Impunity Watch: Special Features

Future fuel bringing future famine...

By: Jeff Nelson

   

Use more corn. Make more ethanol. Import less oil. It seems like a simple formula for decreasing United States’ dependence on foreign oil. But what is the real price for using our corn crop to quench the United States’ thirst for oil?  Many people that depend on food produced in the United States will have to tighten their belts.

 

Currently the U.S. produces nearly half of the corn produced in all of the world and accounts for over half, 60-70 percent, of total world corn exports.  Currently only about 14 percent of the corn in the U.S. is used to produce ethanol, but that ethanol only accounts for about 3 percent of the motor vehicle fuel in the U.S.  What does all of that mean you may ask?

   

Well with the U.S. focusing on using ethanol for its fuel alternative it is driving the demand for corn up increasing the price that corn is bought and sold for.  Now, I am no economist but everyone will feel the effects of that, not just people in the U.S.  Higher corn prices means more farmers producing more corn and less of other staple crops and grains like wheat and soybeans, so prices for those will increase. Higher corn prices will increase the cost to feed livestock driving up the prices for meat, especially chicken and pork.

   

The effects have already been felt inside and outside the U.S.  Americans are seeing prices inflate for every thing from pork to Coca-Cola.  Any product that in some way uses corn sweeteners or starches is expected to increase in price with less corn available to use for food processing.  Mexican citizens have also been hit by the increase costs.  The President Felipe Calderon even complained during the U.S.-Brazil ethanol talks about the rising prices because it is hurting those in poverty who rely on corn tortillas as a dietary staple.

   

Now the U.S. claims that increased ethanol production is necessary for environmental and national security reasons.  But is ethanol at this stage of development really safer for the environment?  That is like saying smokeless tobacco products are a safe alternative to cigarettes.  Right now ethanol takes more energy to produce than gasoline.  When used in the car it only produces slightly less emissions than gasoline, but gets worse mileage per gallon.  As for national security reasons for switching to ethanol, yes it is good to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but does it make sense to put energy dependence on unpredictable weather.  You cannot predict a terrorist attack on an oil pipeline or tanker, but you also cannot control the weather.

   

Increased production of ethanol from world food supplies will end up creating food shortages and more starving people all over the world.  Whether they are starving because they cannot afford the food any more or because there is not enough food, it does not make a difference. Starving is starving.

   

The shortsighted attempt to develop alternative fuel sources will allow those problems to occur yet allow those responsible to hide behind the veil of the "market."  The U.S. needs to act responsible for once in this situation. Prevent hunger instead of causing it.  Producing ethanol as an alternative fuel source is not bad in general. In fact, I think it is a good thing that alternative fuel sources are finally being used.  What is bad here is that this fuel source should have been developed and researched 20 years ago.  The resources for development of alternative fuel sources is being primarily focused on bio-fuels and not in other areas. 

   

Meanwhile people will starve while it takes another 20 years to figure out that using our food for fuel was not really worth keeping the cost of gas in the U.S. low.   Investment in other fuel sources needs to be made to develop renewable energy resources like solar power or hydrogen cell technology.  We cannot and do not need to eat that to survive.  The U.S. should not trade in people's food for fuel.

   

   

See: USDA Report: "Ethanol Expansion in the United States: How will the Agriculture Sector Adjust?" May 2007, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/2007/05May/FDS07D01/fds07D01.pdf

Guinea's Second Class Citizens

By: Gabie Hart

Human Rights Watch recently released a report describing the abuse thousands of girls are facing as domestic workers in Guinea, comparing the abuse to slave like conditions. The report explains that many of these girls are forced to perform domestic labor, and in some instances the abuse goes further than labor exploitation and results in physical abuse and sometimes even sexual abuse.

The report explains that Guinean law prohibits trafficking, labor exploitation, abuse and discrimination against children. The Constitution also guarantees equality of men and women, and stipulates that primary education is compulsory. Under International law, exploitation and abuse of child domestic workers is a violation. The report explains that “the Guinean government is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and all major international and regional treaties on child labor, gender discrimination, trafficking.”

The girls who were interviewed for the report, “described working excessive hours, carrying heavyweights at a young age, working for no pay, starving while the host family eats, and being insulted, shunned, beaten, sexually harassed and raped.” This sort of treatment is in fact a violation of both International Law and Guinean Law.

