Who has the Right to Grant Rights?

Ryan Stanley

Professor Craig

World Politics

16 November 2011

Who has the Right to Grant Rights?

Human Right: Commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organization who conducts research and generates action to prevent and end abuses of human rights. They also work to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated. They have done work across the globe and in every corner of the earth.

Their recent work has included documenting human rights violations in China. The big issues being focused on are detention without trial, the death penalty, and freedom of expression. It is estimated that five hundred thousand people are currently being held in jail without trial by the Chinese government. In addition, millions are unable to work with the justice system to find solutions to their problems and complaints. According to Amnesty International, harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders by the Chinese government are all on the rise. The Chinese government has also been infamous for the censorship of the internet, television, and many other types of media within the country.

More specifically, the government will use disciplinary action such as “Re-education through Labor” to hold people in contempt. According to the government, 190,000 people were held in re-education through labor facilities. Chinese law allows for citizens to be killed by way of the death penalty. The government uses this penalty more harshly than we do here in the United States. Capital punish, in the United States, is the punishment rendered for the most horrendous of crimes, crimes that go far beyond civility and injure other people terribly. Many citizens view it as “an eye for an eye” type of punishment. However, the Chinese government does not have this balance. In terms of freedom of expression, and as mentioned before, the Chinese government has a history of blocking and regulating what is seen on the internet, televisions, and mobile devices of its citizens. The government will censor it for a number of reasons: if it slanders the country's political system, distorts the history of the party, publicizes opposition groups that are gaining traction in China, and incites ethnic division.

I am not arguing, by any means, that the Chinese people are under terrible duress and need help immediately. I would argue, in fact, that there are far more pressing issues in the world to deal with – genocide being one of them. I do, however, bring the Chinese situation up as an example – an example of why people do not always get the rights that are “guaranteed” to them. When put under a “lens” and analyzed, one sees a number of things. In terms of human rights there are a number of factions of the government and population that can fight for them. At the top is the United Nations, an organization currently made up of a one hundred and ninety three member states. The United Nations grants universal human rights to every human being. It does this through its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration consisting of thirty articles that map out the universal human rights that are guaranteed to all people. The second faction of government seen is the state, the part that directly governs the people and runs the country. The third faction is the people of the state or of the world. If a large enough group can rise up, it can change policy and ways of thinking around the world. Sounds pretty simple, right? The United Nations grants universal human rights to the citizens of the world, the state makes sure that these rights are implemented, and the people enjoy them. Wrong. It seems this way, but instead we see something completely different taking place.

Why do the Chinese people not enjoy the same human rights that we as American citizens do? Why do the people of Darfur and police states across the world not enjoy the same human rights that we as American citizens do? These questions have been answered from time-to-time by saying that it is the state governments deciding not to grant the universal rights to all humans. The answer goes further than this, though. There is a reason why the Chinese Government, and many other governments alike, are not told what to do by the United Nations. It goes back to the issue of sovereignty and overall rights. China has a right to govern its citizens the way that it wishes. After all, one of the reasons it is recognized as a nation by the United Nations (beside the fact that is was one of the original creators and members) is that it is sovereign and has its own rights, as well. The United Nations would be hypocritical to attempt to micromanage the situation in countries such as China. While the United Nations can aid countries by sending peacekeepers and funding certain efforts, it cannot intervene with the running of the country – it's a privilege enjoyed by the member states.

This leaves the analysis to the states and the people. Yes, people are responsible, to an extent, to fight for their own rights and demand the human rights that they deserve. The states need to work with them, though, to grant this. In a sense it is a double-edged sword as the state can decide what it wants to do in a situation like this but the United Nations cannot do much to directly intervene with the state government. Many would argue that it comes down to the type of government a country has. A government “...of the people, by the people, and for the people...that shall not perish from this earth” is one that is more apt to grant requests of the citizens, provide more universal human rights, and comply with civil demand. A dictatorial government is less likely to do so because, let's be honest, no one is taking his job any time soon. All in all, the answer is pretty foggy and the prospects are grim for all states to begin granting universal human rights to citizens of the world.

