Archive for March, 2009

  |  
March 28, 2009

A different kind of human right violation.

Environmental issues are often left out of many human rights discussions to focus on more direct abuses. This is an overwhelmingly important topic to human rights, so why is it so often shrugged off? Why do people not see environmental abuses as violations against their human rights? Why are they not more angry at the amount of toxins and pollutions they are subjected to through their daily living practices?

The area where I live (Kitchener-Waterloo region) is reported to have some of the worst air quality scores for ground level ozone in Ontario. Ozone is a key ingredient of urban smog. It is mostly formed with oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), combined with heat. When it forms in the atmostphere it provides a filter for damaging ultraviolet light emitted by the sun. When it forms on the ground, it can have severe health effects for humans and damaging effect for plants and animals. Repeated exposure can cause permanent structural damage to the lungs, aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis and even death. It also interferes with the ability of plants to produce and store food and makes them more susceptible to disease, insects, other pollutants and harsh weather. Plants that are unable to produce or store food are unable to produce food for us to eat.

Burning of fossil fuels is one of the main emittors of nitrogen oxides. In Kitchener’s case, it is reported that over half of our pollutant load comes directly from coal plants in the Ohio Valley across the border. Ontario is contributing to the pollution as well. Ontario ranked 5th highest for pollution release in North America with 184,415 tonnes of pollution released per year, mostly created during the production of electricity utitlities. Our pollution affects more than just Ontario residents, and we are affected by pollution created elsewhere. This is bigger than just a national problem, it is a global one. We are affected by everyone else.

This pollution is causing great harm to people and is even responsible for human deaths (around 2000 per year in Ontario alone). It is costing a great deal of money to our health care system, our lives, and our future. If you doubt this, take a look here. The sad thing is that it is mostly avoidable. There are other electricity production and industrial options that do not have this effect. So why do we continue to allow extremely environmentally damaging industries and production facilities?

The sad reality is that this problem encompasses so much more than air pollution. We are bombarded with toxins and pollution at every turn. In our products, in our homes, in our water… Clean water is a thing of the past, as the levels of pharaceuticals, pollutions and toxic chemcials rises and rises and becomes harder and harder to remove or even test for. In fact, the “acceptible” levels of toxins allowed in our products is incredibly disturbing. Many antiquated laws allow known dangerous chemicals to remain in our products in certain levels.

The US Environmental Protection Agency reviews about 17,000 new industrial compounds each year, with about a 90% approval rate. The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act requires that any chemicals that display evidence of potential harm to humans must be tested before approval, however, only a quarter of the 82,000 chemicals in use in the US have EVER been tested despite their potential to harm. A similar occurence is happening here in Canada, though perhaps in slightly lower numbers.

Testing the levels of toxicity in humans leads to incredible results. The average person has at least 100 toxins in their body and perhaps even more than this, some in incredibly damaging levels. Unfortunately, the testing is super expensive (like $15,000 to test for only about 300 toxins– and there are literally THOUSANDS upon thousands that we are potentially exposed to). Many of the toxins stay on in our bodies in our fatty tissues and are not removed naturally. They build up over time with each exposure and are passed on to our children at birth. Many of these toxins found in every day products are hormone disrupters, or are incredibly neurologically damaging or carcinogenic (cancer causing). The overall costs of using these type of chemicals is incredibly high.

Regardless of your beliefs on climate change, does it make any sense to continually toxify ourselves with polluting and damaging practices? These practices are interfering with our right to life, and our right to an adequate standard of living and health for ourselves and our families. From a purely economic standpoint, they are costing us BILLIONS of dollars each year.

The current “acceptible” levels of toxins and pollutions are causing us great harm, and this needs to change. Humans are innovators. We have the capacity, skill and determination to overcome many problems. So why are we stuck in the stone age of production, when there is soo much information on the subject and acceptable alternatives to use? Why do we not learn from our studies and use technologies that are already in existence to slow or stop the production of new toxic or polluting substances?

My thoughts on the matter– it comes down to one thing. Money. The profits to be made or lost for corporations, and the overall effect for the economy.

That’s just not a good enough reason for my human rights to be interfered with. I cannot avoid these chemicals, even if I live a life full of organic foods; pollution and toxins still rain down on me. They are still introduced through products with flame-retardants sprayed on them. They are still introduced through everything else I use in my home. They are still breathed in through my lungs, and are everywhere I go in society.

Toxins and pollutions won’t be reduced overnight, but ignoring environmental protection acts or allowing lax policies is certainly not helping. We need to take a stand for our own human rights. Why do we have agencies for our protection, if their number one concern lies with industry and corporate rights and not with the general public? This is a major disservice to humanity and needs to be changed.

It’s time humans wised up to their own stupidity and started to make real changes. Our future depends on it.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Human rights abuses, rebecca sargent's posts, violence | 5 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , ,
March 26, 2009

My thoughts on anarchy.

Anarchy. I have heard this term thrown around a lot, especially by the “revolutionary” types here in North America. Brought out significantly in modern pop culture through the punk scene, anarchism can be witnessed in symbology throughout our society. Interestingly, anarchy has been labelled as being almost synomous with popular culture in its disruption and envelopment of every day life of those in societies.

I often wonder what people think anarchy really means. I wonder if the people who use this term have ever lived in a lawless, or semi-lawless society. If they have experienced the breakdown of society, or lack of government. I wonder what they envision a “true” anarchist society to look like. What they think will happen on the process towards anarchism. Many anarchists have themselves benefited tremendously from government systems and laws.

Anarchy and anarchism are difficult to fully define, since there are so many different interpretations and visions of what anarchism is ranging from extreme individualism to total collectivism. It ranges from libertarians and hard-core capitalist neoliberals to the most extreme “tree-hugging” environmentalists.

