Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Bahrain: silence is a war crime
Protests in Bahrain have attracted media coverage outside the country, but there has been little international attention paid to its government’s efforts to block media coverage inside Bahrain. On Tuesday, Nada Alwadi, a Bahraini journalist and co-founder of the BPA, presented a 2012 report that tries to elucidate: Bahrain: Silence is a War Crime at the National Endowment for Democracy. Alwadi was joined on a panel by Delphine Hagland from Reporters without Borders and Adel Iskander from Georgetown University. David Lowe, Vice President for Government Relations and Public Affairs at the National Endowment for Democracy, facilitated the discussion.
Nada Alwadi described the status of Bahraini media before the protests. By 2010, the government controlled radio and TV stations as well as most of the major newspapers in the country (Alwasat newspaper was a notable exception). The government also monitored blogs and online news outlets. As a result of this state monopoly, the Bahraini press became largely ineffective. Without government funding, independent news outlets could not always sustain themselves. Alwaqt newspaper closed down in 2010 for lack of funding. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, June 10-14
1. Drones and the Future of Counterterrorism in Pakistan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Monday, June 10 / 5:00pm – 6:30pm
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, Samina Ahmed
The future use of drones in Pakistan is uncertain after President Obama’s recent speech on national security. Washington has now satisfied some of the demands of Pakistan’s incoming prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. But while drone strikes were seen in Islamabad as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, they were also arguably an effective counterterrorism mechanism. Samina Ahmed will discuss the future use of drones in Pakistan. Frederic Grare will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/06/10/drones-and-future-of-counterterrorism-in-pakistan/g7f0
2. Tyranny of Consensus: A Reception with Author Janne E. Nolan, Century Foundation, Monday, June 10 / 5:00pm – 6:30pm
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street Northwest, 12th Floor, Washington D.C., DC 20036
Speakers: Janne E. Nolan
In “Tyranny of Consensus,” Nolan examines three cases-the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the proxy war with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa-to find the limitations of American policy-makers in understanding some of the important developments around the world. Assisted by a working group of senior practitioners and policy experts, Nolan finds that it is often the impulse to protect the already arrived at policy consensus that is to blame for failure. Without access to informed discourse or a functioning “marketplace of ideas,” policy-makers can find themselves unable or unwilling to seriously consider possible correctives even to obviously flawed strategies.
Register for the event here:
http://tcf.org/news_events/detail/tyranny-of-consensus-a-reception-with-author-janne-e.-nolan
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why Israel needs a Palestinian state
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking at the McCain Institute Wednesday, tried to remain diplomatic about his opinions versus the policies of the current Israeli government. It was obvious however, that he held divergent views on the future of Israel.
Olmert’s opposition to the occupation of the Palestinian Territories is the basis of his label as “centrist” or “leftist” in Israeli politics. This surprised Olmert, who considered himself right wing at the beginning of his career. He fears that occupation of Palestinian territories has become the issue that determines left-wing or right-wing. This is one sign of increased polarization within Israeli politics. “I disagree with the occupation of the territories,” Olmert explained, “but I am not a socialist.”
The rest of the discussion was centered on leadership. Olmert explained how his belief regarding the territories came from his ten years as mayor of Jerusalem, when he built 100 Arab schools. But that did nothing to build sustainable peace. The Palestinians want their own state. The face of Israel must change if it is to remain both Jewish and democratic. Morbidly, Olmert explained that to save the life of a person, sometimes you have to cut off a part of the body. To save the Jewish and democratic character of Israel, it must cut off the Palestinian territories. Giving up the dream of greater Israel is heartbreaking. But stubbornly holding onto to that dream is a prescription for endless confrontation. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Shocked, shocked
I’m surprised so many are surprised that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting data on your use of the phone and the internet. What did you think all those folks out at Fort Meade (and around the country) were doing? Tapping individual phone lines? In fact, my guess–and it is only a guess–is that they are storing not only your phone records but also your phone calls, though they only listen to them when the super-secret (and therefore unaccountable to the public) court, created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, gives permission. “Collection” is a tricky word. Is the data collected when it goes into a computer, or only when it is examined?
The notion that they are discriminating in this data storage is not credible. The frequency and volume of material argue for capturing it all so that it can be mined in due course, depending on which bits seem to be most relevant to protecting national security, especially against terrorists. That there are abuses I have no doubt, but that should not blind us to the extraordinary power–I almost said virtue–of a system that can archive and later examine many billions of messages of all types. It would be surprising if a system of this sort had not produced material of value in preventing terrorist acts. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Islamist politics meet diversity
Nuance and context were the main themes in a discussion this week at the Carnegie Endowment of the role of Islamist parties in the ongoing political transitions in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.
