Quote of the Week

"...Those of you saying our politicians spend money like drunken sailors need to apologize to drunken sailors....Drunken sailors spend their own money."

-- Anonymous online comment on a news story about the penchant of politicians to be profligate with public funds.

Quote of the Week

1/25/2012 04:05:00 PM politics, reflections

The Moral Verdict of History

It was Rev. Martin Luther King who stated: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” There can be no truer statement.

Very often, the positions we take as individuals and society are shaped by today’s realities and exigencies. Our decisions are concerned with the here and now. We are less concerned about the verdict of history. We rarely ask: How will future generations judge today’s expedient decisions? Will our decisions stand the “moral test of time?”

The story of Richard and Mildred Loving is an example of why, as a society, we must consider the verdict of history in the decisions we make today.

Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, were arrested in their bedroom a few days after their marriage in 1958 for violating Virginia’s “Racial Integrity Act,” a state law banning marriages between white and non-white persons. At the time, the couple did not know that they were breaking any law. When the group of arresting police officers invaded their bedroom, the couple showed them their marriage certificate from another state, hoping that it would be a defence. It became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge.

Richard and Mildred Loving were sentenced to one year in prison and banished from the state of Virginia for 25 years. Their legal appeal against this verdict ultimately reached the US Supreme Court which declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. The landmark case of Loving v. Virginia marked a turning point in the civil rights movement in the United States. This was not just a legal verdict, it was a moral verdict. Fifty years later, the verdict of history is also clear. The authorities in Virginia were on the wrong side of history.

The positions that we take today on social and political issues will also be judged by future generations. Knowing this, such positions should be informed not only by the contingencies and exigencies of today but also by the key question: What will the verdict of history be? We cannot always be sure of the answer, but we must never cease to ask this question.

The Moral Verdict of History

1/21/2012 10:45:00 PM history, human rights

Cultural Relativism and Human Rights: Are human rights only in the eyes of the beholder?

I am teaching an undergraduate course on "Human Rights" this term and last week the topic was "Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism." As always, it was interesting to get the students' perspective on a debate that has long dominated human rights scholarship.

I began with a survey of the class of about 60 students. “How many of you here think human rights are universal?” Only 6 hands went up. “How many think that human rights are culturally relative?” 40 hands went up? “How many cannot make up their minds about this?” About 10 hands went up. Verdict: Most of my students think that human rights, despite the claim to universality, are in fact not universal. It’s a conclusion that proponents of human rights will find rather disheartening

But then, I tweaked the question a bit. “How many of you think human rights OUGHT to be universal?” 42 hands went up. “How may think human rights ought not to be universal?” Only 6 hands went up? Verdict: Although these students thought that the contemporary international human rights regime/movement is far from being universal, they nevertheless saw in it the promise and ideal of universalism. This offers some consolation. But whether this Universalist utopia can ever really be attained was the subject of another debate.

After the class, one of the students sent me the cartoon above. For him, it captured humorously but quite eloquently, the unending debate over the universality and cultural relativism of human rights.

Cultural Relativism and Human Rights: Are human rights only in the eyes of the beholder?

1/19/2012 01:46:00 PM education, human rights

“Genocide” and the politics of labeling

What qualifies to be called “Genocide”? These days, it depends on who you ask. Although the UN Genocide Convention is very clear on what constitutes genocide, controversies abound. Not every mass killing amounts to genocide and in fact, the term did not even exist before 1944 when Raphael Lemkin used it to describe Nazi policies of systematic mass murder of European Jews. Before then, Winston Churchill simply called it “a crime without a name.”

The United Nations Genocide Convention of 1948 which established “genocide” as an international crime defines genocide specifically in terms of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a “national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” For some strange reasons, “political groups” are omitted. So, theoretically, all the members of an opposition political party in a country can be massacred by a ruling regime and it still would not amount to genocide.

“Genocide” and the politics of labeling

1/15/2012 11:04:00 PM

Quote of the Week

"I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions." – Warren Buffett

Quote of the Week

1/15/2012 06:09:00 PM

Seasons Greetings and Best wishes for just and peaceful 2012

Seasons Greetings and Best wishes for just and peaceful 2012

12/22/2011 04:53:00 PM reflections

"I simply decided I had enough money"

Social economists say that two crucial human wants that do not obey the Law of Diminishing Returns: Power and Wealth.

For most things in life, the more you have of it the less you desire it or the less it becomes productive for you. Our quest for power and wealth tend not to obey this rule. Human desire to accumulate power and wealth appears simply insatiable. But every once in a while, comes a remarkable person who forces us to rethink our assumptions about human nature.

This week, after much digging, The New York Times unmasked 80-year-old Charles F. Feeney as the anonymous donor who gave Connell University a $350 million donation to construct a new technology-based satellite campus in New York City.

A self-made billionaire who co-founded Duty Free Shoppers Group in the 1960s, Charles Feeney  has been donating quietly and anonymously to universities, hospitals and charitable foundations for much of his lifetime. In 2009, he gave $125 million to build a new medical center for the University of California-San Francisco that would treat women, children, and cancer patients. Over the course of the last decade, he's given more than €46m to the University of Limerick in Ireland. Hs total donations for Cornell over the years -- not counting the latest $350 million -- exceed $600 million.

Even more remarkable is Mr. Feeney’s steely resolve to give anonymously and without the publicity and self-adulation that is often associated with philanthropy. He is reluctant to do press interviews or even pose for a publicity photograph. According to The Atlantic Wire, “Nearly every profile makes note of how unimpressed Feeney is with what his wealth can buy him, noting that he flies coach, wears a $15 watch, and doesn't own a house or a car.”

