| ericbj on Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:03:48 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Dealing with state terrorism |
Since terrorism seems to be a major topic at the moment [What causes terrorism?], perhaps one may be permitted to look at the subject from a different angle : How to remove an entrenched terrorist regime? -- the one particularly in mind being the Rangoon military junta. To open the issue, here is a recent newslist posting, followed by my response to it. There has not been a lot of feedback from the Burma newslists, so maybe there will be a more animated response here ? ___________________________________________ What do we mean by human rights ? In seeking strategic alliances, must one unreservedly approve in all matters the position of one's allies ? Can pressure be brought to bear on a terrorist regime without employing either sanctions or military force ? Is 19th Century laissez-faire capitalism the answer to 21st-Century Burma's problems ? These are some of the questions raised by the following article, to which I endeavour to give the beginnings of a response. ___________________________________________ > Dear List-subscribers: > > I am sharing with you select observations regarding > HUMAN RIGHTS by Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank > professor emeritus of international law and practice at > Princeton University and visiting distinguished > professor of global studies at the University of > California at Santa Barbara. (His most recent book is > The Great Terror War, New York: Olive Branch Press, > 2003). > > Sincerely, zarni > > From: HUMAN RIGHTS BY Richard Falk, in THINK AGAIN > section of Foreign Policy magazine, March/April 2004, > pp.18-26. > > The concept of human rights is the mother's milk of the > international community. Problem is, these days human > rights come in more flavours than coffee or soft drinks. > > Would you like the Asian, Islamic, indigenous, economic, > European, or U.S. version? > > And how would you like your human rights served: with > sanctions, regime change, corporate window dressing, or > good old-fashioned moral suasion? > > Here is a look at the most effective - and most > misguided - recipes for promoting human dignity around > the world. > > (Excerpted from the full article - compiler's remark). > > Human Rights Are Primarily About Political Freedom" > > The Answer: NO > > Human rights should be understood as covering both > political and economic concerns. It is true human > rights efforts have been most successful with political > abuses. Yet, to create the sort of solidarity needed to > promote dignity of persons throughout the world, it is > crucial to address economic deprivations associated with > poverty as human rights issues. Indeed, there are two > authoritative international covenants governing human > rights: the International Covenant on Civil and > Political Rights, and the International Covenant on > Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both adopted by > the United Nations in 1996. > > The United States has never ratified the second > covenant, and U.S. political leaders are skeptical about > its moral claims and status as law. But regardless of > such doubts and any quibbles about the wording of > covenants, the bottom line is that a country that fails > to address the basic needs of its entire population is > guilty of human rights violations. This approach puts a > lot of pressure on poor countries and the economically > disadvantaged in various ways. It also exerts pressure > on the United States and other prosperous nations that > practice a form of market economics that does NOT take > responsibility for homelessness, hunger and other > manifestations of poverty. An estimated 840 million > people suffer from chronic hunger around the world. At > the end of 2002 in the United States, there were 34.9 > million people living in hunger or lacking sufficient > food, 1.3 million more than a year earlier. A human > rights approach, based on morality and law, would ensure > every human being the basic necessities of food, > shelter, health care, education, and employment at least > to the extent of the material capabilities of a > particular society. It is only by shutting out these > issues of economic well-being that the United States can > be proud of its human rights record. Indeed, given the > remarkable level of U.S. wealth and might, the existence > of such deep pockets of poverty is nothing short of a > human obscenity. > > "Economic Sanctions Help Improve Human Rights Worldwide" > > The Answer: RARELY. > > If applied with the genuine backing of the world > community, economic sanctions can be effective, both > symbolically and substantively. But such backing is > rare. The case of sanctions imposed on South Africa > during the last stages of apartheid is a rare success > story, and those sanctions worked as much by > delegitimizing the government in Pretoria as by their > adverse effects on the South African economy. > > Most other instances of relying on sanctions for these > purposes have failed. Between 1990 and 2003, the U.S.