Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

What Went Wrong in Afghanistan?

By Elan Journo

Two hundred twenty-two Americans died in Afghanistan in the first nine months of this year--more than in all of last year, the bloodiest year of the war, up till now. After eight years of U.S. military intervention, the fighters of the Islamist movement are not only unbowed, but on the march. The Islamists (often misidentified by one of their favored tactics: terrorism) seek to impose the totalitarian rule of Allah's law worldwide--an ideal that entails smiting down infidels and subjugating others under sharia. And they're making headway. The borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan are the global nerve-center of jihadist operations, where mass-casualty attacks on Western targets are hatched.

From both liberals and conservatives we hear calls for an immediate withdrawal. President Obama, for his part, has dispelled hopes of achieving victory. A common view now holds that we must resign ourselves to a world in which the Islamist menace remains a fixture of our lives--a threat we might mitigate, but never eliminate. Some now tell us we should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, bribing them to put down their arms, at least for as long as we keep doling out cash. Witness the emerging consensus that there's no military solution--not in Afghanistan, not in the wider conflict with Islamists.

How did America, the world's most powerful nation, find itself in this morass? A shortage of troops and resources? Reliance on a corrupt Afghan regime (a fact highlighted by the charges of massive election fraud, to name a comparatively tame example)? Some combination of these themes? No, the problem goes far deeper. Our post-9/11 policy--in Afghanistan and across the board--was subverted by a factor that few have thought to examine: the basic moral ideas that animate our foreign policy.

My colleagues and I reached this conclusion by looking at how Washington has directed the military and diplomatic response. The evidence (set out in our book) shows that our culture's mainstream ideas about right and wrong are what shaped our leaders' response to 9/11--from their failure properly to identify the enemy and its chief state-sponsors, to their goals for the Iraq and Afghan wars, and on down to the rules of engagement on the battlefield. These ideas have warped the prevailing conception of the "military option." In essence, the kind of war that our leaders believed was morally proper to wage entailed placing "compassion" ahead of the proper task of self-defense.

Take one example. To avoid affronting or injuring Afghans, Washington drew up lengthy "no-strike" lists including cultural sites, electrical plants--a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable. This handed the enemy a clear advantage--all the more so as the "no-strike" lists have grown longer. The Islamists exploit this policy (e.g., hiding in mosques and situating themselves in known no-strike zones). In response, Washington has misdiagnosed the problem (its own self-effacing rules of engagement) and further hamstrung our soldiers with ever more absurd restrictions. General McChrystal, who oversees Afghanistan operations, recently lambasted U.S. policy for being "preoccupied with protection of our own forces." (!) Instead he urges that they must minimize their time in armored vehicles and walled bases and "share risk, at least equally, with the people."

That's just a sketch of a tragic larger pattern underlying not just the efforts in Afghanistan, but our broader response to 9/11. A point we make in Winning the Unwinnable War is that the way out of the Afghanistan morass requires Americans to recognize how certain (allegedly) moral ideas have informed, and crippled, our policy--and to challenge those ideas.

Elan Journo is a fellow with the Ayn Rand Institute focusing on foreign policy. He is the editor of and chief contributor to Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

The Manchester Derby: What Can We Expect?

