Much Needed Inspiration

As the conflict in Israel/Palestine drags on, optimism is becoming a real commodity. With a right-wing coalition likely to take over in Israel and a Palestinian unity government looking unlikely and problematic, it just does not seem like peace is coming soon. Most likely, we can look forward to more violent conflicts, which will invariably leave many people dead or injured, infrastructure damaged, and hateful ideologies hardened on both sides of the border.

It's hard to stay hopeful in times like this. That's why stories like Elik Elhanan's are so incredibly important to Israelis and Palestinians who want to move forward and live enjoyable lives. This is one of the most inspirational stories that I have seen in a while.

Turning Rage Into Reconciliation In Israel

I was born and raised in Jerusalem. I had a normal, happy childhood. I came from a liberal, left-wing family, which means I knew something of the situation. I was for peace, but I never saw myself as part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My life and dreams were very far away from all that. The reality of Israeli life helped a lot. Even though I grew up in Jerusalem, the biggest Israeli-Palestinian city, I never met with Palestinians and never talked to them. As far as I was concerned, we lived in different worlds.
When I was 18, I joined the army. It was mandatory, but I went gladly. I believed it was my civic duty. I believed one should contribute oneself to one's community. I believed I was going to protect the borders of my country and defend its citizens. But even there I couldn't see myself as part of it all. Again, my dreams lay very far away, and I knew this soldier thing would end one day. But a piece of reality burst my bubble.
I got the news that there had been a bombing while I was training for something or other far from home. My sister Smadar was missing. I remember the long ride home, hoping for the best. But the second I saw my parents, I knew. They had just come back from the morgue where they'd identified the body of my sister.
Smadar died on September 4, 1997. On that day, two Palestinians blew themselves up in the centre of Jerusalem, killing eight and wounding another 50. Smadar was 14 years old. She had gone downtown with some friends to buy things for school. My sister and her friends had the misfortune of being close to one of the bombers. She died instantly, as did her best friend. The third friend was critically injured.
When we're confronted with such a situation, the first question is, of course, How do I go on? How do I deal with the pain? Society offers several solutions to this problem. One is to be sad. Another is to be angry. I refused to take either path.
Life is too precious to be wasted in sombre reminiscence. I thought my sister, who was full of life and love, deserved better than to be remembered in such a sad fashion. I understood that the first victim of my anger would be me. It's easy to succumb to anger, hate and fear, especially when we're hurt by a faceless menace such as terrorism. You can't hate someone so you hate something--not a Palestinian, but the Palestinians, all of them.
But this prospect of living my life as someone who fears everything and hates everyone was unacceptable. The possibility of revenge didn't give me any peace either. Who would be the object of my revenge? Would it make me feel any better? The man who killed my sister was dead.
What was missing from my life was Smadar, my sister, not honour or satisfaction. It didn't matter how many Palestinians would die; she'd never come back. Because of my pain, should more lives be ruined? I decided I couldn't allow it.
What had happened to me was beyond repair. In trying to "fix" it, I'd only destroy myself. My sister didn't die so Israel would be safe; she didn't die because Arabs are naturally bad or because Islam is an evil religion. She died because of a political situation, man-made and solvable.
The events of our time show us there's no violent solution to violence. If you want people to stop trying to kill you and themselves, give them a reason to live. I became aware of the contaminating nature of violence, of its incapacity to generate anything but more violence.
If we really want to stop the violence, to make sure no more innocent lives are lost, we must struggle for a peace agreement. I work for peace in many ways, but the most significant one in my eyes is through the Israeli-Palestinian Families' Forum, a group of 500 families--250 from Israel and 250 from Palestine--that have lost a family member in this conflict. Through this group that I co-founded I've met Palestinians, real ones, not stereotypes or caricatures, but real people like Ali Abu Awwad, who spent four years in Israeli jails. He was shot by a settler, his brother murdered by a soldier. Nevertheless, Ali still wants peace. There are many others like him.
If I can talk to these people, many of them former members of Palestinian resistance movements like the one that killed my sister, and if they can talk to me after losing their family members, no one has a reason not to communicate.
We want to show people in pain that there's another way to deal with it, through hope rather than hate. In our group, we know peace will only be achieved with dialogue. We know it's imperative that each side knows the story, the suffering and the hopes of the other side. If we can speak to each other, anyone can!
Elik Elhanan is co-founder of the Israeli-Palestinian Families' Forum, known as Bereaved Parents for Peace. This is excerpted from a speech published in Occupation Magazine (kibush.co.il).

