Nazi, a socialist, and/or a Nazi werewolf. While some of your critics are clearly insane they do have a point--it's time to give up on health care reform. If the complete absence of any logical, rational, or coherent thought among these people has proven anything it's that someone, somewhere has failed them. This is why I urge you to begin an immediate and swift reform of the public school system. Because people need to know that Kristallnacht does not mean"Night of the Single-Payer System."

Regards,

Karl