By Christos Kassimeris

Football fans the world over will be literally glued to their TV sets on September 20 as Manchester United play hosts to heavy spenders Manchester City in a local derby that never fails to excite. The fierce rivalry that characterizes the two Premier League contenders has reached new heights this season not merely owing to Carlos Tevez’s summer move to Manchester City, but also because of the kind of resentment expressed by Manchester United’s manager Sir Alex Ferguson when he described their local rivals as “a small club with a small mentality.” Delegates from the two clubs will be meeting over the next few days in what has become customary practice in recent years so as to ensure that the game is not marred by violence, racism or any sort of offensive conduct from either set of supporters. Manchester United will no doubt communicate their concerns regarding the distasteful ‘Munich chants’ that are often aired when the two clubs meet, just as Manchester City officials will seek to protect the club’s gifted striker that is Emmanuel Adebayor from the kind of racist chanting that certain fans’ websites have already publicized. Adebayor is, indeed, not the only colored player in Manchester City’s flamboyant squad, yet his embarrassing conduct during the game against Arsenal seems to have aggravated a section of football supporters across England. Having stamped at former team-mate Robin van Persie, as well as celebrating his goal rather provocatively in front of Arsenal’s fans, Adebayor will almost definitely be on the receiving end of quite a lengthy ban and, therefore, miss Manchester City’s visit at Old Trafford, given the Football Association’s commitment to combat violent behavior on and off the pitch. Ironically, Adebayor had emphasized in May 2008 in an interview with FIFA the significant contribution of African football players in the campaign against racial discrimination. Since racism continues to disturb the popular game, it remains to be seen whether the Manchester United fans have arranged for a hostile reception.

Christos Kassimeris is assistant professor in political science at European University Cyprus in Nicosia, the editor of Anti-Racism in European Football: Fair Play for All, and the author of European Football in Black and White: Tackling Racism in Football.

Hillary Clinton is Exercising a Full Range of Rhetorical Roles

By Nichola D. Gutgold

That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the Congo is the big media story of her visit, but the negative press over her response to a student got more attention. As Secretary of State her rhetorical agility is noteworthy.

“Hill-ar-ree, Hill-ar-ree!” sang the South African men and women as they met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit aimed at restoring relations with South Africa. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has displayed many of the rhetorical skills evident during her first lady tenure, campaigns for senate and notable presidential bid. Only now, these skills are seen as universally positive attributes as she travels the globe in her effort to improve global relations. Jeffrey Gettleman of The New York Times writes: “Mrs. Clinton, who seems uncannily resistant to jet lag, visited two community housing projects and danced with children, lugged some rocks into a wheelbarrow, planted flowers, planted a tree…” Indeed, her stamina is now being appreciated.

As Americans seek, either by choice or necessity to work well into their seventies and eighties, preserving and promoting stamina are key goals that will promote success. Women in particular have had to maintain stamina as they are often unable to pursue or realize a full range of success until past child-bearing years. The following skills are useful to women as they attempt to build careers in male-dominated fields. They are three of the elements of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric I identified in my study of her and they include:

Rhetorical Elasticity

As first lady of Arkansas she used her rhetorical skills to lead a task force to reform the Arkansas education system. As America’s first lady she stretched the rhetorical constraints of the role, becoming as important an actor in her husband’s administration as the president. She went on to run and win elective office as senator from the state of New York, and she became the first front-runner woman candidate for the presidency of the United States. All the while she had to stretch not only her own skills, but those viewing her were forced to stretch their perceptions of what a first lady could do. For women attempting to move out of the realm of traditional roles into new roles, they must have rhetorical elasticity to, for example, both dance with school children and argue international relations. Getting out of your comfort zone is a rhetorical imperative.

Media Savvy

Anyone running a political campaign must have a way with the press, or they are dead in the water. While we may not be waging a national campaign, we must be comfortable in the 24/7 world of news, ubiquitous nature of Facebook and Twitter and be willing to work in the world of media to create an image that is in keeping with modern media times. Hillary Clinton both used and was used by the media. We could all take a lesson from that. Being willing to put ourselves out there means that we may not always like what the media say about us. But knowing that we can’t beat them (media) so we might as well join them is a good credo.

Stamina

I believe that stamina rises from a sense of mission. Hillary Clinton was ridiculed, embarrassed, called to drop out of the presidential race, but she kept going. Her stamina must rise from a sense of importance of mission that goes beyond immediate discomfort. To be successful and to maintain stamina, we must find what it is that gives us a sense of mission and pursue it. Leaders lead. What inspires you to lead?

Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical journey and the lessons we may derive from it, are still unfolding. These are three lessons that anyone who wants to move in a direction yet unexplored should heed.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009).

