Shades of Grey

China in Africa

2010-10-14T15:04:00.002+02:00

Having just written that Geneva is a wasteland on the brain fodder front, I must confess that actually I went to a very interesting lecture at the Graduate Institute here t'other day. Given by Deborah Brautigam, it was a revisionist take on the role of China in Africa - very different from the usual Western interpretation of Chinese aid and investment to Africa as exploitative, neo-colonialist, part of a power struggle with the West, etc. She's just published a new book on the subject, The Dragon's Gift, and her very interesting blog is here. Although I think she sometimes allows herself to be carried away with her role as professional critic of the conventional wisdom, is was certainly enlightening and refreshing. Some tid-bits:

Chinese official development assistance (ODA) to Africa is actually smaller than that of the US or UK - it's just that we (or rather, the Western media) often misinterpret Chinese loans, credit lines or private investment from China as 'aid'.
What's for sure is that Chinese ~~investment in~~ trade with [see correction from the speaker below, thanks you!] Africa is huge, having grown from $5billion in 2002 to $50billion in 2008. But Brautigam was at pains to point out that although the West may have an image of 'China Inc', this is coming from private enterprise.

She seemed to suggest that the Western donor-states could learn from China in terms of promoting and encouraging development in Africa. I'm all for more of a role for entrepeunership and enterprise in development rather than promoting a reliance on aid, but a short-term model of growth/profit at all costs is not sustainable (in an economic, social or environmental sense). There must be a happy medium...?

The Rights' Future

2010-10-14T14:37:00.000+02:00

My old LSE professor Conor Gearty is running an interesting collaborative web-publishing project, exploring the development and future of human rights. Conor posts a 'chapter' every Monday, invites comments and criticisms, to which he responds in a 'round-up post' on the Friday. This will all feed into a book, to be launched next year...
I've had my say on the first post, do add your thoughts too:
http://therightsfuture.com/t1-coming-out/

Also, you can listen to a recording of the launch of the project here. You'll have to scroll down the page a bit. Incidentally, this site is full of recordings of LSE events - some real gems there. I miss the LSE Events programme - despite its huge diplomatic, academic, civil society and political community, Geneva has rather a dearth on the brain fodder front...

Clegg, conference and climate change

2010-09-23T15:02:00.000+02:00

Jonathan Porritt's blog points out the worrying fact (and one that I have not seen mentioned in other analyses) that Nick Clegg's speech to the Lib Dem party conference did not mention climate change. Not once.

I haven’t done my homework, but my hunch is that this is the first Conference speech from a major Party Leader that will have completely ignored climate change in recent times. Ever since Tony Blair used his conference speech as Prime Minister in 1997, to raise the whole profile of climate negotiations, it’s been up there as a ‘must mention’ by all Party Leaders – however superficial and meaningless some of those mentions may have been.

I rather doubt David Cameron, let alone the new Labour Leader will make such a fundamental error.

Amnesty on burqa bans

2010-09-23T14:57:00.000+02:00

Following my previous post on burqa bans, it caught my attention that Amnesty International has urged the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to reject a draft law that would ban "the wearing in public of clothes which prevent identification" - including full-face veils.

I wasn't aware of AI's position on this previously; their statement is worth reading in full.

'Honour' killings

2010-09-22T18:22:00.001+02:00

The Independent has, to its immense credit, had a series of excellent articles focusing on so-called 'honour' killings recently, mostly the work of Robert Fisk.

It's all worth a read, but here is his conclusion.

His views on what 'we' can do are somewhat dispiriting:

[T]he grim truth is that Westerners can no more change this – can no more persuade village elders in Afghanistan of the benefits of gender equality and an end to "honour" killings – than we could have persuaded Henry VIII of the benefits of parliamentary democracy or Cromwell of the laws of war. The height of such pomposity came the other day from Navi Pillay, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Violent 'honour' attacks," she pontificated, "are crimes that violate the right to life, liberty, bodily integrity, the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the prohibition on slavery, the right to freedom from gender-based discrimination and sexual abuse or exploitation, the right to privacy, the obligation to denounce discriminatory laws and harmful practices against women." Phew. I can see how they'll be shaking in their shoes after that in Baluchistan and Helmand province.