Works Cited

N.a. "Internet Censorship in China - Breaking World Internet Censorship News - The New York Times." Times Topics - The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

N.a. Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights. AI. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

Reflection: Brazil - An Exhibition On South America's Emerging Powerhouse

On November 5^th, the SIS building held an exposition entitled Brazil: An Exhibition On South America's Emerging Powerhouse, created by AU senior/alum (even he can’t explain it) Mason Drastal. With Brazil making headlines more and more everyday, the country seems to be on track to becoming one of the 21st century's big global players. The exhibition presented various projects, both academic and cultural, and groups that are all centered around Brazil. Co-Sponsors included the AU Brazilian Club and the American University Honors Program. The exhibitors were: the Embassy of Brazil, Vita Coco Coconut Water, Amazon Watch, DC Chapter of DC/Brasilia Partners of the Americas, Zezeh Brazil Samba School, Capoeira Candeias VA & Barro Vermelho Capoeira of DC. UNICA Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association, the Brazilian Art Collection by Briana Watson, Kim Hayward, Johanna Hoffman & Gabrielle Iselius, the Brazilian Culture Project by Caroline Hausmann & Morar Carioca (loosely translates to "live as a resident of Rio de Janeiro’") Project Slideshow were among the projects and information tables present at the exhibition.

            I feel the exhibition provided a very good look at Brazil as an emerging powerhouse. Brazil has had a 7.5% growth rate in the last year, a sound and booming economy, even amidst the current crisis, oil discoveries, a World Cup in 2014, the Olympics in 2016 and is not only seen as the most promising country in Latin America for investment, but is beginning to trade in the big leagues, with countries like China. Through the various tables and information sessions, it was obvious that Mason wanted to demonstrate how fast Brazil is moving, and how much influence it is gaining. I also think he did a great job showing a more cultural side of Brazil that is often overlooked. Brazil is a country rich in culture, and many do not know that it has, for example, the largest Japanese population outside of Japan. Thus, it is a cultural hub of different nationalities and culture.

            However, I feel that Mason also left out a huge aspect that is currently tainting all of Brazil’s accomplishments: corruption. If there’s one thing Brazilians know, it’s greed and corruption. It is a country that has the capability to be great, however is held back by the poverty and hardship that affects the majority of its population. Nevertheless, instead of addressing these issues, politicians corrupt the government, taking away from the population the money, time and effort needed to bring them back to their feet.

A perfect example is current Federal Deputy of São Paulo (SP), Paulo Maluf.  An ex State Governor of SP, Mayor of the City of SP, Congressman and Presidential candidate, Maluf has been convicted of fraud conspiracy, money laundering, and theft. Although he hasn’t served jail time, it is amongst common Brazilian knowledge that Maluf steals money from the government, and embezzles it into his private life, adding to his family’s wealth. Despite Maluf’s various crimes against the Brazilian population, not only has the government decided to drop all charges against him, claiming that the recent legislation “Lei Ficha Limpa” or “Clean Record Act” will only begin to apply after 2010 elections (when he was elected as Federal Deputy), but Maluf is constantly reelected into government positions, despite his history as a con-artist. There is even a verb inspired by the man himself, ‘malufar’ – to steal public money from the people.

Even former President Lula practiced corruption, by breaking Brazilian law during the 2010 election. It is illegal for a president to promote or show obvious preference to any type of candidate; however, Lula not only promoted current president Dilma Rousseff on radio shows, but also during the ‘political hour’ dedicated to campaign ads on TV. The ex-President was often in commercials, promoting Dilma.

What I find most upsetting is not the fact that these politicians are so corrupt, but that Brazilians continue to let them participate in the government, and impede the country’s growth and progress. Maluf is reelected for four decades, even after being convicted of fraud. Lula basically picks the countries next president, due to his immense popularity amongst the population, and receives no form of punishment. Brazilians have no memory, but sadly, many of them also have no education. They are not taught to think critically, to notice bias, to think for themselves or even know the functions of different government officials. However, seeing as the government refuses to educate the people, it is up to the apathetic population to help the uneducated and poor population.

