Romney Takes on Foreign Aid at CGI 2012 →

This week marks the official opening of the UN General Assembly in New York. As a result, several other events are taking place in New York to take advantage of the heads of state in town for the General Assembly and to focus on the many different facets of international affairs. This morning at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, Mitt Romney addressed the conference to outline his vision on foreign aid as a candidate for the American presidency.

Early on, he set out his vision of what the goals of American foreign aid should be: humanitarian relief, to protect and bolster American strategic interests, and development. Most of his speech focused on this third point, with public-private partnerships the central mechanism he proposed to accomplish this objective. This is hardly surprising as it speaks to Romney’s own experience within the corporate world and as the former governor of Massachusetts. In this vein, he repeatedly stressed the importance of free enterprise in building not only economic stability but also free societies, stating that

“Free enterprise has done more to bless humanity than any other economic system not only because it is the only system that creates a prosperous middle class, but also because it is the only system where the individual enjoys the freedom to guide and build his or her own life. Free enterprise cannot only make us better off financially, it can make us better people.”

Using this foundation along with the now classic story of Tunisian fruit vendor Mohammed Bouazizi whose self-immolation sparked the Arab Spring, he stressed the importance of business and employment in creating stability and giving people dignity in their lives. To promote this, he announced his plan for “Prosperity Pacts”, a new program that would provide assistance to businesses in developing countries using mechanisms such as microfinance and link trade policies with development.  This was the only information given in the address that hasn’t been stated by the campaign before. While short on details, in a press release on foreign aid concurrently issued on the Romney/Ryan campaign website, he claimed such a program would represent a “bold break from the past” as the first US program to create “an integrated strategy that links trade policy with development policy.”

The only problem with that is there is no reason to believe that such a program would be anything other than a continuation of current programs active within the US government such as Aid for Trade which provides technical assistance and dedicated aid to developing countries to increase their participation in the global market and thereby grow their economies. Likewise, microfinance is and has been a major focus of development aid over the last four years. For example, the Obama administration announced in 2009 the creation of a Microfinance Growth Fund for the Western Hemisphere and Hillary Clinton stated the importance and need to focus on microfinance in her confirmation hearings for the position of Secretary of State. There is no reason to believe what Romney proposed is wrong, but it is far from a radical departure from what we already have in place today. Without more details, it is impossible to gauge what type of change this may or may not represent, but for now appears to be a re-branding of current programs rather than a new agenda.

The other main point of Romney’s speech was the issue of corruption and aid effectiveness. Highlighting American charity and compassion, he tempered this with its disappointments:

“But too often our passion for charity is tempered by our sense that our aid is not always effective. We see stories of cases where American aid has been diverted to corrupt governments. We wonder why years of aid and relief seem never to extinguish the hardship, why the suffering persists decade after decade.”

His proposed solution for this is again free enterprise:

“For American foreign aid to become more effective, it must embrace the power of partnerships, access the transformative nature of free enterprise, and leverage the abundant resources that can come from the private sector….Work. That must be at the heart of our effort to help people build economies that can create jobs for people, young and old alike. Work builds self-esteem. It transforms minds from fantasy and fanaticism to reality and grounding. Work will not long tolerate corruption nor quietly endure the brazen theft by government of the product of hard-working men and women.”

Again, economic growth which will inevitably increase the private sector in developing countries is something that development seeks to accomplish. But to pretend that corruption only occurs in the public or non-profit sectors and can never be found or persist in the private sector is a bit of a pipedream. The issue of corruption, and by extension the effectiveness of the foreign aid in funding and accomplishing its goals, is something that needs to be tackled in all sectors by using partnerships and engaging actors from every type of economic enterprise and across the public-private spectrum. Yet there was no mention of how the US would engage aid recipient governments, be it at the local or national level, nor any mention of NGOs and international organizations that are already active in these areas. This is not a small oversight. While it may be understandable why Romney focused on ways to tap into the private sector, to completely leave out all other actors in a major address on foreign aid undermines the strength of the programs he proposes.