By dictionary definition, anarchy is the state of lawlessness and disorder, usually stemming from failure of government. Anarchism is a political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by government systems. There have been many so-called anarchist communities over time, but all of these communities have had some form of laws or policies that are followed and enforced by communal decree and systems that help make them run smoothly. They may not be labelled as “government” systems or laws, but they are definitely heading in that direction. Over time, one would think that communal decisions would lead us back towards creating governments. Essentially, communal decree is how governments in North America are supposed to run; through democracies. The voice of the people, doing what’s best for the people.

So where is the vision of anarchy that anarchists are really striving for? Are they looking for a different type of system than we have that are better suited to the needs of the population? That’s what I’m looking for too, but I would hardly call myself an anarchist.

I try to imagine a world without some form of government and it makes me incredibly fearful. Anarchy, in my eyes, means a lot of death. It means survival of the fittest as the government breaks down and people must learn to live in new ways without it. Those that find a community and are blessed with resources may find happiness, but those who don’t are doomed to live a terrible existence, especially at the world’s current population. Complete individualism to me is a scary existence that I would not want to experience. Anarchism to me always boils down to separation; but I also have difficulty separating the chaotic definitions of anarchy and the breakdown of government. Separating people from other people into small collectives may result in a thriving environment for some, but in the long run, who looks out for the global environment? Or those who do not fit into the collectives? Or those collectives who don’t have access to natural resources?

Some anarchists say they are rebelling from the coercion of the government, while others believe in using coercive measures to bring about anarchy such as mass violence, revolution or terrorism. In collectives there is also a lot of coercion. In most collectives, there is tremendous pressure to fit in and be part of the group, and this pressure can be a form of coercion.

If the government breaks down in a systemized manner that prevents death and destruction, is it still anarchism? Or would this require an altogether new label?

I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts or visions of anarchism, because to me, it’s the furthest thing from what I truly want or envision for the world. I can’t understand the drive I’ve seen among many educated people to be anarchists. Please enlighten me. I’m intrigued.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in rebecca sargent's posts, Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
March 18, 2009

Social Trust

Social trust is a human necessity if one doesn’t want to live completely isolated and alone. Social trust can be created within a household, a group, a community, a city, a state or province, a nation or perhaps even the world. It is the sense of togetherness, the norm of cooperation between individuals that allows them to work together in their lives. It is reciprocity and exchange.

Our personal levels of social trust may vary, based on our experiences of the world. The world we live in makes it difficult to trust anyone or anything sometimes. So many people have been disappointed or lied to or treated with disrespect or abuse in their lives by systems, groups or individuals. In the wake of this treatment, they lash out or isolate themselves further away from societal norms because they feel they can no longer trust that part of the system or the system as a whole. Sometimes they strike out with violence.

If a system treats you with violence, do you have the right to strike back at them with violence?

Truly, the statement “an eye for an eye makes the world blind” has some validity to it. Violence to solve violence makes no sense. Does inflicting more hurt take away the hurt that’s already experienced? Non-violent strategies can work. Sometimes they are met with extreme violence, and must face tremendous abuse and struggle.

In the last century, we have seen the change in North American society through non-violent means that has altered the status quo so that blacks are entitled to the same legalities as whites, and women as men. We have been moving towards more equity in many of our systems, but others still fail us. Other systems still breed hatred, intolerance or distrust. These systems must be changed. Social trust is lost with each inequitable system, and rebuilding the trust is a tremendous task.

So often, the creation of groups, organizations and associations is seen as the best way to build social trust. It extends so far beyond this. The social trust created must be greater than the social trust lost or we wind up killing and abusing each other en mass. We wind up feeling alone, insecure or angry; often leading to violence or violent thoughts.

The world is so incredibly complicated right now. It is really complicated here in North America because we are almost forced to rely on our systems for our daily survival. We no longer rely on ourselves and our systems are in many ways failing us. This is a scary thought. If we do not start building more social trust on the government and national levels and in our systems, the smaller associations of trust will begin to close themselves to the outside world and we will have learned nothing but distrust.

In many ways, this has already started to happen. Just look to the increase in barter and trade, and those seeking to live off the grid and be self-sufficient. So many want to escape this crazy system and live a more trusting existence, where they are connected to their own life. This new “financial” crisis (and I use that term loosely) has reminded us of the struggle of our parents and grandparents. Those who lived through the depression and scrimped and saved and yet often led incredibly satisfying lives. Many are beginning to see the failings of capitalism. The failings of this over-consuming society. Over the last several decades, we have become immersed into ourselves, increasingly insecure and in need of material goods to fill this insecurity. We need to rebuild the trust in society, and not fill this distrust with things or violence.

We can learn to work together and change, or we can continue violent practices. We have certain agreed standards already in place that are not fully enforced or ratified (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). These standards were created to change societal norms to be more peaceful, but haven’t been fully incorporated yet into the whole society. They were created so we could avoid some of the tragedies we have seen in the past. A learning tool for us, a framework to start to make change.

If legally agreed upon standards are ignored by our governments, what example does it set to follow laws? Social trust is broken, and society becomes more chaotic. So how do we change this?

Little by little. We rebel against the injustice in peaceful ways. We speak out against atrocities. We change ourselves and our thoughts and behaviours. We change the legalities and systems. We learn from the mistakes of our ancestors and avoid those mistakes for our grandchildren.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Human rights abuses, peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence | 2 Comments »

Tags: , , , , ,
March 17, 2009

The depths of violence.

Violence is more than just physical injuries, killings, beatings and inflictions of pain. It is more than the verbal and emotional abuse as well. This type of violence is referred to as direct violence in peace, conflict and transformation studies. These are clear subject-action-object type of relationships that result in the observation or experience of hurt in individuals or groups, usually happening quickly and dramatically; with possibly life-lasting traumatic effects.

The other types of violence are sometimes much more subtle; and possibly not even considered as violence outside the sphere of peace academics or activists. These types of violence create the conditions for direct violence to occur. The direct violence is most often merely the manifestations of the other forms of violence; the pent up anger, resentment, mindsets and reasons people rage into direct violence. Structural and cultural violence experienced by humans, only reinforces or condones more violent behaviour. If the system can do it, so can I.