I agree to an extent, although I do think that 'outsiders' can play an important role in supporting (financially, politically, logistically) those brave 'insiders' who are trying to foment change.

The paranoid style in American politics

2010-08-31T10:54:00.000+02:00

I spoke to my friend Chloe last night who covered the Glenn Beck rally in Washington DC for Al-Jazeera. We discussed how the existence and prominence of lunatics like Beck genuinely mystifies us. Why is it that American politics (not exclusively, but in particular among democratic countries I think) is such a breeding ground for ignorance and intolerance and hyperbole and blatant scaremongering (Obama is a Muslim etc etc)?

It reminded me of this classic article by Richard Hofstadter (which Nick Kristof gently alluded to in his column which I posted below re. the 'Ground Zero Mosque'). It's well worth a read, and I think his theory has held up since he wrote in 1964.

Michael Tomasky has also written an insightful piece on the mentality of the Beck movement.

The way it should be

2010-08-26T11:11:00.000+02:00

From the Washington Post, a refreshing counter-balance to the 'Ground Zero Mosque' madness lamented in my last post. Yes, "At Pentagon 9/11 site, Muslims pray without objection".

The fantasy of the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

2010-08-23T16:39:00.002+02:00

One long-running story is illustrating perfectly how frighteningly good certain sections of the American media and (mainly) right-wing interest groups are at bending the truth for their own purposes.

This infuriates me. The so-called 'Ground Zero mosque' is not a mosque, rather an Islamic cultural centre designed to promote inter-faith understanding no less, and it is not 'at' Ground Zero at all but two blocks away.

For voices of sanity, read Nick Kristof here ("Today’s crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a...paranoid intolerance, and one day we will be ashamed of it") and Howard Kurtz on the mindless media stampede here.

I also liked a reader comment in the Economist last week "In all fairness, we've been building ground zeros near Mosques in Iraq since March 2003."(Via liebejessy on Twitter, thanks.)

It's classic Adam Curtis 'Power of Nightmares' stuff, and almost as crazy as the recent poll which shows that nearly 20% of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim. Comedian Andy Borowitz has a funny take on this, but really, its pretty damn depressing...

The civilising force at a stag do

2010-08-18T12:36:00.005+02:00

Jonathan Freedland has a good piece in the Guardian today marking 100 days of the coalition government.

I particularly like this quote, from Tory Rick Nye, on the role/influence of the Lib Dems:

"It's like inviting your fiancee's brother to your stag weekend: it's inherently civilising. You're not going to have the strippers, you're not going to get blind drunk." To Nye, the Lib Dems are the fiancee's brother, forcing the Tories to be polite and behave themselves.

No one really wants to be that fiancee's brother, spoiling all the wildest fun, but for the bride's sake it's probably a good thing he's there...

Immigration scare-mongering

2010-08-16T15:41:00.004+02:00

Good article in the Grauniad by Gary Younge about how conservative rags & broadsheets mis-use unemployment & immigration statistics. I'm always surprised by how many people I otherwise think of as fairly progressive, clever, right-on, swallow these intentionally dodgy interpretations as fact.

I agree with Younge's conclusion:

Stopping immigration as a means of fighting unemployment makes about as much sense as banning ice-cream sales in a bid to reduce shark attacks. And it will do about as much good too.

On being wrong

2010-08-13T13:09:00.004+02:00

I don't always agree with Johann Hari, but I really like this week's column about how we need to change our attitude towards mistakes.

Burqa bans

2010-08-13T12:41:00.006+02:00

I just read this excellent piece by Kenan Malik on burqa bans. As a perceived human rights buff/feminist/politics loudmouth, people often ask me whether I'm for-or-against such policies , it being one of those issues that has 'crossed over' into the comment sections of both tabloid and broadsheets. My replies tended to be in the 'bans are bad' camp but located perilously close to the fence. The 2 factors tending to bring me closer to that fence are 1) the burqa strikes me as an unquestionable and grotesque symbol of female subjugation and 2) bans may help those women who don't have a choice in wearing the burqa. By this I mean not solely, or even principally, those who are literally forced against their expressed will to wear it, but those for whom their upbringing, education or socio-cultural milieu is such that a real, informed choice is impossible.