The Rebirth of the Middle East

By Jerry M. Rosenberg

Increasingly, there is evidence that raising living standards, creating employment opportunities, opening borders to global trade, all in differing ways become the glue for enhancing stability and prosperity throughout the Middle East.

The Rebirth of the Middle East, is based on more than 15 years of research and interviews on this proposition. To assist in evolving a regional economic community over time, for 28 nations of the Middle East, with a population nearing ½ billion people, will require trust and financial and moral assistance from other countries.

Models and flowcharts are presented to develop these concepts. A reinvented Marshall Plan for the entire area is urged, along with the historical elements of the 1948 program that gave hope to a devastated war-torn Europe. This approach encouraged the evolution of what today is the European Union, with 480 million citizens consuming 25 percent of all worldly goods.

Following two invited briefings at the US Department of State, at the World Bank, at universities and conferences throughout the world, and over the years of writing five books on the Middle East, I restructured my theories in a pre-then post-9/11 era, expanding the models and flowcharts initially limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the newly defined Middle East, from Morocco in the West, to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the East.

Israel, with its 7 million citizens will play a significant role in moving the rebirth forward. Israel’s Prime Minister seeks economic cooperation with the Palestinians, even before a two-state solution. The Arab world in general seeks peace with Israel, based on meeting a series of conditions. Israel could be part of the core stimuli that drives the cross-border trade forward. And together with funding from prosperous nations of the world, a more stable and secure region can evolve.

Economic development can only be assured if there is a desire to shift from generations of antagonism to a perception that the future can bring prosperity to a frustrated population. The Arab world is rapidly changing, with 60 percent of its people under the age of 25 years. These young and aspiring people want opportunity, are swept by the powers of technology and the internet, and appear determined to rapidly move into the 21st century. Their past hopelessness can once again turn to hope; the greatness of the region more than 1,000 years ago can now be released.

Jerry M. Rosenberg is director of the Center for Middle East Business Studies, and professor of management and global business at Rutgers University Business School and the recipient of Fulbright Specialist Award in 2008. He is the author of The Rebirth of the Middle East, Reawakening: The New, Broader Middle East, and Nation-Building: A Middle East Recovery Program.

Brüno—The Global Minstrel Makes a Misstep

By Robert A. Saunders

Sacha Baron Cohen owes his career to two things: an uncanny talent for crafting and maintaining outrageous characters, and his ability to parlay controversy into professional success. In an interconnected world where cultural disorientation is the norm not the exception, his avatars—Ali G, Brüno, and Borat—unexpectedly emerged as mirrors of the age. While Baron Cohen may have initially performed simply for his fellow Britons, his pantomime ultimately reached across the world with massive ramifications. Whether it was intentional or not, Baron Cohen has created a new form of comedy: global minstrelsy.

According to Merriam Webster, minstrel is defined as ‘one of a class of medieval professional musical entertainers’ or ‘one of a troupe of musical performers and comedians of a kind originating early in the 19th century in the United States and typically giving a program of Negro melodies, jokes, and impersonations and usually blacked in imitation of Negroes.’

With Ali G, the Cambridge-educated comedian embodied the second of these two definitions (though with a twist), playing the part of an obviously white man pretending to be a black man to audiences which were not sure what race (or ethnicity) to which he actually belonged. His humor was effective because it toyed with the curious nature of British identity—in all its glorious ambiguities and contradictions—at the end of the 21st century. His minstrelsy, however, was only effective within a particular local context (the greater London metropolitan area—colloquially referred to as England); once he took it on the road, many of the jokes fell flat.

In his Borat guise, Baron Cohen played up the medieval, in his words, deeds, and corporeal and scatological humor. Borat worked through an insidious mixture of parody of “foreigners’ (particularly those of Second World, or, to put more crudely, post-Communist, extraction) and a biting critique of “Red State” American attitudes towards blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, and other “strangers.” With his roving reporter who supposed hailed from Kazakhstan, Baron Cohen took his spiel to the national level, playing with a whole country and its national identity.

