By way of living up to Rob’s kind introduction (and answering elbruce’s question in comments) I figured I’d kick off my LGM blogging career by reposting my Happy New Decade Top Twelve list – my predictions of which “human security” issues are going to become big in the next ten years.
Landmines, child-soldiering, genocide, debt relief, trafficking and climate change are just some of the human security issues that have been most prominent on the global agenda in the last ten years, as a result of activism by networks of NGOs, international organizations, think-tanks, governments and academics. But what about the human security problems that did not get sufficient advocacy, and consequently suffer from neglect by global policy networks? To which pressing problems might human security advocates turn their attention in the next ten years?
Here are some candidate issues, drawn from recent focus groups with human security practitioners:
1) Opthalmic Care in Developing Countries. Good eyesight seems to many like a luxury in countries riven by malaria, HIV-AIDS and river-blindness, but as a health and development priority it may be one of the most important ways to help improve the lives of individuals in the developing world: according to the NY Times, a WHO study last year estimated the cost in lost output at $269 billion annually.
2) Gangs. Human security organizations pay a great deal of attention to armed political violence, but they tend to stress violence carried out by states, either in wars per se or against their civilian populations. And emerging attention to non-state actors tends to focus on terror groups or militias. Local violence not aimed at capturing the state but rather at holding turf in contestation with other local armed groups – and the role of gangs and cartels as parallel governance structures in many places now competing with states – is being overlooked by analysts and advocates of human security. In Mexico, for example, drug cartels bring in 20% of Mexico’s GDP, control significant portions of Mexico’s territory, possess their own armies. Columbian cartels are experimenting with submarines. Threats to human security in zones where these actors have a foothold are more complex than “combatting crime” or “preventing human rights abuses by states.”
3) Indigenous Land Rights. Perhaps this issue will get a bump with the release of James Cameron’s Avatar. While indigenous people have their own UN treaty process and the right to participate in UN processes, indigenous issues are relatively marginalized within the human security network, occupying little agenda space among organizations working this these areas. Since it is now becoming clear that many of the policy initiatives to stem climate change will negatively impact indigenous populations, perhaps the indigenous voice in world politics will get a little louder in the next few years.
4) Space Security. In 1967 governments signed the Outer Space Treaty, effectively demilitarizing the Moon and other celestial bodies and prohibiting the placement of nuclear weapons in orbit. Yet the treaty does not prohibit the placement of non-nuclear weapons in orbit, and according to the Center for Defense Intelligence, today space is becoming highly militarized as governments race to build anti-satellite weapons and space-based strike capabilities. These developments are prompting a movement to promote a new treaty on space governance. So far this idea has have limited impact in global policy circles, but it may an idea whose time is arriving. A recent report from Project Ploughshares argues that even the civilian uses of outer space represent human and environmental security risks, such as that posed by mounting orbital debris. And with the discovery of a perfect location for a moon colony being touted as one of the New Year’s top stories, the relationship between outer space and human security is bound to become more prominent in the next few years.
5) Role of Diasporas in Conflict Prevention. Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer may have attracted ire for their treatise on the Israel Lobby, but human security practitioners spoke repeatedly of the wider issue of which their case is a putative example: the impact of outsiders, particularly diasporas, in intractable conflicts worldwide. Focus group participants spoke of the role played by financial transfers and propaganda from ethnic brethren safe abroad in inciting violence within countries that puts civilians at risk and contributed to a spiral of violence – an argument also put forth recently by scholars at United Nations University. They also bemoaned the lack of a strong international norm against outside governments fomenting rebellion within states when it suits their purposes. It’s easy to see why such an ethical standard would go against the interests of some powerful states, but it’s also clear that such a norm might serve a useful conflict mitigation function.
6) Workers’ Right to Organize. The right to unionize is enshrined in human rights law but besides the International Labor Organization, very few human rights advocacy groups pay much attention to the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain with the companies for which they work, or the responsibility of states to ensure this right is not violated. Organizations central to the human security network might follow the lead of smaller NGOs like the International Labor Rights Forum to address not only “humane working conditions” as defined by Northern advocates, but the right of workers’ to advocate on their own behalf about the concerns most pressing to them.