Overall, the exhibition showcased how much Brazil has to offer, and how much potential it has, but it ignored the very factor that is keeping success and first world status so out of reach.

North Korean Trafficking

Hope you guys don't mind me taking it back a little.

In the past few decades, few countries have proved to be as much of an anomaly in international affairs than North Korea. Kim Jong-Il, North Korea’s eccentric Supreme Leader, has fundamentally opposed Western powers, especially the United States, since rising to his current position in 1994. While the norms of international relations have not shifted too dramatically since Kim Jong-Il assumed power of North Korea, the country has become difficult to gauge in terms of state relationships, motivations, and even intentions. Particularly since the 1990’s, North Korea has demonstrated unusual state actions by actively organizing and encouraging illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs, and material used in the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material (Chestnut, 83.)

As Hannah very effectively pointed out in her blog post, the risks of dangerous and illegal transnational trade are severe. Biological and nuclear weapon exchanges would be catastrophic in any context if they were successfully trafficked to the right hands. The United Nations and the United States have been plagued with how to appropriately handle North Korea’s willingness to produce and distribute weapons, drugs, cigarettes, and even counterfeit money called the Supernote. The economic sanctions placed on North Korea, deepening the country’s economic woes, have only made the North Korean government more willing to traffic in order to raise much needed funds (Chestnut 81). This point was blatantly iterated by North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-Gwan’s statement that North Korea possesses the capability to distribute fissile material to terrorists and may consider it if “the US drives us into a corner. (Bullock).

In the case of North Korea, it is both fascinating and unnerving to examine the various stances North Korea could be secretly considering. Many argue that North Korea is in every way willing to sell either nuclear weaponry or nuclear technology to its sympathizers, whether they are states or non-state actors (Laurence). It seems, however, that the threat analysis is structured in a systematic way. From my analysis, it appears that fears of nuclear or chemical proliferation are based upon North Korea’s demonstrated willingness to participate in the illegal trade of previously mentioned items, including weapons, drugs, cigarettes, and counterfeit currency.

It may be that a combination of the various international theories may be able to explain North Korea’s seemingly irrational behavior, which would ironically establish the country as being purposefully irrational. Beginning with North Korea’s greatest power, nuclear weaponry and technology has been the largest attracter of attention for the country. A 2010 U.N. report suggested that North Korea may have already established nuclear technology trading programs with Syria, Iran, and Myanmar (Lawrence). Indeed, there exists speculation that the North Korean government supplied the Syrian nuclear reactor that many believe was destroyed by Israeli forces in 2007 (Soloman). While fears of nuclear proliferation by North Korea persist, there is no solid evidence has supplied the mechanisms to enable any states to procure nuclear weapons. Looking at this from a realist point of view, North Korea is highly unlikely to openly utilize nuclear weapons against any of its enemies for the same reason that any other country would be unlikely to, North Korea strives to survive. It is the same principle that drives North Korea to participate in the illegal smuggling of traditional weapons, drugs, and counterfeit currency.

North Korea’s stockpile of chemical and biological weapons can also be considered in a similar fashion as its nuclear ambitions. Some estimates place North Korea’s stockpile at anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 tons of toxic weaponry (Kaneda et al). While the smuggling of chemical and biological weapons by North Korea should be considered plausible, it is not truly expected that the country will use said weapons because that would attract the same type of retaliation that the use of nuclear weapons would. If North Korea is to gain benefit from possessing these weapons, it will be in its willingness and threats to sell them, rather than in any shallow threats to actively use them against any of its enemies.