When asked why he decided to give everything away, Feeney replied, "I simply decided I had enough money."

Now, that is something you don’t hear every day: “I simply decided I had enough money.”
The world desperately needs more Charles Feeneys.

Meet Charles Feeney, Cornell's $350 Million Donor (The Atlantic Wire)
Cornell Alumnus Is Behind $350 Million Gift to Build Science School in City (New York Times)

"I simply decided I had enough money"

12/21/2011 11:18:00 AM Development, media, Tributes

Beaver or bear? The Battle over Canadian National Identity

This lighthearted story about the debate over replacing the beaver with the polar bear as Canada’s national emblem was one of the most read stories on the BBC website this week.

Apparently the rest of the world is as concerned as some of us about the efforts currently been pushed on several levels to reshape Canadian national identity. Canada’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol marks a radical departure from the values of moderation and tolerance that the country has long been known for. These values are part of the reasons why some of us, chose to make this country home. It is a source of grave concern that these values seem to be slipping away.

"In a world of eagles, bears, dragons and other fearsome beasts, surely we need more, not less, of the beaver."

Beaver or bear? Fur flies over Canadian sense of identity (BBC)

Beaver or bear? The Battle over Canadian National Identity

12/18/2011 05:54:00 PM politics

"Dignity is more important than bread"

Time Magazine has declared “the Protester” the person of the year for 2011. It is a fitting choice. 2011 was indeed the year of the protester. From Cairo’s Tahrir square to New York’s Zuccotti Park, ordinary citizens protesting against political repression and economic inequities took to the streets to voice their complaints. They found an ally in technology. Facebook and tweeter were the vectors of their protestations.

Street protests have always been a part of social ferment. What makes these noteworthy is their efficacy. Sit tight dictators were forced to abdicate and nervous corporate oligarchies have been forced to take note. "Massive and effective street protest" has moved from being an oxymoron to become the reality of our internet age.

But what struck me most about the Time Story was the discussion of the life the 26-year-old street Tunisian vendor Mohamed Bouazizi whose self-immolation on December 17 2010 set off an unrelenting wave of street protest across the Arab world. Mohamed Bouazizi has become the unlikely martyr and icon of the year of the Arab Spring and the age of “effective street protest.” It is a compelling story:

“On a Friday morning almost exactly a year ago, he set out for work, selling produce from a cart. Police had hassled Bouazizi routinely for years, his family says, fining him, making him jump through bureaucratic hoops. On Dec. 17, 2010, a cop started giving him grief yet again. She confiscated his scale and allegedly slapped him. He walked straight to the provincial-capital building to complain and got no response. At the gate, he drenched himself in paint thinner and lit a match.”

I have heard some question whether this aggravation was enough to warrant self-immolation. That is a matter for debate. However, we must never underestimate dehumanizing effects of humiliation and indignity. Bouazizi set himself on fire not because he was starving or homeless. He went to that extreme length because he was tired of a life of humiliation, dehumanization and indignity. Perhaps for him, setting himself on fire was a means of escape and the ultimate statement of defiance.

Bouazizi’s mother puts it succinctly, “My son set himself on fire for dignity." Her 16-year-old daughter Basma, put it even better: "dignity is more important than bread."

Time Magazine: The Protester

"Dignity is more important than bread"

12/14/2011 06:06:00 PM human rights

Dutch Apology for the Massacre at Rawagede (Indonesia): How not to do State Apology

On December 9, 1947 Dutch military forces deployed in the village of Rawagede in colonized Indonesia committed an unspeakable crime.

In their fight to maintain Dutch colonial rule and suppress the Indonesian Republicans seeking independence for their country, they killed nearly all the males in this remote Indonesian village. Almost 500 men were rounded up and summarily executed, in many cases right before their families. The widows recall that it was left to the women and children in the villages to bury the corpses of their slain husbands, brothers and children. Rawagede became a village without men.

Although the Dutch army and state acknowledged that the massacres occurred, no one was ever prosecuted or convicted for the massacres. A 1948 United Nations report described the killings "deliberate and merciless."

Since the publication of the report there have been pressures on Netherlands to officially apologize for the massacres and pay compensation to the victims and survivors. None has been forthcoming. The best that the people of Rawagede got was statement that the Netherlands "deeply regrets" the massacre.

Finally on the sixty-fourth anniversary of the massacres, the Dutch government through its ambassador to Indonesia formally apologised for the massacres. It was a terse public statement which included the words that the survivors had waited for over six decades to hear: "On behalf of the Dutch government, I apologise for the tragedy that took place in Rawagede on the 9th of December, 1947."

But the apology came only after some survivors successfully sued the Dutch government for the massacres and a court in the Netherlands ordered the government to pay compensation over the killings. Only 9 relatives are still alive and each will receive a paltry Euro 20,000 ($27,000) compensation.

The apology is welcome since its better late than never. But for the traumatized people of Rawagede, it provides only cold comfort. The apology is too little too late. State apologies for historical crimes and injustices are notoriously difficult to get. In this case, the belated apology from the Netherland seems to have been driven more by insular legal and public relations considerations rather than a genuine sense of national contrition for the massacres. The Dutch apology is a classic example of how not to do state apology.

For more on the debate over state apology for historical crimes see a recent book to which I contributed:

Mark Gibney, Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Jean-Marc Coicaud and Niklaus Steiner, eds., The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University Press, 2008).

Dutch Apology for the Massacre at Rawagede (Indonesia): How not to do State Apology

12/10/2011 07:04:00 PM human rights, war and peace