WhirledView

The Obligation to Protect: Is There One?

Patricia Lee Sharpe

An important new doctrine in international law is incubating: the obligation to protect.  I want to approach it by indirection, by looking at the evolution of family law in recent times.  

Most everyone agrees that the “family,” must be respected and protected.  There has been a longstanding, almost universal disinclination to interfere when families are troubled. Up to a point, this delicacy is beneficial.  Family cohesion is important economically, sociologically and psychologically.  But families can also be toxic.

The Sacred Threshold

Not so long ago police in the United States would not intervene in a “domestic dispute.”  A woman could be black and blue and bleeding, but the cops would respect the threshold.  Even today,  when a badly battered female complainant reverses her testimony, the case is generally closed.  “I fell,” the woman says.  It’s clearly a lie, but that’s that.  

For that matter, within living memory, certain American “Christians” have said that a husband may discipline a stubborn unruly wife by beating her.  As for marital rape, the term raised hoots of laughter when first introduced a couple of decades ago.  Marriage, by definition, meant enforceable conjugal rights for husbands. Wives lacked the right to say, “No.”

Laws and Mores Change

But laws and mores have changed.  When men get violent, a more supportive climate of opinion makes it easier for women register a complaint of rape or battery, and makes it harder for the police to look the other way.  What’s more, honor killing, that apex of domestic horror, is no longer sanctioned in the West, although it happens.  Unfortunately it is still widely countenanced in the Muslim world.  In Pakistan, for example, honor killing is usually not registered as a crime by the police.  Even there, however, honor killing is less predictably brushed aside as a “family matter.”

Children, too, are no longer the unconditional property of parents in many parts of the world.  When children are abused or endangered, the state can step in.  And yet the notion of the the sacredness of the family palisade is so strongly ingrained that many children still die, in the U.S., at least, not only because some case workers are negligent, but from misplaced delicacy in administering the law. 

Impermeable No More

Nevertheless, the long centuries of malign neglect, brutalization and murder within the inviolable bounds of the family are drawing to an end.   As the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said recently,  while promoting his own initiative to eliminate violence against women:  “Our goal is clear; to end these inexcusable crimes – whether it is the use of rape as a weapon of war, domestic violence, sex trafficking, so-called 'honour' crimes or female genital mutilation.”  

Increasingly, in short, if you don’t meet the obligation to protect your own, outsiders may and will.  

Happily, this doctrine is being broadened to challenge the sacredness of national boundaries.  A regime that neglects or brutalizes its people finds it increasingly difficult to enforce a claim of absolute sovereignty.  There is less and less tolerance for granting impunity to regimes that commit genocide and other crimes against humanity within their own borders.  In fact, a new movement is working hard to enshrine the Obligation to Protect in international law.

The Germ of the Doctrine

It’s hard not to believe that germ of this movement springs in some way from the shame and guilt over inaction during and after World War II.  For  many reasons, the Allies did not bestir themselves to stop or limit the Nazi’s slaughter of European Jews.  Foisting Israel on the Arabs of Palestine was, as much as anything, an attempt to assuage a whole civilization’s guilty conscience.  But the guilt festered nevertheless.  

The genocidal ethnic cleansing that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia reawakened that guilty conscience and, to different degrees, stirred the U.S. and Europe to limit the slaughter.  Some of those who were responsible for the mass killings have been tried in the International Criminal Court.  The age of impunity was over.

Then came the genocide in Rwanda, with U.N. troops standing by, watching the killing, obedient to a mandate not to interfere.  So tens of thousands of people died—but not to no purpose, in a way.  Rwanda seems to have been the last straw.  Not only are those responsible for egging on the killers also being tried in the ICC, the question of preventing or curtailing genocide is at last on the table for serious discussion.

The Sovereignty Stumbling Block

Aside from other considerations, in Bosnia and Rwanda—and Sri Lanka, and Myanmar and Zimbabwe and Darfur, a huge impediment to action has been sovereignty.  However horrible a regime’s policies toward a minority of its people, is it ever justifiable for foreign elements to cross the border and meddle in the internal affairs of that country?  Until recently, the answer to that question would have been a simple negative.  But the contrary momentum has been building up and the question has been reformulated: how can mass violations of human rights, anywhere, anytime, be tolerated?

The Responsibility to Protect ("RtoP" or "R2P") is a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

To put it another way, every country has an obligation to protect its citizens.  If a country neglects that obligation, then steps of some sort must be available to “help” that country fulfill its responsibilities to its people.

