יום הזיכרון לש

יום הזיכרון לש

Today in Israel is Yom HaZikaron LaShoa VeLagvura, or Holocaust Remembrance Day.

According to Wikipedia :

At 10:00am on Yom HaShoah, air-raid sirens sound for two minutes throughout Israel. Public transport (including virtually all highway vehicles) comes to a standstill for this period, and people stop and stand silent. During Yom HaShoah, much public entertainment and many public establishments in Israel are closed by law. Israeli television and radio channels transmit mourning songs and documentaries about the Holocaust, and no commercials. All flags on public buildings are flown at half mast.

"Ani Maamin" is a common prayer sung in remembrance. Here's a bit of it:

Ani maamin beemuna shlemah

B'viat hamashiach

V'af al pi sheyitmameha

Im kol zeh achake lo

B'chol yom sheyavo

(I believe with a complete belief

In the coming of the Messiah

And even though he may tarry

I will wait for him, whenever he comes)

And because everything can be brought back to Latin:

Sunt lacrimae rērum et mentem mortālia tangunt
"There, tears for the mortal way of the world brush our minds." (Aeneid I, 462)

UARC

UARC seems to have brought the extremist out in everyone. The liberals have ceased hugging trees; now they've climbed up and moved into them. The conservatives are bursting blood vessels, losing their voices screaming "Support the troops, support America, save UARC!" But where are the moderates? Google has apparently hidden them and their reasonable blogs in some parallel, unattainable cyber world.

Some background:
The popular issue at UH was never about whether there should be a UARC or not, the issue revolved only around the actions of the oft refered "Save UH/Stop UARC Coalition." For those who somehow escaped that mess, for a week in May, about 30 students and faculty sat in our uni president's office in protest of a proposed implementation of a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), which would bring in millions of dollars over the space of five years, to the delight of some, and pain of others. The action quickly became overblown. Hell, our uni paper Ka Leo O Hawaii, would report everytime a protestor would whistle them over, whether there was something to report or not. However, after some of us protested at the unprofessionalism of the protestors, only the most sychophantic of Ka Leo reporters could get into the protestor's barricade. Then the protestors began calling the other couriers of Hawaii media with the same indiscretion.

I was down there every day of the protest, and of all the striking images of solidarity and "courage" I saw, the one that sticks with me still is of a protestor posing for a photograph at the president's desk, feet up and with a wide smile. Commentary unecessary.

I remember watching odd glee shine in the eyes of the boy I was dating at the time as he described how the local papers had begun to capitalize the "C" in "Coalition," ostensibly his prerogative. This glee was the intangible representative of how ridiculous the situation had become. For years, no one took part or initiated protests at UH, and suddenly because some students, who were, make no mistake, highly driven, well educated and committed, protested, everyone with a grievance with UH, Hawaii, Lingle, ah hell, the world, joined in.

The first time I discovered Andrew Walden and I shared similar views on the behavior of UHer's Anti-UARC crew, the phrase "politics makes for strange bedfellows" suddenly became illuminated in a new, sickly way. NB - emphasis on "behavior." Walden is convinced the anti-UARCers are just another cog in the anti-American death machine. I think the protestors had a damn good cause, but evidently no one in charge knew how to run a protest. Thus, a disorganized and elitist movement results.

While I was a senior in high school, Bush declared war on Iraq. About 40 of us began wearing shirts, divided fairly evenly, half wearing pro-war shirts, the other half wearing anti-war shirts. What resulted was a textbook case of disjunctivity. The self/other lines were drawn up, mythico-histories were forged, imagined communities flourished, (yea, we were a dedicated bunch of protestors) and so on. I don't think we broke down those barriers until graduation day.
I did learn a few things though. The brilliance of the democrat was found in the ability to inspire the emotions, to involve the apathetic. Likewise, the republican, in the organization, the uniformity of opinion and appearance (all the shirts of the pro-war students were the same, professional designed).
Amazingly, two years and 7,000 miles later, the same occurence. There was nowhere an uninformed student could go to hear a presentation of facts and opinions without being recruited by a Navy officer, or harassed by a protestor in a monkey suit. There was and still is nowhere a haven for the student of moderate views.
Today, I read this problem has become more pronounced. Anti-UARCers are interupting class time to present their case. (Ironically, these are the same people who had refused to create a petition for the cause last May) This link isn't the best explaination for what is going on, but sadly, seems to be the only one available.
I pay quite a bit for a rather inferior education at UH, and if I was in a class which was suddenly interupted by biased students... well, I'd be doing some interupting of my own. If these students wish to reach others so badly, then let them do it at their own inconvienance.