Malik has placed my feet much more firmly in the anti-ban camp. He doesn't tackle quite effectively enough why some women may 'choose' to wear the burqa, stating rather simplistically that evidence suggests that "in Europe most burqa-clad women do not act from a sense of compulsion" but instead "do so voluntarily, largely as an expression of identity and as an act of provocation". (I'm not denying that there is a possibility that a woman could make such a choice in a genuinely free way; but I would argue that many such apparently free choices are nothing of the sort.) However, otherwise his argument is very convincing. Amongst other insights, I like this (an obvious point but worth making):

What of the suggestion that women are forced to wear the burqa, and so need protection from the law? It is true that in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Yemen women have little choice but to cover up their face. That in itself is a good reason for liberal societies not to impose coercive dress codes.

and this:

The burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, not its cause. If legislators really want to help Muslim women, they could begin not by banning the burqa, but by challenging the policies and processes that marginalize migrant communities: on the one hand, the racism, social discrimination and police harassment that all too often disfigure migrant lives, and, on the other, the multicultural policies that treat minorities as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens. Both help sideline migrant communities, aid the standing of conservative ‘community leaders’ and make life more difficult for women and other disadvantaged groups within those communities.

Cristina...and the rest

2010-08-11T13:46:00.009+02:00

Interesting article on the Guardian Global Health blog which uses the sad state of women's rights in Argentina to make the case for a strong UN women's agency.

Of the former, I can testify with limited experience. Argentina really is a strange place socially and politically: extremely liberal, cosmopolitan and modern in some ways (for example, gay marriage has just been legalised), it is still woefully backward in terms of female equality. Call it 'macho culture' if you will, but don't shrug your shoulders and grin in a 'all-the-Latinos-are-at-it' way - this is deeply-rooted sexism with profoundly harmful consequences, as the Human Rights Watch report quoted in the above article makes clear. Such a situation is not inevitable and the problem can be tackled, but it will take considerable time, effort and resources, none of which are being deployed effectively at the moment.

[I did however go to a rather good exhibition about women in Argentina 1810-2010 while in Buenos Aires. Of course things of this nature get the green light and plenty of publicity partly because of the political interest involved, the President being a woman n'all... at every rundown of brilliant women through the ages in Argentina (there's also a photographic display on the tour route in the Casa Rosada presidential palace) the conclusion, the pinnacle, is of course Cristina. Many Evita-Cristina comparisons shoe-horned in there too, naturally.]

As for the UN women's agency, I'm glad some effort is being made to streamline the UN's women's bodies (currently we have: the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Division for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues AND the UN International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women) but I'm afraid I too am pessimistic about whether the political will exists to make the new agency sufficiently powerful or dynamic to make a real impact. I hope I'm wrong.

Update 24 September: 'Super-agency' UN Women is now semi-operational. Encouraging signs: Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile (so a significant political figure with real gravitas and good contacts), has been appointed as its Head; the body has starting budget of US$500 million, more than twice the current combined resources of the 4 agencies it is replacing.

Show them the money

2010-08-09T20:46:00.004+02:00

Cash transfer programmes are the sexy new gadget in the poverty reduction toolbox. They're spreading so quickly partly because a lot of evidence shows that they work, and also because as gadgets go they're pretty damn easy to operate - the government just hands over money to the poor. Well, it's almost that simple - some of the most successful programmes are conditional, so people get given their money in return for the fulfillment of some sort of socially desirable goal; commonly, a child's school attendance.

The Economist ran a feature on CCTPs last issue [thanks ST for alerting me]; read the leader here and the Brazil case-study here. Incidentally, the UN independent expert on human rights and extreme poverty, who also happens to be research director at my new workplace, has been focusing on CTPs too; the website for her mandate has some interesting resources, including detailed information submitted by various countries regarding their own CTPs.

Back on the blog

2010-08-06T15:07:00.005+02:00

Greetings. After a long hiatus, I'm resurrecting this blog.