There appear to be several different ways in which the girls are entering into this type of inhumane living condition. For example, in some areas of Africa, it is common for young girls to be sent from rural areas to live with their relatives who reside in urban areas. The intention behind this action can be several. The first being the parents believe that the girls have a better chance at an education. Education for girls appears to be second to boys in Guinea, and according to the Human Rights Watch report, approximately 1/3 of all girls in Guinea are not enrolled in primary school, whereas that percentage is a little over 1/10 of all boys in Guinea are not enrolled in primary school, and the disparity increases dramatically for boys and girls enrolled in secondary school.

The report does inform us that there are other motives for girls being sent to urban areas, such as for the purpose of performing domestic work so that they will be equipped for when it is time for them to marry. Apparently, as many as 50 percent of girls are married by the age of 18.

It is important to note, as the report explains, that some girls are recruited from their towns or villages and then some of the recruiters take advantage of the girls by collecting some of their wages, sometimes rising to the level of trafficking.

The report also tells us of the problems with trafficking across borders. Apparently, girls are being trafficked and are forced into domestic labor. Sometimes, however, these girls are taken out of Guinea and brought to Europe for use in the sex trade.1

The report informs us that of those parents who willingly send their child away, some never check up on their daughters, and therefore many of these parents are unaware of the living conditions their daughters face.

BBC News reports that while these abuses need to be addressed, these inhumane conditions are being lost in a new government that has many other challenges to overcome after “decades of misrule that fuelled the widespread poverty.”2 Recently Guinea has been added to the United States “human trafficking blacklist.”3 Guinea’s status has been downgraded to “Tier 3” status meaning they aren’t complying nor are they making significant efforts to comply with minimum standards to fight trafficking.4 Despite many other issues the government is dealing with, it is important that these girls who are being subject to such inhumane conditions are given the government’s full attention, and that these girls stop being treated as second-class citizens.

See: Human Rights Watch Report: “Bottom of the Ladder: Exploitation and Abuse of Girl Domestic Workers in Guinea” Vol. 19, No. 8(A), June 2007, Researched and Written By: Juliane Kippenberg.

See Also:
1. Reuters.Com: “Thousands of girls kept like slaves in Guinea-report” June 14, 2007.
2. BBC News.Com: “Guinea girl workers ‘face abuse’” By Will Ross, June 15, 2007.
3. Time.Com: “7 Nations Go On Trafficking Blacklist” By AP/Matthew Lee, June 12, 2007.
4. Id.

Corrupted Development

By: D. Pandian

Local government corruption has a direct impact on every aspect of human rights and causes poverty. It affects the quality of life and even the right to life and retards progress at all levels of society.         

--Human Rights Watch (HRW) interview with Emmanuel Olayinka Ayoola, chairman, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission, Abuja, August 10, 2006.

Nigeria suffers from corruption on a scale that has crippled the government’s capacity to invest in its people and provide for the realization of their basic human rights. "Chop Fine," an HRW publication, examines Nigeria’s legacy of corruption through case studies of local governments in the state of Rivers. Though Rivers State is wealthier than any other state in Nigeria, government corruption has resulted in it also being one of the most underdeveloped states in Nigeria.

Corrupt practices have long been a part of Nigeria’s history; one military dictator, General Ibrahim Babangida, even attempted to institutionalize corruption as means of undermining the role of the Nigerian civil service. The current President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, has taken steps to denounce corruption but has also shown his reluctance to effect real change by removing several government officials most active in fighting government corruption.

Rivers State holds many of Nigeria’s oil wells, and its government has benefitted richly from this wealth. However, the majority of this wealth does not reach the local population. One teacher relates being told by a government official that there was no money for education, after the teacher requested funds to buy chalk.

In spite of Nigeria’s position as one of the largest, most populated, resource-abundant states in Africa, this country will continue to stumble through the process of development if the Nigerian government does not take a strong stand against government corruption.

For more on this subject, please refer to:

"Chop Fine: The Human Rights Impact of Local Government Corruption and Mismanagement in Rivers State, Nigeria." Human Rights Watch. <http://hrw.org/reports/2007/nigeria0107/> - Jan 2007.

Power, Influence, and Control...

