Monday, December 24, 2007

Turkey Blasts the Kurds

The US House resolution labeling the massacres of Armenians in Turkey as a genocide has been shelved indefinitely. At least we can take solace in the face that Turkey will show constraint in dealing with the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Right? Actually, Turkey is on its second day of bombing the rebels in Iraq, which, depending on your sources, includes bombing large areas of land in which villagers, not rebels, live. What does America have to say?

On Sunday, Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad, defended Turkey’s right to act against cross-border attacks, but urged against destabilizing Iraq.

Speaking at a meeting with reporters at the American Embassy in Baghdad before news emerged of the latest reported strikes, he said, “I think we have been clear on this: the P.K.K. is a terrorist organization, it has carried out a number of lethal actions inside Turkey from bases in Iraq, and the Turks clearly have the right to defend their country and their people.”
(from the NYTimes)

The militant group Hamas in Gaza has also been appealing to the idea of rights when indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli cities. In this case, the "right to resistance."

So, what we can learn from today's paper, is that it doesn't matter whether we label a genocide a genocide or not, Turkey's going to attack because it's within its "rights" to do so. The notion of rights, then, can be manipulated by whichever side to justify any use of force. This doesn't seem right, does it?

Monday, December 10, 2007

The Pen Is Still Mightier Than the Keyboard

A friend recently pointed my attention to a post made on the Claremont Portside's blog, titled, "Take your Activism and Email It" (available here). The post, written by Emily Meinhardt, chastises letter-writing campaigns on campus.

Ms. Meinhardt asks, "You know those pesky activist types (hey– I’m one of them, I’m allowed to say that) that come into ASCMC Senate meetings and ask for money for letter writing materials?" Well, actually, I don't, which is surprising since I have been a member of the ASCMC Senate for all of my three semesters here at CMC. This is even more surprising when you take into account that I have worked with the Holocaust Center on the Take a Stand Against Denial campaign and have been an active member of Amnesty International during those same three semesters. The organizations on campus that run letter writing campaigns use the funding they have already received; they have not solicited the ASCMC Senate.

Ms Meinhardt's main point, however, is: "When a person contacts a congressperson, whether it be by letter (the physical piece of paper that someone had to pay the postage on), phone call, or email– they are tallied in the same fashion." If they are tallied in the same fashion, writing a letter, which takes more time and money, is just a waste of time. Unfortunately, the assertion is based only on Ms. Meinhardt's experience in Senator Russ Feingold's office. While her experience is surely useful and shows that letters to Senator Feingold's office may be more wasteful than e-mail, one Senator's practices do not necessarily apply to the entire Senate.

As Rebecca Fairley Raney Points out in her 2001 article on email and Congress ("E-mail Finds the Rare Ear in Congress"), emails, being much easier and less expensive to send, pour into Congressional offices in huge numbers. The article may be dated, but it still highlights the sheer volume of e-mail that Congress receives (I doubt the volume has gone down, considering the increase in internet access) and the difficulties associated with it. Thus there is some advantage in letter-writing. Few offices can handle the number of e-mails and respond to each of them in any sort of reasonable manner. In her article, Ms. Raney points out "The ease with which e-mail can be sent and the push by advocacy groups for supporters to send e-mail to Congress have raised the public's expectation of being heard, the study said. Instead, the report concluded, the ''conflicting practices and expectations of all the parties are fostering cynicism and eroding trust.''

The article also notes, "Larry Neal, deputy chief of staff for Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, wrote, 'The communication that Sen. Gramm values most certainly does not arrive by wire. It is the one where someone sat down at a kitchen table, got a sheet of lined paper and a No. 2 pencil, and poured their heart into a letter.'"

Perhaps most strikingly, "Jonah Seiger, co-founder of Mindshare Internet Campaigns, which designs online communication strategies for trade associations, nonprofit groups and corporations, said he had not advised any of his clients to lobby via e-mail."

The most important part of a letter writing campaign is captured very well by Ms. Raney: "The objective of any campaign, he said, is to create a tangible sense of pressure within a Congressional office through ringing telephones, bulging mail bags and humming fax machines. E-mail silently accumulating in an inbox does not create that pressure."
This might be the most important. Many letter writing campaigns are directed toward non-democratic regimes, not only the U.S. Congress. They need to be confronted with the "tangible sense of pressure." This method has proven its effectiveness. Just take a look at the history of Amnesty International.

Senator Feingold's practices sound noble and democratic, and I wish all Senators took such a democratic standard with constituency correspondence. It sure would make my activism much easier. Until I can be assured of its effectiveness, however, I will continue to supplement my keyboard with my pen. And if anyone is interested in supporting Amnesty International, come out to the Motley tomorrow (Tuesday, December 11th) at 9:30 PM, where we will write letters to prisoners of conscience to console them while they are imprisoned.

Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
DECEMBER 10, 2007
OSLO, NORWAY


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, “We are evaporating our coal mines into the air.” After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent “carbon summer.”

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called “Satyagraha” – or “truth force.”

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between “me” and “we,” creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step “ism.”

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.”

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.” By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country –– that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”

Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.”
Woops. Thought I was posting on another blog.

While I'm here... feel free to take note of this article which highlights starvation existing next to affluence.

Friday, December 7, 2007

John Roth Featured on Voices on Genocide

Probably most of you are not subscribed to the Voices on Genocide podcast run by the Committee on Conscience at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I myself am a recent subscriber and, as such, the re-broadcast of an interview with John Roth from last year was new to me. You can listen to it on the main site or you can read the transcript here. This podcast is usually quite good and the interviews are conducted by Jerry Fowler, friend of the Center and this blog's inspiration.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Judea Pearl at the Athenaeum

Sorry for the lateness all -- I have been busy appreciating Thanksgiving and editing and such. But below is my response to Judea Pearl's speech at the Athenaeum.
--------------------------------

Before hearing Judea Pearl speak at the Athenaeum this past Tuesday (November 20th, 2007) I researched the death of his son, Daniel Pearl. In my investigation I discovered that Muslim extremists murdered an intelligent, thoughtful, critical, and humane journalist. I discovered that the journalist’s beautiful wife, a woman of incredible emotional death, employs art as a form of mourning. I discovered that two heart-wrenched parents, moved by the death of their shining son, create meaningful change in the world through the Daniel Pearl Foundation. I discovered that this foundation, named after their son, seeks to promote cross-cultural understanding through music, art, and the humanities. I also stumbled upon an article of debatable objectivism titled “Anti-Zionism is Racism”, written by Judea Pearl for the Jewish Journal. Like any objective journalist, I entered the Athenaeum as a critic.
Regardless of criticism, hearing Judea speak was a pleasure. He presented with clarity and introspection—he has obviously articulated his speech hundreds of times, and thought about it thousands more. He elucidated a few all-encompassing points. Primarily, that Judaism for Daniel Pearl was his source of historical identity, connection to extended family, strength, and respect. His heritage fed a deep spring of power—a flexible power which embraces difference and actively seeks common humanity between individuals. This strength, raised in Jewish history, is critical—it mistrusts dogma, authority, and conventional wisdom of all kinds.
According to Judea, Daniel’s most coveted virtues are not simply useful personal characteristics—they are mandatory weapons against a culture of terror that threatens humanity (and Judaism) today. Agents of terrorism live among us, Judea asserts, and they nurture dismissive disrespect for right and wrong. It is not merely enough to discuss theology and history—society must debate the “hot issues” immediately. With humanity, objectivity, and academic integrity, we are obligated to fire up these scorching problems. And in the process of doing so, the image of America internationally will flourish as a leader in the battle against hatred.
Yet the speech resonated with the rhetoric of his questionable article. Judea’s speech was somewhat tilted toward the Zionist perspective and thereby is not objective. However, Judea’s personal tilt is another reminder to be constantly critical of our allies and foes alike in order to seek out the truest, most humane perspective on any political struggle involving a possible violation of human rights.
Undoubtedly, I was moved by Judea’s call to action against today’s moral terrorists. His cohesion of religion, history, and familial culture is mandatory to empathize with any, all, and every peoples. In light of the death of Daniel Pearl and the strength of the Pearl family, I urge all activists to take Daniel’s virtues to heart—be objective, be intelligent, be empathetic, be humorous, be humane. The war is far from over, and the first battleground is within ourselves.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Denial Makes the World Go Round?

