Saturday, December 13, 2008

Inaction in Zimbabwe

Among the numerous human rights violations going on in Zimbabwe, I am left with only a frustration with diplomacy. Zimbabwe is under a major crisis—massive inflation has lead to a valueless currency, cholera is claiming the lives of tens of thousands of people, hospitals and schools have almost completely shut down, and to top it all off, there is a massive food shortage.  While I am normally on the side of institutions such as the WHO and UN for their efforts in the developing world, I now find that I want much more action out of them.  As we wait for a solution to somehow reveal itself to Zimbabwe (despite what a hopeless idea this seems to be with a militant leader determined to keep his rule) people are literally dying of disease and starvation. Additionally, the problems are spreading to neighboring countries and the WHO has claimed that the Cholera epidemic will have serious regional implications.  In lieu of all the acknowledged harm coming to, and already existent in, the region, I can't help but feel exasperation for the lack of action taken by the NGOs.  It seems only a matter of time before enough of the right people get desperate, and a bloody fight to overthrow Mugabe begins.  If this is the case, then by waiting for that to happen, aren't we simply prolonging the inevitable at the stake of the lives of thousands?  In the end, there must exist a point where a country's right to autonomy and self-determination is subordinate to the other—and I would argue, more important—rights of the country's people.  Though I do not know exactly where that point is, I am fairly confident that in Zimbabwe, Mugabe has surpassed it.

 

For more information, I would suggest you read the following articles published on the issue recently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/world/africa/12cholera.html

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12773105&fsrc=nwlehfree

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Support Human Rights from Campus

There are a couple of events on campus that are giving students an opportunity to help support human rights. Take a study break from finals and come help out. Amnesty International's Claremont Colleges chapter is participating in a global write-a-thon, and the Student Advisory Committee from the Center here is selling goodie bags to raise money for Fonkoze. See more information for both events below:

Global Write-a-Thon
Amnesty International is hosting a short talk from Prof. Crowley on the definition of human rights, followed by question answer session and letter writing session. AI will provide resources to write a letter for human rights. The event will be at the Motley from 7 PM to 10 PM tomorrow, Wednesday, December 10. More info can be found on the Facebook event.

Fonkoze Goodie Bags
Taken from an e-mail sent out by Jim Nauls:

FINALS GOOD LUCK GOODIE BAGS!

Send finals luck to your friends while giving to people in Haiti!

Bags include edible essentials for finals week survival!

SOLD DURING SNACK on

December 8th, 9th, and 10th

All proceeds go to Fonkoze, the largest microfinance institution, in Haiti. (for more information, go to fonkoze.org)

Only $3 dollars each!

Sponsored by Student Advisory Board of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights Center.
Send any questions to tmino11@cmc.edu.

Monday, December 8, 2008

The U.S. Constitution and the Defense of Human Rights

I've frequently written on the topic of torture. Torture is antithetical to the values that America represents and endangers America's security because it is simply ineffective. A New York Times editorial today emphasizes another aspect. Not only is it wrong to do so, it is unconstitutional. Namely, the assertion of a right to indefinitely detain people in the United States without charges violates our right to due process. The belief in such a bizarre doctrine would essentially render the fifth and sixth amendments meaningless:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

One of the most beautiful things about the U.S. Constitution is how many human rights it legally protects. We must ensure that it continues to do so, and not settle for anything less. The case of Maher Arar demonstrates the immoral abuses we are complicit in if we ignore the issue.

Friday, December 5, 2008

China, Economic Liberalization, and Democratization

The Keck Center is sponsoring a speaker to address the failure of economic liberalization to lead to greater democratization in China. China's crackdown on civil liberties and other human rights before and during the Beijing Olympics demonstrates the real obstacle towards progress that the Chinese government is . Many theorists argue that despotic governments, upon instituting free market reforms, must eventually give way to democracy. They further argue that democratization can lead to instability when combined with market reforms, which then causes a reversion to despotism. Therefore, they argue that one should simply place their bets on benevolent, economically liberal dictatorships and count on the natural course to lead to improved human rights. However, facts on the ground in China prove that misguided belief in the benefits of dictatorial stability incorrect. Hopefully Dr. Pei can give us a better perspective on why that is the case.

