How to comply with nearly the impossible, and who to hire to help do it?
A new U.S. law requires public companies that make personal electronic devices to audit the materials used in their products and make these findings public. This supply-chain challenge presents a daunting task and hopefully a human rights mechanism to encourage the private sector to do the right thing.
Most of the readers of this website know that many of the metals and minerals found in today’s personal electronics (e.g. smart phones, mp3 players) have the strong possibility of being extracted from Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and/or its adjoining countries. For years, bloody conflicts and intra-state wars have been waged in this region, in fact the United Nations’ largest peacekeeping operation (18,000 personnel) is in the DRC, likely fueled by mining profits. Advocacy groups and both governmental and NGO human rights organizations have been trying for years to develop a foreign policy to end these conflicts and defund the warlords. However, with India, China, EU and other countries involved in exporting raw materials from the region, the right mechanism was hard to find.
However, on July 21st, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, otherwise referred to on TV as the financial reform bill. Deep inside on page 851, in section 1,502, the document reads, It is the …”Sense of Congress that the exploitation and trade of conflict minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is helping to finance conflict characterized by extreme levels of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly sexual- and gender-based violence, and contributing to an humanitarian situation therein…”. The document then goes on to require the companies to…”exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of such minerals, which measures shall include an independent private sector audit of such report submitted through the [sic. Securities and Exchange] Commission that is conducted in accordance with standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States, in accordance with rules promulgated by the Commission, in consultation with the Secretary of State.”
Very wordy, but these few paragraphs will force many “manufacturers to overhaul checks on their supply chain in an attempt to identify any “conflict minerals” that can be traced back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo or adjoining countries”, as Jean Eaglesham and Jeremy Lemer of the Financial Times reported earlier this week.
The law will affect thousands of companies. The Congo region is a widely used source of important industrial metals and minerals such as tantalum, copper, germanium, gold, manganese and cobalt. Tantalum, for example, is used in very small amounts in crucial electronic components such as capacitors, which find their way into everything from cars, to personal computers and mobile phones.
Regardless of the good intentions and valid policy goals of the law, the challenge still remains to verifiably trace the origins of these ingredients across oceans, refineries, shipping companies and through jungles to dangerous mining regions
Who can do this work? Supply-chain audit experts probably have not tackled a problem as complicated and dangerous as this one before. There also is a chance though, that the makers will simply disclose that their products contain materials from the Congo region, address any public relations concerns that arise and move on. The next implementation steps are likely to be costly and require very specialized firms to do the work. When the law goes into effect in 2012 it will be interesting to see the findings and learn who and how they produced the reports.
The “DNT-R2P Connection:” Humanitarianism in the 21st Century?
Filed under: Democracy, Human Rights, Responsibility to Protect, Technology
By: Colette Mazzucelli
The trials and tribulations of humanitarianism in the past decade lead Columbia historian Mark Mazower to question the price of moral leadership in foreign affairs. Is there a local-global consciousness emerging to combat the atrocities states inflict arbitrarily on their citizens? The countries and their cultures differ. The abuse of human rights does not: post-election turmoil in Kenya, 2008; brutality against the protesters in Iran, 2009; longstanding sexual violence against women in war-torn Congo; mass starvation over time in North Korea. The list grows as globalization intensifies.
"Mobile applications, whether on the cell or smart phone, are evolving rapidly as millions acquire new means to communicate", says Mazzucelli.
Can digitally networked technology (DNT) make a difference by slowing the trends of abuse? Is the exponential growth of mobile phone use in the developing world a revolution that allows civil society to find its voice preventing the murder of innocents by state leaders? What does this transformation mean for the West with its interventionist ideals and its international norms, most notably, Responsibility to Protect (R2P)? Are we bearing witness to a sea change that makes “ordinary people” the world over a bulwark of protection against would be political entrepreneurs seeking power at any human price?
Experience taught us in Rwanda the speed with which genocide was carried out by extremists with a political agenda as the West chose selective indifference. Failures to prevent mass murder in Bosnia and Kosovo showed the limits of transatlantic power. If R2P is not to remain too closely linked with intervention, which is one of its main criticisms as a tool to facilitate Western neo-colonial adventures, citizens must assume the responsibility to protect the human rights of fellow citizens. Their actions can make a difference in regimes struggling to find their own way to the constitutional liberalism that checks excesses of state power against individuals.
