Human Rights

Featured Globalization Human Rights Military Security Technology

Borders, Bodies, and Biometrics

The camera does not flash as it scans your face. Instead, a green check appears on the screen as the turnstile opens smoothly to let you through. Boarding pass proven useless, you walk through the gate and board the plane hassle-free. “So quick [you] couldn’t believe it”, quips the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s website. It cites the use of facial recognition as a way to make air travel a seamless experience for both travelers and officers. It also attributes its decision to adopt this technology in part to the growing popularity of biometric identification in unlocking cellphones and other everyday devices.

Biometrics refer to digital data on any biological characteristics unique to an individual. This can include fingerprints, face, voice, retina, or iris recognition technology, as well as information on a person’s hand geometry, gait, body movements, and even DNA. The accuracy of comprehensive biometric data is unparalleled by other technology, far surpassing traditional methods of identification such as photo IDs. Recent advances have spurred massive growth of biometrics in public, private, and commercial sectors, with global market size expected to reach USD 59.31 billion by 2025. Biometrics have become most widely used to prove identity in citizenship, personal technology, and surveillance, and have proven to be the most infallible way to counter security threats both in the physical world and online.

At the same time, the development of biometrics has raised legal and ethical questions surrounding data privacy in a globalized world. Article 12 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights lists the right to privacy as fundamental, stating that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”. This sentiment is echoed in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and specifically in General Comment 16, which states that personal information held on “computers, data banks, and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals, must be regulated by law”. The European Union has espoused the most stringent regulations on privacy to date with the passing of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016, which has since taken effect in all EU member states. Citing concerns about infringing on the “rights and freedoms of citizens”, GDPR has prohibited the use of biometrics for identification purposes, except in the case of extenuating circumstances and with an individual’s explicit consent.

No such regulations exist in the United States, with only three states adopting legislation ensuring privacy over biometric data. Illinois, Texas, and Washington have passed various versions of biometric privacy laws, noting pervasive data sharing by tech giants and the critical nature of biometric information. Large-scale legislation has yet to gain support in the U.S., as biometrics have proliferated technology markets and become a familiar part of security authentication in apps, banks, workplaces, and airports.

Even with the success of biometrics in the private sector, some of its most impactful applications are in intelligence and national security. Capital investments in biometrics skyrocketed after 9/11, as security launched to the forefront of American consciousness. The Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, gave the government a green light on surveillance of suspected terrorist activity and tightened border security measures. As the War on Terror dominated American foreign policy, biometrics began to expand the reach of American intelligence both at home and abroad. Today, the U.S. government spends over $700 million a year on biometric research, and any person who crosses an American border must provide biometric information to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services upon entry. This allows officers to conduct criminal background checks, as well as monitor immigration status depending on a person’s country of origin.

As a result, growing concern exists as to the implications of this for international norm and even policy. If biometrics are so widely used on a national level, what does a world filled with biometric information look like? Due to the reach of the digital economy today, individuals have little control over where their data goes should it be compromised. Cybersecurity presents a significant threat worldwide, and surveillance states such as China systematically deploy biometric technology to suppress minority populations. Chen Quanguo, Communist Party Secretary and the architect behind Muslim internment camps in China, rose to power through his implementation of a “grid management” surveillance system that uses facial recognition to police the movement of Uighur Muslims. Security checkpoints on roads and train stations, cellphone confiscation, and the withdrawal of passports prevent Uighurs from leaving these centers or traveling abroad. China claims that the purpose of detainment is to counter terrorism and religious radicalization, but the mass imprisonment of its Muslim minority has received international condemnation for human rights violations. Even though biometric technology has the potential to strengthen national security, it can also legitimize ethnic discrimination and racial profiling in many cases.

The use of biometrics in these contexts has redefined the role of biology in questions of political legitimacy. Rather than focusing on an individual’s record, biometrics place identity at the forefront of questions of national security. When a traveler, immigrant, or refugee is asked “who are you?” before they are asked “what have you done?”, their biological self begins to determine their geopolitical status. This creates an environment ripe for biases, explicit or implicit, to creep in and drive policy. For example, the U.S. has long treated people of Middle Eastern descent with suspicion because of risks associated with terrorism. However, the entrance of biometrics into the public sphere allows this discrimination to be systematized and legitimized under the law. President Trump’s Muslim travel ban itself cut the admission of Muslim refugees to the U.S. by 91 percent, and visa approvals for immigrants from majority Muslim countries have fallen 30 percent since 2016. 155,000 fewer tourists, students, and guest workers from the Muslim world entered the U.S. in 2017 than in 2016. The combination of Islamophobic policy with advances in biometrics have made the U.S. an unwelcome and even dangerous destination for applicants from many Muslim countries. The way that biometrics combine biological identity with political status creates a system that, by definition, makes some people more secure at the expense of others.