Structural violence is the poverty, the hunger, the repression, the social alienation, the denial of educational opportunities, the causing of human misery, and the established patterns of organized society that result in systematic harm to millions of people each year. Structural violence is institionalized. It is rationalized and sanctioned by the state, making it the violence of the status quo. It extends to the systems and practices that allows violence to occur in the supply of products and services that are used by people who are unaware or are disconnected from the damage they cause around the world in their production.

Cultural violence has been referred to as the source of other types of violence because it produces hatred, fear and suspicion that leads to violence or violent policies and practices. Cultural violence engrains itself within us, and is the hardest to contain. It is found in comments, conversations, writing, art, ideologies, even empirical science and religious symbology. It is everywhere. It is propaganda, lies, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings that lead people to violent thoughts or behaviours; to hate other individuals or groups. This is the hardest type of violence to stop, as it is so thoroughly engrained into our cultures. It builds up over time. You can hear a comment here, and see a picture here and after enough “evidence”, you begin to see things in a new way. When spouted or displayed by those in positions of power or respect, cultural violence is its most damaging, because it then becomes “fact”. It is then passed on to many, and over time becomes the new cultural norm.

Stemming violence completely is a lofty goal, but limiting the structural and cultural violent norms is something we can definitely strive for. Doing this will also reduce the incidences of direct violence that occur in society. As the structures become more peaceful and equitable, so does the population living within it.

If peace were truly a goal of the governments in charge, they would take extensive efforts to reduce the cultural and structural violence that precipates the direct violence that occurs. They would restructure their policies and norms that are inequitable and violent. They would limit the amount of structural violence in the systems to create a more viable social trust. They would limit the propaganda allowed in the media and make more stringent policies to discourage violent business practices. The would create a culture of peace, and not a culture of war.

Peace is possibly attainable, despite what most realists will tell you. It is far off from our current reality, but it is possible. Human behaviour and cultural norms have been known to change. In our society, it starts with our systems. If our systems are corrupt and inequitable, our societies will remain violent. If our systems become systems to trust, systems that reward and promote peace, our societies will become more peaceful.

We have focused our energies towards war and profit for so long, it is hard to envison a different society. Peace studies has only recently become an academic discipline. Conflict transformation studies and strategies are still only developing and are given only minimal funding and attention. When put into practice, many conflict transformation strategies have proven somewhat successful. Some have been incredibly successful. The more money, time and energy we spend towards these strategies, the closer we will come to peace.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in peace, rebecca sargent's posts, violence | 2 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , ,
March 13, 2009

Iran’s beef with the US.

In most of the news I read or see about Iranian-US relations, it negatively portrays Iran and almost chides it for its hosility towards the States. Anyone who has read about or lived in Iran, knows that there is a complicated history here of betrayal, hostility and distrust. There is definitely little reason for the Iranians to trust the Americans and many reasons for them to be angry. The rise of religious fundamentalism in Iran spawned out of a series of political intervention in the Iranian system by outside forces. Democracy at one time, was developing here, but this was stifled by American and British parties who were striving to keep full control of their colonial resources.

In the 1950s Mohammed Mossadeq, the Iranian Prime Minister, began seeking independence (from Britain) and democracy for Iran. He was loved by the people, and seen as a great hope for the development of Iran. He was overthrown in a coup carried out by the CIA (Operation Ajax) and the British after he cut off their oil profits, seeking to better his population with some of the oil money. After intense hostility, and wanting to receive better shares in their country’s own resources (at least a 50-50 split), Mossadegh decided to nationalise Iranian oil supplies and take full control. Britain put an immediate worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil and pressured all of its allies to do the same. Only Japan and Italy continued to purchase Iranian oil, and the economy began to go into serious decline.

Assassination attempts on Mossadegh’s life, led him to call a referendum to decide the fate of the government in a democratic way. Overwhelming support in his favor resulted, so he dissolved the house and took control.

The Shah (the monarch of Iran), with British prodding, signed a royal decree dismissing Mossadegh and his cabinet and appointed a new Prime Minister. The legality of this was questionable since a Prime Minister could only be appointed or dismissed by the House and not the Shah according to the consitution. After intense public demonstration in favor of Mossadegh, the Shah fled the country, only to return after the CIA coup that removed Mossedegh from power. Mossadegh was charged, tried and sentenced to 3 years of solitary confinement, after which he would remain under house arrest until his death in 1967. Any opposition to the coup were arrested, with many sentenced to death.

The Shah was placed in charge, and subsequently restored the oil concession with Britain. Under his rule opposition parties were banned, suppressed and closely controlled. Freedom of speech was silenced and the constitution became questionable. The secret police (SAVAK- Sazman-e Ettelaat va Amniyat-e Keshvar) grew, as did massive corruption and Shia fundamentalism, rebelling against the growing oppression. The Shah’s regime allowed for US military personnel serving in Iran, their staffs and families to receive full diplomatic immunity; basically allowing them free reign within the country.

Despite the government’s incredible human rights abuses, the Shah was allowed to purchase unlimited quantities of military hardware from the US, in return for two listening posts in Iran to monitor Soviet ballistic missile launches and other military activity in the early 1970s. The government was accused of suppressing the population to such an extent that they actually fired on peaceful antigovernment marches killing at least 87 people in the streets in one attack.

Cleric Ayatollah Khomeini rose up against the increasing American and British presence and control in the country with bitter fundamentalism, pushing towards Islamic rule. He took over the country in a swift revolution and installed himself as supreme leader. The Shah fled for his life, and a brutal regime took hold for many years.

In 1979, the Americans allowed the exiled Shah into the US for cancer treatment, to the great anger of the Iranian people who wished to try him for his crimes against the Iranian people in their own country. They demanded his return to Iran, which was ignored by the US. A hostage situation ensued at the American Embassy in Tehran, where a group of Islamist students held 52 embassy staff hostage for 444 days.