So, what's changed? Well, I have: travelled a fair bit (Nepal, India, Singapore, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, USA); lived in Buenos Aires where I learnt Spanish*, soaked up the city and ate a lot of steak; become vegetarian; attended a few weddings; moved to Geneva and adjusted to 5 days per week in an office again.

Blogging again is one happy side-effect of more time sat at a desk. As I'm working on human rights full-time now, there will continue to be an emphasis in that direction in my posts. So, to kick things off, and in acknowledgement of the fact that another big change during my radio silence is a new UK government, there's this. The UN General Assembly declared access to clean water and sanitation to be human rights last week, against fierce oppposition from the UK; a notable change in tack, as Labour minister Hilary Benn was happy to acknowledge the right to water back in 2006. I'm concerned and slightly mystified by this development.

Although I never wanted to see David Cameron walk into Number 10, I'll admit to thinking that the coalition government has done a reasonable job so far, all things considered, but its stance on human rights (see here and Conor Gearty here) and sustainable development (for example, shutting down the Sustainable Development Commission, claiming that SD has been 'mainstreamed' into government policy - see Jonathan Porritt on this here) I do find troubling.

*Mostly just as a challenge to myself, at some point I aim to start translating these posts into Spanish. Watch this space for an URL if you're interested, and feel free to whip out the red biro...

BLOG SABBATICAL

2009-12-09T16:49:00.003+01:00

This blog has been 'paused' for quite some time, mainly due to lack of time rather than inclination, I'm about to take off on my travels, so I imagine it will remain defunct for a while, but I do plan to revive it at some point in the future. In the meantime, please feel free to browse older posts to your heart's content.

Decide what to worship

2009-08-20T10:49:00.003+02:00

A tweet from my friend Antonia reminded me of the brilliance of this David Foster Wallace essay, which I first read just after he died. I'm a big fan of DFW, although his writing can be fairly patchy, because when he gets it right he really blows your socks off, in a 'deconstructing-the-little-things-that-you've-only-ever-noticed-subconsciously-and-rendering-them-profound-and-funny-at-the-same-time' kind of way.

I had a tedious, frustrating day yesterday (including very nearly getting squashed by a truck on my cycle journey home) but it was alleviated somewhat by reminding myself constantly "This is water, this is water..."

Fistula Foundation

2009-08-19T16:55:00.002+02:00

Have a listen to this feature from Radio 4, about the Fistula Foundation hospital in Ethiopa; an excellent, rather moving report.

And by the way, The Fistula Foundation is one of the most worthwhile causes you could donate to - the treatment they give really does rebuild broken lives, so please think about helping them out.

The crazy tree blooms in America

2009-08-18T10:59:00.004+02:00

This article in the Washington Post is excellent in putting all this absurd hyperbolic nonsense about healthcare reform, the 'Stalinist' NHS and 'death panels', into context. (My favourite right-wing gold so far: the claim that "if" Stephen Hawking was British he would have been left to die.)

It reminds me a bit of this classic essay, 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics' by Richard Hofstadter, which I have come back to time and time again since my A Level history teacher told me to read it (thanks JDM!).

Votes are not enough

2009-08-18T10:51:00.003+02:00

The Times leader on Afghanistan yesterday was pretty spot-on I think, in labelling the heinous law on conjugal rights (see post below) "a defiance of what a democratic culture must mean", and this:

Democracy is a living process, measured in the culture of daily life, not counted periodically in votes cast in elections and the appearance of a representative government.

Paul Collier talks about this in his book Wars, Guns and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places: elections on their own are not enough without security, accountability and strong institutions.

Sometimes I despair

2009-08-16T22:30:00.002+02:00

Nothing I can say will do justice to how deeply depressing this is...

Trousers in Sudan

2009-08-05T12:32:00.002+02:00

Alright, I know I'm being very female-centric (Harriet Harman must have inspired me) but this woman is my new hero...