A friend of mine sent me this article over Thanksgiving break about denial and its necessity in our daily lives. While the article focuses on personal relationships, it's principles can be applied to reconciliation in the aftermath of the Holocaust and other genocides. Using self-deception as a model, it points to the effective use of denial in maintaining relationships, and suggests that this is an evolved tendency.

The psychological tricks that people use to ignore a festering problem in their own households are the same ones that they need to live with everyday human dishonesty and betrayal, their own and others’. And it is these highly evolved abilities, research suggests, that provide the foundation for that most disarming of all human invitations, forgiveness.

While forgiveness is certainly a worthy goal, it's not always merited. It makes sense that one would then have to deny the problem in the first place to "forgive," but then forgiveness become suppression instead of a springboard for rebuilding trust.

Then there's the problem of trust based on this denial, instead of the actual integrity of the person: “'We concluded there is this skewed incentive system,' Dr. Kim said. 'If you are guilty of an integrity-based violation and you apologize, that hurts you more than if you are dishonest and deny it.'” It's no wonder Turkey refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide.

In society, taboos propagate this helpful denial.
This active recasting of events, built on the same smaller-bore psychological tools of inattention and passive acknowledgment, is the point at which relationship repair can begin to shade into willful self-deception of the kind that takes on a life of its own. Everyone knows what this looks like: You can’t talk about the affair, and you can’t talk about not talking about it. Soon, you can’t talk about any subject that’s remotely related to it.

This happens with issues of human rights all the time. Stories of human rights violations are marginalized into talking points or anecdotes, as it is not tactful in polite society to remind everyone of the injustices of the world. We wouldn't want to deny everyone their right to denial, would we?

Monday, December 3, 2007

Hypocrisy

> Secretaries Albright and Cohen Should be
> Removed from Genocide Task Force
>
> By Harut Sassounian
> Publisher, The California Courier
>
> How hypocritical of Madeleine Albright and William Cohen, former
Secretaries of State and Defense, to announce the formation of a task force
on prevention of genocide, when two months ago they wrote a letter to the
U.S. Congress against a resolution on the Armenian Genocide!
> One would have thought that genocide denialists would not be the most
qualified people to lead an effort on averting future genocides. Yet, this
is exactly what happened last week.
> Albright and Cohen shamelessly stood in front of TV cameras at the
National Press Club in Washington on November 13 to declare that they are
co-chairing a new "Genocide Prevention Task Force." The other members of the
task force are Sen. John Danforth, Sen. Tom Daschle, Amb. Stuart Eizenstat,
Michael Gerson, Secretary Dan Glickman, Secretary Jack Kemp, Judge Gabrielle
Kirk McDonald, Amb. Tom Pickering, Julia Taft, Vin Weber and General Anthony
Zinni. This effort is jointly sponsored by the United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the United States
Institute of Peace. The task force has five working groups dealing with
early warning, pre-crisis engagement, preventive diplomacy, military
intervention, and international institutions. It is expected to issue its
report in December 2008.
> Cohen told members of the media with a straight face that the task force
is going "to look certainly to the past for lessons" in order to prepare a
set of recommendations to the U.S. government on how best to respond to
future threats of genocide. He stated that mass violence is "inimical to
human behavior, to human decency, [and] to our sense of humanity. We can no
longer live in a state of denial or willful indifference." These bold words
are from a man whose company, The Cohen Group, is affiliated with DLA Piper,
one of the major lobbying firms hired by the Turkish government, at a cost
of $100,000 per month, to deny the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
> As soon as the two former high-ranking officials finished delivering
their opening remarks at last week's press conference, they were confronted
by skeptical members of the press and Armenian activists who questioned
their sincerity and pointed out their hypocrisy. This accusatory exchange
was covered extensively by CNN, AFP, AP, and the Jerusalem Post.
> Albright and Cohen were asked by Aram Hamparian (ANCA/Armenian
> Weekly): "How do you reconcile your work in trying to build a moral
American sentiment, an unconditional consensus against genocide, when just
very recently both of you signed letters urging America not to recognize the
Armenian Genocide?" Albright, forgetting her earlier words about learning
from the past, quickly shifted the mission of the group to the future.
Carefully avoiding using the term "Armenian Genocide," she acknowledged that
"terrible things happened to the Armenians, a tragedy. While we were
Secretaries, we recognized that mass killings and forced exile had taken
place, and we also said that the U.S. policy has been all along for
reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia on this particular issue." She
also said that her earlier letter to Congress against the genocide
resolution merely questioned whether "this was an appropriate time to raise
the issue." Secretary Cohen, in his turn, referred to the Armenian Genocide
as "the human suffering that took place between 1915 and 1923." He said he
was concerned that the Armenian resolution "might result in reactions on the
part of the Turkish government that could place our sons and daughters in
greater jeopardy [in Iraq]." The two officials gave evasive answers when
Elizabeth Chouldjian (ANCA/Asbarez) asked whether they were advocating that
"for political expediency purposes we shouldn't be taking action on future
genocides because of what it could mean to U.S. interests."
> Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, then pointedly
asked if Albright and Cohen were in fact saying: "If our friends do it, it?s
not genocide; if our enemies do it, it is genocide. If you are going to
define genocide by who does it, not by what it is, your task force is in
trouble."
> Exposing his ignorance on the issue of the Armenian Genocide, Secretary
Cohen said: "I don't know that the UN has declared that genocide occurred in
the Armenian situation." He must not be aware that back in 1985 the UN
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
by a vote of 15-1, adopted a report which included a section acknowledging
the Armenian Genocide. "The experience of the Armenians does indeed conform
with the UN Convention," Nareg Safarian (The Armenian Reporter) shot back at
Cohen and added: "The two of you have personally worked toward ensuring that
the United States government does not take a stand recognizing the Armenian
Genocide. However, taking on this new role, how can you reconcile your
positions and the U.S. foreign policy?"
> Given their repeated attempts to block the reaffirmation of the Armenian
Genocide, both during and after their tenure in government, Secretaries
Albright and Cohen should be removed from the leadership of the Genocide
Prevention Task Force. They have undermined their own credibility and lost
the moral standing to speak on the topic of genocide. One cannot deny a
genocide and then turn around and act as a defender of its victims.
Furthermore, Secretary Cohen has a personal conflict of interest due to his
firm's affiliation with a company that lobbies for Turkey against the
congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide. This fact alone should
disqualify him from membership, let alone leadership, of the genocide
prevention group.
> The task force has already backed down from its declared position on
another controversial issue. During the November 13 press conference, in
response to a question on whether the Task Force would dare investigate
allegations of mass violation of human rights in Israel, Cohen told the
reporter: "On the issue of whether genocide is taking place in the West Bank
and Gaza, certainly that will be part of [what] the task force [is] looking
at." However, just hours after that bold announcement, Albright and Cohen
changed their tune by saying that the task force will not "determine which
situations, past or present, including the West Bank and Gaza, constitute
genocide." Arthur Berger, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's senior
advisor for external affairs, was reported by the Jerusalem Post as saying:
"He did not expect Israel to be singled out or dwelled on by the task
force."
> Armenian-American groups in Washington should request a meeting with
members of the task force as well as its three sponsoring organizations, the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy,
and the United States Institute of Peace, to request that Albright and Cohen
be dismissed. Moreover, they should ask that a qualified Armenian-American
be appointed as a member of the task force.
> Readers are urged to convey their comments/complaints to: Andrew
Hollinger of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, phone: (202-488-6133) and
e-mail: ahollinger@ushmm.org; Lauren Sucher of the United States Institute
of Peace (202-429-3822) and e-mail: info@usip.org; and Amb. Ronald Neumann
of the American Academy of Diplomacy (202-331-3721) and e-mail:
academy@academyofdiplomacy.org.