Globalizing Human Rights  

This may be seen by some as an ominous development for the nation state, which is already under siege from many forces more or less beyond its control.  Human-created global warming ignores national borders.  International trade minimizes the importance of national borders.  Modern communications media penetrate national efforts to censure troubling information. 

And now a new human rights doctrine suggests that national borders are not sacred when people are suffering.  It’s important to note that proposed interventions would not be unilateral or whimsical or even merely charitable.  They would have “international” stature and would only be triggered if the horrors and suffering rose to some agreed upon “threshold” indicating that the target country had massively failed to meet its “core protection responsibilities.”  

A good way to learn more about the R2P doctrine, its pros and cons and progress, including the fact that the United Nations General Assembly has now formally taken note of it (UNGA Resolution 308 (2009), is to visit the Responsibility to Protect website.

Singapore Then and Now

by Patricia H. Kushlis

Last summer the Santa Fe Opera staged the World Premiere of Somerset Maugham’s “The Letter,” a compelling short story set in Singapore. Or mostly set in Singapore because this tale of murder on a rubber plantation begins, well, on a rubber plantation somewhere in the then British colony of Malaysia before the action moves south to the city of Singapore at the base of the tri-ethnic Malaysian peninsula. I meant to write about the opera much earlier – not to critique it because I’m not a music critic – but simply as I saw it from an audience point of view as well as to put it in a Southeast Asian context since I spent portions of my Foreign Service career serving in the region. (Photo top left of Patricia Racette (Leslie Crosbie)and Robert Maddalena (Howard Joyce) in court in Singapore in "The Letter" at the Santa Fe Opera 2009. Photo by Ken Howard courtesy of the Santa Fe Opera.)

But then other things intervened – including a month long trip to East Asia. As it turned out my trip included two segments of several days each in Singapore – a predominately Chinese city which has – ever since I’ve known it beginning with my first visit in 1973 – been on Southeast Asia’s economic cutting edge. This is not to say, that Singapore is a model democracy.

A Model Democracy Singapore is not.

Nevertheless, I think the autocratic rule of the aging Lee Kuan Yew, incorrigible Minister Mentor since 1991, has moderated some under the prime ministership of his son Goh Chok Tong and for what it's worth, the city has a new parliament building. However, this city-state on the Singapore Straits has done a lot right over the years for the economic betterment of many of its peoples although the Gini coefficient of rich to poor is even larger than in the US and may be at an all time high. This is because of Singapore’s frenetic construction boom and the need to import unskilled labor to provide the needed brawn. Yet Singapore is light years away from the sleepy provincial colonial capital of the days when Maugham wiled away his time on the veranda of the venerable Raffles Hotel spinning his sultry, but far from sleepy, Southeast Asian tales.

Talking Turkey, Eating Turkey

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

And we hope that you will pardon us. 

Most of the year we are happy to be talking turkey.  But today we are eating turkey with friends and family—and tomorrow we are also giving ourselves a furlough, because that’s traditional, too, if you can manage it, as many of our web friends can. 

Yet, even as we enjoy our Thanksgiving Day feasting and good fellowship, we are very much aware that we are fortunate in ways that we have hardly earned, since we can’t chose where and when we are born.  There’s so much that needs to be done to make life better for more of the world’s people, which brings us back to why we write for WhirledView.  It’s only words and a few pictures that waft through the ether from us to you.  But words are what you need to write a poem or a prayer or a Constitution with.  Words.....well, we’ll be back in harness this weekend.      

Meanwhile, we wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.

Indian Embassy Publishes Well-Vetted Text, not Juicy Transcript of PM Manmohan Singh’s CFR Address

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

What a powerful address! I thought. The whole agenda is here.  Boom!  Boom! Boom!  I was watching Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations via C-Span on Monday night. 

But the question-and-answer period was even more interesting. Perhaps that’s why it was missing from the version I printed out from the Indian Embassy’s website, although the U.S. State Department scrupulously includes such exchanges as well as any prepared presentation when American leaders speak to foreign audiences.  These missing passages were so arresting, in fact, that both American and Indian newspapers quoted them in subsequent new stories.

Fortunately the Council on Foreign Relations provides a full transcript of speaker’s interactions with its audiences on its website.  Here the salient passage:

HAASS: Last question about China. There has been a lot of talk in the literature about the comparison of the Indian and the Chinese approaches to development. A question I had is, why do you believe that India's is preferable, assuming you do, given that China has grown at a higher rate for more years?

SINGH: Well, there is no doubt that the Chinese growth performance is superior to Indian performance. But I've always believed that there are other values which are important than the growth of the gross domestic product. I think the respect for fundamental human rights, the respect for the rule of law, the respect for multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious rights, I think those have values also.