Mobile applications, whether on the cell or smart phone, are evolving rapidly as millions acquire new means to communicate. The empirical data, which is still limited, informs us that technology can be used to incite ethnic conflict or to deter human rights abuses. Joshua Goldstein and Juliana Rotich discuss the impact of digitally networked technology during Kenya’s 2007-2008 post-election crisis. Their research findings illustrate how text messages incited violence across Kenya. In comparison to Rwanda, however, where radio mobilized the 1994 genocide leaving moderate voices unable to respond, in Kenya, the use of SMS also circulated messages of a moderate nature.
Michael Joseph, the CEO of Safaricom, which is the largest mobile phone provider in Kenya, distributed SMS texts to the company’s 9 million customers to contradict the previous hate messages that had incited mob violence after the 2007 presidential election was believed to be rigged. His effort underlines the multi-directional nature of mobile technology. The Kenyan case also highlights the emerging role telecommunications leaders and visionary designers are playing as tensions between state and society escalate in contested elections. Violence in Kenya also sparked the design by David Kobia and Erik Hersman of Ushahidi, a revolutionary platform combining Google Maps with a tool allowing mobile users to report cases of abuse in precise detail, including images and written observations at the time and place of the incident.
The application of Ushahidi in other countries experiencing human rights abuses makes digitally networked technology, mobile use in combination with blogs, interactive maps, and satellite imagery, the people’s choice in developing countries to forge local-global interactions. There are policy and educational implications for the transatlantic area as we identify a DNT-R2P connection in polities where citizen initiatives redress the heavy footprint of the state. This civic dimension of the responsibility to protect, the agency to act on behalf of human security, must rely on the courage and conviction of local engagement not foreign interventions.
As Barbara Slavin writes, “Internet and cell phone technology have become to Iran’s current democracy movement what the telegraph and cassette tapes were to previous political upheavals.” This is why transatlantic support for public spending to help Iranians evade government Internet filters is a critical element in policymaking. The Iranian people have a right to communicate with each other and with the world through blogs, text messages, and video images. Digitally networked technology offers Iranian citizens a chance to construct alternative narratives, thereby nurturing the internal democracy building that challenges a brutal theocratic regime.
Another area where DNT can support human rights initiatives is in the protection of those working on behalf of NGOs like Peace Brigades International whose members accompany the human rights defenders protecting internally displaced persons (IDPs). Francis Deng observes that digital networked technology provides the “eyes and ears” for the world to make sure that the dangers facing humanitarian workers as well as the plight of the IDPs they defend are not forgotten.
As the use of the mobile increases around the world, another challenge for the transatlantic area is to develop educational initiatives that bring DNT right into our study of global affairs. Innovative curriculum development is evolving as a necessary component of humanitarianism in a model that President John Sexton has defined at NYU as the “global network university.” Its aim is to “maintain human community” as NYU classes, held simultaneously in Abu Dhabi and New York, and networked with other locations in Prague and Buenos Aires, “break the time-space continuum.” The perils and the promise using technology of a multi-directional nature are unprecedented. The policy and educational responses of the transatlantic may help establish a DNT-R2P connection aiding citizens in fragile polities as they protect themselves against oppressive regimes at home.
Colette Mazzucelli, WFI Fellow at Citizens for Global Solutions, is Adjunct Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs at New York University and Department of Political Science at Hofstra University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
First hand account of Israeli attack on Gaza aid convoy at sea
On June 3, 2010, Bülent Yıldırım, president of İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı, spoke to the media regarding the events aboard the ship the Mavi Marmara during the Israeli attack on the aid convoy. The text of his statement is available to read in Turkish on the website of Radikal, a Turkish newspaper. Below is an English translation of his account of the events. (Translation by Anna Wood.)
Mavi Marmara, one of the ships in the flotilla. CC/FreeGaza
There were people from over fifty countries. Among our friends there were a total of thirty-five parliament members, plus many politicians, intellectuals and journalists. We set out with a total of nine ships. A few of the ships were sabotaged along the way. They could not continue. We waited in the sea for a few days. Then we went on with the ships we had. Actually, like all of you, we never sensed that Israel would interfere with us violently. And we couldn’t understand it. Because Israel was saying, “I’m going to come with my whole fleet.” The Israeli press was continually calling us. There was live broadcasting. We were being called from every corner of the world. Among us there were Christians, Jews and Atheists. We were together with people of every belief. We actually never entered Israeli waters. In fact, this was a first in world history. They announced an open-ended operation. They said this as the place of shooting. They said 68 miles. When we looked at our radars, we saw this was a fictional operation. Because the ships were wandering around. Despite this we went in 80 miles. We went in international waters. But Israel did not understand this. Tomorrow or the next day our captain will speak.* We will bring out the documents. Our destination was Egyptian water, to enter Gaza from Egypt. There was nothing to attract their [Israeli] interest.
