The full article from The LA Times

A major reason for this tragedy is that Congo’s governance resembles a racket. Its politicians and administrators are mostly corrupt, getting rich from keeping their state dysfunctional, and promoting local violence to serve their interests. Throughout the country, people in positions of state authority systematically dominate and extract resources from those below them, all under the guise of sovereign power.

He goes on to suggest some action:

The US must more forcefully support Congolese human rights groups in pushing back the overwhelming culture of impunity. Local self-help initiatives, which have sustained people during years of state truancy, must be encouraged as they provide the foundations of accountable state reconstruction. Simultaneously, the legal authority of local state agents must be curtailed. A land reform would deprive chiefs of the opportunity to give land to their ethnic kin, which feeds inter-communal grievances.

I agree with everything that he says, and he said it better than I probably could.  Just wanted to highlight some good analysis on the DRC and what we should be doing about it, rather than what we are actually doing.

Case in point – last week the Wall Street Journal carried a story highlighting the internal debate apparently going on inside the US government over the Honduras situation.  The US has yet to rule whether the ouster constituted a coup.  Furthermore, in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the State Department condemned the military ouster but also was very critical of Zelaya’s own actions leading up to the ouster, which included going forward with a referendum to abolish the term limit article of the Honduran Constitution, a referendum that both parliament and the country’s Supreme Court found unconstitutional.  Nonetheless, ouster of a democratically-elected head of state is troubling regardless of the circumstances.  In this context, it is clear that the situation is not as straightforward as the average Central American coup narrative.

Many observers have instantly declared the ouster unconstitutional and an illegal coup.  Some have come to the side of the interim government, most notably Miguel Estrada in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution who lays out his legal arguments for why the ouster was a legal action.  Kenneth Anderson summed up the varying viewpoints over on Opinio Juris shortly after the ouster occurred.  That was over a month ago.  Today, the debate still rages on, though now it is compounded by Zelaya’s constant search for the media spotlight and growing reports of human rights abuses by the interim government.

But the question I found myself asking a month ago, and still have not received an answer to, is if the ouster was wrong, what were they supposed to do instead?  Party politics aside, on one side you have one guy (who happens to be the president of the country), determined to violate the constitution for his own personal gain.  On the other side, you have the country’s parliament and Supreme Court saying, ‘no, you can’t do that – it’s unconstitutional,’ only to get the response of ‘watch me’ from Zelaya.  From a rule of law point of view, putting the constitution first would have to be the correct response, right?  And if not, what was the alternative – let the president blatantly violate the constitution over orders from the parliament and Supreme Court?  (Because as we all know, that always works out great)

I find it interesting that there was a similar case, though with a much different outcome so far, just a few months earlier.  In Niger, the president wanted to hold a referendum to allow him to run for a third term, which currently isn’t allowed under the country’s constitution.  Again there, the parliament and the Constitutional Court said that such a referendum would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.  President Mamadou Tandja responded by dissolving the parliament and the Constitutional Court in order to rule by decree.  The referendum was held this past week and passed, thanks to a strict crackdown on dissent.  Where is the outrage there?  It appears to be nonexistent.

When compared to the events in Honduras, it seems like as much as we lament authoritarian rulers who place themselves above the law we are more likely to give slack than the democratically elected politicians who try to place their constitution above any single person.  That, it seems to me, is the wrong approach, and definitely defies any concept of the rule of law, regardless of the definition you use.

Posted using ShareThis

“From the way the Prime Minister’s Office is denouncing Human Rights Watch, you’d think the New York-based human rights organization was an anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas propaganda machine that was financed by the Saudis. In a news feature last Friday titled “Israel vs. Human Rights Watch,” The Jerusalem Post‘s Herb Keinon quoted Ron Dermer, director of policy planning for the Prime Minister’s Office, giving Israel’s official view of all these human rights reports, especially from HRW, about Operation Cast Lead.

“The reports of these organizations are an attempt to undermine Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense,” Dermer said, adding that those who are attacking Israel for defending itself against terrorists using civilians as human shields are playing Hamas’s game. “Every NGO that participates in this adds fuel to the fire and is serving the cause of Hamas.”

(In other words, you’re either with us – all the way, no matter what we do – or you’re with the terrorists. And remember, Israel values the right to dissent.)”