Monday, November 19, 2007

The Impact of Industrialization in China

As many of you know, in March 2008 CMC is sponsoring a Symposium on China and Human Rights to dovetail with the Summer Olympics in Beijing.  A major concern right now is the environmental impact of China's rapid industrial growth. This morning the New York Times published this in-depth analysis of the Three Gorges Dam. 

Friday, November 16, 2007

Claremont Portside takes on genocide while the Claremont Independent takes on...liberalism

Take a look at the latest issues of the Claremont Portside and of the Claremont Independent and you'll notice something. The Portside, long been the disappointing alternative to the CI's raging conservatism, has gotten a lot better. It's well-organized, the articles are interesting, and the opinions conveyed are more dynamic than over-simplified politics.

The CI, on the other hand, is slacking. Many articles are out-of-date at the time of publication (a movie review from a summer film, an article on freshmen orientation) and few are engaging. The CI continues to rag on Civ 10 and oppose relativism and this issue they found some anonymous minoritiy students to complain that "race retreats" are segrationalist. None of this is terribly suprising or very interesting.

The Portside, while certainly making some standard "liberal" calls for justice, also engages in real debate and addresses issues that are more complex than simple binary politics allow. Thus Civ 10 is both commended and criticized. Teach for America's low retention rate is explored, but the conclusion doesn't write off the program. The Portside, while clearly on the left, at least engages the reader, whereas the CI either repels or reflects the reader's already established beliefs.

You may wonder what this all has to do with human rights and this blog in particular. I originally planned to post David Nahmias's Are We Stopping Genocide? piece but then realized that nearly all of the Portside's articles touch on issues of human rights. Aside from one article making fun of Bono, none of the CI's articles do.

The Independent's been coasting for too long as the best publication at CMC. The new Portside is not only a worthy opponent in quality writing, it has more relevant content and is a better reflection of the student body at CMC. Check out the Portside here. Nice job rockin' the boat, guys.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Invisible Children Screening

7PM, November 15th, 2007
Bauer Forum, CMC

There will be a screening of the movie Invisible Children. The movie is about child soldiers in Northern Uganda. Following the movie will be a letter writing campaign to Senators.

Brought to you by the Peace & Social Justice Club.

Human Rights Activities, Thursday/Friday

Documentary Film: Ghosts of Abu Ghirab
Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007
Balch Auditorium, Scripps, 7:30 PM

GHOSTS OF ABU GHRAIB provides an inside look at the abuses that occurred at the Iraqi prison in the fall of 2003. Award-winning filmmaker Rory Kennedy explores how, given the right circumstances, typical boys and girls next door can commit atrocious acts of violence. Kennedy begins tracing the path to Abu Ghraib with 9/11. Facing a whole new war on terror, the Bush administration justified intelligence gathering at any cost. The administration's decision to ignore the rules of the Geneva Conventions laid the groundwork for the abuse. The result? Heinous acts of torture heretofore associated only with the world's most repressive dictatorships. The now-infamous photos that emerged from Abu Ghraib represent only the tip of the iceberg, pointing to systemic abuse from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan and beyond. These photos have come to redefine the United States--once considered a bastion of human rights--as a principal proponent of torture. Have we blurred the distinction between ourselves and terrorists in ways that will haunt our country throughout history? Powerful, restrained, and fiercely compelling, GHOSTS OF ABU GHRAIB demands that we examine our conscience as a nation.

For more information please call the Scripps College Humanities Institute (909) 621-8326, or visit our website http://www.scrippscollege.edu/campus/humanities-institute/index.php



Vegas Night hosted by BLiNK
Appleby Dorm, Claremont McKenna
Friday, November 16, 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM

BLiNK, a 5-c organization concerned with human rights in North Korea, is sponsoring a Las-Vegas themed awareness/fundraising event. Come with cash to "buy in", enjoy the games and prizes, do good AND have fun! Proceeds will go to a charity that has the most penetration into North Korea's conditions.

FMI: Visit Facebook, search BLiNK

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Abuse of the Mentally Ill in Serbia: Akin to Torture

I found this article at the bottom of the international headlines on the New York Times website today. It's incredibly disturbing and reminiscent of Hitler's own view of the mentally ill. I put the pictures at the end so you can choose to not look at them if you can't stomach it.


BRUSSELS, Nov. 13 — A 21-year-old man with Down syndrome tied to a metal crib for 11 years. Children, naked from the waist down, left to eat and defecate in their beds. A 7-year-old girl with fluid in her brain left untreated “because she will die anyway.”

These are some of the allegations of abuse at Serbian state mental institutions and orphanages described in a report to be released Wednesday by Mental Disability Rights International, a group based in Washington that spent four years investigating the treatment of some of the 17,200 children and adults with disabilities in institutions in Serbia.

In the report, which is expected to be read closely by European Union officials who are assessing Serbia’s readiness to join the 27-member bloc, researchers concluded that “filthy conditions, contagious diseases, lack of medical care and rehabilitation and a failure to provide oversight renders placement in a Serbian institution life-threatening.” European Union officials said that such reports would be a basis for their assessments of a country’s record in upholding human rights, and of its readiness to enter the union.

The institutions investigated include the Kolevka, or Institution for Children and Youth, in Subotica; the Institute for Mentally Ill People, in Curug; the Institution for Children and Youth, in Kulina; the Special Institute for Children and Youth, in Stamnica; and psychiatric hospitals in Vrsac and Kovin, east of Belgrade.

Eric Rosenthal, executive director of the rights group, said the use of physical restraints on children for years at a time was the most extreme he had seen during 14 years as a disability rights advocate. He said there were no enforceable laws in Serbia regulating the use of such restraints.

“This is the most horrifying abuse I have seen on powerless children, who are tied to beds and unable to move,” he said. “This constitutes a clear case of torture.”

Vladimir Pesic, a Serbian government official dealing with disability issues, declined to comment, saying he had not seen the report.

Last week, the European Union gave pro-Western forces in Serbia a lift by supporting a deal that would accelerate Serbia’s joining the union by cementing closer economic and political ties. But the allegations of abuses could add to the hurdles Belgrade faces, which include its failure to arrest and turn over war crimes suspects indicted in The Hague and the uncertain future of the breakaway province of Kosovo.