Power, Influence, and Control…

Three words that all share a common meaning and three words that bounce from side to side in the Afghan War…  Weapons can provide any player with power, influence, and control that is why recent concerns have risen about the flow of arms over the Iranian border into Afghanistan.   

U.S. authorities have reported that a “fairly substantial” amount of arms have been passing across the border from Iran into Afghanistan.  Now although the specifics about the types of weapons and the exact amount were not disclosed, the British ambassador did confirm that a Taliban convoy of Iranian made ammunition and explosives was intercepted in southern Afghanistan in April.

Iran has typically backed the Northern Alliance, a predominately Shia Islamic force fighting in Afghanistan, against the Sunni Taliban.  Iran has supported the fight against the Taliban for over ten years. 

The Taliban finally seized control of Afghanistan in May of 1997 and was quickly recognized as a legitimate government by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan.   Pakistan has openly supported the Taliban since 1994 soon after the movement was formed to take control over Afghanistan. They still support the Taliban today despite pressures from the U.S. and other nations. 

Despite Iran’s support for the Northern Alliance and the current government in Afghanistan, Iranian arms going to Taliban fighters have been confiscated.  The Iranian government denies knowledge about the arms crossing the border intended for the Taliban.  Whether they know about it, are responsible for it, both, or neither, the arms flows across the border of Iran into Afghanistan needs to be stopped.

Weapons flows into Afghanistan for the Taliban is detrimental to everyone involved—even Iran.  Iran is one of the largest investors in Afghanistan building power plants, roads, and other infrastructure.  They have also built factories in Herat and invested in the economy in western Afghanistan.  The coalition forces just have that much more to worry about with even more weapons and explosives getting into the hands of the re-emerging Taliban.  The civilians in the country will be subjected to more fighting, more hostilities, and more death.

Now the stopping the flow of arms into Afghanistan is not going to magically solve the problem over night and its not going to end the war. But it is a step in the right direction especially for Iran.  If Iran is responsible for sending weapons over the border to the Taliban, they should stop. If they are not responsible for the weapons going to the Taliban, then Iran has a responsibility to patrol the border to decrease the flow of arms and find those organizations in their country that are sending those arms into Afghanistan.

Iran has been vying for power and influence in the region for years now.  It all goes back to those three words I started with.  Gaining power is why Iran has a nuclear program and continues to develop it despite international pressure to stop. Influence is why they have invested in Afghanistan. That’s not enough… Despite tensions with the U.S. and wanting U.S. forces out of the region, Iran should show some control with its border and these arms flows into Afghanistan.  If Iran wants to be a regional player, then they need make an effort to show they can have control, and I think it can start with stopping the flow of arms crossing their border and going to the Taliban.

U.S. should take little steps in the right direction

Last night I sat through a lecture given by an international civil servant who has been working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for many years.  She mostly spoke about the history of the recognition of human rights and the development of treaty bodies in charge of monitoring compliance with international agreements on the subject.  The lecture was extremely interesting from a historical perspective but one thing did stand out; the many times the United States was mentioned as an exception in ratifying human rights treaties. 

The United States has purported to be a leader advocating the protection of human rights since the country gained its independence from Britain in 1776.  In modern times, with the development of public international law, it has many times shied back from the ideals on which the country was founded.  On December 10, 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted unanimously by 48 members of the United Nations.  Eleanor Roosevelt was in the forefront of this process, and largely due to her efforts, the Declaration was drafted by the Commission of Human Rights. After the Declaration was adopted, many other Covenants and protocols have sought to elaborate on the rights already embedded in what is considered universal human rights.  Though the United States played a great role in the development of the Declaration, it has abstained from ratifying subsequent covenants seeking to protect the range of rights necessary for the full achievement of the rights included in the Declaration.

I will refer specifically to one Covenant, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

The United States Constitution itself is a document drafted based on ideals of equality and protection of civil rights.  The Supreme Court has recognized many times that guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights are meaningless unless legislation enables people to gain access to means sufficient for the full enjoyment of the rights embedded in the instrument.  Yet, in the context of international human rights, recognized as universal and protection of which in many instances is recognized as customary international law, binding on every State, the United States lags behind.   