I may not agree with everything Derfner says, but it was refreshing after the nonstop diatribe that has been going around against HRW.  Some have taken a slightly moderate position, claiming that its not inappropriate for HRW to address Arab audiences, they just shouldn’t fund raise there (or in any other nation that HRW regularly targets with its reports).  That may be a valid argument, depending on how you view the money (is it a form of free speech or just a paycheck?).  Nonetheless, the debate rages on.  Back to Derfner’s article, despite his best attempts, if the comment section is any indication, the argument is mostly falling on deaf ears.

Not to be left out, the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is also pressing for fines to be charged against a former court spokesperson who allegedly revealed information about the Milosevic case that was covered under a Tribunal-issued secrecy order.  Florence Hartmann’s trial started last month and if convicted, she could face up to seven years in prison and $140,000 worth of fines, according to Voice of America.  That is leading to discussions about freedom of speech versus Tribunal operations.

So all in all, at least the international courts keep things interesting.

I taught a constitutional law class at Anacostia Senior High School here in DC for a year.  The first classroom I was in didn’t have working air conditioning, let alone any computers; the second classroom had one computer in the back, which of course rarely worked.  Walking around the exhibition I saw vendors promoting computerized notepads, touchscreen blackboards, individual computer stations with remote controls where small kids could learn to count together, only now through the use of computers.  I watched as teachers went through the interactive demonstrations and collected promotional materials (and free gifts of course) from the exhibitors.  It was all so clean and advanced and a far cry from my experience at Anacostia.

I’m sure that these are all fine products.  I’m sure that next year’s advancements will also be fine products.  But I am kind of curious as to which students get to use them.  I realize that Anacostia is an inner city school that is often plagued with the types of problems that inner city school typically have, but I went to a small private school on the west coast and we still didn’t have anything near what I saw on Monday.

So who exactly are these products serving?  Given the overall state of the American education system, I can’t imagine that the majority of students, or even a significant minority, go to schools that have the money to buy these products.  And yet I am told that the educational technology industry is quite large.  Given the cost of these products it seems like they can only serve the extreme upper class, who go to well funded boarding schools or private day schools for $20K a year.  Or am I wrong?

Because, the nagging thought I left with and has stayed with me throughout the week was instead of coming out with cool new toys every year and spending god knows how much money to promote them to the upper echelon of our country, whether it might be better if we and the educational technology industry focused on how to make basic technology available to all students.  Otherwise technology becomes just one more thing that separates us at our earliest years in the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that follow us throughout our lifetimes.  I always thought that technology was supposed to be an equalizer, but that wasn’t what I saw, and it’s not what I want to see for the future.

But then again, these are just random thoughts from the week.

“Environmental issues affect everyone, yet here they are an
unnecessary hostage of the conflict. It would take a small mental
shift to remove environmental issues from the “pending peace process”
tray and upgrade them to urgent. These problems will not go away or
wait until the resumption of serious peace talks.”

Very true, and yet I would bet that it so will not happen.

Back in Europe, it appears that Bosnian Jews and Roma are taking their problems with the Bosnian Constitution to the European Court of Human Rights.  This is because the constitution that was hammered out during the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995 provides for three presidents – one for Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs – and also limits representatives to the House of Peoples (one of two houses in the Bosnian Parliament) to being members of one of these three groups.  In other words, unless you are a Bosniak, Croat, or Serb, under the constitution you are banned from being president or serving in one of two houses of the parliament.

The European Court of Human Rights heard arguments on June 3, with a decision on admissibility and judgment to come later.  The court’s final decision will be binding on the Bosnian government.  If they find that the constitution does unlawfully discriminate against ‘non-constituent people’, it could unravel the political compromises accomplished at Dayton.  If they don’t, then this odd form of discrimination will continue against Jews, Roma, and other minority groups in Bosnia.  Minority Rights Group International is hoping that the court will rule against the current constitutional provisions, and will help bring more equality to minority groups outside of Bosnia.

In Africa, various news sources are reporting that Gabon’s president, Omar Bongo, has died while undergoing medical treatment in Spain.  He was the longest serving leader in Africa, having come to power in 1967.  With his death, Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya takes the reins as longest serving African head of state (1969).  Runners-up include Teodoro Obiang Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea (1979), José Eduardo dos Santos of Angola (1979), Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (1980), Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (1981), and Paul Biya of Cameroon (1982).  Only Santos escaped being named in Parade’s  list of World’s Worst Dictators in 2009 – Mugabe and Gaddafi made the list outright at #1 and #10 respectively, while Mbasogo, Mubarak, and Biya got honorable mentions.