The Stace of the U.S. toward China

In recent weeks, I have been watching the oscillation of the United States’ stance toward China. When Clinton first visited the country, she publicly relayed that the United States would place the issue of the economic crises above all others; she spoke of the importance of China and the United States uniting to improve the economic situation. In doing this, she neglected to condemn—or even “slap the wrist” of—China of their numerous human rights violations. Then, shortly after her return, she signed off on the State Department Report that harshly criticized the human rights situation in China:

“The [Chinese] government continued to limit citizens' privacy rights and tightly controlled freedom of speech, the press (including the Internet), assembly, movement, and association. Authorities committed extrajudicial killings and torture, coerced confessions of prisoners, and used forced labor. In addition, the Chinese government increased detention and harassment of dissidents, petitioners, human rights defenders, and defense lawyers. Local and international NGOs continued to face intense scrutiny and restrictions. China's human rights record worsened in some areas, including severe cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tibet."

My concern is that it remains unclear what position this administration plans on taking in respect to human rights. From what we have seen thus far, many things could be concluded. In my opinion, it seems most likely that the stace the United States will take is one that is harsh, condemning human rights violations abroad, only when it is convenient for our own goals. This does not mean that the new administration is making the wrong choice; in fact, upon reflection, I do not know what the right choice should be.

On the one hand, I want the United States to place propagating human rights as a priority that does not come second to economics. I care about the Tibetans and Chinese that are being denied rights while other countries watch and do little to protect them. On the other hand, I know this is naive. I know that we are in the middle of serious times, and everyone’s top priority is moving forward. In times of drowning, values become second to staying above water. And in the end, I don’t know if that is okay or not. The United States would argue that we will only be able to effectively protect human rights when the economy returns to normal, so it is only logical that protecting the economy is our primary concern. Yet, no matter the reasons, it is rational to question if the administration truly understands the importance of human rights if anything is allowed to come before them.

Secondly, I have doubts about the United States playing a moral judge when we are violating many of the rights that we have condemned the Chinese for violating. This was the at the heart of the Chinese's response to our report—don’t criticize us for violating many of the same human rights you are. I have a great deal of sympathy for this reaction. In the end, I think the United States needs to decide how human rights will fit in the agenda during this crisis. Primarily, I hope we take China’s criticism to heart and terminate all of our human rights violations (for instance, closing our secret detention centers that deny people the right of habeas corpus and use torture and coercive techniques to gain information). Secondly, I hope we can find a way to support the termination of human rights violations abroad as we work to improve the economy.

Upcoming Human Rights Events

For Human Rights enthusiasts, here are three events coming up that might interest you:

Tomorrow, Wednesday the 11th of Febuary, Efraim Inbar will be speaking at the Athenaeum. He is the author of five books titled, Outcast Countries in the World Community (1985), War and Peace in Israeli Politics. Labor Party Positions on National Security (1991), Rabin and Israel’s National Security (1999), The Israeli-Turkish Entente (2001), and Israel's National Security: Issues and Challenges since the Yom Kippur War. Currently, he serves on the Academic Committee of the History Department of the IDF and as the President of the Israel Association of International Studies. While at CMC, he will be having two discussions. The first will be at 4:00 Pm in the Freeburg Room and second will be over dinner at 6:00 PM in the Parents Dining Room. Both of his discussions will be oriented around the recent conflict in Gaza, where he will offer students his unique perspective.