A peaceful, democratic regime overthrown by the US and British, only so they can install their loyal, human rights abusing Shah so that they can keep stealing resources out of the country? If any other country attempted to overthrow a democratic American President or the British PM, only to install a brutal dictator; there would be serious consequences of those actions. Would there not be tremendous backlash and political uprising in the US if this were attempted? Would there not be attempts to overthrow the new dictator? Would there not be hatred towards those who helped to install the dictator? Why would we expect any different in Iran?

These type of practices continue. The plundering hands still reach the world, only now they are better disguised and hidden behind intensive propaganda. These powers still disrupt the democracy of many countries, while attempting to install it elsewhere, severely undermining the sincerity of their attempts.

This should not be permitted to continue. The UN and its Security Council need to be restructured so that this sort of crime will actually be discouraged and punished in the future.

Human rights abuses committed by the Iranian government should not be tolerated, and should be punished; but so should those who would disrupt democracy for profit.

I urge anyone interested in this topic to read “All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer. It gives a great view into the roots of Middle Eastern terror and is a great introduction into the region.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Human rights abuses, Middle East, rebecca sargent's posts, United Nations | 2 Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , ,
March 12, 2009

Israel-Palestine.

Until you have lived it, it’s hard to really understand the full complexities of this war (or any war for that matter). People read or are told all kinds of untruths about this war and seem keen on spreading them further, with such anger and hate in their voices. There are MANY guilty parties in this war, who have committed tremendous wrongs against other human beings. It is no longer a matter of who started what. Deciding blame is no longer an option. This war needs to stop and some sort of peace must begin to be built. The major human rights abuses need to stop.

What I find so frustrating about the whole situation is the veil of propaganda that surrounds this war, and the way cultural violence is like gasoline on the fire to an extent that atrocities are spinned to be some sort of a positive.

The civilians living in this area, whether Palestinian or Israeli (and others), should not have to live in fear. They should not have to endure bombings or terror attacks or the denying of any human right. These atrocities need to stop.

I feel that I have to say that I was very nervous printing our first Middle East Issue of A Peace of Conflict. It’s not that I don’t really know about the conflict. I have read extensively on the subject for many years now and visited the region, and know some of the destruction that is capable with my own eyes. As a Canadian, it shocked me beyong belief to see the bullet holes and bombed out bulidings on my first arrival. In Canada, I had always lived a peaceful existence, and war was this distant thing I had only really read about or watched on tv. So I asked Heather, my co-editor if she would write the Israel-Palestine briefing for the issue, because I was sure that in the 200 words alloted that I would have trouble staying neutral, which is something we try to do in the country briefings. And I was also very afraid.

I was afraid to write a piece about the conflict directly, because where do you begin? And how do you avoid the angry backlash that always seems to follow any words about this conflict? How do you avoid spreading propaganda, and how do you keep from hurting others with your statements?

I felt it’s necessary to discuss the fear that I feel in writing about the issue, because that’s part of the cultural violence. It stems dialogue. It stops relationships. It closes minds. It needs to stop.

Cultural violence surrounds the people living in this region. It is ensuring the conflict continues. The people face it in the media, at home, at work, at school, on the streets. It propagates and angers and creates hate. Many Israeli and Palestinians are trying to demand more peaceful solutions to this conflict, and their voices must be heard. Our government must listen to their needs and assist them in developing a peacebuilding solution that can be lasting. Transformation processes must be done to simmer the conflict that rages on between the Israeli state and Hamas.

Peace in the Middle East!


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Human rights abuses, Middle East, peacekeeping, rebecca sargent's posts | 2 Comments »

Tags: , , , , ,
March 9, 2009

What the world needs from you.

The world doesn’t need your charity. It needs your service. It doesn’t need your pity, it needs your understanding. It needs your action and your awareness of your own actions.

Most people in the world mean no harm to anyone. They just want to live their lives in peace. They want to have enough food to eat, water to drink and somewhere warm and dry to sleep at night for them and their families. They want dignity and respect in their lives. People need to feel loved and secure. We all have different ways of expressing our security and love. Some people need things to feel loved. Some people need physical closeness to other human beings. Some need space to feel secure. Some people can feel the love all around them in everything and feel safe in the course that the fates will throw at them. Some people are living in hate, in constant violence and insecurity.

And violence only begets more violence. A mind in constant fear has trouble moving forward to other things. A person who feels unloved is alone, and will have difficulty trusting society. We can stop a lot of violence by our own actions. We can spread love instead of hate. We can change the world by our own actions, little by little.

North American lifestyle is highly disconnected. Most people here do not produce or are not connected to their own food or other necessities and daily living materials. It comes to them neatly packaged on a shelf at a store or even through the convenience of the internet, shipped to our doors. Our houses are made for us, and most people have little insight into the overall structural design or uses of their own homes. Our food comes in neat packaging, hardly resembling the original appearance and not reflecting the process it took to get from farm to home. Who harvested the food? Who processed it? Who packaged it and under what conditions? The same with all our other daily living supplies.

We go to work for a company or business or organization for a certain number of hours daily and make a paycheck. We may have no connection to the overall use of what we ourselves are producing. We are entirely disconnected from everything. We are separated from our needs by many, many layers. Simple products can have travelled to 5 different countries and 10 different plants or factories before ever reaching the store.

The world needs us to pay attention. Writing a cheque to a charity is a noble action, but if you really want to be philanthropic, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself, “how is my daily living impacting the rest of the world?”

If you don’t know the answer, try and find out. Where do your daily living needs come from? How many stops have they made along the way? Who has been part of their production? Have human rights abuses occured in their production? What environmental damage have they done along the way to get to our homes? How can we minimize this damage and abuse?

The greatest way to save the world is to change yourself and your own habits.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Canada, Human rights abuses, peace, rebecca sargent's posts | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , ,
March 7, 2009

HP’s steps

Now I like HP, well, at least I like them the best out of any of the computer companies I have had the (dis)pleasure of having dialogue with. HP and I had a rocky start as I tried to get to someone who could tell me what I needed to know.