Finally, there is the case of the much less dramatic, but still damaging, North Korean participation in the smuggling of certain materials. As already mentioned, North Korea is very much willing to traffic these materials in order to earn enough income to support its unusually large military, very much at the expense of its civilian population. The question here is why North Korea prevents its population from driving the growth of the country and economy and thus relies on illegal methods to only support a seemingly irrational military. The answers to this question show that North Korea may not be irrational at all in its methods. Firstly, as Sheena Chestnut points out, North Korea will have done a good job hiding its involvement in illegal trafficking, although the issue can be seen publicly by the slip-ups of certain government officials. For that reason, it is difficult for any one entity to accuse North Korea of trafficking dangerous materials. Such is that reason that it can’t be said with absolute certainty that North Korea supplied the nuclear reactor to Syria or that Israel was the country to destroy it. Also, the trafficking of traditional weapons, counterfeit currency, and cigarettes are but a thorn in a country like the United State’s side. It’s annoying, but doesn’t necessarily warrant full-scale surgery.

Unless the regime falls, it is likely that government sponsored trafficking will persist, albeit under intense cover. However, the most potential for negative events concerns the trafficking of nuclear, chemical, or biological materials. Considering North Korea’s preference for trafficking, it is unlikely that the government will really ever use those weapons against another. However, it appears as if North Korea is much less mindful of how such materials are used once they are sold to countries such as Syria, Iran, or Myanmar. Herein lays the source of the global predicament with North Korea and the source of much of the difficult that complicates any country’s attempt to “bully” North Korea into changing.

Finally, this backward logic enables us to guess the fundamental reason as to why North Korea seeks weapons, not to attack, but to sell. The answer contains both constructivist arguments and realist ideas, but, I believe, may explain some of North Korea’s actions. As Hobbes argues, and as is apparent in most every country, North Korea’s most fundamental goal is to survive. Its next priority is to abide by the rigid regime’s ideology-driven identity. This would explain why North Korea suppresses its population and forces itself into a dire situation of poverty that results in the international trafficking of illegal materials to fund its massive army. In other words, North Korea’s love of realist principles is so strong that it becomes an identity by which the rules of its actions are dictated.

This conclusion is troubling, because it suggests that the government of North Korea is unlikely to be persuaded into changing its beliefs and actions. As I mentioned, it is possible that one of the only ways the situation may be resolved is by the toppling of the regime that drives such intense ideology. While I barely scratched the surface of North Korea’s actions and possible thought processes, it is apparent that the country’s stance on trafficking is as good of a way of understanding the country’s broader intentions as any other.

Sources Cited:

Bullock, Todd. "Department of State Washington File: United States Urges North Korea To Return to Six-Party Talks." Department of State, 05 May 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. .

Chestnut, Sheena. “Illicit Activity and Proliferation: North Korean Smuggling Networks”. International Security , Vol. 32, No. 1 (Summer, 2007), pp. 80-111. MIT Press. http://www.jstor.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/stable/30129802

Kaneda, Hikeaki. Kobayashi, Kazumasa. Tajima, Hiroshi. Tosaki, Hirofumi. “The Japanese Institute for International Affairs+. Japan’s Missile Defense: Diplomatic and Security Policies in a Changing Strategic Environment.” March 2007. p. 36. http://www2.jiia.or.jp/en/pdf/polcy_report/pr200703-jmd.pdf.

Laurence, Jeremy. “Q+A: Is North Korea’s Nuclear Program a Threat?” Reuters. January 31, 2010. http:// www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/31/us-korea-north-nuclear-idUSTRE70U1O420110131.

Solomon, Jay. “U.S. Sees Great North Korea Nuclear Threat.” The Wall Street Journal. December 3, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704377004575650960600657360.html.

TOMS vs Fair Trade

How can I help the world? Such simple words, but when placed together as a question the possibilities become endless. Whether it is teaching in underdeveloped nations, providing financial support for medical relief or simply bringing attention to major issues, all of these methods serve a larger goal of advancing human development around the globe. The American people pride themselves on participating in the most recent developmental movements. Subsequently, we have witnessed the transformation of American culture. Businesses are now trying to accommodate a sudden rush towards “philanthropy.” Although they work for a selfless cause, providing “friendly” products has been an excellent marketing tactic. We as consumers must look past the novelty of their products because the way we spend our next paychecks may adversely affect a state’s growth.