In 1948, President Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights, focusing on guarantees to work, housing, income, medical care, education, etc. but it was never incorporated into domestic policy.  Today, the United States stands virtually alone in refusing to recognize economic rights as human rights.  Ironically, it is one of the developed countries with highest rate of illiteracy, a high percentage of children living below the poverty line, and many lack access to adequate food sources.  Regardless of its domestic problems and of its role as a world leader in the protection of human rights, economic rights are still considered as purely aspirational despite their broad acceptance as human rights in the rest of the world.

Many countries have recognized the importance of these “subset” of rights derived from the Universal Declaration.  Without access to basic needs such as healthcare, education, adequate nutrition, etc., the full potential of the population cannot be realized.  Therefore, protection of economic and social rights is a precondition for development by allowing everyone equal access to the tools needed to maximize productivity, benefiting not only individuals but the country’s economy in general.  Thus, it is obvious that protection of human rights require more than signing a document; it requires real commitment from those who sign it to change domestic legislation to afford individual real opportunities to enjoy their rights.

If not for moral reasons, the United States should reconsider their position regarding protection of economic and social rights.  These are times in which the U.S. no longer stands in the moral high ground they once did.  Scandals and allegations of gross human rights violations have been seriously damaging to the country’s image.  A simple move in the right direction can begin to restore their position as a world leader in protecting individual rights and help renew their commitment to this end.

However, there is still hope.  Even if the United States adheres to their policy the movement of recognizing economic rights in most other countries of the world not only empowers those who live in these countries, it benefits all.  As more countries join in and legislate to protect these rights, customary international law is created binding every country to enforce their protection.  We can only hope that the trend continues and either the United States, through international pressure, start to recognize the provisions of international agreements like the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, or they end up with an involuntary obligation to respect them regardless of what domestic policy has been up to date.

Sudan's Bashier

By: D. Pandian

The current President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashier, has played a crucial role in the continuance of conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, a conflict that has alone led to the deaths of more than 200,000 Sudanese civilians and the displacement of more than 2 million people.

Internal conflicts have been ongoing in Sudan since it achieved statehood, stemming mainly from tensions between the northern and southern regions of the country. Administered as separate units while under the colonial rule, the British colonialists fused the northern and southern regions into one country and put the northern elite in charge of the state in 1956. Conflict was inevitable, and since its statehood civil war has been a constant reality in Sudan. As northern Sudanese are primarily Muslim and southern Sudanese mainly practice animist religions and Christianity, tensions between the regions have always borne a distinct religious undertone.

Attempts to broker peace agreements have failed repeatedly, due in large part to the Sudanese government’s unwillingness to uphold its promises under peace agreements and the country’s vast oil wealth that allows the government prop itself up. Bashier himself came into power through a coup in 1989 intended to prevent the introduction of secular law in southern Sudan as a compromise to southern Sudan rebel groups.

The present conflict in Darfur arose from a land and power struggle in the region that started in mid-2003. International attention was brought to the situation as the government-supported Janjaweed militia, undertook a policy of ethnic cleansing towards the village population of African tribes in the Darfur region. Due to this conflict, Sudan is currently engaged in a proxy war with neighboring state Chad. The conflict has also destabilized the Central African Republic. Despite of widespread international condemnation, Bashier’s government has not acted to stem this conflict, as the Janjaweed’s actions further strengthens Bashier’s government.

On May 30, President Bush of the United States (US) announced new economic sanctions against Sudan as punishment for the government’s reluctance to bring a peaceful end to the war and resistance to allowing UN peacekeeping forces to enter. The sanctions have been criticized as they will have little real impact on Sudan. Due to Sudan’s role in harboring of several well-known terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, in the mid-1990s, comprehensive US sanctions were already in place against Sudan. The sanctions mainly target Sudan’s oil industry, where revenues are mainly derived from transactions with Middle Eastern states and developing Asian states, not the United States. Present efforts by Middle Eastern states and China to stall UN initiatives addressing Sudan in spite of overwhelming evidence of the Sudanese government’s misdeeds, speak to the value Sudan’s oil industry to these states.

