In most of her existence Algeria has been a non-rights' land. During the French colonization, during the war of independence when torture and terrorism became key instruments of the "battle of Algiers", during the second Algerian war in the 1990s with atrocities committed by both the Islamist armed groups and the security forces. After that dark chapter impunity and amnesty mostly prevailed.
So how did the Algeriain media cover the human rights story in the recent presidential elections? Very badly according to an article published in the new website www.grotius.fr
http://www.grotius.fr/node/175
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The belly dancing of the neo-cons
A warning to the “liberal” human rights movement
The Obama administration is taking a reasonable path in allowing reality to shape its world vision. It is a risky path however because it provides the neo-conservatives with the golden opportunity to again hijack the banner of “idealism” and to bring to their fold a confused and disappointed part of the liberal human rights movement.
The revived neo-cons will systematically bash the new administration if they can describe it as “waltzing with dictators” or “schmoozing with appeasers”. They have already slammed Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate remarks in Beijing on “not letting human rights interfere with the global economic crisis or climate change”. They have pilloried the administration for daring to suggest the name of Charles Freeman, described as a “pro-Saudi pro-Chinese anti-Israeli figure”, to chair the National Intelligence Council. They have condemned the administration’s overtures to “rogue states”, from Cuba to Iran, and raised eyebrows when they have heard leading members of the Obama team mentioning a “possible shift on Burma policy”.
While raising the flag of ethics in foreign relations the neo-cons have observed with glee that leading members of the “liberal” human rights movement have adopted similarly critical views. “Hillary Clinton’s statement on China is shameful”, said Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch while Amnesty International urged Ms Clinton to “publicly declare that human rights are central to U.S.-China relations”.
Ethical protesters?
Are the neo-cons close to leading the dance of ethical protesters? The trick worked almost to perfection during the months preceding the Iraq invasion in 2003. Neo-conservative pundits were able to sway eminent thinkers of the human rights hawks’ faction, from Canadian philosopher Michael Ignatieff to “contrarian” columnist Christopher Hitchens. They convinced them of the virtues of muscular regime change: what is the purpose of the human rights movement if not to try to provoke changes in authoritarian regimes or, better, changes of regime ? Disguised as a call for moral clarity the delicious venom of confusion percolated in minds of the best and the brightest.
“Of course”, these liberal hawks argue, George Bush “fumbled on torture and the Geneva conventions”. But when it came to promoting democracy in the Arab-Muslim world his neo-conservatives advisers “had the right rhetoric”, i.e. the rhetoric of rights. “Of course”, these neo-cons had been wrong on many counts and at times expressed bad judgment, but “at the end of the day they were right on the fundamentals of freedom and democracy”. Or so they appeared or pretended to be.
There is undoubtedly some part of the road that liberal human rights defenders and neo-conservative freedom advocates can travel together. On Cuba, China, Belarus, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Burma they mostly share the same vision on the nature of these regimes, if not the same solutions.
Therefore the legitimate wish to contain and roll back any drift towards “realism”, if that term means colluding with unsavoury regimes, might offer a political rationale to restoring better relations with the neo-conservatives as it was the case in the 70s and 80s when liberal human rights activists and neo-conservatives campaigned side by side to liberate refuzeniks in Moscow or dissidents in Prague.
Double standards
However, there is a point on the journey where the roads have to diverge. The human rights movement cannot accept the neo-cons’ one-eyed approach to the world. Those with a good memory or a sense of history will remember that during the Reagan administration most of the neo-cons sided with brutal right wing dictatorships in Central America and followed a policy of appeasement with the military regimes in the Southern Cone. Most neo-conservatives tend to practise “double standards” in foreign policy, repeating late Jeane Kirkpatrick’s thesis on the quintessential difference that should be made between pro-US dictators and anti-US tyrants. Most have a soft spot for “Israel right or wrong” and most have not questioned president Bush’s “opting out” of major international human rights obligations. The name of Guantanamo only reminds them of the need to slam Fidel or Raul Castro.