Despite this, all of a sudden Zodiac ships began to appear in great numbers around us. Helicopters, F16s, five large warships and submarines. We broadcast again. They at least wouldn’t do something this unintelligent, we thought. When the call to prayer was read in the morning, we stopped to pray. Then we realized that they were attacking us from the air, from underwater, from boats, all of which were uncountable. We said to each other that they were just putting on a show. If we had been in their waters, if we had been in waters where pirating actually illegally occurs, or if we had been in Palestinian waters, then they would be able to attack us, we said. Then all of a sudden they began to land. Our friends committed solely civil resistance. The whole press was there. Arm in arm we said, don’t let them in. Then we saw that entering arm-in-arm wasn’t working. While the Israelis interrogated me, I made them a promise. I am a resolute man. When I make a promise, I keep it. For three days they questioned all the units. They asked me, “Are you thinking of attacking us with those irons and axes?” I answered, “You were attacked with irons and chairs. It was legitimate self-defense.” I said I would explain this. I give you my word. In the press conference I will say that our friends defended themselves with the bats they saw there.
At first they were saying they didn’t use weapons. Supposedly they got permission to use weapons, meaning real bullets, in the 35thminute. Well, you immediately threw sound and gas bombs. Pieces of the bombs you threw came off. Most of our friends were wounded. Isn’t this a weapon? We did the statistics. Of the first bullets they shot, two were plastic. One of them resembled a nail. Our brother Cevdet – may God give patience to his loved ones – he was martyred. Our brother Cevdet was a member of the press. While the Israelis were firing above, he was only taking photographs. He was shot from just one meter away, and his brain was in pieces. This wasn’t enough. We realized that news of martyrs was coming from every side. We saw that the bullets they had started shooting were real bullets. Plastic bullets kill, too. Because you’re firing from 1.5-2 meters away. They started shooting real bullets.
Israeli Settlement Expansion Frustrates Peace
By: Adam B. Kozicharow
Over the past 2 weeks the Netanyahu government has once again undermined U.S. efforts to jump-start the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The decision to authorize construction of new housing units in East Jerusalem could not have been more counter-productive or ill-timed. Coming on the heels of the Arab league decision to endorse indirect negotiations with Israel, while U.S. special envoy George Mitchell was in the region laying the groundwork for renewed peace talks, and coinciding with Vice President Biden’s visit intended to reaffirm America’s close support of Israel, the announcement was a blatant slap in the face to both allies and adversaries alike. It exposed the arrogance of the present Israeli government and its apparent insincerity in committing to a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
After a meeting between Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon and the Turkish ambassador, Israel apologized to Turkey for what it called a breach of diplomatic manners (Photo Lior Mizrahi)
This heavy-handed, cynical pursuit of foreign policy has been a hallmark of the Netanyahu government. In their first substantive interaction with the new American administration, Netanyahu rejected an explicit request from President Obama to halt settlement construction as a confidence building measure. The purpose of Obama’s request was to rebuild trust and mutual understanding in an effort to restart the moribund peace process following the war in Gaza. Earlier this year, a similar lack of political acumen and decorum towards a key ally was evinced when deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon treated the Turkish ambassador in a demeaning manner publically over the issue of anti-Israeli TV programming in Turkey. Ayalon refused to shake the ambassador’s hand, pointed out to journalists that the ambassador was seated in a shorter chair, and that there was no Turkish flag on display. Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister, was even more provocative in his own statements regarding the probable collapse of the Assad regime in the event Syria and Israel resume hostilities.
The Israeli settlement of Har Homar near Jerusalem was expanded on disputed land confiscated from Palestinian owners in the West Bank town of Bethlehem (photo: Magnus Johansson/MaanImages)
The arrogance of Israeli foreign policy since the election of Netanyahu and the formation of a governing coalition composed of right wing parties has been consistently harmful to moderates on both sides of the conflict. The new government has marginalized the majority of the Israeli public that desires peace while at the same time undermining Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas that are the very “partners in peace” Israeli officials have consistently claimed they are looking for. The quiescence of the West Bank during the hostilities in Gaza and since, along with the lack of any reciprocal peace building measures on the part of the Israeli government, makes it appear as if it is radicals in Israel that have become the real obstacle to peace and not those in the territories. This is an undesirable and untenable situation for Israel because international public opinion is turning against the country. There are even signs in the US that public support for Israel may be eroding.