Now that I have found that person, the Product Content Manager, things have gone much more smoothly. She has been forthcoming in answering my questions as directly as possible, even when it implicates the imperfections in their own system, and not trying to skirt around the issues with other faulty claims. I can respect this, because at least it means they are being somewhat forthcoming with me and are actively pursuing some answers from their own suppliers. At least I have a better chance of getting to the truth. I would be more likely to buy from them than any other computer company at this point simply for the direct way in which they have responded to me.

I have been told that HP is an active participant in the EICC/GeSI Extractives Working group which is initiating a project this year to develop supply chain transparency models for cobalt, tin and tantalum. This is a positive step (but not yet enough). Several other companies are also on board with this initiative. (see http://www.gesi.org/files/20080620_ghgm_ser_metalstoelectronics.pdf)

I was given information by HP on the specific suppliers that I questioned in my previous emails to them (Kemet and Hitachi) and was told they have assurances from these companies that they are now using conflict-free resources in the form of Letters of Certification for the source of the materials. I was only able to access this information because they allowed their suppliers to be scruitinized and allowed me to look into slightly deeper than other companies into their supply chain. This is great step and means that they are actually trying to get some answers from their suppliers and are actually willing to work with the public to allow some level of scruitiny.

Do I believe their suppliers’ claims to them? No, I most definitely do not. Especially since the two suppliers that I specificially questioned HP about were implicated in a UN report for major human rights abuses less than 10 years ago and have yet to be charged or investigated further for these abuses. No one has yet to be held accountable for the past abuses, and no real structure has been put into place that I can ascertain to prevent them from happening again in the future.

Letters of Certification are not enough, especially since the metal market is so complicated. As the 2008 report Social and Environmental Responsibility in Metals Supply to the Electronic Industry details, “The metals market can be understood by analogy to a pool of water that is being fed by many streams. Numerous sources, including primary and recycled metal producers, supply the metals market, which is a global commodity pool that circulates and mixes freely. At the same time, numerous buyers withdraw from the pool, often not distinguishing source other than on price. Within the metal pool, metal is metal, where one unit of atoms is substitutable for another.”

If this is the case, there is a long way to go to prevent the metals from entering our electronics devices. Hopefully some sort of structure will be put in place to stop these abuses that goes beyond a voluntary basis. These are human rights abuses that are against the law and should be stopped. Resource extraction is one of the main incentives to war and bloody massacres, slavery and abuse happen for this purpose. There is no reason that these structures should not be mandated by international and national laws. Companies should not be allowed to disregard or sidestep legalities because the system is complicated or because they use suppliers in different countries or are disconnected from their own product line. The law is the law, and companies that break the laws should be punished, especially if they are doing so in full knowledge and making no real steps to change.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in my quest for a conflict free laptop, rebecca sargent's posts | Leave a Comment »

Tags: , , , , ,
March 6, 2009

Toshiba

Toshiba has been a brand much like HP, that makes it difficult for me to discount their claims outright. They seem to actually care, and have some structures in place (a corporate social responsibility framework) to be able to make a change and seem to be willing to discuss (to some extent) their policies. They are also one of the leaders (along with HP) in their overall environmental and social record. After a great deal of searching and prodding I think I have found the person at their company who can really start to give me some answers into the depths of these policies.

The first round of questioning went as expected. I inquired about their ethical purchasing and was sent the stock information on their corporate social responsibilty (CSR) policy which did not answer my questions and which I had already mostly read online before.

The information sent to me talked about their request to the component suppliers to take action against human rights abuses, but not the details of how far this actually goes and whether it is enforced or not in any great detail. It also mentioned that an independent audit was performed by a third party and that suppliers had been monitored, but no word on what the results had been of the monitoring and what actions had changed as a result of the overall policy. It also didn’t mention if this monitoring extended past manufacturers into raw material suppliers, which I am guessing it does not based on its wording.

The woman I had been dealing with eventually got back to me after a couple of weeks, apologizing for the late reply and sent me a link to their Procurement Policy (which I had already read thoroughly), and specified that they cannot disclose details of their suppliers for confidentiality reasons. Along with that she sent me this statement:

“Just for your information, upon our recent investigation/inquiry with
our suppliers(*) of PC components(*), we have been informed that they do not procure/use tantalum (Coltan) sourced from the DR Congo.”

but no evidence or link to where this information could be found or which level of suppliers was contacted and what they are actually doing to ensure this. There was also no mention in her email what the asterixes were implying.

I sent back a letter describing to her that most ore passes through at least 10 hands before it ever gets to the supplier stage and that much of the ore claimed to have come from neighbouring countries is actually sourced in the DR Congo war zones because of inadequate structures in place.

I also inquired why she had included (*) in her statements, because I didn’t read any fine print or addendum to the email that would explain their purpose.

I discussed the competition argument in light of HP’s (mostly) open supplier list and their ability to still remain competitive. I stated that I would like to continue the dialogue to receive more information about what their policy really meant.

This letter was sent 8 days ago and I am still waiting on a further response from Toshiba, which if past actions are an indicator, should be about another week out.

I am sick and tired of hearing claim after claim from these companies with no proof or backing for the claims. Most of the time they don’t even directly answer my questions (like in this email), they skirt the issue with other claims. Transparency is key. You can reveal your suppliers and still be competitive. You can open your company to scruitiny and still be competitive. In fact, I would be more likely to purchase your product if you allowed scruitiny into your product line, EVEN if it was possible that human rights abuses were still happening. The reasoning for this– you are at least making an effort and want the people to actually know what you are doing and not just using another marketing ploy to fool people into buying into your brand.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in my quest for a conflict free laptop, rebecca sargent's posts | 1 Comment »

Tags: , , , , ,
March 5, 2009

Evolutions of peacekeeping: The UN’s constraints to global conflict resolution.