Engagement
Realism, however, should not be seen as the antagonist of the human rights ideal. A principled form of realism does not have to be a synonym of being “soft” on anti-American autocrats. It does not have either to repeat the errors and the horrors of the Kissinger years when Realpolitik was used as a bare-knuckled justification for the crushing of Latin American democrats or the sidelining of anti-apartheid activists in South Africa.
In fact, the progress of human rights does not depend only on rhetorical bravado and ethical purity. It stems also from a cold-blooded appraisal of the state of the world and from a complex understanding of the stages and dynamics of democratic development.
This road, of course, is full of treacherous traps and slippery patches but it might work better than hubris and Manichean postures. Cuba is an exemplary case. In the last 50 years the U.S. government has maintained a (partial) embargo against the island hoping that this crude instrument of power would lead to the overthrow of the Castro regime. It has not worked out.
Engagement does not mean compromising the support for freedom and democracy. It is just another way of acknowledging reality and therefore of shaping policies that might be more effective in promoting democratic reform and political change.
As watchdog organizations human rights groups should play their role and strongly object to the downplaying of human rights irrespective of the partisan politics prevailing in the White House. But their success depends more on their capacity to engage with the Obama administration than on siding, as a junior partner, with the fellow travellers of the former Bush (and Reagan) administrations.
The Obama administration is taking a reasonable path in allowing reality to shape its world vision. It is a risky path however because it provides the neo-conservatives with the golden opportunity to again hijack the banner of “idealism” and to bring to their fold a confused and disappointed part of the liberal human rights movement.
The revived neo-cons will systematically bash the new administration if they can describe it as “waltzing with dictators” or “schmoozing with appeasers”. They have already slammed Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate remarks in Beijing on “not letting human rights interfere with the global economic crisis or climate change”. They have pilloried the administration for daring to suggest the name of Charles Freeman, described as a “pro-Saudi pro-Chinese anti-Israeli figure”, to chair the National Intelligence Council. They have condemned the administration’s overtures to “rogue states”, from Cuba to Iran, and raised eyebrows when they have heard leading members of the Obama team mentioning a “possible shift on Burma policy”.
While raising the flag of ethics in foreign relations the neo-cons have observed with glee that leading members of the “liberal” human rights movement have adopted similarly critical views. “Hillary Clinton’s statement on China is shameful”, said Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch while Amnesty International urged Ms Clinton to “publicly declare that human rights are central to U.S.-China relations”.
Ethical protesters?
Are the neo-cons close to leading the dance of ethical protesters? The trick worked almost to perfection during the months preceding the Iraq invasion in 2003. Neo-conservative pundits were able to sway eminent thinkers of the human rights hawks’ faction, from Canadian philosopher Michael Ignatieff to “contrarian” columnist Christopher Hitchens. They convinced them of the virtues of muscular regime change: what is the purpose of the human rights movement if not to try to provoke changes in authoritarian regimes or, better, changes of regime ? Disguised as a call for moral clarity the delicious venom of confusion percolated in minds of the best and the brightest.
“Of course”, these liberal hawks argue, George Bush “fumbled on torture and the Geneva conventions”. But when it came to promoting democracy in the Arab-Muslim world his neo-conservatives advisers “had the right rhetoric”, i.e. the rhetoric of rights. “Of course”, these neo-cons had been wrong on many counts and at times expressed bad judgment, but “at the end of the day they were right on the fundamentals of freedom and democracy”. Or so they appeared or pretended to be.
There is undoubtedly some part of the road that liberal human rights defenders and neo-conservative freedom advocates can travel together. On Cuba, China, Belarus, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Burma they mostly share the same vision on the nature of these regimes, if not the same solutions.
Therefore the legitimate wish to contain and roll back any drift towards “realism”, if that term means colluding with unsavoury regimes, might offer a political rationale to restoring better relations with the neo-conservatives as it was the case in the 70s and 80s when liberal human rights activists and neo-conservatives campaigned side by side to liberate refuzeniks in Moscow or dissidents in Prague.