Another exciting event will be taking place at Pomona on Tuesday the 17th of February. The event is titled Human Rights in the 21st Century, and it will feature a panel discussion of the genocide and ongoing humanitarian crises in Sudan, Zimbabwe, the Congo, and other nations. Additionally, the panel will discuss the future of human rights in an age characterized by globalization and the rise of China, India, and Russia. The speakers are Mark Hanis, executive director of the Genocide Intervention Network, Jeanette Ndhlovu, South African Consul-General, and Michael J. Bazyler, acclaimed Holocaust and human rights scholar and professor at Chapman University Law School. The event will be at 8 PM in Edmunds Ballroom at Pomona College.

Finally, on Sunday the 22nd of February at The University of Southern California there will be a screening of a recently made documentary called Spell Your Name. The film features testimonies of Ukrainian Holocaust survivors and witnesses from the Shoah Foundation Insititute’s archives. Following the film, their will be a discussion addressing issues of cultural stereotypes and the complexity of the public memorialization of massacres that took place during the Holocaust in Ukraine. The discussion will be moderated by Wolf Gruner, a USC history professor, Sergey Bukovsky, the filmmaker, Crispin Brooks, the USC Shoah Foundation Institute curator, and Michael Renov, a USC cinematic arts professor. This really interesting event will be at the Eileen Norris Cinema Theatre at 4:30 pm. The admission is free and refreshments will be served.

The Hope for Change for Bagram

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile

Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11 (1): Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.


Guantanamo has long been the basis of debate for human rights activists. Yet recently, there is an air of relief as our new President has proclaimed that within a year, the prison will close. Though I share this relief, I am concerned with the fate of not only Guantanamo, but also the Bagram Prison in Afghanistan. As of now, Obama has yet to say much on his plans for this detention center. In a very limited time, he must decide if he wants to approve of the 60 million dollar prison complex that Bush proposed to replace the current one, and if he will give four prisoners in Bagram the ability to challenge their detention as has been done for prisoners in Guantanamo.

I am very concerned about these decisions. This detention center has been reported to have worse conditions for prisoners than Guantanamo, and as the Bush administration has allowed no reporters or human rights organizations inside, we can only image that to be true. These prisoners are being held without rights or the ability to question their charges for indefinite period of time. On top of this, with as little transparency into the prison as is currently allowed, one need not question deeply to imagine the conditions the guards have created for the prisoners. As we have learned from psychology, even good people are corrupted under unregulated power. All it takes is looking back on the Stanford Prison Experiment to see that it does not take evil people to do evil things. Situations are very powerful determinants of behavior. Yet if we know this, then why do we continue to put any people—regardless of their values—in situations where corruption is a foreseeable event. At Bagram in 2003, two men were “coercively interrogated” to death, and the prison was known for using many interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture on a regular basis. Though it is said that the prison has improved after 2003 due to intense public pressure, we must foresee similar events in the future, and decide that they are unacceptable. In my opinion, the only way to prevent their occurrences is make the prisons more transparent, where workers are held accountable by public censure, and more just, where prisoners are given the human rights that should never be denied to anyone.

We have seen the atrocities that have happened since 2001 in these secret detention camps, and the wise know that these atrocities will only continue without increased transparency. Yet, we have not put the pressure on our new president to ensure that these violations stop. It is not only in Guantanamo that they occur, it is all prisons where suspects are held secretly without habeas corpus, without trial, and with very minimal rights. President Obama has been given until February 20th the make a decision about the four prisoners seeking to question their detention in Bagram. I hope that he decides, as as was done for prisoners in Guantanamo, that the values that our country were built upon are never worth sacrificing.

The Effects of Aid in Zimbabwe

Over a month ago, I wrote on the massive turmoil in Zimbabwe. Yet even now, as we sit on the upward swing of the conflict with dual leadership hopefully on the horizon, I remain angry and broken hearted. Recent articles have been published about the ramifications of Mugabe’s rule. Their topics are extremely broad in scope, covering issues in health care, hunger, political angst and inflation. One that I found extremely egregious relates to the abuse that young women—or maybe I should say girls—are experiencing as they flee to South Africa in attempt to find work and send money home. Countless unreported rapes occur each day during this passage. As most of these women cross the border at night, they frequently stumble upon men that have predicted their arrival. They are robed and abused in exchange for passage. Furthermore, once the women arrive in South Africa, the only work that many are able to find is in prostitution.

