Can there be forgiveness of LRA?

A recent Christian Science Monitor article by the long-time Africa-watcher, Abraham McLaughlin reports on the return of former LRA fighters to their villages. Can there be reconciliation in Northern Uganda? Is the International Criminal Court necessary? Will the inditements against Joseph Kony (picture above), the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, and Vincent Otti (the second in-command) help the peace process or harm it? Will it help bring an end to the 20 year conflict or will it prolong it? Will it bring justice for those who lost their lives?
Is peace within reach?
The jury is still out on that, but maybe we can learn something from the Ugandans' willingness to forgive...but not to forget?
(Picture uploaded from: pub.tv2.no)

Human rights do begin at home

A recent Christian Science monitor Op-ed piece really hammered it home for me: human rights do begin at home -- so does the work of human rights. Lisa Suhay who attended a talk by former high commissoner for the UNHCR, Mary Robinson, recognized that Robinson was right: you can't expect human rights to thrive in the rest of the world, if you don't even have it in your own backyard -- well that's not exactly what she said -- but that's my paraphrase. Robinson quoted one of my favorite heroes: Eleanor Roosevelt -- chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission of 1948: "Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? I small places, close to home -- so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works...Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world". Thanks for helping us re-think the terrible things that are going on in this world and what we should do...
(Picture uploaded from: cityguide.pojonews.com)

Could this Save the World....of Warcraft

or
Can Video Games Change How People Think?

I was reading the NY Times this summer and I saw an article about socially conscious video games and whether they can make a difference. The question was whether or not the video game industry has matured enough that they could present a subject like the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in a serious and probing matter like other forms of entertainment have been able to do.

Well from what I have seen so far from this game Peacemaker, I believe they could. Peacemaker is a political simulation that deals with the Middle East Conflict. A player can either choose to be either the Israeli Prime Minister or President of the Palestinian Authority. Once they choose sides they must attempt to secure the region and promote peace. The game has realistic actions and responses and can help explain to people a very complicated situation in an active and interesting way.

So. Can video games change the world? I don't know, but what I do know is I can't wait to see.

Air Torture

Wanna take a trip to an exotic destination... its free. All you have to do is disobey.

I was reading through the site and I saw that Amnesty International holds guerrilla theater performances in airports. Personally I find this to be quite effective and dramatic. Imagine yourself preparing to board an airplane when suddenly you see someone bound and gagged being transported through the terminal. This kind of protest works on two levels. The first is that it draws immediate attention. People do not know that this is staged. For all they know that person being dragged away is really going to be tortured. The second level is that protest and civil disobedience, is only effective if it is "dangerous" or illegal. Seeing a bunch of twentysomethings holding signs and shouting in the streets has been adopted into the political culture. It is not dangerous any more, the government, or whoever the protesters are protesting do not feel threatened (I am not speaking only about physical violence or property damage, the threatened feeling could simply be that there is some new and unexpected force counter to them).
The old forms of protest are tired and anticipated. For example, if anyone remembers both the Democratic National Convention and Republican National Convention, then you may remember the "free speech zones". The "free speech zones" were fenced in cages where legally permitted protest was allowed to occur. Since when does free speech reside in a cage? To me, anyone who "legally" protested in the cage was simply a tool. The real protesters where on the streets, they were among the cadres of both parties; they were acting outside the law and what was expected of them. The reason why the protest of the 60s and 70s where so effective was because it was unexpected and forceful. The Freedom Riders, the Lunch Counter Sit Ins, the campus take overs, all were illegal. These were the people who caused great change, not those who were simply willing to follow the rules and asked for their turn to speak. The people who make a difference demand their turn to speak, and that makes all the difference.

More Problems in Sudan

As if the situation in Darfur isn’t difficult enough, Sudan gave the top U.N. official in the country, Jan Pronk, three days to leave. The government of Sudan continues to undermine the international community’s efforts to bring peace to the region. Sudan expelled Jan Pronk for openly criticizing Khartoum (Sudan’s capital) and rebel groups on his web log. It’s quite disheartening that efforts to help with the genocide in Sudan are unsuccessful due to those contributing to the problem. Even the Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir refused a U.N. resolution approved on August 31st authorizing the creation of a more robust peacekeeping mission because it would violate his country’s sovereignty. Does Sudan have a right to claim sovereignty?

When measures are taken to the help with the situation in Darfur and eventually defeated, improving the situation becomes a challenge and near impossibility. Is there any hope for an end to the violence?

The Immigration Debate in Russia

We have spoken about the issue of immigration especially illegal immigrants in the United States. This post, however, is about the issue of immigration in Russia. The article I found on the NY Times website is about, in part, a man named Aleksandr A. Belov. He is the founder of an organization known as the Movement against Illegal Immigration. His main claim is that Russia, unlike the United States is not a nation built by immigrants. The post-Soviet generation in Russia, therefore, it seems trying to come to terms with its identity. Who is a Russian is an important question in this regard. What defines Russians-religion, ethnicity, nationalism?

Belov is of the opinion that Russia has never welcomed immigrants. However, the question is not just about Russia's identity. For the sake of argument, I am going to exclude illegal immigrants from this scenario. Therefore, what about those people who want to enter Russia, have all the requisite documents and are making use of legal means to enter the nation? Do we just ignore their right to migrate to Russia because Russia was not built by immigrants? Isn't freedom of movement a basic right? Is the us vs. them distinction so deep in Russia that there is not place for people who are ready to get into the country the "right" way?

The Military Commissions Act - an outrage on civil rights.

Remember that old saying innocent until proven guilty? Apparently there is no room in the War on Terror for such legal delicacy. Ever since 9/11, the Bush administration has incrementally eroded the rights of not only foreign terror suspects, but American citizens as well. I give you the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretapping (which is far more extensive than the administration admits) and now the Military Commissions Act. Under this bill, which Bush signed into law today, anyone he or Rumsfeld want can be detained indefinitely without charges and eventually tried by a military tribunal without even seeing the evidence against him. The text of this bill can be seen in part here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109xDe3kj:e8389:
and in entirety here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c1095sklM9::
In the first link, take note of Sec948d.(c), and below it note that punishment can include the death penalty. The courts can not even challenge this legislation. This is outrageous. Is the President unconcerned about how he will be remembered - as a war-monger, as a hypocrite, as a civil rights eroder? - or is this nothing more than an October surprise to remind his base about the nebulous War on Terror in order to fire them up for next month's elections? The President says "we do not torture," but after all the other lies and vagaries we have been fed, who really believes him?
In this class, we often focus on the plight of others in the third world, and they are certainly suffering rights infractions far greater than we are in this country, but at what point is enough enough? What will Bush do next in the name of "protecting the homeland" while we watch his wars on TV?
If the military commissions act doesn't concern you, what about a national ID card outfitted with RFID chips? What about the notion that speaking out against the government could be considered aiding terrorists and land you in one of these tribunals? This is just beginning and we should all be very concerned.

Is peacekeeping ineffective?

The genocide in Darfur has not only led to the deaths of many, but it has displaced numerous Sudanese. An article from the Washington Post mentions how the refugees in Sudan believe that an African Union peacekeeping mission is not providing protection. It is a problem that peacekeepers in Darfur are only there to monitor the violence and not fight it, similar to the U.N.’s presence in Rwanda. Therefore, many believe the African Union mission has been ineffective in protecting and improving the conditions of the refugees. At one of the refugee camps near Kassab, a health clinic had shut down, so refugees were forced to seek treatment from nearby towns. The female refugees are extremely vulnerable because they are exposed to robbery and rape while having to search for firewood and go to surrounding villages. Other refugees have trouble sleeping at night for fear they will need to flee at any instant.
Fighting between the Sudanese army and rebel groups has been ongoing sine 2003. After 3 years, the people of Sudan are still not safe. Even those seeking refuge are exposed to unsafe conditions. Should forces outside of the African Union be sent to Darfur? Or, should others ignore the situation in Darfur and let the Africans help themselves? Should we be allowed to sit around and let others suffer when the situation is not their fault? How is it that a peacekeeping mission does not provide the protection the Sudanese need? Is peacekeeping altogether ineffective?

Yunus’ Pay-It-Forward: Saving an economy with $12 loans

Who would have thought that opening a bank to provide loans to the poor of Bangladesh would end up winning the next Nobel Peace Prize? Here’s a perfect example of a small act of kindness going a very long way. When I first read this article, I could not help but think how impractical Muhammad Yunus’ idea must have seemed when he first decided to open a bank to provide loans to individuals that any rational bank would turn away. His first simple act of kindness was loaning $27 to 42 villagers near the University where he taught economics. This small act spurred the creation of the Grameen Bank, a bank devoted to providing microloans to Bangladesh’s poorest citizens. On the outside, a horrible business endeavor, but the potential for growth was more than any of his critics had expected. This reminded me of a past post on the Origin of the Paradoxical Commandments: The biggest men with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men with the smallest minds. Think big anyways. More so than his actual act of opening Grameen Bank, I find it admirable how he was able to persevere through constant criticism for something he believed was the right thing to do, even if it was not the most economical. Even within this one article, there is mention of Yunus’ critics on several occasions. I am glad he did not head their advice or else there would be 80,000 more beggars in Bangladesh than there are today.

World Day against the Death Penalty

10th October 2006, marks the fourth anniversary of World Day against the Death Penalty. This day was established by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, of which Amnesty International is a member. Pro-death penalty activists claim that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. However, according to Amnesty International, a September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty. Something else that jumped out at me was the fact, as AI states, that 97% of those awarded the death penalty worldwide come from the U.S., China, Iran and Vietnam.
This summer I interned with Amnesty International back home in New Delhi, and worked with them on their anti-death penalty campaign. AI says that 121 nations worldwide have abolished the death penalty in one form or the other and that 86 out of these nations have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Philippines in the latest addition to this list. However, both India and the United States retain the death penalty. I carried out extensive research on the use of the death penalty in India and found that while the government claims that it has executed 55 people since independence in 1947, the real figure is close to 1400. I found this information by collating lists from different prisons across the nations, spending time with death row convicts and meeting with members of the Law Commission. Something to think about...