The UN, China, and Human Rights Violations

As a part of the United Nations General Assembly, 47 member countries are elected to seats on the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC.  These UNHRC members are charged with the task of reviewing and reporting to the general assembly their findings on human rights violations for all UN members ever four years. The council also acts as a resource for individuals and organizations to report human rights violations.

China, a country known for it’s human right violations, was elected to a seat on the Human Rights Council. This comes as the UN continues to report on wide spread violations in China. As acting assistant secretary in the U.S. State Department's bureau of democracy, human rights and labor, Uzra Zeya, stated, “We're concerned that China suppresses freedoms of assembly, association, religion and expression..., harasses, detains and punishes activists..., targets rights defenders' family members and friends and implements policies that undermine the human rights of ethnic minorities.” This is in direct conflict with the UN’s own resolution which states, “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” In 2009, the UNHRC made similar observations about violations in China and China rejected almost all of the recommendations made by the council. While many countries, like the United States, have criticized China, they have found support from countries including Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan and Egypt. This is also not the first time that a rights violator served on the Human Rights Council, Pakistan, Venezuela and Kazakhstan all of whom are known for committing human right violations have held seats on the council.

Should China hold a seat on the Human Rights Council?

Does having known human rights violators on the council matter?

Will this limit the effectiveness/ credibility of the UNHRC?

Sources:

UN-real: Saudi Arabia, China among nations vying for seats on Human Rights Council

UN criticizes China's rights record at Geneva meeting

China to Defend Human-Rights Record to U.N.

UPDATE 3-West criticises, China defends human rights record at UN

Theatre of the absurd

Delayed Efforts in Syria

On November 5th, Lakhdar Brahimi of the UN delayed a peace agreement to the war in Syria despite external jurisdiction's strong belief that negotiations are the final resolution to the aggression. Due to this delay, Western politicians face a certain dilemma. They have three essential goals to thwart the conflict: to form a peace settlement, to bring in Iran to apply authority to Syria, and finally to out Syrian president, Bashar Assad. However, due to Brahimi's statement of delay, such leaders can only enforce two out of the three goals. To explain why, the Economist provides lessons of circumventing conflicts. In the infancy of the conflict, Western backing may have already achieved the aim of taking down Assad. But such support has failed to go into fruition. Now after years of aggression, leaving thousands dead, nothing can be done. Rebels have been inculcated by Sunni dogma and shown in examples throughout history, civil wars must successfully come to an end in as little as a year, or else they may continue on for many more years to come. The rebels have zero incentive to cease attacks since they believe that yielding will end in their downfall.

This situation increasingly detriments the relief and protection of Syrian civilians. UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordination, Valerie Amos, explains that hardly any effort has been made to protect citizens and make schools and hospitals safe again. She presents chilling information to the council that an increase of approximately three million Syrians (from 6.8 to 9.3) desire humanitarian relief. Not enough effort is being made to protect the lives of Syrian civilians.

So, in dire situations for relief such as the conditions in Syria, is it really too late for Western support? What would be your response in Brahimi's announcement to postpone a peace agreement if it is stifling relief efforts? 

North Korea Releases American Citizen

Just this Saturday, North Korea released 85-year old American war veteran Merrill Newman, who had been detained in the country for nearly six weeks. His cause for arrest and detention was "indelible crimes' that he allegedly committed during the Korean War. Newman had traveled to the North Korean capital of Pyongyang in October with on a friend on a private trip and had all necessary visa documentation. At the end of his trip just as he was on his way back to the United States, North Korean authorities pulled him off his plane and arrested him. A few weeks later in November, Newman read a lengthy, strangely worded apology and confession on state TV that admitted to these alleged war crimes. However, because of the quality of the English in this confession, there is general speculation that Newman may have been forced to read this under "duress" (Washington Post), something that is common in North Korea's treatment of detainees. Newman's imprisonment also led to the United States issuing a "blanket" travel warning, telling US citizens to avoid travel to North Korea (Washington Post).


North Korea is now claiming that they released 85 year-old Newman on humanitarian grounds, citing his advanced age. Newman, speaking to the press, thanked both the Swedish embassy in Pyongyang and the U.S. Embassy in Beijing for helping to secure his release. It is likely the U.S. exerted diplomatic pressure through these entities as the United States obviously does not hold diplomatic relations with North Korea.