Mr. Rosenthal said the extent of the abuse at mental institutions in Serbia was particularly egregious, given that countries had spent tens of millions of euros to help rebuild institutions in Serbia after the 1999 NATO-led war against the country, when it was led by Slobodan Milosevic.

“The mental institutions have been newly rebuilt with the help of the West, so the abuse is happening in clean, new buildings built with foreign money,” he said. “This tragedy could have been prevented.”

Laurie Ahern, an investigator who toured the Serbian mental institutions with a registered nurse, said she was most alarmed by the case of a man with Down syndrome, who was tied to his bed at Stamnica, an institution southeast of Belgrade.

When Ms. Ahern asked a nurse how long it had been since the patient had left the bed, the nurse replied, “Eleven years,” she said.

“There were rows upon rows of young people with Down syndrome,” Ms. Ahern said. “These children are mobile and can move around. But they are being left in metal coffins to lie there until the day they die.”



A dehydrated girl is tied to a crib at an institution in Kulina. A group says such problems could have been prevented.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Khmer Rouge leader arrested



From Al Jazeera

Police in Cambodia have arrested Ieng Sary, the former foreign minister and public face of the Khmer Rouge, along with his wife, the former social affairs minister of the Khmer Rouge government.

The couple are the third and fourth members of the Khmer Rouge regime to be taken into custody.

Reach Sambath, a spokesman for Cambodia's UN-backed genocide tribunal, said Ieng Sary and his wife, Ieng Thirith, had been brought to court on Monday according to a warrant issued by the tribunal.

Police had earlier cordoned off the street outside Ieng Sary's home in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, at about 5:30am.

Together with tribunal officials they spent about three hours inside the house before taking him away.

Ieng Sary's arrest had been widely anticipated as one of five unnamed suspects earlier listed by tribunal prosecutors.

An estimated two million Cambodians died of hunger, disease, overwork and execution during the Khmer Rouge's rule between 1975 and 1979.

Like other surviving Khmer Rouge leaders, the 77-year-old Ieng Sary who served as deputy prime minister as well as foreign minister, has repeatedly denied responsibility for any crimes.

In Bangkok, Thailand, for a medical check-up in October, Ieng Sary told The Associated Press: "I have done nothing wrong. I am a gentle person.

"I believe in good deeds. I even made good deeds to save several people's lives. But let them [the tribunal] find what the truth is."

According to a July 18 filing by the prosecutors to the tribunal's judges, Ieng Sary, "promoted, instigated, facilitated, encouraged and/or condoned the perpetration of the crimes" when the Khmer Rouge held power.

It said there was evidence of Ieng Sary's participation in planning, directing and co-ordinating the Khmer Rouge "policies of forcible transfer, forced labour and unlawful killings".

His 75-year-old wife participated in "planning, direction, co-ordination and ordering of widespread purges ... and unlawful killing or murder of staff members from within the ministry of social affairs", the prosecutors' filing said.

Critics of the UN tribunal say the process has been left too late and suspects may die before ever being brought before a court.

Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge, died in 1998, while his military chief, Ta Mok, died in 2006.

Monday, November 5, 2007

McCain: GOP rivals are wrong on torture

JASON CLAYWORTH
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

November 5, 2007


Allison, Ia. — Republican presidential candidate John McCain called three of the frontrunners in his party inexperienced because he said they condone a torture technique.

He spoke specifically about waterboarding, a highly controversial military interrogation practice that the Arizona senator equates to torture.

“I think, very frankly, that those who are running for president who have never had any military experience or much national security experience like Rudy Giuliani, like Mitt Romney, like Fred Thompson,” McCain said to a crowd of about 30 people at Main Street Cafe. To say we ought to go ahead and do this waterboarding I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our national security.

McCain has taken Giuliani to task on waterboarding before. Last month, the former New York mayor said the question of whether waterboarding should be allowed depends on how the technique is defined and who's doing it.

McCain, a U.S. senator from Arizona, was tortured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese military after his plane was shot down 40 years ago. He has been outspoken in his opposition to torture techniques and his belief that the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay should be closed.

Waterboarding is designed to simulate the sensation of drowning. While techniques vary, it often involves strapping a prisoner to an inclined board with feet above the head. A cloth is tied over the prisoner's face or used as a gag while water is poured over the face.

Justice Department memos, published last month by the New York Times, authorized head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding while interrogating terror suspects. The memo was issued soon after former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.

Article from the Des Moines Register, it can be found here.

The current administration, and many others in the Republican fold, has stood by while we lose our status as a nation that respects human rights. However, John McCain, a man with firsthand experience on the pain of torture, is showing Americans that both parties can respect the Geneva Convention. If dedicated legislators build bipartisan support to end the monstrous practice of torture, our troops and the ideals for which they serve will both be safer. As citizens, we need to make sure we vote with a conscience.

Athenaeum Events for this Week


Is Judaism a Political Philosophy? Reflections on Spinoza, Strauss, and Levinas
OONA EISENSTADT
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007


The Athenaeum is pleased to host Professor Oona Eisenstadt of Pomona College as the final speaker in the series on the political and Jewish thought behind the philosopher Leo Strauss. Professor Eisenstadt continues the exploration of the political theory to which Strauss contributed, and its intersection with modern Jewish theology. By looking at Strauss in the context of other Jewish philosophers, such as the French Jewish moral philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas and the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, Eisenstadt attempts to answer the question, “Is Judaism a political philosophy?”

Professor Eisenstadt holds the Fred Krinsky Chair of Jewish Studies and is assistant professor of Religious Studies at Pomona College, where she teaches about Jewish mysticism, religious ethics, and post-Holocaust philosophy. Eisenstadt received her undergraduate and doctoral degrees from McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, before moving on to postdoctoral fellowships at the University of Toronto and Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Her current research involves interdisciplinary approaches to Levinas’ postmodern philosophy, as referenced in her book, Driven Back to the Text: The Premodern Sources of Levinas’ Postmodernism, published in 2001.

Professor Oona Eisenstadt presents the final lecture in the series “Leo Strauss and Modern Jewish Thought,” planned in conjunction with Professor Gary Gilbert and co-sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights.



A Land Twice Promised
NOA BAUM
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2007


"An enemy is one whose story we have not heard"
-Gene Knudsen-Hoffman
It is difficult to read the news without feeling overwhelmed by stories of violence, loss, and sorrow stemming from the turmoil in the Middle East. At the center of that turmoil is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, characterized by a history of bloodshed, hatred, and revenge. The ongoing struggle has defied the efforts of the international community as well as parties on both sides to find a means of lasting peace. It has far-reaching implications for American foreign policy, national interests, and, most importantly, the lives of millions of people. In fact, if and how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved is one of the most pressing issues facing the international community today. As part of the answer to that question, the Athenaeum welcomes storyteller Noa Baum’s unique insight into the complex of this problem.

For Noa Baum, storytelling is a source of great joy and healing. She was born and raised in Jerusalem, receiving a BFA in Theater Arts from Te-Aviv University. After a time as an actress with the Khan Repertory Theater of Jerusalem, Baum discovered the power of stories and creative drama and went on to receive an M.A. in Educational Theater from NYU, with an emphasis on Drama Therapy. Since 1993 she has trained with Kaya Anderson and the French based Roy Hart Theater, exploring the power and potential of the human voice. Baum has toured Israel and the United States as a performance artist, educator, and workshop leader, delivering a message of healing and change to adult and children artists alike. Her most recent one-woman show for adults, “A Land Twice Promised,” received a grant from the National Storytelling Network. The show developed from a heartfelt dialogue that Baum began with a Palestinian woman while living in the United States. Weaving together their memories and their mothers’ stories, Baum creates a moving testimony that illuminates the complex and contradictory history of emotions that surround Jerusalem for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Noa Baum’s presentation at the Athenaeum is jointly sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights at CMC and a Claremont community interfaith coalition.

