Human Rights Salon

Human Rights Salon Finale: The Future of Nation Building

Mark Leon Goldberg October 31, 2008 - 1:56 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

The final discussion prompt in our week long salon on human rights challenges facing the next administration comes from Cato scholar and On Day One user Justin Logan, who says that the United States should swear off nation building.

Eric Schwartz and Suzanne Nossel respond. <!--break-->Eric Schwartz

Justin Logan is over-learning the lesson of Iraq. Heck, if Iraq were the litmus test for the wisdom of efforts to promote post-conflict reconstruction and development -- what Justin refers to as "nation-building" -- then I'd reject such efforts as well. But Iraq is a poor example, as U.S. engagement failed to meet several prerequisites for success. First, if you want to lay the groundwork for an effective post-conflict effort at development, your engagement should be widely perceived as legitimate by stakeholders within and outside the country. Second, if you are a superpower, you probably ought to be joined by a genuine critical mass of other governments and/or international organizations, operating with meaningful roles and authority -- not only for the purposes of legitimacy, but also for the expertise that others bring to the table. Third, well before you go to war, you might want to plan smartly and carefully for the post-conflict period. And, finally, your ambitions should be realistic -- societies are not transformed over night. On each of those counts, the United States post-war intervention in Iraq was flawed, to put it mildly. Don't get me wrong: even better managed post-conflict operations are not elegant, by any means. But often, both our national security and/or our humanitarian interests demand engagement. Take Bosnia, for example. The post-conflict international engagement has hardly resulted in models of good governance throughout the Balkans, but it has helped to prevent a return to war, and to the terrible suffering that occurred after break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

Suzanne Nosse:l

Forswearing nation-building is not a realistic policy option for three basic reasons.

First, the United States has a series of often overlapping interests in stabilizing post-conflict situations. While maintaining peace among the great powers and other "traditional" challenges of statecraft will remain key elements in U.S. foreign policy, the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of 2002 and its successor of 2006 correctly highlight that a host of transnational threats - including terrorism, international crime, trafficking in drugs and persons - are equally important. These threats can destabilize regions as well as directly affect U.S. national security. They often originate in, or exploit, failed states and "ungoverned space" that can emerge after conflict. Al Qaida's use of pre-9/11 Afghanistan as a training and operational hub is the exemplar. Effective nation-building helps check such "negative externalities" from spreading. Evidence also suggests that countries receiving effective post-conflict assistance are less likely to slide back into violence than those that do not. This carries humanitarian implications (e.g., preventing genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.), as well as geostrategic ones (e.g., eliminating a vacuum that regional actors may try to exploit).

The United States also has an interest in the character of states emerging from conflict. Ideally, from Washington's perspective, such states would align with Western interests and values. In some cases, U.S. interest in a post-conflict mission may be to check another country in the region from expanding its power and influence over an unstable neighbor. In other cases, international credibility and moral obligation may be critical. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn rule" is alive and well. Where the United States plays a role in disrupting a society, it will be called upon to help put it back together again. In the face of such interests, sitting on the sidelines - or leaving the work entirely to others - carries risks to U.S. security and its stature internationally.

Second, the challenge of nation-building will not disappear from the international stage any time soon. There are many "fragile" states around the world. Consider possible contingencies in the Caribbean, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia. Reflecting this harsh reality since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has launched a new peacekeeping operation roughly every six months, while the United States has undertaken a major nation-building operation every two years.

Third, the Unites States cannot realistically rely upon others to do all the heavy lifting. It bears repeating that the United States is still and will for the foreseeable future the most powerful country in the world - economically, politically, and militarily. The likelihood that American interests in preventing state failure and its externalities will be adequately protected in the future without some U.S. involvement are small. With few exceptions - perhaps Great Britain, France, and Australia - other countries lack the resources and motivation to intervene independently in situations where we do not.

Taken together, these premises lead to the conclusion that the United States should prepare for nation-building, even if we'd prefer to avoid it.