Thanatos

Have I become too cynical?
The problem with wanting to work in the field of genocide prevention/analysis is that you're working in the field of genocide. After a certain point, you become convinced that all humans want to do is die, and if they themselves can't, then they'll do most anything to help other people reach this goal. We sell drugs and guns with a fanaticism. We watch hundreds of thousands be slaughtered by thousands of others. Then when the slaughterers run out of ammo, we bend over backwards to re-supply them. Indonesia 75, anyone? We place UN generals in impossible positions and then crucify them after with a sadistic joy. Humans are expendable, but some of us are just a bit more precious than others. A thousand people die in a stampede in one part of the world, and a couple hundred die from a hurricane in another... no perspective. Why should we try and write treaties that no one follows? We kid ourselves. Just treading water til some shark comes along.

Dues to Progeny

What do we owe to our progeny?

I went to the Siemens' web-page today to see what slant they threw on their business's history. Labelling the time from 1919-1945, as a "Period of Change," they conveniently forgot to mention where they were located while building those electron accelerators in the '40's. Siemens, along with I.G. Farben and Volkswagon, was one of the largest corporate supporters of the Nazi Party. Nazi engineers purposely constructed concentration camps around the Siemen buildings.

Today, there's a Siemens building in my hometown. When I first read about Siemens' role in WWII, I was literally in a state of shock that this coporation, who proudly flaunts their role in globalization, could exist so easily in a pre-dominantely Jewish town.

What corporations will we look back on in horror fifty or even a hundred years down the line? More importantly, after the initial shock wears off, will we continue to tolerate them? On a microcosmic scale, what of the dictators from whom the corporations profitted?

Augusto Pinochet, dictator of the military government in Chile between 1973-1990, implemented neoliberal philosophies and committed grave breaches of human rights while in office. While on medical leave to Britian in 1998, he was arrested by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon. After house arrest for a year, he returned home to Chile for medical reasons. Due to 'vascular dementia,' he is not required to stand trial for his crimes.

This is not by any means the first time a dictator has escaped the hook of public scrutiny and trial. Beyond medical reasons, often the leaders of such crimes plead impunity via sovereignty, an act which has its modern origins in the American arguement in Versailles. (One never knows when the winning side will finally lose)
During the Nuremberg Trials, this impunity was questioned and subsequently, in theory, destroyed.
"The idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits crimes, is a fiction. Crimes always are committed by persons...It is quite intolerant to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity." (Jackson, Goring's American cross-examiner)

It was thus the world swore humanity must come before personal gain, and if such humanity is violated, those offenders must be sanctioned.
Of course, the Cold War then set in, and the Japanese scientists under legal and social persecution suddenly found themselves being courted by both the East and the West. Such is the example in Unit 731 in Manchuria, where the US, in a race with the USSR, granted the scientists immunity in exchange for their results of their Mengele type experiments.

One step forward, two steps back, with another half step forward.

And still, the question remains, what do we own to our progeny? The obligatory 'erga omnes' arises only post facto a crime against humanity. When John Bolton was under consideration for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., he was asked what actions he would have taken during the Rwanda genocide of '94. He replied, in an extremely euphemistic speech, that it would depend on the 'logistics' of the situation.

No 'erga omnes', no action.

To argue the other side, there have been successful cases in the field. In Trajano vs. Marcos, the Federal Appeals Court found the "Act of State" doctrine did not protect the former Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos, who had pled immunity regarding the torture, murder, and disappearance of student Decleimedes Trajano. US $150 million was awarded, to be split among 10,000 plantiffs.

"Riddle"

From Belsen a crate of gold teeth,
from Dachau a mountain of shoes,
from Auschwitz a skin lampshade.
Who killed the Jews?

Not I, cries the typist,
not I, cries the engineer,
not I, cries Adolf Eichmann,
not I, cries Albert Speer.

My fried Fritz Nova lost his father-
a petty official had to choose.
My friend Lou Abrahms lost his brother.
Who killed the Jews?

David Nova swallowed gas,
Hyman Abrahms was beaten and starved.
Some men signed their papers,
and some stood guard.

and some herded them in,
and some dropped the pellets,
and some spread the ashes,
and some hosed the walls,

and some planted the wheat,
and some poured the steel,
and some cleared the rails,
and some raised the cattle.

Some smelled the smoke,
some just heard the news.
Were they Germans? Were they Nazis?
Were they human? Who killed the Jews?

The stars will remember the gold
the sun will remember the shoes,
the moon will remember the skin.
But who killed the Jews?

"Riddle"
William Heyen
The Swastika Poems

Justice and Politics in World Order

To what extent is the maintenance of international order between states undermined by the defence or protection of international human rights?