Make sure to check out the talk. Info is below:

The Keck Center for International and Strategic Studies

is honored to sponsor a lecture by

Minxin Pei

Senior Associate in the China Program

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Why Has Economic Development Not Led to Democratization in China?

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Lunch 11:30, Lecture 12:00

Athenaeum, CMC

Minxin Pei's research focuses on democratization in developing countries, economic reform and governance in China, and U.S.-China relations.
He received his B.A. in English from Shanghai International Studies University, Master of Fine Arts in creative writing from the University of Pittsburgh, and his Ph.D. in political science from Harvard University. Dr. Pei taught at Harvard, Princeton, Davidson College, University of Pittsburgh, and Shanghai International Studies University. His most recent publication is China's Trapped Transition: The Limits of Developmental Autocracy.

Please join us for Dr. Pei's luncheon lecture.

Reservations may be made online at www.claremontmckenna.edu/mmca

Reservations are not required to attend the presentation only (12:00)

Reservation Deadline Monday, December 8

Monday, December 1, 2008

The Fight of a Lifetime: Making Genocide a Crime

The CNN article below describes how Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide and worked tirelessly to create a treaty against genocide. He succeeded in the passing of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide...but did he succeed in preventing genocide? That's up to today's generation. To not accept "patience" as a method to stop the killings of people, as President Roosevelt had suggested.
Lemkin posed this question, "Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?" Murder is a crime, very punishable by law yet punishing the perpetrators of a genocide is much harder. What can be done to change the way those laws are carried out and enforced?

CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/11/13/sbm.lemkin.profile/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


Polish Jew gave his life defining, fighting genocide
  • Story Highlights
  • When Hitler exterminated Europe's Jews, the word "genocide" did not exist
  • It was created by a Polish Jew whose family perished in the Holocaust
  • Raphael Lemkin combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing
  • He went on to fight for the U.N. treaty making genocide a crime
By Jennifer Hyde
CNN Producer

(CNN) -- Paris, 1948. In the shadow of the Holocaust, the fledgling United Nations meets to adopt one of its first human rights treaties.

Applause shakes the room, cameras flash -- and at the center, a single, tired, unassuming man: Raphael Lemkin.

It was, at last, a victory for a tireless crusader who had fought for his entire life against genocide -- and coined the term that describes the world's most heinous crime.

"This new official world made a solemn pledge to preserve the life of the peoples and races of mankind," Lemkin later wrote.

Sixty years ago this month, the U.N. voted unanimously to adopt the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It was ambitious, serious, far-reaching -- and largely the result of Lemkin's lifetime of effort.

A Pole and a Jew, Lemkin had watched in horror as Hitler nearly succeeded in his plan to exterminate the Jews. Six million Jews -- including 40 members of Lemkin's family -- died at the hands of the Nazis.

Today, we call what happened at Auschwitz and the other death camps "genocide." But at the time, there was no name for the Nazis' crimes. The word "genocide" did not exist.

In 1944, Lemkin wrote a book about the Nazis. In it, he combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing: Genocide. Lemkin had named the crime he spent a lifetime trying to prevent.

As a child in Poland, Lemkin was inspired by the stories his mother told him at the fireside -- stories of history and heroism, of suffering and struggle. As a Jew he witnessed cruelty and persecution firsthand: from the bribes his parents were forced to pay, to a pogrom that killed dozens nearby.

From his mother, and from his circumstance, Lemkin developed early a strong desire to better the world and protect the innocent and the weak.

"The appeal for the protection of the innocent from destruction set a chain reaction in my mind," Lemkin later wrote. "It followed me all my life."

As a teen, Lemkin learned through news accounts that the Turkish government was slaughtering its Christian Armenian citizens. The government claimed it was putting down an Armenian revolt. Over 8 years they killed a million Armenian men, women and children in massacres and forced marches. To this day, Turkey denies a genocide took place. Few of the perpetrators ever faced justice.

"I was shocked," Lemkin wrote. "Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?"