Maternal mortality

2009-08-05T12:25:00.002+02:00

It's a sad and infuriating fact that pregnancy and childbirth remain hugely risky, life-threatening activities for many women in the developing world. These are largely preventable deaths, allowed to happen because of a chronic lack of resources, a result of systematic gender discrimination when it comes to reproductive healthcare. William Kristof's column highlights the issue; the White Ribbon Alliance do excellent work in terms of raising funds and awareness for this cause.

Penance and population

2009-07-28T15:59:00.005+02:00

There's been a HUGE hiatus, I'm sorry. Exams then holiday got me out of the habit, and now I'm bogged down in dissertation writing (although I have been posting some article links on Twitter - see bottom left of this page). However, I'm going to try and start posting again occasionally, although most content will be related to my dissertation subject-matter - an analysis of the relationship between human rights and climate change. Speaking of which:

Population control is a very controversial issue in development and environmental circles, even though over-population is undoubtedly hugely exacerbating a number of undisputed social, economic and environmental evils. Of particular concern to me is the way human rights rhetoric is wheeled out to make any form of population control seem like a draconian infringement of liberty. This reveals a privileged Western bias - there are millions of women throughout the world who would dearly love to be given the option and the means to have less children. To see the way this issue is tiptoed round, one would think that population control inevitably means mass forced sterilisation. In reality, a good strategy is far more positive and has all sorts of desirable side effects. Outgoing chair of the SDC Jonathon Porritt is bravely iconoclastic in this piece, which Greepeace rejected as too controversial.

Every single one of the multiple socio-economic issues that preoccupy campaigns today would be eased by full-on, government-led interventions to help reduce average fertility – especially in the world’s poorest countries. And we know exactly how to generate that double dividend: massively increase funding for education for girls, for improved reproductive and other health interventions for women, and for ensuring access for women to a choice of reliable and cheap (preferably free) contraceptives. That's what successful family planning looks like.

I suppose this just confirms my view that educating girls is the foolproof way to solve all the world's ills...

Shameless Chavez

2009-05-30T11:17:00.003+02:00

I'm full of righteous anger now thanks to the HRC (see below) and the revision I'm mired in on mass sexual violence (cheery). But this gave me some light relief* - Chavez has taken over the Venezualan airwaves for a whole 4 days. You've got to admire his bravado, if nothing else...

*(although obviously in Venezuala you might get locked up for openly laughing at the President)

A sick joke

2009-05-30T10:53:00.005+02:00

The UN Human Rights Council has really disgraced itself now, in failing to call for an investigation into the clear and large-scale human rights abuses committed in Sri Lanka (by both sides). In doing so, it ignored an impassioned but very reasonable plea submitted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In contrast, the resulting resolution reads like a hearty slap on the back for the Sri Lankan government:

Acknowledging the continued engagement of the Government of Sri Lanka in regularly and transparently briefing and updating the Council on the human rights situation on the ground and the measures taken in that regard [This is the same government that has denied full access to aid agencies and journalists, and has accused The Times of faking photos taken above the combat zone].

...Welcomes the continued commitment of Sri Lanka to the promotion and protection of all human rights and encourages it to continue to uphold its human rights obligations and the norms of international human rights law...

As Amnesty International has said, it genuinely makes a mockery of the HRC.

Good article on this from former UK ambassador to the UN David Hannay. [The UK voted against the resolution, thankfully.]

On cultural relativism

2009-05-25T15:32:00.003+02:00

I'm up to my ears in theories of cultural relativism, thanks to revision for my upcoming 'Human Rights of Women' and 'International Political Theory' exams.

Anyway, here are a couple of interesting (albeit not necessarily ground-breaking) recent contributions to the debate:

Oliver Kamm in The Times
Clive James' Point of View on Radio 4. You can read or listen.
The Pamela Bone article he refers to is here. I love the cartoon that accompanies it:

A damn shame

2009-05-15T13:40:00.001+02:00

Vaclav Havel op-ed on the supposedly 'reformed' Human Rights Council...

Bilderberg

2009-05-14T18:37:00.002+02:00

Excellent gonzo dispatches from Charlie Skelton in Bilderberg (allegedly the site of secret annual meeting of the world's puppetmasters...and George Osborne).