In the end, this was a campaign speech that sought to differentiate Romney from Obama on foreign aid and policy. It proposed some program ideas while also sprinkled with some subtle and not so subtle digs at foreign countries, leaders and the Obama administration’s handling of the unrest in the Middle East. That may be the speech’s biggest failing; not only did he not propose anything really new for American foreign aid policy, but in a room filled with international political and business leaders at an event seeking to bring different parties together for the advancement of the least advantaged among us, the political tone hit a sour note. Nonetheless, there are kernels of useful information here and time will only tell if we get to see what could come out of the ideas presented by Romney today.

Originally published on September 25, 2012 at www.foreignpolicyblogs.com

In Russia, a Return to Bad Habits →

There was a brief moment in time, back in the early 1990s, where the idea of Russia becoming a real democracy did not seem ridiculous. By now, that illusion has passed. Corruption passes for governance, civil society functions albeit under strict scrutiny, and elections are less than free and fair. Needless to say dissent is not looked highly upon, so much so that earlier this year Russian officials declared a “rally” of “protesting” toys an illegal “unsanctioned public event.” The absurdity is good for a quick laugh, but actually just highlights the reasons why Freedom House found Russia to beconsolidated authoritarian regime in its Nations in Transit 2012 report.

There have been those who have fought against this slide. Numerous journalists have attempted to unveil the reality of the Russian government, with Anna Politkovskaya and Natalya Estemirova probably being the best known and who were murdered in 2006 and 2009 respectively. Major protests broke outin December 2011 against Putin’s consolidation of power and the elections that cemented in power. But nothing has quite captured the same level of attention as Pussy Riot, a little known Russian punk performance group, before the Russian establishment declared war or them.

The cardinal sin in the Pussy Riot saga is a “punk prayer” they put on at Moscow’s Church of the Christ Savior. While the prayer only lasted about 40 seconds before they were thrown out, the real problem laid in the purpose of the performance which wasn’t made fully clear until an edited version – with an actual soundtrack – was released on YouTube. There, in an attempt to highlight the close relationship between the church and the state, the group sang a song calling upon the Virgin Mary to cast Putin out of office. Such an act of rebellion, albeit short and not really worth noticing, could not be ignored by the government. So of course three of the women involved were charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.

In other words, their act of rebellion against the establishment constituted a hate crime in the eyes of the state.

To the outside world, the unfolding drama seemed a bit absurd. Inside Russia it is a little more complicated. Russia is a conservative country where feminism is not highly looked upon, and the Russian Orthodox Church currently enjoys a return to their close relationship with the government since the end of communism. The act itself was very offensive to many people who felt that it mocked the church, the faithful, as well as the government. But the question still remained what cost should be paid for merely being offensive.

This is where the Pussy Riot story actually took off. In most Western countries, a similar act may still constitute a crime (ie: trespassing, disturbing the peace, etc.), but a fine would be far more likely than jail time. But in Russia, the crime of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred carries a minimum prison sentence of two years and a maximum of seven. Is seven years an appropriate punishment for a 40 second stunt? Is two years? Does the act call for any punishment at all?

Answering these questions was the supposed purpose of the trial, but the trial itself was a charade. After being repeatedly denied bail and spending five months in prison, the trial of Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova opened and soon became a showcase of Orwellian justice. While the women were confined in a large glass prison cell, the defense was denied the right to present most of their evidence while the prosecution focused on the brightly colored dresses the women wore, their art from when they were in kindergarten, and the importance of Orthodox faith for the testifying witnesses. Even in Russia where politics routinely invade judicial proceedings, the Pussy Riot trial gave a new meaning to “show trial.”

The end result was Friday’s verdict: two years imprisonment. No one was surprised as it was clear from the beginning that the conviction was ensured. As international human rights groups, foreign governments and celebrities rushed to condemn the sentence, outside the courthouse pro-Pussy Riot protesters clashed with police and others who showed up to demonstrate solidarity with the Orthodox Church. While the womens’ legal team announced their intention to appeal the decision, no one harbors any illusions that the verdict or sentence will change.