- > led U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq indiscriminately > killed hundreds of thousands of civilians without > reforming or unseating the repressive Baath Party > regime. Citing this disastrous humanitarian impact, two > widely admired U.N. administrators of the sanctions > program in Iraq resigned on principle in 1998 and 2000 > respectively. In Bosnia, half-hearted sanctions > directed at the Yugoslav government in Belgrade served > as an excuse for not taking more energetic protective > action on behalf of a severely abused Bosnian Muslim > population. For more than 40 years, the U.S. government > has maintained economic sanctions against Cuba in > defiance of the majority of the U.N. General Assembly; > indeed, in recent years, only Israel and Marshall > Islands have backed Washington's stance. These > sanctions have led to great hardships for the Cuban > people without contributing to an improved human rights > record, though they have helped successive > administrations in Washington court Cuban exile > communities that exercise political leverage in such key > states as Florida and New Jersey. > > Sanctions are a policy tool that should be used more > sparingly, and then only with the overwhelming support > of the international community. If the situation is > serious enough to warrant sanctions, humanitarian > intervention might well be more appropriate, not least > because it has a far better chance of addressing the > direct causes of human suffering. > > "Corporations Have a Moral and Legal Obligation to > Uphold Human Rights" > > The Answer: NOT NOW. > > Multinational corporations are essentially profit-making > actors without established moral obligations beyond > their duties to uphold the interests of their > shareholders. In some cases, the constituencies of > corporations have grown to encompass so-called > "stakeholders," including those groups affected by > corporate activity. And to some extent, corporations > have an interest in not alienating consumers and public > interest groups by ignoring fundamental human rights > concerns. Civil society leaders can organise boycott > against corporations with high-profile links to human > rights violations, as has occurred with Shell, Nestle, > and others. Campaigns by these and other corporations to > improve their public image in relation to human rights > are a matter of self-interest that does not reflect the > existence or acceptance of a moral obligation. Of > course, to the extent that a human rights culture takes > hold, corporate officials and their shareholders will > likely become more receptive to moral imperatives > associated with treating workers decently, in accordance > with human rights standards. In that respect, voluntary > initiatives such as the United Nations' recently > established "Global Compact." which certifies > corporations as good global citizens if they agree to > abide by a checklist of standards, may pay off. And if > such voluntary processes go on for a long time and are > widely practised, they could ripen into a moral > obligation at some point, but that is a long way off. > > Also, virtually no legal obligations are effective > outside the protection of property rights such as > trademarks and copyrights in international business > activity. Almost all human rights regulation of > corporate sector is based on national laws and their > implementation. Some countries, especially the United > States, have tried to extend their standards to the > foreign operations of corporations headquartered in > their countries, but usually in the context of business > activity (bribes, monopolies) rather than human rights. > Efforts by U.S. state courts to ban business deals in > response to severe human rights abuses in places such as > Burma have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as > an interference with the foreign affairs powers of the > Executive Branch. To the extent the U.S. corporations > are legally restricted from dealing with certain foreign > countries for human rights reasons, such as Cuba, the > underlying motivation is political, reflecting > ideological hostility. After all, why not restrict > business with other countries that engage in severe > violations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? > > A framework of international legal obligations would > doubtless help protect human rights, especially in > countries with minimal or nonexistent human rights > regulations. But to ensure that multinational > corporations from some countries would not benefit from > a competitive advantage, such a framework would require > widely endorsed regional and global treaty regimes. And > given the clear benefits of foreign investment in > mitigating poverty, imposing international standards > that reduce the economic attractiveness of countries > with minimal regulation would, in the short term at > least, likely accentuate human suffering. ______________________________________________ "The concept of human rights is the mother's milk of the international community. Problem is, these days human rights come in more flavours than coffee or soft drinks. Would you like the Asian, Islamic, indigenous, economic, European, or U.S. version?" There is probably almost universal agreement on FUNDAMENTAL human rights amongst the peoples of the world as regards killing, rape, and robbery within their own society. It is only certain governing elites who, because of personal vested interests, seek to imply that murder, rape and robbery are 'Asian values'. "Here is a look at