Beginning college was an enlightening experience. Walking on campus for the first time I was shocked at the amount of little blue tags on the back of peoples’ sneakers and the amount of signs that identified this new brand of coffee I never heard of. What was the big deal with wearing “toms” shoes and drinking “fair trade” coffee? Fearful of being an ignorant freshman I had to research what these new products were.

TOMS shoes is a company that donates a pair of shoes to a poor child in a third world country for every purchase made (TOMS Shoes). What a great idea I thought! First, a customer would get a pair of trendy, comfortable shoes that you could show off to all your friends. Second, customers could wear them around feeling great because they know people are looking at their feet thinking, “Oh look they have TOMS, what a great citizen they are!” And third, customers are helping a poor child which obviously plays a large role in developing poor states (Kevin).

Fair Trade sells coffee from international farms to our people, the difference from other companies is that products that bear the “Fair Trade” logo come from farmers and workers who are provided just wages (Fair Trade USA). But how does this nonprofit manage to provide appropriate compensation to their workers? Fair Trade skips the middle man and makes deals with the coffee farmers directly. By establishing a set payment of about $1.55 per lb. the farmer makes about ten percent more than the local market price (Fieser). So who would not want to be a part of helping farmers in developing countries build sustainable businesses that positively influence their communities?

After discovering the amazing work these two organizations accomplish I understood what people on campus were doing. I ordered my first pair of TOMS, helped a child in Haiti get his own pair of sneakers, and began drinking my Fair Trade coffee. I was a part of this new movement. I would be a part of the solution. I would help international countries develop into livable striving nations. Such foolishness, the truth is I was possibly more naïve now than when I first stepped onto campus. Although these two organizations work to develop underprivileged nations they do not solve problems, they only create new ones.

Beginning with TOMS’ approach giving stuff away does not work. By doing so we create a sense of dependency and it is not easily reproducible. Imagine we provide two thousand children in Haiti with new sneakers. Those sneakers will last about two years until they are completely mangled. What are these kids to do now? When TOMS is sending their shoes to other nations, who is to help these Haitian children get shoes? It is an amazing goal to be working towards saving these children from diseases caused by walking around barefooted. However are the repercussions from lack of support worth providing two thousand children shoes for only two years? We also have to remember that dumping shoes in these underdeveloped nations has an affect on their local economies. Frazer has said that, "Used-clothing imports are found to have a negative impact on apparel production in Africa, explaining roughly 40% of the decline in production and 50% of the decline in employment over the period 1981–2000." Fifty percent decline in employment because people donated clothing! Think about it when these shoes are placed in small villages, what are the local shoemakers like those depicted in A Day Without Dignity a montage of photographs taken by Don D’Souza in Kpandai. These people lose their jobs and their only form of income; we essentially make them worse off than before.

Fair Trade claims to avoid this issue because they stimulate international economies by providing appropriate wages to workers. If we take another look at the wages Fair Trade pays we see that they provide 1.55 per lb organic coffee, almost ten percent more than the market price. Which at first sounds amazing, consumers need to know that these workers need to pay Fair Trade cooperative fees, government taxes and the expenses of farming. By the end of this process a person is left with approximately 50¢ per pound. By the end of a year the farmers pocket around half of the minimum wage in Guatemala (Ezra Fieser)!

Rather than allowing these organizations to continually bandage old problems and create new ones we should look to edit their plans to ensure development. For example rather than TOMS dropping shoes off in villages they should take some of their profits and either teach locals to make shoes or donate funds into a local shoe manufacturer. By doing this they boost the economy, help people learn an efficient skill, and avoid focusing in on these people as just a problem. The Fair Trade movement could also look to edit their approach by making their cooperative fees cheaper, and attempting to get larger corporations to take on this method. The idea is to spread Fair Trade other fields of market, because if this can be done then free trade will begin to provide more appropriate wages.

Neither of these approaches are perfect nor do they expand developmental aid as efficiently as possible. However, these two organizations do manage to do something amazing and that is that they make people aware. To have research on the affects that these organizations have on international markets is a great thing, because that means scholars are working together to identify flaws. These flaws essentially make room for solutions that will undoubtedly be a source for ideal developmental methods. I am not stating that purchasing these products is a bad thing, however it is important that consumers purchase these items because they want to not because they think they have done a good deed. If consumers truly want to get involved they must know development does not happen through a market trend they are caused by people providing resources to the citizens of third world nations so they may develop through their own means.