I am sure that I am not alone in my vehement anger and sadness about Zimbabwe. I desperately want someone to blame for how out of control this situation has become. Clearly, Mugabe is the ultimate culprit, but what about us? Have we been incompetent in being unable to prevent such suffering? I have written about policies and their effects in previous blogs, and I am now interested in their role in Zimbabwe. Currently, NGOs, state aid and humanitarian organizations are vital to the survival of many Zimbabweans. In December of 2008, the United States and the United Nations were responsible for feeding half of the population of Zimbabwe. My first impression is sincere gratitude that these people are being helped. On the other hand, I wonder if in the attempt to help, people are in fact enabling Mugabe’s brutality to reign. As he can rely on others to feed his people, he feels no political or moral obligation to feed them himself. As his people do not need to fight for their own self-preservation, they are not forcing him out. The New York Times quoted an employee of an aid agency who reiterated this idea: "'You’re acting to save lives, knowing that by doing so you are sustaining this government,' said one aid agency manager, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. 'And unfortunately, ZANU-PF is good at exploiting this humanitarian imperative.'”

This issue I find to be extremely tough. My gut tells me that it would be incredibly wrong to act as Mugabe’s educators while watching his country implode. On the other hand, my mind tells me that it is potentially our willingness to clean up after him that enabled his power to be sustained for so long. In the end, I would rather be blameworthy for enabling Mugabe in attempt to relieve the suffering of his people than blameless at the expense of human life. Regardless, we will never be able to juxtapose and judge the outcomes of the two scenarios to get a clear response as to which one would have been best. This means that we are left with our imperfect, real-time responses.

For more recent news articles on Zimbabwe...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/world/africa/22zimbabwe.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123332129713033159.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/world/africa/31zimbabwe.html?ref=world
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/world/africa/24zimbabwe.html

Instabilty in Food: Causes and Concerns

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

In my opinion, the prominent challenge that lies before leaders as we move into the future will be ensuring the access to this right in particular. Though people often assume that resources are the only factors needed to safeguard this right—and they truly are the essential component—the policies supported by leaders might also dramatically affect people’s ability to gain this security. If nothing more, the quality of supported policies clearly determine the amount of resources needed to sustain this right.

One aspect of this very broad right is food security. If people are unable to eat, then their “right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing” is impeded upon. Though leaders can clearly not prevent a famine caused by drought, they can assuage the effects of the inevitable. This is of course done through the agricultural policies that leaders support and proselytize to developing world governments (countries where food shortages lead to starvation). Policies are not innocuous creatures, their impact can be so massive in scope that hundreds of thousands of lives can be saved or ruined as a result of them. For instance, the recommended policies for food production have changed dramatically since the 1980’s, when the IDF and the World Bank recommended to the developing world to reduce regulation and allow the market to play a greater role in shaping agricultural policy.

This recommendation led to the governments in the developing world to sell off food reserves and eliminate their investments and subsidies in agriculture. The result has been primarily positive until recently. Agriculture has been more efficient in the last thirty years, but we are finding that this increase in efficiency might be at the great cost of security. With governments no longer subsidizing their own farmers or keeping food reserves, certain regions have taken on the global burden of production for specific products like rice. When global food prices spiked last spring, chaos and suffering resulted in the developing world due to massive shortages of the exports people relied upon so heavily. And now, further instability—this time in the form of the food prices decreasing—has caused additional problems and fears in West Africa.

Of course, the reason for the increased food prices was unforeseeable at the time—the demand for bio-fuels massively increased demand for corn and other staple products—but should the existence of a crisis ever be unforeseeable? Though we will hopefully learn from our past blunders, there will always come to exist a future one. Whether it be man-made or nature made, we will again run into problems with a system so dependent on the good of so few. And when these problems again resurface, we will wonder again if our efficient system was worth the suffering of so many.