The UN’s peacekeeping role in global conflicts has evolved since the first mission in 1948. Since World War Two there has been a reported rapid decline in traditional interstate conflict, which seems to have been replaced by a rise in intrastate conflict (Yilmaz, 2005: 13). There has also been an increased tendency to describe the conflicts occurring after the 1980s as “ethnically-based” (Gilley, 2004: 1155), changing the way collective security forces respond to disputes. This change from interstate political wars to “ethnic civil wars” makes it natural for many outside parties to assume that the warring country will settle the conflict itself, as it is seen as their own concern and business, and based on long-standing hatreds . However, uncontrolled escalations, and psychological components such as increased tensions, lack of trust, suspicion, and biased communication, makes those disputing unable design a solution since they are the least equipped to stop the fighting. A third party, in this situation can be the difference. The UN has increasingly been this party, as the “grand guardian” of international peace and security in the world (Yilmaz, 2005: 14). The lack of success in many UN peacekeeping missions is based on a variety of factors which hinders its capability to fully act and transform the conflict into non-violent solutions. The UN’s evolving medley of structures is currently incapable of dealing with the roots of global violence and must be re-designed to reflect the current realities, focusing on transforming the UN itself and the sources of global dispute into non-violent structures.

The international community expects more from the UN than any other party in solving disputes, even though member states so often ignore their role in keeping this institution alive. Despite these intense expectations and UN involvement in over 60 peacekeeping operations so far, the term “peacekeeping” is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the UN Charter, making the actual concept incredibly ambiguous within the organization. Peacekeeping evolved as a pragmatic solution in the early years of the organization, and is often referred to at the UN as “Chapter 6-and-a-half” since it falls between Chapter 6 of the UN Charter (on Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and Chapter 7 (on Action with Respect to Threats of Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) and is not specifically outlined or defined anywhere (Yilmaz, 2005: 15). Peacekeeping evolved as a non-coercive instrument at a time when Cold War constraints prohibited the use of more forceful steps permitted by the Charter. Peacekeeping without combat connotations emerged. This called for trained military personnel not to wage war, but to prevent fighting between warring parties, ensure the maintenance of cease-fires, and to provide some stability while negotiations are conducted (Nambiar, 1999).

The non-use of force has been central to UN peacekeeping for many years, with more than half of operations prior to 1988 consisting of only unarmed military observers who were allowed to use force only in cases of self-defense. The non-use of force has been critiqued as making peacekeeping ineffective, but has also been seen as essential to ensuring the legitimacy and credibility of the organization. For example, in Cyprus in 1974 and Lebanon in 1982 the presence of UN peacekeeping troops could not prevent the breakdown of order and the subsequent foreign invasions that resulted in tremendous violence because of their non-use of force left them powerless (Yilmaz, 2005: 16). To keep legitimacy and credibility, peacekeeping at the UN has always been based on a triad of principles: the consent of the parties to the conflict, the impartiality of the peacekeepers and the use of force by lightly armed peacekeepers only in self defense. The reality of meeting these principles in violent conflict is remote. Consent by warring parties to be restrained by the UN is only really possible if there are already negotiations going on and relative peace to keep between the parties. By their very nature, enforcement actions are subjective and biased towards one side. Peace enforcement is no different. Many believe that force must be met with force, and the only way for peacekeepers to keep peace is through intense enforcement and military solutions (Nambiar, 1999).

Certain international actors often feel that the UN’s non-use of force mandate prevents it from making any real progress towards peace. Individual nations have instead taken on military action themselves with the alleged intention of stopping violence, often even with Security Council authorization (for example, Korea in 1950 and Persian Gulf War in 1990). The end of the Cold War saw a removal of the perceived major obstacle to implementing collective security; the end of hostile relations between the United States and the Soviet Union (Clark, 1995: 238-9). The end of the Cold war also resulted in a decline of the use of the veto in the UN Security Council (Yilmaz, 2005: 17), which has in the past few years again started to increase (Global Policy Forum, October, 2008). Some states have been reluctant to trust the UN to act (especially in cases that affect their own interests), and so are increasingly more likely to take matters into their own hands (Clark, 1995: 238-9), as has been the case for the US.

The veto privilege held by 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) works against the UN’s aim to be legitimate and credible. The veto privilege allows these members to stop any action of the UNSC (responsible for global peace and security, economic sanctioning, trusteeship functions and UN peacekeeping initiatives) by exercising their veto. Since the UN’s inception in 1946, there have been 261 vetoes in the Security Council: 124 by the USSR/Russia, 82 by the US, 32 by Britain, 18 by France, and 6 by China. Among the actions vetoed were potential peacekeeping operations, such as the vetoes by the US in 2001, 2004, and 2006 that prevented the UN from demanding a cessation of violence in the Gaza strip and the establishment of a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians. Lebanon’s complaints against Israeli violence (1986, 1988); Nicaragua’s complaints against US violence (1984-86); complaints against South Africa of violence by Angola, Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (1981, 1986); Libya’s complaint against US attack (1989); Grenada’s complaint against invasion by US troops (1983); and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980) were all ignored by the UN because they were vetoed in the UNSC. The veto privilege also resulted in full out war being ignored on several occasions by the UN (in Lebanon, Panama, occupied Palestine, Namibia, Nicaragua to name a few; Global Policy Forum, October, 2008). This has resulted in inequitable structures in a body that is meant to be impartial in maintaining global peace and security. Peace and security is clearly only maintained for some.

The deployment of UN peace enforcement and peacekeeping forces has been moderately successful at resolving disputes between larger players and may be essential to terminate these types of conflict. It is currently not sufficient, however, for the local disputes, long term recovery of a conflict or for addressing the root cause of the conflict. In order for long term recovery to happen, intense DDR (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants), civilian policing programs, judicial programs, law reform programs and conflict transformation programs must be in place to help re-order society and instill some sense of stability and rule-of-law. Sadly, these programs often receive comparatively meager funding next to other initiatives, such as running “democratic” elections (Global Policy Forum, 2004). The “democratic” push has also had the effect of calling into question the impartiality and motive of the UN and international structures, as the implementation of market democracy through aid programs is often seen as “western” and almost colonial, leading to increased ethnic tension and global insecurity (Chua, 2003).