Works Cited

Annonymous. Fair Trade Products USA. Jan. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. .

Avc. "A Day Without Dignity – Photos from Don « Untapped Markets .ca." Untapped Markets .ca. Untapped Markets, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. .

Fieser, Ezra. "Fair Trade: What Price for Good Coffee? - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. TIME, 5 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

.

Frazer, G. (2008), Used-Clothing Donations and Apparel Production in Africa. The Economic Journal, 118: 1764–1784. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02190.x

Jon. "TOMS Shoes and A Day Without Dignity « Hands Wide Open." Hands Wide Open. Word Press, 5 Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. without-dignity/>.

"Official Store - TOMS Shoes - A Pair of New Shoes is Given to a Child in Need With Every Pair Purchased - One for One - TOMSshoes.com." Official Store - TOMS Shoes - A Pair of New Shoes is Given to a Child in Need With Every Pair Purchased - One for One - TOMSshoes.com. 2 Aug. 2009 .

Wadhams, Nick. "Is Foreign Aid Bad for Africa? Shirt Charity Spurs Debate - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. TIME, 12 May 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. .

Technology: Paving the Road for Development

            The Center for Global Development (CGD) asserts: "Technology plays an increasingly important role in delivering effective aid and development programs." (CGD)   Inventions, forms of communication, and innovative uses of the Internet are some of the means by which development can happen.   New technologies have the potential, if given the support required, to aid in eliminating or easing most other global development problems.  Without technological development, many other forms of development would not even be possible.

            Technologies that will aid development have to be developed themselves. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines research and development (R&D) as, “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications. R&D is a term covering three activities: basic research, applied research, and experimental development.” (OECD) When development efforts are put toward researching and developing new forms of technology, other developmental changes are aided in the process.

A good example a development in technology aiding another form of development is the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.  OLPC developed a laptop to be given to children in the developing world, which was aimed to be “a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop.” (OLPC)  The OLPC project’s main goal was to give children in the developing world the connectivity and computing power that children in the developed world already had, but in a form that was sustainable for their living conditions.  This goal could not be accomplished without a technological development that made it possible to fit the necessary computing power into a rugged, sustainable, and, most importantly, affordable machine.  The technological development achieved by the engineers at the OLPC project, made way for an important educational development.

            Another example is the Grameen Foundation’s use cell phone technology as a tool to improve agricultural development.  According to the Foundation, the “Community Knowledge Worker (CKW) program uses mobile phone applications and human networks we have developed to provide poor farmers with relevant, timely agricultural information, including caring for animals, planting crops, treating pests and diseases, and getting fair market prices for produce and livestock. This information helps farmers improve their lives and livelihoods by increasing their productivity and income.” (Grameen)  By developing a cell phone application that gives farmers much needed information and connectivity, the Grameen Foundation has used technology as a means of facilitating agricultural development. 

            Even economic, private finance, and globalization development can utilize technology to be more effective.  Kiva is a, “a non-profit organization with a mission to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Leveraging the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions, Kiva lets individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world.” (Kiva)  Kiva is an organization that allows for micro-financing to occur between lenders and entrepreneurs from across the world.  Through an innovative application of the Internet, anyone, anywhere can help finance a loan to help their choice of people seeking small loans, such as Cambodian farmer Saroeun Yem, who plans to buy seed, fertilizer and pesticide to maintain his farm. (Saroeun) 

            There are areas, however, where providing innovative technologies is not a particularly useful tool.  For example, political development is a method of addressing developmental needs on the highest level: those who make policy.  Whether it is because of corruption, or government inefficiency, political development seeks to strengthen fragile states, promote fairer government, and work toward the equality of citizens, among many other goals.  When conducting this form of development, the organization or body responsible for the work, is hammering away at the state itself.  Examples of institutions that organize political development include the United Nations, the United States Military, and the National Democratic Institute.  Technology, while it is routinely used by these development organizations, is not the means by which they are able to help in building and maintaining stable governments.