There are several dimensions of human freedom, which are not always (caught ?) by the numbers with regard to the gross domestic product. So I do believe that even though the Indian performance with regard to GDP might not be as good as the Chinese, certainly I would not like to choose the Chinese, but I would prefer to stick to the India part.

Also, I believe India may appear as indecisive democracy at times. And it does, because many democracies are short-term maximizers. They're not able to take a long-term view.

But I have also believed that once a democracy decides on the basis of a wide-ranging consensus, any reforms that are undertaken will be far more durable, will be far more effective than reforms introduced by the writ of a ruling group in a non-democratic setup.

HAASS: Ladies and gentlemen, you've just been treated to an economist saying there's more to life than GDP. (Laughter and applause.) This is an important moment. (Laughs.)

Based on his administration's record of retaining all too many Bush administration anti-terrorism measures, I’ve come to doubt the strength of President Obama’s commitment to civil liberties, but at least he was willing to sign on to some “shared values” in the Joint Statement issued by the two leaders, who  

noted that the shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders – democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights – are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world. These values are exemplified by the vibrant linkages between their peoples, which are a unique asset for both countries, and are reflected in the role played by the Indian-American community.

Otherwise, during this five day state visit, it was Manmohun Singh who kept hammering away at the democratic principles that should make for a close and enduring relationship between the U.S. and India.  During the Welcome Ceremony, he said:

India and American are separated by distance, but bound together by the values of democracy, pluralism, rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms.

Toasting at the State Dinner, he said:

Mr. President, your journey to the White House has captured the imagination of millions and millions of people in India.  You are an inspiration to all those who cherish the values of democracy, diversity and equal opportunity.

No doubt these bits are digs at China as well as a way of reminding the American president that India really is a more compatible partner. Either way, keep it up, Mr. Prime Minister. American leaders these days tend to forget what America is/was/should be about.

100,000 American Students to China?

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Why is it that the US media focused almost exclusively and sometimes even rather "creatively" on the atmospherics surrounding President Obama’s recent trip to Asia but ignored much of the substance? Didn’t the White House reporters who accompanied the president understand that foreign affairs and substance are related? Don’t they realize that parsing the sentences of a joint communiqué or even reading the text of or listening to a Town Hall meeting (as opposed to being frustrated because they couldn’t use instant messaging to contact their editors – or Twitter their fans due to over-zealous Chinese censors) can bear not only fruit but a few surprises? And maybe even a news article at that? Or don’t they care? Or perhaps future educational opportunities for young Americans just don't rate.

One US media ignored surprise

One of those media ignored surprises was President Obama’s commitment first announced at the Town Hall meeting in Shanghai to expand the number of American students studying in China from 20,000 to 100,000. This commitment was reiterated in more detail later in a joint communiqué issued in Beijing. The number 100,000 was likely selected to match the approximate number of Chinese currently studying in the US. Regardless, it would also represent a huge jump in American students studying abroad. Furthermore, it would be an about-face from the Bush administration’s policies that emphasized one way “exchanges” – namely foreigners coming here – while specializing in sending Americans abroad on troop ships or planes.

I had decided ever since I lived in the Philippines in the early 1990s that it was as important for Americans to travel, live and work abroad as it is for the US to play host to foreigners. Unfortunately, the successive administrations all too often saw it differently. The US government related programs that did involve two way exchanges – with the exception of Fulbright and the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange – were defunded, eliminated or devalued. But in reality, several of them were by far the most cost effective. They also had the greatest chance of furthering long term people-to-people connections - which is what I thought student and youth exchanges were all about anyway.

An Agreement "in principle"

According to the US-Chinese communiqué, the two governments agreed “in principle to establish a new bilateral mechanism to facilitate these (student) exchanges.” The communiqué also states that the US “seeks to encourage more Americans to study in China by launching a new initiative to send 100,000 students to China over the coming four years.” Presumably this would occur under the rubric of the US-Chinese Cultural Agreement to be renegotiated in 2010 - although the communiqué itself does not so state.

The Greek "Master" and His Mariza for the Weekend

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Who is Mariza you might well wonder? And why would WorldView feature an animated cartoon about a curmudgeonly Greek fisherman and Mariza, his charmingly expressive but reluctant donkey, anyway?

As we've written earlier, we save our lighter fare for the weekends. This less than five minute cartoon by a talented young animator named Constantine Krystallis who studied animation at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia is just plain good fun. At least that's how it struck me when I saw it earlier this week and I wanted to share it with you. The film has been screened at a number of recent Greek film festivals including New York and also London where it received the Visitor's Choice Award from online viewers.