7) Waste Governance. It’s not sexy like climate change but it’s a significant environmental issue for billions of people worldwide. The safe disposal of human waste products is a prerequisite for human health and environmental well-being, yet in places like Africa, populations are rapidly urbanizing often in the absence of effective waste management architecture. As the International Development Research Center recognized ten years ago, this issue will need to become a priority for development organizations and donors in the next century.
8) Sexual Orientation Persecution. Gay, lesbian and transgender individuals worldwide face violence, stigma, and numerous forms of discrimination. Last month, the Ugandan government began considering legislation that would make homosexuality a capitol offense in that country; that they are now reconsidering this provision under pressure from donor governments points to the effectiveness of a strong international response to such human rights violations. Yet it has only been in very recent years that sexual orientation persecution has been recognized by mainstream human rights organizations as an issue meriting serious advocacy, and to date far too little attention has been paid to this very pervasive and widespread form of discrimination.
9) Water. Depending on who you ask, access to a sufficient clean water is a health issue, a development issue, a human right, and increasingly at the root of territorial conflicts globally. While the issue of water is already on the human security agenda, many focus group participants were adamant that much greater global attention and advocacy is required in the next decade to create genuine and inclusive governance over water as a planetary resource.
10) Familization of Governance. During the 2008 Democratic primary, some Democrats voted against Hilary Clinton for no other reason that this: they believed no political system was served by members of only two families – the Bushes and the Clintons – ruling a country for nearly two decades. Yet the US is hardly the worst country in the world when it comes to the monopolization of state power in the hands of a few wealthy families. In many countries, democracies and dictatorships alike, apportioning some high-level positions through kin networks rather than through merit is so common as to be a taken-for-granted aspect of political life that rarely raises an eyebrow. In some cases, such as North Korea and Syria, the entire state is inherited. Participants in my focus groups pointed to the pervasive and largely unchallenged rules of the game that allow this to occur globally and discussed the ways in which it prevents political reform in many places – not just in governments but in international institutions as well. An anti-corruption agenda for the 21st century should include some focused attention to this problem.
11) International Voting Rights. The international community likes to talk about democracy promotion, but this is normally couched in terms of creating accountable, transparent and inclusive institutions at the state level. Not much attention has been given to democratizing political processes at the global level. Some practitioners argue that more attention might be given to inclusiveness within global institutions, or international voting rights on key issues that affect not only states but also individuals. A recent book by OXFAM’s Didier Jacobs lays out this argument more forcefully and shows how it could be institutionalized.
12) Impunity for Death by Neglect. As of 2005, the International Criminal Court can try and punish individuals found guilty of crimes against humanity including murder, rape and forced displacement. But governments enjoy impunity for deaths worldwide that result from benign neglect of their citizens, rather than intentional atrocity. Half a million women die due to pregnancy or childbirth and 11 million children under five die from preventable diseases each year, not because any leader wished it but simply because resources are channeled to palaces instead of hospitals, to militaries instead of health clinics. As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, those on the front lines of the human security community argue for a more expansive notion of impunity, and new mechanisms to incentivize leaders to create a fairer, safer world for all.
Question to readers: what issues do you feel should receive greater attention by human security advocates in the coming decade?
Sarah Palin’s latest pronouncement:
And that double standard is—and that hypocrisy is another reason why so many Americans are quite disgusted with the political games that are played, not only on both sides of the aisle, but in this case, on the left wing, what they are playing with this game of racism and kind of letting Harry Reid’s comments slide, but having crucified Trent Lott for essentially along the same lines[.]
Harry Reid stated a political reality that only shocked people who are paid to feign shock: that Americans find black people with lighter skin tones who sound white are more likely to be elected than, say, Frank Pembleton, possibly the greatest character in the history of television. It’s a sad truth that having dark skin and sounding different from white people impacts a candidate’s electability, but it’s a truth nonetheless. What Trent Lott said—what Palin believes to be “essentially along the same lines” of Reid’s lamentable political truth—was that he was proud that Mississippi supported a segregationist candidate, and that the if the rest of the country had “followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Moreover, to this day Lott hasn’t explained what exactly “all these problems” that would’ve been avoided had blacks been kept in their place actually are.