This is big news this week but the group’s importance is larger than their own story. Without a doubt, the feminist punk angle and celebrity attention the women received created a good hook that Western media outlets happily exploited. Some observers have expressed discomfort with this exploitation, and more precisely the level of attention Pussy Riot has received over other victims of Putin’s Russia and the commercialization of the group’s image. That is a fair criticism, but ultimately misplaced. In the end the power of Pussy Riot isn’t in their punk art or their feminism, but rather in who and what they represent in Russian society. They are not alone in suffering the consequences of Russia’s slide back to authoritarianism. Journalists, artists, activists, civil society groups and many others brave enough to publically stand up for their rights and speak out against the government have suffered accordingly with financial ruin, imprisonment, torture, and even death. The sentiment behind the street protests of last December was a pushback against this growing siege mentality. But movements need faces and empathetic stories in order to get widespread recognition. I don’t know if it was Pussy Riot’s intention to give the world just that when they walked into the Church of the Christ Savior in February, but it was clear in the moving closing statements of Samutsevich and Alyokhina that they recognized this new role and spoke for more than just their own situation. For the first time in a long while, the world is paying attention to the state of human rights in Russia. And for Russia, like Pussy Riot, the verdict is not good.

Originally published on August 20, 2012 at www.foreignpolicyblogs.com

Ethnic Violence and Arresting UN Workers: Myanmar Backslides →

Since the historic democratic parliamentary elections in April, Myanmar has seen the world’s opinion of them shift for the first time in decades. No longer an international pariah, the moderate reforms enacted since 2010 have been enough to see sanctions eased, diplomatic ties reestablished and Western businesses reentering the country.

But this does not mean that all is well in Myanmar. The oppression of ethnic minorities has long been a part of Myanmar’s history, but recent developments in Rakhine State where ethnic violence broke out last month between the Muslim Rohingya minority and the Buddhist Rakhine majority demonstrates the devastating consequences such oppression can have and how much more is needed from the Myanmar government.

The trigger for the violence appears to be the rape and murder of a local Rakhine woman in late May. After police arrested three Rohingya men, a mob of Rakhine Buddhists pulled ten Muslim pilgrims off a bus and beat them to death in retaliation. From there, the violence spread throughout the province, testing the government’s resolve to contain racial tensions and continue enacting the reforms that have recently brought them such positive attention.

On those two criteria it appears that Myanmar is failing miserably. Although the government declared a state of emergency on June 10 and brought in the military to aid in security, it failed to halt the violence. Instead, Human Rights Watch reports that local security forces and the military are using the violence to justify further persecution of the Rohingya.

The government banned international observers from visiting Rakhine state, making accurate analysis of how bad the violence has been impossible. While the government places the total death count at 80, human rights organizations estimate that hundreds may have been killed so far. Similarly, the government estimates that 55,000 people have been displaced since the riots started while humanitarian agencies in Myanmar believe that number is closer to 100,000. Most of those killed and displaced are Rohingyas. As more and more of them flee to IDP camps, the conditions at those campscontinue to deteriorate to the point where some aid agencies are warning that mass starvation could become a reality in the near future.

Yet despite the increased need for emergency aid, the region is seeing aid agencies leave the area. Many aid agencies evacuated foreign staff as the violence escalated, and some are finding it difficult to receive government permission to return. For those who stayed, security remains a critical issue. A major cause for concern is the detention of ten local aid workers from the UN Refugee Agency, Doctors Without Borders and the World Food Program since late June, allegedly for “stimulating” the riots. Last week, the government criminally charged three of them, although the exact nature of the charges is unknown. Despite attempts by UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres to gain their release, the government continues to refuse international access to the prisoners or release details about the criminal case against them.

Instead, Myanmar President Thein Sien shared with Guterres his plan on how to fix the situation: make all one million of the Rohingyas leave the country or have them permanently settled in IDP camps. Since the Rohingya are not allowed Myanmar citizenship under a 1982 law, Sien’s view is that as a stateless people there is no reason why they should stay in Myanmar or fall under the government’s care. Needless to say, the idea has not garnered support from the UN, but with the reduced aid entering Rakhine State there is a fear that the government will continue to persecute and deny basic services to the Rohingya until they flee to neighboring Bangladesh, or simply die.