So, in this situation, was North Korea just being North Korea? Did they see imprisoning Newman, an American citizen, as some sort of bargaining chip? If so, what did they achieve by detaining him? Was it just a ploy for international attention?

I'm curious to hear what you guys think.

The 'War on Terror' and Friday's Debate

After a week of discussing terrorist threats and the debate in class Friday, I found Stephen Walt's post on FP to be quite relevant.  The main point of his post resonated with a very similar point made towards the end of class about cost-analysis and defining what success meant in terms of this 'war on terror'.

In class the point was made that we can never guarantee that there is no terrorist threat.  Walt writes that America's politicians don't give the people enough credit when it comes to terrorist attacks and refers specifically to the Boston Marathon bombing.  "And doesn't Boston's defiant and resolute reaction to the city's marathon bombing in April suggest that the American population isn't nearly as querulous as politicians fear: If you explain to them that there is no such thing as 100 percent security, they don't go all wobbly. Instead, they display precisely the sort of calm resolution that causes terrorist campaigns to fail."  I think this is a thought that should be taken more seriously.  Obviously politicians are risk-averse, and it is helpful for them to oversell a threat that way they can't be targeted for having too little concern for national security.

This overselling of the threat, and deciding at what point do we accept that we can't have a guarantee of safety, can connect to the discussion on civil liberties we had in class.  Where is a good balance of security, civil liberty, and how do you measure each of these in relations to the actual threat level.

Walt says that this overselling of terrorist threats is unnecessary to a degree when we are worried about 'copy cat' jihadist groups in Syria, where the threat is not directly aimed at the US and is better dealt with by local forces.  He links to this New York Times article as an example of inflating a threat to a greater level than necessary.  He points out Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Mike Rogers as a case for this risk averse attitude that is mostly an outward display of care to national security as a means of covering themselves politically.

The main point of me writing all this was to sort of continue the discussion we had in class, and to see if anyone has opinions on what Walt is saying here, or maybe more information on this line of thinking.

Civilian Casualties- Victims of Pakistani Drone Strikes

Recently, following a two year hiatus, the United States renewed an aid package worth $1.6 Billion to Pakistan, aid that aims to bolster Pakistan's military and economic capacity. The long gap in funds to one of America's most duplicitous, yet necessary partners in the global war on terror came as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden and rapacious drone strikes, all of which represent violations of Pakistani sovereignty and create frosty relations.

Drone strikes are controversial not simply because of the ambiguity surrounding their use in other states' airspace but because of civilian deaths, which have steadily mounted in recent years. Civilian deaths are costly for a number of reasons. Strictly speaking, effective counterinsurgency doctrine necessitates the engagement of the civilian population, characterized by providing them with security. Improved security, in turn, creates a wedge between insurgents and the population, which provides them with refuge, intelligence and supplies. Drone strikes run counter to counterinsurgency doctrine. Drones do not engage the population, nor do they provide security, a fact manifest by the number of deaths experienced in recent years. But there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the real toll that drones have taken.

The discrepancies arise from various reports. According to the Pakistani government, there have been a mere 67 civilian deaths recorded since 2008, however according to the United Nations the death toll is exponentially higher, at around 450 civilian deaths. Not only does this indicate a substantial lack of transparency, it also calls into question the effectiveness and precise nature of drone warfare. John Brennan, the head of the CIA was recently quoted by Al Jazeera as saying there have been "no collateral deaths 'because of the exceptional proficiency, precision or the capabilities we've been able to develop." However, David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to General David Patraeus, countered this, stating, "over the last 3 years (2009-2012) drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders... but they have also killed some 700 civilians (that total was collected by the Pakistani media). This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2%, hardly 'precision.'"

Overall, we see a massive discrepancy in the real number of civilian deaths, but more importantly, we must take into account the fact that drone warfare is largely imprecise and does little to win over the civilian population, whose support is so vital for attaining victory. Therefore, the question I pose, is whether or not you think drone strikes are an effective tool going forward, and if it is a strategy worth pursuing for the future?

