This is not the working title of my paper for the class I am taking "The Politics of Human Rights." In fact, I am still working like mad on the paper as well as trying to think of a catchy title. My focus is on making the case for the US to put ending the recruitment and use of child soldiers in Colombia as a top priority of their foreign policy. Below is an excerpt from the paper (still in progress). If anyone actually reads this, I would love to hear your thoughts.
" If, as Neumayer states, human rights play, at best, “a limited role in the allocation of aggregate bilateral and multilateral aid”, it should then come as no surprise that human rights plays almost no role in the disbursement of military aid. However, just as Neumayer suggests that one expects human rights to play some role in decisions surrounding development aid because of the assertions of donor countries that it does, so too one could also expect military involvement and aid to take into account human rights—if only because countries like the U.S. increasingly use human rights as grounds for engagement.
Historically, human rights has been the stepchild of U.S. foreign policy, and the promotion of human rights abroad seen as secondary--if no outright contrary to--the protection of national security and interests. While the importance of human rights is often discussed in the context of development aid, the amount of aid from most developed nations pales in comparison to their military spending in the developing world. To place the onus of human rights improvement squarely on the shoulders of development aid is both unfair and inefficient. As the U.S. proceeds to engage in military force on the premise of protecting and advancing human rights—as well as its own strategic interests—it should look to its military assistance and spending in the developing world to actually play a strategic role in the advancement of human rights. Without a defined policy on preventing the recruitment and use of child soldiers in states to which it supplies military support, the U.S. is party to the continuation of human rights abuses in countries like Colombia. This paper makes the case for the United States to place human rights at the top of its agenda for Colombia and use its significant military spending to promote the end of the use and recruitment and use of child soldiers for the interest of its, and Colombia's, long-term national security."
Stay tuned for part 2 ;)
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
At what cost economic growth?
Today's NYT features an article on child labor in China, a subject that we've been discussing in the context of human rights in my summer course at Columbia (and you know I'm going to be writing my paper soon, so expect several posts of that as I work out the kinks).
For a while now, the standard response to human rights abuses in China is that human rights need to be sacrificed, at least to some extent, to get the country to a stronger place economically. Governments who trade with China tend to chime in that a stronger economy will lead to a decrease in human rights abuses and will also promote democracy. There are some studies that back that up, and no one can really argue that the standard of living hasn't increased remarkably for many Chinese. The problem is that human rights were never something intended to be put on the table in bargaining.
People are entitled to the full exercise of human rights simply by the fact of being human, not by being American or French but not Pakistani or Chinese. Your human rights are supposed to be protected and respected whether you live in the developed world or the developing one.
Human rights abuses against children are some of the most disturbing. Certainly the most vulnerable members of society, children have little or no influence in upholding their own rights. They depend on the adults of the society they live in to look out for their best interests. And, sometimes, that does mean working.
International standards on child labor have changed in the recent past to accommodate the harsh reality that, in the developing world, if you don't work you simply may not eat. Rules against child labor for those under 18 have been amended to outlaw the worst forms of child labor only. However, the Chinese examples cited in the NYT article, among others, show how the government is trying to side-step laws by making work part of a "school internship." My guess is that by working 15 hour days in factories most of these 12-15 year olds are only going to learn that they might want to emigrate someday.
For a while now, the standard response to human rights abuses in China is that human rights need to be sacrificed, at least to some extent, to get the country to a stronger place economically. Governments who trade with China tend to chime in that a stronger economy will lead to a decrease in human rights abuses and will also promote democracy. There are some studies that back that up, and no one can really argue that the standard of living hasn't increased remarkably for many Chinese. The problem is that human rights were never something intended to be put on the table in bargaining.
People are entitled to the full exercise of human rights simply by the fact of being human, not by being American or French but not Pakistani or Chinese. Your human rights are supposed to be protected and respected whether you live in the developed world or the developing one.
Human rights abuses against children are some of the most disturbing. Certainly the most vulnerable members of society, children have little or no influence in upholding their own rights. They depend on the adults of the society they live in to look out for their best interests. And, sometimes, that does mean working.