Egyptian Police Jailed for Torture


from BBC News

Two Egyptian policemen have been jailed for three years each for torturing a bus driver during police custody.

The police officers filmed the sexual assault of Emad al-Kebir, 22, on a mobile phone. The footage eventually emerged on the internet.

The case is one of several notorious incidents of abuse by the security forces to be uncovered in Egypt, mostly driven by activist bloggers.

Mr Kebir, who was in court to hear the verdicts, welcomed the ruling.

"God is great! Thank God!" he said. "I regained my rights. I don't want anything more than that."

The police officers, Capt Islam Nabih and non-commissioned officer Reda Fathi, sexually assaulted Mr Kebir with a stick and hit him with shoes, a whip and a gun, the court heard.

Court officials said both men will appeal against the verdict.

Nation shocked

In January 2006, Mr Kebir was detained for attempting to stop an argument between his cousin and a policeman and suffered the assault.

Still image from Egypt 'torture' video
The graphic footage appeared on the web in November 2006

He was released without charge, but later arrested and jailed for three months after a judge found him guilty of resisting arrest.

This followed his attempts to complain to the authorities about his treatment.

In November 2006, several Egyptian bloggers posted a video of his assault and it also appeared on the video-sharing site YouTube.

The video, in which Mr Kebir is shown screaming on the floor while being abused with a stick, shocked the country, reports the BBC's Heba Saleh in Cairo.

Mr Kebir's release had already been ordered by a prosecutor when the assault took place.

The policemen, who filmed the ordeal themselves, circulated the footage in an attempt to intimidate others, our correspondent reports.

Torture 'endemic'

Human rights groups say the court decision to jail the policemen is a message to victims of torture, telling them they should break their silence and seek justice.

They agree with lawyers who assert that torture is endemic in Egypt because suspects are held incommunicado for long periods of time and police interrogations take place without counsel.

The Egyptian authorities reject this and have cited the arrest and trial of Mr Kebir's torturers as proof that they do not tolerate abuse.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

The Orphans Who Didn’t Need Saving

November 4, 2007
The World
The Orphans Who Didn’t Need Saving
By LYDIA POLGREEN

DAKAR, Senegal

IN 1890, King Leopold II of Belgium wrote to one of his colonial officials and asked him to set up orphanages in the vast African territory he ruled as his personal fief, the Congo.
The only problem with his plan was that there were no orphans. The concept scarcely existed in Congo or much of the rest of Africa. This is a continent where thousands of ethnic groups and cultures across a vast and diverse landscape nevertheless share basic traditions that dictate that a child whose parents have died is the responsibility of the broader family and community.
But Leopold’s problem was quickly solved — his men kidnapped boys from their families and dispatched them to the “orphanages,” where they received a bit of catechism, some military training and, if they were lucky, baptism.
Mostly, as recounted by the historian Adam Hochschild in his book “King Leopold’s Ghost,” the boys eventually became soldiers in Leopold’s vast native army, if they did not die in the long, harsh marches to the orphanages from their villages.
For Africans, Leopold’s orphan hunt, driven by relentless greed run amok in a colony he ravaged as his personal property, is only one particularly egregious example of a series of deep, and well-remembered, historical wounds.
That record helps explain the skepticism and outrage that greeted the efforts of a French charity, whose members were arrested last week as they tried to fly 103 children from Chad to France, to go hunting for orphans in the deserts between Chad and Sudan.
From the first days of European involvement in Africa, the West has helped itself to the continent’s children — as chattel to be worked like beasts of burden, as soldiers to bear arms against their own kin, or as souls needing salvation through civilization. Sometimes, as the example in Congo illustrates, they were all three.
But the scandal involving the French charity, Zoé’s Ark, is tangled in an even more complicated web, a modern one of apparently good intentions gone awry and of the perceived exploitation of the suffering of vulnerable people, and a profound cultural misunderstanding. The charity is not a well-known group like the dozens of experienced agencies that do lifesaving work in Darfur and eastern Chad. And it was operating far outside the normal boundaries of what established aid and human rights groups consider proper. Still, its experience shows how deeply angry Africans can become when Western “helpers” violate the continent’s own traditions and sense of sovereignty.
According to its Web site, Zoé’s Ark, which was started by a former fireman in France, was motivated by a sense of urgency.
In anguished language, the organization pointed to an obvious fact — the paralysis of international diplomacy in Darfur, in western Sudan, where an ethnic and political conflict has raged for four years, killing at least 200,000 and displacing 2.5 million. The Web site went on to say that something had to be done immediately to end the suffering of the most vulnerable children.
With heart-rending descriptions of children on the brink of death from starvation, violence and disease, the group raised money from French families to fly children out and place them — temporarily, it said — in French homes.
But it turns out that none of the 103 children are orphans in the traditional Western sense — foundlings with no place to go. Almost all were living with family members in villages, relatively well fed and cared for, according to the United Nations. The bewildered children cried as foreign reporters flocked to the orphanage in Abéché, Chad, where they were being temporarily housed late last week until they could be reunited with their families.
The children said they had been coaxed away from their families with sweets and cookies, according to Reuters, and a group of women claiming to be mothers of some children told a French cable news station that they had been told the children would be taken to Abéché for schooling, but that their families would still be able to visit them.
Zoé’s Ark seems to have run into the same problem that Leopold did: In many African societies finding a true orphan is not such a simple thing.
When details of the operation became known, high French officials, United Nations officials, and indignant French citizens, newspapers and child protection agencies sounded their disapproval of Zoé’s Ark’s actions. Jo Becker, child rights advocate at Human Rights Watch in New York, said that removing a child from his or her immediate surroundings might make sense only under circumstances like immediate risk of being forced into military service or a threat of immediate harm. “We would always say,” she said, “that the best place for children is in their community and with their families.”
To be sure, orphanages are full of children in cities across Africa, especially in countries where the AIDS pandemic has shattered entire extended families. And migration to cities has frayed some family bonds.
But many African countries, despite having a surfeit of children with dead or missing parents, have laws surrounding adoption that reflect a strong unease with the concept as it is practiced in the West. As a result, relatively few African children are adopted each year, especially compared with adoptions from Asia and eastern Europe.
Even the idea of Western adoptions sometimes seems to rankle. When Madonna adopted a young boy from Malawi last year, a fierce outcry erupted over whether she had followed proper procedures and whether the boy’s father had been duped.
In largely Muslim countries like Chad and Sudan, where Islamic law governs family matters, the entire Western concept of adoption is essentially forbidden by religious edict.
The current episode has a particular sting because Europe has been writing increasingly stringent rules to keep Africans from migrating there, culminating most recently in a new French law that in some cases requires DNA testing to get visas for family members. Taking a planeload of children away in secret while thousands of Africans drown in the Atlantic seeking to migrate to Spain strikes many Africans as hypocritical.
“What message is the transaction sending?” demanded an editorial in the African Executive, an online business magazine. “Will Zoé’s Ark transport the 201 million Africans facing extreme hunger to Europe? Africa must vehemently resist this humiliation. If Zoé’s Ark is serious on the African plight, let it press Europe to open its borders to African migrants, grant African professionals jobs without discrimination, drop its barriers against African goods and allow Africa to export finished products.”
But accusations of hypocrisy can cut both ways. Chad’s president for the last 17 years, Idriss Déby, abandoned his usual reticence with the international news media to deliver sound bites to the reporters who swarmed to Abéché.
He called the situation an outrage, and speculated that perhaps Zoé’s Ark planned to sell the children to pedophiles. Burnished cane in hand, he walked awkwardly among the scrawny boys and girls. It is hard to say when this former military dictator last paid so much attention to Chad’s children.
Despite the country’s burgeoning oil industry and increased foreign investment, especially from China, Chad’s 1.9 million children under the age of 5, like most of those taken by Zoé’s Ark, are among the most defenseless in the world against disease, hunger and death. One-fifth won’t make it to their fifth birthdays, according to Unicef statistics, mostly because of treatable diseases like malaria, measles and diarrhea. More than 40 percent will be stunted from hunger. Like millions of other impoverished children across Africa, they are waiting patiently for some kind of rescue.