Double standards
However, there is a point on the journey where the roads have to diverge. The human rights movement cannot accept the neo-cons’ one-eyed approach to the world. Those with a good memory or a sense of history will remember that during the Reagan administration most of the neo-cons sided with brutal right wing dictatorships in Central America and followed a policy of appeasement with the military regimes in the Southern Cone. Most neo-conservatives tend to practise “double standards” in foreign policy, repeating late Jeane Kirkpatrick’s thesis on the quintessential difference that should be made between pro-US dictators and anti-US tyrants. Most have a soft spot for “Israel right or wrong” and most have not questioned president Bush’s “opting out” of major international human rights obligations. The name of Guantanamo only reminds them of the need to slam Fidel or Raul Castro.
Engagement
Realism, however, should not be seen as the antagonist of the human rights ideal. A principled form of realism does not have to be a synonym of being “soft” on anti-American autocrats. It does not have either to repeat the errors and the horrors of the Kissinger years when Realpolitik was used as a bare-knuckled justification for the crushing of Latin American democrats or the sidelining of anti-apartheid activists in South Africa.
In fact, the progress of human rights does not depend only on rhetorical bravado and ethical purity. It stems also from a cold-blooded appraisal of the state of the world and from a complex understanding of the stages and dynamics of democratic development.
This road, of course, is full of treacherous traps and slippery patches but it might work better than hubris and Manichean postures. Cuba is an exemplary case. In the last 50 years the U.S. government has maintained a (partial) embargo against the island hoping that this crude instrument of power would lead to the overthrow of the Castro regime. It has not worked out.
Engagement does not mean compromising the support for freedom and democracy. It is just another way of acknowledging reality and therefore of shaping policies that might be more effective in promoting democratic reform and political change.
As watchdog organizations human rights groups should play their role and strongly object to the downplaying of human rights irrespective of the partisan politics prevailing in the White House. But their success depends more on their capacity to engage with the Obama administration than on siding, as a junior partner, with the fellow travellers of the former Bush (and Reagan) administrations.
United Arab Emirates take a wrong turn
Human Rights Watch knows very well about the scourge of censorship. Press freedom is not only a barometer of the state of other human rights in a specific country. Its suppression also interferes with the capacity to report on sensitive subjects and therefore to advocate for human rights. It is also an obstacle for the international media to do their work since they often depend on local journalists and correspondents to know and interpret what's happening.
In a recent report HRW slams the UAE new draft press law that "unlawfully restricts free expression". "The pending law, adds HRW, also includes provisions that would grant the government virtually complete control in deciding who is allowed to work as a journalist and which media organizations are allowed to operate in the country".
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/13/uae-media-law-undermines-free-expression
In a recent report HRW slams the UAE new draft press law that "unlawfully restricts free expression". "The pending law, adds HRW, also includes provisions that would grant the government virtually complete control in deciding who is allowed to work as a journalist and which media organizations are allowed to operate in the country".
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/13/uae-media-law-undermines-free-expression
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Moldova's Rebel Youth Use Twitter to Organize
Rebels or dissaffected youth have not waited for Twitter or Facebook to rock governments. Just remember the 60s and the capacity of Paris contestataires or of the U.S. New Left to challenge the Establishment.
However these new technologies are compressing the time needed to organize social movements and spread the word around the world. The recent Moldova protests have illustrated the power of social media in circumventing censored state-owned media. As Ellen Barry mentions in her reportage in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html "the sea of young people used their generation's tools, gathering the crowd by enlisting text-messaging, Facebook and Twitter, the social messaging network"
When the communist-led Moldovan government decided to shut down the Internet a youth group turned to mobile phones.
To know more: check the very interesting work of Evegeny Morozov, a specialist on technology and politics with the Open Society Institute http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/07/moldovas_twitter_revolution
However these new technologies are compressing the time needed to organize social movements and spread the word around the world. The recent Moldova protests have illustrated the power of social media in circumventing censored state-owned media. As Ellen Barry mentions in her reportage in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/europe/08moldova.html "the sea of young people used their generation's tools, gathering the crowd by enlisting text-messaging, Facebook and Twitter, the social messaging network"
When the communist-led Moldovan government decided to shut down the Internet a youth group turned to mobile phones.
