Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Blog THIS: December 10

December 10, 2008
International Human Rights Day!
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:31 PM ET

Today is the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10th, 1948, 48 states voted in its favour. Although not one state voted against it, eight abstained: including the former Soviet Union, taking issue with the inclusion of individual property rights; apartheid-era South Africa, saying that "human dignity would be impaired if a person were told he could not reside in a particular area"; and Saudi Arabia, saying that the Declaration was too Western-centric and did not reflect the values of everybody.

The history of human rights, as we all no doubt are aware, has been rocky. There have been countless abuses, unjust imprisonments, unresolved disagreements over how human rights should be understood, and whether legal prosecutions should be the fate of its violaters. For instance, today's Globe and Mail featured an opinion piece by Erna Paris in which she praises the International Criminal Court's first trial next month. In place to prosecute war criminals, the ICC has an obvious appeal. Nevertheless, there has been some understandable criticism of this prosecutorial body. Namely that it doesn't reflect the varying ways in which people around the world settle their disputes. Prosecutitions are, in more places than we might expect, unpracticed - while reconciliation is the norm.

People also differ over the weight they should give to the different kinds of rights. The Declaration is composed of civil and political rights; as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The former consists of things like the right to a fair trial, the right to free movement, religion, conscience, and the like. The latter is made up of rights to food, clothing, medical care, education, clean water, etc. Now, it appears the fault lines of disagreement lie between the developed and the developing world. The former emphasize civil and political rights, while the latter (a majority, in this economically disproportioned world) ephasize economic, social, and cultural rights, or what some call "freedom from want."

In light of the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, where more than 500 people have died since August because of a poor sanitation system and a contaminated water supply, I think we in the West must come around to the developing world's emphasis on freedom from want. To make human rights exclusively synonymous with political freedoms would be to condemn many people to certain death.

Update: The cholera numbers are now 775 deaths, with 16,141 cases of the illness.

Monday, December 8, 2008

women, developing countries, climate change

In Poznan, Poland, national representatives, intergovernmental organizations, and various nongovernmental organizations are meeting to discuss strategies to collectively combat climate change. These United Nations-led talks started on December 1 and will last until the 12th.

Interestingly, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has pointed out something we often forget. Climate Change will impact some people quite differently from others. I've blogged before about how the developing world is disportionately affected by climate change. But now the IUCN is saying that the women of developing countries are especially affected.

From their website:

Women are more likely than men to be killed by natural disasters such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and heat waves, which are on the rise as a result of climate change. A sample of 141 countries from 1981 to 2002 found such disasters kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men.

Girls and women are responsible for collecting water and fuelwood. In the poorest areas of the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls can spend three to four hours a day on these tasks.

Flooding, drought and desertification can extend these burdens geographically, forcing more girls in more communities to abandon their education. Of the 115 million children in the world who do not go to school, three-fifths are girls, and women constitute 75 percent of the world’s illiterate population.


Various bodies are also calling on the international community to consider the ways in which, as well as the reasons for which, women of the developing world can contribute to the fight against climate change. South Africa's deputy minister for environment and tourism, Rejoice Mabudafhasi, said this:

As women, we look for water and firewood -- we understand the environment better. And as women, we believe gender issues must be incorporated in all decision making on climate change.

The suggestion is that the negotiations is Poznan, and all future talks on climate change, should be a lot less "gender-blind", a lot more inclusive of varying perspectives.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Blog THIS: December 5

December 05, 2008
Pirates
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:29 PM ET



Piracy off the coast of Somali has become an issue since the hijacking of the Saudi Arabian oil-tanker, the Sirius Star, on November 15. Carrying a $110-million cargo of crude oil (enough to supply New England with fuel for 10 days), this is the most recent event in a string of destabalizing developments. Western states are justifiably worried about the spectre of piracy: the increased risks to oil-tankers are raising insurance premiums; and the resultant rerouting and transport delays are increasing commodity prices. All this in a time of global economic recession.

The solution? According to John S. Burnett, author of Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas, in today's New York Times, we must bring back the Islamic Courts Union, a collection of courts that once controlled much of Somalia with Shariah law, maintained loose links to Al Qaeda and consisted of warlords. Since the ICU was replaced in 2006, Somalia has degenerated into lawlessness and rampant piracy. The ICU's restoration, Burnett argues, is the only hope the West has of returning safe routes to oil-tankers.

"If there is movement to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan, then there should be some effort to talk to the fundamentalists in Somalia. If the Islamists were permitted to form a viable, functioning and effective government, this shattered land might be able to return to the community of nations - and supertankers will be able to deliver oil to the United States without fear of getting hijacked."

Now, I can't help but read this as being extremely Western-centric. Burnett seems to care only about the safety of oil-tankers and the efficient delivery of goods to the United States. What about the proper governance of Somalia? Is the best option really giving Somalia the ICU in return from some relatively-cheap oil?

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Blog THIS: December 4

December 04, 2008
What could have been
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:32 PM ET

What would the coalition have amounted to if Parliament hadn't been suspended today? According to a report in Embassy, a Canadian foreign policy newsweekly, the coalition would have had an internationalist and multilateral vision; emphasizing human rights. For instance:

"It seems the free trade agreement with Colombia, signed by Mr. Harper last week, could also be dumped in pretty short order. Both the Liberals and NDP have expressed concern over the human rights situation in the country."

But, instead, we have a prorogued Parliament and a freeze on legislative initiatives until the end of January.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Blog THIS: December 2

December 02, 2008
More on the coalition
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:14 PM ET

The Liberal-NDP coalition has great support among the countless disillusioned by the Conservative Party. The Conservative's recent proposals for a "three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity and eliminated subsidies for political parties" struck many the wrong way - notwithstanding the party's eventual reversal on their subsidies decision and ban on civil servant strikes.

Yet despite this, there might be at least one sufficient reason to withdraw one's support for the coalition: it's arguably undemocratic. In today's Globe and Mail, Janice MacKinnon, professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan and a former NDP finance minister, had this to say about a coaltion she would normally be inclined to support:

"as a Western Canadian, I fear the reaction of most in this region should they awake one morning to find the Conservative Party, which won 72 of 92 seats in the West just weeks ago, replaced by a coalition with a prime minister from the Liberal Party, the party that came third in every province in Western Canada. This would be especially dismaying since the election results weren't even close: The Conservatives won 37 per cent of the vote and 66 more seats than their nearest rivals."

We might want Harper out, and we might even believe the coalition would work, but we should also keep in mind the way everyone voted.