International standards on child labor have changed in the recent past to accommodate the harsh reality that, in the developing world, if you don't work you simply may not eat. Rules against child labor for those under 18 have been amended to outlaw the worst forms of child labor only. However, the Chinese examples cited in the NYT article, among others, show how the government is trying to side-step laws by making work part of a "school internship." My guess is that by working 15 hour days in factories most of these 12-15 year olds are only going to learn that they might want to emigrate someday.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Loving my home state
I've been MIA due to school and interview demands. Someday I'll pull it together. In the meantime, a tribute to my home state, pulled off of Feministing:
"I knew I liked NJ for a reason.
New Yorkers (us in the city, anyway) have a certain level of disdain for all things New Jersey. Not quite the same level as for, say, Long Island--but there's an expected amount of mocking of the garden state. Don't ask me why, it's a NY thing.
Well mock no more, my NYC brethren. Cause NJ just took it up a notch.
A pharmacy would be required to fill prescriptions for any drug it stocks such as birth-control pills regardless of a pharmacist's moral beliefs under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Monday.
The bill, approved 56-18 by the Assembly, establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill lawful prescriptions without undue delay and without consideration for a pharmacist's moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.
If a pharmacy doesn't have a prescription in stock, the pharmacy would have to either obtain it under expedited ordering or find a nearby pharmacy to fill the prescription.
NJ, I knew I loved you for a reason."
"I knew I liked NJ for a reason.
New Yorkers (us in the city, anyway) have a certain level of disdain for all things New Jersey. Not quite the same level as for, say, Long Island--but there's an expected amount of mocking of the garden state. Don't ask me why, it's a NY thing.
Well mock no more, my NYC brethren. Cause NJ just took it up a notch.
A pharmacy would be required to fill prescriptions for any drug it stocks such as birth-control pills regardless of a pharmacist's moral beliefs under a bill that cleared the Legislature on Monday.
The bill, approved 56-18 by the Assembly, establishes a pharmacy's duty to fill lawful prescriptions without undue delay and without consideration for a pharmacist's moral, philosophical or religious beliefs.
If a pharmacy doesn't have a prescription in stock, the pharmacy would have to either obtain it under expedited ordering or find a nearby pharmacy to fill the prescription.
NJ, I knew I loved you for a reason."
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The American Dream Project
As a former member of the Brooks Quimby Debate Council at Bates College--as well as a proud Bates Democrat--I can really geek out on these super-early presidential debates. The Democrats are on right now, and Gov. Richardson just came out with something that got my blood boiling a bit.
The Dems were discussing their positions on the newly proposed immigration/amnesty/citizenship/call it what you will plan. And Richardson, defending his support of the bill, said he is against breaking up families. And yet the very bill he supported requires the head of household to return to their home country (and let's all acknowledge this is only going to apply to Mexico and Central America) for up to--get this--13 years.
13 years. Tell me how this isn't going to fundamentally disrupt families.
The Huffington Post recently covered a project that is seeking to draw attention the issue of immigration in this country from the opposite position. It's called the American Dream Project and they are touring this country.
Obama just responded that we would all do well to remember that ours is a country founded by immigrants, built great on the backs of their labor and ambitions. We would all do well to recall that our families were not welcomed into this country either, yet now many of us stand on our pedestals of privilege and proclaim that 'our families came here legally.'
Let me tell you something: no, they didn't. There were no laws in place, or if there were they were based on xenophobia and racism (curbing the number of Chinese, for example). And if it were you, and your family, today, seeking a better life, tell me right now that you wouldn't also break the law for your children.
That's what I thought.
The Dems were discussing their positions on the newly proposed immigration/amnesty/citizenship/call it what you will plan. And Richardson, defending his support of the bill, said he is against breaking up families. And yet the very bill he supported requires the head of household to return to their home country (and let's all acknowledge this is only going to apply to Mexico and Central America) for up to--get this--13 years.
13 years. Tell me how this isn't going to fundamentally disrupt families.
The Huffington Post recently covered a project that is seeking to draw attention the issue of immigration in this country from the opposite position. It's called the American Dream Project and they are touring this country.
Obama just responded that we would all do well to remember that ours is a country founded by immigrants, built great on the backs of their labor and ambitions. We would all do well to recall that our families were not welcomed into this country either, yet now many of us stand on our pedestals of privilege and proclaim that 'our families came here legally.'
Let me tell you something: no, they didn't. There were no laws in place, or if there were they were based on xenophobia and racism (curbing the number of Chinese, for example). And if it were you, and your family, today, seeking a better life, tell me right now that you wouldn't also break the law for your children.
That's what I thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