To know more: check the very interesting work of Evegeny Morozov, a specialist on technology and politics with the Open Society Institute http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/07/moldovas_twitter_revolution
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
A must read: International News Reporting by John Owen and Heather Purdey
International journalism is at the heart of the human rights struggle. Among the most famous names in journalism we find crusading editors and daring reporters that have put their life on the line, on the frontlines, in order to denounce mass murder or injustice. The best and the brightest in the profession, like Sydney Schanberg exposing the Cambodian genocide, Mark Danner debunking the official lies on the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador or Christiane Amanpour pursuing stories of ethnic cleansing and mass rape in the Balkans, have devoted a lot of their work to human rights reporting.
Understanding how international journalists work is therefore essential for all those that care about protecting human rights. Some might learn great lessons from memoirs of leading reporters like John Simpson or George Alagiah. But there is nothing like the collection of essays that John Owen, professor of international journalism, and Heather Purdey, senior lecturer, at City University (London), have edited in a groundbreaking book[1] that that vividly describe journalism at its best.
The book starts indeed with a powerful testimony by a brilliant and compassionate reporter, Janine di Giovanni on how she tried to help a wounded person in the lawless streets of Abidjan and nearly lost her life in the middle of a thug-plagued urban jungle.
It continues with a sharp and sober analysis of the shrinking place given to world news in an increasingly shrinking world. And it leads to a succession of essays by leading members of the profession that help understand how the media report international stories, from the changes produced by new technological tools to the risks involved in reporting (trauma, death, censorship, etc.).
A former war reporter for CBC John Owen is very good at restating the fundamental rules and principles of the trade and in restoring its legitimacy to in the field reporting: “Pontificating, so-called experts on 24-hour news channels, he writes, cannot ever replace or should never replace the reporting that is only possible if men and women continue to be assigned or, in the case of freelancers, independently pursue the stories that give us – in renowned investigative reporter Bob Woodward’s definition “the best obtainable version of the truth”.
This book is a must for journalists and students of journalism but it also a great tool for all –government officials, NGO activists, corporate executives, concerned citizens, etc – that want to know the rules and the constraints of a trade that play such a prominent role in shaping our perception of the world..
[1] International News Reporting. Frontlines and Deadlines, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2008, 280 pages.
Understanding how international journalists work is therefore essential for all those that care about protecting human rights. Some might learn great lessons from memoirs of leading reporters like John Simpson or George Alagiah. But there is nothing like the collection of essays that John Owen, professor of international journalism, and Heather Purdey, senior lecturer, at City University (London), have edited in a groundbreaking book[1] that that vividly describe journalism at its best.
The book starts indeed with a powerful testimony by a brilliant and compassionate reporter, Janine di Giovanni on how she tried to help a wounded person in the lawless streets of Abidjan and nearly lost her life in the middle of a thug-plagued urban jungle.
It continues with a sharp and sober analysis of the shrinking place given to world news in an increasingly shrinking world. And it leads to a succession of essays by leading members of the profession that help understand how the media report international stories, from the changes produced by new technological tools to the risks involved in reporting (trauma, death, censorship, etc.).
A former war reporter for CBC John Owen is very good at restating the fundamental rules and principles of the trade and in restoring its legitimacy to in the field reporting: “Pontificating, so-called experts on 24-hour news channels, he writes, cannot ever replace or should never replace the reporting that is only possible if men and women continue to be assigned or, in the case of freelancers, independently pursue the stories that give us – in renowned investigative reporter Bob Woodward’s definition “the best obtainable version of the truth”.
This book is a must for journalists and students of journalism but it also a great tool for all –government officials, NGO activists, corporate executives, concerned citizens, etc – that want to know the rules and the constraints of a trade that play such a prominent role in shaping our perception of the world..
[1] International News Reporting. Frontlines and Deadlines, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2008, 280 pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