 

Human Rights Salon Day Three: What About The ICC?

Mark Leon Goldberg October 29, 2008 - 3:28 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

Our week long panel discussion of ideas the next president can adopt to help promote human rights continues with a suggestion from On Day One user RustNeverSleeps:.

The United States should join the international criminal court. The court's four ongoing investigations in Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Darfur and Uganda show that the court can work to prosecute war criminals. If the United States helps the ICC, the court can become even closer to its goal of deterring future war criminals.

David Kaye, Eric Schwartz and Suzanne Nossel respond below the fold. <!--break-->David Kaye:

The United States can do a lot of good for international justice without joining the International Criminal Court. Indeed, it seems to me that we ought to avoid the theological debates associated with the ICC and simply begin the process of engaging with the institution in a pragmatic way, supporting its efforts without taking - at least not yet - the more fraught political route of seeking ratification of the Rome Statute. Let me mention two concrete areas where we can offer that kind of support, and comment on two other important topics in the ICC world.

First, with respect to Darfur, the Bush Administration has clearly taken the decision that supporting efforts to end the genocide and hold accountable those responsible takes precedence over the anti-Rome theology that held sway during much of the Bush Presidency. The next administration should take that a step or two further by supporting the Office of the Prosecutor with the kind of lead and background evidence that can make the difference between successful and unsuccessful investigations and prosecutions. We should do this because our objectives and the ICC's neatly align, and we should not allow flimsy arguments about legitimizing the ICC get in the way of such cooperation. Frankly, we should find opportunities to support the ICC's work in the same way in the other areas of investigation as well, such as those mentioned by RustNeverSleeps.

A second area of support we can offer goes to one of the key problems with international justice today - the lack of a mechanism to apprehend those for whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Here is an area where U.S. leadership could be applied, where the United States - working within the Security Council - could deploy the mechanisms of financial and travel sanctions against those whose arrest is sought while also working with concerned governments on apprehension strategies.

Quite apart from these areas where U.S. support could make a meaningful contribution, the United States has an interest in reengaging with key states and NGOs associated with the ICC. For one thing, the U.S. demonizing of the ICC has been a symbolic element of the critique of go-it-alone U.S. foreign policy of the Bush years; reversal of that tone and policy should help rebuild U.S. credibility where multilateral action may make a difference. To be more specific, States Parties to the Rome Statute are actively engaged in efforts to define the crime of aggression and the terms under which jurisdiction over the crime may be exercised. The United States needs to participate in those discussions, not from a position of extreme critique but from one of constructive engagement. We're more likely to have a positive impact on those negotiations from the inside, as an observer if not a formal party to Rome.

Finally, it's important to note that the ICC has faced a spate of troubles recently. The Darfur indictment has come under strong attack even from individuals strongly supportive of the historic project of international justice. The Lubanga case has gone seriously off the rails because of the Office of the Prosecutor's inability to share information with the defense or the trial chamber, a problem that has a lot to do with a failure to manage the expectations of information providers but also a strategic failure at managing the case itself. And on top of these difficulties, the International Labor Organization strongly rebuked Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo for firing an employee in a way that totally avoided due process (and cast doubt on his leadership and ethical responsibilities). At this time, the United States can have little to say on these matters because we have disengaged for so long. But for the sake of the ICC and international justice more generally, we need to be involved, not only to support where we can but to be a constructive critic so as to ensure that the institution doesn't fail.

Eric Schwartz:

The Senate would not now consent to ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and early submission would be a mistake. Our history is far different than that of our European friends and allies, which have decades of experience in establishing regional institutions with considerable decision-making authority. This is no reason for the United States to walk away from the International Criminal Court, but it is reason to engage with prudence. Even the Bush Administration recognized the value of engagement, when it did not object to referral of Sudan to the ICC. A new Presidential Administration should go even further, and be prepared to provide support and assistance to ICC investigations of gross violations of human rights, and to proceed toward a "good neighbor" approach to the Court. As we see how this important institution evolves over time -- and, in particular, as it continues to demonstrate a commitment to justice and professionalism -- a U.S. President will be in a strong position to consider, and present to the Congress, proposals for strengthening our commitment to the Court.