Apologies

2009-04-26T15:45:00.003+02:00

I have exams and essay deadlines looming + a part-time job to show my face at a couple of times a week, all of which = very little free time. I'm trying to increase my productivity by weening myself off Google Reader and the like, so there won't be much action on here for the next couple of months. And if there is a sudden flurry, then please send me an email saying DO SOME WORK AND STOP FAFFING. Thanks.

Enough of the game

2009-04-15T11:43:00.005+02:00

Matthew Taylor (who used to be Chief Advisor on Political Strategy for Tony Blair) has some wise words about 'email-gate' (dear god) on his blog, including these:

There is a documented tendency in political journalism over the last two decades to focus ever more on the political game at the expense of exploring the issues behind the contest for power. Away from the froth there are important debates emerging between the centre left and right, not just on economic policy but on the role of the state, family policy and Britain’s relationship with Europe. Many other issues – most obviously climate change - are being suppressed as neither of the main parties wants to confront us with the full implications of an adequate response.
Somehow, all of us who want the next election to be a chance to open up rather than close down the issues, who want the choice we focus on to be about policy options not brand propositions, need to find ways of making this happen. Maybe we had to get to the absolute nadir before we could demand a different frame for our political choices.

Peter Singer would be proud

2009-04-15T11:17:00.002+02:00

From PostSecret:

A national disgrace

2009-04-15T11:07:00.001+02:00

It sure is:
"This is Britain in the spring of 2009. An estimated 47,000 women are raped in this country every year. Between 75% and 95% of them will never report their attack. Of those who do, only a quarter make it to court, and there face an abject conviction rate of 6.5%. By my most conservative calculations, this results in 191 of those 47,000 ever seeing justice done."
Read the full article here.

Rwanda genocide anniversary

2009-04-13T17:26:00.005+02:00

Forwarded by my IR professor: "On the 15th anniversary of the start of the genocide, US UN Ambassador Susan Rice delivers a speech that, for once, does justice to its subject." I agree.

Spot on

2009-04-12T10:43:00.004+02:00

David Mitchell column in The Observer. "The BBC is an institution of genius, one of the great achievements of the 20th century." YES. BBC-haters make me really angry. As do these continuous spasms of hypocritical faux-moral outrage. Latest: political-hacks-exchanging-scurrilous-gossip shocker! See the News of the World, tut-tutting about the 'vicious and vile' 'sick stories' while reprinting them to sell more papers. Ugh.

Will Hutton on why we should ditch the green movement...

2009-04-12T10:37:00.002+02:00

...in order to save the environment. I don't agree with everything in this article, but I definitely agree with this: "The best arguments to kill the "so-what" factor over climate change are not scary tales from a far-distant future. It is to argue for investment in energy efficiency because it saves cash and makes strategic sense."

Newswipe with Charlie Brooker

2009-04-08T15:00:00.003+02:00

I was unconvinced by the first episode, but Episode 2 has got me fully on board...

Update: Episode 2 is not on IPlayer any longer, but you can find it on Youtube here (cut up into 3 bits). Episode 3 is worth a watch too, although I don't think Charlie manages to convey exactly how loopy the world of US news broadcasting really is - Glenn Beck is just the tip of the iceberg. Good film by Adam Curtis.

Best April Fool so far

2009-04-01T11:42:00.001+02:00

I was wondering if, amongst all the G20 hullaballo, the broadsheets would give time/space to the traditional April Fool. They have, and thankfully the Guardian has come up with a cracker.

The Life You Can Save

2009-03-31T10:13:00.006+02:00

I went to see philosopher and public intellectual extraordinaire Peter Singer talk at the RSA on Monday, and then had the luck/privilege to attend a small private seminar led by him at LSE's Centre for the Study of Human Rights. Quite intimidating - only one other student and me, surrounded by prominent professors of philosophy/law/sociology/politics etc. The topic of the seminar was 'When should we speak of rights and when should we not?' - the various responses to which I can't begin to even summarise now; suffice to say that most attendees accepted that rights-talk was problematic, sometimes counter-productive, and there were lots of examples given featuring animals (Singer being well-known for his animal-welfare activism) and embryos.