Mariza is one of 30 short animated films in the finals for its class at the 2009 Nickelodeon International Animation Festival. The contest ends November 30 and there is an audience award where online viewers can vote for the animation of their choice. Mariza, by the way, has already garnered five star ratings on YouTube.

I hope you enjoy Mariza and her "master" as much as I did.

Pleasing China, Insulting India

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

The president of a republic bows to an emperor!  Not a courteous reciprocal nod in lieu of a handshake, but very very deeply!  Didn’t anyone bother to tell Barack Obama that presidents and emperors are equals as heads of state?  Even I, this mere citizen of a republic, would not curtsey to the Queen of England or bow to an emperor any further than he would bow to me.  The U.S. rejected subservience to hereditary rulers long long ago. 

Subsequently Obama’s conduct in China amounted to one kowtow after another.  Hasn’t he got protocol people who can explain the difference, verbal and otherwise, between due respect for others and servility?  Ah well, debtors can’t be choosers, I suppose.

And then!  Did your ears hear this?  Did my eyes see this?  It wasn’t just a matter of overdosing on politeness.  It was a gaffe of monumental—should I say Himalayan?—proportions.  The joint statement by the U.S. and China on Tuesday said:

The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace and development in that region.

The Chinese must have chortled over that one! 

But surely Obama’s advisers realize that India and China are bitter competitors who nevertheless sometimes manage to do a little mutually beneficial trading.  Trade aside, they  have an adversarial relationship along the northern border of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh (see my recent post) and in Kashmir.  Mere weeks before Barack Obama set foot in Beijing, China was once again claiming territory that China had invaded in 1962.  Surely Obama’s advisors also know that Pakistan became an India-threatening nuclear power with the assistance of China.  It worked like this: India needed the bomb because China had the bomb, so China helped Pakistan to the bomb in order to retilt the balance in favor of China.  In fact, China has pursued a relentless policy of isolating and undermining India for decades, as I’ll detail below.  How, then, could  President Barack Obama have invited China to join the U.S. in “promoting peace” in South Asia?  You don’t ask a partisan to mediate.

As for asking China to “promote development” in South Asia, surely India could be expected to take that as an insult, pure and simple.  Should India trade the democratic model for one party rule?  Should India trade freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, a free press, true ethnic and minority rights for Beijing’s totally authoritarian model?   As the old saying went, Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time, but were they models for the good society?  Sadly, the U.S. chooses convenience over democracy again and again.  We expected better of Obama.

The Internet, Obama and the Chinese Censors

By Patricia H. Kushlis

I’ve been dubious about the efficacy of social networking for government – or commercial – communication purposes for some time.   At least, I’m skeptical of too much reliance on social networking and the Internet in lieu of all other forms of communication - especially in communicating with foreign audiences.   The web is still no panacea. Especially in countries like China.

 OK.  So call me Neanderthal.

 But it’s pretty clear that an approach that works in communicating with the citizens of one country does not necessarily have the same reverberations or impact elsewhere.

 Let’s just take President Obama’s Town Hall meeting in  Shanghai on November 16 as a case in point.  This turned out to be a tame Q and A with about 400 Chinese Communist Party selected university students.  Even so the Chinese government censors limited the media coverage to local TV and Xinhua, China’s official news agency, while blocking – among other forms of media - Facebook and YouTube.  Meanwhile Chinese bloggers the US had hoped to invite to the event were barred by the Chinese government from attending and dissidents were rounded up ahead of time.  Although the Soviets didn’t have to worry about the Internet because it had yet to be born,  the latter move was an all too typical Soviet approach to restricting citizen access to high level foreign visitors from the West.

Overkill by the censors?

 Seems to me the media restraints in Shanghai were overkill on the part of the Chinese censors.  This was far from their finest hour.  If anything, they simply drew western media attention to a still uber-paranoid and stultified government “information” bureaucracy that has not yet caught up with the new freer-wheeling international communications environment that many young Chinese would like to be a part of.    

One has to ask the question whether the US Embassy should have recommended that the President cancel the event - given the constraints placed upon it.   Or, perhaps, Embassy staff did not know ahead of time that the Town Hall would be as restricted, scripted and constricted as it was.  Or perhaps they did, and chose to go ahead regardless but decided to conclude with the lone question that Ambassador Huntsman read out as the finale, a question that had been e-mailed to the US Embassy website asking about the President’s views on Internet censorship in China.  The question and response obviously caught even the censors off-guard.

Here's the White House's answer  bottom line - they did know in advance and for sensible reasons (including the large numbers of Chinese they would be reaching in any event) decided to proceed.