Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
Laughter, learning and living is what all children should have the right to, not fighting. It is estimated by UNICEF that 250,000 children are soldiers. Children soldiers are forced to fight a war that they do not belong in. Instead of playing with toys, reading books, and enjoying freedom of imagination, children are taken from their families and live in a nightmare of violence, abuse, and hatred.
Reading "A Long Way Gone: Memoir of a Boy Soldier" by Ishmael Beah, I am brought into the world of a young man who has already lived a lifetime of memories unforgotten. A story told by one and suffered by more than two hundred thousand. I can't even begin to comprehend the magnitude of horror, hurt, and fear.
Ishmael's story is an inspiration of hope, determination, and freedom. He is a hero all to know and to think of when we hear stories about children soldiers. If you have read Ishmael's story, you have learned how one child fought to stay alive and survived. What we may not realize are all of the individual stories that each child soldier has to tell. According to Human Rights Watch, there are about 20 different countries where children are forced to be soldiers.
This year, under the Women's and Youth Forum, the Human Rights Committee aims to build public awareness on children soldiers. We intend to keep apprised of conflicts where children are used as soldiers and will work to collaborate with organizations to help address the issue.
"I was so afraid of dying. But my friends warned me if the rebel commanders detected any fear in me they would kill me. So I had to pretend to be brave."
Charles, 12 Years Old
Rwandan Refugee
"I just want to go home and be with my family."
Christopher, 12 Years Old
Uganda
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Kristof is Back!
Let me just say that I am so thankful that Nicholas Kristof is back from book leave. It is so great that the NY Times has a columnist that focuses on human rights issues, and he is greatly missed when he takes time off. And let me also say that I am completely on board with the Genocide Olympics (shaming China into ending its protection of Sudan).
Good Enough for Us...
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Does this one seem a little familiar? How different is this really from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" One of the reasons that line from the US Declaration is so popular is that in those seven words, so much is encompassed. What shocks me is that we claim these as rights in the US - they are in fact "self-evident" - but yet on the whole we don't react very much when we realize others do not have these rights.
Because Article 3 encompasses so much, there are so many current events that demonstrate how many people don't have these rights (for example, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Somalia, and political oppression in Burma). So I will start with one that particularly effects me: sexual violence against women.
I went to a panel discussion tonight that was raising awareness of the epidemic of rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What struck me about the panel was that I was the only male audience member there. Granted, that could be just because of how the event was advertised and which groups were notified. But even looking beyond this event, the response and efforts of ending the sexual violence and getting help for those already affected seems to be coming more from women's groups. While there seems to be a lot of ambivalence to go around, I still can't fathom how this could possibly be an issue that affects one gender more than another. Everyone needs to step up and get more involved in this issue, but men especially need to be more outraged.
For those of us that are outraged, the effort that was announced tonight is a great place for us to start working to end the rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The group is called Congolese Women's Campaign Against Sexual Violence in DRC. This effort allows Congolese women to tell us what they need - giving a voice to those involved. They have a website that can be read in English, French and Swahili, and they are asking for people to sign their petition. Hopefully, that is a first step among many we can take.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Does this one seem a little familiar? How different is this really from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" One of the reasons that line from the US Declaration is so popular is that in those seven words, so much is encompassed. What shocks me is that we claim these as rights in the US - they are in fact "self-evident" - but yet on the whole we don't react very much when we realize others do not have these rights.
Because Article 3 encompasses so much, there are so many current events that demonstrate how many people don't have these rights (for example, genocide in Darfur, conflict in Somalia, and political oppression in Burma). So I will start with one that particularly effects me: sexual violence against women.
I went to a panel discussion tonight that was raising awareness of the epidemic of rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What struck me about the panel was that I was the only male audience member there. Granted, that could be just because of how the event was advertised and which groups were notified. But even looking beyond this event, the response and efforts of ending the sexual violence and getting help for those already affected seems to be coming more from women's groups. While there seems to be a lot of ambivalence to go around, I still can't fathom how this could possibly be an issue that affects one gender more than another. Everyone needs to step up and get more involved in this issue, but men especially need to be more outraged.