But Singer is in the UK mainly to promote his new book on aid and world poverty, 'The Life You can Save.' I haven't read it all yet, but this was the basis for his speech at the RSA. In a nutshell: we should all be doing more to help the world's poor. Not exactly revolutionary, but argued in his characteristically rigorous, logical, highly persuasive style. Here is an extract from the book, here is a review by AC Grayling, and here is a website where you can pledge to meet Singer's standard of giving (for most of us, 1-5% of our income). Incidentally, Singer himself gives 1/3 of his income to charity, mainly to Oxfam I understand.

A police state?

2009-03-31T10:09:00.002+02:00

Interesting article by Conor Gearty in the New Statesman. I think I agree with him, and it helps to explain the old David Davis, champion of liberty, paradox.
(Conor is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at LSE, where my Masters course is based.)

Sorry for the hiatus - I've been away breathing clean air in the mountains.

It happens

2009-03-16T22:14:00.004+01:00

Check out this brilliant campaign from Amnesty International in Switzerland (scroll across for more images). The text translates as 'It happens. Not here. But now.'

Today viral

2009-03-15T17:33:00.002+01:00

This has been flagged up in a load of places, but my love for the Today programme (and Radio 4 generally) is such that I had to post it too.

RSA Vision

2009-03-13T18:10:00.003+01:00

The RSA holds great free lectures by a huge variety of distinguished thinkers, and you can watch videos of a number of their speakers here. Highly recommended for some intellectual stimulation on a slow day at work. I just watched James Boyle and Jonah Lehrer - interesting stuff.

The Girl Effect

2009-03-12T14:37:00.003+01:00

www.thegirleffect.org
It's true, the education of girls really can save the world. They miss out the fact that it's also a hugely important tool in the battle against climate change - educated girls have fewer kids, which means slower population growth, which means less pressure on the earth's natural resources...
(There's a Nike Foundation affiliation here, which makes me somewhat dubious that there might be sublimal sportswear advertising included, but there's no need to think that corporate behemoths are ALWAYS evil...right?)

Bashir and the ICC

2009-03-06T11:44:00.006+01:00

The International Criminal Court have issued an arrest warrant against President Bashir of Sudan, the first ever against a sitting head of state. I have very ambiguous feelings about this: while it sends out an important message about the real intent of the ICC and the long arm of justice, I have grave doubts about pursuing a legal settlement over and above (or before) a political one. Bashir's response, telling the ICC that they can 'eat their warrant' and kicking out aid agencies, just compounds my worry. However, as Gerard Prunier points out in an article from a few months ago (post-indictment but pre-warrant), "when the 'Darfur peace process' is used as an argument against Bashir's indictment, what exactly is being referred to? For such a process, active or even latent, does not exist."

For 2 perspectives, see a Guardian leader arguing that the ICC is right, and a blog by Alex de Waal stating that the day the warrant was issued was "a sad day for Darfur."

Also interesting to note that the warrant did not include charges of genocide. (See my earlier post.)

Dalrymple on Pakistan

2009-03-04T12:42:00.004+01:00

For any of you (like me) thinking 'What the hell is going on in Pakistan?' this article is illuminating.

The Express - excelling themselves

2009-02-27T13:38:00.003+01:00

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

2009-02-27T12:38:00.008+01:00

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.

Target Women

2009-02-21T19:58:00.002+01:00

These clips skewering female-targeted ads (a pet peeve of mine) are mostly spot-on.
Yoghurt - 'the official food of women' - is my favourite so far.

Liberal hawks

2009-02-21T17:57:00.003+01:00

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...

A sunnier outlook

2009-02-20T18:50:00.001+01:00

...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

2009-02-20T13:35:00.002+01:00

"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...

An oldie but a goodie

2009-02-19T16:27:00.000+01:00

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...

Africa and aid

2009-02-19T16:17:00.000+01:00

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

2009-02-19T14:23:00.000+01:00

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.

A heroine for human rights

2009-02-19T14:15:00.001+01:00

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.

The First Post

2009-02-19T14:02:00.004+01:00

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.