In the early years of statehood, Israel attempted to portray itself in two distinct ways. To the international community it presented itself as an imperiled nation, struggling to survive the combined hostility of its enemies. With its Arab neighbors it cultivated a more marshal and intimidating image. While this dual narrative had purchase from the forties through the seventies, Israel’s economic and military predominance over the last three decades has placed this paradigm increasingly at odds with reality. It is now Israel that is widely seen as the region’s preeminent military power, violent and hostile to its neighbors and arrogant in its political demeanor. The lack of progress towards resolving the Palestinian issue over the past four decades and the growth of settlement populations over the same time period has led to growing analogies with South Africa and sporadic attempts at boycotts of Israeli institutions, most notably by British educational associations in 2002 and again in 2005. Although Israel continues to portray itself as a beleaguered nation internationally, the rest of the global community has begun to see it as tyrannical.
Israel was founded at a time when memory of the Holocaust and the mistreatment of the Jews offered the new state a certain level of moral justification. This moral support was of no small value in the country’s early struggles for survival. Now the tables have turned and world opinion is on the side of moderate Palestinians desirous of peace and a state of their own. Netanyahu and the parties in favor of the settlement policy seem either oblivious to this reality or simply feel they can ignore growing international consensus, even as things begin to change with its closest ally the United States. Continuing this course of action is the true existential threat to Israel. As both the Arab league and other Palestinian interlocutors have made plain, as Israel prevaricates, support for the two state solution wanes and calls continue to grow for a single democratic bi-national state in which Jews form a minority.
The timing of the housing expansion also destroyed any ability policymakers might have had to empower the Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas. Any damage to the credibility of Hamas due to the recent disclosure that the son of a founding member worked as a spy for the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, and any opportunity it presented to enhance the status of the more moderate Fatah party and PA president Abbas was squandered. The seeming futility of Abbas’s efforts at negotiating with the Netanyahu government in light of the construction announcement once again undermines the very moderates that must be nurtured in order to develop a lasting peace.
For all its missteps and provocations there is still time for Israel to alter course. Construction has not begun on the new housing units and the decision can be reversed. The Arab peace initiative put forth in Beirut in 2002 and again in Riyadh in 2007 is still ostensibly on the table for Israel to use as a basis for negotiations. This initiative offers Israel peace with all its Arab neighbors in return for the establishment of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders. The recent statement of long time Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that the Palestinian state does not have to follow the exact 1967 borders but must include the same amount of territory as those borders is an opening that Israeli policy makers must not overlook. It is an endorsement of the land swaps that would make a majority of the settlement issues a non-factor.
Last month the world celebrated with South Africa the twentieth anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release from prison. Israeli policymakers need to take note of that event and its implications with regard to growing international dissatisfaction with the continuing plight of the Palestinians. Israel must not allow radical members of its population to obstruct constructive negotiations any longer. Now is the time to build on the relative calm in the territories by pushing the peace process forward and finally removing the albatross of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Only then will the country be able to find the peace and security it so desperately desires.
Adam Kozicharow holds an MS in International Relations from New York University, an MA in Political Science from The New School for Social Research, and is currently a PhD. Candidate in Political Science and Historical Studies at The New School for Social Research. Prior to returning to academia Adam worked as a project manager in the financial services and technology fields. His research interests span International Relations, Democratic Theory and Conflict Resolution. He has lived in both Israel and America, and has traveled extensively throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Adam is a member of the American Political Science Association, and is the President and Founder of Janus Consulting Inc., a foreign policy consulting firm.
UNHRC “Goldstone Report” cites “Possible Crimes against Humanity” in Gaza
Filed under: Commentary, Human Rights, Israel, United Nations
United States stalls action, continues to provide aid
By: William Mathopoullos
In August of 2006, then US President George W. Bush, pledged to increase United States humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanon by $230 million to rebuild homes, schools and other critical infrastructure following Israel’s third military offensive into Southern Lebanon in 30 years[1]. Just over two years later, after a 22 day Israeli military offensive into Gaza, the Obama Administration was preparing a similar bill in April of 2009 that would provide $840 million in humanitarian aid for the Palestinian Authority[2]. Meanwhile, the United Nations, Human Rights Council had just established a Fact Finding Mission with a specific mandate to “investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”[3]
- Richard Goldstone, former South Africa Supreme Court Justice and Chief Prosecutor in the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia prepared to deliver his report to the UN Human Rights Council
Despite having been denied Israel’s cooperation and been deprived access into Israel and the West Bank, on September 15, 2009, nearly six months, 188 interviews, 1200 photographs, 30 videos and 10,000 pages later[4], and on the ripe eve of the 12th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” which has come to be known as the “Goldstone Report” was released. Continue to full article…