Firstly, I'd like to point out the negative connotation within the question. In the Toonen Case, the maintenance of international order was upheld, rather than undermined, due to the protection of human rights. In this case, Tasmania, Australia, was ordered by federal courts to abolish the criminalization of homosexuality by citing the HRC. (Human Rights Committee)
That having been said, there are countless examples of nations ignoring grave breaches of human rights in order to maintain international trade. One such example that comes to mind is that of Wal-Mart's relationship with China. Under American law, Wal-Mart could be prevented from such explicit trade with China. However, despite American recognition of China's violations of human rights, Wal-Mart continues trade, to such a degree they are in fact China's largest exporting customer.
However, human rights violations rarely disrupt the facilitation of international trade
and commerce. Such human right violations, from a eurocentric view, include honor killings, genital mutilations, rape, censorship, and religious persecution.
Until 'erga omnes' in regards to human rights is felt, violations will be ignored. An example of this feeling succeeding in the consciousness of nations is in the Velasquez Rodriquez Case, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights stated Article 1 of the American Convention creates an obligation on states to investigate and punish violations of human rights, but to also prevent them.
There are three steps for this universal feeling of obligation:
opinio juries ---> jus cogens -----> erga omnes

Democratization: Comparative Studies

Some notes on today's readings:

Joseph Schumpeter in the 1940's challenged the classical theory of democracy and ended up creating a new, nearly uncontested theory.
The classical theory, as he defined it was, "the will of the people (source) and the 'common good' (purpose).'
He began by outlining the common good as simplistic and obvious; the challenge was in differing background philosophies of the people, thus differing perspectives on this meta-common good. However, by doing away with ignorance, stupidity, (he had a sense of humor) and sinister interests, the essance of the common good can be expounded by the specialists we elect. Nonetheless, while the people may agree upon a common good, the individualistic aspects will be under constant and controversial scrutiny- ie, the community agrees on healthcare, however, there may be disagreements on the inclusion of birth control or vaccinations.
The utilitarian view uses rational arguements to create a unity in individual voices, versus the romantist view of the "soul of the people."
The classical theory of democracy propounded the need for people to decide an issue, and then elect officials to represent these issues and people. Schumpeter's theory reverses this role, - a move easily viewed during any election in a Western democracy.
He defines the democratic method as "an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for election."
The essay ended on the point the will of the majority is not necessarily the will of the people. The commonsense solution would be therefore poportional representation. However, in a time of duress, such a system would be unwieldy and lacking in effectivity.

In the 1990's, Samuel Huntington continued on this vein, solidfying the definition of democracy in his " The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century"
His analysis was parallel to Robert Dahl's idea of a 'polyarchy' or rule of the minorities as the closest realization of democracy which includes contestation and participation (political freedoms included in this definition are such of publication, speech, debate, organization, and assembly)
For the sake of brevity, the five points in defining democracy are outlined below
1. Free and fair elections
2. Those elected are those who wield the power (ie - there are no puppet governments)
3. Stable political systems (coups, which may be possible, are not plausible)
4. Democracy viewed as a dichotomous variable - (he's examining the transition of non-democratic regimes to democratic, so the concept of 'semi-democracies is plausible, ie, the case of Turkey during 1950-1960's)
5. This point is more focused on the defining of authoritarian versus totalitarian. The totalitarian is viewed more as: single party ruled by one man, pervasive and powerful secret police, highly developed idealogy which is close to being recognized, and total governmental control over mass communications.
Contrasted to the authoritarian: single party, weak idealogy, no effort to remake the society, and no mass mobilization.


Dankwart Rustow, in the 1960's examined how the democratic system may be best upheld. The bit of his work I read really didn't deal with any relevant points to the issue, but there was an interesting quote by Bernard Crick:
"...The moral consensus of a free state is not something mysteriously prior to or above politics: it is the activity of politics itself."
Thus, it is not within theory we find democracy, but rather in the middleclass bodies in voting booths. It is also within the tenuosity and malleability of the mentality during a time of conflict that the strength of that particular democracy can be found.
For example, during the American crisis of 11 Sept., the American people did not turn inward to critique their government (when examining it topographically) but rather united with it, to resolve a common conflict. Also can be found in the American mentality during the Cold War. Also during the "Blitz" in England in 1940's or during Margaret Thatcher's war against the Argentinians in Falkan Isl.
Here the idea of a national unity for the common good is found. It is precisely that which is required within nations who seek to form a democratic nation. The background condition, often created by conflict, to the new implementation would be this national unity, which can be a language, religion, or culture. Rather linear. In order to create a democracy, there must be a national unity, for which there must be conflict. Otherwise, there is no initiative need for change.

Lastly, F. Fukuyama, in the 1990's work "The End of History and the Last Man" reflects on the cyclical nature of democracies. Most notable were his charts of Liberal Democracies worldwide over the past two hundred years. His conclusion was that despite the reversals of some democracies back into non-democratic systems, (ie - Latin America had fewer democracies than in 1955) these reversals often reversed themselves, so today we have more democratic systems than before in history. He also notes the ability of non Western democracies to create their own terms of human rights without reverting the 'Eurocentric' viewpoints.