The concept of embodying citizenship has changed the face of international migration and surveillance. Instead of having to be a member of a biological tribe to belong, one now has to be a part of a state’s biometric tribe that determines acceptance based on the geopolitical status of identity alone. And because technology invariably develops faster than the law, the world is woefully unprepared to address the legal and ethical questions raised by these developments. The European Union’s GDPR is the most extensive data regulation law in the world, but even it has limits in its scope to manage the use of biometrics internationally. Most biometric research is conducted in the United States, and until national legislation is enacted to address it, this technology will continue to drive intelligence and border security initiatives, as well as flourish in the private sector. The lack of international legal precedent concerning biometric data also poses a serious obstacle to justice. Until these questions are addressed in an international court, biometric data proliferation in the public and private sector will continue to press against the fine line of the human right to privacy.

April 8, 2019 0 comment

Source

Featured Globalization Human Rights Internet Journalism Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Multinational Corporations and the EU’s New Data Laws

written by Eden Ballard

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

This sentiment is echoed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17, Right to Privacy. On April 8th 1988 the UN adopted general comment number 16 to article 17 which states that:

The gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices, whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law. Effective measures have to be taken by States to ensure that information concerning a person’s private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, and is never used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant. In order to have the most effective protection of his private life, every individual should have the right to ascertain in an intelligible form, Whether, and if so, What personal data is stored in automatic data ﬁles, and for What purposes. Every individual should also be able to, ascertain which public authorizes or private individuals or bodies control or may control their ﬁles. If such ﬁles contain incorrect personal data or have been collected or processed contrary to the provisions of the law, every individual should have the right to request rectification or elimination.

Nearly 31 years old, this statement has gone largely ignored as the internet exploded and user engagement far outpaced any thought to user privacy. This changed on May 25th, 2018 when the European Union took a major step in protecting the privacy rights of individual users by adopting the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The website created for the GDPR boasts that it is “the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years.” This regulation impacts how the the privacy of more than 500 million EU citizens will be protected from exploitation by online service providers. With the approval of the General Data Protection Regulation, the European Union has shown that it holds individual privacy to be of the utmost importance.

The GDPR applies to the conduct of all companies that provide services for EU residents, even if it is only for one EU resident. It aims to safeguard against individual users’ data being used in ways they do not knowingly consent to and mandates that consent can be withdrawn as easily as it is granted. This ability to withdrawal consent protects what they call “The Right to Be Forgotten.” One of the main ways that this is protected is by prohibiting from using “long illegible terms and conditions full of legalese.” Apple’s “Terms and Conditions” updated as of September 17, 2018 was a lengthy 7,006 words. The contract ambiguously ends: “Children under the age of majority should review this Agreement with their parent or guardian to ensure that the child and parent or legal guardian understand it.” However, the parents or legal guardians themselves are likely not reviewing nor understanding it; it’s unfair to expect that average users feel comfortable or have the spare time to try to understand the needlessly verbose contracts drawn up by lawyers working for multimillion dollar firms. Now behemoth companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, each serving a network of users across the globe, are being asked to rise to the occasion… and they will.

The amount of revenue generated from the more than 400 million internet users in the EU is more than enough to incentivize companies to adhere to the GDPR. If they fail to change their policies or decide to pull out of the European market, the business face the loss of millions of dollars through fines or from decreased profits respectively For violations of the GDPR’s stipulations on consent, among other legal issues, fines are the greater of twenty million euro or 4% of the entity’s gross global revenue. That said, Google and Facebook were quick to make sure that they updated their user policy to adhere to the GDPR.

Google will be making data they collect viewable under “My Activity” and users will be able to delete specific activity or data from entire time frames that they would rather not have associated with their account. Data privacy information has been made more easily accessible and users are provided with clearer explanations of Google’s data practices through a series of video tutorials outlining a user’s options for managing, exporting, and deleting data.

Both Facebook and Google will have special protection features for their users who are under 18 years old. Facebook’s include requiring parent or guardian permission for the use of target ads and restricted sharing.

On April 17th, 2018 Facebook’s Newsroom published an outline of changes being made to accommodate the GDPR. In addition to allowing the data to be more easily deleted, Facebook will ask users to agree to their updated terms of service and data policy, whether they want to see ads targeted to the information they have filled out on their profile, and if they want to turn off Facebook’s face recognition features. This last option will also be available to users in Canada.

All of this comes shortly after Facebook’s now infamous Cambridge Analytica scandal in which data mined on Facebook was collected and used to strategically place ads pertaining to the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Users were inadvertently handing over their data to a third party by playing games and taking quizzes that were seemingly innocuous.