And these are just the problems in one small corner of the country. It is true that Myanmar has taken positive steps towards reform and there are high hopes that the progress continues as Western businesses begin to return and limitation on civil liberties are loosened. However, the events in Rakhine State over the last six weeks demonstrates that a leopard doesn’t change its spots, at least not overnight. The treatment of ethnic minorities remains a serious and chronic problem, as does the government’s negative attitude towards international agencies and international law. As Myanmar begins to reenter the larger international community, it is important to keep in mind that Western business contracts are not the only thing worth paying attention to.

Originally published on July 17, 2012 at UN Dispatch

A New Chapter for the ICC →

When the International Criminal Court finally came into existence in 2002, it was lauded as a serious step towards universal justice and accountability for the worst international crimes. Ten years later, some of that excitement has worn off. Nowhere has that been more the case than Africa, the continent that has so far been the home of every single person indicted by the court. It has long been argued by some that the court is biased towards Africa, and has merely become a forum to dispense Western justice to the “Dark Continent.” Of course, there are a lot of reasons why Africa features so prominently in ICC proceedings, a big part of which is the continent disproportionately joined the court compared to other regions, making it more likely that serious crimes committed there would fall under ICC jurisdiction. But even while observers may understand the reasons behind the numbers and even support the court’s work, the emphasis on Africa continues to complicate the picture for many Africans who see it as another neocolonial institution weighted against them.

However, Africa may finally have something to be proud of with the court as one of their own took the reins of the Office of the Prosecutor. Last week, longtime prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s term ended and Gambia’s Fatou Bensouda was sworn in as Chief Prosecutor. Although Bensouda is a familiar face at the ICC, having served as Ocampo’s deputy since 2004, her appointment to the head of the office that has vexed so many African governments may serve to cushion the impact of the court’s activities on the continent and show that Africans can be more than just defendants in the halls of The Hague.

Of course, in taking over, Bensouda has several difficult tasks ahead. The most urgent of these issues is the diplomatic resolution of the current standoff with Libya over four staff members currently being held by the government there after attempting to visit Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who is under indictment by the ICC. But, as The Guardian’s Afua Hirsch points out, there are also long-term structural issues that Bensouda will also have to address. In recent years, the ICC has come under criticism for their lack of transparency and investigatory techniques. This latter point was highlighted just last month as the court rejected Ocampo’s request for an arrest warrant of Sylvester Mudacumura and dropped all charges against Callixte Mbarushimana, both members of the FDLR militia group that emerged from remnants of Rwanda’s old Hutu regime following the genocide there in 1994. Crimes committed by the FDLR throughout their time in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are well documented, but in rejecting the warrant and dropping the charges against Mbarushimana, the court stated that the prosecutor failed to provide enough evidence linking the men to the incidents in question. Sloppy investigations and presentations have allowed these two warlords to walk, at least for now, and also serve as an important reminder than requests by the Office of the Prosecutor are never guaranteed.

Improving relations with Africa is also a must if the court hopes to change the minds of African governments who refuse to cooperate with the arrest of Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. Such cooperation may also be necessary for the situation in Kenya, where two of the indicted defendants in that set of cases are still planning to run in the presidential elections next year. If one of them is elected, it could result in a standoff similar to what the court is already facing with Sudan.

Finally, there is the growing issue of Syria. Although Syria is not a state party to the ICC, it could still come under investigation via a Security Council resolution. At this point, Russia and China are not keen to let that happen, but as evidence of crimes by the government there continue to pile up, the calls for such a move continue to get louder. In any case Syria will likely remain an issue for the court, either by requiring the court to explain why it is not investigating or by potentially offering the ICC its first case outside of Africa.

These are just some of the problems facing Bensouda in the coming weeks, months, and years as Chief Prosecutor. Many more issues will inevitably come up. But what is clear is that her appointment marks a new chapter for the ICC and potentially a great opportunity where the flaws of this young institution could be corrected and the court may finally start to live up to the expectations the world had back in 2002.