source: New York Times online (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/weekinreview/04polgreen.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Friday, November 2, 2007

Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics essay contest

The Elie Wiesel Prize in Ethics essay contest has been won by both CMC and Pomona students in the past. Information is below and can also be found here: http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/


THE ELIE WIESEL PRIZE IN ETHICS
ESSAY CONTEST 2008
GUIDELINES
AWARDS:

 First Prize - $ 5,000
 Third Prize - $ 1,500
 Second Prize - $ 2,500
 Two Honorable Mentions - $ 500 each

ELIGIBILITY:
 Registered undergraduate full-time juniors or seniors at accredited four-year colleges or universities in the United States during the fall 2007 semester.

SUGGESTED ESSAY TOPICS:
 What does your own experience tell you about the relationship between politics and ethics and, in particular, what could be done to make politics more ethical?
 Articulate with clarity an ethical issue that you have encountered and analyze what it has taught you about ethics and yourself.
 Carefully examine the ethical aspects or implications of a major literary work, a film or a significant piece of art.
 Clearly analyze the relationship between religion and ethics in today's world.
 How does a recent political or cultural event shed light on the ethics of rebellion/revolution?

WHAT THE READERS LOOK FOR:

 Clear articulation and genuine grappling with an ethical dilemma
 Thoroughly thought-out, tightly focused essays
 Adherence to guidelines and carefully proofread essays
 Originality and imagination
 Eloquence of writing style
 Intensity and unity in the essay

ESSAY FORMAT:
 In 3,000 to 4,000 words, students are encouraged to raise questions, single out issues and identify dilemmas.
 Essays may be written in the formal or informal voice, but most importantly, an individual voice should be evident in the essay.
 The essay may be developed from any point of view and may take the form of an analysis that is biographical, historical, literary, philosophical, psychological, sociological or theological.
 Essay must be the original, unpublished work of one student. Only one essay per student per year may be submitted.
 Essay should be titled, typed in 12-point font in English, double-spaced with 1" margins and numbered pages.
 Submissions will be judged anonymously. Hence, no name or identifying references (i.e. your name, school, or professor) should appear on the title page or in the manuscript. Our office will put a code on your essay.

FACULTY SPONSOR:
 Any interested professor at the student's school may act as a Faculty Sponsor.
 Students entering the contest are required to have a Faculty Sponsor review their essay and sign the Entry Form.
 Faculty members should only endorse thought-provoking, well-written essays that fall within the contest guidelines.

SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS:
 Please submit three (3) copies of your essay (one (1) copy paper-clipped and two (2) stapled).
 In addition, be sure to enclose a completed Entry Form (signed by both you and your faculty sponsor).
 Include a letter on school stationery from the Registrar's Office, verifying your eligibility (see above).
 Entries must be postmarked on or before December 7, 2007. No faxed or e-mailed entries will be accepted.
 Please note that due to the volume of entries, no materials will be critiqued or returned.

CONTEST DEADLINE: DECEMBER 7, 2007
Please complete the submission checklist on the Entry Form and send all materials together to:
THE ELIE WIESEL PRIZE IN ETHICS
THE ELIE WIESEL FOUNDATION FOR HUMANITY
555 MADISON AVENUE – 20TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10022
TELEPHONE: 212-490-7788 www.eliewieselfoundation.org

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

A Simple Summary, Bono's Plan for Action

Barring all criticism and cynicism--a less enthused blog entry is available for viewing upon request--here were tonight's key points, courtesy of Bono, on international human rights:

1) The world is malleable, change it.
2) The political obstacles we must overcome are corruption in foreign government and American trade laws.
3) The largest and most difficult hurdle we must jump is indifference in the individual.
4) Be innovative--be a capitalist--commerce breeds civilization.

And, my favorite,

5) "Make ze money, zen develop ze conscience."


Although point five should not necessarily hold for human rights activists--atleast not in that order. However I do encourage you all to encourage your friends and family to, vell, develop ze conscience. Hope everyone enjoyed, or was educated in some way, by Bono.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Documentary Film --- Women's Rights in Afghanistan

On Behalf Of Claire Bridge Scripps College Humanities Institute Fall 2007 Documentary Film Series presents:

ENEMIES OF HAPPINESS

Denmark, 2006, 58 min

Thursday, NOVEMBER 1 at Garrison Theater, 7:30 p.m

FILM SYNOPSIS: It centers on Malalai Joya, who became one of Afghanistan's most famous and infamous women in 2003 when she challenged the power of warlords in the country's new government. Two years later, the 28-year-old ran in the first democratic parliamentary election in over 30 years. A survivor of repeated assassination attempts, she campaigned surrounded by armed guards. Joya is a controversial voice for a nation ruined by war, still ruled by fear, but desperate for a change for the better.

THIS EVENT IS FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

For more information please call the Scripps College Humanities Institute (909) 621-8326, or visit the website http://www.scrippscollege.edu/campus/humanities-institute/index.php

One strike, Iran could be out

From LATimes.com
October 22, 2007
by Niall Ferguson

Of all the columns I've written for this newspaper over the last couple of years, none has elicited a more heated response than the one published in January 2006 about the Great War of 2007. Indeed, it still gets quoted back at me more than a year and a half later.

The column was written in the style of a future historian looking back on a war that I imagined breaking out this year. My point was that if a major war were to break out in 2007, future historians would not have far to look to find its origins.

My imaginary war began in the Middle East and lasted four years. With the benefit of hindsight, the historian of the future would be able to list its causes as (a) competition for the region's abundant reserves of fossil fuels, (b) demographic pressures arising from the region's high birthrates, (c) the growth of radical Islamism and (d) the determination of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

My nightmare scenario involved a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel in August. You may have noticed that this didn't happen. However, the point of the column was not to make a prophecy. No one has the power to predict the future because (as I frequently remind my history students) there is no such thing as the future, singular -- only futures, plural.

My aim in writing the column was not to soothsay but to alert readers to the seriousness of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program -- and to persuade them that the United States should do something to stop it. True, after all that has gone wrong in Iraq, Americans are scarcely eager for another preventive war to stop another rogue regime from owning yet more weapons of mass destruction that don't currently exist. It's easy to imagine the international uproar that would ensue in the event of U.S. air strikes. It's also easy to imagine the havoc that might be wreaked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists in Iraq by way of retaliation. So it's very tempting to hope for a purely diplomatic solution.