This particular application of mined data, and many other similar instances, highlights that as our dependence on technology and virtual programs has increased over the years, we have slowly but steadily bought into a system without taking the time to critique it. Collectively, people have become complacent about what contracts they absentmindedly agree to mean in the context of their everyday lives. Although we understand that anything shared on the internet will never truly disappear, we fail to ponder what happens when we hand over our addresses, credit card information, age, and other personal statistics to sites like Amazon, Twitter, banking sites, and dating services.

Unfortunately, even with the publicized steps corporations are taking to meet the expectations of the GDPR, business is business and companies continue to look for ways to maximize profits and minimize accountability. In response to the GDPR, Facebook now handles their user responsibility out of their offices in California instead of their international headquarters in Dublin, Ireland. This allows them to circumvent the GDPR and that user rights are now subject to the much lighter U.S. data protection regulations. On top of that, Facebook is still able to advantage of comparable tax breaks by booking their revenue through their Irish office. Alex Hern of The Guardian summed up the issue on April 18th, 2018: “Facebook has moved more than 1.5 billion users out of reach of European privacy law, despite a promise from Mark Zuckerberg to apply the “spirit” of the legislation globally.”

The GDPR is a step in the right direction for privacy rights but the fact remains that the very companies that so many people depend on in their day to day lives continue to abuse their global dominion. As illustrated by Facebook’s move to California, regulations lack strength unless they are implemented globally. The data privacy values outlined by the Article 17 of the ICCPR should be regarded equally around the world. Until there are universal norms, corporations will exploit legal irregularities to serve themselves, not their trusting customers. Looking to the EU as an example, one can only hope that soon the international community will begin to ask, and rightly so, about individuals’ right to privacy on the world wide web.

March 11, 2019 0 comment

Featured History Human Rights

Can the Liberal World Order Stop Genocide?

written by Alex Langsam

In October, a gunman killed 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the deadliest attack on a Jewish community in the history of the United States. Such a blatant act of antisemitism should trigger alarm bells for the West, as it accompanies a growing fear that history may start to repeat itself. Jews are a canary in the coalmine for the West which, following the end of the Second World War and the crimes of the Holocaust, attempted to create a world order that would prevent such a thing happening again. But now, more than seventy years later, with nationalism on the rise and racist attacks seemingly increasing, it seems like the attempt failed. The so-called “Liberal” World Order has been apparently unsuccessful in containing the Second World War’s horrors. What can the West learn from its mistakes and what must it do about them? Genocide is preventable, but it demands work from many world actors.

After the Second World War, there was an effort, led by the US, to build a fairer and so-called “Liberal” World Order. The United Nations was established, with a charter that promoted “universal respect for… human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. Various other measures were employed to encourage a more co-operative and empathetic global community, such as the establishment of the European Union, the creation of the Sister City program and the decolonisation of both Asia and Africa. The US championed a new form of international politics, using its immense power to establish a set of norms for the world that would make it a more just place. But large-scale conflict was inevitable, and both the US and the new intergovernmental organizations it set up would not be enough to completely eliminate barbarity from the world.

Instead of extinguishing persecution and bringing about a perpetual peace, the second half of the twentieth century resulted in numerous genocides across Asia, Europe and Africa, as well as the forty-year long Cold War. The systems put in place to prevent a repeat of the Second World War were a step forward, but are not enough in and of themselves. They required constant support and improvement. Instead, they were only a moment of sobriety in an otherwise alcoholic world order.

These days, pundits have heralded the end of the Liberal World Order, due to a variety of factors including the rise of European nationalist parties, Britain’s attempted exit from the EU and the election of Donald Trump. But perhaps the Liberal World Order they mourn was in need of a re-evaluating shake. It had been taken hostage by American Exceptionalism, an ideology that places the US as superior to other countries, and the idea that its brand of capitalism should run the planet. Masked by the US’ excitement following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Liberal World Order seemed to be strengthened, but in truth it had been cracking for awhile and was in need of repair.

Three particular cracks run deep into the Liberal World Order: the sovereign states of Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these countries, genocide was carried out, while the Liberal World Order stood by and watched. Atrocities were ignored, bloodshed denied, and international responsibility abandoned. They are proof of the international community’s reluctance to prevent genocide. And the problem continues today, with the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, and Darfuri citizens in Sudan facing all-too-familiar stages of ethnic cleansing.

The world must figure out what it can do to prevent future genocides. The United Nations was granted some power to do so in 2005, when it established a principle called the Responsibility to Protect. This provided a framework of diplomatic and military steps to combat genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and seemed to be a step forward in mobilising the international community to take action. However, recent interventions have left a bad taste in the international community’s mouth and the Responsibility to Protect has been accused of basically being an easy excuse for regime change. New-age “intervention” can be hard to distinguish from good old-fashioned imperialism. However, despite the criticism against it, the Responsibility to Protect could still prove useful in preventing atrocities. It is a step in the right direction for solidifying rules in the international community.