Now he has launched his third—and undoubtedly his weakest— character on to the world stage: Brüno. If Ali G was a local avatar and Borat was a national effigy, then Brüno is the jokester’s first attempt at crafting a truly global manifestation of his minstrelsy. While Brüno makes frequent claims to his Austrian identity, claiming local roots alternatively in Klagenfurt, Tyrol, and Schleswig-Holstein (the first is a town in southeastern Austria, the second is a region in the extreme west of the country, and the third is a province of Denmark), Brüno is actually an exaggerated simulacrum of the transnational European: a creature that can only exist a world without borders, where homosexuality is as normal as (and certainly more fashionable than) heterosexuality, and style is paramount.

In 2004, the geopolitician Parag Khanna, in his article “The Metrosexual Superpower,” suggested that the European norm now celebrates femininity, image-consciousness, and narcissism (in contrast to American brutishness). Had Baron Cohen had a lighter touch, he might have been able to pull off a genuinely important film that evoked America’s low comfort level with denationalization, demasculinization, and postmodernity, all of which have grown out Europe’s post-war experiments in hybridization, cultural exchange, economic interdependence, and peacenikery. Instead, Baron Cohen overplays his hand with the trope of gayness.

In the recently released film Brüno, Baron Cohen employs every crass stereotype of gays, from an obsession with sex toys and sadomasochism to the notion that they are unfit parents due to their supposed promiscuity and attempts to “make” their children gay. Not surprisingly, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance against Defamation criticized the film’s portrayal of gays, particularly given its timing when a number of states are considering or have recently legalized same-sex marriage. Unlike Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which made fun of the self-selected “victims” (frat boys, bigots, and bumpkins), Baron Cohen seems to be just be picking on homosexuals.

Furthermore, portraying a quirky Teutonic queer for laughs just isn’t that funny, or at least it does not make sufficient fodder for a full-length motion picture. Mike Myers, the mind behind the blockbuster Austin Powers and Shrek series, came to this revelation in the midst of trying to bring his Dieter, the homosexual German host of the fictional talk show “Sprockets” in 1999. Myers was slapped with a $3.8 million lawsuit for abandoning the project, which he feared would “cheat moviegoers” in midstream. Despite embracing similar forms of humorous impersonation and even sharing a number of acquaintances, it appears that Baron Cohen did not learn from Myers’s misstep, or the huge advance that Baron Cohen received for developing the film assuaged any personal guilt over “cheating” his moviegoers by turning a mildly humorous sketch character into the subject of a motion picture.

Ultimately, Brüno proves to be simultaneously funny and a disappointment. As a work of art, it makes people titter, cackle, and crow (I attended a nearly sold-out premiere night performance in central New Jersey which generated nearly as many sustained peals of laughter as did Borat in the same venue). However, it was already clear by the end of its debut weekend that Brüno’s allure was fading fast. As to what Brüno does to Baron Cohen’s political project—which until now, demanded recognition if not universal respect—the result is an undeniable diminution of his position as a social critic. The man who used sophisticated—even revolutionary—comedic techniques to expose the veiled prejudices of British parliamentarians, American politicians, and countless “Average Joes” has undermined his own record by delivering an offensive and though entertaining parody of gays rather than those who hate and fear them.

Robert A. Saunders is assistant professor of politics at the State University of New York at Farmingdale and is the author of The Many Faces of Sacha Baron Cohen: Politics, Parody, and the Battle over Borat.

The Jakarta Bombings of July 17th

By Jeff Lewis and Belinda Lewis

The July 17th bombing attacks on the Marriot and Ritz-Carlton hotels in Jakarta revive the horrors of earlier assaults in Jakarta and Bali. It appears that the attacks of July 17 were perpetrated by pedestrian suicide bombers probably associated with one of the multiplying Islamist militant organizations that have appeared since the splintering of Jemaah Islamiyah since 2005. Suspicion has fallen most strongly on Noordin Top, who was one of the masterminds of the 2005 attacks in Bali. Thus, while JI's effectiveness has been severely compromised by funding problems, internal dispute and the arrest of senior members, the emergence of new militant groups continues to pose a significant threat for Indonesian security.