Suzanne Nossel:

I support the idea of engaging pragmatically with the ICC. If as a political matter such engagement is initially easier to pursue without addressing whether it will ultimately lead to joining the court, so be it. But the goal should be to make the court as effective a tool for accountability as possible and that will mean broadening its membership to include more key actors globally. The Bush Administration deserves some credit for reexamining its early hostility toward the court. In recent months, the Bush Administration has been out in front supporting efforts to enforce accountability for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for genocide and crimes against humanity for the atrocities he allegedly directed in Darfur. It has said it will block an effort afoot in the UN Security Council to suspend the indictment of al-Bashir by the ICC prosecutor. Despite arguments put forward by the Sudanese government and given some credence by the French, British, Chinese and others that the indictment will set back peace efforts in Darfur and that postponement ought to be considered, the Bush Administration has held firm on the principle that al-Bashir should be brought to justice now. This position is driven by a recognition that the US's national security interests are served when the perpetrators of war crimes are prosecuted for their abuses, and when other current and future dictators are made to recognize that they too may be held to account. This stance, coming from an Administration that "unsigned" President Clinton's signature on the Rome Treaty that created the ICC, points to the potential to build political consensus in Washington behind the principles of international accountability for war crimes. I agree with a number of David's suggestions regarding constructive ways for the next Administration to support and engage with the court, and bring about better understanding and appreciation for the court's vital work.

 

Human Rights Salon Day Two: Climate Refugees

Mark Leon Goldberg October 28, 2008 - 1:48 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

Everyday this week a distinguished group of panelists will respond to an idea submitted to On Day One, a website that asks users for their ideas on what the next president can do, on day one. Our theme this week is human rights and On Day One user Nick Robson wants the next president to focus on climate refugees.

Rising sea level caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will have a huge impact in Small Islands Developing States and coastal dwellers globally. It could be argued that for the majority of these people, certainly those in the less developed world who have not contributed significantly to GHG output, have a right to continue to live in their ancestral home. Their forced evacuation caused by sea level rise could be said to be a abuse of their human rights. How can we help them?

Micheal Bear Kleinman, Eric Schwartz and Emily Holland respond below the fold. <!--break-->Michael Bear Kleinman:

First, to get the discussion started, I'm surprisingly wary of describing the impacts of climate change -- people forced to flee their homes due to rising sea levels -- as a human rights issue. It's certainly a catastrophe, but does every catastrophe imply a human rights violation? When we can point to direct individual or even governmental intention in the deprivation of "the right to life, liberty and security of person," as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then the answer seems clearly yes. Hence the recent charges ICC charges against Omar Bashir, for his role in stoking and fueling the conflict in Darfur. On the other hand, I wouldn't describe natural disasters such as the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami, or the Pakistan earthquake of the same year, as a human rights violation. They're not caused by individuals or governments, though their prior and subsequent actions can certainly make the situation far worse. The "climate refugees" described by Nick seem to fall somewhere in-between. I don't think anyone is arguing at this point about causation, at least insofar as a) climate change is impacting weather patterns, including rising sea levels, b) climate change is at least partially caused by human action, and c) some countries produce far more greenhouse gases than others. Yet greenhouse gases weren't produced with the intention of causing small island developing states to take an Atlantis-like swoon.