Lemkin didn't have an answer to the question. But, as a young man, he devised a bold plan. He would write an international law that would punish -- and prevent -- racial mass murder.

By October 1933, Lemkin was an influential Warsaw lawyer, well-connected and versed in international law. At the same time, Hitler was gathering power. Lemkin knew it was time to act.

He crafted his proposal making the destruction of national, racial and religious groups an international crime and sent it to an influential international conference. But his legal remedy found little support, even as anti-Semitism was becoming Germany's national policy. When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Lemkin knew his worst fears were about to be realized.

"Hitler had already promulgated ... his blueprint for destruction," Lemkin wrote. "Many people thought he was bragging, but I believed that he would carry out his program."

Lemkin fled Warsaw with only a shaving kit and summer coat. He survived months in the forest, traveling furtively, dodging falling bombs and fighting for the Polish resistance.

He managed to reach his parents one last time -- only to say goodbye.

"Do not talk of our leaving this warm home. We will have to suffer, but we will survive somehow," Lemkin said his parents told him. "When their eyes became sad with understanding, I laughed away our agonizing thoughts, but I felt I would never see them again. It was like going to their funerals while they were still alive."

Reluctantly, Lemkin left his family to their fate and became one of the lucky few to reach the United States, where a friend arranged a job at Duke Law School. Though now safe, Lemkin remained anxious.

"I had not stopped worrying about the people in Poland. When would the hour of execution come? Would this blind world only then see it, when it would be too late?"

Troubling letters arrived from home. His father said they were surviving on potato peels and nothing else. His mother assured him, "What counts is that we are all together, alive and healthy."

"Something ... told me they were saying goodbye," Lemkin later wrote, "in spite of my parents' effort not to alarm me."

Days later, the Nazis took eastern Poland -- a death sentence for Lemkin's family.

By 1942, the U.S. had entered the war, and the Germans had accelerated their deadly work. Concentration camps ran day and night, like assembly lines. At Auschwitz, more than a million perished.

Even though word of the slaughter was reaching America, it seemed of little interest to the press and politicians. Lemkin was outraged.

"The impression of a tremendous conspiracy of silence poisoned the air," he wrote. "A double murder was taking place. ... It was the murder of the truth."

Lemkin tried everything he could to stop the killing, even writing to President Roosevelt.

Roosevelt responded, urging patience.

"Patience," Lemkin wrote. "But I could bitterly see only the faces of the millions awaiting death. ... All over Europe the Nazis were writing the book of death with the blood of my brethren."

Jewish groups pressed Washington to bomb the camps or rail lines. The Americans refused. Although Allied planes took photos of Auschwitz in 1944 as they scouted nearby targets, the U.S. didn't want to divert military resources from winning the war.

Frustrated, Lemkin decided to take a different tack. He would use the Nazis' own words to prove their depravity.

Taking hundreds of pages of Nazi laws and decrees, Lemkin wrote a comprehensive book that laid bare the Nazis' brutal plans. And he invented a word for the crime the Nazis were committing. Genocide.

With the crime named, he hoped the world could no longer turn away. But no help came.

Even the Nuremberg trials were a grave disappointment for Lemkin. They did little to codify genocide as an international crime -- and did nothing to prevent it from happening again.

But Lemkin knew he must keep trying. He revived his 1933 proposal and set his sights on the fledgling United Nations. He hoped this new world body, born out of the ashes of World War II, could create and enforce an international law against genocide.

Lemkin put everything aside and made the passage of a genocide convention the focus of his life. He wrote and rewrote the text of the convention, lobbied delegates, wrote to leaders worldwide in their own languages -- Lemkin was fluent in more than 10 -- to gather support.

On December 9, 1948, the U.N. met in Paris and voted unanimously to adopt the Genocide Convention.

Days later, Lemkin fell gravely ill and was hospitalized. For nearly three weeks, the doctors struggled with a diagnosis. Lemkin finally offered one himself: "Genociditis," he said, "exhaustion from working on the Genocide Convention."

A decade later, Lemkin would die from a fatal heart attack, penniless and alone, having given his life to the fight against genocide.