Inequitable structures that fail to provide basic political and civic freedoms are most often the cause of “ethnic conflict”, which has been on the rise globally since the end of the Cold War (Gilley, 2004: 1162). In the Congo, for example, ancient ethnic hatreds are often cited as the reason for conflict in the region. Colonial and political choices that favored arbitrary groups of people over other groups cemented divisions along “ethnic” lines and ensured one group’s access to resources, opportunities and services over the others. This fueled tensions and led to conflict (Jackson, 2007). Ethnic groups in the Congo lived (and continue to live) in mostly intermixed communities and are not completely homogenous and static (Pottier, 2008). Ancient ethnic hatreds are seen as almost natural and inevitable; making action to stop them unlikely. Rarely are the underlying roots of the conflict (the colonial or political choices, access to resources, etc.) addressed, making continual conflict inevitable. The focus on ethnicity has prevented the UN from taking action in many cases.

When the UN peacekeeping forces are not inhibited by vetoes, ethnicity or other factors and decide to act to keep the peace; they are still incredibly restrained in their capabilities. Member States are important for support, financially, logistically and in troop commitment. The debt owed by the 15 largest payers of the peacekeeping budget is certainly a cause for concern. The US currently owes $1.466 billion in debt to the UN; Japan owes $832 million; France owes $235 million; China owes $213 million; and Germany, the UK, Italy, Canada, Spain, Mexico, Korea, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, and Russia are all among the top debtors. These millions of owed dollars prevent the UN from being able to properly implement its missions (Global Policy Forum, November, 2008). Dues for peacekeeping missions are collected separately, allowing for each member state to reject funding for individual projects as they choose (Yilmaz, 2005: 24).Calls for troop support are commonly ignored by international players who are over committed to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, with priorities of defending “terrorist actions” (Yilmaz, 2005: 21-2). Without its Member States support, the UN is virtually useless to act and prevent violence.

The genocide in Rwanda and massacre in Srebrenica and the failure of the UN to prevent these atrocities, led in 1999 to the Brahimi Report, recommending a funding minimum and personnel requirements for UN peacekeeping missions. New peacekeeping missions grew by almost 50% in the summer of 2006, stretching the peacekeeping resources of the UN to the extreme. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for peacekeeping reform and re-structuring of the UN peacekeeping structures in February of 2007, was at first rejected by the General Assembly. In July of 2007, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) was restructured to focus on operations, leaving management and logistics to the newly created Department of Field Support (Pelz and Lehmann, 2007). This restructuring ignored the other problems faced by the DPKO and left it still incapable of addressing root causes of conflict.

If countries ignore the UN and its missions, it loses its power and its meaning in the international community. The UN is important because it is the only place where all countries can work together and have a voice, and is the best chance for peace in the world. The UN is capable of much more than it is currently doing, but it does not have the resources to do these things alone. It must have the support of its Members in the international community to work, who must practice what they preach and provide their promised share in the international community. The UN can work if it is provided the proper resources and support to actually run. Major violators should not be allowed to decide what methods of peace should be used in an area that they have a hand in violating. This is wrong and is preventing justice from existing in the world. All violators should be brought to justice, regardless of whether they hold a veto power or not.

The current state of the UN is inequitable. How can the UN possibly inspire positive peace, if its own structures are so incredibly unjust? The current international peacekeeping strategy is based on an evolution of changing ideologies and as such, is incapable of truly handling conflict. It must be restructured to address the political choices, colonial legacies, and continuing inequitable structures that enhance tensions and ensure continual conflict. It must also be restructured to address financing and troop support issues. It is time to learn from past mistakes and create a new structure that tackles all of the inequities of the former structures. Without this, there can be no possibility for peace in the near future.

Sources:
1) Chua, Amy. 2003. World on fire: How exporting free market democracy breeds ethnic hatred and global instability. Doubleday. Random House. 329 pages.
2) Clark, Mark T. Spring 1995. The trouble with collective security. Orbis. Vol. 39, No.2. pp. 237- 258.
3) Gilley, Bruce. 2004. Against the concept of ethnic conflict. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 25, No. 6. Pp. 1155-1166.
4) Global Policy Forum. December 4, 2004. UN panel on reforming UN peacekeeping recommends a new peacebuilding commission. Citizens for Global Solutions.
5) Global Policy Forum. October 7, 2008. Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes. Global Policy Forum.
6) Global Policy Forum. November, 2008. Debt of 15 largest payers to the peacekeeping budget 2008. Global Policy Forum. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from
7) Jackson, Stephen. November, 2007. Of ‘doubtful nationality’: Political manipulation of citizenship in the DR Congo. Citizenship Studies. Vol. 11, Issue 5; 481-500.
8) Nambiar, Lt. Gen. Satish. March 17-19, 1999. UN peacekeeping operations: Problems and prospects. Embassy of India.
9) Pelz, Timo and Lehmann, Volker. November 2007. The evolution of UN peacekeeping (2): Reforming DPKO. Dialogue on Globalization. Friedrich Ebert Foundation. New York.
10) Pottier, Johan. 2008. Displacement and ethnic reintegration in Ituri, DR Congo: Challenges ahead. Journal of Modern African Studies. Vol. 46, Issue 3; 427-450.
11) Yilmaz, Muzaffer Ercan. June 2005. UN peacekeeping in the post-cold war era. International Journal on World Peace. Vol. XXII, No. 2.