            The development of new technologies for other kinds of development is a first step, in a manner of speaking.  To have successful development in agriculture, for example, technological development must first be accomplished; whether that development is a new, more efficient piece of machinery, or a cell phone application that allows a farmer to connect with a body of agricultural knowledge.  Applied technology makes many other forms of development easier, more efficient, and even possible. 

            While the development of new technologies is often vital to development in other areas, it is important to note where and how that technology is being developed.  OLPC, Kiva, and the Grameen Foundation's cell phone application are all technologies that have been developed and maintained in the developed world.  These technologies are then handed to people in the undeveloped world through nonprofits or other development organizations.  The implications of this one-way transfer are complex, but development will really be happening when people develop their own necessary innovations.  Otherwise, the developed and underdeveloped worlds are trapped in a cycle of hand-me-down technology.

Works Cited:

"Agriculture | Grameen Foundation." Grameen Foundation | Combining the Power of Microfinance and Technology to Defeat Global Poverty. <http://www.grameenfoundation.org/what-we-do/mobile-phone-solutions/agriculture>.

"Kiva - About Us." Kiva - Loans That Change Lives. Web. <http://www.kiva.org/about>.

"Kiva - Lend Saroeun from Cambodia." Kiva - Loans That Change Lives. Web. <http://www.kiva.org/lend/353299>.

"Mission." One Laptop per Child. Web. <http://one.laptop.org/about/mission>.

Technology" Center for Global Development (CGD). Web. <http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/technology>.

"SourceOECD: Factbook 2009." SourceOECD. OECD, 2008. Web. <http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/vl=2988869/cl=18/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/070101.htm>.

2 R2P Or Not 2 R2P?

             If conflict is what you want, look no further then Africa. East Africa, which includes countries like Ethiopia, Somali and Kenya, is plagued with the world’s worst food crisis.  The Middle East and North Africa is booming with political unrest. Nigeria is an environmentalists’ worst nightmare, gaining the attention of human rights activists and fair trade advocates around the world due to its oil corporations. And countries like Rwanda and Darfur are breading grounds for Civil War and unrest (Shah). The Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, “is a recently developed concept in international relations regarding a state's responsibilities towards its population, as well as the international community's responsibility should a state fail or refuse to uphold its basic duties. One important aim, among others, is to provide a more focused legal and ethical framework for "humanitarian intervention": the intervention by external actors (preferably through international consensus and the approval of the UN Security Council) in a state that is unwilling or unable to prevent or stop genocide, massive killings and other massive human rights violations” (“Responsibility to Protect”).

The idea of R2P seriously challenges the dominance of state sovereignty as a guide for international law because that sovereignty is no longer only a privilege, but also a responsibility. Concerning the stability of the international system, is it better for state sovereignty to remain sacred or for the international community to adopt the doctrine of R2P?

The Chinese proverb “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime,” applies almost perfectly to the idea of Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. In a perfect world, R2P would be a process where one country, or a collection of countries, can help another by teaching it how to fish. However, this is not a perfect world, and instead of teaching countries how to fish, R2P has been a process where fish are handed out, often with interest attached.

Before R2P, the world would watch as countries like Rwanda and Bosnia had their people slaughtered, having to then deal with the guilt, silently witnessing genocide. Nevertheless, what one must first consider is the obligation of a country in regards to another. As human beings, we are only responsible for ourselves, evident in the Hobbsean state of nature, where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” due to mans need to protect himself. Of course, one can assume that even in our most natural form, as human beings we possess morals. Still, these morals are personal, and only once man is thrust into government do these morals become a public agreement of sorts – a shared ideal and belief. That is why guilt is evoked when one watches a child get bullied by another, and does nothing. Nonetheless, in our most pure state of nature, we would watch such an act, and be thankful we were still in one piece.