the most effective - and most misguided - recipes for promoting human dignity around the world." If this article offers, as claimed, a clear, effective remedy for Burma's problems, I have failed to perceive it. "Human rights should be seen as covering both political and economic concerns" The human rights that are consistently violated in Burma (as a matter of 'government' policy and not as some occasional excesses committed by marauding troops) are much more basic than "political and economic concerns". In the context of Burma, we are faced with extrajudicial killings and gang-rape commonly preceded and/or followed by mutilation of the victim, torture both for the purpose of extracting information and as a terror tactic, indefinite imprisonment without trial, the burning of thousands of villages and the homes of hundreds of thousands, destruction of food supplies, mining of paddy fields, displacement of entire populations into concentration camps to serve as slave labour ... a war on the people. "... to create the sort of solidarity needed to promote dignity of persons throughout the world, it is crucial to address economic deprivations associated with poverty as human rights issues." Poverty in Burma has been created by open, daylight robbery carried out by the armed forces, the so-called government: Wholesale theft, seizure of land and what is on it, extorsion in the form of massive corruption and imposition at whim of "taxes" on anything and everything, unpaid forced labour at high-points of the agricultural cycle. In addition, almost all the country's available resources go to the purchase of military equipment. To try to deal with this problem without attacking the cause is merely to put more wealth into the hands of the powerful. "... it is crucial to address economic deprivations associated with poverty as human rights issues ... a country that fails to address the basic needs of its entire population is guilty of human rights violations. This approach ... exerts pressure on the United States and other prosperous nations that practice a form of market economics that does NOT take responsibility for homelessness, hunger and other manifestations of poverty. ... A human rights approach, based on morality and law, would ensure every human being the basic necessities of food, shelter, health care, education, and employment at least to the extent of the material capabilities of a particular society." True. But the appalling failures in this domain of the US and other Western nations should not blind one to the terrorist behaviour of the Rangoon junta, which does not merely "fail to address the basic needs of its entire population", it actively deprives people of the means to meet their basic needs. Certainly fundamental human rights should be guaranteed under international law -- they are already, in some rudimentary degree, e.g. the Convention on Genocide. Now what is supposed to happen when the law is transgressed ? Why, the international community imposes sanctions, of course. Which could involve the use of armed force. It is precisely because governments do not want trouble and expense (except when they see it as being in their own direct interest) that international criminal law, rudimentary as it is, is rarely enforced, and consequently frequently broken. The world will have to learn to do better. [One should perhaps add that there are no longer "particular societies" when it comes to economics. Western economics has created both a 'global village' and global poverty, so poverty should not just be the concern of national governments, as Professor Falk seems to imply] "The case of [economic] sanctions imposed on South Africa during the last stages of apartheid is a rare success story, and those sanctions worked as much by delegitimizing the government in Pretoria as by their adverse effects on the South African economy. Most other instances of relying on sanctions for these purposes have failed." The whole purpose of sanctions is that they are one valuable instrument in a tool-kit for exerting pressure on a regime, both directly and indirectly. They can serve to weaken the regime financially, which may, for instance, weaken it militarily (as with Iraq), help promote popular discontent, leading to resistance (as in Serbia). Usually sanctions are not used for promoting human rights, as these figure low on foreign policy agenda, albeit they may be used as a 'smokescreen' to conceal the real motives. Sanctions have been used with some success against Libya and against the former USSR. An early example of ineffective sanctions were those against Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia in 1936. Sanctions, even when weak and ineffective, as with those imposed by the EU on Burma, can be a means of expressing displeasure and making an issue out of something that would otherwise be a total non-issue (e.g. bickering with ASEAN over the ASEM meeting, which helps to increase regional concern for Burma, rather than letting it be swept wholly under the carpet) Those who reject sanctions might gain more support if they could spell out in detail how they propose to replace them. "Between 1990 and 2003, the U.S.