This has already been well covered over at professorpnin's blog, but I had to post it too. Great spin on the Binyam Mohamed story. Extraordinary rendition, (probable) torture, Gitmo...yup, we've really treated him well.
27 February 2009
The Express - excelling themselves
This has already been well covered over at professorpnin's blog, but I had to post it too. Great spin on the Binyam Mohamed story. Extraordinary rendition, (probable) torture, Gitmo...yup, we've really treated him well.
On Mass Violence and Darfur
I went to a lecture by Jacques Semelin last night, on genocide and mass violence. He argued (among other things) that our preoccupation with the term genocide and eagerness to label current and past episodes of mass killing as such is perhaps counterproductive.
I definitely agree with him. The 'Save Darfur' campaigns are a good example of this. The intentions are good, the idea being that if what is happening is accepted as genocide then the international community will have to do something. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. The US Congress declared Darfur a genocide back in 2004 - and to what effect? Interestingly, a UN Commission the next year found that genocide was not taking place, and for good reasons, that I won't go into in depth but include a) the fact that the ethnic/tribal/religious distinctions are unclear; and b) the crucial factor of genocidal intent is unproven. Rather, this was (albeit extremely brutal) counter-insurgency warfare. This, of course, should not mean that we cheerfully wash our hands of the problem. This is my main worry about the preoccupation with proving genocide - it sets the bar too high. If it doesn't look like Auschwitz, we can look away. Is mass killing and rape not enough to move us to action?
Semelin echoed the views of the foremost scholar on Sudan, Gerard Prunier, in concluding, regarding the genocide semantics: from the point of view of the Darfuris, WHO CARES? People are suffering and dying on a huge scale; let's try and work out how to do something about it.
He's also director of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence which looks like an important project and useful resource. Probably not one for a lazy weekend browse (unless you like to confront the dark side of human history on a Saturday morning!), but anyway...
*There's also the question of whether the genocide approach obscures the complex historical/political context - e.g. the fact that Darfur is the site of a civil war - and focuses effort on miltary intervention rather than political solutions. For those of you particularly interested in the Darfur debate, there's an excellent blog here.
I definitely agree with him. The 'Save Darfur' campaigns are a good example of this. The intentions are good, the idea being that if what is happening is accepted as genocide then the international community will have to do something. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case. The US Congress declared Darfur a genocide back in 2004 - and to what effect? Interestingly, a UN Commission the next year found that genocide was not taking place, and for good reasons, that I won't go into in depth but include a) the fact that the ethnic/tribal/religious distinctions are unclear; and b) the crucial factor of genocidal intent is unproven. Rather, this was (albeit extremely brutal) counter-insurgency warfare. This, of course, should not mean that we cheerfully wash our hands of the problem. This is my main worry about the preoccupation with proving genocide - it sets the bar too high. If it doesn't look like Auschwitz, we can look away. Is mass killing and rape not enough to move us to action?
Semelin echoed the views of the foremost scholar on Sudan, Gerard Prunier, in concluding, regarding the genocide semantics: from the point of view of the Darfuris, WHO CARES? People are suffering and dying on a huge scale; let's try and work out how to do something about it.
He's also director of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence which looks like an important project and useful resource. Probably not one for a lazy weekend browse (unless you like to confront the dark side of human history on a Saturday morning!), but anyway...
*There's also the question of whether the genocide approach obscures the complex historical/political context - e.g. the fact that Darfur is the site of a civil war - and focuses effort on miltary intervention rather than political solutions. For those of you particularly interested in the Darfur debate, there's an excellent blog here.
21 February 2009
Target Women
Liberal hawks
Interesting article from World Affairs on the future of interventionism - although I don't buy Wolfe's argument that "a successful intervention is more problematic than a failed one." Surely, a successful intervention and post-intervention reconstruction means a population that is (more) secure, well-fed and politically represented, and therefore the vast majority would have no truck with any radicals/insurgents trying to destroy the relatively happy status quo?
However, he makes an important point about state sovereignty being preferable to anarchy, and the utilitarian compromises that state-building requires. I would argue this also applies to our more day-to-day foreign policy dealings - see Hillary Clinton's comments today regarding China.* If international cooperation is to happen at all, we can't go around criticising everything another state does that we find unpleasant - perhaps we need to focus on the greater good. See also Paul Kagame's government in Rwanda (as discussed with ST and RA, thanks!) - essentially an authoritarian regime, and one that is guilty of significant human rights abuses, but also probably the most efficient government in Africa in terms of the population being largely safe, nourished, etc etc. Is the pay-off worth it? Personally, I think that IN THE SHORT-TERM, it probably is. That doesn't mean that we should all, as observers or campaigners, turn a blind eye - we need the Alison des Forges of this world - but in terms of official state foreign policy I think it is probably pragmatic to recognise the necessity of such murky moral compromises and unpleasant choices. As Wolfe says: "Sometimes that will mean leaving dictators in place and recognizing that the same sovereign structures that make it possible for tyrants to oppress their own people also make it possible for them to begin to make incremental improvement in the lives of their countrymen." Ugh. Of course one has to keep a close eye on the oppression/improvement balance...
* Currently grappling as to whether I agree with Hill - very interesting question as to whether tackling climate change is more important than securing the human rights of Chinese/Tibetan/Taiwanese citizens in the here and now...