Darfur is a perfect example of the failure of R2P. “Darfur is a typical North-East African civil war, consisting of multiple overlapping conflicts interspersed with large-scale of ensives by the government army and its proxies and rebels. During 2001–2003, local disputes were exacerbated by the breakdown of local governance and combined with the ambitions of a frustrated provincial elite to fuel an insurgency, which escalated more quickly and bloodily than either side anticipated. The government response was both ham-fisted and ruthless—characteristics of Khartoum’s counter-insurgencies since the 1980s. The result was massacre, displacement and famine, an overall death toll probably exceeding 200,000, the deepening of distrust between Darfurians and the political leaders in Khartoum to the point of bitter hatred, and the fragmentation of Darfurian society into a state approaching anarchy, characterized by multiple local conflicts” (De Waal).

National organizations were created in order to help bring stability and peace to the conflict; however, none were able to achieve their goals. The Ndjamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement, signed on April 8^th 2004, was “the basis for all subsequent diplomatic efforts on Darfur,” yet the agreement was rushed. The AU, or African Union, was allowed to provide protection for civilians, but did not have the supplies to achieve it. And lastly AMIS (African Mission in Sudan) attempted to bring stability to the situation, but lacked the funds and resources to do so. The responses of the UN Security Council and the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) consisted chiefly of ad hoc steps rather than a systematic or strategic approach to the crisis” (De Waal).

The UNSC implemented a disarmament resolution in July 2004, however did nothing to monitor or even implement the resolution, and failed to act when said resolution was broken. “In August the UN demanded a series of steps to ensure security around displaced persons’ camps but also failed to take any follow-up actions when Sudan government actions stalled. Later the UNSC adopted a resolution enabling it to identify individuals obstructing the peace process and sanction them, but it has used this instrument only slowly, sparingly and ineffectively” (De Waal).

“Over the period 2004–2007, the international community pursued a range of objectives for Darfur that included improving security and humanitarian access, supporting the CPA, obtaining justice at The Hague, seeking a negotiated peace, dispatching a UN force and punishing those standing in the way of these goals. The multiplicity of these goals impeded a clear and coherent strategy. Some actions demanded the impossible while others set unrealistic deadlines. Few were followed up on” (De Waal).

Now that R2P is being enforced and used in international politics (albeit ineffectively), another more current example we faced was the No-Fly Zone in Libya. Firstly, why was Libya chosen, and not, for example, Bahrain? According to the United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, each case has its own merits and should be taken as a stand-alone. However, one can see interest play a large role in such decision-making. Libya is not a large-scale producer of oil, meaning the US has noting to loose with reaching a disagreement with Libya (economically). Secondly, one must take into account how much the ‘weak kid’ wants help to stop the ‘bully.’ The No-Fly zone will not be causality free, and means that bombing Libyan air forces is a necessity. This can be seen as Western interference, and can even anger the very people the US wishes to help.  Also, tying into national interest, and raison d’état, continuing with the No-Fly zone in Libya would require the taking away of much needed resources in Afghanistan.

So what should be done? When thinking back to the state of nature, if Obama, for example, cannot live with the guilt of not helping a country or its people, he can march on over there and make his difference. However, at this point, it seems unfair to both the population helping, as to the population receiving the help, to accept it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and although a country may seem to be helping another, everyone acts in their own interest, and politicians want to get re-elected or gain popularity.

The concept of R2P is a nice one – optimistic, inspiring and hopeful. However, our world makes it hard tell what help is necessary, and what help is for the sole purpose of flashing for money. Until our intentions become as close to pure as possible, attempting to defend others will backfire terribly.

Works Cited:

De Waal, Alex. "Darfur [Sudan] And The Failure Of The Responsibility To Protect." International Affairs 83.6 (2007): 1039-1054. International Political Science Abstracts. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.

"Responsibility to Protect." Dictionary Sensagent. Sensagent, Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Nov. 2011. <http://dictionary.sensagent.com/responsibility+to+protect/en-en/>.

Shah, Anup. "Conflicts in Africa — Global Issues." Global Issues: Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All — Global Issues. 31 July 2011. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.globalissues.org/issue/83/conflicts-in-africa>.