For futher readings on this topic in the news, please refer to the following links:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/11/24/081124ta_talk_surowiecki
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/letters/2008/12/22/081222mama_mail1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/world/africa/26senegal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=west%20africa&st=cse

New Speaker Series: Holocaust, Genocide, and Race Relations in World History

On February, 12th at 4 pm, the University of Southern California will welcome Dirk Moses to speak on the topic of "Rethinking the Relationship between Imperialism and the Holocaust." Since the 1930’s, the relationship between Nazism, the Holocaust and Imperialism has been controversial. His lecture will address the question of whether “genocide studies” and the “new imperial history” offer tools to rethink the relationship between anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

The talk is sponsored through the Shapell-Guerin Chair in Jewish Studies at the Department of History at USC, and will be located at USC’s main campus in the Intellectual Commons of the Doheny Library. Dirk Moses is an exceptional scholar, and the author of, German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past (Cambridge, 2007). He additionally is the editor of Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History (Berghahn, 2008), Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History (Berghahn, 2004). Finally, he is the coeditor of Colonialism and Genocide (Routledge, 2007), and The Oxford Handbook on Genocide Studies (forthcoming).

Civilians: the Major Causality of War in Gaza

Conflict in the Middle East appears constant in recent years, but the problems that are currently dissipating have incurred serious causalities.  As most are aware, after the six-month cease-fire between Gaza and Israel ended in December, conflict between the two groups was immediately reignited.  Instigated primarily by the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel, the conflict was intensely escalated by the air and ground campaign issued by Israel in response to Gaza’s aggression on December 27^th. The causalities are extensive, and unfortunately, many civilians were lost in the process of the war.

My aim is not to criticize Israel’s decision to attack Gaza; instead, I am concerned with a conflict that left over 1,300 Palestinians dead in less than a month, of which 600-900 are rumored to be civilians.  Clearly, Israel intended to make an aggressive statement in attempts to protect their people, but were the methods used to accomplish that task justified?  Many human rights organizations think not, and have launched numerous investigations regarding the targets and weapons of attack used by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).  At the top of the list is Israel’s use of white phosphorous, of which certain uses were banned in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1980.  Though white phosphorus was clearly used, there remains debate in how frequently it was misused, and investigations are currently being undergone on this topic.  Additional critiques of Israel have been the frequency of which humanitarian aid resources were harmed in the conflict; UN buildings and Red Cross/Crescent supplies were damaged or ruined in the course of the month long discord.   Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for UN Relief and Works Agency said that during the conflict “tens of millions of dollars of aid have been destroyed.”  Finally, one must question the motives of a war that ended with a huge percentage of its causalities being civilians.  It took Israel four days to allow humanitarian organizations access into the area, which in this situation was horribly detrimental.   Not only was the Shifa hospital completely overwhelmed and desperately lacking supplies, but the shortage of power and running water was rampant in Gaza.  Both of these things led to increased death and hardship for Palestinian civilians that could have been alleviated or dissipated with increased humanitarian aid.

I am very empathetic with Israel’s need to establish peace for their people, and I think everyone can understand how such an intense priority can bleed the line of right and wrong, but I fear that their actions in the last month have only escalated tensions and angers on behalf of the Palestinians.  If this is true, then I fear that many civilian lives were unjustifiably lost for a very short time of peace. 

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

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 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th

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.

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:

Amendment V

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.

Amendment VI

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.

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

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.

Aid to Developing Countries: the Failure and the Promise

A recent article from BBC (N.B. For balance, one should also consult the Ugandan Health Ministry response) focuses on the negative effects foreign aid can have on developing countries. Many of the aid programs create disincentives for developing skills, industry, or agriculture. They "reward failure."

Some look at the corrupt people who take most of the aid and wrongly conclude that aid simply does not work. Such an assumption, however, blanket labels all aid programs and assumes they all work the same. Rather, what these examples highlight is that poorly structured aid programs do not work. Aid programs should give needy people incentives for their work where they live and help them learn skills for the future. In turn, the people helped by such aid programs will be more likely to stay in their communities and then give back to that community, reducing need for aid in the future.

Effective aid is exactly what the Center is encouraging in its work on microfinance. In fact, the article specifically addresses the types of benefits microfinance could bring:

"So you see," Mr Mwenda said. "If aid were to offer this young man support in the form of low interest credit he could not only expand his business offering employment opportunities and a valuable service to his community, he could also eventually pay the money back."