Bookmark and Share

Posted in Canada, Human rights abuses, peacekeeping, rebecca sargent's posts, United Nations | 2 Comments »

Tags: , ,
March 1, 2009

Ethnic Conflict

There is a modern tendency to refer to wars as ethnically or culturally based.  But what is ethnicity really? Is everyone in one group of the same thinking? Ethnicity is fluid, changing and constantly evolving, not something that is static. Ethnicity or culture is something that is self-identified, and has been known to change over a life time. When it comes to conflict, this ethnic label allows for no real political solution to end the war. It is seen as something that must be worked out between the ethnicities, an ancient hatred that is not easily resolved; but what is the reality of this? In most cases where “ethnic” war has been declared, different ethnicities lived side by side in the cities for generations or millennia with little problem. They may have even had high intermarriage and mixing rates in some areas.
I have heard stories from my older Lebanese friends of Jew, Christian, Muslim and Druze all living within one city’s walls as neighbours, sharing and intermixing before the wars (at least to some degree) and how this changed once the wars began. The census statistics would seem to back part of this up.
I have watched documentaries like “We are all neighbours” by anthropologist Tone Bringa (I urge you to watch this!), a sad realization of the situation in the former Yugoslav nations. This movie traces the friendships between the ethnic communities before the war started, and follows the progression as the violence intensifies. It shows once loving neighbours turn against each other in rapid progression in the wake of hostility and propaganda. It shows elderly neighbours, life-long best friends of fighting ethnic backgrounds who turn against each other as fear takes hold. It is heartbreaking to watch, but this type of progression is found in most of the so-called “ethnic” conflicts.
These conflicts are not ethnic; this is merely the manifestation and progression of how the conflicts are shaping themselves. It is not about religion or culture or ethnic background. It is more about inequity within the systems combined with intensive war-time propaganda and political policies that shift the blame for this inequity onto specific ethnic groups or citizenship regimes that reward one population over another. Propaganda gets spread to the populations to engrain this into their heads and becomes the new “truth”. Textbooks and other educational materials made by the governments may even back it up.
A glaring example of these political realities and ethnic labeling can be found in the DR Congo.

As many as 200 ethnic groups live within the borders of the DRC. Divisions in Congolese society, however, run deeper than ethnic heritage, with separations also running along language, class, political, cultural and citizenship lines. Ethnic, cultural or language groups are often allied with other groups, political parties, governments and organizations, blurring the exact lines between warring parties. The continuing conflict in the DRC has often been referred to as “ethnic”, despite the fluidity of ethnicities and the fact that ethnic segregation is something most ordinary Congolese resist, having lived in multi-ethnic communities for generations. Ethnicities in the DRC are incredibly overlapping and heavily inter-mixed by marriage, and continue to be inter-mixed despite the war.

In the DR Congo, colonialization is still playing its role in inequitable systems. Belgian colonial powers attempted to separate the Lendu peoples (a cultural group) from the Hema peoples, giving them strict administrative boundaries (although they had lived together intermixing for generations before this). The Belgians regarded the Hema as a superior race, and gave them privileged access to education, land, administration and commerce. They decided who was in which cultural group rather arbitrarily, sometimes based solely on outward physical features. From the 1930s to the 1950s the Belgian administrators started to deliberately transplant Hutus and Tutsis from Rwanda into the Congo to help and alleviate the demographic pressure in famine-prone parts of Rwanda and to meet growing labor demands in colonial plantations and mines in the Congo. These people, commonly referred to as Rwandophones often stayed on in the DRC and had families here.

At Independence, it was decided by Constitutional decree that only one Congolese nationality existed and only those ethnic groups (not individuals) who were declared as occupying the territory prior to 1908 were granted this privilege. Many Rwandophones whose families had been residing in the Congo since the start of colonialization, were denied citizenship rights on this basis. The citizenship decree was annulled in 1981, and the occupying date was pushed back to 1855, still excluding many. 

In 1973, authoritarian ruler Mobutu Sese Seko began his zaireanization process in an attempt to reverse the colonial policies. Post-colonial reorganization attempts to incorporate another ethnic group (the Ngiti) resulted in depriving them of access to Lake Albert (the main water source) and created ethnic tensions which can still be felt today.

Mobutu also began transferring ownership of ex-colonial plantations in Ituri (in the North of the country) over to elite Hema individuals. He manipulated ethnic divisions over identity and land ownership to reward his political followers. His General Property Law of 1973 allowed land to be privatized (including ancestral land), and sped up the process where Hema cattle herders could displace Lendu agriculturalists. The elite Hema, who dominated local governance, passed this law because it was beneficial to them.

Much of the population wrongly believed they could still inherit ancestral land, but this new law allowed land to be sold privately, without the occupier’s notice. The Law stipulated that occupiers should be given a two year grace period to leave their land, which was subsequently ignored by the Ugandan troops (assisting the Congolese government) in the area who instantaneously evicted mostly Lendu from their lands.

Another deal between Mobutu and Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana allowed one ethnic group (the Banyarwanda) to take over territories in North Kivu. Local chiefs and non-Banyarwanda, fearing encroachment by these land expropriations began forming local militias to protect themselves. Between 6,000 and 10,000 people were killed and more than 250,000 were displaced in clashes in this one area over land in 1993 alone.

A fragile peace was achieved soon after, but was subsequently destroyed when more than one million Hutu refugees (including members of the interahamwe militia responsible for the Rwandan genocide) fleeing the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) settled in the DRC in 1994-5. Many of the refugees were heavily armed and with the help of local Congolese Hutu and propaganda, transferred the conflict and began killing the Congolese Tutsi. The Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Zaire headed by Laurent Kabila, scattered the interahamwe militia throughout the DRC (then named Zaire) and captured Kinshasa in 1997, overthrowing Mobutu from his 32 year rule. Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, angered that they did not receive remuneration expected for helping to topple Mobutu, stayed in the country and began extensively plundering its wealth. In response, Kabila’s new government began arming the interahamwe and other local militias (especially the Mai Mai) in an attempt to drive these foreigners out. Rwanda responded by attacking the largest towns in the Kivus through proxy armies such as the Rassamblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RDC).

This type of political and citizenship manipulation is separating ethnic groups and creating hatreds among them, and is still happening in the DRC to this day. In fact, the examples go on and on.  It is happening also all over the world, in many other countries. The next time you hear a story about ancient ethnic hatreds, think twice and do some digging. You may just find there is much more to the conflict than meets the eye. 


Bookmark and Share

 

 

Posted in Africa, Human rights abuses, rebecca sargent's posts | 4 Comments »

Tags: , , , , ,
  |  
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 157 other followers