Yet the reality is that the chances of such an outcome are dwindling fast, precisely because other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are ruling out the use of force -- and without the threat of force, diplomacy seldom works. Six days ago, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin went to Iran for an amicable meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Putin says he sees "no evidence" that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. On his return to Moscow, he explicitly repudiated what he called "a policy of threats, various sanctions or power politics."

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, also seems less likely to support American preemption than his predecessor was in the case of Iraq. That leaves China, which remains an enigma on the Iranian question, and France, whose hawkish new president finds himself distracted by the worst kind of domestic crisis: a divorce.

By contrast, Washington's most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, recently demonstrated the ease with which a modern air force can destroy a suspected nuclear facility. Not only was last month's attack on a site in northeastern Syria carried out without Israeli losses, there was no retaliation on the part of Damascus. Memo from Ehud Olmert to George W. Bush: You can do this, and do it with impunity.

The big question of 2007 therefore remains: Will he do it?

With every passing day, the president attracts less media coverage, while the contenders to succeed him attract more. Yet Bush made news last week with his observation at a White House news conference that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [the Iranians] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." That would seem to suggest that he is ready to use military force against Iran if he sees the alternative as mere appeasement. One eminent expert on nuclear warfare told me last week that he still puts the probability of air strikes on Iran as high as 30%.

In domestic politics, it's always a good idea to follow the money. When it comes to grand strategy, however, you need to follow the navy -- to be precise, the aircraft carriers that would be the launching platforms for any major air offensive against Iran's nuclear facilities. To do this, you don't need to be very skilled at espionage. The U.S. Navy makes the information freely available at http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.htmlor in the "Around the Navy" column published each week in the Navy Times.

The U.S. has 11 active aircraft carriers. Of these, the Kitty Hawk is in port in Japan. The Nimitz and Reagan are in San Diego. The Washington is in Norfolk, Va. The Lincoln and Stennis are in Washington state. And the Eisenhower, Vinson, Roosevelt and Truman are undergoing various sorts of refitting and maintenance checks in the vicinity of "WestLant" (Navy-speak for the western Atlantic). Only one -- the Enterprise -- is in the Persian Gulf.

At present, then, talk of World War III seems to be mere saber-rattling, not serious strategy. U.S. aircraft carriers can move fast, it's true. The Lincoln's top speed is in excess of 30 knots (30 nautical miles per hour). And it, along with the Truman, Eisenhower and Nimitz, are said to be "surge ready." But take a look at the map. It's a very long way from San Diego to the Strait of Hormuz. Even from Norfolk, it takes 17.5 days for an aircraft carrier group to reach Bahrain. If you were Ahmadinejad, how worried would you be?

As for me, I am jumping ship. This is my last weekly column on these pages. But remember when the Great Gulf War does finally come: You read about it here first. nferguson@latimescolumnists.com
Claremont McKenna College
Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights

Academic Travel to Israel: May 19-June 1, 2008 (tentative)
Application due November 9, 2007 by 5 PM


The Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights at CMC will host a fourteen-day academic travel program to Israel this summer, tentatively beginning on Monday, May 19, 2008. The trip will be led by Professors Gary Gilbert and Jonathan Petropoulos. It will incorporate all three aspects of the Center’s identity. We will be studying the Holocaust from an Israeli perspective, how it shapes Israeli identity and culture, as well as issues of collective memory. We will also explore the impact of the Armenian genocide in an area with a large Armenian community. Finally, we will engage in issues of human rights in Israel today by visiting with various representatives of the government and NGOs.

The trip’s itinerary will incorporate politics, history, philosophy, religious studies, and many other academic disciplines into its curriculum. All majors are encouraged to apply, although we must, unfortunately, limit the experience to non-graduated CMC students only. Seniors are not eligible. Note that preference will be given to students who have a compelling academic interest in the Holocaust, genocide, and/or human rights issues. Students are asked to pay a participation fee of $300 and to obtain their own passports and visas. All other expenses (including airfare) will be covered by the Center.

Selected students must be willing to participate in a series of group meetings over the course of the spring semester in preparation for the trip. There will various reading assignments for these meetings. If the student happens to be abroad spring 2008, he or she is exempt from these meetings, but still must complete the readings and may be asked to write short response papers.

Personal Information

Name:

Permanent Address:


City: State: Zip:

CMC Phone: Email:

CMC Story House Box: Major:

GPA at CMC: Class year:



What courses have you taken relating to the Holocaust, genocide, human rights, and/or the Middle East?



What is your previous experience in Israel or the Middle East?


How would this program contribute to your current or future academic work?




What is your citizenship or legal residency?

Have you lived or traveled abroad? If so, where?



List two faculty members who may be contacted for references:


Why would you like to participate in this program?







Thank you for applying! All applications MUST be submitted by 5 PM November 9th either via email to Norine Zapata (nzapata@cmc.edu) or in person at the Center (528 N. Mills Avenue). If you have any questions, email Jonathan Petropoulos (jpetropoulos@cmc.edu) or Gary Gilbert (ggilbert@cmc.edu).

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Darfur Day of Action -- Today!

Darfur Day of Action

Sponsored by the Students for Peace and Justice, today is the Darfur Day of Action!

Events and activities include:
-Movie sceening from the Committee on Conscience at the National Holocaust Museum at 8 PM at Balch auditorium (Scripps)
-Post-movie commentary from Pitzer Professor Lako Tongun
-"Stop Genocide in Sudan" t-shirt sale outside of the movie
-Letter writing, also outside of the movie
-Challah for Hunger will be selling CHALLAH FRENCH TOAST from 8-11 PM with all of the proceeds going directly to provide aid to refugees in Darfur

There are definitely enough opportunities and enough time for everyone to stop by and give back through awareness, finance, or political coercion!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

What to Do in Burma

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is a hotbed for human rights violations in Asia. Situated between India and China, the country has been ruled by a military junta since 1962. The junta has been known to meet peaceful resistance with violent force. In recent months, the military government has stepped up violence against protesters. Disappearances are quite common throughout the country, and, in the prisons, torture is a common tool.
In September of 1988, there was a large pro-democracy movement in the capital city of Rangoon. The protesters were met with Burmese bullets, as the military swept through the streets shooting. Among those targeted were: Buddhist monks, students, nonviolent demonstrators, and medical personnel. Altogether, around 3,000 people were killed in September alone. The number of deaths from March to September of that year sits at a shocking 10,000.

Amongst those killed by the junta was Mr. Kenji Nagai, a Japanese photographer. Mr. Nagai found himself caught in the middle of a protest that turned violent when the military began marching on protesters. What makes the death of Mr. Nagai even more disturbing, though, is that the military responsible for his death might have bought the gun that shot him with money from his very own Japanese government.

When the junta first took power, they relied most heavily on aid from Japan. Democratic Japan continued to support and trade with Burma, turning a blind eye to the gross human rights abuses and the totalitarian regime. Following the murder of Mr. Nagai, the Japanese government largely decreased their investments and trade with Burma, but the fact that it took the murder of a Japanese citizen to provoke this change has raised questions.
However, don’t be too hasty to point a finger at Japan as the sole reason the junta has been able to function for 55 years; they aren’t alone in their support of the junta. The truth is that Myanmar has other high-profile friends, like Singapore and China, to mention a few. Myanmar, only having a GDP of $85.2 billion, can obviously use friends with GDP’s of $10.21 trillion (China) and $141.2 billion (Singapore).