So, for Palin, acknowledging a sad political reality is the equivalent of wishing that the Civil Rights Movement had never happened because, for Palin, racism is a game. Not only is it a game, she unwittingly confesses that she and her fellow Republicans are currently very much playing it by themselves, and are annoyed that the Democrats refuse to play along by “kind of letting Harry Reid’s comments slide.” She wants to play Race because just this once, she believes her team can win. Is it any wonder the large majority of non-white Americans find her and her party reprehensible?
So I will obviously make a more appropriate inaugural post on schedule tomorrow, but first things first. Lots of people are wondering how to get money to organizations in a position to assist Haitians recover from Tuesday’s devastating earthquake. Scott posted a link to links the other day, but it can be hard to know where to leverage your donation to do the most good. The logistics nightmare at the Port-au-Prince airport is styming the wider international response, and already third party solicitors are feeding on the public’s sympathies with internet scams.
The best thing to do is to donate to agencies who already have a presence on the ground. Via Rodger Payne, here is a link to several. You’ll notice the International Committee of the Red Cross tops the list, but I’d actually recommend donating to Doctors Without Borders – 87% of their revenue goes directly to programmatic services, and the Red Cross is already the beneficiary of the State Department’s text messaging scheme for collecting micro-donations.
If you type a word into Google, it will pull up the most common searches that begin with that word. Currently, the three most common searches that begin with “Is” are (in order):
(1) Is Lady Gaga a man?
(2) Is Lady Gaga a hermaphrodite?
(3) Is the world coming to an end in 2012?
[Photo: Nashville Post via Yglesias.]
Given that he’d be drawing dead even if he were running a competent campaign (or even showed some recognition that the race he’s considering is a closed Democratic primary in New York), I’m definitely hoping he goes through with it. Watching a DLC honcho and media darling getting beaten like Royals second-stringers against the 1927 Yankees will be richly entertaining.
Addendum: [from PC]: Also Teddy Pendergrass.
I always thought that Al Green being from Grand Rapids Michigan was kind of like Lenny Bruce being from Salt Lake City (for the uninitiated Gerald Ford is one of the funkier people to ever come out of GR).
Galrahn, David Axe, and the folks at the USNI blog are closely covering US maritime assistance to Haiti. Both the USN and the USCG are on the way; the Coast Guard is responding first, largely due to proximity and preparedness. In terms of specific ships, USS Carl Vinson, USS Bataan, USS Fort McHenry, and USS Carter Hall all appear to be on the way. The hospital ship USNS Comfort is also responding.
For a case study of how US amphibious/maritime forces can respond to disaster, I recommend Bruce Elleman’s Waves of Hope, which examines the US response to the 2004 tsunami.
I am pleased to announce that Dr. Charli Carpenter, Professor of Political Science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, will join Lawyers, Guns and Money. Charli also blogs at Duck of Minerva and Current Intelligence, specializing in foreign policy, international law, and human security. Medium and long-term readers will recall that she served in a guest stint several months ago, during which she demonstrated her value as a technician of empire. We are delighted that Charli is joining LGM; please extend her a hale and hearty welcome.
Sad, but true. I’m particularly wary of trying to construct an argument that the filibuster is unconstitutional using the same kind of logic that’s used to argue that health care reform is unconstitutional. I’m also puzzled by the attempt — which will be familiar to people who read stuff analyzing the legitimacy of judicial review — to claim that there’s something unusual or constitutionally deviant about a counter-majoritarian rule within the American political system. Pretty much everything about the Senate was constructed to be counter-majoritarian. This makes it a very bad political institution, but it makes it hard to claim that individual instances of counter-majoritarian rules explicitly permitted by the text are implicitly unconstitutional.
As an addendum, I suppose it’s worth addressing Geoghegan’s assertion that “we needn’t rule out the possibility of a Supreme Court case. Surely, the court would not allow the Senate to ignore either the obvious intent of the Constitution.” On this, Matt is of course correct that the Supreme Court would probably not even hear the case, and if it did I would be willing to bet serious money that it would uphold the filibuster with a minimum of 8 votes, in terms probably similar to Nixon v. U.S..
Lane Kiffin’s head coaching resume includes stints with the Oakland Raiders, the University of Tennessee (9th winningest program in major college football history) and now USC (seventh winningest program of all time).
Lane Kiffin has never won more than seven games in a season.
Lane Kiffin is 34 years old.