Since the first National Women’s Day was celebrated in the US in 1909, women have won the right to vote in most countries and earned protection under international law with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979.  However, while CEDAW calls on state parties to end discrimination based on gender and to promote equal protection in areas such as employment, political representation, economic and social life, there remains a major gap between the promises and implementation.One area that has garnered attention recently is female participation in official political life.  Many states have created quotas for women representatives in legislatures.  The general theory for such quotas is that if women had equal access to political participation under existing laws, then the democratic system should see men and women elected at roughly the same proportion as they exist in society.  Rarely is that the case; therefore, quotas have been promulgated to aid women in breaking past the barriers that have so far kept them marginalized in political life.

However, quotas have not usually produced equal representation.  A study done in 2006 on female representation in Latin America, where eleven states have legislative gender quotas, illustrated the limits that quotas have.  While female participation was generally higher in Latin American states that did have quotas, female legislative participation still only averaged 19.4% in quota states, well below the 30% target and the roughly 50% of the female share of the population.

This illustrates the difficulties that women face in entering politics, not just from the legal standing which the quotas aim to correct, but also socially in getting women to run for office and to be seen by the general population as a viable candidate.  One key problem most analysts see is that women have not done enough to break away from the perception of their traditionally appropriate roles.  As governments have not encouraged a contrary view, women are often stuck in between what they are traditionally allowed to be and what they aspire to become.

Despite quotas often missing their targets, they can advance change when fully supported by their respective governments.  Sub-Saharan Africa illustrates this, as several governments have introduced female quotas and in return have seen a marked rise in political participation by women.  Rwanda is the most stark example of this.  The 2003 Rwandan Constitution set aside 24 seats specifically for women representatives in the lower house of parliament.  In addition to these 24 seats, women candidates won 15 general seats in the 2003 elections to bring their total share of seats in parliament to 48.8%.  In 2008, women candidates gained another six seats, bringing their respective share to 56%, making Rwanda the first country in the world with a women-run parliament.  Yet, while the quota aided in achieving this, there are other lessons that can be learned from Rwanda’s experience.

First, most of the African states that have seen an upsurge in women participation are post-conflict states.  This is certainly true in Rwanda where the population was decimated by the 1994 genocide.  These conflicts often brought about different roles for women than were typically allowed under traditional social rules.  In Rwanda, women comprised of roughly 70% of the population in the immediate post-genocide period, making it necessary for them to do work that was typically reserved for men.  Similar to the women’s rights movement in the United States following World War II, once the men returned, women were not always willing to go back to their traditional roles.  This enabled women to highlight strengths and contributions that had not previously been recognized.

Secondly, the Rwandan government avidly supported women participation.  Women hold key political positions throughout the government, including a third of cabinet positions.   The economic and social advancement of women has been described by the government not just as a women’s issue, but something that is necessary for the advancement of all of Rwanda in the name of equality.

The combination of sweeping social changes that came with the genocide and full government support has led to acceptance of women in these positions of power.  It contrasts with neighboring countries where women are still marginalized in politics.  For example in Kenya, the election in 2007 saw female candidates threatened and beaten, while one candidate was even murdered.  Currently, women hold just 21 seats out of Kenya’s 222 seat parliament, or a mere 9%.

Thus, one major lesson that can be drawn here is that quotas alone do not equal political will; such legislation must be supported with further action from the government.  Another lesson is that women themselves play a key role in making further participation possible.  In order to be elected, women must run as candidates.  Beyond that, women must be willing to see themselves as viable candidates if they want the general population to do so as well.  This does not mean trying to pose as a gender-neutral candidate, but merely to recognize the strengths that they have which are equal to their opponents.  This was largely what happened this past month in Kuwait and Lithuania, and should be what is done more often.  However it should noted that change does not come easily easy for those who earn it, as several male MPs in Kuwait demonstrated after protesting two of their new female colleagues not wearing religious headscarfs.

In the hundred years since Women’s Day was first celebrated in the US, women have come a long way towards equality around the world.  However there is much more work that remains to be done everywhere, and while formal institutions play a significant role, the biggest role in the march towards progress must be played by women in their own communities.

UPDATE: Mona Eltahawy wrote an excellent editorial in yesterday’s New York Times about women political participation in majority Muslim countries, and what Kuwait’s election result could mean for women in Saudi Arabia.