-led U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq indiscriminately killed hundreds of thousands of civilians ..." On my understanding of things, this is not correct. The U.N. oil-embargo permitted Iraq sufficient oil sales for the revenues to feed its population and maintain essential services. Moreover the regime sold a lot more oil than permitted, exporting it as contraband, via Syria for instance. However the oil revenues went mainly to military expenditure and into the private bank accounts of members of the regime. It was therefore the regime that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as surely as the Rangoon regime kills Karen and Shan etc villagers with its scorched earth policy. "Sanctions are a policy tool that should be used more sparingly, and then only with the overwhelming support of the international community." It is desirable and ideal to have "the overwhelming support of the international community". However if you see a person being assaulted, their life in danger perhaps, must you await the support of the crowd before doing anything ? [in reality, and I know this from seeing it, most people in a crowd will look the other way: they don't want to be involved] "If the situation is serious enough to warrant sanctions, humanitarian intervention might well be more appropriate, not least because it has a far better chance of addressing the direct causes of human suffering." Humanitarian intervention, for those most in need of it in Burma, means armed intervention. Bravo for suggesting it ! Moreover the direct cause of human suffering is incontrovertibly the military regime. Far better to eliminate the cause rather than try to palliate its morbid effects. "Corporations Have a Moral and Legal Obligation to Uphold Human Rights ? -- The Answer: NOT NOW. Multinational corporations are essentially profit-making actors without established moral obligations beyond their duties to uphold the interests of their shareholders." Thanks for reminding us. However corporations are made up of individuals, who have moral responsibilities to fellow human beings, irrespective of their race, their creed, or the corner of the world they happen to inhabit. Dare one suggest that these individuals are also liable in law for crimes against humanity, which would include, for example, complicity in genocide? As the Nuremburg trials made clear, it is no defence to say that one was carrying out orders (or company policy for the betterment of the shareholders). "Of course, to the extent that a human rights culture takes hold, corporate officials and their shareholders will likely become more receptive to moral imperatives associated with treating workers decently, in accordance with human rights standards. In that respect, voluntary initiatives such as the United Nations' recently established "Global Compact." which certifies corporations as good global citizens if they agree to abide by a checklist of standards, may pay off. And if such voluntary processes go on for a long time and are widely practised, they could ripen into a moral obligation at some point, but that is a long way off." So the decision as to whether or not to become involved as an accessory to genocide, torture, gang-rape, mass murder, incendiarism of villages etc is to be VOLUNTARY ??? -- eventually, to "ripen into a moral obligation ... that is a long way off". The victims will doubtless be thrilled to hear this ! What century are we living in ? Is this the age of Genghis Khan ? "Also virtually no legal obligations are effective outside the protection of property rights such as trademarks and copyrights in international business activity." What, one wonders, is Richard Falk, in his no doubt influential capacity as professor emeritus of international law and practice at Princeton University, doing to change this highly unsatisfactory state of affairs ? "To the extent the U.S. corporations are legally restricted from dealing with certain foreign countries for human rights reasons, such as Cuba, the underlying motivation is political, reflecting ideological hostility. After all, why not restrict business with other countries that engage in severe violations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?" One should try to be aware of the reasons a government engages in a particular policy, but the aim of the Burmese ethnodemocratic movement must be to find allies wherever it can. By all means look a gift horse in the mouth, but not when the donor is watching. Churchill, a life-long opponent of communism, did not hesitate to sign an alliance with Stalin, nor to give the USSR very substantial aid, to keep it in the war -- recognising that Hitler was the more immediate threat to his country. "And given the clear benefits of foreign investment in mitigating poverty, imposing international standards that reduce the economic attractiveness of countries with minimal regulation would, in the short term at least, likely accentuate human suffering." Here he says it all !!! The return to 19th century laissez-faire capitalism. The global economy, for all the trinkets and waste it produces, has caused real poverty (hunger and homelessness) on a scale never before known, as Professor Falk tacitly admits. Foreign capital is by no means always an unmitigated blessing for ordinary people, most especially so in the absence of democratic controls. It commonly makes those in power much wealthier, and more powerful. And lends them an aura of respectability. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]