For those of us that are outraged, the effort that was announced tonight is a great place for us to start working to end the rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The group is called Congolese Women's Campaign Against Sexual Violence in DRC. This effort allows Congolese women to tell us what they need - giving a voice to those involved. They have a website that can be read in English, French and Swahili, and they are asking for people to sign their petition. Hopefully, that is a first step among many we can take.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sounds Good
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
This article seems to beg that we talk about the status of Palestine or even Palestinian refugees. Even though I enjoy a healthy debate, I actually think I am going to sidestep that topic right now. Instead, I want to discuss the implications of this article as it relates to state sovereignty. As it stands, the United Nations respects sovereignty seemingly above all else. We can see this right now in Sudan, where the government is doing all it can to prevent or stall the United Nations peacekeeping force. As the government in Khartoum obstructs this effort, the UN has little recourse.
Article 2 says that all people are entitled to the protections laid out under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without distinction made on the basis of the status of the country or territory. So the people in the Darfur region of Sudan are surely entitled to those protections. But as long as Sudan is allowed to prevent UN peacekeeping efforts, the people of Darfur are not actually being protected by the UDHR. So arguably, they are not entitled to the protections because of their status as residents of Sudan.
When the world has the will, it can ignore sovereignty claims. NATO bombed Serbia to protect ethnic Albanians and the US protected the Kurds after the first Gulf War (granted that was after the genocide had happened). But we can't continue to rely on the whim of the US or NATO to protect people that the UN can't reach because they live in a country that won't let peacekeepers in. In order to follow the spirit of Article 2, state sovereignty needs to take a back seat to protecting the universal rights of all people.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
This article seems to beg that we talk about the status of Palestine or even Palestinian refugees. Even though I enjoy a healthy debate, I actually think I am going to sidestep that topic right now. Instead, I want to discuss the implications of this article as it relates to state sovereignty. As it stands, the United Nations respects sovereignty seemingly above all else. We can see this right now in Sudan, where the government is doing all it can to prevent or stall the United Nations peacekeeping force. As the government in Khartoum obstructs this effort, the UN has little recourse.
Article 2 says that all people are entitled to the protections laid out under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without distinction made on the basis of the status of the country or territory. So the people in the Darfur region of Sudan are surely entitled to those protections. But as long as Sudan is allowed to prevent UN peacekeeping efforts, the people of Darfur are not actually being protected by the UDHR. So arguably, they are not entitled to the protections because of their status as residents of Sudan.
When the world has the will, it can ignore sovereignty claims. NATO bombed Serbia to protect ethnic Albanians and the US protected the Kurds after the first Gulf War (granted that was after the genocide had happened). But we can't continue to rely on the whim of the US or NATO to protect people that the UN can't reach because they live in a country that won't let peacekeepers in. In order to follow the spirit of Article 2, state sovereignty needs to take a back seat to protecting the universal rights of all people.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Book Reports 1 & 2: On Development
Recently I read two books on development, and before I forget much of what I read, I think I ought to write a review on each of them.
First I read The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier. His book chronicled his seemingly exhaustive research on correlations between the countries with the most extreme poverty. Of the main risk factors for extreme poverty, being landlocked, having recently experienced conflict, and being a single commodity exporter (like oil or diamonds for example) all seemed to me to be the most important.
Overall, I thought the book was informative, but not inspiring. In fact, his tone seems to be pretty pessimistic. He believes that the extreme growth in Asia in the past couple decades was due to, not only their access to ports, but also their labor price advantage compared to previous labor markets. His diagnosis therefore is that countries in Africa do not have comparative advantages to Asia and cannot expect similar growth even if their countries could be stabilized and infrastructure built to ports in other countries.
In the end, much of his research is convincing. The problem though is that I don't feel much urgency in his voice. On top of that, his only focus is how to improve growth. This is something we should work towards, but with so many people facing such extreme crises, I think we need to focus on improving short term efforts to alleviate suffering while we wait for their economies to expand.
More recently I read The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. Although he also recommends increasing growth, Sachs is inspiring and impatient. He thinks we can end extreme poverty in our generation as long as we actually follow through on promises we have already made - namely 0.7% of GDP for foreign assistance.