Moreover, the social, political and economic conditions that have contributed to the emergence of radical militancy in Indonesia have changed very little over the past decade. On July 8, 2009 Indonesia conducted its third parliamentary and presidential election since the fall of Suharto. While the election was relatively free and fair, governments remain constrained by the effects of corruption, inept civil institutions and a very uneven social infrastructure. As the ongoing legacy of the Suharto dictatorship, these institutional fallibilities also contribute to Indonesia's extreme poverty and broader problems with organized crime and extremist politics.

In the minds of many Islamist extremists, these conditions are directly linked to Indonesian secularism, and Indonesia's integration with the global economy and the impurity of western cultural values. The hotels that were attacked, as with previous targets, represent the apex of western incursions into a holy Muslim land.

Beyond this thinking, however, the July 17 bombings are clearly associated with Indonesia's complex economic, civil and cultural struggle—they are also associated with the responsibility of advanced western nations to help the Indonesian government and people to overcome these problems. It is not enough for developed world governments to rail against the perpetrators or simply deploy forensic experts to the crime scene. And it is not enough for Americans, Australians or Britons to contribute to the Indonesian tourism economy by visiting places like Bali, extract their relatively inexpensive pleasures, and return home suntanned and rejuvenated. It is, rather, our responsibility to work alongside the Indonesian people to establish effective social infrastructure and development models—and to offer our profound respect and gratitude for the Indonesian's grace and hospitality. Too often we advance on the territories and cultures of the developing world without due regard for our host's deep history and the complexity of their struggles.

The July 17 bombings are, among many other things, a symptom of our own deficiencies in this regard.

Jeff Lewis is a professorial research fellow in the Global Cities Institute, School of Applied Communications at RMIT University, Belinda Lewis is a researcher in health promotion and international health in the Faculty of Medicine at Monash University, and they are the authors of Bali’s Silent Crisis: Desire, Tragedy, and Transition.

Could Mousavi’s Martyrdom Spark Revolution In Iran?

By Adam Lankford

How rarely the fate of a nation rests in the hands of just one man.

And yet, in the aftermath of the election crisis in Iran, reform candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi may be facing a momentous decision.

It’s possible that he could be in the unique position to spark revolution in Iran. But to do so would cost him his life.

In order to understand the potential significance of Mousavi’s death, it is important to understand the powerful history of martyrdom in Iran. Every year, millions of Iranians gather to commemorate the holiday of Ashura, which marks the honored death of Mohammed’s grandson, Imam Husayn ibn Ali. Legend has it that Husayn was killed in battle in 680, after he defiantly refused to swear allegiance to the corrupt dictator Yazid, despite the certainty of his death.

For many Iranians, Husayn’s death is much more than just a story or historical event. It’s the foundation of a divine moral code that insists that standing up to oppressive rulers, no matter what the sacrifice, is not just the right thing to do—it’s God’s sacred command.

Over time, the lessons of Ashura have become a fixture in Iranian politics. In the lead up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini accused the U.S.-backed Shah of being a modern day Yazid: a corrupt and illegitimate leader and the enemy of Shi’a Muslims everywhere. And before long, Iranians rose up and expelled him. Similar charges were made against Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. And thousands of teenage boys ended up martyring themselves for the cause, clearing mine fields with their bodies to repel their Iraqi foes. More recently, Iran’s leaders have employed this same tactic by referring to the United States as the “World Oppressor”—the same type of evil, Yazid-like dictator, just on a larger scale.