However, though the impact may be marginal, these sanctions speak to success of pressure by the American public to cause the US government to intervene in Sudan. Political and economic considerations may slow the process of external intervention, but pressure on governments by domestic actors is key to convincing these governments to firmly stick to the course of intervention for humanitarian reasons. Whether the pressure takes the form of petitions to a local government condemning atrocities in Sudan or Hollywood actors bringing negative attention to countries aiding Sudan, pressure from civil society organizations may be the key to stabilizing the Darfur conflict. Such international intervention would also send a clear message to Bashier’s government that aiding in the slaughter of civilians is no longer an acceptable means of establishing control over Sudan.

"Profile: Sudan’s President Bashir." BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3273569.stm - 25 Nov 2003.

"A little extra pressure." Economist.com. http://economist.com/world/africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9248337 - 29 May 2007.

"Naming names." Economist.com. http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8762683 - 27 Fed 2007.

"Tenative Deal Reached for Darfur Peacekeeping Force." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/africa/07nations.html?_r=1&oref=slogin - 7 June 2007.

"Sudan: US Sanctions Welcome but Overdue." Human Rights Watch. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/29/sudan16017.htm - 29 May 2007.

"Conflict history: Sudan." International Crisis Group. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?action=conflict_search&l=1&t=1&c_country=101 - Jan 2006.

Nadim Hasbani. "About The Arab Stance Vis-à-vis Darfur", Al-Hayat. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4722&l=1 - 21 Mar 2007.

"Darfur: Revitalising the Peace Process." International Crisis Group. http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/africa/horn_of_africa/125_darfur__revitalising_the_peace_process.pdf - 30 Apr 2007.

Sudanese Children Victims of Abductions

Sudanese children are still targets of abductions. According to Reuters, a U.N. human rights body reports that children are being trafficked across internal borders in Sudan and in some instances outside of Sudan.

Some of these children are literally abducted from their homes during raids, stripped of everything they ever knew, and taken from their families and friends with no idea what is about to happen to them.

BBC News reports that these children may be forced into labor, trained to be child soldiers, or are sexually exploited.

Of those children that are trained to be child soldiers, they have their innocence and youth stolen from them, and are trained to act in many instances as inhumane—killing and executing entire villages.

Many of the children forced into labor are, according to BBC News, taken across the internal border in Sudan; oftentimes the boys are forced to look after cattle, while girls often are forced to perform domestic tasks.

UN News reports that other children are sexually exploited. The UN in February organized a workshop aimed at preventing sexual exploitation in Southern Sudan. Imagine a child being forced to become a sex slave for another—it is truly revolting.

No matter what abductors force these children to do, these children all have something in common- they are isolated from their homes, their families and friends, and made dependent on their captors. They have no choice but to be obedient to their captors, for their very survival—shelter, food, and life lies with their captor. To be taken at a young age from everything you have ever known and forced to act in ways no child should ever have to is devastatingly tragic.

Amnesty International has recently launched Eyes on Darfur, part of which involves the use of satellite cameras that “monitor highly vulnerable villages in war-torn Darfur, Sudan.” The goal of this is to make sure that those, both the abusers and victims in Sudan know the rest of the world is watching—these human atrocities need to stop. The children of Sudan need to be protected.

Globalization or Exploitation?

According to investigations by Global Witness, Firestone Natural Rubber Company LLC and Firestone Plantations Company negotiated a contract with the re-established government of Liberia in 2005.   One of Liberia’s main exports is rubber, and Firestone being one of the largest rubber producing companies in the world, I would think it was a perfect match.   However, if you look at the real deal, the only winner is Firestone.

The agreement allows Firestone to set the price of rubber and indirectly control the amount of taxable income that they produce in Liberia.  Since the government does not have an equity share in the investments made by Firestone the only return for Liberia is royalties and taxes.

Firestone is Liberia’s largest private sector employer and is the countries largest producer.  Looking at it from a globalization stand point, Liberia has a large foreign investor putting capital into the country and creating needed jobs.  Foreign investment is a common goal for developing countries to stimulate growth within the economy, but is this investment benefiting Liberia?  Or is this another victim of exploitation?

Liberia has limited options.  The government needs to put pressure on Firestone to re-negotiate the agreement and allow an equity share in the investments.  One way they can go about doing this is by trying to attract another competing rubber company to strike a better deal.  Liberia will win either way.  In the globalizing market, companies need to take more responsibility in creating agreements that will benefit both parties instead of exploiting developing nations.