His proscriptions are extremely thorough, and you only wish the world would follow through. Looking at the landscape of current development movements, it seems as though at least two of his biggest recommendations are being acted on; help fighting malaria (including work on vaccines, increasing availability of bed nets, and better access to treatment), AIDS, and tropical diseases as well as debt forgiveness (he does a great job of showing why this is so important) are big issues right now. With any luck, two of his other big recommendations - drastically improving infrastructure so that landlocked countries can have access to ports and increasing agriculture production - are hopefully not far behind (and this article on Malawi shows how one country has made strides on this last point).
Overall, his analysis is even more convincing than Collier's. The countries that still experience extreme poverty do so because of tropical diseases, food scarcity caused by low agriculture output, and lack of access to ports. Each of these things can be corrected. And he really reinforces the reality that in a world with as much wealth as there is, extreme poverty is unacceptable.
Between the two books, there are some valuable lessons to take away. From Paul Collier, I have been further convinced that we need to be more involved to permanently end conflicts. Places like Somalia, Congo, and Afghanistan continue to fall back into conflict in another form of poverty trap (and in each of these countries, they risk pulling their neighbors back into those traps as well). Ending this poverty trap is one step to improving the lives of those caught in patterns of famine and disease. Both Collier and Sachs talk about the problems facing landlocked countries - and infrastructure and inter-country agreements can help with some of that. And finally, improving health and food production are extremely important.
First I read The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier. His book chronicled his seemingly exhaustive research on correlations between the countries with the most extreme poverty. Of the main risk factors for extreme poverty, being landlocked, having recently experienced conflict, and being a single commodity exporter (like oil or diamonds for example) all seemed to me to be the most important.
Overall, I thought the book was informative, but not inspiring. In fact, his tone seems to be pretty pessimistic. He believes that the extreme growth in Asia in the past couple decades was due to, not only their access to ports, but also their labor price advantage compared to previous labor markets. His diagnosis therefore is that countries in Africa do not have comparative advantages to Asia and cannot expect similar growth even if their countries could be stabilized and infrastructure built to ports in other countries.
In the end, much of his research is convincing. The problem though is that I don't feel much urgency in his voice. On top of that, his only focus is how to improve growth. This is something we should work towards, but with so many people facing such extreme crises, I think we need to focus on improving short term efforts to alleviate suffering while we wait for their economies to expand.
More recently I read The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. Although he also recommends increasing growth, Sachs is inspiring and impatient. He thinks we can end extreme poverty in our generation as long as we actually follow through on promises we have already made - namely 0.7% of GDP for foreign assistance.
His proscriptions are extremely thorough, and you only wish the world would follow through. Looking at the landscape of current development movements, it seems as though at least two of his biggest recommendations are being acted on; help fighting malaria (including work on vaccines, increasing availability of bed nets, and better access to treatment), AIDS, and tropical diseases as well as debt forgiveness (he does a great job of showing why this is so important) are big issues right now. With any luck, two of his other big recommendations - drastically improving infrastructure so that landlocked countries can have access to ports and increasing agriculture production - are hopefully not far behind (and this article on Malawi shows how one country has made strides on this last point).
Overall, his analysis is even more convincing than Collier's. The countries that still experience extreme poverty do so because of tropical diseases, food scarcity caused by low agriculture output, and lack of access to ports. Each of these things can be corrected. And he really reinforces the reality that in a world with as much wealth as there is, extreme poverty is unacceptable.
Between the two books, there are some valuable lessons to take away. From Paul Collier, I have been further convinced that we need to be more involved to permanently end conflicts. Places like Somalia, Congo, and Afghanistan continue to fall back into conflict in another form of poverty trap (and in each of these countries, they risk pulling their neighbors back into those traps as well). Ending this poverty trap is one step to improving the lives of those caught in patterns of famine and disease. Both Collier and Sachs talk about the problems facing landlocked countries - and infrastructure and inter-country agreements can help with some of that. And finally, improving health and food production are extremely important.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Freedom, Security and False Dichotomy
The principle of freedom and equality stated in Article 1 of the UDHR constitutes one of the core elements of the international human right law. Although, this was not a new concept- ancient Greek philosophers wrote extensively about the rule of law and individual’s freedom- the Declaration was the first international human rights document that included both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.
The 60th Anniversary of this revolutionary document makes me reflect on the state of human rights in the world today and the leadership void. The United States has been a champion of human rights. Yet, Washington’s credibility as a proponent of human rights has been diminished drastically by the practices used in the “war on terror.” The threat of terrorism has resurrected the unthinkable subject of the legitimacy of torture. Bush administration’s engagement in rendition programs, the use of abusive interrogation techniques, and stripping Guantanamo Bay detainees- and any other non-citizens declared to be an “enemy combatant” of the habeas corpus effectively limited the United States’ role as a human rights defender. The administration’s strategy of sacrificing human rights in the name of protecting global security is based on a false dichotomy.
Unless the US restores its moral ground, there is a desperate need for a new leader that would stop the atrocities that take place around the world every day, every second.
The disregard of international law by many democratic governments, the unimaginable abuses in Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and many other countries, the disappointment of the Human Rights Council – we still have a long way to go…
The 60th Anniversary of this revolutionary document makes me reflect on the state of human rights in the world today and the leadership void. The United States has been a champion of human rights. Yet, Washington’s credibility as a proponent of human rights has been diminished drastically by the practices used in the “war on terror.” The threat of terrorism has resurrected the unthinkable subject of the legitimacy of torture. Bush administration’s engagement in rendition programs, the use of abusive interrogation techniques, and stripping Guantanamo Bay detainees- and any other non-citizens declared to be an “enemy combatant” of the habeas corpus effectively limited the United States’ role as a human rights defender. The administration’s strategy of sacrificing human rights in the name of protecting global security is based on a false dichotomy.
Unless the US restores its moral ground, there is a desperate need for a new leader that would stop the atrocities that take place around the world every day, every second.
The disregard of international law by many democratic governments, the unimaginable abuses in Darfur, Burma, Sri Lanka and many other countries, the disappointment of the Human Rights Council – we still have a long way to go…
Equal in Dignity
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This first article, with the phrase, "Equal in dignity and rights" tempts me to write a long tirade against American foreign policy. Our decisions in Iraq and Pakistan make it plain that we don't see the world the way this article asks us to. Iraqis aren't equal in dignity if we aren't concerned enough about their deaths to have an accurate count. And Pakistan isn't equal in dignity if we are happy to support a president who is eroding democracy because he supports our "Global War on Terror".
But instead, maybe it would be more fun to start off our celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a more idealistic tone. So maybe we could right now imagine what the world would look like if our governments really did believe that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
As I close my eyes, I see a world that lives up to its promise of troops and support in Darfur - a world that is truly committed to preventing genocides, like those of the Armenians in Turkey, the Holocaust, in Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Kurds in Iraq. I see a world that moves immediately to crisis like the ones in Congo, Somalia, and Kenya. And I see a world that starts a project on the scale of the Marshall Plan to help move Afghanistan from a country of perpetual war and refugee crises, to one that might be stable and without extreme poverty. Finally, I see a world that uses all available resources to end extreme poverty.
What do you see?
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
This first article, with the phrase, "Equal in dignity and rights" tempts me to write a long tirade against American foreign policy. Our decisions in Iraq and Pakistan make it plain that we don't see the world the way this article asks us to. Iraqis aren't equal in dignity if we aren't concerned enough about their deaths to have an accurate count. And Pakistan isn't equal in dignity if we are happy to support a president who is eroding democracy because he supports our "Global War on Terror".
But instead, maybe it would be more fun to start off our celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a more idealistic tone. So maybe we could right now imagine what the world would look like if our governments really did believe that, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
As I close my eyes, I see a world that lives up to its promise of troops and support in Darfur - a world that is truly committed to preventing genocides, like those of the Armenians in Turkey, the Holocaust, in Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, and the Kurds in Iraq. I see a world that moves immediately to crisis like the ones in Congo, Somalia, and Kenya. And I see a world that starts a project on the scale of the Marshall Plan to help move Afghanistan from a country of perpetual war and refugee crises, to one that might be stable and without extreme poverty. Finally, I see a world that uses all available resources to end extreme poverty.
What do you see?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)