Microfinance loans are making opportunities a reality rather than a dream right now in places across the globe, inbcluding Haiti, where Fonkoze is focusing its efforts. Unlike other types of aid, there is an incentive because the aid is expected to be paid back and is given to people who are working and creating opportunities for themselves and others in their community.

Our work with Fonkoze is helping to build awareness of this issue on campus. In my experience, CMC has been a campus more aware of the ineffectiveness of poorly structured aid programs than the effectiveness of programs like microfinance. Building a base of support for these types of programs will help students focus their efforts on more constructive paths in the future.

Free Screening of the 11th Hour

This Sunday there will be a free screening of the documentary The 11th Hour at Pomona's Rose Hill Theater, which is in the Smith Campus Center. The film is being presented by a teen environmental group that works with Uncommon Good. They will be making a presentation at 4:00 PM and the film will begin at 5:00 PM.

The global warming crisis has important consequences for human rights around the globe. It will challenge people's access to food, clean water, and other basic necessities. Livelihoods will be destroyed. Furthermore, the consequences could lead to the destabilization of many governments which are already in precarious situations. Lack of governmental control can lead to serious human rights abuses. Just look at the poor human rights conditions in Somalia and Congo, where governments are abusive, and their loss of control has led to further human rights abuses on both sides of those conflicts and from external sources. Unstable conditions with scarce resources are poor conditions for fostering democratic governments.

In order to be able to articulate the best changes and policies we can make to address these issues, we need to be educated on what is going on, how we contribute to the problem, and what we can do to solve it. The 11th Hour is a powerful film which can teach us about these important points.

Full information on the showing is below:

Pomona College's Office of Community Programs

and

Uncommon Good's Teen Green

Present a FREE movie screening of

Leonardo DiCaprio's

"The 11th Hour"

WHEN:

Sunday, November 23rd, 2008 at 4:00pm

Presentation at 4:00pm

Screening at 5:00pm

WHERE:

Pomona College's Rose Hills Theater in the Smith Campus Center

Produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, written and directed by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners, The 11th Hour describes the last moment when change is possible. The film explores how humanity has arrived at this moment; how we live, how we impact the earth's ecosystems, and what we can do to change our course. The film features dialogues with experts from all over the world, including former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey and sustainable design experts William McDonough and Bruce Mau in addition to over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who present the facts and discuss the most important issues that face our planet.

FMI: e-mail teen.green@hotmail.com

Chaos in Eastern Congo

The fighting in eastern Congo has left untold numbers without food or security. The rebels, once they conquer an area, can barely govern it. Meanwhile, the areas between the forces are left without government at all. Schoolchildren, now without a school, are forced to become street peddlers. Government soldiers have raped and looted the people they have been trying to protect, and the rebels are employing children to fight their war.

This disaster poses a serious threat to the lives of many in eastern Congo. With Nkunda, the rebel general declaring his goal of defending his ethnic Tutsis, images of the Rwandan genocide are provoked. In this time of new leadership, the world needs to seriously consider the use of intervention. While its use can be dangerous, there is a moral obligation, not just to the United States, but all countries, to make sure that "never again" means just that. If the situation continues to destabilize, the international community may be obligated to act. The Economist's article regarding this discusses the dangers while recognizing the need to sometimes take action.

Day for Darfur

Tomorrow, the 5-C Peace and Justice Coalition will be hosting the Day for Darfur, a fundraiser and information session for relief towards the still ongoing crisis in Darfur. It will be held at at the Motley from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM. There will be two speakers, the CEO of Relief International and a second speaker from the Damanga Coalition. T-shirts and challah will be available for purchase. More information on the event can be found on the Facebook event.