Originally published on June 18, 2012 at www.foreignpolicyblogs.com

Malian Refugees Compound Problems in the Sahel

Just as the food crisis and famine in the Horn of Africa becomes manageable for aid groups, another crisis begins on the other side of the continent in the Sahel region of West Africa. On the edges of the Sahara Desert, drought is not uncommon, but is becoming more frequent with major food emergencies in 2005, 2008 and 2010. This time, the ongoing consequences of the war in Libya for migrant workers, a Tuareg Rebellion in Northern Mali that started in January, and the recent unrest in Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire have contributed to lower incomes and higher food prices throughout the region, leaving an estimated 10 – 14 million people in need of food, a number that could increase to over 20 million,according to aid groups.

The good news is unlike the famine in the Horn of Africa, this food crisis is garnering attention much earlier in the crisis cycle; if coupled with quick action, it may mitigate some of the worst effects of the emergency. The bad news is the outbreak of fighting in Mali is pushing thousands of refugees over the border into neighboring countries whose own resources are severely strained.

Rebellions among the Tuareg, Malian and Nigerien governments are nothing new- several have occurred in the last century. But in past years, former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi served as a pacifying force in the region for Tuareg  frustrations, while at the same time arming and using them in his own military forces. This is why many analysts carefully watched the situation as pro-Gaddafi Tuareg fighters began returning to Mali at the end of the revolution in Libya, and it appears that the fears of what could happen are coming to pass.

The new rebellion would threaten stability in the region regardless of the circumstances, but coupled with the regional food crisis, countries simply do not have the resources to cope with the estimated 28,000 refugees that have already left Mali. This means that despite the early attention the food crisis has gained, unless a concerted aid plan is enacted, the Sahel Food Crisis could still result in a major humanitarian disaster.

Originally published on Foreign Policy Blogs

Balancing Justice & Politics in Kenya

In an ideal world, the search for justice would always trump the pragmatic workings of politics. However rarely do we live in that world. Instead amnesties are granted in the hopes of a peaceful regime change, dictators are allowed to flee their counties for the permanent and well financed exile while their victims remain to put back together what oppressive policies and violence broke. If enough time passes, as Haiti is now discovering with Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, those who grossly abused their power can often act like nothing happen. Of course justice is pursued by some countries determined to make sure that past wrongs are answered to, but success in those endeavors typically requires strong support from allied countries or organizations like the UN. Even then, messy politics makes for messy justice; accusations of bias in prosecution and worries about the cost of proceedings given the typically small groups of suspects tried are common, as are serious questions about the value of such proceedings for both victims and the political process. This, and not the ideal version we dream about, is the world we live in.

Recognition of these realities is one of the reasons why the International Criminal Court (ICC) took so long to come into being and is also a constant issue facing the court. In this battle between justice and politics, the biggest debate to date confronting the court is that of Kenya where it is believed high ranking politicians were involved in promoting the post-election violence that gripped the country in early 2008. The possibility of an ICC investigation was part of the agreement reached between President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader (now Prime Minister) Raila Odinga, but was also contingent on the inability of the Kenyan parliament to pass legislation creating a domestic tribunal to try those responsible for the violence. After parliament failed to pass such legislation, the ICC opened an investigation and yesterday the decision on which of the “Ocampo Six” – the six people deemed most responsible for the violence – would be tried officially came down.

This is where the politics gets messy.  Not only was the post-election violence largely divided on ethnic terms which ended in a fragile peace, but the members of the Ocampo Six were and remain prominent political figures. For example, Uhuru Kenyatta is the current Deputy Prime Minister, Kenya’s wealthiest citizen and the son of the country’s first president, Jomo Kenyatta. On the other side is William Ruto, the former Minster for Higher Education and a prominent opposition politician. Both Kenyatta and Ruto enjoy significant support with their rural constituents and both have stated they would be running in the presidential elections later this year. Politically, these two are positioned on opposite sides of the conflict but may be facing the same fate. Unfortunately, they also have the ability to take down all of Kenya with them. Again, this is the world we live in.

So what is more important, justice or politics? By ruling that four of the six charged would stand trial, including Kenyatta and Ruto, the ICC stuck to their mandate and chose justice. Ahead of the announcement there was strong support for the court among Kenyans but also increasing fears that violence could once again break out. So far, that has not happened. But with politicians gearing up for their presidential campaigns and two of the major candidates now getting ready to stand trial for crimes against humanity, yesterday’s decision is only the start of this debate, not the end.

Originally published on Foreign Policy Blogs