However, he makes an important point about state sovereignty being preferable to anarchy, and the utilitarian compromises that state-building requires. I would argue this also applies to our more day-to-day foreign policy dealings - see Hillary Clinton's comments today regarding China.* If international cooperation is to happen at all, we can't go around criticising everything another state does that we find unpleasant - perhaps we need to focus on the greater good. See also Paul Kagame's government in Rwanda (as discussed with ST and RA, thanks!) - essentially an authoritarian regime, and one that is guilty of significant human rights abuses, but also probably the most efficient government in Africa in terms of the population being largely safe, nourished, etc etc. Is the pay-off worth it? Personally, I think that IN THE SHORT-TERM, it probably is. That doesn't mean that we should all, as observers or campaigners, turn a blind eye - we need the Alison des Forges of this world - but in terms of official state foreign policy I think it is probably pragmatic to recognise the necessity of such murky moral compromises and unpleasant choices. As Wolfe says: "Sometimes that will mean leaving dictators in place and recognizing that the same sovereign structures that make it possible for tyrants to oppress their own people also make it possible for them to begin to make incremental improvement in the lives of their countrymen." Ugh. Of course one has to keep a close eye on the oppression/improvement balance...
* Currently grappling as to whether I agree with Hill - very interesting question as to whether tackling climate change is more important than securing the human rights of Chinese/Tibetan/Taiwanese citizens in the here and now...
20 February 2009
A sunnier outlook
...for women in Iran? I'm particularly interested and encouraged that "more than 60 percent of university students are women, compared with just over 30 percent in 1982, even though classes are no longer segregated."
Hitchens on Zimbabwe
"The situation in Zimbabwe has now reached the point where the international community would be entirely justified in using force to put Robert Mugabe under arrest and place him on trial."
Hitchens' treatment of the threshold conditions for interventions is too simplisitic, but he introduces a useful 'germ warfare' justification and there is an interesting discussion of the relationship between failed and rogue states. I like his assertion that "human rights and epidemiology may be natural partners"; one to reflect on...
Hitchens' treatment of the threshold conditions for interventions is too simplisitic, but he introduces a useful 'germ warfare' justification and there is an interesting discussion of the relationship between failed and rogue states. I like his assertion that "human rights and epidemiology may be natural partners"; one to reflect on...
19 February 2009
An oldie but a goodie
I'm aware that the frivolity count is rather low so far. So - if anyone ever wants to know why I feel so strongly that spiders are EVIL, see here.
And I'll warn you right now that Mr. Brooker might feature quite regularly here...
And I'll warn you right now that Mr. Brooker might feature quite regularly here...
Africa and aid
A new book claims that "Aid has been, and continues to be, an unmitigated political, economic and humanitarian disaster for most parts of the developing world." Not a new thesis, but certainly still a controversial one. An interview with the author here.
Howard Jacobson on anti-semitism
An interesting and persuasive comment piece from Howard Jacobson on the fine line between anti-semitism and 'anti-Israel' opinion. I've been thinking about this a lot recently, thanks of course to the war in Gaza, and I have to say I am increasingly coming round to his POV. I don't believe that ALL criticism of Israel is anti-semitic, of course (nor does Howard) but I do think such vitriolic hatred of a state and its policies is unprecedented and therefore has to be examined more closely. As always, context and balance is key.
Read the article here.
Read the article here.
A heroine for human rights
Tragically, Alison Des Forges died last week, in the Buffalo plane crash. She was a brilliant and inexhaustible campaigner for human rights, and probably did more than anyone else to raise awareness of the Rwandan genocide and the need for true justice in its aftermath. Des Forges was particularly controversial for acting as a professional thorn-in-the-side of Rwandan leader Paul Kagame, adamantly insisting that the atrocities committed by the RPF, while smaller in scale than those of the Hutu Interhamwe et al, should not go unpunished.
Read Kenneth Roth (director of Human Rights Watch) 's tribute to her here.
Read Kenneth Roth (director of Human Rights Watch) 's tribute to her here.
The First Post
Welcome to my blog. Essentially I'll just be posting links to articles I have found particularly interesting, with a short (-ish!) comment. The articles will vary in content and range from the highbrow to the frivolous, although there will probably be a strong current affairs/foreign policy/human rights bias. Basically, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time reading stuff on the internet, so I thought I'd find a way to make this seem productive. This is it. Lucky you.
At the highbrow end of the spectrum, I'll be trying to post stuff that challenges lazy intellectual or political certainties, whether wielded by the left, right or middle-of-road. There will be an emphasis on all the things we don't get enough of in our usual media diet: open-minded enquiry, context and thorny moral/political choices, and an acceptance that there is rarely an easy right-or-wrong answer.
Unless, of course, the question is "Cake?" - to which there is only ever one appropriate response.
Enjoy, and do contact me with any suggestions or questions.
At the highbrow end of the spectrum, I'll be trying to post stuff that challenges lazy intellectual or political certainties, whether wielded by the left, right or middle-of-road. There will be an emphasis on all the things we don't get enough of in our usual media diet: open-minded enquiry, context and thorny moral/political choices, and an acceptance that there is rarely an easy right-or-wrong answer.
Unless, of course, the question is "Cake?" - to which there is only ever one appropriate response.
Enjoy, and do contact me with any suggestions or questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