What: Day for Darfur, an information session and fundraiser.
Who: You, the Damanga Coaliton, Relief International, and the 5-C Peace and Justice Coalition
When: Friday, November 14th, 11:00 AM -- 2:00 PM
Where: The Motley, Scripps Campus

Remembering Our Veterans and the Search for Peace

Today, is Veterans' Day, and we remember the 90th Anniversary of the end of the First World War. Please keep in mind all that soldiers around the world are sacrificing for our human rights and freedoms. The New York Times has an excellent slide show which captures the trauma, pain, and sacrifice that many soldiers are currently going through for us (available here). Let us also keep in mind what our soldiers serve their duty for: not to wage war, but to achieve peace.

I hope that we can come closer to the day where we confidently reject the possibility of seeing again the horrors of trench warfare, concentration camps, or any of the other atrocities that have been a feature of wars throughout history.

Closing GITMO

Now that the election is over, many are looking to the president-elect Obama, hopeful that he will be a strong voice for human rights. Many political observers are debating whether and how Obama will close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. (It's important to note the distinction between teh detention camp and the Naval Base. Most discussion simply uses the general term GITMO or Guantanamo Bay, but is in fact just referring to the detention camp.)

Politico's Arena has an excellent discussion on the topic. Most of my thoughts here are reflective of various opinions from that discussion.

Advocates have diverging plans, most with the same one or two goals. Those goals are protecting the rights of prisoners and the United States setting an example and sending a message to the rest of the world.

The violation of rights lies in the disrespect for due process that has been given the prisoners. While many of them may be dangerous, just as dangerous is the prospect of allowing a government to imprison a person without giving them a fair hearing. Furthermore, others argue that fair trials will excuse too much evidence, as if the rules are simply meant to be prohibitive for the sake of obstructing prosecutors. Rather, the case for not admitting much of this evidence is that it is unreliable. I've noted before, information gained from torture techniques, such as waterboarding, cannot be counted upon, and hinders further interrogations. So, protecting the rights of prisoners gives everyone a better degree of safety, from strengthening rule of law for when we need it applied to us and from improving our intelligence.

The second reason to close Guantanamo is the message we send to the world. First of all, many countries have begun to look upon America with less respect, especially in light of the
treatment of Guantanamo detainees, among other human rights violations. Closing Guantanamo
will help us improve relationships with the world at large and strengthen our alliances. Second, we can make a stronger claim to the moral high ground and use this to pressure other governments to improve their human rights situations. Finally, respecting the rights of the prisoners ensures greater safety for any of our soldiers who are taken prisoner.

I hope this has adequately addressed the "whether we should" question of closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I'll make another post soon on how that might be done.

Michael Berenbaum Speaks on Kristallnacht at the Athenaeum

Monday, November 10th will be the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. In memory of those who were victims, the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights will be sponsoring Michael Berenbaum at the Athenaeum. For more information, see the Forthnightly's description below:

Kristallnacht: Memory and Legacies, The Synagogue and Its Rabbis under Oppression in Nazi Germany

MICHAEL BERENBAUM

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008

November 9-10, 2008 marks the 70th anniversary of tragic event known as Kristallnacht (Crystal Night). On this evening, 92 Jews were murdered and 25,000 were arrested and deported to concentration camps in Nazi Germany. In addition, hundreds of synagogues were destroyed, and thousand of Jewish businesses and homes were ransacked. Kristallnacht is referred by many as the start of the Holocaust.

Michael Berenbaum is a writer, lecturer, and teacher consulting in the conceptual development of museums and the content and conceptual development of historical films. He is director of the Sigi Ziering Institute: Exploring the Ethical and Religious Implications of the Holocaust and also a professor of Jewish Studies at American Jewish University. For three years, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation. He was also the Director of the United States Holocaust Research Institute at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Previously he served as Director of the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, Opinion Page editor of the Washington Jewish Week and Deputy Director of the President's Commission on the Holocaust where he authored its Report to the President. He has taught at Wesleyan University, Yale University and has served as a visiting professor at George Washington University, The University of Maryland, and American University. Berenbaum is the author and editor of sixteen books, scores of scholarly articles, and hundreds of journalistic pieces. His most recent books include: A Promise to Remember: The Holocaust in the Words and Voices of Its Survivors and After the Passion Has Passed: American Religious Consequences.

Michael Berenbaum’s lecture at the Athenaeum is sponsored the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights.