Minerva, Fall 2011 - Citizens for Global Solutions

NOVEMBER 2011Minerva39Citizens for Global SolutionsWORLD FEDERALIST INSTITUTE2 – 4 – 6 – 8 ~ CONGLOBATE!1 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

In this issue:3 • EDITORIAL COMMENT: First & Goal Thesil Morlan10 • BOOK REVIEW: Power and Arrogance David ShorrThe End of Arrogance: America in theGlobal Competition of Ideasby Steven Weber and Bruce Jentleson13 • The New Road to Europe: Mary KaldorWays Out of the Hydra-Headed CrisisMinervaThis twice-yearly collation, provided bythe World Federalist Institute of Citizensfor Global Solutions, is named in honor ofone of the four women signers of the UNCharter, Minerva Bernardino (1907–1998),who helped found the UN Commission onthe Status of Women.15 • BOOK REVIEW: European Union & Global Union Ronald J. GlossopThe Uniting of Nations:An Essay on Global Governanceby John McClintock17 • Reform of the United Nations Security Council Myron W. Kronisch& General Assembly ~ A Step to Federation19 • The UN as Truth Commission Andrew Erueti20 • INTERVIEW: The Big Picture Joanna RiceRodolfo Stavenhagen, former UN Special Rapporteuron the Rights of Indigenous Peoples22 • Six Scenes of Endeavor Joshua Cooper1 - UN Expert Mechanism on Rights of IndigenousPeoples | 2 - ASEAN Civil Society Conference& Peoples’ Forum | 3 - UN Human Rights Council4 - UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues5 -Threatened Island Nations | 6 - UNSC & climate change33 • Traditional Values 65 NGOs36 • INTERVIEW: Human Rights, Fundamentalism, Cassandra BalchinPower and PrejudiceVijay Nagaraj, Director,International Council on Human Rights Policy39 • NOTES on Dehumanization and Extermination40 • The Trials and Tests Faced by R2P Rachel Gerber41 • ICC - Speech at Closing of Lubanga Trial Benjamin B. Ferencz42 • ICJ - War Crimes Reparation Right Amnesty International44 • Assertive Action To Protect — Without War Lucy Law Webster45 • REVIEW of 17 BOOKS: Eliminating Nukes James T. Ranney50 • Extreme Injury Elaine Scarry54 • NOTES & RESOURCESEditor:Thesil MorlanPO Box 397Waldoboro, ME 04572Tel & Fax 207-832-6863E-mail: thesil@midcoast.comwww.globalsolutions.org/wfi/minervaEditorial Advisory Board:Robert EnholmRonald GlossopScott HoffmanTo help support Minerva, please considermaking a donation to the CGS EducationFund: 418 7th Street, SE, Washington DC20003. Thank you.Information cut-off for this issue:1 November 2011Submission deadline for next issue:1 March 2012Citizens for Global Solutions promotesdiscussion of global issues; the views presentedin Minerva are the authors’ own.COVERS - Front: UNWRA’s Gaza SummerGames, involving a quarter millionchildren, 30 June 2011 (UN Photo/ShareefSarhan); Back: women observe Eid al-Fitrin Dili, Timor-Leste, 1 October 2008 (UNPhoto/Martine Perret); Back cover quotationfrom A Thousand Times More Fair –What Shakespeare’s Plays Teach Us AboutJustice, by Kenji Yoshino (Ecco, 2011)2 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

First & GoalEven euphoria isn’t what it used to be.Remember a now fallen Football Hall ofFamer, as a giddy young running back,telling a post-game interviewer that he’dbeen enjoying “a metaphoric moment inthe locker-room”? Perhaps Minerva hasbeen suspiciously deficient in sports metaphors.Let’s tackle that.I was surrounded by football as a child(even though my father and mother preferredtennis and lariat twirling, respectively).In a warm climate, our familylived near an open-air football stadiumthat served the local college and highschool — whose season seemed to runmost of the year because a large stateboasts many layers of playoffs — andwhere the nearest professional teamhad its summer training camp. Night afternight, I eventually fell asleep to thesounds of play-by-play from the publicloudspeaker and organized cheers fromthe stands. “PUSH ’em back, PUSH ’emback, WAAAY back!” echoed through myslumbers. 1 “2-4-6-8 — DECIMATE!”Although I don’t claim this as a corruptinginfluence, I’m consequently not surprisedto live in a society that loves tochant “We’re number one!” on the sidelinesof games and battlefields. I’m confounded,though, by American culture’ssimultaneous fostering of reluctance tochoose superior representation in its politicalsystem. We are hobbled by smuglyasserting fictive superiority while mockingand tearing apart any discernible signsof excellence in political policy-makingor leadership.exceptionalismThe strands of our so-called exceptionalisminclude not only that conflicted claimof national superiority (oddly, furtherhardened and undermined simultaneouslyas factions haggle over which side ismore to blame for decline!) 2 but also: exceptionalismas a measure of lapse fromfoundational ideals, as a prod to improvementin that regard, or as an excuse foralleging that emergencies supersede adherenceto tradition or to the rule of law;and the assertion that international law orglobally accepted standards do not applyto a self-proclaimed virtuous country, entitledto special status.Despite the usual terminology, exceptionalistattitudes are not exclusively American.Several strands are tangled in wayspeculiar to each nation, and are sometimesmatted over broader turf, such as ahemisphere or the realms called “GlobalNorth” or “South”. There are even competingproclamations that “the West” isbest at deteriorating!But the USA does specialize in an exceptionalistoutlook that tends to be experiencedby others as at least ignorant,at worst predatory. At home, “[t]hat thecommon good requires such exceptionalismhas been so taken for granted as to notneed acknowledgment,” observes JamesCarroll, though the US Congress recentlyaimed “to convert informal understandinginto official legislation” in a provision ofthe National Defense Authorization Act“expand[ing] boundaries of America’smilitary mission in the world” by stretchingthe notion of our targetable enemy toinclude not only those who “committed oraided” the 2001 attacks but also forces allegedly“associated” with designated antagonists.Although this language affirmswhat already has become practice, saysCarroll, “more than policy is at stake. Thelaw after 9/11 made an implicit claim toglobal force projection based on an emergency;the new legislation would explicitlyreject any time or place limitations onthat force. In other words, a seeminglysubtle shift marks a movement from theexceptional to the threshold of normal.There is a word for the realm into whichthat threshold opens: The legislation is astep toward an open declaration of Americanempire.” Carroll comments that, evenif instances of “‘invited’ US imperialism[are] mainly benign (which requires leavingaside questions of unfair economicstructures abroad, and dehumanizing effectsof garrison culture at home)”, andeven if “contemplated expansions of …belligerence may successfully defangterrorism (instead of sparking it), … themore far-reaching consequence of 21stcenturyAmerican empire will be the finaldestruction of authentic internationalism— nations bound by the power of agreed3 • Minerva #39 • November 2011democratic law, cross-border systems ofchecks and balances, all abiding by thesame rules, mutually enforced. The destruction,that is, of the only world with ahope of real peace and justice.” 3Decrying “America’s Selective Vigilantism”4 , Tariq Ali complains that, “notwithstanding”Euro-American liberal andconservative governing elites’ “pious renunciationsof terrorist violence …, theyhave no problems in defending torture,renditions, targeting and assassination ofindividuals, post-legal states of exceptionat home so that they can imprisonanybody without trial indefinitely”, whilemost citizens “avert their gaze from thedead, wounded and orphaned” afar.Even if one (a) acknowledges that humanitarianimpulses inevitably may bemixed with impure thoughts, that humanitarianexcuses often are merely addedon officially to crasser projects, or that“great-power logic soon overwhelms thehumanitarian rationale for intervention”,as Walden Bello complains 5 , but (b) doesnot go so far as to agree with Tariq Alithat NATO intervention in Libya intended“to bring the Arab rebellions to an end byasserting western control, confiscatingtheir impetus and spontaneity”, and that“the frontiers of the squalid protectoratethat the west is going to create are beingdecided in Washington”, it is painfullyobvious that our infamous cultural exceptionalismis riddled with delusions thatare dangerous for all.The delusion of being Number One, deploredby some as obnoxious and selfdefeating,diagnosed by others as a frenzycovering anxieties about being sidelined,might also sometimes be considered a bitof relief in the midst of seemingly interminablevicious squabbles — evidence thatwe can conceive of banding together afterall. But as long as this involves pushingeveryone else back — or ignoring theirexistence — it obviously doesn’t advanceus down the earth-wide field toward anydesirable, or even recognizable, goal.Political theorist Benjamin Barber 6 mocks“the American exceptionalist claim that‘We’re Number One’, when as measuredby far too many key indicators we are

actually closer to being #10 (social mobility)or maybe #34 (infant mortality)or dead last — pun intended — in thepercentage of our population we incarcerate”.He angrily challenges “the complainerswho deny the public good andinsist government is a wastrel” to “makeup their minds: do they want the UnitedStates to be a third class mini-state with afourth class public sector? In which casethey can … stop pretending we’re numberone and admit we’re actually a drop-out.Or they can try to give some substance totheir boasting and take steps to maintainour global leadership. In which case theyneed to be revitalizing and growing thepublic sector they are currently devastating.”Instead of hypocritically destroyingdemocratic governance, he argues,we need to learn to “share our commonwealth”and enable farsighted leadershiptoward that end. Unless we’re intent onstaggering backward while shoutinglouder about being number one. 7While Barber was calling for “salvagingAmerican leadership at home andabroad” last summer (“We’re Number34!”), Steve Clemons was blogging 8 froma conference in Aix-en-Provence, organizedby Le Cercle des Economistes tograpple with “The State of the World”. In“a session exploring the growing tensionbetween political rather than economiczones and whether ‘states’ were back orstill getting fuzzed up by various transnationalsaboteurs”, his New America Foundationcolleague Parag Khanna 9 “said thatglobalization is not a trend that can justbe quickly turned on and off. He thinksglobalization is a much longer, deeperprocess stretching back a thousand yearsin which the Silk Road was an early partof the platform. Khanna said we are ‘nowentering a phase in which globalization isreally global’ and that it can’t be slowedby the fiscal straits of a few of the largerdeveloped countries. … [He] also saidthat nation states as the term of unit inthe international system was being underminedby ‘Four C’s’ -- Countries, Cities,Companies, and Communities. Hebelieves that these groupings will shareauthorities, overlap, and intensify theircommunication and coordination in waysthat don’t depend on the state for intermediation.”10 These shifts are exposinglimits of patchwork international law aswell as of national prerogatives.commonwealWhile people continue, deliberately and/or by default, to sort out Khanna’s crisscrossed“Four C” categories and formteams from them, vast exigencies pressureus all, threatening our lifesaving sense ofa 5th C: the Commonweal. Rescuing thismay require some rehabilitation of bodiespolitic, large and small — identifyingessential values, acknowledging sharedrights and responsibilities, and poolingsovereignty for the sake of better selfgovernmentat all levels.The holes in this early 21st-century 5th C,the Commonweal, are lined with mindbogglingnumbers: the bewildering calculationsof the financial & economiccrisis; the alarming statistics of populationgrowth, disappearing species, andclimate change; the staggering numbersof migrants, asylum-seekers, camp-boundrefugees, slum dwellers, child soldiers,victims of famines, disease, disasters,ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity,war crimes, and genocide. And, lurkinganywhere, even where least expected(as in Norway) the “one of us” — eachunaccounted for, in numbers and linkagesunknown — who can go rogue to maimand kill in the grip of an extreme ideologyor misunderstanding or perverse impulse.scrimmageThough feeling overrun and nearly overwhelmedby the piling on of these numbers,we have realized that we have tostart somewhere to interrupt their patterns— such as committing to the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) 11 , the InternationalCriminal Court (ICC), the principleof the Responsibility to Protect (R2P),an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to reducethe supply of small arms to human rightsabusers, and the proposed UN EmergencyPeace Service (UNEPS), designed tocomplement existing peace operations— even though all of these measures arediscouragingly clumsy at this early stage,without having all the necessary equipment,and without our having learned allthe necessary implementing skills yet.4 • Minerva #39 • November 2011As Citizens for Global Solutions CEODon Kraus points out, when stressing theneed for “a global 911 service that canrapidly, credibly and legitimately respondwhen a government uses its military toviolently smash peaceful protest” (UN-EPS) 12 , “you can’t protect babies from30,000 feet nor should this be the job ofthe US and its allies alone”. 13 Carrying thelatter proviso a step further, so that “militaryunits belonging to hegemonic powers— in particular, the United States andNATO — must not be allowed to participatein … intervention”, is one of WaldenBello’s five guidelines for considering alegitimate intervention (and only in “theexceptional case of genocide being carriedout by a government”) 14 . His first twocriteria, usually considered grimly late inan emergency, are that “the evidence forgenocide must be substantial” and “theintervention must be a last resort, after allefforts at stopping the genocide by diplomacy,military export bans, and economicsanctions have failed”. He scarcely mentionsthat the R2P principle also grappleswith thresholds and the right moment ofa last resort. Third, “the UN General Assembly,not the Western-dominated SecurityCouncil, must legitimize the intervention”.He does not specify whether thiswould be in the “Uniting for Peace” modeor require a different mechanism. Finally,“the expeditionary force must aim onlyat stopping the genocide, must withdrawonce the situation has stabilized, and mustrefrain from sponsoring and propping upan alternative government and engagingin ‘nation-building’.” Defining and securingthe stability is left an open question.Obviously, Walden Bello is discussingonly one kind of intervention. But hisopening sentence equates it with a narrownotion of R2P: “Events in Libya andSyria have again brought to the forefrontthe question of armed humanitarian interventionor the ‘responsibility to protect’.”And the scheme he outlines seemsstrangely sanitized. Atrocity reaches acalculable level, is duly stopped, and thescene magically clears itself. Instead,as Rachel Gerber observes, “Far from achecklist that mandates uniform action,R2P is a dynamic policy framework thatis meant to twist, bend, and adapt as bestit can to the complex realities of the world

it hopes to improve. Beyond Libya andSyria, it informs many and diverse approachesto crisis, each of which gives ita chance to prove its mettle in the longrun.” 15 She warns that “military responsesin Libya and Côte d’Ivoire have come todominate current political discourse onthe ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) ina way that threatens to detract from themuch broader role the international communitycan and should play in preventingmass atrocity crimes.” 16 And, as noted frequently,prevention includes peacebuildingand other kinds of capacity-buildingin the aftermath of previous crises. 17The UNEPS plan that Don Kraus promotes“calls for the UN to individuallyrecruit, train and employ 10,000-20,000personnel [others recommend differentnumbers] with a wide range of skills, includingcivilian police, military, judicialexperts and relief professionals. It is designedto ensure that missions would notfail due to a lack of skills, equipment,cohesiveness, experience in resolvingconflicts, or gender, national or religiousimbalance. With UN Security Council approvalin hand, this force would have thelegitimacy to enter countries in conflictand deter mass atrocities.” 18Writing in Tripoli of his tempered hopes& concerns for Libya, 19 Nicholas Kristofproclaims himself to be “a believer in humanitarianintervention to avert genocideor mass atrocities — when [as it seemedin Libya] the stars align …” — also a difficultcriterion to ascertain! But, recognizingthat “the question of humanitarian interventionis one of the knottiest in foreignpolicy, and it will arise again,” he hopesthat next time we remember, despite thequandary of Syria, “a lesson of Libya: Itis better to inconsistently save some livesthan to consistently save none.”Still, complacency about current halfmeasuresis as unwarranted as capitulationto dreaded doom. Even those of uswho try to avoid panicked retreat from it— and also reject rushing toward doomin anticipation of rapturous selective exemption— often find ourselves hobbledby arguments about incrementalist versustransformative strategies. Recognizingthat mixtures of both preferences riskconfusing people further, perhaps provokingeven more resistance to either course(or to both), we are daunted by the difficultyof finding a balance — of acceptable,practical, and motivational elements— that seems as elusive as the perfectionwe know is not possible.scrumMeanwhile, within mobilizations concerningspecific issues — nuclear weaponry,nuclear power, climate change, forexample — organizers warn that the natureof each overpowering danger meansthat “reality reality trumps political reality”,as Bill McKibben asserts concerningclimate change, since even projecteddevelopments short of the worst casescenario are cataclysmic, so time notonly should not, but cannot, be wastedon piecemeal fixes. 20 Others argue thatcoping with multiple crises precludes attemptingto master one deemed the mostdire while spurning small steps towardmitigating the rest.Similarly, the number of participants is indispute. Moisés Naím’s much-discussedrecommendation in Foreign Policy (2009)that for every global crisis we shouldsummon “the smallest possible numberof countries needed to have the largestpossible impact on solving a particularproblem” is countered by those whoworry with Lord Nicholas Stern, economistat the London School of Economics,that small agreements afford only the impressionof action, exposing everyone toone or another form of devastation. “Thescale of ambition should be commensuratewith the risks being managed, whichare enormous,” Stern says. 21Perhaps this blockage should send usdashing back to the gridiron, where asuccessful game-plan grinds out crucialinches mixed with bursts of yardage!As with arguments about increments andultimate goals, advancement stumblesover local or global focus, as if bothweren’t necessary. Actual problems withsome aspects of globalization — transnationallabor and migration issues, forexample— aren’t reduced by merely batteringstraw globalization from all sides.5 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Remedies may require more varieties ofglobalization, along lines such as thosedescribed by University of California historyprofessor Peter Baldwin, discussingthe globalization of universities in which“reciprocity is the key concept” (“TheNarcissism of Minor Differences”) 22 —by extending beyond trends in academiclife “a kind of intellectual Brownian motionacross the globe”.After all, a transformative movementneeds more than a roaring “wave” runningacross one side of a stadium, wheresolidarity is unremarkable. And solidarity,“in its mundane sense”, is “morallyneutral”, as Christopher Hayes remindsus. 23 “Union members refusing to cross apicket line exemplify solidarity, but so dowhite homeowners in a Chicago neighborhoodsigning restrictive covenants tokeep black families out. Sublime solidarity,on the other hand”, developing fromempathy, “embodies a powerful moralaspiration to realize the fundamental fellowshipof humankind.” J.A. Myersonreminisces that in 1968 “[s]ublime solidaritybound the sixty-eighters to one another.… What linked the[m], the criticalfactor that turned what might otherwisehave been disparate local movements intoa global revolutionary force, was solidarity.Solidarity has acquired near clichéstatus, but it remains an inestimably importantingredient in the struggle for freedom,justice and equality.” 24fanfareIs this fanciful? Or is a semblance of it revealedby fanology, which studies a spectrumof loyalties of varying intensities tolearn more about group identification ingeneral and about allegiance — which,in sports, does not depend on attachmentto a winning team 25 , nor is it strictly geographical.Researchers’ findings “point toa variety of factors that contribute to fanship,including our instinct for tribal affiliation,our desire to participate in tradition,and our hunger for compelling charactersand dramatic story lines,” reports LeonNeyfakh in extremely sports-consciousBoston. 26 “If tribalism and honor exert astrong pull, there may be an even morepowerful force at work in getting fansaddicted to teams: the human need for

narrative. Especially for franchises withlong histories, … a big part of what hooksfans—what pushes a casual fan deeperinto the spectrum—is the multitude ofstory lines that can be seen in longstandingrivalries, the career arcs of players,and of course, individual games.” And“narrative has a self-reinforcing property”:the more familiar one is with teamhistory and the more deeply one knowsa team, the better “you’re able to keeptrack of multiple story lines at once. …”This gives people a sustaining sense ofprogress (not mere static success or depressinglydistant promise of it). Whileaccommodating fans to unpredictability,it offers, notes Neyfakh, an enlivening hitof what sports experts call “eustress” —“the addictive combination of euphoriaand stress that grips fans”, with rewardsdelivered at irregular intervals.In this context, Adam Sternbergh 27 eventouts “the epic sports collapse” that “is tobe treasured, even more so than the improbablevictory. It’s more rare, and thereforemore precious. And it reaffirms theessence of why we root for a team in thefirst place. … It’s crushing, maddening,unfathomable — and yet it means nothing.… The epic collapse … is an opportunityto confront an event that’s bewildering inits unlikelihood and ruinous in its effect,yet to also walk away entirely unscarred.It matters, deeply, and yet it doesn’t matterat all. … At a time when much moredire collapses — financial, emotional,geopolitical, familial — are a frequentoccurrence or at least a consistent threat,the opportunity to experience and surviveone, however trivial or nonexistent therepercussions, is something to be valued,not lamented. It’s the one time you shouldreally be grateful for deciding to be a fan.… There is one demonstrable value to beinga sports fan. It allows you to feel realemotional investment in something thathas no actual real-world consequences.In any other contest (presidential campaigns,for example), the outcome can beexhilarating or dispiriting to its followersand, by the way, when we wake up thenext day, the course of history has beenchanged.”There are other risks, of course. 28 Unrulyfanatics abound. Weak characters whocan’t handle a heady mix of instant anddelayed gratifications can resort to hooliganism.More commonly, carelesslypoor fan manners are displayed. DanielE. Doyle Jr., who studies sportsmanship,cautions: “You have people who, emboldenedby the cover of the crowd, are ableto say anything and do anything withoutconsequences”, 29 as in other venues suchas the Internet.Corruption by peer pressure and manipulationsof fanhood to distract people fromthoughtfully asserting the responsibilitiesof citizenship are not the only factors tobe considered when gauging or endeavoringto engage public opinion, however.When it’s not going berserk, fandomrecognizes the precariousness of fortuneand security, the illusion of invincibility,the stimulation (though sometimes to excess)of opposition. Segments of a sportscrowd with different allegiances are similarlyengrossed in a partially meshed narrativeand equally vigilant for signs ofunfairness (though interpretations differ,of course), with acceptance (howevergrudging at times) of rules and referees.Flipping to the less trivial political protestversion of these tendencies, the “OccupyMovement” (for example) seems toinclude a mix of descriptive accounts ofstructural crises and angry objections togaming the system.So it may be possible to move beyondspasms of cheerleading to tap into certainfan capacities — particularly love ofnarrative 30 and fairness 31 — in ways thatrender tensions productive or rehabilitative,conducive to involvement in worldaffairs, while avoiding either paralyzingourselves with futile desire for total comityor destroying ourselves with enmity.Owning common heritage and destiny, weneed not anticipate perfectly integratedglobal brain circuitry or revert to the superiorcooperative finesse of slime moldcells. With today’s multiplicity of megaphones,global citizens — who realizethat we don’t have to think alike or loveeveryone to recognize that “we’re one!”— can lead and heed sustained summonsin support of the Commonweal: a humanehuman future.“2-4-6-8 — CONGLOBATE!”6 • Minerva #39 • November 2011ENDNOTES:1 - University of Chicago football cheer(late 60s):Themistocles, ThucydidesThe Peloponnesian WarX-squared, y-squaredH2SO4Who for? What for?Who we gonna yell for?Go Maroons!2 - More neutrally, Adam Gopnik comments:“There’s no pattern in history tocompare us to, because nothing like usever happened before. The lessons of declinismare manifold, but the central oneis that obsessively fretting about possibledecline can be a good way to produce it.… Whatever happens next, short term orlong, is likely to be more affected by accidentand by invention — and by newideas — than any trend now in sight. …Declinism is a bad idea, because no onecan have any notion of what will happennext. Yet the idea of our decline is emotionallymagnetic, because life is a longslide down, and the plateau just passedis easier to love than the one comingup” (“Decline, Fall, Rinse, Repeat — IsAmerica Going Down?”, The New Yorker,12 September 2011).Aside from the death link, Gopnik is notsurprised that many voters refuse to act to“maximize future utility” and even preferto ignore their own interests: “In the longstory of civilization, the moments whenimproving your lot beats out annoyingyour neighbor are vanishingly rare.”3 - James Carroll, Boston Globe, 16 May20114 - Tariq Ali, British/Pakistani politicalcommentator and editor of the New LeftReview, “America’s Selective Vigilantism”,The Guardian, 7 September 2011):“‘Sovereign is he who decides on the exception,’Carl Schmitt wrote in differenttimes almost a century ago, when Europeanempires and armies dominated mostcontinents and the United States was baskingbeneath an isolationist sun. What theconservative theorist meant by ‘exception’was a state of emergency, necessitated byserious economic or political cataclysms,that required a suspension of the constitution,internal repression and war abroad.”

5 - Walden Bello, Princeton-educatedFilipino political analyst & activist, politician,professor of sociology & publicadministration at the University of thePhilippines, Executive Director of Focuson the Global South (based in Bangkok),and Fellow of the Transnational Institute(based in Amsterdam), “The Crisis of HumanitarianIntervention”, Foreign Policyin Focus (“A think tank without walls”)- AProject of the Institute for Policy Studies,9 August 2011; his books include The Futurein the Balance: Essays on globalisationand resistance (2001)6 - Benjamin Barber, Distinguished Fellowat the Demos policy center, “We’reNumber 34!”, Huffington Post, 25 July20117 - On an index produced by law professor(and former administrator of the UNDevelopment Program and co-founderof the Natural Resources Defense Council)James Gustave Speth, among the 20major “advanced” countries, the US doesrank highest in the poverty rate, inequalityof incomes, prison population per capita,international arms sales, and failure toratify international agreements.Despite evidence of problems that he expectsto worsen or at least “continue tofester” for “the foreseeable future”, Speth(as quoted by William Fisher in a Truthoutop-ed ”American Exceptionalism”, 29August 2011) believes: “There is hope especiallyin three things. The decline nowoccurring will progressively delegitimizethe current order. Who wants an operatingsystem that is capable of generatingand perpetuating such suffering and destruction?The one good thing about thedecline of today’s political economy isthat it opens the door to something muchbetter. Second, people will eventually riseup, raise a loud shout and demand majorchanges. That is already happening withsome people in some places. Eventually,the chorus will grow to become a nationaland global movement for transformation.And third, Americans are already busywith numerous, mostly local initiativesthat point the way to the future.”8 - On Steve Clemons’ page for The WashingtonNote at The Atlantic, 9 July 20119 - Born in India, having grown up in theUnited Arab Emirates, New York, andGermany, and having been educated atthe London School of Economics andGeorgetown University, geo-strategistParag Khanna is, in addition to his positionas a Senior Research Fellow at theNew America Foundation, Senior Fellowat the European Council on Foreign Relations,Director of the Hybrid Reality Institute,and author of The Second World:Empires and Influence in the New GlobalOrder (2008) and How to Run the World:Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance(2011).10 - On another occasion (“InnovationAmidst the Wreckage of America’s Empire”,The Washington Note, 17 January2011), commenting on Parag Khanna’sHow to Run the World: Creating aCourse to the Next Renaissance, SteveClemons questions Khanna’s observationsabout “a much more complex …diffusion of actors and speeding up of internationalinteractions”, saying he thinks“the proliferation of large-scale NGOsand the surge of diplomatic activity by nationssuch as Brazil, South Africa, Turkeyand others may not be examples of the‘mega-diplomacy’ Khanna observes andadvocates but rather examples of whathappens when a hegemon collapses. Allof this seemingly rich and diverse activitymay be manifestations of America’sloss of control, its diminishment on theinternational stage — where other playersfill voids, co-opt parts of the sprawlinginfrastructure of America’s foreign policyframework, and test the reset boundariesof power in a world of US strategiccontraction. I fear that we won’t knowwhether the world we are moving intois more stable and better run given thisflood of new institutions and states intoglobal stewardship roles than that we hadin the past — but Parag Khanna seemsto embrace it.” Clemons thinks Americacan salvage some leverage, but “the juryis out on America being able to recreate aglobal social contract with other nationsand players in the international system…. [W]e may be as Khanna believes onthe way to some version of a neo-Medievalglobal arrangement, though the termis tough to use because it comes with somuch distracting baggage, but if we get7 • Minerva #39 • November 2011there — there’s no assurance of a Renaissanceat the other end.”See also Foundation on Economic Trendspresident Jeremy Rifkin’s new book, TheThird Industrial Revolution: How LateralPower is Transforming Energy, theEconomy, and the World. He summarizeshis thesis in a response to Huffington Postenvironmental reporter Tom Zeller, Jr. (26September 2011): “The Third IndustrialRevolution is the last stage of the greatindustrial saga and the first stage of theemerging collaborative era rolled together.It represents an interregnum betweentwo periods of economic history — thefirst characterized by industrious behaviorand the second by collaborative behavior.If the industrial era emphasized the valuesof rigid discipline and hard work, the topdownflow of authority, the importanceof financial capital, the workings of themarketplace and private property relations,the collaborative era is more aboutcreative play, peer-to-peer interactivity,social capital, participation in open commonsand access to global networks. …In the new era, providers and users aggregatenodally in vast networks and carryon commerce and trade in commercialarenas that function more like commonsthan markets. A more distributed and collaborativeindustrial revolution, in turn,invariably leads to a more distributedand collaborative sharing of the productivewealth generated by society. … Themetamorphosis from an industrial to acollaborative revolution represents one ofthe great turning points in economic history.”11 - Valdênia A. Paulino Lanfranchi, alawyer who grew up in Brazil’s favelas, isthe founder of the Sapopemba Center forHuman Rights in São Paulo and has takenpart in informal hearings with the UNGeneral Assembly concerning the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. In an interviewlast year (Amnesty International, TheWire, August/September 2010), she said:“Universal and indivisible human rightsis the only way to ensure the inclusionof marginalized and neglected groups inthe UN Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) process. A great portion of theworld’s population – the poorest in allcountries and the poorest countries –haven’t yet been significantly affected by

the efforts to achieve the MDGs. We willhave an estimated 1.4 billion people livingin slums in 2015. We are not dealingwith ‘minority’ groups here. Millions ofhomeless and landless people cannot be aminority. They can’t be left out. A holistichuman rights perspective must spur discussiontowards a new socially inspiredeconomic and political world order as theonly way to overcome poverty, hungerand disease and sustain common life onthis resource-limited planet. Such an immensetask will call for collective actionwell beyond 2015.”Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow of the Institute forPolicy Studies and the Transnational Institutein Amsterdam, argues that, insteadof searching for new strategies to achievethe Millennium Goals, the MDGs shouldbe re-construed as MDRs — MillenniumDevelopment Rights (YES! Magazine,27 September 2010). Then grim realitiescould be changed “through building anew internationalist movement, involvingcivil society AND governments AND theUnited Nations. And a movement basedon rights — with accountability whenthose rights are violated.”12 - Don Kraus, “The Arab Spring and aGlobal 911”, guest post on care2make adifference, 16 May 201113 - Don Kraus, The Global Citizen blog, 18 April 201114 - “With these guidelines,” assertsWalden Bello, referring to perspectivesattributed to the Global South, “very fewhumanitarian interventions would havequalified as valid and carried out legitimatelyin the last 40 years. There are perhapsonly two: the Vietnamese invasionto remove the blood-thirsty Khmer Rougefrom power in 1978 (though this lackedUN sanction) and the UN-led multinationalforce INTERFET that ended thegenocidal killings and deportations ofTimorese by Indonesian-backed militiasin 1999.”15 - Rachel Gerber, “The Trials and TestsFaced by R2P”, The Stanley Foundation’sthink., August 2011; reprinted here, page4016 - Rachel Gerber, “Mass Atrocities andthe International Community: The MultilateralFramework for Prevention and Response”,The Stanley Foundation’s think.,April 201117 - For example: the work of the UNbackedInternational Commission AgainstImpunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Createdin the fall of 2007, the CICIG is describedby David Grann (“A Murder Foretold —Unravelling the ultimate political conspiracy”,The New Yorker, 4 April 2011)as “a path-breaking political experiment.Unlike many truth commissions or humanrights bodies, it does not investigatewar crimes of the past, or merely monitorabuses. Rather, it aggressively fightsagainst systemic violence and corruption…. Composed of several dozen judges,prosecutors, and law-enforcement officialsfrom around the world, CICIGworks within Guatemala’s legal systemto prosecute members of organized crimeand dismantle clandestine networks embeddedin the state.”Thanks to national and international pressure,the Guatemalan Congress approvedthe International Commission AgainstImpunity in Guatemala on 1 August 2007.The CICIG is set up to support the PublicProsecutor’s Office, suggesting methodsof investigation and presenting evidence.The Public Prosecutor’s Office has ultimateresponsibility for deciding whetheror not to pursue an investigation. It is partlyintended to interrupt the operations ofclandestine groups that undermine respectfor the rule of law and human rights.8 • Minerva #39 • November 2011In a recent high-level case (Amnesty Internationalpress release, 26 November2010), the Guatemalan Public Prosecutor’sOffice brought charges against formerInterior Minister Carlos Vielman“and 19 individuals, some of whom arein custody, for their alleged participationin the extrajudicial execution of prisonersin several Guatemalan jails. These actionshave the support of the CICIG. FormerNational Director of Police Erwin Sperisen,currently resident in Switzerland, andother former officials are being investigatedover the killings of prisoners heldat two prisons in Guatemala in 2005 and2006.” Carlos Vielman was arrested on13 October in Madrid following a judicialrequest by the Guatemalan Public Prosecutor’sOffice, supported by the CICIG.He was released by the Spanish authoritieson 23 November, after Guatemalafailed to meet a deadline for filing theproper documentation for his extradition.18 - Don Kraus, care2make a difference,16 May 2011: “In the meantime the USshould support the deployment of UNpeacekeepers on the ground to protectcivilians; provision of food, water, medicineand shelter for displaced Libyans;and UN sponsored elections to bring democracyand a legitimate government.”19 - Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 7September and 31 August 201120 - Bill McKibben, Reader SupportedNews, 16 April 2011: “Climate change,above all issues, requires a transformativeand not an incremental vision. We havefundamental change to make, and a veryshort window to make it in — Obama’stypical (and often quite savvy) little-bitat-a-timeapproach doesn’t square withthe physics and chemistry that govern thisdebate.”21 - Naím and Stern, along with severalother debaters on this issue, are quoted byThanassis Cambanis, author of A Privilegeto Die: Inside Hezbollah’s Legionsand Their Endless War Against Israel, in“No Big Deal — The key to solving theplanet’s most daunting problems: thinksmall”, Boston Globe, 9 January 2011.22 - Peter Baldwin, “The Narcissism ofMinor Differences: How America andEurope Are Alike”, New York Times, 28November 201023 - Christopher Hayes, of The Nation,“In Search of Solidarity”, In These Times,3 February 200624 - Editor & artist J.A. Myerson, “‘ArabSpring’ Label Hampers Global Protests’Solidarity Potential”, Truthout, 9 July201125 - “For a team to be lovable, it helpsnot to be great or too great, but rather tohave a chance to win or get lucky,” saysLawrence Wenner, of Loyola MarymountUniversity, author of the MediaSport andformer editor of the Journal of Sport andSocial Issues (quoted in 26, below).26 - Leon Neyfakh, “How Teams TakeOver Your Mind”, Boston Globe, 24 April2011; see also: Sports and Their Fans, by

Kevin Quinn, on the tribal aspect; and, oninculcation processes, Fandom: Identitiesand Communities in a Mediated World,edited by Jonathan Gray27 - Adam Sternbergh, “The Thrill ofDefeat for Sports Fans”, New York TimesMagazine, 21 October 201128 - Seeking fans, while promising to increasethe size of the military by 100,000,Mitt Romney exclaimed in October to cadetsat The Citadel: “This century must bean American century. America leads thefree world and the free world leads the entireworld. God did not create this countryto be a nation of followers.”Andrew Bacevich lamented the increasinglydominant requirement of militaristicpiety in public life: “In his Citadel speech,Romney said nothing that a thousandpoliticians and pundits have not alreadysaid a thousand times and will say again.The significance of his presentation liesnot in its originality but in its familiarity”(“America: with God on our side”, LosAngeles Times, 16 October 2011).29 - Daniel E. Doyle Jr., executive directorof the Institute for International Sportat the University of Rhode Island, NewYork Times, 5 September 201130 - For example: “What matters [to thepublic] is the story of America, not theideological structure of American exceptionalism.”- Steven Knapp, president ofThe George Washington University, “TheEnduring Dilemma of the Humanities”,The Key Reporter, Summer 2011See also Vijay Nagaraj on the humanrights “counter-narrative” to religiousfundamentalisms, page 36 of this issue.31 - From Former Under SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations BrianUrquhart’s Afterword to Working Paper40 of the Brookings Global Economy andDevelopment program, Does FairnessMatter in Global Governance?, by HakanAltinay, a nonresident senior fellowwith that program: “A universal traditionof fairness and public spirit — a gloriousobjective — will not be created quicklyor easily. This is why the foundation fromwhich it can grow needs to be establishedas soon as possible. … Until the recognitionof the notion of human dignitybecomes universal rather than a distantaspiration, progress in establishing universalrespect for human rights will remainpartially unfulfilled, and the growthof a universal tradition of fairness will bestunted.“Anyone who has worked formany years in an admittedly flawed internationalsystem becomes accustomed tobeing called deluded, naïve or unrealistic.In the end, however, it is possible to lookback on a surprising degree of progressthat was difficult to discern at the time,sometimes toward objectives that werepreviously thought to be hopelessly unattainable.Fairness and civility are vastobjectives even for a single state, but ifwe pride ourselves on having achievedglobalization and a revolution in humancommunication, why should fairnessand civility not also be global objectives?Such vast objectives may neverbe altogether realized. They stand as aguide to behavior, a great work in continualprogress …”ïThe “nuclear football”— accompanying the US president —is housed in a modified Zero Halliburtonattaché case (Photo: John Caruso)9 • Minerva #39 • November 2011rugbyALTERNATIVESSecretary-General Ban Ki-moon, at thePacific Islands Forum summit meetingin New Zealand, just before the RugbyWorld Cup there (September 2011):New Zealand is the magnificent meetingground of both the world of diplomacyand the world of rugby. I have come torealize that those worlds are not as differentas you might think. In rugby, you loseteeth. In diplomacy, you lose face. Rugbyscrums confuse anyone who doesn’t knowthe game. So do UN debates. And sometimesthey can look very similar. And yet,in heart and spirit the Rugby World Cupis a celebration, a celebration of commonvalues and a way of life: teamwork, mutualrespect, solidarity. The qualities ofgrit and determination — all very useful,I have found, in the world of diplomacy.soccerI would rather lose as Scotland than winas Great Britain.~ Craig Brown,former Scotland manager who nowcoaches Aberdeen, expressing reportedlywidespread sentiment as to whether thereshould be a team of English, Welsh, Scotsand Northern Irish players at the Olympicsin London (The Guardian, mid-September2011)

From “Imperiled Revolutions”,by Stephen Eric Bronner(RSN Perspective, 24 June 2011) ~Stephen Eric Bronner is DistinguishedProfessor of Political Science and Directorof Civic Diplomacy & Human Rightsat the Institute for Global Challenges,Rutgers University, Senior Editor of Logos:A Journal for Modern Society andCulture, and author of Peace Outof Reach: Middle Eastern Travelsand the Search for Reconciliation,among other works.The Arab Spring was marked by spontaneousrevolts, lack of charismatic leaders,youthful exuberance, and disdain formore traditional forms of organizationaldiscipline. That is what made these revolutionsso appealing. Institutional obstaclesto democracy, however, requireinstitutional responses: speaking truth topower is no longer enough. Success nowhinges on the organization of power bythe former insurgents and their ability todeal with the armed forces, the bureaucracy,religious institutions and the globaleconomy. …Revolution is a daunting task,but running a country the day after is perhapsan even more daunting proposition.New liberal republics in economicallydisadvantaged circumstances will need tonavigate a swirl of conflicting economicinterests and illiberal institutional claims.These are not discrete concerns though, ineach circumstance, the art – not the science– of politics is required to providean integrated set of responses. Ignoringthe logic of power is no solution. Only byconfronting reactionary and exploitativeinterests with an eye privileging the commonneeds of the disenfranchised and theoppressed will a fresh breeze sustain theArab Spring.ïThe United States mustundoubtedly be more consciousof how it appears to others, lesspresumptuous about the advantagesit has enjoyed in the past,and more respectful of the needsand perspectives of other nations.Power and ArroganceBOOK REVIEW:The End of Arrogance:America in the Global Competition of Ideasby Steven Weber and Bruce JentlesonDavid ShorrApril 2011David Shorr is a program officer at theStanley Foundation and a member of theboard of Citizens for Global SolutionsEducation Fund. Co-editor of Bridgingthe Foreign Policy Divide (Routledge)and a contributor to the foreign policyblog Democracy Arsenal, he teachesUS foreign policy at the University ofWisconsin-Stevens Point.Reprinted from Policy Review,a publication of the Hoover Institution,Stanford University.The most interesting questions for US foreign policy are variants of the following:How much has the world changed? As America tries to prod world affairs along itspreferred trajectory, how has that task been complicated by new international realities?The debate over whether America is in decline misses the point. The signs of asignificant shift in international power are just too plain and numerous for anyone todoubt that the United States faces new challenges in exerting its influence. But again,this leaves plenty of open questions about the nature of those challenges.Steven Weber and Bruce Jentleson’s new book, The End of Arrogance: America in theGlobal Competition of Ideas, tackles these most basic issues head-on. The authors offera bracing assessment of the international environment US policymakers confront. Ifthe first step in overcoming any self-delusion is to recognize that you have a problem,Weber and Jentleson are trying to jolt America out of its self-absorption. Just to stretchthe analogy, consider the book an intervention — its authors giving tough love to fellowforeign policy thinkers who are addicted to an outmoded ideology of Americanleadership. They liken the delusion to the Copernican paradigm shift undercutting theimage of the earth at the center of the universe; the United States has lost its politicalgravitational pull.Putting it succinctly, the book answers this essay’s opening question by saying theworld has changed a lot more than we have admitted to ourselves. Assumptions aboutAmerica’s advantages are ripe for reexamination. The authors dissect even the milderconceptions of American exceptionalism. In other words, their critique covers conservativesand liberals alike.10 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Among their targets is the notion thatthe US political and economic modelfaces no significant rivals, because thesupposed contenders have such limitedappeal or applicability. The argumentis indeed familiar — and comforting inits reassurance. The Chinese dynamo ofexport-led state capitalism is very hard toreplicate. The Singapore model dependson its peculiar geography. FundamentalistIslam is too inhuman. Anti-Americanismis a purely negative phenomenon. American-styledemocracy and free marketsare dominant paradigms because no othersare as coherent or systematic or canmatch their record of success.But this is a false comfort, Weber andJentleson argue. The main fallacy —aside from the stubborn fact of China’seconomic success — is that only universallyapplicable, all-encompassing theoriescan contend as rivals. In other words,while America presumes that it has wonthe grand historical argument about governanceand economic management, wehave misunderstood how that argumentplays out in the real world of global politics.Resistance to American leadershipand the emergence of counter-argumentsdon’t need to be undergirded by fullyworkable ideologies.So it is a mistake to view American approachesas vying in a war of ideas, inwhich one model decisively vanquishesanother. And despite the use of the Copernicanrevolution as a reference point, thebook also warns against the image of scientificadvances, with theories gaining acceptancedue to their superior explanatorypower. A much better analogy for how itworks, say the authors, is the competitionof the commercial marketplace.In his recent state of the union address,President Obama adopted similar themesof American economic dynamism asstrengthening national competitiveness,but End of Arrogance is a methodicalreconception of US foreign policy challengesin terms of the global competitionof ideas. A main thread of the book is towarn against taking anything for granted,beginning with the “five big ideas [that]shaped world politics in the twentieth century”:the preferability of peace to war;benign (American) hegemony to balanceof power; capitalism to socialism; democracyto dictatorship; and Western cultureto all others. Jentleson and Weber portrayan international order that is up for grabsat the beginning of the 21st century. Theirclaim that nations and leaders are workingwith a clean slate probably overstatesthe case, but most of the book charts acredible course to renewed US globalleadership.The heart of the book’s first section describesessential market dynamics andkey principles:In a functioning modern marketplace ofideas, at least three things are true of atwenty-first-century leadership proposition.First, we offer, but they choose. Amarket leader is fundamentally more dependenton the followers than the followersare on the leader . . . Second, the relationshipsare visible and consistency isdemanded. Market leaders don’t dependheavily on private deals and subterfuge tohold their bargains in place . . . Finally,there is real competition. Markets are relentlessin their ability to generate newofferings.The authors describe some key challengesin the contemporary marketplace, all ofwhich lower the barriers to entry for ourcompetitors. They highlight the revolutionin information and communicationstechnology, demographic trends that fillmegacities with young people whoseworldview is non-Western, the openingsprovided by the diffusion of authority,and the permeability of national borders.The section concludes with a sobering assessment:In 2010, globally, there remains a deepskepticism about the proposition that theUnited States can be more powerful andthe world can be a better place at thesame time. The belief that these two thingscould be consistent or even reinforce eachother was the most valuable and preciousadvantage America had in the post-WorldWar II milieu. It has eroded and thatchanges the nature of ideological competitiondramatically. A new foreign policyproposition has to find a way to put thatbelief back into play.11 • Minerva #39 • November 2011A stark, yet apt, summary of our currentstrategic challenge.The book’s middle two chapters outlinethe substance of leadership propositionsthe United States could offer as a basisfor equitably just societies domesticallyand new political terms for internationalorder. Since the authors’ project is to shedthose conceits that represent the toughest“sell” for the hegemon, their leadershippropositions have a distinctly strippeddowncharacter. In place of democraticideology — electoral competition and thepopular mandate — the essential elementsof a just society are the empowerment ofpeople to lead fulfilling lives and protectionof the vulnerable, those buffeted byforces of rapid change such as extremeweather, industrial accidents, or spikes inthe price of staple foods.As the authors step out of ingrainedAmerican worldviews to gain perspectiveon democracy, they make a compellingpoint about the weaknesses thatothers perceive. After all, democracy isa decision-making process rather than atangible benefit for people’s lives. In thewide swath of the world where daily lifeis a grinding struggle, to idealize processand treat material conditions as secondaryand contingent must seem exotic.Just as the book proposes revised standardsof good governance, it issues asimilar challenge to recast the internationalpolitical order. Again the root ofthe problem is complacency; Americansare still trying to dine out on our authorshipof the post-World War II order whenthe resonance of that creation myth hasfaded. Rather than dismissing the merenotion that the postwar order could be (orhas already been) upended, we should tryto get out ahead of the revision process.One of the authors’ refrains is that whilethe US political elite is consoling itselfthat “there is no alternative”, much of therest of the world is insisting that “theremust be an alternative”.The leadership proposition that Weberand Jentleson put forward is a responseto the interconnected 21st-century world,and rightly so. The difficulty is that theprecursors for a peaceful and prosperous

order — which they identify as “security,a healthy planet, and a healthfully heterogeneousglobal society” — can onlybe achieved through combined effort.In other words, if all of the world’s keyplayers deal with the international systemby trying to maximize their own nations’benefits and minimize their contributions,the world as a whole could face a prettybleak future.As a key to spurring a more civic-mindedattitude from nations and their leaders,the authors offer an alternative to narrowand short-sighted conceptions of nationalinterest: the principle of mutuality. Whenpolicy-makers mull tough diplomaticcompromises or tithes they might contributetoward global public goods, theyshould use an accounting system thattakes a long view. They shouldn’t expectrepayment or benefits of equal value, butshould instead trust that if everyone doeshis part, “an ongoing set of mutualitymoves will roughly balance out the accountsand leave us all better off than wewere”.The book’s concluding chapter highlightsfour major foreign policy dilemmas thatwill test America’s international strategy.To stress the importance of those toughchoices, the authors give their thoughtson the discipline of strategy: “Anybodycan tell a story about the world they wantto live in. Strategy is the discipline ofchoosing the most important aspects ofthat world and leaving the other stuff behind.”As they see it, the trickiest questionshave to do with the proper role ofnonstate actors versus official authorities;multilateralism as a false panacea forinternational challenges; populist pressuresdemanding more than democraticgovernance and free markets can deliver;and the difficulty of reckoning short-termcosts in light of long-term risks (think climatechange).Here’s how I would answer my openingquestion about how much the world haschanged: not as much as Jentleson andWeber say it has. The End of Arroganceworks very well as a provocation, yet theauthors’ insistence that we are back to thedrawing board of a new global order is abit excessive. Their report of the postwarorder’s demise is greatly exaggerated.While it may be overly complacent to assertthat “there is no alternative”, it’s alsotoo early to declare the old rules invalid.Indeed, one of the book’s most dramaticclaims is to declare the very notion ofrules to be passé. In keeping with the ideaof a relentlessly competitive, constantlychurning marketplace, the new internationalorder consists of a stream of intergovernmentaltransactions. As the authorsput it, diplomatic deals are taking theplace of international norms at the heartof the system.If they’re right, the world has been turnedupside down, and most of us in the foreignpolicy establishment failed to notice it —international politics as a new global WildWest. Can that be right, though? I don’tthink so. It’s one thing to face up to thepolitical strains that indeed jeopardize thenorms put in place over the last 65 years,and yet another to declare that the old rulebooks have gone out the window.When Weber and Jentleson describe anew political system in which each nation’spolity and social order are beyondthe bounds of international relations, youhave to give them credit for practicingwhat they preach about strategic disciplineand abandoning secondary concerns. Inone section, they try to get a jump on theircritics with a preemptive defense againstcharges of betraying moral values. Theauthors insist that they fully share the valuesof liberty and democracy. It’s just thatthe authors’ own views — and by extensionthose of the American leadership andpublic — do not represent the weight ofinternational sentiment and therefore donot set the terms for the global politicalorder. As a matter of political assessment,they see only enough consensus amonggovernments for them to deal with oneanother as equally sovereign authoritiesin the international arena. Governanceprinciples for how they act within theirown borders are too divisive and controversialto serve as a basis for internationalorder.In such a system, would the United Statesbe compelled to back Hosni Mubarakto the bitter end? End of Arrogance waspublished before the recent protests in12 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Egypt, but the book says enough aboutthe hazards of getting involved in others’governance to allow for some extrapolation.Jentleson and Weber’s view doesn’tnecessarily imply unstinting support fora dictator faced with mass discontent.Given their emphasis on political realities,it would be surprising if the authorscalled on US policy-makers to ignore thewriting on the wall. Machiavelli himselfwould have recognized that Mubarak wasneither loved nor feared enough to retainpower.On the other hand, the authors’ viewsseem to align them with the series of USambassadors in Cairo who counseledagainst any serious pressure by Washingtonon Mubarak to reform Egypt’s politicalsystem. In other words, I interpret thebook as an argument for giving Mubaraka shove at the end, but not laying afinger on him before then. Among theircomments on democratic principles, theauthors remind us of the long record ofAmerican hypocrisy — the dictators supported,the democratically elected governmentsoverthrown. And remember,among their tenets of the marketplace ofideas is that a nation must be consistent toremain credible, given the market’s highdegree of transparency. The apparent answeris to give up any pretense of defendingdemocratic principles abroad.Given the scope and speed of change intoday’s world, it is highly useful to havea book that keeps us from being too comfortable.US foreign policy indeed confrontshard choices and trade-offs andmust do a better job in wrestling withthese dilemmas. Yet I have to ask whetherthis framework has boxed us in more thannecessary. Must the discipline of strategybe so stringent that second-tier concernsbe jettisoned rather than kept in proportion?Just because the norms of the oldorder have come under significant newskepticism and resistance, does that meanthey are null and void? Does the globalmarket demand such consistency that internationalpublics cannot understand thecompeting pulls of democratic principles,stability considerations, and power realities?[continued]

The protestors in Tahrir Square and elsewherein the Middle East, the indignadosin Spain and Greece or the wütburger inGermany, ... are experimenting with newsocial arrangements and new forms ofdiscursive democracy. But they need aninstitutional response. Change is blockedat a national level, the policies and assumptionsof the past are imprinted on thestructures of the nation-state and on theassumptions of national politicians. Somechange is possible at local and regionallevels but there also needs to be a globalagenda, especially in the fields of finance,security and environment.The hydra-headed crisis is also a Europeancrisis. The crisis of the euro, likethe wider financial crisis, is an expressionof deeper underlying factors. Yet theEuropean Union also could represent ananswer to the crisis. It has to go forwardsif it is not to go backwards. To save theeuro, policies will have to be adoptedthat could offer a model for the rest ofthe world. This may well not happen, ofcourse, but that is why activists and othersneed to campaign at a European level andnot just at local and national levels.The reason that the European Union containsthe seeds of a solution is because itis a new type of political animal. It originatedas a peace project, in reaction to twoworld wars and the holocaust. By trial anderror, it has developed as a new form oftransnational governance designed not todisplace the nation-state but to constrainits dangerous tendencies. It adds a newlayer of political authority rather than establishinga new pole of political authority.It is a multilateral institution but goesbeyond internationalism (between states)and possesses an element of supra nationalism(beyond states). It offers new possibilitiesfor public intervention that is notstate-based.In practice, actually existing Europe appearsvery different. Indeed, it seems to belittle more than a neo-liberal bureaucracy.As Pianta and Rossanda have shown, theneoliberal policies that underpinned theeuro have been immensely destructive insocial and economic terms. The LisbonTreaty was supposed to establish a moreunified political leadership but in fact itproliferated Presidents largely unknownto the public – the Union now has a Presidentof the Council, a rotating Presidencyof the Council, a foreign minister, a Presidentof the Commission, all appointedthrough a murky backstage method andfew European citizens are even awareof who they are. The result is a politicalvacuum made worse by a tendency fornational governments to blame Europefor their own incapacity to respond topopular demands.Yet precisely because the European Unionis new type of political animal it has thepotential to address some of the underlyingsources of the crisis in a way that isnot possible for nation-states. There is, ofcourse, a risk that the euro will collapseand that the EU will disintegrate. But inorder to forestall that possibility somechanges are happening almost by stealth.Eurobonds have, in effect, been createdby the decision to convert national debtto European debt. Almost unnoticed,President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkelagreed to a tax on financial transactions–something long demand by activists inthe social forums.At root the weakness of the Europeanproject was that it has always been anelite project. It lacks the social compactthat underpinned the state. The protestorsin different parts of Europe are howevermainly focussed on local demands, butthose local demands can only be met withina wider European framework. How canthe current popular mobilisation connectup and frame a European agenda? Suchan agenda might include:• A new fiscal mechanism that would raisetaxes at a European level – a tax on financialtransactions for example, and acarbon tax – and would increase spendingand redistribution at a European level.• A new social policy aimed at reducinginequality and promoting jobs, especiallyfor young people. Some have proposed aMarshall Plan for youth.• An economic strategy aimed at resourcesaving as opposed to labour saving thatwould be both economically and environmentallysustainable.14 • Minerva #39 • November 2011• A renewal of the peace project includingcosmopolitan citizenship, reaching out tothe new democracies in the Middle Eastthe way it reached out to Eastern Europe,and a human security rather than a nationalsecurity policy.• A reinvigoration of democracy both locallyand at European level — a widespreaddebate at local levels, in town hallsand public squares, as well as a way ofpublicly electing an accountable politicalleadership.Change of this kind in Europe could havefar reaching consequences for global arrangements.The EU is still the largestsingle economy in the world. But it lackspopular legitimacy. How can the road toEurope be reinvigorated from the bottomup? Is another Europe possible? A peacegreen-democratic-cosmopolitanEuropeinstead of a neo-liberal bureaucracy?The goal is to provide an institutionalmodel that could tackle the multiple crisesthat are piling up, that could channelthe new technologies into emancipatoryapplications, and that could address themismatch between pervasive changes insocial relations and the institutions of anearlier era. We need to reinvent the roadto Europe.ïAn international study, to which 21 universitiesworldwide contributed, considersthe potential for new states to emergein the EU, hypothesizing a “fourth waveof independence”. Enlarging democracyin Europe – New statehoods and processesof sovereignty was presented to theEuropean Parliament on 11 January, at theinitiative of Catalan MEP Oriol Junqueras.The study suggests, among other possibilities,Scotland, Flanders, the BasqueCountry, and Catalonia — all with theirown languages, past institutions, andother relevant social & historical factors(Agence Europe, 11 January 2011).

European Union and Global UnionBOOK REVIEWThe Uniting of Nations: An Essay on Global Governanceby John McClintockRonald J. GlossopOctober 2011World Federalist Institute FellowRonald J. Glossop is Professor Emeritusof Philosophy and Peace Studies atSouthern Illinois University at Edwardsvilleand author of Confronting War (4thed., 2001), among other books.The Uniting of Nations: An Essay onGlobal Governance, by John McClintock,Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang, 3rd ed, 2010“Nothing like a United States of Europehas ever been built before, a half-billionpeople brought together not throughconquest but by the idea of “ever closerunion”. In a way it’s an inspirationalblueprint for mankind; and so it wouldbe foolish to think it would go smoothly.Yes, the League of Nations collapsed,but it did lead to the United Nations. Theeuro may also unravel but the idea istoo good not to return in force. Betweenthe League and the UN lay catastrophe.From here to euro 2.0 is not going to bepretty.”~ Roger Cohen, London,29 November 2010The Uniting of Nations argues for the need for a governed world community and usesthe European Union as a model for how that can be accomplished. One must start withsmall steps and proceed gradually in such a way that national governments will wantto join to gain something specific for themselves. The European Union would be thenucleus and other countries could join this global political union separately, but theywould then be required to work together to form their own regional organizations.Thus eventually there would be a world federation made up of regional federations,one of which would be the European Union which initiated the new global organization.McClintock begins the book with a summary for those “who do not have time to readthe whole essay” (p. 17). The world faces many problems, problems which no countryby itself can solve and which can only get worse. The only way forward is for countriesto work together. Europe is a region of the world demonstrating how nations canshare sovereignty in order to improve both their national welfare and the welfare ofthe whole group. “What Europe has done, the world needs to do. This essay explainshow” (p. 18).The many current global problems not being handled shows that “the present systemof global governance is dysfunctional” (p. 18). The basic problem is the lack ofa sovereign governing body for the whole global community which can make andenforce laws as sovereign national governments do within countries. Just as citizensshare sovereignty in order to establish a governing body within their nations, so nationalgovernments need to share sovereignty in order to establish a governing bodyat the global level. The European Union is a good example of a governing body overnations that has both sovereign powers and political legitimacy. On the other hand, theUN’s Security Council has impressive powers on paper but not in the real world. TheUN Security Council also lacks political legitimacy because 5 countries are permanentmembers with a veto power while at any one time only 7% of the 193 countries arerepresented at all.The global community must do two things: assist the failing nation-states and “bringinto being a governing body which can act effectively at the global level” (p.23). Butthe first task itself requires “a system of global governance that works” (p. 24) andthe rules set down in the UN Charter are such that the Security Council can never bereformed. “Something new needs to be created” (p. 25). This new global organizationcould be initiated by “the European Union and around half-a-dozen or so pioneerstates” (p. 26).As was done in Europe the new global governance community could start with a fewcountries focused on a single problem like food security (p. 27) and then “a communityfor climate, energy, and prosperity” (p. 28). As the European Community was furtheredby the Zeitgeist of a united Europe, so the current Zeitgeist of globalism can supportthe creation of a Global Union. Perhaps future historians will see the European Unionas an experiment in sharing sovereignty by states that could be followed by the wholeworld.[continued, next page]15 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Having given the overall thesis, Mc-Clintock turns to the details. The globalthreats not being handled by the currentglobal governance system are “War andConflict”, “Acts of Terrorism”, “NuclearWeapons”, “Depletion of Natural Resources”,“Instability in the Domain ofInternational Finance”, “The Outsourcingof Jobs”, “Migration”, “Indebted Countries”,“The Violation of Human Rights”,“Climate Change”, “The Concentrationof Corporate Power”, and “Pandemics”.McClintock documents each of theseproblems and how the existing globalsystem is not dealing with them. Internationalorganizations exist but they “arenot in a position to make and enforcelaw” (p. 74). They do not possess sovereignpowers (which is what Hobbes noteda government must have) and they don’thave political legitimacy (which Rousseau& Locke noted that a governmentmust have).In chapter 3 McClintock focuses on theproblem of failing states and asks what isnecessary for a state to succeed as a state.The two pre-conditions for success are asense of national unity and a benign internationalenvironment (pp. 84-85). Hegives a detailed account of the history ofSierra Leone and a brief reference to Indiain order to substantiate his view. Chapter4 gives a history of the European Union,emphasizing its successes, while chapter5 gives a history of the UN, recognizingits successes but emphasizing its shortcomings.Chapter 6 argues that the EUis a better and more legitimate governingbody than the UN Security Council.Chapter 7, titled “A World of Chronic Anarchy”,marks the culmination of McClintock’sthesis that the basic cause of ourglobal mess is “the fact that the behaviourof states is unregulated” (p. 159).Part II - “What Are the Options?” has onlyone chapter, chapter 8. The options heconsiders & rejects are (1) reforming theSecurity Council, (2) expanding the EuropeanUnion to include all countries, (3)merging existing regional organizations,(4) expanding the G-8 or NATO or TheCommonwealth of Nations or The Non-Aligned Movement or The Conferenceof Democracies to include all nations,(5) getting the United States to becomean enlightened global hegemon, and (8)strengthening the role of internationallaw (p. 172). McClintock then concludes“that if the world is going to avail itself ofa governing body that can be effective, ithas no choice but to create such a body”(p. 186). His specific proposals on howto do that, following the example of theEuropean Union, are set forth in Part III(chapters 9-14).Chapter 9 is a general discussion of thenew global organization that would putforward technical solutions that would be“politically acceptable to all the partiesconcerned” (p. 189). The principles to befollowed are gradualism, inclusivity, voluntarymembership, membership availabilityto all nations which could sharesovereignty in the relevant area and dono harm to states outside the community,and all states would be required to gatherinto regions so that the global communitywould have “at most 15 to 25 members— one member for every region in theworld” (p. 193). Nations could originallyjoin individually but would have to joinwith other nations in the same region toform a single regional organization. Theglobal community as a whole would have3 institutions (a legislature, a judiciary,and an executive) plus other organs. Itwould seek good relations with all countrieswhich aren’t yet members, but could16 • Minerva #39 • November 2011as a last resort take tough measures suchas suspending trade and cooperation. Inchapter 12 McClintock lays out a food securityplan which might be the first practicalproject for the global community. Inchapter 13 he describes a second project,“a community for climate, energy, andprosperity” (p. 189).Despite the great contribution this bookmakes to thinking about global governance,it is not without deficiencies. Nomention is made of the role of NGOs orof the International Criminal Court or thelanguage problem facing Europe and theglobal community. Even though McClintockis arguing for the need for a worldfederation, he says nothing about the argumentsof other well-known advocatesof world federalism such as AlexanderHamilton. From a world federalist pointof view it is surprising that there is nothingabout the difference between a confederationand a federation although thatdistinction is at the very core of McClintock’smain thesis about the need for amore effective global organization. ButMcClintock does successfully addresswhat has been a huge issue for worldfederalists, namely, how do we begin tomove forward from where we are now?ï“It is often said that the UN is becomingmarginalized in the affairs of a globalizedworld. The global threats to the preservation— even the survival — of organizedlife on the planet demand a much moreeffective global organization than hashitherto been thought necessary. TheUN lives to a considerable extent in apolitical past where independent nationalsovereignty was the gold standard ofinternational affairs. What is needed nowis to reconcile national sovereignty withthe demands of human survival anddecency in the astonishingly dangerousworld we have absentmindedly created.”~ Sir Brian Urquhart, former UN undersecretary general, “Reinventing the UnitedNations Again?”, UNA-USA WorldBulletin, January 2011

The following commentary and editorialappeared in the 7 March & 4 April 2011issues of the New Jersey Law Journal,where Mike Kronisch is a member ofthe Editorial Board. He also is vicechairman of the Center for War/PeaceStudies, a nonprofit organization createdto establish an international politicaland legal system devoted to making theabolition of war possible.Reprinted with permission of New JerseyLaw Journal. © 2011 ALM Media Properties,LLC. All rights reserved.Reform of the United NationsSecurity Council & General Assembly —A Step to FederationMyron W. KronischI ~ The Argument for Weighted Voting at the UN Security CouncilAs the revolution in Egypt and the unrest in neighboring nations poses great risks andequally important opportunities, one wonders what the United States could do in thisdecade to help advance the rule of law.In his 1984 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan asserted, “A nuclearwar cannot be won and must never be fought. ... The only value in our two nations possessingnuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then, would it notbe better to do away with them entirely?”When President Barack Obama spoke in Prague on April 5, 2009, of an eventual endto nuclear weapons, he addressed the need for enforceable international law. He said,“Some countries will break the rules. That’s why we need a structure in place thatensures when any nation does [so] they will face consequences. ... Rules must be binding”(emphasis added). The most logical place for that structure is at the United Nations.The Security Council is the United Nations’ most powerful organ. It has five seats forpermanent members (P5) — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russiaand China — and 10, two-year seats. The 1945 charter has given it primary responsibilityfor the maintenance of global peace and security, and its decisions are binding forall member states.Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General BanKi-moon has appointed Atul Khare ofIndia, who has served as Assistant Secretary-Generalfor UN PeacekeepingOperations among other roles, as head ofthe Change Management Team (CMT)tasked with suggesting reforms including“formulation of a comprehensive plan tostreamline processes, increase accountabilityand improve the effectivenessand efficiency of the organisation in thedelivery of its mandates” (UN statementreported by the Times of India, 1 June2011). “The establishment of the CMT isa further step in the efforts of the Secretary-Generalto strengthen the United Nationsas it is called on to play an increasinglyprominent role in a period of rapidchange and financial constraint and builda management culture focused on excellenceand result.”But the council’s design is out of date: three of the P5 — the United Kingdom, Franceand Russia — are surpassed in economic power by India and Japan. Its limited geographicalbalance, combined with P5’s veto power, however, makes the SecurityCouncil less representative than desired by many member states. No component of theUnited Nations system has been the subject of more ideas for reform than the Council.The period 2003–2005 alone witnessed dozens of such proposals.In 2003, Secretary General Kofi Annan flatly told the General Assembly, “I respectfullysuggest to you, Excellencies, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty ofreaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so. If you want the Council’sdecisions to command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you needto address the issue of its composition with greater urgency.”Professor Emeritus Joseph E. Schwartzberg at the University of Minnesota has draftedthe only plan that would not increase the number of seats. His plan would reduce thenumber to 12; each region would have a weighted vote based on sovereignties, populationand contributions. Called the Universal Regional Representation as a Basis forSecurity Council Reform, it is the only one that gives each of the 192 member-statesdirect or indirect representation on the council: Selection of six of the 12 regional representativeswould take place every year.The paper proposes a universally representative Security Council with 12 “regional”seats: four for individual nations (the United States, China, India and Japan) and eightfor multinational groupings (e.g., Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean). Eachmultinational region would nominate several individual candidates to represent it, andfrom such slates the General Assembly would choose one. [continued, next page]17 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Regions would cast weighted votes basedon the formula W = P+C+8.33 percent,where P and C represent their total populationand contributions to the United Nationsbudget, respectively, as percentagesof world totals, while the constant, 8.33percent, would signify the equal worth ofeach regional perspective. Weights wouldrange from Europe’s 16.2 percent down to4.3 percent for the “Westminster League”(Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Forthe full text, see .A charter amendment requires a GeneralAssembly majority of two-thirds of themembers present and voting, and ratificationby two-thirds of the member states,including the P5. Charter amendmentshave occurred only to enlarge the SecurityCouncil and the Economic and SocialCouncil; both were enlarged in 1965, andthe ECOSOC again in 1973. The GlobalSouth called for these enlargements butthey were opposed by the P5. Despitetheir threats to veto, all five ratified theamendments after an overwhelming majorityin the General Assembly had passedthem.This proposal has been presented at theState Department and 38 key foreign ministriessince 2004. Of all the ideas for SecurityCouncil reform, this is the only onethat is both visionary and pragmatic.II ~ Voting in the United Nations General AssemblyFormer Secretary General Kofi Annan called for “radical reform” of the major organsof the UN in 2003. Responsive proposals included a plan for creation of legislativepower in the General Assembly (GA) known as the Binding Triad (BT).Under the GA’s present one-member, one-vote (OMOV) system, China, with a populationof 1.3 billion, counts no more than Tuvalu, with a population of 11,000. Thissystem has worked since 1945 because the GA has never been more than a meetingplace for diplomats, authorized only to run the internal affairs of the UN and to makenonbinding recommendations. Legislative power under the BT would utilize weightedvoting and would be limited to truly global problems such as Global Warming, NuclearProliferation and Terrorism.In 1787, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was not a legislature but, likethe GA, a diplomatic body. It had to request contributions of money and troops fromthe 13 states. To create legislative power, weighted voting was created: a Senate basedon equality of each state and a House of Representatives that reflected each state’spopulation. Under the BT, a third weighted factor in the GA would be each nation’scontribution to the UN budget.The U.S. Constitution barely made it through the state legislatures. Then Patrick Henryand James Monroe led the struggle to add the Bill of Rights. In 1789, the problem washow the people of the country could learn to think nationally, not locally, about theUnited States. Today the problem is how the people of the world can learn to thinkinternationally, not nationally, about the United Nations.BT resolutions in the GA would begin with OMOV. A computer would instantaneouslyreport whether the resolution has the support of all three legs of the triad: (1) two-thirdsof the nations present and voting; (2) nations representing an agreed-upon majority ofthe world’s population; and (3) nations representing an agreed-upon majority of theUN budget. The GA’s present ability to pass nonbinding resolutions and to control theinternal affairs of the UN using the existing OMOV would continue. When consideringproposed legislation, no member nation would have more than a vote of 15 percent oneither the population or the contribution leg of the triad.Any aspect of the proposal can be changed by the GA committees that will be consideringit. The final product would require amendment of the UN Charter. That involvespassage by two-thirds of the GA and ratification by two-thirds of the national legislaturesincluding an affirmative vote of all five permanent members of the SecurityCouncil.The Policy Planning Staff of the State Department had begun work on radical reformof the United Nations as early as 2009. In the not-too-distant future, we can expectproposals from the White House for UN reform. We support the reform. ï18 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

The process by which the UNworked out the Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Peopleswas long and tortuous, but it alsoserved as a kind of truthcommission — one withglobal implications.Andrew Erueti (Maori) is an adviserto Amnesty International on IndigenousPeoples’ rights. Before that, he was asenior lecturer at Victoria University inWellington, New Zealand. He is a PhDcandidate at the Faculty of Law at theUniversity of Toronto, Canada, where hewrites on the rise of Indigenous movementsin Asia and Africa. His iwi (peopleor clan) are nga ruahinerangi, and atihau-nui-a-paparangi.This comment is part of a special feature,“Indigenous Rights and Truth Commissions”,in the Spring 2011 issue (35-1) ofCultural Survival Quarterly,produced by Cultural Survival inpartnership with the International Centerfor Transitional Justice, and co-editedby ICTJ’s Joanna Rice. It is reprinted bypermission of Cultural Survival.ICTJ (www.ictj.org) is an organization“dedicated to pursuing accountability formass atrocity and human rights abusethrough transitional justice mechanisms”.It “works to redress and prevent the mostsevere violations of human rights by confrontinglegacies of mass abuse. Amongthe many programs and efforts thatICTJ pursues is the Truth and MemoryProgram, which supports efforts to preservememory of crimes committed bygovernments against their own people.And one focus of the Truth and MemoryProgram has been truth commissions forIndigenous Peoples.”Cultural Survival (www.cs.org)“partners with Indigenous Peoples todefend their lands, languages andcultures worldwide”.The UN as Truth CommissionAndrew EruetiAfter 25 years of negotiations, the UN General Assembly in 2007 adopted the UNDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without doubt the most advancedhuman rights instrument created for sub-state peoples. The standards laid out in thedeclaration are a remarkable achievement for the international Indigenous movement.The right to self-determination; free, prior, and informed consent; and territories —with the emphasis on the collective — are breakthroughs. And its impact can be seenalready. On consultation, for example, we’ve reached a point now where most organizationsor states are fully aware of their obligations to consult or seek consent beforedeveloping on Indigenous lands.With its emphasis on historical rectification and the need for dialogue between IndigenousPeoples and states, the UN declaration provides a useful framework for statesseeking to establish mechanisms of transitional justice. But I think it is useful to seethe process by which the declaration was drafted as a model of transitional justice inits own right. Its function, after all, was to bring to light, in a very public setting, theviolations of rights suffered by Indigenous Peoples and to establish standards to addressthose violations. For more than 20 years, the working group would meet eachyear at the UN headquarters in Geneva for a week, sometimes two, with the task ofnegotiating the standards of protection. The room was always full of state and Indigenousdelegates, led by the working-group panel of experts. The working group set newprecedent in allowing Indigenous Peoples to participate in the meetings on basically anequal footing with states.When Indigenous Peoples first arrived at the UN, it was clear that they were to begiven a backseat, to sit on the periphery and watch as observers while states negotiatedthe declaration’s language. But that made a mockery of the whole process. IndigenousPeoples were at the UN largely because policies and laws had been made aboutthem, without them. So Indigenous representatives began lobbying for inclusion, andthe working-group experts quickly accepted the principle. That meant that Indigenousrepresentatives had speaking rights in the plenary session of the working group, couldpropose new language for the declaration, and could engage directly with states.The debate was mostly about language: what could the declaration say about Indigenousrights to lands, for example. State delegates would offer their views, Indigenousrepresentatives theirs. Some of the discussion could be on the technical side: internationallaw on self-determination, for example. But often it was simply Indigenouspeople telling their histories in their own words. They talked about cultural survival.They talked about how, as communities, they had endured generations of laws and policiesthat tried to either absorb them into the culture of the other, or place them out ofsight. Treaties factored large in this context, as pacts made between sovereign nations.So did the loss of lands and autonomy, disease, warfare, and discrimination. And statesof course had to take these claims seriously: they were present in the room, shoulderto-shoulderwith other state delegates, listening, responding, denying violations, orsometimes assuring the working group that they would investigate allegations.Indigenous Peoples reformed the UN process. It is now practically unthinkable to ignoreIndigenous Peoples in something as fundamental as the setting of standards ofprotection. And the idea is now there for other communities and people to use — if youwant to write policy or law about me, then you need to have me at the table.Of course, there’s an important cathartic quality to all of this: the right to talk, to speaktruth to power, to know that states are hearing your statements and to know that it all19 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

proved worth the many years of struggle.This, for me, was transitional justice atwork. The experience tells us that to beeffective, any transitional justice systemwill need the active participation of IndigenousPeoples. It also demonstrates theimportance of real commitment by statesto address the issue. Indigenous Peoplesdid not establish the declaration on theirown, but with the active support of states.Transitional justice will only come ifstates are fully committed to creating aprocess with Indigenous Peoples’ full engagement,in a manner that meets theirneeds, and with outcomes that recognizeIndigenous histories and the legacy ofhistory.ïThe Big PictureINTERVIEW:Rodolfo StavenhagenJoanna RiceThis interview another part of the set ofarticles on “Indigenous Rights and TruthCommissions” in the Spring 2011 editionof Cultural Survival Quarterly.Other parts:• “The Reckoning”, by Fien Jaranggaand Galuh Wandita – about a truth commissionlaunched by a group of Papuanwomen to give support to victims ofviolence “both outside and inside theirhomes for the past 40 years” and to“pressure the government to change itsbehavior”;• “Indian Residential School Truth andReconciliation Commission of Canada”,by Joanna Rice – about the government’struth commission dealing with “100years [when] the Canadian governmentran a system of boarding schools specificallydesigned to destroy Indigenousculture and language, and they requiredall Native children to attend”;• “Homemade Justice”, by Esther Atteanand Jill Williams – about a group ofWabanaki women in Maine who have“launched their own truth commission toexplore the effects and implications ofthe state’s child welfare system, hopingto heal some of the damage, promotecultural decolonization, and change theway Native children are cared for” infoster care.Reprinted by permissionof Cultural Survival.Rodolfo Stavenhagen served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples from 2001 to 2008, the first person to hold that office. He conducted rigorouson-the-ground investigations of violations of Indigenous rights in a dozen countries,interviewing victims and collecting hard data on government actions. He also issuedcomprehensive reports that made specific recommendations for changes, restitution,and reconciliation. Although different in form than a conventional truth commission,his work involved many of the same principles, and offers many of the same benefits.Joanna Rice, an associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice, interviewedhim in January [2011] to get his perspective on truth-seeking processes as toolsfor defending Indigenous rights.Joanna Rice: In your work as the Special Rapporteur, and in your many roles since,were you involved in the work of a truth commission or other truth-seeking processthat looked into violations of Indigenous rights? Could you describe the goals andimpacts of these processes?Rodolfo Stavenhagen: My work as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples included country visits that took the form of fact-finding missions. While I wasnot formally involved in truth commissions as such, I did receive a number of such reports(Canada, Guatemala, Chile), which I was able to use to prepare my reports to theHuman Rights Council. My country visits included extensive meetings and conversationswith government officials, judges, Indigenous Peoples, and individual membersof existing or former truth commissions or similar processes, as well as access to documentsreferring to various kinds of violations of Indigenous rights. The results of theseinquiries were summarized in my reports and enabled me to make specific recommendationsto governments and the UN system. Sometimes my communications withgovernment officials and with Indigenous organizations appeared as a form of publichearings, during which complaints were aired and facts were presented. But being aUN-mandated rapporteur, I always pointed out that I could not act as a judge but onlyas an objective observer who would transmit his findings to national authorities and theHuman Rights Council and General Assembly.In the years following the end of my UN mandate, I have undertaken some other factfindingmissions, invited by international nongovernmental organizations, to report onspecific situations involving human rights violations of Indigenous Peoples, for examplein Peru, Mexico, and Israel.JR: I’ve heard you liken the work of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues toa truth commission with international scope. Would you explain that further?20 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

RS: The Permanent Forum and the formerWorking Group on Indigenous Populationsof the UN Human Rights Commissionboth provide opportunities toIndigenous Peoples to present their caseto an international human rights body.Although not structured as formal truthcommissions, these two spaces at the UNallow Indigenous Peoples from all overthe world to draw attention to their plight,and they also give state representativesthe opportunity to respond.These public dialogues in Geneva andNew York have helped heighten worldawareness of these issues, and their effortsresulted in the adoption of the UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples in 2007. However, being internationalbodies, they cannot pursue particularcountry situations beyond a certainpoint, and therefore their specific impactis limited.JR: Where has transitional justice failedIndigenous rights? What can be adaptedin the way truth commissions, specifically,have been approached in the pastto make them better reflect the specificrights and goals of Indigenous groups?RS: Up to now, the work of truth commissionsfocused specifically on the rights ofIndigenous Peoples has not had, in myopinion, a particular impact on transitionaljustice for these peoples. In somecountries, an independent judiciary canconceivably follow up on recommendationsmade by such bodies, but progresshas been slow and piecemeal. For example,several years ago the Canadianfederal parliament carried out an extensivecommission of inquiry on the situationof Aboriginal people that presentedimportant findings and recommendationsthat were not immediately acted upon bythe federal authorities. Only years laterhas another commission of inquiry comeinto existence to deal with the outstandingissue of the victims of the Indigenousresidential schools. And Canada is, up toa point, a model of justice for IndigenousPeoples, when compared to other countriesin the world.JR: Does transitional justice reflect an Indigenousapproach to justice?RS: Yes, I think it does, although it isdifficult to obtain consensus around thispoint. Certainly the acknowledgement bya modern state of historical harm done toIndigenous Peoples is considered by Indigenousorganizations as a necessary stepto move forward. The next issue raises theproblem of reparations and compensation,which has become a very controversialpolitical issue in many countries, particularlywhen Indigenous territories are involved.Domestic judiciaries are usuallynot yet sufficiently prepared to deal withthese issues.JR: How can Indigenous Peoples find theterrain to start a process like a truth commissionwhen it seems there is no politicalwill to look at past and ongoing crimes?RS: It is easier for Indigenous Peoples toobtain access to a justice-seeking process,at least in Latin America, after a regimechange (such as the post-Pinochet-dictatorshipdemocratic transition in Chile)than in a state during a period of stablegovernance. Political will must be generated,and therefore a strong Indigenoussocial movement would be a plus to startsuch a process. When land ownership ispart of the problem, then strong privateeconomic interests make it very difficultfor Indigenous communities to obtainjustice, particularly when there has beenlittle or no progress in the passing of adequatelegislation.JR: No one has a broader and betterknowledge of the status of Indigenousrights globally than you do: Do you haveanything to add regarding the value andthe possible risks of truth-seeking effortsinvolving indigenous rights work?RS: Truth-seeking efforts must be firmlygrounded in political support nationwideand, if possible, in strong legislation. Themedia must help in getting widespreadpublic support for such efforts. Professionalassociations (lawyers, environmentalists,educationalists, anthropologists,etc.) must also be enlisted. Politicalparties must be persuaded to support suchefforts. Whenever possible, strategic litigationshould be undertaken to pave theway for further judicial involvement.International organizations (the UN, theInter-American system, the EuropeanUnion, the African Commission of Humanand Peoples Rights) must continueto work closely with Indigenous Peoplesand the international human rights organizations.A possible risk is that truth commissions,once established, have a relatively short“shelf-life” and can be used to distractpublic attention from more persistent involvementby legislatures, courts, executivetask forces, or political campaigns.The commissions themselves must includefollow-up procedures in their recommendations,including time-tables andevaluation processes.ïJames Anaya, now in his 2nd term (until May 2014) as Special Rapporteur on theRights of Indigenous Peoples, has released his annual report on communications withgovernments concerning 25 cases of specific violations of human rights of IndigenousPeoples in 15 countries — including, in some cases, detailed observations with specificrecommendations or descriptions of follow-up measures he has taken (Cultural Survival,2 September 2011). See page 59 for news of his later report to the UN.See also Minerva #30 (May 2006) for James Anaya’s essay on “The Current State ofInternational Law (& Indigenous Peoples)”.“Maori wisdom puts it best: He waka ekenoa – we are all in this canoe together,”Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said atAuckland University in New Zealand on6 September, noting that there is no optoutclause for global problem-solving. “Inother words, we must unite and squarelyface the anxieties and the opportunities ofthe 21st century.”21 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Six Scenes of EndeavorJoshua CooperOctober 2011In July more than 100 Indigenousnations, peoples, and organizations metwith representatives from 34 countries inGeneva at the 4th meeting of the ExpertMechanism on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples (EMRIP), created four years agoas an advisory body to the UN HumanRights Council (see Minerva #37).Our regular correspondent JoshuaCooper, lecturer at the University ofHawaii and director of the Hawaii Centerfor Human Rights Research & Action,continues his reports on the efforts andaspirations of the EMRIP, the ASEANCivil Society Conference / ASEANPeople’s Forum (ACSC/APF), the UNHuman Rights Council (17th session),the UN Permanent Forum on IndigenousIssues (10th session), the ThreatenedIsland Nations conference at ColumbiaLaw School, UN Security Councilconsideration of climate change, and theWorld Intellectual Property Organization.All accompanying photos areprovided by Joshua Cooper.I • EMRIP ~ The most recent mechanism created to promote and protect the humanrights of indigenous peoples, the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples (EMRIP), has transitioned successfully with its first election of new members.In its fourth session, held from 11–15 July at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, threenew members began their terms, and a review of the progress report on “IndigenousPeoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-Making” was discussed for the finaltime before being presented to EMRIP’s parent body, the UN Human Rights Council.The three new members assumed responsibility in leadership roles. Vital Bambanze(Burundi) was elected as chair and Anastasia Chukhman (Russian Federation) waselected as vice-chairperson. Beginning his three-year term on EMRIP, Willie Littlechild(Canada) continued his career of reconciliation and realization of rights forindigenous peoples that began with the inaugural delegation of indigenous peoples in1977 at the United Nations. The terms of Jannie Lasimbang (Malaysia) and Jose CarlosMorales (Costa Rica), both former chairs, are continuing.This exemplifies an important EMRIP tradition. A new chair has been elected everyyear, maintaining a commitment in the new mechanism to share leadership and responsibility.This is a significant change from the previous UN Working Group onIndigenous Populations (UN WGIP), where one member dominated for decades, becominga genuine champion for indigenous rights. The all-indigenous membership isalso a significant sign of evolution of engagement in the UN system, where not a singleindigenous person served in the over two decades of existence of the UN WGIP.The core of the annual EMRIP session is to author, assess, advise and advance anauthentic report reflecting the advice accumulated from indigenous peoples aroundthe world for approval by the UN Human Rights Council. The agenda continues tobe dedicated and deepened to include important issues impacting indigenous peoples,historically and holistically denying dignity. Each session witnesses the working ofindigenous peoples and civil society along with a small circle of states to realize thehuman rights recognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UN DRIP).“Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Participate in Decision-Making” is the secondstudy prepared by EMRIP; the latest version was the main agenda item at the fourthsession and was advanced to be accepted on 20 September with an interactive dialogueat the 18th session of the UN Human Rights Council. A half-day panel on the role oflanguages and culture in the protection of well-being and identity of indigenous peoplesis scheduled following the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur onIndigenous Peoples and the Chair of EMRIP.This page: Maori activist performing openingthanksgiving in front of HCHR Pillayand EMRIP; next page: EMRIP membersBefore the beginning of EMRIP’s 4th session, the Indigenous Peoples PreparatoryMeeting took place at the World Council of Churches. The normal full weekend sessionwas replaced with a one-day meeting. Indigenous peoples heard a presentationsby the EMRIP secretariat and EMRIP members developed strategies for the five-daysession. There was also discussion of follow-up to the thematic studies before themechanism as well as how to implement the earlier report on the right to education.There was also strategic development on the Organization of American States declaration,the Rio+20 summit, and the upcoming World Conference on Indigenous Peoples2014. For the first time, there was no creation of a drafting committee to do a joint22 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

caucus statement representing the will ofthe world’s indigenous peoples. Usually,this statement summarizes the consensusand prioritizes specific positions for theEMRIP members to include in the finalreport. The pre-session still serves theimportant task of updating one anotheron urgent matters and focusing on the upcomingsession.A new feature at the 4th session was anexpert consultation focusing on NationalHuman Rights Institutions (NHRIs) andthe realization of the UN Declaration onthe Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Representatives of NHRIs fromKenya, Canada, Philippines, El Salvador,Namibia, New Zealand, Panama,South Africa, Russian Federation, Peru,Australia and Malaysia shared their bestpractices and also held discussions on theoperationalization of the UN DRIP. Animportant result from the consultation wasthe sharing of an outline of an operationalguide being drafted by the Australian HumanRights Commission and Asia-PacificForum. This guide provides backgroundand the legal basis for the UN DRIP andpractical guidance for NHRIs and statesthrough case studies. On top of the expertconsultation, the NHRIs also played asignificant participatory role throughoutthe 4th session.At the opening plenary, Rosslyn Noonan,Chief Commissioner of the New ZealandHuman Rights Commission and Chairpersonof the International CoordinatingCommittee of National Human RightsInstitutions, addressed the aspirations ofthe developing partnership to improve thehuman rights of indigenous peoples intheir homelands. “National human rightsinstitutions are among the key actors thatcan help promote the work of the ExpertMechanism in country,” Noonan said.“They are domestic actors that work tobridge the gap between the internationalsystem and national realities.”Noonan also noted the importance of theprimary purpose of producing studies byEMRIP in their work to implement indigenousrights, claiming: “The studies youproduce serve as important guidance fornational actors as they work to translatethe aspirations of the Declaration into tangibleand meaningful processes, policiesand outcomes.”High Commissioner for Human RightsNavanethem Pillay spoke for the firsttime since the UN DRIP gained acceptanceby all states, and she noted itssignificant purpose for partnerships onthe planet: “A milestone of indigenouspeoples’ advocacy is the UN Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,which provides a common roadmap andframework for action at both the nationaland international level. Its value is nowglobally recognized.” She noted the workahead for the world: “The Declarationsets out a blueprint for future partnerships23 • Minerva #39 • November 2011between indigenous peoples, States, andother stakeholders, including the privatesector.”Pillay spoke on the topic of participationin decision-making and promoting dignityof indigenous peoples. She sharedher experience on missions monitoringthe human rights situation, noting that indigenouspeoples “continue to suffer theconsequences of colonization and century-long-dispossession.To confront andput an end to such exclusion and inequality,indigenous people must be includedin decision-making.”A significant contribution was the meetingbetween HCHR Pillay and the IndigenousPeoples Caucus during the 4th session.Pillay’s positions and perspective on theimplementation challenges were positive.The candid conversation allowed for anexchange of common concerns and commitmentto upcoming global gatheringsrelating to racism and the environment(Rio+20). There was also concern aboutspecial protocols and conventions such asthe Convention on Biological Diversityand the World Intellectual Property Organization,relating to lack of participationin decision-making, as well about incorporationof the rights of the UN DRIP inthe process and instrumentation of internationallaw.The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya,continued to develop a productive, participatoryrole with the UN EMRIP andindigenous peoples in attendance. Representativesof indigenous peoples could requestmeetings in regard to matters withinAnaya’s mandate, including violations ofhuman rights. Anaya was available forfour of the five session days, receivingwritten reports from the seven regionsproviding substantive insight as to thestatus of indigenous peoples. Anaya alsomet with representatives of North Americaabout an upcoming visit to the UnitedStates to focus on implementation of theUN DRIP, following adoption on 16 December2010.The foundation of EMRIP’s agenda formatis review of best practices and casesin thematic studies that have already been

adopted, this time the study focusing oneducation, followed by discussion of thecurrent study. Another significant agendaitem is a review of how the UN Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoplesis being implemented in communities andcountries. The most dynamic discussionwith a rapid result, usually in the finaldays of the session, is the agenda item onproposals to be submitted to the UN HumanRights Council for consideration andapproval. Indigenous peoples and civilsociety present their five-minute interventionsand, before leaving Geneva, can seeif their proposal will move forward to thenext phase. This July, ten proposals weredirected to the UN Human Rights Council.The proposals included a continuation ofthe discussion on decision-making, withspecific focus on extractive industries onindigenous peoples lands.The first proposal put forward the necessityfor states to strengthen NHRIs andfir increased future partnership betweenNHRIs and EMRIP. The second proposalfocused on the UN Human Rights Councilprioritizing indigenous peoples rightswith regular panels relating to the studiesand imminent issues. The third proposalrecommended that the UN Human RightsCouncil implement the study on decisionmakingby including indigenous peoplesat the earliest possible stages of the processrelating to the Council’s five-yearreview and other pertinent matters. Thefourth proposal ensured that the agendaitem on the UN DRIP would continue toreview developments and provide possiblesteps to secure the objectives of theUN DRIP. The fifth proposal built on theaspiration of achieving the articles of theUN DRIP to adopt administrative and legalmeasures that ensure respect for realizationof rights.The sixth proposal focused on expansionof the UN Voluntary Fund for IndigenousPopulations to allow for indigenous engagementwith the UN Human RightsCouncil along with the human rights treatybodies. The seventh proposal focusedon Universal Periodic Review results,including recommendations for states.It called for a compilation of the recommendationsrelating to indigenous peoplesrights. The eighth proposal requestedan international expert seminar on truthand reconciliation processes. The ninthand tenth proposals called for adequateresources of secretariat support and UNspecialized agencies to promote and protectthe rights in the UN DRIP.The fifth session of the UN Expert Mechanismon the Rights of Indigenous Peopleswill continue the important work launchedby the UN Working Group on IndigenousPopulations in the early 1980s. EMRIPhas a new mandate under the UN HumanRights Council and is maturing in a mannerto ensure equality and demand dignityfor indigenous peoples.II • ACSC/APF ~ Asia is often seen asan abyss in regional activities, especiallyconcerning human rights promotion andprotection. For decades, Europe, Africa,and the Americas plodded along, providingcommissions & courts and increasingtheir influence toward more jurisprudencefor justice. The grassroots peoples’ movementsin Asia are mobilizing to bringvalues of human rights to the forefront ofcampaigns for fundamental freedoms.The Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) is a forum where freedomis being forged. The10-state regionalmechanism has begun to listen to the voicesof its citizens pressing for the values ofdignity, democracy, and human rights tobe included in its daily work. Civil societyis spearheading strategic planning andstructural possibilities for initiatives toinfluence this regional body.The creation of the ASEAN IntergovernmentalCommission on Human Rights(AICHR) is the beginning. There areother initiatives in specific fields of rightsthat also are creeping onto the agenda ofASEAN, aiming to move this state-centeredmechanism beyond economics andmilitary security to include solidarity andequality in its principles and policies. TheASEAN Commission for the Promotionand Protection of the Rights of Womenand Children (ACWC) and the ASEANCommittee on the ASEAN Declarationon the Protection and Promotion of theRights of Migrant Workers (ACMW)are two institutions mandated to monitor24 • Minerva #39 • November 2011rights that have grown from grassrootsinitiatives. And a recent addition to theannual summits, serving as an incubatorof ideas and initiatives for ASEAN, is athe ASEAN Civil Society Conference, aparallel process aiming to add peoples’perspectives to the heart of the regionalbody’s annual agenda.The 7th annual ASEAN Civil SocietyConference / ASEAN People’s Forum(ACSC/APF) took place from 3–5 May2011 in Jakarta, Indonesia, just prior to theASEAN summit. Human Rights WorkingGroup of Indonesia served as the secretariatfor this session. Since the introductionof the ACSC at the 11th ASEAN Summitin Malaysia in 2005, the participation ofgrassroots movements continues to grow,gaining greater recognition in the decision-makingprocess of ASEAN.During the seven years, a common agendahas ensured citizen participation andengagement with ASEAN leaders whileenhancing the range of rights for a moreinclusive institution. The 7th ACSC/APFcontinued the tradition of a parallel processwith the aspiration of an interfacewith ASEAN Heads of State based onworkshop submissions in recommendationformat for the final statement. Thecountry and thematic workshops continueto enhance engagement, allowing the humanrights community in the region toenhance mutual understanding and unity.The workshops are where lessons areshared about past shortcomings and successes,aiming toward best practices andbold policies to promote and protect humanrights in the region.The ACSC/PC program is a combinationof keynote speeches by heroes of humanrights, plenary panels of leading scholarsand social justice advocates, workshopsof strategy and networking, and culturalperformances sharing beauty of art inAsia. Of course, the sense of solidaritydeveloped during all of the above createsa culture of human rights.Aung San Suu Kyi launched the 7thACSC/APF with a videotaped messagecalling for civil society in the ASEAN regionto unite for genuine participation innational government, gender justice, and

protection of natural resources. Her presenceshaped the main challenge emergingat the event. While it is most obvious forBurma, there are similar struggles elsewherefor legitimate leaders — from communityto country level — to participatein this annual gathering. Peoples’ movementsfrom across the region showedtheir support, wearing Aung San Suu Kyi“Freedom to Lead” T-shirts with “FreeBurma” emblazoned in all ten languagesof ASEAN members. In most states, suchas Vietnam and Cambodia, the strugglefor legitimate representation continuesthrough the workshop recommendations.The phenomenon of “people power” tomake a difference in the global humanrights movement caused governmentsto respond. One of the most flatteringresponses has been the creation of fauxNGOs. Governments sponsor groups torepresent official interests at internationalinstitutions and ASEAN meetings. TheGONGO (Government Organized NGO)is a staple of repressive regimes throughoutthe region.During the workshops this is played out inthe creation of recommendations. Therewere 16 thematic workshop tracks withmultiple sessions during the three-daypeoples’ summit. The core themes coverimportant issues in individual communitiesand the international arena, includingnatural resources, fisherfolk, gender andwomen’s rights, climate change, childrights and youth, disability rights, civilliberties, democratization, transformativesocial protection, agriculture, economicjustice, labor rights, peoples’ regional alternatives,refugees and migration, peaceand security, and minorities/indigenouspeoples and LGBT (sharing a workshop).Health was a special focus for the JakartaACSC/APF.Because of the demands of civil society,ASEAN is showing signs of addressingshortcomings with regard to human rightsby way of new institutions. What is importantwill be if civil society can continueto shape these new entities. The adoptionof the ASEAN Charter in 2007 was asignificant step toward a more legal institutionwith provisions endorsing humanrights. Shortly thereafter, the ASEAN IntergovernmentalCommission on HumanRights (AICHR) was created on October23, 2009, and the ACWC on the rights ofwomen and children was created on April7, 2010. Both are important instrumentsthat civil society must organize to allowfor individuals and communities to beincluded. The democratization of theseinstitutions is essential for future engagementto guarantee freedom. So far, onlytwo states — Thailand and Indonesia —have nominated human rights advocatesas commissioners. The important workwill be to gain representation of more humanrights practitioners among the 10 positionsof the AICHR. The human rightsmechanisms of ASEAN are a milestone inits history. However, much more must bedone to enhance equality and dignity forthe peoples of the ASEAN region.In Jakarta, civil society stood up for rights,demanding that their governments live upto international human rights standards.They called for ratification of various internationalinstruments and implementationof specific articles to improve livingconditions. There was a call for AICHR tomove beyond its non-interference principleto examine human rights in each countryand not only focus on regional issues.The monitor and respond functions mustextend to specific state situations. Therewere also calls for greater transparency inthe AICHR and for increasing inclusionof civil society in the deliberations. The7th ACSC/APF strengthened solidarityin the region and was an important incrementalinitiative for ASEAN to contributeto a just global community.Every year, peoples’ movements creativelycoordinate campaigns that transformregional institutions to reflect the interestsof citizens. With the development of theACSC/APF there is measurable progresstoward peace and human rights. The 2012ACSC/APF in Cambodia offers anotherpossibility for the new institutions for humanrights to guarantee dignity and libertyinstead of allowing member governmentsto limit their role in promoting andprotecting human rights in ASEAN.Civil society came together in the closingmoments of the 7th annual ACSC/APF, playing their angklung instrumentsin unison as a chorus of humanity for humanrights. This song of struggle mustcontinue into Cambodia.The main process for participation beginsin the workshops. After each workshop,the organizers send the inputs from theirtheme to the conference statement, sharinganalysis along with the top three recommendations.All of the inputs are editedinto one submission by the draftingcommittee and then debated, edited, andfinalized in the concluding plenary, to bepresented to the ASEAN Heads of State.7th annual ASEAN Civil Society Conference / ASEAN People’s Forum, 3–5 May 2011,Jakarta, Indonesia25 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

III • UNHRC ~ The United NationsHuman Rights Council completed itsinitial five-year phase at its June session.At the conclusion of the 17th session, it isimportant to examine what has been accomplishedwith the agreement broughtby the inaugural Human Rights CouncilPresident, Luis Alfonso de Alba, at themidnight hour on 18 June 2007 that redesignedthe institution and procedures ofthe international human rights system.In only half a decade, civil society anda small number of countries have challengedthe UN Human Rights Council tolive up to its mandate for the people ofthe world that need human rights to bemore than words on paper. So far, therehave been significant steps to create processeswhere campaigns can be waged topromote and protect planet-wide humanrights on the world stage at the UN HumanRights Council.The most recent UNHRC session providesan example of the small but significantsteps to secure human rights in areasusually suffering a lack of attention. Yet,a redoubling of political will by the coalitionof civil society and certain countriesalong with new members interested inserving on the 47-member council is necessaryfor the new Human Rights Councilto improve on the six decades of work ofthe UN Commission on Human Rights.There is still much more work that mustbe done; however, there were severalresolutions and new developments indicatingon the fifth anniversary of theUN Human Rights Council that strategiccampaigns planned by NGOs and skillfuldiplomacy by states can result in innovationcovering the cutting edge issues ofinternational public law such as sexualorientation; gender identity; business &human rights, including guiding principleson business, a working group and aforum; an improved Universal PeriodicReview process; and a first woman chairelected to preside.In a council that doesn’t like to conducta vote favoring a consensus motion, thedecision regarding a resolution on humanrights violations based on sexualorientation and gender identity, presentedby South Africa, was adopted with 23 infavor, 19 against and 3 abstentions. Thevote was a groundbreaking achievementresulting from passionate advocacy bygrassroots and global activists. It was thefirst UN resolution focusing specificallyon sexual orientation and gender identityregarding human rights violations. Brazilsupported the leadership of South Africa,calling to open the closet doors with fulldialogue. This will be done with a studyby the UN High Commissioner for HumanRights, along with a panel discussionat the March 2012 UNHRC session todiscuss the study and suggest appropriatefollow-up. The vote and the subsequentstudy recognize the vulnerability of thelesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexand queer (LGBTIQ) communityand the responsibility of states to protectrights and safety. The resolution is animportant first step toward integration ofsexual rights in the UN charter body instruments.It affirms the universal valuesin the Universal Declaration of HumanRights ensuring all people are treated asfree and equal in dignity and rights, includingon the grounds of sexual orientationand gender identity.One of the most significant gaps in humanrights relates to the role and responsibilityof business. The 17th session featured aclosing of one chapter, with adoption of“Guiding Principles on Business and HumanRights”, operationalizing the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary Generalfor Business & Human Rights John Ruggie’s“Protect, Respect and Remedy”framework, and creation of a new fiveexpertWorking Group on Business andHuman Rights along with a new Forumon Business and Human Rights to perpetuatethe meaningful dialogue with multiplestakeholders that Ruggie facilitatedduring this term. The “Guiding Principleson Business and Human Rights” did notcreate binding obligations for business;instead, they serve more as a blueprint fora legally binding instrument.Norway led the resolution discussionswith a cross-regional group of fellow cosponsors.Civil society followed the negotiationsintently, aiming for a continuationof Ruggie’s work to cover the unfinishedagenda. It was important to disseminatethe “Guiding Principles on Business and(At left) HR Council President and UPR Secretariat review final drafts of new UPR modalities and 2nd cycle schedule;(at right) at the 17th UNHRC session, “all diplomatic delegates were eager to take the floor for the five-year review”26 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Human Rights”. The establishment ofa working group on the issue of humanrights and transnational corporations andother business enterprises, consisting offive independent experts to be appointedat the 18th session in September 2011, is asignificant step toward building a cultureof human rights. The resolution did havesome important negotiated paragraphs,such as country visits, along with numerousmentions recognizing the disproportionateimpact on indigenous peoples dueto corporations, and potential identificationof best practices to serve as models. Itwill be seen whether five experts, insteadof the previous one expert, will be morebeneficial for people whose lives are impactedby industries. Also, the agenda andcapacity to advocate at the new Forum onBusiness and Human Rights remains tobe determined, but is a potential opportunity.One of the most significant contributionsof transition from the UN Commission onHuman Rights to the UN Human RightsCouncil was the creation of the UniversalPeriodic Review. While states believedthe peer review would reduce politicizationand eliminate the singling out ofstates, with a universal review of rightsfor all states equally, it has turned out tobe an important opportunity for stakeholdersto pose questions and make recommendationsfor states to improve theirhuman rights record. The 17th sessionshowed interest in continuing to improvethe process for greater participation. TheMoroccan ambassador played a pivotalrole in the review of the UPR and newmodalities for the second cycle.Decision A/HRC/17/L.29 outlines specificshifts in the second cycle for stakeholdersand states. The key factor is an increasein the time for the duration of the review.The current 3-hour review in the firstcycle was seen as inadequate, with stateslining up early and still not being able toparticipate. Therefore, the new review ofstates will be 3.5 hours. States will get 70minutes instead of 60 and other states 140minutes for questions, adding around 10more states to the speakers list. There willalso be 14 sessions per cycle as opposedto the current 12, and 14 states reviewedinstead of the current 16. States will have4.5 years in between each UPR review insteadof 4 years.The second cycle will begin in May/June2012. National Human Rights Institutionsachieved a dedicated section in thesummary of the stakeholder information.NHRIs also will be given the floor directlyafter the state under review.On the final days of the 17th session, itbecame clear that another hurdle wouldbe overcome. Laura Dupuy Lasserre,a Uruguayan diplomat, would becomethe first female president of the HumanRights Council, six decades after EleanorRoosevelt held the post of Chair of theUN Commission on Human Rights. DupuyLasserre is a human rights defendershaped by her life experience; her fatherwas arrested and tortured as a union leaderby a dictatorship for demanding a democracy.Freedom was a banned word in hercountry. Now she will head the UN bodywith the task of guaranteeing all peopleon the planet a right to freedom. DupuyLasserre also brings experience focusingon gender justice and environmental issuesto her presidency.The 17th session and special focus on the“Arab Spring” indicate a shift in humanrights consciousness in the world. At futuremeetings of the UN Human RightsCouncil, civil society will continue to exertleverage for transformation with thelanguage of human rights.My personal commitment to thiscause, apart from deriving fromshared national values where democracyand social justice go handin hand, also involves having seenfrom very close by the injustices ofdictatorship. These directly affectedmy family. My father was a politicalprisoner and tortured, like manyother victims who I wish to honourtoday.~ Laura Dupuy Lasserre,from Uruguay — new president ofthe UNHRC, replacing Thailand’sSihasak Phuangketkeow (UN Radio,12 July 2011)27 • Minerva #39 • November 2011IV • UN PFII ~ The tenth anniversary ofthe United Nations Permanent Forumon Indigenous Issues signals a significantdevelopment for indigenous peoplesin the international arena. It allows oneto reflect on the important initiatives thathave been inspired by indigenous ingenuityat this international institution.The most important is being welcomedinto the family of nations, as was doneby former Secretary General Kofi Annan,and being treated as equals in dignityalong with respect for indigenous wisdomas is being gained with regard to globalenvironmental issues.On 16 May, the two-week annual PFIImeeting was launched by Secretary GeneralBan Ki-moon in the UN General Assembly.“The road has been tough, but therewards are real,” he noted. “The UnitedNations Declaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples finally has the consensusit deserves. Now we need to make theDeclaration’s principles a reality. To thosewho do not grasp the Declaration’s importance,I say: protecting and promotingthe rights of indigenous peoples benefitsus all.”Indeed, it was the annual meeting everySpring that the world’s indigenous peoplesused as a springboard to secure thevotes of states for the adoption of the UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples. To achieve universal adoption onthe anniversary of its decade of existencewas extraordinary, with the United Statesof America finally reversing its position.Secretary General Ban Ki-moon understandsthe need for genuine partnershipwith indigenous peoples, pointing outabout the planet: “Indigenous peopleshave been living in a ‘green economy’ forcenturies. When economists today lookfor new ways to achieve sustainable development,they should look at old practicesin indigenous communities. Ancientindigenous traditions can help overcomemodern problems. The goal is not to appropriateyour knowledge — to extract itor exploit it — but to respect indigenouspeoples and help preserve their traditions.”[continued]

While indigenous peoples have only beenat the UN headquarters for a decade, BanKi-moon aspires for their philosophy toguide governments for the future: “Fromthe forests to the oceans, from the mountainsto the deserts, around our world youare guardians of nature. We need you tohelp influence the decisions we maketoday on energy and the environment —decisions which will affect generations tocome.”An important improvement in the UNPermanent Forum on Indigenous Issuesis the secretariat that serves the 16 members.In the inaugural session, there wereno permanent positions. The Office of theHigh Commissioner for Human RightsIndigenous Peoples Unit and the UnitedNations Development Program in Asiaassumed responsibilities. Interestinglyenough, the UNDP staff member whodrafted the initial report from notes ofNGOs and staff a decade ago is now thedirector of the PFII secretariat – ChandraRoy, a Chittagong Hills Tract advocate.Roy also maintains excellent relationshipswith the previous director, Elsa Stamatapouli,who masterfully mainstreamed indigenouspeoples into the United Nationsheadquarters under the Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs (DESA)advising the UN Economic and SocialCouncil (ECOSOC). The secretariat hasbeen able to bring in many talented indigenouspeoples — from John Scott, now atthe Convention on Biological Diversity inMontreal, in the beginning, to the currentcore of Miriam Masaquiza of Ecuadorand Sonia Smallacombe of Australia. Thesecretariat works throughout the year sothat the two-week program propels indigenousrights forward.The list of expert members of the UN PFIIelected and empowered by indigenouscommunities has always read like a globalall-star assembly, with the 8 members representingsome of the original participantsin the UN since 1977. In the most recentelection, even governments nominatedemerging and elder indigenous statesmento serve in the 16-member body. For thetenth session, there were many new expertselected, with 14 of 16 starting theirfirst term bringing energy from their grassrootscommunities as academics, advocatesand activists with lifetimes of experiencein liberation of indigenous peoplesaround the planet. The spirit of the newmembers is exemplified by Chief Ed Johnin his statement about even amending thetitle of the annual meeting: “I’m tired ofbeing an issue, we are peoples with theright of self-determination.” The expertsare seen as a clean slate, combining thenext generation of professionals with anexperienced group that accomplished thedifficult task of drafting the articles of theUN DRIP and also advocated creation ofthe three UN bodies for indigenous peoplesover the decades.The tenth session continued the traditionof launching new opportunities for indigenouspeoples to overcome obstacles ofcolonization during the centuries. Oneexisting UN specialized agency, InternationalFood and Agriculture Development,announced its creation of an annual forumfor indigenous peoples to promote ruraldevelopment and reduce poverty. The inauguralsession will take place in 2013,based on the model of an earlier forum forfarmers. The mandate of the IFAD forumis overcoming poverty by building on respectfor identity and community-drivendevelopment rooted in indigenous values.IFAD promises that it will not duplicatethe PFII, but will focus on assisting ruralpeople to realize their economic, socialand cultural rights.New initiatives from coalitions of UNspecialized agencies, programs and fundsalso announced new ideas at the PFII.The tenth session witnessed one of themost innovative ones, bringing togethermembers of the EMRIP and PFII alongwith the special rapporteur in partnershipwith agencies dealing directly withindigenous peoples. An entirely new jointinitiative, the UN Indigenous Peoples’Partnership (UNIPP) was launched in thelobby of UNICEF. UNIPP is focusing ondemocratic governance, human rights,and equality, bringing together ILO, OH-CHR and UNDP to focus on joint countryprograms to guarantee indigenous rightsbased on principles of trust and equality,incorporating the UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples and ILOConvention 169 as the normative frameworkfor any actions by the UNIPP.28 • Minerva #39 • November 2011There is also a sincere effort of the PFIIto reach out beyond international institutionsto regional human rights and financialmechanisms. In the past, the AsianDevelopment Bank and the InterAmericanDevelopment Bank have made presentations.At the tenth session, the humanrights mechanisms of the Americasand Africa were the focus. The presidentof the InterAmerican Commission on HumanRights (IACHR) and the chairpersonof the African Commission on Human andPeoples’ Rights Working Group on IndigenousPopulation/Communities (WGIP)both addressed the forum, providing historicalperspectives to the regional bodiesrelating to indigenous rights and sharingdevelopments in specific cases and studiesrelating to human rights of indigenouspeoples. The current president of the IA-CHR is also tasked with a role as specialrapporteur on indigenous peoples in theregional bodies of the Americas.Dinah Shelton, president of the IACHR,spoke about the social exclusion and structuralracism evident in states and contributingto the detriment of their wellbeingand development. She also highlightedimportant cases recognizing collectiverights to land upheld in the regional humanrights commission and court.Musa Ngay Bitaye, commissioner andchairperson of the African commissionWGIP, called for greater cooperationamong the various indigenous initiatives,requesting “a closer collaboration in thepromotion and protection of the rights ofindigenous peoples on the African continent.The collaboration we seek is the institutionalizationof linkages in our activities,programs and country missions andthe sharing of information, so as to buildthe required synergy for the better promotionof the rights of indigenous peoples.”The role of UN Special Rapporteur on theRights of Indigenous Peoples has been animportant institution for the UN PFII. Thefirst rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, andthen James Anaya, the current rapporteur,undertook to address the annual assemblyand also to confer with the former WorkingGroup on Indigenous Peoples and thecurrent Expert Mechanism on the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples to coordinate ef-

forts. SR Anaya has elevated the profilewith individual appointments made byconcerned communities, living up to themandate to check on specific situationswith procedures for urgent action andeven on-site visits.It is also important that, by way of theannual PFII, indigenous peoples can organizemeetings to prepare for upcomingimportant international conferences andworld summits. The tenth session wassignificant for three world conferences:the 20th commemoration of the Rio earthsummit on environment and development;the 10th commemoration of the Durbansummit on racism; and the 2014 WorldConference on Indigenous Peoples.Land is Life played a pivotal role at theYakoana preparatory meeting for the RioEarth Summit. Marcos Terena was theonly indigenous person able to address theglobal assembly (a five-minute presentation).Terena was present in New York tospeak at a side event and gather supportfor the June 2012 summit. Land is Lifealso held discussions with Indigenous EnvironmentalNetwork and Tebtebba leadershipto coordinate the upcoming globalgathering along with the regional preparatorycommittee sessions that shape thefinal declaration and program of action.The World Conference on IndigenousPeoples is already getting attention eventhough it is years away. Indigenous peoplesmet with ambassadors of states andsenior staff to ensure that the right of free,prior and informed consent will be includedin the process. They want to draftthe agenda and be genuine partners, frompreparing the modalities to molding thefine points in the final document.Another valuable initiative built on traditionof one of the ally associations isthe Quaker House Dinners. Within walkingdistance of the UN in New York andGeneva, the Quakers’ mission serves as aneutral space to host PFII members, indigenousguests, and governments for informalmealtime conversation on importantissues facing indigenous peoples inthe international arena. The tenth sessionof the PFII continued this useful activityat the Quaker House, bringing people togetherto discuss initial ideas for the WorldConference on Indigenous Peoples.There is also regular networking and strategizingon initiatives relating to climatechange and the annual UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change summits,with weekend workshops bringing expertstogether to train indigenous peoplesin the latest developments and to respondto challenges to protection of land rights.Another tradition initially brought togethermembers of the Unrepresented Nationsand Peoples Organization (UNPO), hostedby the Khmer Kampuchea Krom Federationin Philadelphia, to share commoncultures respecting the earth. This hasdeveloped into an annual Youth Conferencewith a specific theme — under Democracy,Liberty and Human Rights — atthe National Constitution Center, with avisit to the Liberty Bell. At the tenth session,Orren Lyons, traditional leader ofthe Haudenosaunee, gave the keynoteaddress, sharing the values of indigenouspeoples enshrined in constitutions suchas those of the US and Canada — thevery countries that had rejected the UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples. Lyons spoke on “Deconstructingthe Doctrine of Discovery & Origins ofthe US Constitution”. Already there areplans for the next Philadelphia summit tofocus on the official theme, allowing for itto shape the final report of the 11th PFII.The side events are an essential componentof the PFII. There has been a trend ofreducing the number of sessions becauseof UN reconstruction. However, indigenouspeoples still meet wherever andwherever possible in New York, predominantlyin the UN headquarters, the UNChurch Center, neighboring friendly statemissions, and also local NGO offices.One of the most important annual sideevents is a commemoration of the lifeof Ingrid Washinawatok, with The FlyingEagle Woman Fund, recognizing thework of indigenous women. The annualdinner and discussion is a celebration ofthe spirit of solidarity among sisters andtheir supporting circle of humanity to realizehuman rights. This year a group ofwomen who did work in Colombia whereIngrid was murdered shared their currentprojects to improve the lives of indigenouswomen. Nobel Laureate RigobertaMenchu Tum is often in attendance, alongwith many of the pioneers of internationalindigenous initiatives for peace.One of the recent additions to the traditionalside events is an annual march andrally for specific indigenous peoples instruggle with an oppressive state or corporation.Last year the focus was the BelMonte Dam in Brazil. At the tenth session,a rally spearheaded by membersof Land is Life focused on human rightsof indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia,Former PFII Chair Vicki Tauli Corpuz advising new Chair Myrna Cunningham29 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

specifically Bangladesh. The rally is usuallysupplemented with trainings aboutrealizing human rights in the United Nationssystem. Land is Life offers coursesto allow indigenous peoples to engagein every UN mechanism, from the treatybodies to the charter bodies, including theregional mechanisms, developing bestpractices and strategies to ensure promotionand protection of indigenous rights.An important role of the UN PFII is tobring together indigenous peoples fromthe same state to work together for twoweeks in an environment away from thedaily challenges. The UN PFII allows forreflection and recommitment to the corecauses in one’s country and indigenouscommunity. At the 10th session of thePFII, it was noteworthy to observe theachievements of the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander movement in Australia.The Australian delegation, as it is known,bolsters over 50 representatives fromcommunity activists to college academicsincluding allies in the Australia HumanRights Commission. It is powerful to havean entire nation of indigenous peoples inattendance, thus shaping the agenda withan annual commemoration of Sorry Dayto acknowledge the wrongs perpetratedby the Australian government with thestolen generation policy and other humanharms. At the tenth session, there was thecollective statement read and the momentof silence along with a reception hostedby Australia near the closing of the annualmeeting. Australia also shows considerablecoordination with morning meetingssharing updates and joint interventions.While this is significant, it is also importantto be as creative as the founding circlesof indigenous leaders. It is importantto continue such innovation consideringthe resources at stake. One alternative oraddition would be a national PermanentForum on Indigenous Issues where 8government agencies heads could meetwith elected indigenous peoples such asthe National Congress of Australia’s FirstPeoples. There could be a week assemblyin Australia just like at the UN where anagenda is drafted and deliberated on everyyear to address issues facing the indigenouspeoples of Australia. Just as over2,000 now come to the UN PFII, suchnumbers could attend a national meetingcloser to the communities to change thedaily living conditions and protect indigenousrights.The PFII has accomplished a great deal inits initial decade of existence. Indigenouspeoples will continue to shape the structuresand systems they created to overcomechallenges created by colonizationand realize equality and dignity. “In itsten years, it has been slowly finding itsway,” Chief Ed John said. “It isn’t at theplace yet. It is looking for its place whereit becomes very strong. Yet, it is a powerfulplace for our peoples” to share ourcommon struggle against colonizationand for self-determination.The leaders of the UN understand theglobal movement for the human rightsof indigenous peoples. Secretary GeneralBan Ki-moon will continue to ensure thatindigenous peoples are represented in theinternational arena where their valuesand vision can shape global policy. “Wemust end the oppression, and we mustensure that indigenous peoples are alwaysheard,” said the Secretary General.“Raise your voices here at this Forum andbeyond. I will urge the world to listen.”V • Threatened Island Nations ~ Climatechange is bringing together affectedcommunities and concerned advocatesto ponder potential political, cultural andlegal strategies to reverse rising seas andprotect indigenous cultures’ existence onearth. The Columbia Center for ClimateChange & the Republic of the MarshallIslands recently hosted “Threatened IslandNations: Legal Implications of RisingSeas and a Changing Climate” atColumbia Law School in New York. Theconference convened experts from aroundthe world to discuss legal questions arisingfrom the impacts of global climatechange, particularly rising sea levels, onsmall island nations.The creative diplomats, committed lawprofessors, and compassionate campaignersasked the important questions and alsofocused on the necessary responsibility torespect human rights regarding climatechange: What is causing it and who iscausing it?30 • Minerva #39 • November 2011From 23–25 May, there were differentthemes each day, with four panelscombining heads of state, human rightsadvocates, and heads of UN agencies,programs and funds to examine potentialpaths to pursue to prevent violations ofhuman rights and policy choices to assureactive participation in global decisions regardingclimate change.The themes of “The Status Quo: ShiftingLegal Options in a Changing World”,“What Can Be Done to Help, and How toDo It”, and “Domestic Options for SmallIsland States” were covered in panels onStatehood and Statelessness; PreservingMarine Rights: Fishing and Minerals; ExistingLegal Structures; Legal Remedies;The Way Forward; and A New InternationalConvention?The focus on finding solutions to sea levelrise facing small island states illustratesthe proactive approach at the heart of theseminar. The speakers note that complexrisks can be reduced through results inpractical adaptation measures includingglobal action through international instruments.There must a dialogue equippedwith direct action and diplomacy to deepenthe understanding of difficult long termrisks including low-lying small islandstates no longer being livable for futuregenerations.Beyond the immediate human rights violationsof right to water, food, health, thelong term issues related to security as wellas the ultimate right to self-determinationare acute with sea level rise facing PacificIsland States. It is important to address theuncharted territory of the United Nationsand world community regarding sovereigntyin international law of citizensand their nations along with the option toredefine statehood depending on what futureholds for the people of Oceania.A review of the international institutionsunequipped to handle these environmentalscenarios include the United NationsHigh Commissioner for Refugees, theUN Office of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights, the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. Yet, theconference noted how the human rightsviolations and harms might be addressed

adequately in their current conditions.There was also an examination of thevarious international courts and councilsthat could address harms and subsequentremedies that would include the restorationof human rights and dignity of peopleaffected by rising seas submerging theirhomelands. The commitment to creativeadaptation options to remain as long aspossible with structural projects throughinnovative designs was also included respectingthe desire of indigenous peoplesto remain in their own sacred lands.Marshall Island President Jurelang Zedkaiagave the keynote address, “As oneof the world’s lowest-lying island nations– comprised of narrow atolls less thantwo meters above sea level – our verystatehood is at risk. We know this notonly because of what scientists tell us, butbecause we are seeing it every day withour own eyes. It is as though everythingaround us, our culture, our communities,our traditions, our land – and in fact ourvery livelihoods – are now in jeopardy. “Zedkaia stated that time for merely talkingis over: “We can no longer afford onlyto draw your attention to our unique vulnerabilities.We must now work togetherto recognize and directly address theserisks. There has been enough talk. Now— starting tonight — it is time for a realitycheck. It is time for action. It is timewe took charge of our future.”The president noted that casual conversationsabout climate change has to changeits tone, as people will be affected directlyin unimaginable ways around theworld, especially Oceania. His statementemphasized that what small islands facesoon eventually will swallow the largerstates’ concerns about basic human rightsbut also national security. “As a leader, Ican assure you that casual discussions onrelocation are an irresponsible politicalexercise. But it is now … not so distan[t]— relocation is also an undeniable threatknocking at our door, and somethingwhich could well unfold in decades tocome. It is a threat that the internationalcommunity is presently unprepared to address,and it can no longer be ignored.”He closed: “In all eventualities, the sovereignstate, the security and human rights,and the culture of the Marshallese mustand will be protected. I am committed tono less….”Marshall Islands Ambassador Phillip Muellerexpressed the sentiment of sacrednessregarding climate change and itsimpact on island communities: “Land isour identity not an interchangeable commodity.It is the center of our lives andcollective culture. The impact of climatechange must be addressed in [terms] ofour sovereignty but also [as] a threat toour very identity.”The Marshall Islands Ambassador concluded:“We are a small island state butwe are unique. Losing our islands wouldmean losing something beautiful in ourworld we share. We are small. We needthe help of the international community.But, we are the ones making decisionsnow and it is our responsibility.”Another representative of the Marshall Islands,Senator Fred Mueller, stated: “Landis more than an asset. Is the very fabric ofour familial identity…Why don’t we justmove somewhere else is not a simple solutionand would not be asked if peopleunderstand the fundamental relationshipwe have with our land.”Law Professor Michael Garrard, whoheads the Center for Climate ChangeLaw, pointed out: “The residents of thesecountries want to stay as long as theycan. They are no way surrendering theirancestral homelands to the rising seas.”Jenny Grote Stoutenburg (University ofCalifornia-Berkeley) noted: “There is amoral and legal duty to continue to recognizeisland states.”Cape Verde Ambassador Antonio Limasummarized the core concern facing humanityin the 21st century: “If we are notunited to struggle and understand, if wedon’t take the point of view of the SmallIsland Developing States as our commonsurvival…, we are not doing the rightthing.” He continued calmly: “There areconsequences. Can we have solidaritywith these islands that will disappear?They are only the first to go. We are thesentinels of the world. It will happen toall tomorrow. If we don’t succeed to save31 • Minerva #39 • November 2011them, we are condemning ourselves….We are all linked together.”A strength of the seminar was linkage ofhuman rights and climate change in publicinternational law for a strong strategyof steps forward to secure fundamentalfreedoms. The meeting inspired a coalitionmovement to address climate changethrough a human rights framework.The movement’s momentum continuesthrough various conferences, conventions,and councils in international law. Climatechange is an important issue that will continueto be on the diplomatic agenda butrequires action in our daily living practiceaugmenting diplomatic pressure on allstates to strengthen and respect environmentallaw.VI • UNSC and climate change ~ Theprimary institution dealing with securityissues in international affairs is the UnitedNations Security Council. Once in itshistory, in 2007, the Council’s time wasdedicated — beyond traditional war &security formulations — to discussion ofglobal warming and human security. Thisyear, with the leadership of Germany andsupport of Portugal, the UNSC scheduleda meeting on 20 July to consider climatechange and security impacts. The OpenDebate on Climate Change and Securitywent beyond allotted time into the eveninghours; yet a majority of states agreedthat there is much more to be said andeven more action necessary to promotepeace.Secretary General Ban Ki-moon openedthe debate, challenging states questioningwhether such a topic is appropriate. “Wemust make no mistake,” he said. “Thefacts are clear: climate change is real; it isaccelerating in a dangerous manner; andit not only exacerbates threats to internationalpeace and security, it is a threat tointernational peace and security.”The Secretary General laid out the reasoningfor authentic action by the SecurityCouncil and all member-states of the UN,while announcing alarm about the newera of environmentally sparked securitychallenges. “Around the world, hundredsof millions of people are in danger of go-

ing short of food and water, underminingthe most essential foundations of local,national, and global stability,” he claimed.“Competition between communities andcountries for scarce resources – especiallywater – is increasing, exacerbating oldsecurity dilemmas and creating new ones.Environmental refugees are reshaping thehuman geography of the planet, a trendthat will only increase as deserts advance,forests are felled and sea levels rise.”The Secretary General knows too well thatif a preventative approach isn’t adoptedworld peace will be even more at peril.“Mega crises may well become the newnormal,” he said. “These are all threats tohuman security, as well as to internationalpeace and security.”The President of Nauru, Marcus Stephen,insisted that the recent trend to deal withroot causes of conflicts extends directlyto climate change: “The Security Councilhas recognized that it has a role in preventingconflict before it occurs, not justfacilitating its resolution afterward.”UN Under-Secretary General and EnvironmentProgram Director Achim Steinerunderstands that “humanity is at a pointin it history where it has, for the first time,the power to fundamentally alter withinone or two generations the conditionsupon which societies have evolved overmillennia. It is the speed of environmentalchange, including climate change, thatwill be increasingly at the heart of ourcollective concern and response.” Steinerpointed out to policy-makers: “The questionis less and less one of whether climatechange is a security threat or a threatmultiplier, but one of how we can assessand manage the risks associated with climatechange and its security implicationsas an international community.”UNEP Director Steiner understands a holisticperspective on security and the interconnectednessof the concerns: “Manyexperts argue that climate change will aggravateor amplify existing security concernsand give rise to new ones, especiallybut not exclusively in already fragile andvulnerable nations.“ He states that everythingfrom ecology to economy is connectedwith the climate crisis: “Nationallyand regionally, climate change hasthe potential to sharply intensify humandisplacement bringing communities intoincreasing competition for finite naturalresources with world-wide repercussionsfor the stability of the global economy.”Throughout the debate, states concurredwith the Pacific Island States regarding theimplications for security and even continuedexistence due to climate change. TheRepublic of Nauru represented the countriesof Oceania in its joint statement. NauruPresident Marcus Stephen asked somepointed questions and demanded that theconscience of each country should attendto what Pacific Island States are facingand what must be done. “In my frustration,I often wonder where we would beif the roles were reversed,” President Stephensaid. “What if the pollution comingfrom our island nations was threateningthe very existence of the major emitters?What would be the nature of today’s debateunder those circumstances? But thatis not the world we live in, and, for us,this is not a hypothetical exercise. Manyof our countries face the single greatestsecurity challenge of all from the adverseimpacts of climate change: our survival.It is for this reason that we have come tothe Security Council today.”President Stephen commented: “In climatechange, our islands face dangerousand potentially catastrophic impacts thatthreaten to destabilize our societies andpolitical institutions. Our food security,water security, and public safety are alreadybeing undermined. Sea level rise iseroding our coastlines and in some casesdamaging critical infrastructure. Territoryloss could disrupt traditional systems ofland ownership and spark conflicts overthis and other increasingly scarce resources.Eventually some islands may disappearaltogether and with [them] thousandsof years of cultural heritage. This wouldforce large numbers of our citizens torelocate; first internally, then across borders.Even with an ambitious new agreementto address climate change, many ofthese impacts are now unavoidable.”EU Representative Pedro Serrano supportedthe Pacific Island States’ collectiveposition and signaled solidarity: “We32 • Minerva #39 • November 2011fully share the view that Small IslandDeveloping States are among the world’shardest hit by climate change. In particular,Pacific Islands face unique structuralconstraints due to their combined remoteness,small size, limited natural resourcesand vulnerability to natural hazards. Adaptationto climate impact is indeed vitalfor the future of Pacific Islanders; but thePacific Ocean also represents a vital resourcefor the future of our planet.”Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s tonetoward responsibility for climate changeand the role of each state suggested thatwe must move beyond blame toward boldaction together. “Developed countriesmust lead, while at the same time emergingeconomies must shoulder their fairshare,” he said. “We cannot ignore history.But we must clearly recognize thatthere can be no spectators when it comesto securing the future of our planet.”UNEP Executive Director Steiner calledfor the world leaders to work now to preventconflict tomorrow: “Indeed there isno reason why the international communitycannot avoid escalating conflicts, tensions,and insecurity related to a changingclimate if a deliberate, focused and collectiveresponse can be catalyzed that tacklesthe root causes, scale, potential volatilityand velocity of the challenges emerging.”He concluded: “In bringing forward a responsethat enhances global security andcooperation on the climate challenge, theworld can perhaps also better managerisk from numerous other challenges andin doing so diminish tensions betweennations and lay the foundations and possibilitiesof a more sustainable and equitablepeace.”The next steps taken by the UN SecurityCouncil or the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change as well as the UNHuman Rights Council must incorporatethe perspective put forward at the Julysession understanding the holistic natureof climate change.ïThe planet has now begun to protest.~ Barbados Prime MinisterFreundel Stuart

This statement was provided to theUN Human Rights CouncilAdvisory Committee 7th Sessionby the following organizations:• Action Canada for Population and Development*• ARC International• Arcigay Italy• Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development(APWLD)*• Asia Pacific Transgender Networks (APTN)• Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development(FORUM-ASIA)*• Association for Women’s Rights in Development(AWID)* - International• Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)*• Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network*• Çavaria VZW - Belgium• Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) -Argentina• Center for Reproductive Rights* - International• Center for Women’s Global Leadership (CWGL)*- International• Coalition of African Lesbians - Pan-African• Cook Islands Women’s Counselling Centre• Development Alternatives with Women for a NewEra (DAWN)* - Philippines/ Global• Drodrolagi Movement - Fiji/Pacific• East and Horn of Africa Human Rights DefendersProject - Uganda• Equal Ground - Sri Lanka/South Asia• Forum de la Femme Ménagère (FORFEM) -Democratic Republic of Congo• Fundación Triángulo, por la Igualdad Social deLesbianas, Gais, Bisexuales y Trans -Spain/Europe• Gay Japan News• Global Action for Trans Equality (GATE)* -International• Global Alliance for LGBT Education (GALE)• Horizon Community Association - Rwanda• Human Rights Institute of South Africa(HURISA) South Africa/Africa• Human Rights Watch* - International• Idaho Committee (International Day AgainstHomophobia and Transphobia)• Inter-American Center for Human Rights - USA• International Alliance of Women• International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)*• International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)*• International Gay and Lesbian Human RightsCommission (IGLHRC)* - USA• International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans andIntersex Association (ILGA)* - Belgium• International Movement Against All Forms ofDiscrimination and Racism (IMADR)*• International Planned Parenthood Federation(IPPF)*• International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)*• International Women’s Health Coalition*• Ipas*• Italian Association for Women in Development*• Lesben-und Schwulenverband (LSVD)• LGBT Centre Mongolia• Moscow Helsinki Group• Mouvement pour les Libertés Individuelles -Burundi• Other Sheep Africa (OSA) - Kenya• Out-Right Namibia (ORN)Joint NGO Statement on Traditional Values4 March 2011HRC Resolution 16/3, “Promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms through abetter understanding of traditional values of humankind”, stresses that “traditions shallnot be invoked to justify harmful practices violating universal human rights norms andstandards”, thereby acknowledging that traditions are sometimes invoked to justifyhuman rights violations.Concerns with a traditional values approach to human rights“Tradition” is frequently invoked to justify maintaining the status quo, ignoring thefact that cultures and social norms have always evolved and will continue to changewith time; by contrast, a human rights-based approach often requires changes to thestatus quo in order to ensure compliance with international standards. Simply becausea practice or belief has existed over a period of time or is practiced by a majority doesnot provide it with worth or validity. The obligation must always be to promote andprotect human rights, which may require that traditional values and practices evolve inorder to meet international standards.Many practices that fall under “tradition” are of long-standing origin, but others thatclaim to be “traditional” are in fact relatively recent. Tradition itself changes over timeand all cultures contain diverse and contradictory traditions. Most importantly, many“traditional values” may be inconsistent with international human rights, and “traditionalvalues” are frequently invoked to justify human rights violations. In previousdecades and centuries, mixed-race marriages, desegregation, women having the rightto work, to vote, to hold public office, or to own property would have been thought bymany to be inconsistent with “traditional values”.• Partners for Law in Development - India• Pembe Hayat LGBTT Solidarity Association -Turkey• Realizing Sexual and Reproductive Justice(RESURJ) - International• Salmmah Women’s Resource Center - Sudan• Sexuality Policy Watch - Brazil• Sexuality Policy Watch - Brazil/Global• Shustha Jibon - Bangladesh• The Federation for Women and Family Planning*- Poland• The Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexualand Transgender Rights (RFSL)*• The Union of solidarity with political prisoners -Russia• Transgender and Intersex Africa - South Africa• United and Strong Inc. - Saint Lucia• Violence is Not Our Culture Campaign - Global• Women for Women’s Human Rights (WWHR) —New Ways* - Turkey/EU/Asia/MidEast• Women Human Rights Defenders InternationalCoalition (WHRD IC)• Women Living Under Muslim Laws - Global• Women’s Action for Change (WAC) - Fiji/Pacific• Women’s Global Network for ReproductiveRights (WGNRR) - Philippines• Women’s International League for Peace andFreedom** NGOs in consultative status with the UNEconomic and Social Council (ECOSOC)As many marginalised groups have experienced,“traditional values” are frequentlyinvoked to restrict access to humanrights for those segments of society who,from the conservative viewpoint or perspectiveof those in authority, challengethe mainstream or fall outside the dominantnorm. For example, a GovernmentMinister of State for Ethics and Integritydefended a Bill that would have includedthe death penalty for certain forms ofconsensual same-sex conduct on the basisthat it was needed to maintain “traditionalChristian values as prescribed in theBible” (“Ugandan MPs debate Bill proposingdeath penalty for gay sex”, TimesOnline, December 18, 2009). UN SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon recently notedthat “deeply-rooted cultural sensitivitiescan be aroused when we talk about sexualorientation” but underlined that “culturalconsiderations should not stand in theway of basic human rights”. 1[continued, next page]33 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Women are frequently the subject of traditions— often linked to national, culturalor ethnic practices — which violatehuman rights and freedoms. For example,reports of the Special Rapporteur on violenceagainst women have repeatedlyaddressed harmful traditional practicessuch as: female genital mutilation; honourkillings; spousal abuse; dowry-relatedviolence; and customary laws that denywomen’s equality. Last year a [HumanRights Council] resolution on discriminationagainst women recognized that“laws, policies, customs and traditionsthat restrict women’s equal access to participatefully in development processesand public and political life are discriminatory”(A/HRC/12/L.3/Rev.1).The link between traditional valuesand traditional practicesHarmful traditional practices are frequentlylegitimised by the values on which theyare founded. Building on the work of independentexperts, including the formerSpecial Rapporteur on harmful traditionalpractices, the OHCHR has emphasized:“Every social grouping in the worldhas specific traditional cultural practicesand beliefs, some of which are beneficialto all members, while others are harmfulto a specific group, such as women. Despitetheir harmful nature and their violationof international human rights laws,such practices persist because they are notquestioned and take on an aura of moralityin the eyes of those practising them.”As one NGO representative pointed out ina statement to the Human Rights Councilduring discussions around the resolutionon traditional values:“Today, women and other marginalizedcommunities in my region and aroundthe world have made significant gains.Yet there are some who still advance socalled‘tradition’ as an argument againstmany attempts to remedy injustices orprotect human rights:- calling on the State to protect womenfrom domestic violence, we are told,would violate the ‘traditional value’ offamilial privacy;- combating marital rape allegedly contravenesthe ‘traditional value’ of women’sduty to obey their husbands;- equality in marriage similarly goesagainst the ‘traditional value’ of maleguardianship, or qawama.“Even when [our] government finallydecided to ban the practice of femalegenital cutting last year, it was accused ofstanding against the ‘traditional value’ ofprotecting the chastity of girls.” 2UN Precedents on Tradition, Cultureand Human RightsMany UN instruments and resolutionsrecognize key principles and standardsregarding the relationship between tradition,culture and human rights. In particular:(i) While cultural, traditionaland regional specificities must be bornein mind, States have an obligation to promoteand protect all human rights andfundamental freedoms, “regardless oftheir political, economic and cultural systems”;(ii) Tradition and culture maynot be invoked to violate human rightsnor to limit their scope;(iii) States have a positive obligationto work towards the eliminationof harmful traditional or cultural beliefs,values, stereotypes or practices that areinconsistent with human rights.For example:• The Convention on the Elimination ofDiscrimination Against Women affirmsthat “a change in the traditional role ofmen as well as the role of women in societyand in the family is needed to achievefull equality between men and women”(CEDAW, preamble), and requires Stateparties to “take all appropriate measuresto modify the social and cultural patternsof conduct of men and women, with aview to achieving the elimination of prejudicesand customary and all other practiceswhich are based on the idea of theinferiority or the superiority of either ofthe sexes or on stereotyped roles for menand women” (CEDAW Art. 5).• The Vienna Declaration and Programmeof Action calls upon Statesto work towards the elimination of “theharmful effects of certain traditional orcustomary practices, cultural prejudices34 • Minerva #39 • November 2011and religious extremism” (VDPA, para.38).“All human rights are universal, indivisibleand interdependent and interrelated.... While the significance of national andregional particularities and various historical,cultural and religious backgroundsmust be borne in mind, it is the duty ofStates, regardless of their political, economicand cultural systems, to promoteand protect all human rights and fundamentalfreedoms” (VDPA, para.5).• The Declaration on the Eliminationof Violence against Women (A/RES/48/104) recognizes traditional practicesharmful to women as a form of violenceagainst women, and includes amongstthese harmful traditional practices: “battering,sexual abuse of female children in thehousehold, dowry-related violence, maritalrape, and female genital mutilation”.• HRC Resolution 7/29 on the Rights ofthe Child expresses concern at “the horrificscale and impact of all forms of violenceagainst children, in all regions, intheir homes and families, in schools, careand justice systems, workplaces and incommunities, and urges States … to takemeasures to change attitudes that condoneor normalize any form of violence againstchildren, including cruel, inhuman or degradingforms of discipline, harmful traditionalpractices and all forms of sexualviolence” (OP 14(e), 2008).That resolution also calls upon States totake all necessary measures “to eliminateall forms of discrimination and violenceagainst girls, including female infanticideand prenatal sex selection, rape,sexual abuse and harmful traditional orcustomary practices, including femalegenital mutilation, son preference, marriageswithout free and full consent of theintending spouses, early marriages andforced marriages, and forced sterilization,including addressing their root causes”(OP 24(b)).• HRC Resolution 6/37 on the Eliminationof All Forms of Intolerance andof Discrimination Based on Religionor Belief emphasises the need to address“the situations of violence and discrimi-

nation that affect many women as well asindividuals from other vulnerable groupsin the name of religion or belief or due tocultural and traditional practices” (PP 10and OP 11(b)).• HRC Resolution 10/23, on the IndependentExpert in the field of culturalrights, affirms that “no one may invokecultural diversity to infringe upon humanrights guaranteed by international law,nor to limit their scope”.• The UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples affirms the spiritualtraditions of Indigenous Peoples, whilealso underscoring that the “human rightsand fundamental freedoms of all shall berespected” (art 46).• The Beijing Declaration and Platformfor Action (A/CONF.177/20) requiresgovernments to “refrain from invokingany custom, tradition or religious considerationto avoid their obligations”.• The African Women’s Protocol requiresStates to “eradicate elements in traditionaland cultural beliefs, practices andstereotypes which legitimise and exacerbatethe … tolerance of violence againstwomen”.• HRC Resolution 16/3 – mandate ofthe study, “Promoting human rights andfundamental freedoms through a betterunderstanding of traditional values of humankind”,stresses that “traditions shallnot be invoked to justify harmful practicesviolating universal human rights normsand standards”. It tasks the AdvisoryCommittee to “prepare a study on how abetter understanding and appreciation oftraditional values of dignity, freedom andresponsibility can contribute to the promotionand protection of human rights”.In light of the previous discussion and examples,it cannot be assumed that these“traditional values” will contribute to thepromotion and protection of human rights.This is why the Advisory Committee hasbeen requested to prepare a study whichwill fully explore the impact of these “traditionalvalues” on human rights. Thismeans understanding and appreciatingboth the positive and negative impacts.Dignity as a traditional valueThe concept of “dignity”, particularlyafter a reference to “traditional values”,can be misused to justify human rightsviolations, through concepts such as the“dignity of women”. Such problematicuses suggest a particular “dignified” rolefor individuals within society based onthe extent to which they play a traditionalrole. Dignity is in fact inherent to the humanperson and, thus, it is important thatthe Advisory Committee’s report focuson the language from the preamble of theUDHR that affirms “the inherent dignityand worth of the human person”.Responsibility as a traditional valueIt is unclear what is intended by “responsibility”as a traditional value of humankind.It is also unclear under what basisin international human rights law wouldjustify elevating “responsibility” to aprinciple on an equal footing with “theinherent dignity and worth of the humanperson” and “freedom”. The dangers ofsuch a lack of clarity around the conceptof “responsibility” as a traditional valuecan be illustrated by cases where it hasbeen invoked to justify abuses of an individual’shuman rights. For example, awoman’s “responsibility” to maintain the“honour” of the family:“In patriarchal and patrilineal societiesmaintaining the honour of the family is awoman’s responsibility. In these societies,the concept of women as commoditiesand not as human beings endowed withdignity and rights equal to those of menis deeply embedded. Women are seen asthe property of men and they have to beobedient and passive, not assertive andactive” (Special Rapporteur on Violenceagainst Women on “honour” crimes,2002). 3The principle of universality reaffirmsthat all human beings are entitled to thefull enjoyment of all human rights. Thiscan never be conditional on ill-definednotions of “responsibility”. Under internationallaw, the State clearly has theresponsibility to promote and protect universalhuman rights consistently with theuniversal values of equality and non-discrimination,amongst others. Any report to35 • Minerva #39 • November 2011the Human Rights Council should clearlystate the potential negative implications ofan understanding of responsibility whichrelates to traditions, whilst underlining anappreciation for the responsibility of theState in protecting the fundamental rightsand freedoms of the individual.The role of family, community, societyand educational institutionsFinally, the resolution notes “the importantrole of family, community, societyand educational institutions in upholdingand transmitting these values”. It is problematicto promote the “role of family,community, society and educational institutions”without acknowledging that humanrights violations may also come fromwithin these institutions, e.g. in the caseof spousal abuse or marital rape. The SpecialRapporteur on violence against womendedicated an entire report on culturalpractices within the family that are violenttowards women (E/CN.4/2002/83),including female genital mutilation, honourkillings, the pledging of girls for economicand cultural appeasement, witchhunting, incest, forced/child marriage,rape, widow rites, female infanticide, andcaste-based discrimination and violence.Furthermore, the study should acknowledgethat, through the ICPD Programmeof Action (para 5.2a), the internationalcommunity has recognized that “family”takes a plurality of forms, including single-parentfamilies, households with extendedfamilies, families with parents ofthe same sex or gender, etc. This recognitionchallenges traditional forms of relationshipssuch as marriage between a manand a woman as the only kind with “value”and welcomes the value and worth ofalternative forms of relationships as well.Universality of human rights, equality,and non-discriminationThe common “values of humankind”underpinning international human rightslaw are already inscribed in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights and otherinternational human rights instruments.These include equality and non-discrimination– specifically to protect groupsthat have “traditionally” faced marginali-

the core of religious intolerance; religiousfundamentalisms encapsulate very consciouspolitical projects. While religionitself might be invoked in support of awhole host of claims that are being made,it is important to understand that fundamentalismsare about power, and not justabout prejudice.This brings me to the second challengefacing those who critique religious fundamentalismswithin a human rightsframework. Religious fundamentalismposes a threat to human rights not simplybecause of the specific acts of fundamentalistgroups which may be recognised asconcrete violations of human rights standards;the real threat comes from the politicalaims or the political project that isat the heart of fundamentalisms, which isessentially to transform the way identitiesare ascribed and negotiated.The human rights question is about ushaving rights as human beings. The fundamentalistclaim is very different: it isabout ascribing humanity on the basisof a certain religious claim which has tobe legitimated by certain authorities, andwhich in turn lays down a whole set ofother obligations and subject relationshipswith self and others to a certain kind ofregime. To critique this core of the politicsof religious fundamentalisms, humanrights actors will have to look beyond justthe obvious standards against which violationscan be assessed. They will actuallyhave to go deeper into the human rightsframework and look into those values andprinciples which constitute the ethicaluniverse that is at the heart of the humanrights project. International human rightslaw in itself is not a sufficient basis for apolitical critique of fundamentalism.CB: Why do you think human rights lawis an inadequate basis for a political critiqueof religious fundamentalisms?VN: Precisely because of the fact that internationalhuman rights law is basicallya negotiated compromise between politicalentities or authorities with many conflictinginterests. When we are confrontedwith religious fundamentalisms we arefacing a very pernicious re-ordering ofrelationships between self and others, anda challenge to our autonomy to define ourbeing and way of relating. This demandsa strong moral critique because it is sodeeply personal. The character of thisphenomenon requires us to call on ethicaluniverses or pluriverses that can actuallychallenge it at the same fundamentallevel. Which is why I think that whileinternational human rights law can be avery important instrument in respondingeffectively to religious fundamentalisms,we have to draw upon much deeper resourcesmorally to inform our politics andlaw-making.CB: Would you say that ethics have beenan area of weaker development in theresponses of both human rights organizationsand feminists to religious fundamentalisms,and is that an area that needsstrengthening?VN: Yes, that is an interesting way ofasking the question. At one level, there’salways a tension between organizing aresponse to any kind of human rightsviolation and looking at the root causesof that violation and where it is comingfrom. I think those responses which advocateinstitutional change, legal change,behavioural change — or all three — areimportant and always raise these ethicalquestions. These violations are howeveronly a symptom underlying religious fundamentalism,because at the heart of religiousfundamentalism is the project to redefinehuman agency in a very profoundway and hence at one level politics aloneis not sufficient to respond. Retrievingthe self as well as individual and socialrelationships from spaces mediated byfear — divine or human — and from thetotalitarian ethos of fundamentalism is achallenge of ethics.CB: Activists confronting religious fundamentalismsin the South sometimesfind that donors and foreign governmentssuggest to local human rights activiststhat they should engage in dialogue withreligious fundamentalists and not complainwhen donor-county governmentsmeet with what local activists define asreligious fundamentalist groups and politicians.A Bangladesh activist highlightedthis in research by AWID when she saidthat British Government officials, when37 • Minerva #39 • November 2011challenged as to why they were meetingsenior members of the Jamaat-e-Islami,responded that “these parties are a normalpart of the political process”. Butwhat you are pointing out is that religiousfundamentalisms are so much more thanthat?VN: Yes precisely, they are part of the politicalprocess to the extent that they arepresent amongst us and active in the polity,but I think it would be a mistake to presumethat their ambitions are for instanceonly to capture power. Of course they areabout power. But they are much more thanthat. Unlike many other political actors,religious fundamentalisms seek to fundamentallytransform and essentialise ourrelationships with ourselves — betweenindividuals, within the family, within intimaterelationships, within institutions,within communities and ultimately thestate itself. It is the manner in which theytransform agency, that disempowermentwhich religious fundamentalisms standfor and which makes them dangerous.Human rights work has a lot to learn fromengaging with feminist practice and withwomen’s rights groups in this context, becausefeminism has engaged at the samedifficult, complex level by challengingthe way we think fundamentally aboutourselves and the way we relate to eachother. To the extent that religious fundamentalismsalso seek to redefine theserelationships but in disempowering ways,we have something to learn from feministpractice about transforming these individualand societal relationships in anempowering way.CB: Do you think it would be more effectivefor human rights organizations tohave specific projects — such as sexualand reproductive rights — on religiousfundamentalisms, or to “mainstream”awareness of religious fundamentalismsand take this into account in all their humanrights activities, or to do both? Manywomen’s rights activists want humanrights organizations to take a more activerole in responding to religious fundamentalisms.VN: There is already a mountain of workthat seeks to understand religious funda-

mentalism The first step for human rightsorganizations is to engage further withthat work. There are some areas in whichhuman rights organizations are alreadyconfronting fundamentalism and respondingto it, for example in the area of sexualand reproductive rights. But let’s face it:there are other areas. We have seen in ourwork there is a need for a far greater engagementof human rights organizationswith the question of family law, which thewomen’s movement has long considered.Many aspects of family law have beensubject to standard-setting for decades,so it’s not the absence of standards; it isreally a need to consider family laws asan area which the human rights communityshould engage with, and that is wherethey will encounter religious fundamentalismsre-ordering relationships with theself and intimate others.I’m not convinced that a project approachor rather saying that “we will now lookat religious fundamentalism” will work.What is needed is a far deeper consciousnessof religious fundamentalisms withinhuman rights organizations. For instance,working with staff, holding discussionsinternally, looking also at how in subtleways responses of human rights organizationsmight well be actually invoked byreligious fundamentalist groups themselves.We know that they use the humanrights language too; they understandhow to mobilize the language of rights,they understand how to capitalize on theawareness of rights, and the legal consciousnessassociated with it.I also think human rights groups need tounderstand their own moral and politicalpreferences when addressing humanrights questions and take into account howreligious fundamentalisms influence relationshipsin formulating their responses.CB: I tend to agree with you that a projectfocus may not be the best way to go.On the other hand, women’s rights activists’experience of “mainstreaming” hasbeen quite a bitter experience in terms ofgender rights. If we say that we shouldmainstream awareness of religious fundamentalisms,how can we ensure that is notreduced to a one-line meaningless sentenceat the bottom of the analysis to theeffect that “Religious fundamentalismshave a role to play in this and need to betaken into account”. How can it becomesomething more profound?VN: Responding effectively to fundamentalismsrequires a sincere, detailedand informed reflection on how individualautonomy and social relationships areconstructed in the world today. Those engagedin human rights work need to striveharder to understand the nuanced political,social realities that shape interactionsbetween individuals within families,within communities, societies and evennations and states. It’s not just a questionof having some workshops on religiousfundamentalisms for example. It’s aboutreflecting deeply on what kinds of forcesin different social contexts shape individualand social relations.CB: You seem to be quite comfortablewith the term, and yet within certain sectorsof the human rights community thereis a level of discomfort with using theterm “religious fundamentalisms”. Canyou explain why you feel comfortableas a human rights activist with using theterm?VN: Maybe it’s because coming fromSouth Asia I understand almost intuitivelywhat this means and others who comefrom other contexts may understand itless so. However, I also think that it’s becauseI don’t rely on international humanrights for my political direction. I see internationalhuman rights as an extremelyimportant framework that can define relationshipsbetween people, between statesand between states and people. Thatdoesn’t mean I have an instrumental viewof human rights: I think human rights valuesare an end in themselves, but at thesame time we need something more.I am also comfortable with the term becausethose of us who are engaged in reflectionon how to change the world welive in for the better, must be prepared toreflect on every aspect that influences theway we want to change it, including religion.CB: Research into strategies for resistingand challenging religious fundamentals38 • Minerva #39 • November 2011has questioned the utility of labelling individualsand pointing a finger: “That isa fundamentalist”. There are indicationsthat a more effective way of approachingthis would be to label agendas — recognizingthat at times it can also be strategicto unmask a specific individual — a politicianfor example. This is both becausefocusing on agendas not individuals canbe more likely to help build alliances,and because in some countries there maybe actors who pursue a fundamentalistagenda but who outwardly appear secularor they’re operating within a secularframework. So to start labelling them “religiousfundamentalists” creates problemsof taxonomy and debates over definitions,losing sight of the impact of what they do.Is that something that you can relate to inyour work as a human rights activist?VN: We all probably agree more or lessthat when we challenge key individualswe are challenging what they stand forand represent — the agendas they translateinto action. Eventually we have tofocus on agendas at some level… I’m justafraid that — to paraphrase Victor Hugo— religious fundamentalisms are an ideawhose time has come and we won’t beseeing the end of its influence by focusingon some individuals; fundamentalismis something whose seeds have beenplanted and which needs a long, sustainedeffort at de-seeding. This means clearlyfocusing where necessary on individualsand eventually on the agendas too, seekingnot so much to de-legitimise “them”but on legitimising other more empowering,enabling ideas. This is where humanrights can be a very important idea, as acounter narrative, not an anti-narrative,that focuses on reclaiming agency. ïVijay Nagaraj

NOTES ON DEHUMANIZATIONRegarding the roots of genocide, DavidBerreby, author of Us and Them:The Science of Identity, reviewed DavidLivingston Smith’s Why We Demean,Enslave, and Exterminate Others (St.Martin’s Press) in the New York Times (4March 2011). “Dehumanization is a mindset,as Smith writes, that ‘decommissions’our ‘moral inhibitions’ about mistreatingfellow human beings. Encased in lawand custom, this psychological processhas often licensed slavery, genocide andcountless other cruelties.”Tracing this tendency through history —from the pharoah Amenemhet boastingnearly 4,000 years ago of having “madethe Asiatics do the dog walk” to Muammarel-Qaddafi’s description of his criticsa “stray dogs” — and in contemporarycognitive science, Smith argues that “dehumanizationis rooted in human nature,not culture”, reports Berreby, renderingus “for better or more often for worse —predisposed to believe that racial or ethnicidentity is immutable.” Asserting “ethnicessences”, we default to hierarchies, and“[w]hen we dehumanize people,” Smithwrites, “we think of them as counterfeithuman beings”. Furthermore, he positsthat “[s]ubhumanity is typically thoughtto be a permanent condition”.David Berreby thinks this scheme leavesout “much of the reality of dehumanization”.(a) “For example, he writes ofthe immense guilt of soldiers who havedehumanized their enemy in combat, butthen, back in peacetime, recognize theirvictims as actual people, just like the folksat home. Shrewdly, he notes how militarytraining and rituals aim to undermine thisfeeling that the enemy is human. But heseems not to recognize that this sort ofsoldier — who sees his enemy as human,then subhuman, then human again — cannotexist if dehumanization depends on astable belief in permanent essences.”(b) There are historical examplesof “former slaves re-entering societyand rising to responsible and even powerfulpositions”, as in ancient Rome.(c) “[B]ecause essences mustbe consistent and well defined, Smith isforced to claim that all dehumanizationmakes its targets seem, as his title says,‘less than human’. But many forms of dehumanizationwork by making their targetsout to be more than human — to beageless vampires, for instance, or worldspanningconspirators who control theUnited Nations & the Federal Reserve.”Berreby is more interested in the “dramaof dehumanization, rehumanization, thenmore dehumanization, and so on” thatwe “wouldn’t have, or need” if we reallycould “settle for good who is essentiallyhuman and who is a zombie vampiresquid. … Instead, the who-is-and-isn’thumanquestion is never truly settled. Infact, it is the dynamic, even mercurialnature of “real human” status that makesthis mystery of our psychology so fascinating.Berreby quotes Adam Gopnik’s observationthat “‘[w]e don’t humiliate vermin,or put them through show trials, or makethem watch their fellow-vermin die first.’Right: we do that to people. Because wereadily see others as human, we need remindingthat our enemies are supposedlydifferent. Which often works, becausewe also readily see others as not human.Smith has explored the nature of thoseconceptual boxes ‘human’ and ‘not human’.But what really needs explaining isthe constant, restless travel that the mindmakes between them.”. . . AND ON EXTERMINATIONIn “War Without Humans”, a revisedand updated version of the afterword tothe British edition of Blood Rites: Originsand History of the Passions of War(2011), Barbara Ehrenreich proposes todefine war, generally, as “a self-replicatingpattern of activity that may or may notrequire human participation”.“It was the ascending scale of war thatoriginally called forth the existence ofthe nation-state as an administrative unitcapable of maintaining mass armies andthe infrastructure — for taxation, weaponsmanufacture, transport, etc. — thatthey require. War has been, and we stillexpect it to be, the most massive collectiveproject human beings undertake. Butit has been evolving quickly in a very differentdirection, one in which human beingshave a much smaller role to play. …Just as war has shaped human social institutionsfor millennia, so has it discardedthem as the evolving technology of warrendered them useless. When war wasfought with blades by men on horseback,it favored the rule of aristocratic warriorelites. When the mode of fighting shiftedto action-at-a-distance weapons like bowsand guns, the old elites had to bow to thecentral authority of kings, who, in turn,were undone by the democratizing forcesunleashed by new mass armies.”Now, “after at least 10,000 years of intraspeciesfighting — of scorched earth,burned villages, razed cities, and piled upcorpses, as well, of course, as all the greatepics of human literature — we have toface the possibility that the institutionof war might no longer need us for itsperpetuation. Human desires, especiallyfor the Earth’s diminishing supply of resources,will still instigate wars for sometime to come, but neither human couragenor human bloodlust will carry the day onthe battlefield.”War may “continue to fascinate its aficionados,in the manner of computer games”,Ehrenreich surmises. “But there will beno triumphal parades for killer nano-bugs,no epics about unmanned fighter planes,no monuments to fallen bots. And in thatmay lie our last hope. With the decline ofmass militaries and their possible replacementby machines, we may finally see thatwar is not just an extension of our needsand passions, however base or noble. Noris it likely to be even a useful test of ourcourage, fitness, or national unity. Warhas its own dynamic or — in case thatsounds too anthropomorphic — its owngrim algorithms to work out. As it comesto need us less, maybe we will finally seethat we don’t need it either.”Meanwhile, the dehumanizing effects,even of remote-control war, do not wane.39 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

A new series of articles in “think.”examines the main themes of the threeissue areas on which the Stanley Foundationfocuses its programming: globalleadership, nuclear material security, andgenocide prevention. Other portions haveappeared in earlier editions of Minerva.Rachel Gerber is a program officer inthe Stanley Foundation’s Policy and OutreachDepartment where she is responsiblefor human protection programming.Earlier, she worked for UNHCR and theUnited Nations Office at Geneva onissues related to refugee resettlement,UN system-wide coherence, interagencycollaboration, and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. From 2004 to2006, her work in the US Peace Corpsin Ukraine centered on secondary-leveleducation, curriculum development, andlocal capacity building. Rachel Gerber’sacademic background at CornellUniversity and the Graduate Institute ofInternational and Development Studiesin Geneva (IHEID) includes specializationin conflict analysis, human rights,and humanitarian law.The Trials and Tests Faced by R2PRachel GerberAugust 2011In a snapshot of the current debate surrounding the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) andglobal efforts to prevent large-scale violence against civilians, Libya and Syria woulddominate a frame of amorphous figures with blurred edges, each shifting haphazardlyin unknown directions.In the midst of such a muddle, it’s easy to get caught up in the moment. We seek toisolate individual crises, actors, positions, and decisions, and wonder how they will impactthe future of political principles like the Responsibility to Protect — which assertsthat all states have the responsibility to protect civilians from genocide, crimes againsthumanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes.As NATO’s mandate in Libya enters its sixth month and the Syrian government clingsto power with increasing violence, some claim R2P has failed to deliver its promiseto ensure protection for civilians whose governments have turned against them. Whileit would be foolish to claim that unfolding events and global action (or inaction) willhave no influence on the long-term development of the Responsibility to Protect principle,pointing to today’s snapshot as evidence of failure ignores its broader context.When taken at a wider angle, the current picture reveals many positive trends.The United Nations, a product of the experience of two world wars, was created toprevent violent conflict between nations, not within them. For much of its existenceand within very recent memory, insistence that the UN could not intervene in any matterthat was “essentially within the jurisdiction of any state” kept state-generated violenceagainst civilians off the agenda of decision-making bodies like the UN SecurityCouncil.Such arguments, however, were marginal to debates over threats to civilians in Libyaand Syria. UN member nations questioned whether and what kind of action the SecurityCouncil should take to counter such threats, but never the basic right of the councilto do so. “It’s not your business” is no longer a viable argument to give the internationalcommunity when it comes to internal violence targeted at civilians—a recent and strikingshift in the history of global politics for which R2P deserves its share of credit.Far from a checklist that mandates uniform action, R2P is a dynamic policy frameworkthat is meant to twist, bend, and adapt as best it can to the complex realities of the worldit hopes to improve.Beyond Libya and Syria, it informs many and diverse approaches to crisis, each ofwhich gives it a chance to prove its mettle in the long run. Efforts have been long underway to usher South Sudan into statehood without resort to civilian-targeted violence.Stabilization support continues in Southern Kyrgyzstan to prevent a resurgence of violenceagainst ethnic Uzbek populations.Such policies may be isolated — and as yet imperfect — but broader initiatives are alsounderway to improve global prevention and response capacities. A network of capitalbasedgovernment officials focused on the national-level implementation of R2P continuesto grow. On August 4, the Obama administration issued a presidential directiveto establish an Atrocities Prevention Board of top leaders within the US governmentto ensure better and more consistent responses to global threats of genocide, crimesagainst humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes.40 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

All of these efforts reflect a sense of obligationto protect civilians from massatrocity violence — a sense that continuesto root itself deeper within the psycheof global leaders. The fact that this sensehas begun to compel action, however imperfect,reflects an early success for theResponsibility to Protect.Moving forward, novel approaches andcompelling moral sentiments must eventuallymeet the messy realities of theworld.Many have classified the campaign inLibya as a mistake because the conflicthas proven more protracted and complexthan initially anticipated. Struggle isequated with error. Though, as decades ofpeacekeeping experience have taught us,civilian protection is rarely a simple endeavor.We learn by doing and, until very recently,inaction has been the global responseto mass violence. As R2P is applied, mistakeswill be made, as must adjustments.Translating a sense of obligation into effectivepolicies requires experimentationand adaptive learning.Global leaders must take care that this inevitableprocess of trial and error does notautomatically become trial by fire for thebroader commitments made in adoptingthe Responsibility to Protect.A recent debate on the Responsibility toProtect within the UN General Assemblysuggests that governments understandthis problem, and remain committed topreserving R2P, even when its applicationin cases like Libya raises more questionsthan it provides answers.As global events unfold, R2P is facing thetests and trials that both its supporters andskeptics always knew it would. But thereal world is where we all must come ofage. In the end, we are stronger for it.ïBeginning in 1945 with his prosecutionof war criminals during the NurembergTribunal, the work of Benjamin Ferenczhas long focused on issues of internationalcriminal justice and world peace.A strong supporter of the InternationalCriminal Court, Mr Ferencz vigorouslyadvocates steps to replace the “rule offorce with the rule of law”.Mr Lubanga was taken into custody bythe ICC on 17 March 2006 to face chargesrelating to the enlistment & conscriptionof child soldiers and forcing their participationin the armed conflict in Ituri, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo.In a Los Angeles Times op-ed column (4June 2010), Citizens for Global SolutionsExecutive Vice President Robert A. Enholmwrote: “The United States led inhelping the world understand the meaningof ‘aggressive war’ in the Nuremberg andTokyo war crimes trials. The US shouldcooperate with the ICC and resolve overtime the impediments to the US formallyjoining the ICC ….” Meanwhile, “Evidenceshows that prosecution by the ICCfor conscripting child soldiers has causedcombatant leaders in other countries torelease child soldiers and spurn their use.The establishment of global standards canhave a positive deterrent effect. A countrywithout the military power of the UnitedStates might reasonably conclude that therule of law is valuable protection againstthe use of aggressive force.Speech at Closing of Lubanga CaseBenjamin B. FerenczInternational Criminal Court, The Hague, August 2011This is a historic moment in the evolution of international criminal law. For the firsttime a permanent international criminal court will hear the closing statement for theProsecution as it concludes it first case against its first accused, Mr. Thomas LubangaDyilo [president of the Union des patriotes congolais and commander-in-chief of theForces patriotiques pour la libération du Congo].I witnessed such an evolution. As an American soldier, I survived the indescribablehorrors of World War II and served as a liberator of many concentration camps. Shortlythereafter, I was appointed a Prosecutor at the Nuremberg War crimes trials whichmapped new rules for the protection of humanity. I was 27 years old then. I am now inmy 92nd year, having spent a lifetime striving for a more humane world governed bythe rule of law.I am honoured to represent the Prosecutor and to share some personal observationsregarding the significance of this trial.The most significant advance I have observed in international law has gone almostunnoticed; it is the slow awakening of the human conscience. The 1948 Universal Declarationof Human Rights proclaimed inalienable, fundamental rights of “all membersof the human family as a foundation of freedom peace and justice in the world”. Countlesshuman rights declarations have been made over many years by many dedicatedpersons and organizations. But legal action to enforce the promises has been slow incoming.In Rome in 1998, when the Statute that binds this Court was overwhelmingly approved,over a hundred sovereign states decided that child recruitment and forcingthem to participate in hostilities were among “the most serious crimes of concern forthe international community as a whole”. Punishing perpetrators was recognized as alegal obligation.What makes this Court so distinctive is its primary goal to deter crimes before theytake place by letting wrongdoers know in advance that they will be called to accountby an impartial International Criminal Court. The law can no longer be silent but must41 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

instead be heard and enforced to protectthe fundamental rights of people everywhere.The Prosecutor’s Office spoke at length,meticulously detailing grim facts establishingthe responsibility of the accusedfor the crimes alleged. The evidenceshowed that waves of children, recruitedunder Mr. Lubanga’s command, movedthrough as many as 20 training camps,some holding between eight and sixteenhundred children under age 15.Words and figures cannot adequately portraythe physical and psychological harminflicted on vulnerable children who werebrutalized and who lived in constant fear.The loss and grief to their inconsolablefamilies is immeasurable. Their childhoodstolen, deprived of education and allhuman rights, the suffering of the youngvictims and their families left permanentscars. We must try to restore the faith ofchildren so that they may join in restoringthe shattered world from which theycame.Imagine the pain of mothers crying andpleading at the door of the camps still sufferingand wondering what happened totheir children. Picture the agony of thefather who said : “… He is my first son.All of my hopes were laid on him. … Thechild was ruined. … Today he can donothing in his life. He has abandoned hiseducation. And this is something whichaffects me greatly.”All of the girls recruited could expect tobe sexually violated.All of these events which the Prosecutionhas carefully presented have been provedbeyond reasonable doubt. Once again,“the case we present is a plea of humanityto law”. It was a call for human beings tobehave in a humane and lawful way.The hope of humankind is that compassionand compromise may replace thecruel and senseless violence of armedconflicts. That is the law as prescribed bythe Rome Statute that binds this Court aswell as the UN Charter that binds everyone.Vengeance begets vengeance. Theillegal use of armed force, which is thesoil from which all human rights violationgrow, must be condemned as a crimeagainst humanity. International disputesmust be resolved not by armed forcebut by peaceful means only. Seizing andtraining young people to hate and kill presumedadversaries undermines the legaland moral firmament of human society.Let the voice and the verdict of this esteemedglobal court now speak for theawakened conscience of the world.ïThe submissions of Germany, Italy andGreece on the merits had not been madepublic until the day Amnesty Internationalissued this public statement. Whenthe oral hearings have been concluded,Amnesty International “intends toaddress the arguments of the partieson this important issue”.War Crimes Reparation RightThe International Court of Justice should reaffirmthe century-old right of victims of war crimes to reparationby denying immunity claimAmnesty International42 • Minerva #39 • November 201112 September 2011On 23 December 2008, Germany initiated proceedings against Italy before the InternationalCourt of Justice seeking to permit civil claims by victims of war crimescommitted in Italy by members of the German armed forces during the Second WorldWar to proceed against Germany in Italian courts. In the 2004 case of Ferrini v. Italy,the Italian Corte di Cassazione (Court of Cassation) had concluded that Italian courtshave jurisdiction to consider reparation claims against Germany, leading a number ofvictims of the Second World War to institute civil proceedings against Germany inItalian courts. Germany, for its part, denied its obligation to pay reparation based onits claim of state immunity, leading to the seizure of German assets in Italy to enforcereparation judgments.On 4 July 2011, the Court granted an application by Greece to intervene in this case. AGreek court had issued a judgment in 1997 holding Germany responsible for the massacreby members of its armed forces of civilians in the Greek village of Distomo on10 June 1944. Once again Germany refused to provide reparation to the victims, claimingit was immune. After the Greek Minister of Justice refused to enforce the award,

upholding Germany’s claim to state immunity,the victims sought unsuccessfullyto challenge this official’s decision in theEuropean Court of Human Rights andthen obtained a judgment from an Italiancourt permitting enforcement of the Greekcourt judgment in Italy. The InternationalCourt of Justice directed that one week oforal proceedings take place beginning onMonday, 12 September 2011.Right to reparation for war crimes.All victims of war crimes have been entitledsince 1907 to obtain reparationfrom states for war crimes. Article 3 ofthe 1907 Hague Convention IV Respectingthe Laws and Customs of War onLand, which was proposed by Germany,expressly provides: “A belligerent partywhich violates the provisions of the saidRegulations shall, if the case demands,be liable to pay compensation. It shall beresponsible for all acts committed by personsforming part of its armed forces.”When proposing the inclusion of this obligation,the German delegate explained:“if . . . individuals injured by breach ofthe Regulations, could not ask for compensationfrom the Government, and insteadthey had to turn against the officeror soldier responsible, they would, in themajority of cases be denied their right toobtain compensation.”This obligation in Hague Convention IV(ratified by Germany), which containsno exceptions on the ground of state immunity,was included without significantchange in 1977 in Article 91 of ProtocolAdditional to the Geneva Conventions of12 August 1949, and relating to the Protectionof Victims of International ArmedConflicts (Protocol I).This obligation to provide reparation isnot simply a treaty obligation, but it isnow part of customary international humanitarianlaw. Rule 150 of the InternationalCommittee of the Red Cross Rulesof Customary International HumanitarianLaw provides: “A State responsible forviolations of international humanitarianlaw is required to make full reparation forthe loss or injury caused.” This obligationwas reinforced by two UN instrumentsadopted in 2005, the UN Basic Principlesand guidelines on the right to a remedyand reparation for victims of gross violationsof international human rights lawand international humanitarian law andthe UN Updated set of principles for theprotection and promotion of human rightsthrough action to combat impunity, bothof which confirm the right of victims ofwar crimes to reparation.Responsibility of states to individuals.Under international law, states incura responsibility for crimes under internationallaw committed by their armedforces not only to other states, but also,in some instances, to individuals. Article33 (2) of the International Law Commission’sDraft Articles on Responsibility ofStates for Internationally Wrongful Acts,adopted in 2001, provides that “[Part IIof the Draft Articles (Content of the internationalresponsibility of a State)] iswithout prejudice to any right, arisingfrom the international responsibility of aState, which may accrue directly to anyperson or entity other than a State”. TheCommentary by the Commission to thisprovision explains:“When an obligation of reparation existstowards a State, reparation does notnecessarily accrue to that State’s benefit.For instance, a State’s responsibility forthe breach of an obligation under a treatyconcerning the protection of human rightsmay exist towards all the other parties tothe treaty, but the individuals concernedshould be regarded as the ultimate beneficiariesand in that sense as the holders ofthe relevant rights.”In the Advisory Opinion about Legal Consequencesof the Construction of a Wallin the Occupied Palestinian Territory(Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004,para. 152) the International Court of Justiceconcluded that there is “an obligation[for a state] to compensate, in accordancewith the applicable rules of internationallaw, all natural or legal persons havingsuffered any form of material damage”.Any claim that a state is immune to acivil claim to reparation for war crimesshould be rejected. The absolute obligationof states to provide reparation tovictims of war crimes should not be completelynegated by a claim to state immunity,rendering it a nullity. Upholding aclaim of state immunity in such circumstanceswould be a devastating denial ofjustice to victims of war crime. There aresimply no meaningful alternatives for victimsto seeking reparation in a civil caseagainst the state responsible. States haverepeatedly asserted when seeking reparationfrom other states for their nationalson the basis of exercising diplomatic protectionthat they are asserting their ownright, not the right of their nationals, andhave frequently declined to pass on to thevictims any reparation provided by theresponsible state. Even when they havepassed on money to their nationals, theamounts agreed with the responsible statehave often been derisory, as in the casesof women victims of war crimes andcrimes against humanity involving sexualviolence committed by Japanese soldiersduring the Second World War. When thevictims are stateless or their governmentsare unwilling to seek reparation from theother state, the victims may have no recoursewhatsoever.A claim to immunity from providing reparationto victims of war crimes which iscoextensive with the obligation of statesunder international law to provide suchreparation cannot be accepted any morethan the similar claim rejected by theHouse of Lords in 1999 in the Pinochetcase to an immunity in foreign courts. …ï43 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Assertive Action To Protect —Without WarLucy Law WebsterLucy Law Webster is a retired UN PoliticalAffairs Officer who is an officer ofthe international World Federalist Movementand of Economists for Peace andSecurity. She is also Executive Directorof the Center for War/Peace Studies.There is no easy way to protect human rights in clique-owned nations to prevent the deliberatekilling of civilians who want change. Nonetheless when transition councils (asin Libya) ask for help, it is right that the UN Security Council and other internationalcooperative bodies (like the Arab League) give a green light for protective action.It is important to note that the real cry for help by people facing death and displacementimposed by internal security forces as in Syria, or by an autocratic regime opposed byinsurgents as in Libya, is totally different from the effort of émigrés from Iraq to getthe United States to invade their country. Urgent requests for help from people on theground are serious cries to protect life; some other reasons given for action such asthose that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq are mainly just excuses for war.Our aim should be to avoid war and to empower the international community to helpto protect people whose most basic human rights to life and security are deliberatelyviolated by rulers who use the police power of the state to protect themselves whilekilling and violating other citizens.While there is no simple formula for assertive action to protect that would not involvepotentially-escalating violence with some measure of collateral damage, there are waysto maximize protection while minimizing violence:1. Civil society groups such as Citizens for Global Solutions have asked UN SecurityCouncil permanent members to take “Responsibility Not to Veto”. Similarly, PresidentNicolas Sarkozy recently asked President Vladimir Putin to refrain from using Russia’sveto to block a UN resolution criticizing Syria.2. Non-NATO nations, as well as those in NATO, should make maximum use of thelegal opportunities to deploy UN Standby Peacekeeping forces to protect civilians inareas of danger before potential slaughter occurs.3. Regional groups such as ASEAN, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the African Unionand the European Union should explore ways to act in concert with each other andwithin the UN Charter rules to protect citizens against war and violence.4. To enhance the credibility of the Responsibility to Protect norm, all countries shouldrefrain from using it as an excuse for military action that is not held to the minimumlevel of violence and destruction possible. In discussing Syria with President Sarkozy,President Putin recently pointed out that the war in Iraq had not served the interests ofmost Iraqis. It definitely did not help to advance the R2P norm.5. Monitoring who is responsible for killing civilians (for example in Côte d’Ivoire orSyria) mainly provides data for post-conflict justice. It also helps to establish accountabilityto ICC norms that will deter future killing. Thus it is of value, but not as importantas diplomatic and peace force action to prevent war and internal conflict.6. In the longer run, the UN needs a relatively small directly recruited UN EmergencyPeace Service that can put highly trained UN security forces on the ground, who willrisk their own safety for the protection of civilians.7. Also in the longer run, the UN Security Council should replace the veto power of thevictors in WWII with a system of weighted voting that represents all regions and allnations in an equitable manner.ï44 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Eliminating NukesJames T. Ranney is Adjunct Professorof Law (International Law) at theWidener Law School and on the boardof Project for Nuclear Awareness(Philadelphia).REVIEW: 17 BooksJames T. RanneySeptember 2011BOOKS UNDER REVIEW:Beyond Arms Control: Challenges and Choices for Nuclear Disarmament (2010), by Ray Acheson, ed., Reaching Critical Willpublishing, 250 ppElements of a Nuclear Disarmament Treaty: Unblocking the Road to Zero (2010), by Barry M. Blechman & Alexander K. Bollfrass,eds., The Henry L. Stimson Center publ.;313 ppApocalypse Never: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World (2010), by Tad Daley, Rutgers University Press, 296 ppSecuring Our Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, by Merav Datan, Felicity Hill, Jurgen Scheffran, & AlynWare, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms,and International Network of Engineers & Scientists Against Proliferation; 177 pp Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers (2009), by Gareth Evans & Yoriko Kawaguchi, eds.,International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament; 294 ppSecurity Without Nuclear Deterrence (2010), by Commander Robert Green, Astron Media and the Disarmament & Security Centre;272 ppCultivating Confidence: Verification, Monitoring, and Enforcement for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons (2010), by CoreyHinderstein, ed., Nuclear Threat Initiative & Hoover Institution Press; 322 ppGetting to Zero: The Path to Nuclear Disarmament (2011), by Catherine McArdle Kelleher & Judith Reppy, eds., StanfordUniversity Press; 404 ppThe Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons (2010), by David Krieger, ed., Transaction Publishers; 281 ppBanning Weapons of Mass Destruction (2009), by Frederick N. Mattis, Praeger Security International; 129 ppA Skeptic’s Case for Nuclear Disarmament (2010), by Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institution Press; 174 ppAbolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (2009), by George Perkovich & James M. Acton, eds., Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace; 377 pp Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race (2007), by Richard Rhodes, Alfred A. Knopf; 388 ppThe Twilight of the Bombs: Recent Challenges, New Dangers, and the Prospects for a World Without Nuclear Weapons (2010),by Richard Rhodes, Alfred A. Knopf; 369 ppHow We Stopped Loving the Bomb: An Insider’s Account of the World on the Brink of Banning Nuclear Arms (2011),by Douglas Roche, James Lorimar & Co.; 205 ppReykjavik Revisited: Steps Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons (2008), by George P. Shultz, Steven P. Andreasen, SidneyD. Drell, & James E. Goodby, eds., Hoover Institution Press; 510 ppThe Partnership: Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb (2012), by Philip Taubman, HarperCollins Publishers;496 ppOn November 20, 1985, at the Geneva Summit, President Ronald Reagan and SovietGeneral Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev issued a joint statement that “a nuclear war cannotbe won, and must never be fought.” We are still working out the implications ofthis fundamental proposition.Less than a year later, at the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit, Reagan and Gorbachevfollowed up on their Geneva statement with proposals for total abolition of nuclearweapons, which foundered upon Reagan’s commitment to missile defense. AlthoughReagan was immediately criticized by “nuclear realists” such as Senator Sam Nunn45 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

and former Secretary of State HenryKissinger for proposing abolition, twentyyears later Nunn and Kissinger joined formerSecretary of Defense William Perryand former Secretary of State GeorgeShultz in adopting Reagan’s ideas. TheFour Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse,in their justly famous Wall Street Journaleditorial of January 4, 2007, boldly calledfor “a world free of nuclear weapons.”Having looked for decades at the variousdead-ends to which nuclear weaponsled, and the “increasingly hazardous”and “more precarious” nuclear future inwhich (a) even unpredictable third worlddictators were now capable of acquiringnuclear weapons and (b) nuclear materialscould more easily fall into the handsof non-deterrable terrorists, they endorsedReagan and Gorbachev’s vision of a nuclearfree world. 1 Similarly, dozens ofstatesmen from all over the world havecome out for abolition, as have dozens ofretired military generals and admirals andthe like (just to name a few: Admiral NoelGaylor, Admiral Eugene Carroll, GeneralLee Butler, General Andrew Goodpaster,General Charles Horner, George Kennan,Melvin Laird, Robert McNamara,Colin Powell, and George H.W. Bush). 2In short, the idea of abolishing nuclearweapons has moved from being the viewof a prophetic few 3 to being the new consensusposition, 4 held by approximately80% of the American public. 5And yet, despite this shift of both eliteand public opinion, twenty years afterthe supposed end of the Cold War, westill have thousands of nuclear missilesready to go off in minutes, with a collectiveforce 150,000 times the power of theHiroshima bomb. With “a decision windowfor each country’s president of fourto eight minutes” (after deducting timefor missile attack detection and confirmation,and the time for the response launchsequence and fly-away), 6 the increasinglydecrepit Russian C-3 (command,control, communications) systems, anda long history (largely unknown to theAmerican public) of “near misses” withnuclear war, 7 it is no wonder that those inthe know have become disenchanted withour current strategic posture. As one veryknowledgeable nuclear weapons industryinsider puts it:It has always been acknowledged thatan international security system basedon the willingness of nations to commitmutual suicide in order to protectthemselves is a suboptimum solutionto the security dilemma. 8Suboptimal indeed. George Shultz summedup the situation about as concisely asanyone when, confronted by the neoconservativesabout what almost transpired atReykjavik, he responded simply: “What’sso great about a world that can be blownup in 30 minutes?” 9In short, we find ourselves in a paradoxicalsituation where both candidates forpresident in 2008 ran on a platform ofabolishing nuclear weapons, where weare already theoretically obligated toeliminate them pursuant to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (Article VI), and yet,for whatever reason — bureaucratic inertiaor the machinations of the militaryindustrial-congressionalcomplex — wehave thousands of nuclear weapons stillready and waiting to more or less end theworld in the course of one rather long afternoon.10 Despite all this, however, thereis a growing sense, a building momentum,a feeling that now is the time for abolition.The books under review all reflectthis consensus.46 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Two basic arguments are being made forabolition: (1) that nuclear weapons, onbalance, do not add to our security, butdetract from it (the strategic argument);and (2) that they are barbaric relics thathave no proper place in military armories(the moral argument). Most emphasishas been placed upon the first of thesearguments. What is involved is a rathercomplicated assessment of relative risks.Those who have looked longest and hardestat the paths where continued relianceupon nuclear weapons leads have, withsurprising unanimity, 11 concluded thatthis is simply “too frightful and dangerousa way to live indefinitely”. 12 As RobertMcNamara, the man who (as Secretaryof Defense) was Manager of Our Missilesfor longer than anybody, puts it:Among the costs of maintaining nuclearweapons is the risk — to me anunacceptable risk — of use of theweapons either by accident or as aresult of misjudgment or miscalculationin times of crisis…. Human beingsare fallible. In conventional war,mistakes cost lives, sometimes thousandsof lives. However, if mistakeswere to affect decisions relating tothe use of nuclear forces, there wouldbe no learning curve…. The indefinitecombination of human fallibility andnuclear weapons carries a very highrisk of nuclear catastrophe. 13These and other risks are well describedin Tad Daley’s important book, which isperhaps the single best collection of allthe arguments favoring abolition. Forthose interested in the historical evolutionof nuclear strategic thinking, RichardRhodes’ magnificent Arsenals of Follycollects in one place what was previouslyto be found in two dozen books on thecontradictions and occasional illogic associatedwith the topic. 14 Indeed, for a fullground-level feel for the awesome natureof nuclear weapons and their historic developmentover the past six decades, all ofhis books on nuclear issues, starting withhis Pulitzer-Prize-winning The Making ofthe Atomic Bomb, are essential reading.Of the many very good “collections”, theCarnegie collection, Abolishing NuclearWeapons: A Debate, offers a brilliant concept:an initial set of papers by the leadauthors (George Perkovich and James Acton)followed by “responses” from some18 writers with varying viewpoints fromall over the world. Many of the most invaluableinsights (e.g., chiding the lead authorsfor over-cautious thinking) are to befound in these responses. The very helpfulKelleher-Reppy collection featuresdetailed analyses of the nuclear strategicthinking in each of the nuclear weaponsstates; a focus on the role the labs mightplay in transitioning to zero (Judith Reppy);a nice analysis of the possible futurepsychodynamics of social change (MatthewEvangelista); and a good discussionof the role of conventional arms balancing(Dennis Gormley). Also of greatvalue, especially for a very detailed andthoughtful draft of a model nuclear weaponsabolition convention, is the SecuringOur Survival compilation. Several of thevolumes, especially Daley’s, Carnegie,Securing Our Survival, and the Evans-Kawaguchi International Commission,provide key insights into the question of

how strategically we might move towardabolition.Many if not most of the books (the notableexception being Douglas Roche’snew book), despite talking about the needto “de-legitimize” nuclear weapons, giveslight attention to the moral question.It is as if they are so eager to avoid beingcharacterized as too “idealistic” andinsufficiently “clear-eyed” and “hardheaded”as those strategic brainiacs of oldwho coolly calculated and contemplatedworldwide gigadeaths (deaths in the billions)that they repeatedly miss opportunitiesto note the obvious. That these arenot “military” weapons; that they are, asRonald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachevpointed out, “irrational and inhumane”.They are designed to boil, fry, incinerate,evaporate, and irradiate very largenumbers of innocent human beings. CambridgeProfessor Philip Allott nicely capturesthe enormity of their evil:In the 20th century, the crazy idea thatthe human race might not survive wastreated as a suitable topic for rationaldiscussion and rational decision-making.People who are otherwise saneand sensible could talk about MutualAssured Destruction and the End ofCivilisation. People who are otherwisesane and sensible could make andmanage total war, wars with no necessarygeographical limit, no effectivelimit to the methods of death and destruction,no limit to the suffering tobe endured by powerless and blamelesshuman beings. In the 20th century,people who are otherwise decent andcaring could regard it as regrettable,but natural, that countless millions ofhuman beings should live in conditionsof life which are a permanent insult totheir humanity…. 15The Objections to Abolition. Of themany possible objections to abolition, thefollowing seem to be the leading ones.1) You cannot dis-invent nuclear weapons.This is of course true, but it is noobjection to abolition. You cannot disinventchemical and biological weapons,but we did abolish them in the BiologicalWeapons Convention (1972) and theChemical Weapons Convention (1993).Secondly, as Jonathan Schell first pointedout, the very fact that the nuclear genie ispermanently out of the bottle is what willpermit a sort of virtual nuclear deterrenceto continue to work in a nuclear-freeworld, but without the actual weaponssitting there ready to go off in minutes.There remains a disquieting problem withthis concept, however, which is that it isarguably inconsistent with the abolitionist/de-legitimizationmission. Thus, whilethere may be some inevitable role forvirtual deterrence, there appears to be agrowing consensus that we need to set ourface determinedly against any ideas of reconstitutingnuclear weapons. If we everdo need to confront a recalcitrant nuclearlaw breaker, conventional forces will easilysuffice (as a last resort). 162) Abolishing nuclear weapons wouldmake the world “safe” for conventionalwar. This is probably the most seriousobjection to abolition. 17 But despite a certainsurface plausibility, when one looksat it carefully, it gradually loses its force.For one thing, it is fair to ask, as BarryBlechman does: “Has there been peace inEurope (Yugoslavia aside) for the past 60-plus years because Britain, France, andRussia have nuclear weapons, or becausethe national rivalries that led to the warsof the 20th century have been replaced bya common understanding in that part ofthe world that the price of modern war,even with conventional weapons, is horrendousand that international cooperationand integration is by far the bettercourse?” 18 Moreover, as various authorspoint out: (a) even in a world of zeronuclear weapons, Schell’s “knowledge isdeterrence” concept would be operativeto some extent; (b) the United States hasa huge edge over every other country inconventional weapons, and this would deterjust as well as nuclear weapons; 19 (c)at bottom, a nuclear-weapon-free worldwould be much safer than one with suchweapons; and (d) nuclear weapons are inthe end sociopathic and immoral weaponswhich, like mustard gas or the gas chambersof the Holocaust, can no longer betolerated.3) Breakout possibility. Probably the singlemost frequent objection to abolitionis the possibility of “breakout”. 20 But this47 • Minerva #39 • November 2011objection is actually rather easily rebuttedupon close examination. It turns out thatif you run various simulations on what abreakout state might accomplish with afew or even a great many nuclear warheads,“it would not be able to do muchof anything with them at all”. 21 Far fromsuddenly being able to “rule the world,”as postulated by abolition objectors, theywould be confronted with not only theUSA’s awesome conventional forces butthe combined military might of the wholeworld. 22 Moreover, worldwide moral outragewould condemn them as an internationalpariah, something that “nuclearrealists” tend to discount, but somethingthat in the real world tends to make quitea difference. 234) Verification & Enforcement Concerns.It has been objected that a treaty abolishingnuclear weapons could not be satisfactorilyverified. With each passing year, inwhich we gain new means of verification— including radioisotope monitoring,portal and perimeter continuous monitoring,environmental sampling, wide areasurveillance, real time surveillance, onsitesensors, hydroacoustic and seismicand infrasound monitoring — this willnot be a valid objection to an abolitionregime. It is true that nothing less than avery intrusive and solid verification regimewill be necessary. It will take hardwork, and it will be costly, but there is abroad consensus that it can be done. 24As to the key issue of enforcement: in additionto adequate verification, it will alsobe necessary to set up a robust and welldefinedsystem for enforcing an abolitionregime, if the nuclear weapons states areto have confidence that they can safelygive up their weapons. Some of the issueshere are only beginning to be explored.Most of the commentators admit that it isdifficult to predict at this point what it willtake or what might be negotiated, but itwill need to be more thoroughgoing thatwhat we now have. 25 Moreover, the consensusview is that, unlike most treaties,withdrawal from an abolition treaty mustbe prohibited. 26 Finally, accompanyingan abolition convention, the use or possessionof nuclear weapons and materialsmust be made an international crime punishableas a crime against humanity. 27

Although all of the above sounds like(and will be) a lot of work, it has beenpointed out that there will be various“spin-off benefits” from such efforts:“Thus, the mechanisms and possible newbodies created by our efforts could, if successful,find additional roles in resolutionof disputes, regional security problems,and other international challenges thathave eluded solution.” 28 Indeed, contraryto what some analysts have suggested, itmay not be necessary to actually resolveall the biggest conflicts in the world in orderto secure a nuclear weapons abolitionconvention; rather, it may only be necessaryto secure agreement on an internationaldispute-resolution system. 29With a little luck, we are about to entera whole new era of human endeavor anddevelopment, in which we finally developa new moral compass that views nuclearweapons as irredeemably evil, in whichalternative dispute resolution systems (afour-stage global dispute resolution system:negotiation, mediation, arbitration,and adjudication) are used to resolve internationalconflicts, and where humanresources are shifted from military hardwareto human needs. Some will say thatall this is too idealistic. It is “idealistic”.But where would we be without idealism?Precisely none of the major socialadvances in human history would havecome about without idealism. Abolishingnuclear weapons is a do-able worthwhileproject, one that is do-able within the lifetimesof at least some of us, and perhapsmany of us.NOTES1 While their bona fides have been questionedby a few, see Darwin BondGraham, JacquelineCabasso, Will Parrish & Ray Acheson, “Rhetoricvs. Reality: the Political Economy of NuclearWeapons and Their Elimination”, ch. 1 in RayAcheson, ed., Beyond Arms Control: Challengesand Choices for Nuclear Disarmament (2010)(calling, without any evidence, the Gang ofFour’s campaign “a clever new kind of nuclearmilitarism”), there is no reason to not take theirstatement at face value.2 See (list of retired militaryand the like from all over the world).3 Most notably Jonathan Schell. His classic 1982book The Fate of the Earth was a clarion call forabolition. See also Jonathan Schell, The Gift ofTime: The Case for Abolishing Nuclear WeaponsNow (1998). Cf. generally Lawrence S. Wittner,Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of theWorld Nuclear Disarmament Movement (2009).Cf. also Roger Molander & Earl A. Molander,Nuclear War: What’s in it For You? (1982) (anotherclassic).4 Even the Terminator! The Four Horsemen,in their renewed (Jan. 15, 2008) call for “anuclear-free world”, quote Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger to the following effect: “Mistakesare made in every other human endeavor.Why should nuclear weapons be exempt?”5 See www.icanw.org/polls (polls showing, variously,77% and 87% of American public favoringabolition).6 Gareth Evans & Yoriko Kawaguchi, eds., supra,at 3, 27.7 See, e.g., Daley, supra, at 68-69 (one DoDcount lists 563 incidents of “nuclear mistakes,malfunctions, and false alarms”; on September26, 1983, Soviet Lieutenant Colonel StanislavPetrov saw on his computer screen what appearedto be full scale nuclear attack, and onlybecause he violated his instructions to alert higherauthorities to initiate launch-on-warning procedureswas WWIII narrowly avoided); MichaelKrepon, Better Safe Than Sorry: The Ironies ofLiving With the Bomb, at 36 (2009) (in the midstof the Cuban Missile Crisis, on October 27, 1962,Soviet submarines were being subjected to depthcharges to make them surface; despite ordersnot to use their nuclear torpedoes absent authorizationfrom Moscow, the 3 Soviet officers hadagreed to use theirs if under attack and unable toreach Moscow and all 3 officers agreed; in theend, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkipov decided notto start WWIII); Robert Green, Security WithoutNuclear Deterrence, at 120-121 (2010) (onJanuary 25, 1995, technicians at Olengrosk earlywarning radar station detected what appeared tobe a US-made missile [which it was, but it wasactually a Norwegian research rocket researchingthe Northern lights] heading for Russia; PresidentYeltsin’s nuclear “briefcase” was activated andRussian missile subs ordered to battle stations;with 3 minutes to spare, the missile was correctlyidentified); and Michael E. O’Hanlon, A Skeptic’sCase for Nuclear Disarmament, at 35-41 (2010)(other amazing incidents, including one on theevening of October 25, 1962, in the midst ofthe Cuban Missile Crisis: a sentry at a militarybase near Duluth “spotted someone climbing thebase fence, shot at the figure, and sounded thesabotage alarm”; as airfield alarms all over theregion went off, at Volk Field, Wisconsin, thewrong alarm, the one signaling nuclear war [the“P.S. we mean it, this is not a drill” alarm] wentoff and pilots were scrambled and headed downthe runway, being stopped at the last second bythe post commander; the intruder was a bear; if48 • Minerva #39 • November 2011the Soviets had had at that time the sophisticatedsurveillance equipment which they now do have,they would have seen us scrambling our nuclearbombers and a false alarm could easily have generatedthe real thing).8 James E. Doyle, “Eyes on the Prize: A Strategyfor Enhancing Global Security”, in GeorgePerkovich & James M. Acton, eds., AbolishingNuclear Weapons: A Debate, at 222 (2009)(Doyle is in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Divisionof Los Alamos National Laboratory).9 It turns out that the reason he had this snappylittle one-liner readily available was that it was“simply a repeat of what President Reagan saidmany times”. Email communication from SusanSchendel, assistant to George Shultz (05-08-2011; relaying what Mr. Shultz said).10 Nor is this, unfortunately, the only “doomand gloom” possibility. A recent study finds thateven a small 100-nuke “exchange” between Indiaand Pakistan (latest estimates are that India has70 nukes and Pakistan has 80) could result in aworldwide nuclear winter crippling agriculturefor up to ten years. See Jonathan Schell, The SeventhDecade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger,at 15 n.* (2007).11 Even the most hard-headed of Cold War warriors,such as Paul Nitze. In 1999, at age 92, inhis last op-ed, Nitze announced his change ofmind in favor of abolition. See J. Peter Scoblic,“Disarmament Redux”, Bulletin of the AtomicScientists (Mar/April, 2008), at 35.12 Herbert York, “Reducing the Overkill”, 16Survival 2 (Mar/April, 1974) (York was a ManhattanProject physicist who was Director of DefenseResearch under Eisenhower and the firstdirector of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).13 Securing Our Survival, supra, at 17 (emphasisadded).14 One small example. It was argued by one strategicthinker that the leader of a nuclear weaponstate might need to act a little “mad” so that anopponent would take nuclear threats seriously. Isthere anything wrong with this strategy? Well,yes, it is obviously inconsistent with the need todiscourage your opponent from having a “hairtrigger” on the nuclear button.15 Philip Allott, “The Emerging Universal LegalSystem”, 3 Int’l L. Forum 12, 12 (2001).16 See Harald Muller, “Enforcement of the Rulesin a Nuclear Weapon Free World”, ch. 2 in CoreyHinderstein, ed., Cultivating Confidence: Verification,Monitoring, and Enforcement for a WorldFree of Nuclear Weapons, at 34, 39-40, 54-55,& 58-60 (2010)(At 55: “relying on…virtual arsenalscarries the risk of preventing one of themost important preconditions for a zero-nuclearworld from emerging, namely a robust frameworkof trust”) and Jonathan Schell, The Gift ofTime, supra, at 140-147 (excellent discussion).

But see O’Hanlon, supra, at 5, 9-10, 18-20, 24,82-84, 95-107 (while “[c]apricious or blatantlyself-serving reconstitution must be avoided”, theability to rebuild is “an asset…not a liability”, although“bomb-ready fissile materials should notbe retained”, such that some nuclear inventorycould be rebuilt “within a number of months”).17 This argument has been set forth most fully byKeith Payne. See Brookings Institution, “The NuclearPosture Review and the Future of NuclearWeapons”, at 13-15 (March 29, 2010 conference)(transcript) & Keith B. Payne, “The Case againstNuclear Abolition and for Nuclear Deterrence”,Comparative Strategy 17 (Jan. 1998), 3-43.18 Barry M. Blechman, “Why We Need to EliminateNuclear Weapons—And How to Do It”, ch.1 in Elements, supra, at 8-9.19 See, e.g., Daley, ch. 8.20 The best collection of such arguments (byvarious commentators) is in Schell’s Gift of Time,supra, at 31-34.21 Daley, at 190. Cf. also Alexander K. Bollfrass,“Breaking Out of Zero: Would Cheating BeWorth the Risk?”, ch. 8 in Blechman & Bollfrass,supra; and Muller, supra, at 39, 53.22 Daley, at 191. Cf. id. at 200-201 (Gen. LeeButler notes that such an international law-breakerwould risk being removed, forcibly if necessary).23 Id. at 191-194 (proving the point with historicalinstances).24 See, e.g., Corey Hinderstein, ed., CultivatingConfidence, supra; Steve Fetter & Ivan Oelrich,“Verifying a Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons”,ch. 2 in Blechman, Elements, supra; and Perkovich& Acton, eds., Abolishing, supra, ch. 2.25 Cf. generally Muller, supra, ch. 2 (may needsome body other than the veto-impaired UN SecurityCouncil, or have a treaty provision disallowinguse of vetoes re the abolition treaty);James E. Goodby, “Internationalizing the NuclearFuel Cycle”, ch. 10 in George P. Shultz, Steven P.Andreasen, Sidney D. Drell, & James E. Goodby,Reykjavik Revisited: Steps Toward a World Freeof Nuclear Weapons, at 363-366 (2008) (variousideas, including Jessica Mathews’ proposal forrobust “Inspections Implementation Force”); andSecuring Our Survival, supra, at 90, 175 (complianceand dispute-settlement procedures of modelconvention; need for changes in “internationalgovernance”).ï26 See, e.g., Muller, at 49.27 See, e.g., Rebecca Bornstein, “Enforcing aNuclear Disarmament Treaty”, ch. 6 in Blechman& Bollfrass, eds., Elements, supra, at 159. Andenforced by a UN Peace Force. See Raymond J.Juzaitis & John E. McLaughlin, “Challenges ofVerification and Compliance Within a State ofUniversal Latency”, ch. 4 in George Shultz, et al,Reykjavik Revisited, supra, at 199.28 Edward Ifft, “Political Dimensions of Determing‘Effective’ Verification”, ch. 1 in Hinderstein,supra, at 29.29 This is the subject of a book I am completing.Among the few glancing references to this topicin existing literature, see, e.g., Evans & Kawaguchi,supra, at 198 (“The development of more cooperativeapproaches to conflict prevention andresolution may well prove more productive…than focusing entirely on arms limitation measures.”).Cf. also Douglas Roche, “A World Freeof Nuclear Weapons,” ch. 14 in Krieger, supra, at212 (“It [nuclear-free world] cannot wait for thepeaceful resolution of conflict around the world,as if regional tranquility must be achieved beforethe nuclear weapon states will give up their arsenals.”).From “The Way Forward After a New START”, remarks by Assistant Secretary ofState for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance Rose Gottemoeller, at theInstitute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University, Lithuania,9 February 2011:Ratification of the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty] represents anessential step on the path toward a world without nuclear weapons. We believe thatthe national security of the United States, and all states, will be enhanced when thetest ban enters into force.Achieving a verifiable FMCT [Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty] is an essential conditionfor a world free of nuclear weapons. If the international community is seriousabout drawing down, we must constrain the ability to build up. We are working hardto keep the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva focused on this goal.Each of these steps will move us closer to President Obama’s vision of reducing —and ultimately eliminating — nuclear weapons.The agenda is ambitious and will require enormous efforts from governments, NGOs,think tanks, academics, scientists, advocates and the global community.As President Obama said when he signed the New START Treaty saying: “this is along-term goal, one that may not even be achieved in my lifetime. But I believe then,as I do now, that the pursuit of that goal will move us further beyond the Cold War,strengthen the global nonproliferation regime and make the United States and theworld safer and more secure.”49 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Extreme InjuryElaine ScarrySeptember 2011Elaine Scarry, Walter M. Cabot Professorof Aesthetics & the General Theoryof Value at Harvard University andauthor of The Body in Pain, among otherbooks, most recently has written Thinkingin an Emergency (the first volume inAmnesty International’s Global Ethicsseries) and Rule of Law, Misrule of Men.This essay first appeared in the September/October2011 edition of the BostonReview. It is reprinted by permissionof the author.In a 2008 television interview, former Vice President Dick Cheney addressed complaintsabout the overreaching of the executive branch. In order to defend the Bushadministration, he might have argued that reports of presidential overreaching wereexaggerated. Instead he argued the opposite: the public, he suggested, has an insufficientappreciation of how truly vast that presidential power is. Accompanied aroundthe clock by a military aid carrying the nuclear football,[The president] could launch the kind of devastating attack the world hasnever seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to callthe Congress; he doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authoritybecause of the nature of the world we live in. It’s unfortunate, but I thinkwe’re perfectly appropriate to take the steps we have. 1Cheney makes the transition from the first three sentences to the fourth as though hisconclusion followed effortlessly from his premises: the president’s license to launchnuclear weapons (accurately described by Cheney, and true of every president livingin the nuclear age from Eisenhower to Obama) makes his otherwise illegal executiveactions — however “unfortunate” — “perfectly appropriate”.What Vice President Cheney seems to be saying is this: if you keep in mind the vastlevel of injury the president is permitted to inflict on the world, it will help you keepin perspective the lesser injuries he has actually inflicted: the 350 people allegedlytortured, the 83 times Abu Zubaydah was water boarded, the 183 times Khalid SheikhMohammed was water boarded, 2 the 3x6x7-foot cell (rat-infested and latrine-free) inwhich the wholly innocent Canadian citizen Maher Arar was kept for a year duringwhich time he was periodically beaten with a two inch–thick cable and threatened withbeing suspended upside down from a tire and subjected to electric shock. 3 Each timeyou think that the perpetrators of such acts should be prosecuted, replace that pictureof prosecution with a picture of what is always in the president’s field of vision: thenuclear football.Of course, neither picture should displace the other. Prosecuting the architects of UStorture is critical to restoring the rule of law, as I and countless others have arguedand continue to argue. But we should also, as Dick Cheney counsels, think about the40-pound titanium briefcase that accompanies the president (as well as, in one formator another, the executive officers of other countries) and enables him to launch a nuclearstrike. Nuclear weapons need to be gotten rid of first and foremost for their ownsake and also for the “lesser” brutalities they license.Our nuclear weapons are, at every minute of the day and night, ready for use. Just asthe nuclear briefcase is within the president’s reach, so all other steps between theorder to launch and the launch itself are relentlessly in place. In his recent biographyWithout Hesitation, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton describesthe period of his career when, as Deputy Director of Operations at the NationalMilitary Command Center under Bill Clinton, he was “in charge of our nuclear watch”at the Pentagon “with secure 24/7 links to the President . . . and the key to initiate anuclear launch at my fingertips”. He recounts the frequent exercises—called “NightBlue” — for presidential launch: “Our guiding philosophy was—and still is—practice,then practice again.” 450 • Minerva #39 • November 2011[continued]

As the president is kept ready and thePentagon is kept ready, so the submarinesare kept ready. Each of our fourteen Ohioclasssubmarines carries 24 nuclear missiles,bright orange vertical shafts vaultingupward through all four stories of thesubmarine. In some of the submarines,such as the USS Tennessee, the orangepaint color is increasingly darkened tored across the 24 missiles to give the illusionof greater depth to the crew whowill reside in these confined quarters underthe ocean for their three-month longmission. 5 At the moment the submarineleaves its East Coast port of Kings Bay,Georgia or its West Coast port of Bangor,Washington, each missile (each of whichin turn carries up to seventeen warheads)already has a dossier of targets programmedinto it. Should the commanderof a nuclear submarine receive a presidentiallaunch order, that order will specify— by number — which of his 24 missileshe should launch (the launch ordermay require the submarine crew to alterthe pre-programmed target coordinates).According to New York Times reporterDouglas Waller—who describes his threemonths on the nuclear-armed submarineUSS Nebraska in his book Big Red—theUS Strategic Command, located at OffuttAir Force Base in Nebraska, demands“that the subs cover all the target packagestwenty-four hours a day, seven daysa week. No excuses”. 6 His book is a nonstopdescription of emergency exercises:launching a missile, dealing with a dissidentcrew member, dealing with a commandersuffering an “attack of pacifism”,stopping a fire, stopping a water leak, doingtwo or three of these exercises simultaneously.No one who expresses hesitationabout firing nuclear weapons can bea crew member; still, the daily drills developprocedures to deal with hesitation,should it suddenly arise. 7At least some portion of the populationalso practices mental readiness for a nuclearstrike. The country’s solitary finalassembly plant for nuclear weapons islocated in Amarillo, Texas. Twenty-fiveyears ago the journalist A. G. Mojtabai setout to understand how the people of thiscity bear the psychic burden of this work.As she reported in Blessèd Assurance: AtHome with the Bomb in Amarillo, Texas,many members of the population believein the Rapture—the end of the world andthe gathering of true believers into thearms of Christ. For many of these believers,nuclear weapons, far from beingsomething to repudiate, are vehicles tothis blissful end-time event.The 1995–2007 Left Behind series —which has more than 65 million readers—openswith the Rapture: millions ofthe earth’s most godly believers disappearin an instant. This initial event is neitherassisted nor accompanied by nuclear attacks.8 But a seven-year war-torn “tribulation”period then follows during whichthe people of earth (including our majorprotagonists) have the chance to becometrue believers in preparation for the end ofthe world. Vying with Christ for people’shearts is the Antichrist, a charismatic mannamed Nicholae Carpathia who overnighthas become both the president ofRomania and the internationally reveredsecretary general of the United Nations.How do our protagonists immediatelyrecognize that he is the Antichrist? Whatis the telltale sign, the sure giveaway?He demands nuclear disarmament: whenthe United Nations begs him to becomeits new leader, he stipulates that he willonly do so if the nuclear countries destroynine-tenths of their nuclear weapons andput the other tenth under protection of theUnited Nations. 9Carpathia will turn out to have murderousinclinations, but the key point is thatno one on Christ’s side, or the Rapture’sside, or God’s side is anywhere in thesebooks championing a benign form ofnuclear disarmament. Indeed when one ofour protagonists, the pastor Bruce Barnes,himself becomes an influential leader, heassures his congregation that he never advocatesdisarmament or peace and is fullyaccepting of the wars to come: that is howthe congregants can be certain that he isnot an Antichrist. 10Not all readers take the ideas of Left Behindliterally. But many do. The authorscertainly press for literal belief in theRapture and, seven years later, the finalGlorious Appearing, even providing anappendix elaborating the biblical bases ofthe novel’s events (the biblical citations51 • Minerva #39 • November 2011are also included, recited, and analyzedin the interior pages of the novels). JerryFalwell stated: “In terms of its impacton Christianity, [Left Behind is] probablygreater than that of any other bookin modern times, outside the Bible.” 11 Butwhether or not readers believe in the literalclaims of the book, they are surelybeing counseled to regard nuclear disarmamentas morally sinister and nuclearweapons as morally good, even godly. 12As the study of Amarillo makes clear, theLeft Behind series does not originate, buttaps into, a set of associations betweennuclear weapons and evangelical beliefthat pre-dates and post-dates the books.Those beliefs are held not only by someof the people who assemble nuclearweapons, but by some of the people whoare positioned to launch them. Until lateJuly 2011, the Air Force had a mandatorycourse on Nuclear Ethics and NuclearWarfare for its missile officers, a coursewhose materials were recently obtainedunder the Freedom of Information Act bythe Military Religious Freedom Foundation,whose president, Mikey Weinstein isan Air Force Academy graduate and a formerAir Force Judge Advocate General.The course — as Weinstein summarizesit — “mandatorily teaches its nuclearmissile launch officers that fundamentalistChristian theology is inextricablyintertwined with the ‘correct’ decision tolaunch nukes”. 13 According to Truthout,presentations include citations from theOld and New Testaments, including, fromthe Book of Revelation, the claim that“Jesus Christ is a mighty warrior”. Someof the graduates refer to one section of thecourse as the “Jesus loves nukes” part.The Air Force, in response to adversepublicity, has temporarily suspended andpromised to review the course.The dangers inherent in the redundancy,readiness, and hair-trigger alert of our nuclearstance are further amplified by thegrowing mastery of hacking. Once eightcountries have nuclear weapons, peopleeverywhere on earth potentially “have”them. A report by Jason Fritz commissionedby the International Commissionon Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmamentreviews the ways hackers couldenter the command-and-control system of

one of the eight nuclear countries in orderto launch a missile directly, issue a falsepresidential command that would in turnlead to the launching of a missile (hereFritz draws on a US Navy acknowledgmentof “back door” access to their VeryLow Frequency command systems), orproduce a false missile image on a country’sradar and satellite screens, causingthat country to launch an actual missile inresponse.Confronted with a counterfeit image ofan incoming missile, US warning crewswould have three minutes to assess whetherthe apparent attack was valid or false;if it were judged valid, the US StrategicCommand would then have 30 secondsto lay out for the president the “retaliatoryoptions”; the president would haveseveral minutes to decide how to respond.Fritz draws on the writings of Bruce Blair,a former launch officer working with theMinuteman nuclear missile, and uses theexample of a cyber terrorist attempting tofoment nuclear war between the UnitedStates and Russia:Cyber terrorists would not needdeception that could stand up over time:they would only need to be believable forthe first 15 minutes or so. The amount offirepower that could be unleashed in these15 minutes, combined with the equallyswift Russian response would be equivalentto approximately 100,000 Hiroshimabombs. 14We have not been informed of any attemptsto hack nuclear weapons systems,but in 1998 hackers successfully insertedan image of a mushroom cloud onto theWeb site of the Bhabha Atomic ResearchCenter in India; 15 in 2000 a thirteen-yearoldboy in Connecticut hacked into the USAir Force plane tracking system; 16 in 2009Iraqi rebels hacked into the video systemof unmanned US aircraft. 17 In his bookCyber War, Richard Clarke describes howphantom images can be used to trick sensors,as when Israel in 2007 placed falseimages of benign night sky on Syria’s sophisticatedRussian-made air-surveillancescreens so that a blanketing formation ofF-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons could flyinto that country without being detectedand bomb what was believed to be theconstruction site for a nuclear facility. 18Hacking is usually not noticed until it issuccessful. Fritz gives the example of the2001 hacker who, on his 45th attempt,successfully released “up to 1 millionlitres of sewage into the river and coastalwaters of Queensland, Australia”; his earlier44 attempts went undetected. 19Nuclear weapons are the object of intenseattention: they are in the president’s fieldof vision, in the field of vision of Ohioclasssubmarine crews, in the minds ofpopular-novel readers and weapons assemblers,on the screens of the nuclearcontrol centers at the Pentagon and atOffutt Air Force Base (where PresidentBush stopped on 9/11, after first stoppingat Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana,another important location on the nuclearregistry), and almost certainly in the aspirationof hackers, some of whom, like theRapture artists, may believe that the endof the world is acceptable.But it is not the case that inattention —what most of the rest of us practice — isa better alternative. Inattention is what allowedPresident Clinton to lose the cardcontaining the presidential launch codesfor several months. 20 Inattention is whatallowed six nuclear bombs to sit unattendedon an open airfield at Minot Air ForceBase and then at Barksdale for a total of36 hours in late August 2007. Inattentionis what led to the collision of two nucleararmedsubmarines — the British HMSVanguard and the French Le Triomphant— in the Atlantic in February 2009. 21 Ourinattention is potentially as lethal as thesethree accidents, for our indifference andour willed ignorance everyday assist thestanding arrangements that entail colossaldanger to earth.Our work on the tenth anniversary of 9/11should include mourning the dead and restoringthe rule of law through prosecution,but now — while the century is stillyoung — we need to dedicate ourselvesto ridding the world of nuclear weaponsand the extreme injuries they are designedto bring about—injuries from which (asPresident Obama has observed 22 ) wewould not be able to recover.52 • Minerva #39 • November 2011NOTES:1) Dan Eggen, “Cheney, Biden Spar in TV Appearances”,The Washington Post, December 22, 2008(describing Cheney’s interview on Fox News Sunday,December 21, 2008).2) Human Rights Watch, Getting Away with Torture:The Bush Administration and Mistreatment ofDetainees, New York, 2011, pp. 9, 11.3) These physical details and many others are enumeratedby Second Circuit Judges Sack, Calabresi,Pooler, and Parker in their dissent from the “Opinionof the United States Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit sitting en banc, November 2, 2009”in Arar v. Ashcroft pp. 65a–66a.4) General (Ret.) Hugh Shelton, Without Hesitation:The Odyssey of an American Warrior (NewYork: St Martin’s Press, 2010), pp. 174–175.5) David Ballingrud, “Trident Sub: Roomier for theLong Haul”, St. Petersburg Times, May 5, 1990,p. 1A. Ballingrud specifically describes the USSTennessee.6) Douglas C. Waller, Big Red: the Three-MonthVoyage of a Trident Nuclear Submarine, (NewYork: HarperTorch, 2001), p. 35.7) Waller, Big Red, pp. 158, 161, 166, 168–78, 251,253, 276–323.8) Actually, the Antichrist figure in the novel andhis closest colleague (a Nobel prize–winning scientist)believe the disappearances were brought aboutby nuclear weapons, but the reader is not invited totake this explanation as the accurate one.9) Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind(Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House, 1995), pp.139, 277, 278, 314, 355, 417–19. The insistence ondisarmament as a sign of the Antichrist continuesin the second book in the series, Tribulation Force(1996), pp. 27, 63, 71, 72, 126, 128.10) LeHaye and Jenkins, Tribulation Force, p. 72.11) Falwell quoted in David Van Biema, et. al.,“The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”,Time Magazine, January 2005. The category“Evangelical” includes diverse perspectives: themembers of the Two Futures Project, for example,are strongly committed to nuclear disarmament, asare contributors to the journal Sojourners.12) The Left Behind series portrays nuclear weaponsas in one way “ungodly”: their power is minisculecompared to God’s. In Soul Harvest, the fourthbook, several huge “burning mountains” are hurledto earth — one, a thousand square miles, “the massof the entire Appalachian Mountain range” (p. 417),the other made of rotting wood designed to splinterinto billions of fragments poisoning one-third ofthe earth’s water supply. Carpathia uses a nuclearweapon in a futile attempt to prevent the secondmeteor from hitting the earth, but cannot reach itor alter its course: “the flaming meteor the Biblecalled wormwood split itself into billions of piecesbefore the missile arrived” (p. 421). The portrayalof nuclear weapons as ridiculously ineffectiveworks to reinforce the reader’s sense that disarmamentis unnecessary. Their power is too small toworry about.[continued]

13) Jason Leopold, “Air Force Cites New Testament,Ex-Nazi, to Train Officers on Ethics ofLaunching Nuclear Weapons”, Truthout, July 27,2011; and Jason Leopold, “Air Force Pulls Christian-ThemedEthics Training for Nuclear MissileOfficers After Publication of Truthout Report”,Truthout, July 29, 2011.14) Jason Fritz, “Hacking Nuclear Command andControl” [PDF], pp. 10, 11. See also Bruce Blair,“Achieving the Vision of a World Free of NuclearWeapons: Increasing Warning and Decision Time(De-Alerting’)” [PDF], 2008.15) Fritz, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,”p. 18.16) “Teen Charged with Hacking into Air ForceSystem,” CNN, April 24, 2001. The boy “hackedinto the secure connection between the Air MobilityCommand System at Scott Air Force Base inBelleville, Ill. and a US Department of Transportationcomputer system at the Volpe Center inCambridge, Mass”. He also “ran a program thatdestroyed the electronic data files that recorded hispresence on the system”.17) BBC News, “Iraq Rebels ‘Hack into USDrones’”, December 17, 2009.18) Richard A. Clarke and Robert K. Knake, CyberWar: the Next Threat to National Security andWhat To Do About It (New York: Harper Collins,2010), pp. 1–8.19) Fritz, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,”p. 5.20) Shelton, Without Hesitation, 392. The loss ofthis code, around which elaborate authenticatingprocedures are designed, may at first be reassuring,since it seems to indicate that President Clinton(who did not report the loss to the Pentagon) didnot anticipate ever launching a nuclear weapon.However, because the code could have been in thehands of any one of the hundreds of people Clintonencountered inside or outside the White House, itsdisappearance was a highly dangerous event.21) See Rachel Williams and Richard Norton-Taylor,“Nuclear Submarines Collide in Atlantic”, TheGuardian, February 16, 2009; and John F. Burns,“French and British Submarines Collide”, NewYork Times, February 16, 2009.22) Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars (New York:Simon and Schuster, 2010), pp. 363–64.ïMy father [John Steinbeck] valuedpatriotism above all other social obligations,but he had his own particularinterpretation of just how true patriotismwas meant to function. His definition wasdirectly geared to a socio-political axiomof his own invention, and I knew it byheart by the time I was seven years old.He said, “If the solution to a problem ofabsolute disagreement extends to a callfor bloodshed, then neither party hasdemonstrated the intelligence to formulatethe question properly.”~ Thomas Steinbeck,on his father’s view of“planetary patriotism”(27 September 2010)53 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

Ending poverty takes each and every oneof us.~ retired French football starZinedine Zidane, a UNDP goodwillambassador, on a Mali visit,October 2011FAIRNESS ~ “Advocates of global fairness,or more formally, of global civics,face a less-than-encouraging picture,”acknowledges former Under SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations BrianUrquhart in his Afterword to Hakan Altinay’s2010 Brookings Working Paper,Does Fairness Matter in Global Governance?“In many countries, let alone theworld at large, there is a querulous andungenerous political and social mood;while international relations, freed fromthe monstrous hazards of the Cold War,are for the most part anxious, cool, quarrelsomeand uncertain. Within the UnitedNations, the world’s most universal forum,there is little evidence of enthusiasticsolidarity or forward-looking leadershipthat is needed to resolve threateningglobal problems successfully, let aloneto seek fundamental changes in humanattitudes or behavior. While the internationalhumanitarian response to disastersis relatively strong, and the realization ofhuman rights has many active supportersall over the world, the vital conceptof fellowship of the human race is honoredmore in rhetoric than in practice.”Urquhart recognizes many achievements,some “inconceivable 70 years ago”, thatare “indispensable to fairness and the civicconscience both nationally and internationally;but until the actual inhabitants ofthe planet develop a stronger feeling ofmutual responsibility and mutual pride,and communicate such feelings to theirrulers, the necessary popular pressure tomove us into a new era of global civicswill be lacking. … [U]nless and until thepeoples of the world, whom the UN Charternames in its opening words, associatethemselves actively with the higher aspirationsof the international system, thebest hopes of our human civilization willremain to some extent unfulfilled.”Notes&ResourcesFAIRNESS & EQUALITY REPORTA report released in October by the BertelsmannStiftung of Germany, “SocialJustice in the OECD — How Do theMember States Compare?”, analyzes aspectsof basic fairness and equality amongOrganization for Economic Co-operationand Development countries, ranking theUS among those at the bottom (www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de).~DEVELOPMENT REPORTMapping Progress, a June 2011 reportfrom the United Kingdom’s Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, asserts that “the bestperforming countries of the developingworld over the past two decades have incommon, aside from financial assistance,four building blocks — smart leadership,smart policies, smart institutions andsmart friends”. Weighing in on the aiddebates, the report states: “The internationalcommunity has rarely been the soledeterminant of development progress, butsmart partnerships have often played acatalytic role in terms of facilitation support.”Arguing that, although many countriesare “off track” to achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, progress isnot only possible but already happening,the report identifies several categories:nine countries where development progress— “movement towards greater levelsof wellbeing” — is well underway; “surprises”with a less sustained track record;“potentials” (some headway against especiallydifficult odds, such as emergingfrom armed conflict); and “conundrums”,where some strong programs aren’t showingmuch effect on poverty reduction yet(as in India and South Africa).~54 • Minerva #39 • November 2011MDG REPORTA joint report issued in September by sixaid organizations urges better coordinationbetween donors, governments, andcommunities to help reduce poverty anddisease. It cites examples from aid projectsin 17 countries to show how governments,donors, and policymakers canwork together effectively to meet theMillennium Development Goals. Join up,Scale up: How integration can defeat diseaseand poverty (available at ) is co-authored by Action AgainstHunger, Action for Global Health, EndWater Poverty, PATH, Tearfund, and WaterAid.~BUSAN AID HLF-4At the Fourth High Level Forum on AidEffectiveness (HLF-4), 29 November to1 December 2011 in Busan, South Korea,“development actors” will gather to assesswhether or not previous commitments onthe Paris Declaration and Accra Agendafor Action have been met, and to consideradditional decisions on the developmentcooperation agenda. Ana Ines Abelendaand Anne Schoenstein of AWID (Associationfor Women’s Rights in Development)report that women’s rights organizationsand gender equality advocates– many of whom gathered in Brussels foran “International Consultation on DevelopmentCooperation, Women’s Rightsand Gender Equality” in early June 2011(supported by , aglobal Civil Society Organization platform)— have warned that the first draftoutcome document of the Busan HLF-4 isunacceptable as it “falls short on mappingout the foundation for a just and inclusivefuture development cooperation frameworkthat is also responsive and sensitiveto women’s rights and gender equality”.Their detailed recommendations may bestudied at .~AID SUGGESTIONS FROM GATESPlanning a report to the G-20, MicrosoftChairman Bill Gates presented a defenseof effective forms of aid in the WashingtonPost (1 November). His recommenda-

tions for improving private sector involvementinclude diaspora bonds, halving theaverage percentage of transaction costs inremittances worldwide, reserving a portionof sovereign wealth funds for “keyinfrastructure projects in poor countries”,and a small financial transaction tax. Heconcludes: “Sometimes Americans getthe impression that we’re shouldering thewhole burden of development and that,ultimately, our aid doesn’t make a bigdifference. I see it very differently. We’reproviding strategic investments that linkup with many other investments to systematicallymake a better, more prosperousand safer world. If we do it right, wecan keep shrinking the number of countrieswhere aid is needed to zero.”~GLOBAL PARTNERS ACTWomen Thrive Worldwide welcomed“the new vision for US international assistance”outlined in the draft GlobalPartnerships Act of 2011, released forpublic comment on 8 September by RepresentativeHoward Berman of California.“The landmark legislation includesan unprecedented focus on gender and onthe crucial role of women and girls in thesuccess of development efforts. A goalon ‘fostering equal opportunity’ focuseson reducing legal, political and economicbarriers that hold women back and an assessmentof gender impact is required inall sectors of assistance. The draft makespermanent the Office of Global Women’sIssues in the State Department and the Officefor Women’s Global Development atUSAID, and also provides specific guidanceon addressing gender inequality inthe areas of food security, access to healthcare, education, and access to microfinanceand microenterprise activities. Ona more practical level, gender would betaken into account in areas [such as] procurement,training, and hiring, making itpart of the framework and accountabilityof the aid apparatus.”~GLOBAL CORPORATE CONTROLA team of mathematicians connected tothe Swiss Federal Institute of Technologyin Zurich, concluded that, out ofover 43,000 transnational corporations(TNCs), relatively few control almost80% of the global economy. The authorsof this study, “The Network of GlobalCorporate Control”, therefore suggest that“new regulatory mechanisms will have toextend beyond national borders”.~GLOBAL FINANCEIn Vatican City on 24 October 2011, thePontifical Council for Justice and Peaceissued a far reaching statement on the needfor a Global Public Authority with regardto “Reforming the International Financialand Monetary Systems”. It is available atthe National Catholic Reporter website.~ARMS MARKETThe latest edition of the report on conventionalweapons transfers by the CongressionalResearch Service (CRS) showedthat the United States consolidated itsdomination of a shrinking global armsmarket in 2010, signing 21.3 billion dollarsin new weapons orders with othercountries. “The US also ranked first in thevalue of actual arms deliveries in 2010,supplying foreign clients with some 12billion dollars worth of weapons, or morethan a third of the 35 billion dollars inglobal arms deliveries last year, accordingto the report. It was the eighth yearin a row that Washington led the world inglobal arms deliveries” (Jim Lobe IPS, 28September 2011). The US accounted for49% of all new weapons orders from developingcountries last year. As in previousyears, developing countries (with Indiaat the top of the list) were the biggestbuyers on the international arms marketin 2010, accounting for 76% of all newarms agreements and nearly 63% of actualdeliveries, according to the report,Conventional Arms Transfers to DevelopingNations, 2003-2010. For that period,Saudi Arabia was the top recipientof arms shipments. The report notes that,Part of the conclusion of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peacestatement, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and MonetarySystems in the Context of Global Public Authority”:The time has come to conceive of institutions with universal competence,now that vital goods shared by the entire human family are at stake, goodswhich individual States cannot promote and protect by themselves.The conditions exist for going definitively beyond a ‘Westphalian’ internationalorder in which States feel the need for cooperation but do not seize theopportunity to integrate their respective sovereignties for the common good ofpeoples.It is the task of today’s generation to recognize and consciously to acceptthese new world dynamics for the achievement of a universal common good.Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balancedtransfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world Authority and to regionalAuthorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human societyand the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, whichare in fact already very eroded in a globalized world.The birth of a new society and the building of new institutions with auniversal vocation and competence are a prerogative and a duty for everyone,without distinction. What is at stake is the common good of humanity and thefuture itself.“[a]s new arms sales have become moredifficult to conclude since the global recessionbegan, competition among sellershas become increasingly intense.” And,under unemployment pressures in majorexporter counties, this “may be based asmuch, if not more, on economic considerationsas those of foreign or nationalsecurity policy”, according to CRS armsexpert Richard Grimmett.55 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

~ARMS TRADE – MENAThe USA, Russia and European countriessupplied large quantities of weapons to repressivegovernments in the Middle Eastand North Africa before this year’s uprisingsdespite having evidence of a substantialrisk that they could be used to commitserious human rights violations, AmnestyInternational said on 19 October in a newreport, Arms Transfers To The MiddleEast And North Africa: Lessons For AnEffective Arms Trade Treaty, examiningarms transfers to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya,Syria and Yemen since 2005. “These findingshighlight the stark failure of existingarms export controls, with all their loopholes,and underline the need for an effectiveglobal Arms Trade Treaty that takesfull account of the need to uphold humanrights,” said Helen Hughes, AI’s principalarms trade researcher. “Governmentsthat now say they stand in solidarity withpeople across the Middle East and NorthAfrica are the very same as those who untilrecently supplied the weapons, bulletsand military and police equipment thatwere used to kill, injure, and arbitrarilydetain thousands of peaceful protestersin states such as Tunisia and Egypt andare even now being deployed by securityforces in Syria and Yemen.”The main arms suppliers to the five countriesincluded in the report were Austria,Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,France, Germany, Italy, Russia, the UK,and the USA. At least 11 states have providedmilitary assistance or allowed exportsof weaponry, munitions and relatedequipment to Yemen, where 200+ protestershave lost their lives in 2011. Theseinclude Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,Germany, Italy, the Russian Federation,Turkey, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA.~ARMS TRADE TREATYSince the 2006 launch of the UN effortto negotiate a legally-binding treaty thatwould establish common internationalstandards for how countries should exportand import conventional weapons,Amnesty International has called on governmentsto include human rights at thecore of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). AI-USA ATT Specialist Leon Ratz is pleasedto report (14 October 2011) that the latestdraft of the chair’s text (a precursorto the final treaty text) included the followingprovision: “A State party shall notauthorize a transfer of conventional armsif there is a substantial risk that conventionalarms would...be used to commitserious violations of international humanrights law….” However, he warns, “thisis not the final text of the treaty and manycountries, including the US, are seekingto water it down as the final round of thenegotiations approaches in July 2012.Amnesty International is mobilizing …pressure on governments to adopt a strongtreaty at the final negotiations conferencenext year, and specifically to include a robusthuman rights parameter in the text.”~WMD PROLIFERATION –1540 COMMITTEE RENEWEDIn April the UN Security Council unanimouslyadopted Resolution 1977, extendingthe mandate of the 1540 Committeefor ten years. When UNSC Resolution1540 was adopted in 2004, the committeewas tasked with monitoring effortsto prevent weapons of mass destructionfrom falling into the hands of terroristsand other nonstate actors.~FISSILE MATERIALSThe Fissile Materials Working Group(FMWG), a growing coalition of top USand international nonproliferation andnuclear security organizations, whosemembers “work to promote practical andachievable policy initiatives to securevulnerable nuclear materials and preventnuclear terrorism”, has launched a newwebsite .~DISASTER RISK & RECOVERYThis year’s UN Global Assessment Reporton Disaster Risk Reduction focuseson the interconnections between disastersand economic growth & development(July 2011). Analyzing how to reduce disasterdamages globally, “Revealing Risk,56 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Redefining Development” is a product ofthe Hyogo Framework for Action, the 10-year plan adopted in 2005 by over 150UN member states that aims to make theworld safer from natural hazards. The reportuses data from 130 governments anddozens of universities, scientific institutionsand experts.A British Government-commissioned reportissued in March insisted that the UNneeds “a complete overhaul of strategicand operational leadership” to deal withhumanitarian emergencies. This was partof a review of the role of the UK, conductedby British politician Paddy Ashdown,a former UN representative forBosnia. In New York, a spokeswomanfor the UN Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said thedepartment was studying the report (Reuters,28 March 2011). News outlets madea point of noting that the current head ofOCHA, Valerie Amos, is British, as washer predecessor, John Holmes.~DISASTER RISK INDEXThe new “World Risk Index” (WRI, at), presented by the UNUniversity Institute for Environment andHuman Security in Bonn, is supposed tohelp donors and aid organizations betterunderstand why some countries are moreat risk of calamity than others, and shapetheir responses when disaster strikes(IRIN, 5 September 2011). Covering 173countries, WRI takes into account social,political, economic and ecological factorsto determine the capacity of an affectedcommunity to respond.~CRISIS MAPPINGMore than 150 volunteers responded toa call from the United Nations Office forthe Coordination of Humanitarian Affairsin Geneva to help sort traditional and socialmedia emerging from Libya when thecrisis erupted there, creating — within 48hours — to trackevents on the ground and help “the humanitariancommunity” manage crisis response(IRINNews.org,12 May 2011).

~UNA’S GLOBAL AGENDAThe 2011-2012 edition of the UNA-USA’s A Global Agenda: Issues Beforethe United Nations is now available. Itincludes 37 essays written by veteran diplomats,current and former UN officials,technical experts, academicians, and journalistson topics such as: uprisings in theMiddle East; Iran’s suspected quest fornuclear weapons; funding of terroristsin Somalia; international aid programsin food-short developing nations; internationalefforts to carry out free and fairpresidential elections in crisis-torn countries;a religious-inspired scare campaignthat helped fuel a resurgence of polio in20 countries; global population growth;and general global health issues.~WHO’S CHRONIC DISEASESCORECARDSIn early September 2011, to coincide withthe General Assembly’s first UN summiton chronic diseases, the World HealthOrganization published a report showingthe prevalence of chronic diseases such ascancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular illnessaround the world, along with variouscountries’ abilities to cope with the growingnumber of people affected by them(www.who.int/gho/ncd/en/index.html).~HEALTH& MOBILE TECHNOLOGIESA June report, “Mobilizing Development”,looks at how the $28 million TechnologyPartnership between the United NationsFoundation & Vodafone Foundation hassupported the training and connectivityof thousands of health and disaster reliefspecialists and helped pilot mHealth projectsin more than a dozen countries duringthe last five years.While text messaging is becoming an increasinglypopular method of overcomingproblems of access to health alerts and services,with new projects being launchedfrequently, many implementation challengescontinue to need attention, saidPatty Mechael, Executive Director of theUN Foundation’s mHealth Alliance (PBSNewsHour, 5 October 2011). In additionto technological refinements, cultural andlanguage adaptations are especially important.The greatest progress is in collectinghealth information. In subsequentinterviews, Patty Mechael said that themHealth movement is “at a tipping point”of recognizing that “we need to be a bitmore strategic, collaborative, cohesive”.A new UN mobile device application issaid to boost the UN’s mHealth role, providinginformation for various health careand humanitarian initiatives (,4 October 2011).“Only five years ago, who would haveimagined that today a woman in sub-SaharanAfrica could use a mobile phone toaccess health information on bringing herpregnancy safely to term? Or that todaya young person in the Middle East coulduse a mobile phone to help manage diabetes?”said Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser,president of the 66th session of the GeneralAssembly. The app also enables usersto support UN Foundation campaigns andprograms, including Nothing but Nets,Girl Up, the Global Alliance for CleanCookstoves, the Better World Campaign,and the United Nations Association ofthe USA. The latest mHealth news is at.~HEALTH & POPULATIONGreeting the world’s 7 billionth childon 31 October and counting more than5 billion mobile phone subscriptions,the mHealth Alliance reiterated the vitalrole of mobile technology in improvinghealth outcomes, including those relatedto population growth. Meanwhile, the UNPopulation Fund is again under attack inthe US Congress.At the population milestone, the UNFoundation issued a statement calling forinvestment in international reproductivehealth and voluntary family planning asa means to achieving progress on all ofthe Millennium Development Goals. “Ina world of 7 billion, it is more importantthan ever that we address fundamental issuesof poverty and inequality,” said UNFPresident Timothy Wirth. “We know that57 • Minerva #39 • November 2011investing in women’s reproductive healthand voluntary family planning is one ofthe most cost-effective means to tacklingour most pressing global developmentchallenges. … Empowering women …not only improves their health and abilityto raise stronger, healthier families,but it also promotes more prosperous andstable societies, resource & food security,and environmental sustainability. Let’s beclear — investing in women and girls isone of the smartest investments that wecan make.”~REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHThirty-one human rights, women’s rightsand health organizations, welcomed thereport of the UN Special Rapporteuron the right to health, Anand Grover, tothe UN General Assembly, presented on24 October 2011, as “a milestone in thestruggle for the full realization of the rightto health for all” — in its consolidation of“years of health and human rights legalanalysis by many UN experts”, supportingthe conclusion that “criminal law isoften an inappropriate tool for regulatingsexual and reproductive health matters”;its use of “empirical evidence compiledby UN technical agencies” to support itsconclusions about the misuse of criminallaws and punitive policies”; and its recommendations.In a joint statement, theysaid: “The report exposes the many detrimentaleffects on individuals’ health,equality, bodily integrity, dignity, anddecision-making capacity resulting fromcriminal laws and other misguided legalrestrictions that governments frequentlyimpose in violation of sexual and reproductiverights ….” The World Health Organization,UNAIDS, and UNFPA jointlyaffirmed that “the report supports states’efforts to respect, protect and fulfill humanrights”.~JUSTICE & GENDERUN Women’s first major report (July2011) states that more than half of workingwomen in the world, 600 million, aretrapped in insecure jobs without legal protection,a similar number do not have basicprotection against domestic violence, and

sexual assault is a major factor of modernconflict. Access to land and education arerestricted, as is access to courts & truthcommissions and to post-conflict justicemechanisms such as reparations. But “despitewidespread guarantees of equality,the reality for many millions of womenis that justice remains out of reach,” saysExecutive Director Michelle Bachelet.Progress of the World’s Women: In Pursuitof Justice is a comprehensive surveyof women’s access to justice across theglobe. The report presents examples ofgrievous difficulties — and of innovativepolicies and practices — in over 100countries and offers 10 recommendationsfor improvement. These indicate some ofthe priorities of the new agency, but it isstruggling to raise the funding it needs.US National Committee for UN Women1120 20th S, NW, #720Washington DC 20036director@unwomen-usnc.org~GENDER EQUITY &THE WORLD BANKMeanwhile, the World Bank’s expenditureon improving public administration lawand justice includes merely a tiny amountfor making sure that woman have accessto these services, according to MadeleineBunting in The Guardian (7 July 2011).Recently, gender has been designated asone of four priority areas for the WorldBank up to 2014. Countries where womenhave solid opportunities perform betterin productivity and furthering developmentgoals, noted the World Bank says ina September report, acknowledging that“significant gaps in gender equity remainunaddressed”.~WOMEN & STRESS SURVEYA Nielsen survey of 21 “developed andemerging nations” confirmed that womenaround the world feel stressed and pressedfor time, but women in emerging marketsare more stressed than their sistersin developed nations (but are also morehopeful), and Indian women say they arethe most stressed of all (87% report feelingstressed most of the time). Mexicanwomen ranked second in sense of stress,Russian women third; the most optimisticwomen were in Turkey (an overwhelming92%), followed by Nigerians and Malaysians.US women hovered around the50% level in both categories (Reuters, 28June 2011).~WOMEN & SECURITYUS Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isemphasizing the status of women worldwidein State Department foreign-policydocuments. “Women’s equality is not justa moral issue, it’s not just a humanitarianissue, it is not just a fairness issue,” shesays, but a security, prosperity and peaceissue.~WOMEN POST-CONFLICTExclusion of women from DDR programs(disarmament, demobilization, reintegration)is insufficiently studied because ofthe usual emphasis on women as victimsof armed conflict, notes an UNFPA report,State of the World Population 2010:From Conflict and Crisis to Renewal:Generations of Change, recognizing therole women do & should play in forgingpeace, while cautioning against assumptionsof women as nurturers and “naturalpeace-makers … [choosing] non-violentsolutions rather than conflict wheneverpossible”.“The reluctance of international aid agencies,the UN, the World Bank, and otherinternational organizations to namefemale soldiers as soldiers rather than‘females associated with the war’, ‘dependents’or ‘camp followers’, ignoresand depoliticizes their roles during theconflict,” observes Megan MacKenzie ofVictoria University in New Zealand, in“Empowerment Boom or Bust? Assessingwomen’s post-conflict empowermentinitiatives” (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, 2009).“Getting it Right, Doing it Right: Genderand Disarmament”, a chapter in the UKDepartment for International Development’sBeginner’s Guide to Security SectorReform (www.ssrnetwork.net), offers58 • Minerva #39 • November 2011several recommendations, from utilizinggender expertise in DDR to adequate financingof gender components by UNpeacekeeping budgets “not through voluntarycontributions alone”, and a reviewof DDR benefits for women. The handbook,by Sarah Douglas, Vanessa Farr,Felicity Hill, and Wenny Kasuma, presentslessons learned and case studies toimprove the implementation of UN SecurityCouncil Resolution 1325 on women,peace and security, particularly its callto make DDR processes more inclusiveof women. It notes: “There are too fewtrained women peacekeepers, civilianpolice and experts engaged in DDR processes.Donors should facilitate the establishmentof a regionally balanced groupof women and gender DDR experts.”~ALL-GENDER WARTIME SEXUALVIOLENCEAt the same time, war-related sexual assaultof men & boys is under-reportedand elicits insufficient response, wroteLara Stemple, director of graduate studiesand of the Health and Human RightsLaw Project at the University of California-LosAngeles School of Law (“TheHidden Victims of Wartime Rape”, NewYork Times, 1 March 2011). “The InternationalCriminal Court, nearly all Americanstates and many countries use a sexneutraldefinition of sexual assault,” shecommented. “The United Nations and theWhite House must likewise move beyondthe shortcomings of [UNSC] Resolution1325 and commit to ending wartime sexualviolence against everyone.”~RAPE AFTER WAR“The pattern is that after peace arrives,men stop shooting each other but continueto rape women and girls at staggeringrates — and often at staggeringly youngages,” warns Nicholas Kristof (New YorkTimes, 8 October 2011). “Sexual violenceis a public health crisis in much of theworld, and women and girls ages 15 to44 are more likely to be maimed or killedby men than by malaria, cancer, war ortraffic accidents combined, according to a2005 study [Women in an Insecure World,

y the Geneva Centre for the DemocraticControl of Armed Forces at ].” This is a significantproblem almost everywhere, “but it’sparticularly prevalent in countries … thathave endured civil war.” Kristof suggeststhat “[t]he struggle against sexual violencewill be won or lost primarily withineach country, but the United States couldhelp if Congress reintroduced and passedthe International Violence Against WomenAct, which would take modest stepsto raise the profile of such violence. Andthe United States could hurt the effort ifHouse Republicans succeed in eliminatingfinancing for the United Nations PopulationFund, which works … to combatrape.”~RAPE & FAMINEAccording to an International RescueCommittee survey at Kenya’s Dadaabrefugee camp (said to be the size of Cincinnati[UNA teleconference, 27 October]),the results of which were releasedin July 2011, “rape and sexual violencewere mentioned as the most pressing concernsfor women and girls while fleeingSomalia and as an ongoing, though lesserconcern, in the camps. … Gender-basedviolence is a hidden side of the faminecrisis,” said Sinead Murray, IRC gender-basedviolence program manager atDadaab (IPS, 8 October 2011).~CLIMATE REFUGEESAn article in Science asserts that, as theEarth’s temperature rises, as many as 10million climate refugees can be expectedevery year — an urgent planning challengefor “governments around the worldand the international humanitarian community”(Reuters, 8 October 2011).~FOOD SUPPLY STUDYShifts made in consumption and agriculturalpractices now can help the worldmanage food supply concerns for thecoming decades without causing significantenvironmental damage, researchershave stated in Nature. To alleviate foodsupply pressure, they called for an endto forest conversion and farming in otherareas with high ecological value focusinginstead on investing to increase yields onexisting agricultural land in Africa, LatinAmerica and Eastern Europe (The ChristianScience Monitor, 14 October 2011).~CROPS & TREESMeanwhile, other recent research findsthat crop yields in Africa could be increasedby planting trees that improve soilquality and “climate proof” agriculturalland by acting as conduits to bring waterto surface root systems of crops (BBC, 15October 2011).~DEFORESTATION PROGRESSSome Asian governments are taking stepstoward slowing the pace of deforestationand expanding existing forests, accordingto a report from the Rights and ResourcesInitiative (RRI), a global coalition ofgroups advocating forest land tenure andpolicy reforms. Measures in China, Indiaand Vietnam, for example, are “giving indigenouspeople greater control over theirnatural resources and habitat” (IRIN, 12July 2011). “It’s no coincidence that thecountries granting more rights to communitiesand indigenous groups are thesame ones making progress toward moresustainable management of their forestresources,” said RRI coordinator AndyWhite, when releasing the report, TheGreener Side of REDD+: Lessons forREDD+ from Countries where ForestArea is Increasing. REDD stands for ReducingEmissions from Deforestation andForest Degradation, a global initiative tohelp developing countries reduce carbonreleased into the atmosphere by tropicalforest destruction. According to the report,between 1990 and 2010, 78 nationsin the world with significant forest covereither maintained or increased their forestedareas; however, the pace of changein the Asian region is uneven, and notablyexcludes Indonesia, the world’s fifth largestforested area, where conflicts over theissue are rife.59 • Minerva #39 • November 2011~EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES& INDIGENOUS PEOPLESIn an October report to the UN ThirdCommittee (Social, Humanitarian andCultural), James Anaya, Special Rapporteuron the rights of indigenous peoples,emphasized “negative, even catastrophic”impact of extractive industries on rights ofindigenous peoples, frequently with negligentprojects implemented in indigenousterritories without proper guarantees andwithout involvement of the people concernedthroughout each process, givingrise to increasing polarization rather thanimprovement of standards. In addition tohis role reporting on country situations,examining cases of alleged human rightsviolations, promoting good practices, andfostering thematic studies, Anaya plansan online consultation forum and a seriesof expert meetings aimed at developing“a common understanding among indigenouspeoples, government actors, businessenterprise, and others”, according toGáldu Resource Centre for the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples. In general at the UN,participation mechanisms also need to beadjusted, James Anaya said, since indigenousauthority structures generally do notmatch those of standard governments andnongovernmental organizations. For thefull statement see ~INDIGENOUS RIGHTS –INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM“Participation of Indigenous Peoples inthe Inter-American System: Mechanismsand New Tools Proposed”, an OAS guide,summarizes the participation mechanismsthat exist for Indigenous Peoples to claimtheir rights in various areas of the Organizationof American States. FMI: .~INDIGENOUS RIGHTS– AMERICASJust ahead of the International Day of theWorld’s Indigenous People (9 August),

Amnesty International urged governmentsin the Americas to “stop prioritizingdevelopment projects at the expenseof Indigenous Peoples’ rights”. The expansionof agricultural and extractive industriesand major development projectssuch as dams and roads into traditionalindigenous lands are a significant andgrowing threat, AI observed. Across theAmericas, indigenous peoples seen asstanding in the way of commercial interestsare threatened, harassed, forciblyevicted, displaced and killed in the driveto exploit natural resources in the areaswhere they live. Giving many specificexamples, AI Americas Director SusanLee said: “The ongoing human rightsviolations against tens of millions of IndigenousPeople across the Americas arealarming. After centuries of abuse anddiscrimination, their cultural and physicalsurvival is at stake because there isinsufficient political will to acknowledge,respect and protect Indigenous Peoples’rights when these rights are seen as obstaclesto economic growth. … Economicdevelopment doesn’t have to be a zerosumgame in which Indigenous Peoples’rights are sacrificed. All of the countriesin the Americas have endorsed the UNDeclaration on the Rights of IndigenousPeoples – but states must abide by it inorder to move beyond the centuries ofmarginalization and discrimination.”~LAND GRABSAn October meeting in Rome of theworld food security committee of the UNFood and Agriculture Organization wasexpected to yield voluntary guidelinesfor international land investments in poorcountries — some of which are criticizedas “land grabs” that result in human rightsabuses (The Guardian, 14 October 2011).A paper by the UN Environmental Programsays that the current rush for land inAfrica is being driven, in part, by a lackof water in countries such as Saudi Arabiaand China; general economic insecurityis another major factor, with countriescompeting to attract investment. Thevoluntary code of conduct, in the workssince 2008, had to be delayed until 2012,though, because rules on large-scale investmentin farmland remain in dispute.“But it’s much better to have extremelydetailed and ambitious guidelines even ifit takes time,” said Olivier De Schutter,the UN special rapporteur on the right tofood, in an interview (Reuters, 17 October).The guidelines are supposed to formthe basis for the first of seven principlesfor “responsible agricultural investment”drawn up by the World Bank and variousUN agencies but yet to be adopted internationally.They are expected to increasethe bargaining power of targeted countriesand improve the capacity to demandconditions protective of vulnerable landusers,said De Schutter. In the current disarray,Oxfam complains that land grabsoften violate human rights, particularlyof women, overlook the principle of freeand informed consent of affected land userssuch as indigenous people, and ignoreenvironmental concerns.~CIVILIANS & ARMED CONFLICT“Afghanistan, once described as the graveyardof empires, is ranked number one asthe country with the most ‘significant rise’in civilian deaths last year, turning it intoa veritable killing field”, according to theannual report by London-based MinorityRights Group International. Peoples UnderThreat states that civilian killings inAfghanistan have increased every year inthe last five years, and this year’s figureis expected to exceed the 3,000 civilianskilled in 2010 (Thalif Deen, Inter-PressService,15 May 2011).~PEACEKEEPERS & SEX CRIMEThe UN’s administrative disputes tribunalhas ruled that Madeleine Rees, a formerUN human rights official and inspirationfor one of the heroines in the film“The Whistleblower”, was wrongfullydismissed from her job with the GenevabasedUN Office of the High Commissionfor Human Rights in March 2010.In Bosnia, she had “led a fierce internalbattle” concerning peacekeeper implicationin trafficking of women into sexualslavery, writes Colum Lynch (ForeignPolicy’s Turtle Bay blog, 16 September2011). Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,who was not in charge at the time of that60 • Minerva #39 • November 2011situation, has imposed a “zero-tolerance”policy on sexual misconduct and vowedto “embrace the challenge [the] film placesbefore us”. But there have been new allegationsof abuses (for example, in Haiti,where the President of Uruguay has had toapologize, and Ivory Coast); and, ColumnLynch notes, “specialists say that a seriesof bureaucratic steps — including scantpublic reports on sex crimes and the establishmentof a UN memorandum of understandingthat places greater authorityfor disciplining peacekeepers in the handsof governments — have made it increasinglydifficult to assess the UN’s responseto the problem”. Jordan’s UN ambassador,Prince Zeid Raad Zeid al-Hussein, who in2005 wrote a condemnatory study of sexualexploitation in peacekeeping operationsas a special advisor on the issue, toldthe New York Times: “Member states arenot reliable enough to do a good job ontheir own, especially in the early stagesof a military investigation. The UN is noteven a player in the investigation, doesn’tknow the evidence and has no way to followup with the way the military decidesto deal with this issue. We, the memberstates, have by and large failed to do whatI had hoped we would do.” Some officialsargue that public criticism of memberstates would make finding peacekeepingtroops more difficult. “Going into a blameand shame approach is counterproductivebecause this requires a mind-set change,”says Susanna Malcorra, head of peacekeepinglogistics (New York Times, 7 September2011).~CHILD SOLDIERSThe UN Special Representative forChildren and Armed Conflict, RadhikaCoomaraswamy, has been “very disappointed”by the US Administration’sdecision to waive the 2008 prohibitionon military assistance to four countrieswhose armies employ youths in theirfighting ranks (Colum Lynch, ForeignPolicy’s Turtle Bay blog, 28 October 2010[FMI: ]). Againthis year, the ban was waived “in the nationalinterest” for four countries: Chad,the DRC, Yemen, and new South Sudan.Human Rights Watch (HRW) denouncedthis “disregard for US law”. Jo Becker,

head of the organization’s children’s rightdivision, said: “Countries that keep usingchild soldiers aren’t going to get seriousabout ending the practice until they seethe US is serious about withholding themoney. The Obama administration hasbeen unwilling to make even small cutsto military assistance to governments exploitingchildren as soldiers. Children arepaying the price for its poor leadership.”The USG cited some slight improvementsin Chad and the DRC. HRW said its monitorshad observed child soldiers servingwith an elite paramilitary unit in Yemen,and with a police force in the capital,Sana’a, as recently as August (AlterNet,10 October 2011).~CHILD PIRATESChildren recruited as pirates should notface the same legal consequences as adultsin any international tribunal to cope withpiracy off the coast of Somalia, UN SpecialRepresentative Radhika Coomaraswamyhas said. Instead, efforts should bemade to rehabilitate children caught up inthe violent world of international piracyand exploited to do the fiercest fighting.The same rules should be used as thosefor prosecuting war crimes, in her view.~CHILD MORTALITYThe UN Inter-agency Group for ChildMortality Estimation reported in Septemberthat a marked drop in global childmortalityrates is not deep enough to meetthe Millennium Development Goal seekinga two-thirds reduction in child deathsby 2015. “The news that the rate of childmortality in sub-Saharan Africa is decliningtwice as fast as it was a decade agoshows that we can make progress evenin the poorest places, but we cannot for amoment forget the chilling fact of around21,000 children dying every day frompreventable causes,” said Anthony Lake,executive director of UNICEF.~CHILD MARRIAGEThe Elders, the august group of seniordiplomats that includes Nelson Mandelaand Mary Robinson, is working to bringan end to child marriages by endorsingcommunity-level education effortsand engaging males in conversations onending a practice that affects 10 millionyoung girls every year.~G(irls)20 SUMMITGirls representing the G20 countries andthe African Union gathered in October fora G(irls)20 Summit to highlight efforts toend child marriage and discuss other issuesthat affect young women around theworld. Participants prepared a communiquéto be delivered to the November G-20summit.~TEACHERS – UNESCOAccording to a recent UNESCO report,the world is facing a shortfall of approximately8 million teachers, especially inprimary schools, undermining chancesof reaching the Millennium DevelopmentGoal of universal primary education by2015. An estimated 1 million will needto be recruited over the next three yearsmerely to meet the growing numbers ofprimary school students in sub-SaharanAfrica, while 6.2 million teachers will beneeded to account for attrition.~DOMESTIC WORKERS – ILOOn 16 June 2011 the International LabourOrganization’s 100th Annual Conferenceadopted the Convention on DecentWork for Domestic Workers which requiresgovernments to protect the humanand labor rights of domestic workers anddefines minimum standards for decentworking conditions.~SLAVERYAt a conference organized by the US Embassyto the Vatican in May, the head ofthe US State Department’s Office to Monitor& Combat Trafficking in Persons saidthat up to 27 million people are slaves, andmigrants fleeing North Africa are amongthose most at risk of being exploited.61 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Countries where migrants arrive shouldtry to identify potential victims and protectthem, he said, rather than opting forimmediate repatriation which often sendsthem back into the hands of human traffickers(Catherine Hornby, Reuters, 18May 2011). The Interfaith Center on CorporateResponsibility said it was pressingbusinesses to scrutinize their supplychains and ensure that their labor contractsinclude clear language to preventhuman trafficking.~MIGRATIONA New York Times article (30 August 2011)described the International Organizationfor Migration as “part research group,part handyman crew” that has become indispensableto its 132 member countriesbecause of the rapid spread of legal andillegal migration across the globe.~TORTURE – AFGHANISTANA report by the UN High Commissionerfor Human Rights has verified “systemictorture” by Afghan security forces trainedand funded by the US (10 October 2011).~TORTURE – GENDER DIMENSIONSAn Amnesty International report (, 17 October 2011) summarizesa two-day conference held by AI andRedress in London in May 2011 on thegender dimensions of the prohibition oftorture & other cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment — includingrape, domestic violence, violencecommitted in the name of “honor”, andthe infliction of severe pain and sufferingthrough denial of basic reproductiverights. Academics and representatives ofNGOs from around the world “reflectedon the role of the legal framework ontorture in achieving justice and holdingstates to account” for either committingabuses or acquiescing in their inflictionby non-state actors.~

INTERVENTIONThe Wall Street Journal reported in Maythat the US is formulating a handbookspelling out the steps its military couldtake to protect civilians throughout theworld from mass atrocities, ethnic cleansingand genocide — reflecting “a growingglobal emphasis on the doctrine of‘responsibility to protect’.”~ICTY DECISIONMomèilo Perišiæ, a former Chief of theGeneral Staff of the Yugoslav Army, wasconvicted on 6 September 2011 by the InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia (ICTY) for crimes underinternational law committed during thewar in Bosnia & Herzegovina and Croatia.He was sentenced to 27 years of imprisonment.Amnesty International calledthe conviction “a clear victory for justice.However, with the ICTY completingits work in 2014, it is up to the nationalcourts in the countries of former Yugoslaviato investigate and prosecute severalthousand unresolved cases from the warsin the 1990s. The major obstacle for tacklingimpunity and bringing the perpetratorsto justice is lack of political will toinvestigate and prosecute those crimes.”~INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALCOURT – BEMBA TRIALLast November, as the trial of formerCongolese vice president Jean-PierreBemba opened in The Hague for crimescommitted in the Central African Republic,The Guardian discussed it in detailas “groundbreaking in many respects,including for its treatment of sex crimes[although murder and pillage are chargedalso] and for the presence of women indecision-making positions within thecourt”, including two prosecutors andthree judges. The commentary concludeswith the hope that “the ICC will providea model for both international and nationaljustice processes redressing atrocitycrimes”.~COURTS & SOMALIA FAMINEIn a recent report for the advocacy organizationEnough (“Somalia’s Famine IsNot Just a Catastrophe, It’s a Crime” at),Matt Bryden, coordinator of the UN Somaliaand Eritrea Monitoring Group,asserts that “Somalia’s famine is less asymptom of conflict or climate than ofcallous and criminal human conduct —including crimes against humanity thatdemand consequences anchored in internationaljustice. … It is ultimately alShabaab’s twisted ideology, repressivemethods, and indifference to the sufferingof its own people that lies behind this catastrophe,”Bryden wrote. “The time hascome for either the International CriminalCourt to become engaged in Somalia,or for a special international tribunalto be established, in order to dismantleSomalia’s deadly culture of impunity. Itmay seem unrealistic today that leadersof al-Shabaab would ever face trial, butthe same could also once have been saidabout the leaders of the Khmer Rouge orthe Bosnian Serbs.”Bryden, a former analyst for the InternationalCrisis Group think tank, also criticizedthe Transitional Federal Government(TFG) in Mogadishu for looting aid andsquandering vast amounts of foreign assistance,saying: “The scale of the TFG’sfinancial hemorrhaging is so immensethat the term ‘corruption’ seems barelyadequate. … Those who have underminedand brought shame upon the TFG and itsaffiliates by commodifying their own people,using them as lures for personal profit,are no less guilty and more readily accessibleto the reach of international justice.”~OKLAHOMA LAWA ballot measure passed last Novembersought to amend the Oklahoma Constitutionto prohibit courts from consideringSharia or international law. Aside fromwhat Chicago Tribune columnist ClarencePage calls the “political mirage” of theSharia ban (even the State Representativewho devised it acknowledged that he doesnot expect it to come up in court), someobservers have pointed out that this couldseriously confound conventional relationswith Native American Indian tribal governmentsrepresenting a comparativelylarge part of the state’s population.~INTERNET ACCESS AS A RIGHT“Given that the Internet has become anindispensable tool for realizing a rangeof human rights, combating inequality,and accelerating development and humanprogress, ensuring universal accessto the Internet should be a priority for allstates,” said a 3 June 2011 report “on thepromotion and protection of the right tofreedom of opinion and expression” fromFrank La Rue, UN Special Rapporteur onthat topic. Referring to the Internet as anunprecedented force and “revolutionary”,he believes that “the Internet is one of themost powerful instruments of the 21stcentury for increasing transparency in theconduct of the powerful, access to information,and for facilitating active citizenparticipation in building democratic societies.”Since it is “particularly valuable incountries where there is no independentmedia”, he urges governments to eschewlaws that allow for people’s access to theInternet to be blocked, including duringtimes of political unrest, in accordancewith Article 19 of the International Covenanton Civil & Political Rights. “Statesshould adopt effective and concrete policiesand strategies — developed in consultationwith individuals from all segmentsof society, including the private sector aswell as relevant Government ministries— to make the Internet widely available,accessible and affordable to all.”~DIGITAL MAPSAdvances in digital mapping have openedan academic field known as spatial humanitiesthat could be useful not only inarchaeological and historical investigationsbut also in political theory.~DIGITAL DEAD ENDWhen planning with collaborators a technologytraining program for a YWCAcommunity, Virginia Eubanks found that62 • Minerva #39 • November 2011

accessibility was not the primary issue,and that the main impediment was not ignorancebut the experience of it “a toolof surveillance and oppression”. Consequently,her book, Digital Dead End:Fighting for Social Justice in the InformationAge (MIT Press, March 2011),“describes a new approach to creating abroadly inclusive and empowering ‘technologyfor people’, popular technology,which entails shifting the focus fromteaching technical skill to nurturing criticaltechnological citizenship, building resourcesfor learning, and fostering socialmovement” (Institute for Women’s PolicyResearch, 7 June 2011).~DEATHSProminent World Federalist Hanna Newcombe,translator of scientific articles,peace researcher, and a principal elucidatorof the principle of subsidiarity, died inApril 2011 in Canada.And in Italy this October, Antonio Cassese,considered a visionary architect ofmodern international criminal justice,died at 74. “In books, law journals anddecisions from the bench, Judge Casseseexpanded the body of international lawthat had lain mostly dormant since the trialsat Nuremberg and Tokyo after WorldWar II,” wrote Marlise Simons in his NewYork Times obituary. Almost two decadesago, he became the first president of theInternational Criminal Tribunal for theformer Yugoslavia; most recently, he waspresident of the UN’s Special Tribunal forLebanon. He was a familiar figure in theHague. Marlise Simon wrote: “Amonghis early decisions, seen as controversialat the time but widely accepted since,were several that changed basic preceptsof international criminal law. One wasthat war crimes could be punished notonly in wars between nations, but also inconflicts within a particular country. Inanother, he wrote that even if there was nowar going on, massacres, torture and otheratrocities committed by governmentsor groups could be found to be crimesagainst humanity and punished accordingly.”Stephen J. Rapp, the United Statesambassador for war crimes and a formerinternational prosecutor, said: “Everywherethat he served, Judge Cassese wasthe energetic force that overcame inertia,caution and resistance in order to work forjustice for the victims of the most seriouscrimes known to humankind.” Former USfederal judge Patricia Wald, who was anappeals judge on the Yugoslavia tribunalsaid: “There are moments in history whenone individual can make a great difference,and he was such a man.”When Kenyan environmentalist WangariMaathai, 71, the first African woman towin a Nobel prize, died in September,UNEP Executive Director Achim Steinersaid: “Wangari Maathai was a force of nature.While others deployed their powerand life force to damage, degrade and extractshort-term profit from the environment,she used hers to stand in their way,mobilize communities and to argue forconservation and sustainable developmentover destruction.” Former UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan commented that herNobel underscored “the important nexusin her work between sustainable development,peace and human security.”~PEACECitizens for Global Solutions and manyother NGOs lauded the award of the 2011Nobel Peace Prize to Liberian PresidentEllen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian peace activistLeymah Gbowee (author of MightyBe Our Powers), and Tawakkol Karmanof Yemen, campaigner for peace, democracy,and gender equality. “We cannotachieve democracy and lasting peace inthe world unless women obtain the sameopportunities as men to influence developmentsat all levels of society,” said thecitation read by Thorbjorn Jagland, theformer Norwegian prime minister whoheads the Oslo-based Nobel committee.“This Nobel Peace Prize recognizes whathuman rights activists have known fordecades: that the promotion of equality isessential to building just and peaceful societiesworldwide,” said Salil Shetty, SecretaryGeneral of Amnesty International.“The tireless work of these and countlessother activists brings us closer to a worldwhere women will see their rights protectedand enjoy growing influence at alllevels of government.”63 • Minerva #39 • November 2011Speaking at the Inter-Church Centerin New York City on the day the prizewas announced, Leymah Gbowee said:“There’s no way you can fix a communityand say you can find a solution for thatcommunity when you only use half ofthe community. When men make peace,it’s not a total peace” (New York Times, 7October 2011). Commenting on the prize,Lyric Thompson AIUSA’s Women’s HumanRights Coordination Group, noted:“To this day, women have served as only6% of negotiators to formalized peacetalks, despite their undisputed value topeace across the community, national andinternational levels. They account for only1 in 13 participants in peace negotiationssince 1992, and have never been appointedthe chief mediator of a UN-sponsoredpeace talk. Women’s absence at the peacetable leads to impunity for crimes committedagainst them as a price of negotiatedpeace, stifling their cries for justice.”Meanwhile, says Leymah Gbowee: “It’snot enough to be comfortable, and saythe world’s problems belong to the world.One day the world’s problems will meetyou at your doorstep.”From “Let’s Unite! a wake-up call fromNorway”, by Dag Herbjornsrud, editorin-chiefof the Oslo-based weekly newsmagazine Ny Tid (30 August 2011):An affirmative and decisive rejection ofdivisiveness would deal the strongestblow to the ideology of the Oslo terrorist.… This is not merely about an anomalousevent in the far north of Europe.Rather, it concerns our common futurein the twenty-first century. And at best,the horror of Oslo’s terrorist trauma canprove a turning point in Norway’s andEurope’s handling of right-wing extremism.… I believe we can make the changewe seek together. We can unite ourdiverse nations. Validate friendship andbuild trust across borders, rather thanbeing driven by more fear and suspicion.This will be hard to attain, but this willbe our test. We still have the chance tomake this time our finest hour.

I think each of us has the desire to be a thousand timesmore beautiful and a thousand times more just.This is the call of fairness.We are human because we hear it.Kenji Yoshino(2011)64 • Minerva #39 • November 2011