While on the surface, ties between Burma and Singapore might not be too obvious, it is undeniable that the junta considers the city-nation a good friend. Singapore Inc. is a prominent company run by the Lee family, who has had power in Singapore for close to five decades. The company has an estimated 3 billion dollars invested in Burma and has dealt with the junta for around two decades. In addition to this monetary support of the junta is Singapore’s healthcare support of its military officers. When Burma’s generals get sick, they receive help from the governmental hospital systems in Singapore and are allowed to recover in wards there like Than Shwe, a strongmen of the junta, who is currently receiving treatment for intestinal cancer.

This support is counterproductive to the heavy sanctions that have been placed on Myanmar by the United States and the United Nations. It matters very little if the junta isn’t able to get its hands on U.S. made weapons when Singaporean companies are supplying them with all of the military equipment they need.

Also counterproductive to ending the oppressive junta rule in Myanmar is Singapore’s willingness to be an access point for drug lords from Myanmar, such as Lo Hsing Han. Han and his company, Asia World, have been known to use Singapore as a location to export drugs. Though Asia World is not a drug company upfront, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency claims that the company acts as a face for Han’s extensive drug business.

While Myanmar hasn’t received nearly as much direct help from China, the junta acts without a thought to action from China. With the 2008 Beijing Olympics coming up, the international community has called upon China to condemn their oppressive neighbors to the west. Not much has come of it. As Sophie Richardson, the Asia advocacy director of Human Rights Watch says, “Chinese officials have publicly called for ‘cooperation’ and ‘dialogue’ between the Burmese generals and their critics, but said nothing when these critics were arrested, ‘disappeared’ or killed. Even worse, the Chinese government has blocked most of the international efforts to effectively address the crisis.” As permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, China is in a great position to apply pressure to the government in Burma, if only it is willing to do so.

While severe human rights violations occurring in Myanmar are horrible, the country shows how the world can unite against a common evil. The country is under severe sanctions from many nations, including the U.S., and the United Nations is considering an arms embargo. However, with the help of even a few other nations, like Singapore and China, a government as corrupt as the junta is capable of holding onto power. If every country in the world were to withdraw all support of the government in Myanmar, how long could the junta survive? While Myanmar is obviously very much in the wrong, it is just as important to look behind the curtain at who is actively supporting Burma to find a solution to the terrible situation unfolding there currently. Burma is not the only country at fault and supporting countries must be held accountable for the human rights violations that are occurring with their help.

For video footage of recent violence, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UqQaizM15Q

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

United Nations I-Place Lecture

Thursday, October 25
Celebrating United Nations Day
At the McKenna Auditorium (CMC)

"Suppose There Were No United Nations: Would It Matter?"

Dean McHenry, Professor of Political Science at the Claremont Graduate University, will be speaking about the United Nations and its contribution to international affairs and, self-evidently, human rights on the international level.

International lunch served from 11:45 a.m.
Lecture from 12:15 - 1:00 p.m.

If you are a student on the meal plan, meal cards are appreciated toward the cost of lunch but not required. Phone x73910 or visit http://iplace.claremont.edu/ for further information.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Professor Petropoulos Featured in Documentary About Nazi Art Thefts



From http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/news/pressreleases/article.asp?article_id=904

Date Issued: 10/18/2007

Jonathan Petropoulos, the John V. Croul Professor of European History and director of The Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights, is among a handful of experts appearing in a two-hour documentary, The Rape of Europa.

The film, which recently played at the Laemmle Claremont 5 and is still in nationwide release, is described by its makers as a story of the “systematic theft, deliberate destruction, and miraculous survival of Europe’s art treasures during the Third Reich and the Second World War,” juxtaposed with the story of artist Gustav Klimt’s famed Gold Portrait, also known as the Golden Adele––the gold-flecked portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. The painting was stolen from Viennese Jews in 1938 and is now, according to Europa’s filmmakers, the most expensive painting ever sold.

Petropoulos says his involvement in The Rape of Europa dated from 1998, when he was serving as Research Director for Art and Cultural Property for a presidential commission that examined the assets of Holocaust victims in the United States.

(Read more about Petropoulos’ work on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets: http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/news/cmcmagazine/summer2002/petropoulos/).

Europa’s filmmakers asked the CMC professor his advice about hot-button issues. “We got along well and I starting helping them as a consultant,” Petropoulos says, “suggesting to them other people to interview, putting photographs in my archives at their disposal, and even traveling with them in Europe as they filmed.” Narrated by Joan Allen, The Rape of Europa brings viewers back to Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich during World War II––the height of his power in the early 1940s when he and his Nazi henchman pulled off perhaps the greatest heist in history. During that cataclysmic period in which millions died, high-ranking Nazi officials like Hermann Goering looted thousands of works of art from the homes of private citizens (many of them Jews who were forced to flee or who died in the Holocaust) and from national museums in the countries they conquered in Eastern Europe.

More than six decades after the fall of fascism in Germany, the effects of the state-sponsored program of Nazi theft continues, with thousands of art works still missing or sought by their original owners.

According to Petropoulos, perhaps hundreds of looted but never restituted Old Masters currently hang on the walls of North American and European museums.

“And there are thousands of less valuable works entering the art market, not to mention a great deal of so-called ‘trophy art’ still in Russian hands,” he says. “Then there are the Swiss bank vaults. Because one can never have good title to stolen property according to U.S. law, heirs can continue to make claims in the years to come. In short, I expect to continue my work helping Holocaust victims and their families recover artworks for the rest of my career. And at the moment, I am busier than ever.”

One of those whom Petropoulos assisted––a Jewish woman born in Vienna who was forced to flee Austria after Hitler’s Anchluss of the country in 1938––is Maria Altmann, now a 91-year-old resident of Cheviot Hills. She and other family members laid claim to six paintings by Gustav Klimt, including the iconic picture of her aunt (Adele Bloch-Bauer I) valued at over $300 million. Petropoulos wrote an expert report for the plaintiffs, which was submited to an Austrian arbitration panel. The panel ruled that five of the six paintings should be returned.

(Petropoulos’ role in the recovery of the Golden Adele is recounted in the fall 2006 CMC magazine: http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/news/cmcmagazine/2006fall/).

“The Altmanns' attorney, Randy Schoenberg, called me in 2001 and asked me to be an expert witness,” Petropoulos recalls. “I confess that I never thought the case would go forward, that Maria Altmann and the family would be able to sue a sovereign country, Austria, in an American court. But after the Supreme Court ruling went their way, I spent about four months of a sabbatical I took at Cambridge University working on my report.”

The paintings eventually were repatriated to Altmann, including the Adele Bloch-Bauer I portrait that she subsequently sold for $135 million to Ronald Lauder for his Neue Galerie in New York, making it at that time the most expensive painting ever sold.

Petropoulos currently is working on a new book that he characterizes as a kind of hybrid “part memoir, part archival-based monograph, part philosophical reflection.” He added, “It concerns my 25 years tracking Nazi looted artworks, and more specifically, my experiences interviewing former Nazis. I would go to Bavaria and Austria most every summer and track down the hands-on plunderers.”

The main subject of the book is Dr. Bruno Lohse, Hermann Goering's art agent in Paris during the war and the de-facto head of the main Nazi plundering agency in France (the ERR).

“Lohse was imprisoned by the Americans and French after the war for five years, but then resumed his career as an art dealer,” Petropoulos says.

“He's a very problematic figure who trafficked in looted artworks and stashed some of them in Switzerland. I got to know him well, and this book is about my efforts to understand him and untangle his web of lies.”

For more information about screenings of The Rape of Europa, visit the Laemmle Theaters Web site, which also includes information about the film: http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=3098.