Jakob Wichmann of JMW Consulting presented a report prepared with Ellen Lust of Yale. They surveyed the role of religion in Tunisia and Egypt, focusing on the 2011 parliamentary elections. In Egypt, Islamists gained 75% whereas in Tunisia they gained 45%. Egyptians who voted for Islamist parties had a stronger sense of religious identity than Tunisians who voted for Islamists. Tunisian Islamist voters however practiced a stricter religious routine and higher frequency of worship. Tunisia also has a higher percentage of voters who identify as secular, 45% to Egypt’s 20%. Voters seemed to be voting for Islamist parties for reasons other than religious values. One obvious, non-religious, reason for the success of Islamist parties is their ability to deliver services more effectively to the population. This was true in both Tunisia and Egypt.
Ellen Lust emphasized differences in how these transitional countries viewed the electoral stakes. Egyptians had an existential understanding of their political situation. The questions prominent in their political dialogue were, “what does it mean to be Egyptian?” and “what is our future?” When the population sets the stakes this high, the contest becomes hotter and efforts by various political groups to undermine each other more ferocious. In contrast, Tunisian voters are less polarized and more centrist. The elite worry about vision questions, but the population is focused on hard-core economic and social issues.
Carnegie Senior Associate Frederic Wehrey dealt with Libya. Qaddafi’s reign was never open to civil society or political participation. He purposefully divided the tribes of Libya against each other. These suppressed groups are now trying to reassert themselves. The overthrow of Qaddafi has left the country without state institutions amidst a security crisis. The Islamist parties were suppressed for so long that they now feel blinded by the light and are struggling for dominance against each other.
One of the crucial divides within the Libyan political scene is the role of individuals in the revolution. Those who were at the center of the uprising have become exclusionary toward those who participated less. As a result of widespread participation in the revolution, there is a strong sense of civic responsibility spreading throughout Libya. This is a testament to the truly bottom-to-top nature of the Libyan revolution.
Libya also benefits from a narrow ideological spectrum. Islamist parties differ little. Both secular and Islamist parties are striving for a more moderate image.
Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment ended by challenging these governments to accept a fundamental aspect of democracy: the right to be different. This has not yet taken hold in the Arab world. Until the majority of citizens accept and encourage religious diversity, real democracy will never thrive.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No exoneration
I won’t pretend to have read the gigantesque judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) acquitting Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, respectively head of the Serbian security service (DB) and one of its employees. They were accused of committing crimes between 1991 and 1995 against non-Serb civilians in Croatia and Bosnia. The crimes included persecution, murder, deportation, and forcible transfer, committed as participants in a joint criminal enterprise. Volumes 1 and 2 run to 888 pages.
But I couldn’t miss this:
The Trial Chamber notes that in many instances the evidence suggested a conclusion which seemed to be very likely. However, in keeping with the applicable standard of proof the Trial Chamber strictly examined whether such conclusion was the only reasonable one.
This is directly relevant to the judgment, which found that the standard of proof had not been met.
Some will see this as exonerating not only the two individuals but also the Serbian state and its security services.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As noted in the summary of the judgment, the Chamber found beyond a reasonable doubt, for example, that deportation as a crime against humanity had been committed by Yugoslav National Army forces, in cooperation with other security forces in Croatia and Bosnia that the accused directed and organized. The court also found that the accused were in “direct and frequent contact” with the Serb organizers (including with Slobodan Milosevic) of a joint criminal enterprise that aimed to forcibly and permanently remove the majority of non-Serbs from large areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But it did not find that the accused provided channels of communication among the organizers of the joint criminal enterprise (who also talked directly with each other) and found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they shared the intent of the joint criminal enterprise.
This is not what I call exoneration, either of the individuals or of the institutions involved.
The judgment can be appealed, and I suppose will be. But whatever the eventual outcome for Stanisic and Simatovic, it is starkly clear what was going on: the Belgrade authorities in the early 1990s planned and carried out an effort by the Yugoslav National Army and other security forces, including some it organized locally in Bosnia and Croatia, to violently and criminally remove people from their homes based on ethnic criteria. I repeat what I said when ICTY acquitted two Albanians six months ago:
“Not guilty” does not exonerate. It only finds that adequate evidence was not presented to prove the case.
Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt tweeted yesterday:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to see the consistency or logic in the different judgements by the ICTY war crimes tribunal.
Those who would look for consistency and logic in convictions and acquittals are bound to be disappointed. Each case is decided on its own merits, not based on what was found in another case. The standards of proof are supposed to be the same, but the witnesses and other evidence vary. The system is designed to protect the rights of the accused, even at the risk of finding them not guilty in error. Justice doesn’t always mean convictions.
RSS - Posts