If the displacement caused by climate change qualifies as a human rights abuse, then what about American and European trade policies and tariffs, which also have a massive -- and often highly disruptive -- impact on developing nations? Anyhow, will leave it to those far more versed in human rights to set me straight. As to answer Nick's actual question, about what we can do to help, one answer is for western donor nations and humanitarian agencies to focus more attention and funding on disaster risk reduction. As defined by the British Department for International Development (DfID), "Disaster risk reduction entails measures to curb disaster losses by addressing hazards and people's vulnerabilities to them." In other words, it's focused on preventive action, as opposed to simply responding after a disaster. (To read more, see the short DfID briefing paper on DDR.) In fact, October 8th was the International Day for Disaster Reduction. This is incredibly important in countries like Bangladesh, where rising waters threaten millions, not to mention the impact of increasingly severe storms, such as Cyclone Sidr from last year. (For an excellent description of these issues, see Nicki Bennett's posts from Bangladesh following Cyclone Sidr.

Eric Schwartz:

We can help them, it seems to me, in a number of critically important ways --

First, most obviously, we need to establish U.S. leadership in international negotiations on climate change -- but it's not going to happen until we demonstrate to the world that we are prepared to adopt binding national commitments on greenhouse gas reduction. Unfortunately, that's hardly enough, because climate change is happening fast, with broad reaching impacts no matter what actions on mitigation we take.

So, beyond mitigation, we have to take several measures --

First, by matching rhetorical endorsement of the Hyogo Framework for Action with a real commitment not only to a huge expansion of resources for disaster prevention, both through new international institutions -- such as the new World Bank facility established for disaster prevention -- and through bilateral donor support. The Hyogo Framework, adopted by governments around the world at a conference in Japan shortly after the Asian tsunami, is a great document -- but words on paper don't mean much if they're not backed up by real resources.

Second, even with the best efforts at prevention, increased vulnerability to storm surges and other natural hazards means that we must be prepared to ramp up disaster assistance funding, and to work much more closely and cooperatively with the international partners, including UN Office of the Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance, the World Food Program, UNHCR and others. Unilateral action, or even coalitions of the willing, are bad models for effective disaster response -- as we saw in the case of the Asian tsunami, when the Bush Administration quickly reversed its initial decision to work with just a few countries in coordinating humanitarian action and quickly turned to UN agencies.

And third, in the worst of cases, if small island states are at risk of becoming uninhabitable, we must be prepared, and we will be obliged, to support the broadest range of assistance designed to ease whatever transitions these societies must ultimately have to endure.

Emily Holland:

Responding to Michael Kleinman's posting, in which he encourages humanitarian agencies to focus more attention and funding on disaster risk reduction, I spoke with Sue Dwyer, Vice President of International Programs at the International Rescue Committee. According to Dwyer, humanitarian action in response to climate change requires a two pronged response: 1) mitigation -- reducing green house gas emission, and 2) adaptation -- minimizing the effects of global warming through Disaster Risk Reduction methodologies (DRR).

Here at the IRC, we're working to minimize our carbon footprint while at the same time helping communities to increase their adaptive capacities. This means assisting communities in identifying hazards they face due to climate change, determining the probability an incident will occur, and gauging the impact an incident will have on that community. We then help communities assess the social, economic and other human factors that make them vulnerable, how equipped they are to deal with threats, and their ability to reduce the risk they face. Depending on these assessments, the IRC helps communities develop response plans.

A simple formula Dwyer provides to understand the IRC's approach: risks = hazards x vulnerabilities minus capacities. Continues Dwyer, many disaster prone countries such as Bangladesh have already demonstrated great success in decreasing risk associated with climate change disasters through this process. We need to expand DRR work more globally.

 

Human Rights Salon

Mark Leon Goldberg October 27, 2008 - 2:19 pm

Comment ( 0 )  

With one week to go before elections here in the United States UN Dispatch, On Day One, Chasing the Flame and Humanitarian Relief are joining forces to talk human rights. Everyday this week a distinguished group of panelists will respond to an On Day One user generated prompt about a human rights idea the next president can adopt, figuratively, on day one. Our panelists include:

* Suzanne Nossel, Human Rights Watch

* Eric Schwartz, Connect U.S. Fund

* Michael Bear Kleinman, Humanitarian Relief

* David Kaye, UCLA Law and Chasing the Flame

* Emily Holland, International Rescue Committee and Chasing the Flame

Our first prompt comes from On Day One user David Tuckman, who says the United States should support the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Eric Schwartz, Suzanne Nossel, and David Kaye respond below the fold.
<!--break-->Eric Schwartz:
The Human Rights Council -- and its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission -- cannot be Human Rights Watch; nor can it be Human Rights First or even Amnesty International. If you want a pristine human rights institution that does not suffer from politicization, then you want something other than an intergovernmental human rights organization. And while we can try to ensure that the Human Rights Council is composed primarily of governments that respect human rights, it is probably inevitable that the Council will include governments that do not particularly welcome international scrutiny. But that's hardly a reason to walk away from the exercise. The international laws on human rights -- and their affiliated institutions -- help to legitimate standards internationally and provide a key tool for worldwide advocacy. That is precisely why dictators and despots spend so much time and energy trying to thwart and distort the human rights mission. The answer is not to leave the field to the other side, as the current administration has done, but for the United States to engage smartly and comprehensively in the Council. Of course, a key element to a successful and effective strategy is to demonstrate to our friends, allies and adversaries that the United States is prepared to practice at home what we preach abroad. Thankfully, both major presidential candidates have made important commitments to move in this direction -- for example, by renouncing torture and other mistreatment of detainees -- which will only enhance the effectiveness of U.S. diplomatic efforts at the Council.

Suzanne Nossel:
The US should reverse course and join the Council, but in doing so must not throw up its hands and simply accept that body's manifest flaws, including its disproportionate focus on Israel and relative inattention to grave human rights abuses in Burma, Zimbabwe and elsewhere. It should reengage in the Council with the aim of, over time, using diplomatic channels and collective initiative to build the HRC into a credible and effective forum for the protection of human rights. It won't be easy. As Eric points out, the torture and mistreatment of detainees and the abuses at Abu Ghraib have undercut Washington's credibility as a voice for human rights. The US's absence from the HRC table in recent years has further weakened its influence. Before it can exert a positive influence on the Council, the US will have to get its own house in order, in particular by enacting laws that ensure the protection of the rights of detainees and terrorism suspects. The US cannot arrive at the Council as a chiding critic; many Council members would just as soon the US not join and remain marginalized - a demanding or presumptuous American approach will only reinforce such perceptions. If it hopes to shape the debate, the US delegation will need to listen to other points of view and diplomatically state its own. The US will need to work behind-the-scenes, delegation-by-delegation to explain its views, persuade others on the merits of its positions, and unravel the rigid bloc politics that so often stymie UN debates. With an energetic ambassador and team, this approach can succeed. There is a great deal at stake; while the HRC has done some credible work - for example commencing country-by-country examinations of the human rights records of every member - there have also been steps backward. The Council has moved to limit the authority of the UN's High Commissioner on Human Rights and to encroach on the autonomy of the body's well-regarded special rapporteurs who are deployed to investigate specific country situations. These moves risk setting back the cause of human rights protection globally. The US needs to get back in the mix to push the Human Rights Council to fulfill rather than thwart its own mandate.

David Kaye:
Eric and Suzanne make crucial points: we should engage in the Council and aim to improve its manifest flaws. I'm not sure we will maximize our influence, however, by joining 'on day one' (not that they are making such an argument). First priority is, as they note, rolling back Bush Administration policies on detainees, interrogation, etc. But that isn't the end of it; we should demonstrate a broad commitment to reengagement by ratifying a number of human rights treaties that have either sat in the Senate for years or not been submitted. These include CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child -- and even the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. And there are others. In short, our ability to serve as more than just another voice in the Council depends on broad reengagememt in the human rights world. This also means, of course, that the responsibility to engage belongs not only with the next President but also the next Senate -- and to that extent, renengagement will have to be a national effort.

 

  • Related Sites
  • UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATIONS
  • UN WIRE
  • Join Us On
  • t
  • f