But now the shoe is on the other foot. For years, Iran’s leaders have used the legend of Husayn’s death to rally the masses to fight against the enemies they selected. But in the aftermath of the disputed election, millions of Iranians have finally recognized that the corrupt government that is harming them the most is actually run by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and their fellow hardliners. The rooftop chants of “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to Dictators” are evidence of this social awakening.

The defiance of the corrupt regime has begun. However, Mousavi’s death would be the next important step for this historical allusion to be fulfilled. As a martyr in the line of Husayn, Mousavi could become a symbol with extraordinarily powerful religious legitimacy that should not be underestimated.

Mousavi’s martyrdom could remind committed Iranian Muslims that fighting back against the corrupt regime is not merely a matter of their own political freedom—it’s a matter of the religious principles on which they’ve based their entire lives. According to the values which they hold most sacred, they must be willing to die—if that’s what it takes—in order to defeat their current oppressors.

But so far, despite their courage, the Iranian protesters who have died during the conflict appear to have been tragically unlucky, not declared and deliberate martyrs. Very few, if any, have been willing to follow Husayn’s legendary lead and intentionally sacrifice themselves for the cause.

On the other hand, Mousavi has already publicly proclaimed that he is ready for martyrdom, and he continues to defy the corrupt regime. If he deliberately provokes the regime into killing him while emotions are still high, he could leave an indelible mark on the Iranian psyche. And that could spark a revolution.

Adam Lankford is assistant professor of criminal justice at The University of Alabama and the author of Human Killing Machines: Systematic Indoctrination in Iran, Nazi Germany, Al Qaeda, and Abu Ghraib. Listen to an interview with Dr. Lankford about his book at PsychJourney.

Part III: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’

PART THREE

By Anthony George Ravlich

The ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, whose core minimum obligations, non-retrogression and empowerment rights are considered by the global elites at the UN as incompatible with political globalization, promises instead an ‘ethical globalization’.

It’s a world in trouble – according to the United Nations ‘the global recession has pushed up to 90 million more people into extreme poverty’ (Reuters, July 6, 2009). Because of its massive denials of liberal rights I consider that neo liberalism has lost legitimacy.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach includes the rights excluded by the Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as well as past human rights instruments). It is not a matter of if these rights will be included but rather it is a matter of when.

The OP is open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009.The ‘bottom-up’ approach forms the basis of my book, ‘Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (Lexington Books).

While the ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven by NGOs and perhaps some States, promotes the inclusion of the excluded rights in domestic and international law it can also act as an ethical counterbalance to neo liberalism and, particularly, inform the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged who are those most affected by the excluded rights.

Ethical globalization requires the core obligations etc. to be included in domestic and international law. Where other States require assistance it would be by way of right not charity because the desperate state of the poor is a consequence of neo liberalism.

In terms of the empowerment rights to development and human rights education micro credit, televised human rights debates as well as a ‘voice for the poor’ indicates these rights are attainable while other core minimum obligations can be fulfilled by the State and small business development with the increased employment giving people better access to their rights.

If ethical globalization is implemented the liberal elite could refocus its promotion of ‘freedom and democracy’ at the international level by ensuring liberal rights at the domestic level and thereby regain lost legitimacy. Although, in my opinion, people are not yet aware of the true extent of the denials of liberal rights which now could be said, to a large degree, only to constitute the privileges of elites.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach is inclusive as it requires that the most serious violations to be immediately addressed while the lesser violations usually at higher levels are dealt with progressively. Consequently the ‘bottom-up’ approach is far more ethical approach than neo liberalism which excludes core minimum obligations and economic, social and cultural rights at the domestic level.

Western liberal elites, in particular, are preoccupied with ‘safety’ and establishment unity. Also the narrow liberal perspective is very likely to prove inadequate in dealing with the complex problems of a troubled world. Consequently it is left to NGOs to ‘speak out’ on behalf of the oppressed and exploited and also to promote the more ethical, ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, with its much wider perspective of human rights, with a view to their inclusion in domestic and international human rights law.


Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Part II: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART TWO

By Anthony George Ravlich

The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, excludes such core minimum obligations as the right to food and also the right to development so the world’s hungry will be reliant on the insecurity of charity and the vagaries of the market.

World hunger is projected to reach an historic high in 2009 with 1.02 billion people going hungry every day, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (June 22, 2009). The inclusion of core minimum obligations in the above OP would have ensured that the hungry could have their rights to food and development as the State is ultimately responsible for human rights. Without the right to development there is no assurance the poor will be permitted to help themselves. Kanayo Nwanze, President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development states: "For most developing countries there is little doubt that investing in smallholder agriculture is the most sustainable safety net, particularly during a time of global economic crisis”.

The excluded rights are included in the ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights which can be struggled for by NGOs to have included in domestic and international law. Part Three argues that the ‘bottom-up’ approach is ethically far superior to neo liberalism. The ‘bottom-up’ approach is discussed in my book, Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Lexington Books).

The recent ideological shift at the UN was from right wing (Bush administration) to left wing neo liberalism (adopted by Obama). What both approaches have in common is the exclusion of the above rights. However, while the right wing curbed civil liberties as a means of social control the left wing is ensuring social control (e.g. silence in return for ‘safety’) by adopting a ‘we are all in this together’ approach with a consensus between the liberal and trade union elites.

The establishment will oversee the growing unemployed who may get health insurance and infrastructure jobs but without the right to development they will have little chance of making use of their talents and gifts. For instance, the American Small Business League state: “This year small businesses have lost about $48 billion dollars in federal small business contracts to large corporations. To date, President Obama has not honored his campaign promise to stop the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants”. In addition, without core minimum obligations in place, for small entrepreneurs failure can not be an option.

However, I consider the main purpose of the ‘we are all in this together’ approach is internationally where the elite consensus further supports the West’s promotion of democracy to empower liberal forces within autocratic regimes. In addition, the West’s social model which involves the subjugation of the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged may also meet foreign elite approval.

Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART ONE

By Anthony George Ravlich

The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, shows the neo liberal dominated global elites at the UN are prepared to deny a number of human rights to further neo liberalism and globalization.

The rights excluded by the OP are the core minimum obligations of the State, the empowerment rights and non-retrogression. However in the exclusion of these rights the global elites have provided a more ethical ‘bottom-up human rights approach’ for the discontented to struggle for and have included in domestic and international law.
Those groups most affected by the exclusion of these rights are the most disadvantaged and the independent peoples. The exclusion of these rights indicates that social control and old ideas represented by the Corporations are much more preferred to new ideas, independence and going forward.

In addition, the exclusion of these rights allows States to ignore the most disadvantaged and focus on the usually lesser violations of human rights suffered by elites. This has also been the case with previous human rights instruments.
The ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights also includes core minimum obligations with respect to civil and political rights as their exclusion in previous human rights instruments have left the poor voiceless and discriminated against. The ‘bottom-up’ approach, based on my work in the community, anticipated the exclusions of the OP and is described in full in my book, Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Lexington Books).

For sixty years economic, social and cultural rights have been held out often by the liberal elites at the international level as a hope for the poor but the present OP now disinherits them. For example, the core minimum obligations of the State includes the right to food, water, shelter, basic health and education and are defined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states that without these core minimums the covenant loses its ‘raison d’etre’ (General Comment No.3) i.e. if the most serious violations are ignored then human rights become irrelevant.

Also excluded is the empowerment right to development which means that neo liberal States can disregard small business which means people will be less able to help themselves through developing their talents, gifts and new ideas. It also means much higher unemployment. The other empowerment right excluded is human rights education. If educated in both sets of rights the people would be able to hold the domestic and global elites to account at election time. In addition, non retrogression was also excluded enabling the State to curb or reduce human rights at its discretion.

Independent NGOs and even States dissatisfied with neo liberalism can struggle to have the ‘bottom-up’ approach included in domestic and international law.

Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.