Bombing in Yemen

Today in Yemen, there was a bombing on the Yemen's Ministry of Defense. The attack occurred around rush hour Thursday morning. The bombing killed 52 people so far and wounded 167. Among those were foreign physicians and Yemen military personnel. The strike occurred in the nations capitol, Sana'a. The attack came after the government heightened security measures in the area. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's media arm (al-Mallahem) claimed responsibility for the attack. On a twitter account the group stated they targeted the Ministry of Defense building because it "accommodates drone rooms and American experts." The attack occurred when a suicide car bomber detonated in front of the gates to the Ministry of defense followed by another vehicle with 13 heavily armed individuals wearing military uniforms drove through the wreckage and engaged in gunfire with government officials on scene. This led to mass confusion on who was the enemy or ally in the gun battle. Throughout the gun battle many explosions were heard according to eye witnesses. This is the deadliest attack in the capitol since May 2012 according to ABC news. The attack shows the growing strength of terrorist groups in the region.

The attack is believed to be a direct result of increased drone strikes by the United States in the region. The nation of Yemen has served as a allies to the United States in a very troubled region in the world. However, as the United States continues to use drone strikes and operate out of Yemen, the terrorist groups state that these areas constitute as security headquarters used by Americans and are therefor to be considered "legitimate targets." This attack shows the increasing tension throughout the world by these terrorist groups and there efforts to try and undermine the United States and other democracies. Especially in nations such as Yemen with transitioning governments. Although the United States has provided some $150 million in assistance to Yemen, primarily to their counterterrorism operations, the overall instability in the capitol causes increasing instability in the area. This attack also shows the importance of a strong stable government in order to help protect against terrorist attacks. While there is no way to be able to stop terrorist attacks altogether, there are many ways to help prevent them. A large issue in Yemen and this part of the world in the instability of the governments and the rebel groups within them as discussed in The New York Times. As instability rises it is increasingly difficult to be able to secure your nation and protect its citizens. These attacks stress the importance of creating stronger governments along with the need for more effective counterterrorism. The bombing also aligns with objectives terrorists try to accomplish by there attacks as discussed in class. These objectives include trying to coerce governments to grant policy concessions, target civilian and military objects, put pressure on governments and change public opinion overall. The attack shows al-Qaeda's effort to change the publics opinion of supporting the U.S. and the governments support for the drone strikes. The goal is to change the policy in the government and region to support these regimes and gain more support. As drone strikes and other acts of counterterrorism occur in the Middle East, terrorist attacks are expected to be more prevalent and destructive. While one can only hope these attacks diminish over time, the future looks increasingly dim.

Stolen Radioactive Materials Recovered by Mexican Officials

On Wednesday afternoon, Mexican authorities reported to have recovered a stolen truck that contained extremely dangerous radioactive material. The material stolen was cobalt-60 which is used in medical treatment. The container that held the material was found empty, but officials say they have located the cobalt half a mile from the container with no risk to the surrounding population so far. Juan Eibenschutz, general director of Mexico's National Commission of Nuclear Security and Safeguards, reported that the thieves are likely either dead or dying following the incident because of radiation exposure. A main concern of authorities was that the material in the stolen truck is dangerous to handle. In addition, it could also be used to make a radioactive dirty bomb. According to safety guidelines on the IAEA website, a "malevolent use of radioactive sources could also cause significant social, psychological and economic impacts."

In the case of radioactive material being stolen, last year alone the IAEA recorded 17 cases of illegal possession and attempts to sell nuclear materials and 24 incidents of theft or loss. It says this is the "tip of the iceberg." Many cases have involved former parts of the Soviet Union, such as Moldova — where in 2011 several people were arrested trying to sell weapons-grade uranium. But the problem is not confined to Eastern European states. According to the Aljazeera article, major international efforts have been made since the end of the Cold War in 1991 and the September 11 attacks to prevent nuclear material falling into the wrong hands. A report issued in July by the Arms Control Association and the Partnership for Global Security said “progress had been made reducing the threat but that significant work remained.” With loose nuclear material located all over the world, the threat of nuclear terrorism becomes a topic of discussion. Terrorist organizations have tried to obtain nuclear material in the past, so securing these loose nuclear materials has definitely been a priority, especially since Obama’s presidency. This interestingly applies to what we've been talking about in class this week regarding terrorism.  Being that it is indeed a possibility that terrorist organizations could obtain nuclear materials, how does this change the game in terms of terrorism and counter-terrorism? How do resolves change on either side? How does this change bargaining from either side?

Articles:

Aljazeera America

NBC News