What the world must do is to continue to support and develop the many systems and institutions in place to prevent genocide, as. The Liberal World Order needs to evolve from the US’ alter ego into something new, while the norms it set up must remain. The United Nations must continue to act as a forum and monitor for the international community. The Responsibility to Protect has to be refined and evoked when needed. The citizens of democratic states have to hold their governments accountable. The checks and balances that exist to stop genocide are in a constant state of flux – strengthened when states are in solidarity with them and weakened when states ignore them.

Constant normalisation of rules for the international community and solidarity against genocide is the best way to prevent it from occurring. It may seem unrealistic or too optimistic a premise, and in a way it is, but much progress has been made already. War has decreased, homicide rates are down and education rates are up. While there have been failures of the post-WW2 world order, there has also been tremendous success. The last seventy years have been among the most peaceful on Earth. Citizens in the West have developed a tendency to abhor genocide, taught to them by the failings of previous generations. The world is becoming smaller and smaller, and it needs to continue to be pushed in the right direction. Progress takes time, so long in fact that few possess the ability to properly comprehend the direction it follows. However, through a committed and maintained opposition, the brutality of international politics can perhaps be tamed.

January 20, 2019 0 comment

#MeToo Featured Human Rights Society and Culture Women's Rights

The #MeToo Movement

written by Sanah Mehta

Legacy

I stand

on the sacrifices

of a million women before me thinking

what can I do

to make this mountain taller so the women after me

can see farther

– Rupi Kaur

According to the UN Women Website, 35% of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual violence, and less than 40% of these cases ever get reported. Encountering such a case of sexual violence with a young girl, Tarana Burke, an African-American activist who suffered from sexual abuse herself, said, “I watched her put her mask back on and go back into the world like she was all alone and I couldn’t even bring myself to whisper…me too.” Burke finally did say #MeToo and took the first step by uniting and building an extended network of women who too have suffered sexual exploitation and enabling them to voice their traumas openly through a non-profit organization called Just Be Inc., and the #MeToo movement on MySpace. The movement focuses on the mantra of ‘empowerment through empathy,’ turning “victims into survivors and survivors into thrivers” through constant dialogue and the reassurance that someone, even if they are half a world away, has had the same experience.

The United Nations Secretary-General’s Bulletin, Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, defines sexual exploitation as “any actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust, for sexual purposes, including, but not limited to, profiting monetarily, socially or politically from sexual exploitation of another.” Sexual abuse, similarly, is defined as “the actual or threatened physical intrusion of a sexual nature, whether by force or under unequal or coercive conditions.” In simpler terms, it is curtailing a woman’s freedom and subjecting her to a position of inferiority due to actions of a sexual nature. It can range from being cat-called on the streets, to being pinned down and raped –– it has many iterations. The recent outpouring of stories by victims using the #MeToo hashtag from places all over the world including, but not limited to, the United States, India, Vietnam, and Uganda, has proven the unfortunate uniformity of the issue. Irrespective of the country or culture, sexual harassment, exploitation, and abuse exist everywhere in the world.

#MeToo in Other Languages Sounds the Same

Given the extensive global outreach of this movement, reaching 85 countries with 1.7 million tweets, I would like to highlight the key instances that marked its pinnacle in the following countries.

United States

In the United States, sexual harassment is most prominent in the workplace. According to a 2016 EEOC comprehensive study, 25% to 85% of sexual harassment cases reported by women are in the workplace, spread across a variety of industries such as entertainment, politics, and media, among others. With several strong speeches by the likes of Meryl Streep and Viola Davis advocating for a harassment-free work environment, the #MeToo Movement sprung into action with a violent force, drawing attention to big names such as Harvey Weinstein, Brett Kavanaugh, and Bill O’Reilly as possible perpetrators.

Harvey Weinstein, the former Miramax mogul, and legendary Hollywood producer, faced charges of sexual harassment and rape, filed officially by 2 women, but brought to light by numerous others including actresses Angelina Jolie, Uma Thurman, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Lupita Nyong’O, among others. Weinstein’s efforts to hide his antics, through continuous threats of ending careers or forcing further assault, went in vain when he was arrested in May 2018.

Similarly, Fox News entertainer Bill O’Reilly had complaints of “verbal abuse, unwanted advances and lewd comments” levied against him by at least 6 women. His long history of sexual propositions and threats were exposed in a New York Times article, where he is said to have settled legal claims with his accusers for about $13 million over the years. Thanks to the #MeToo movement, several women have come forward to voice their experiences and despite O’Reilly’s power and President Donald Trump’s support for him, he was ousted from his job at Fox News in April of 2017.

However, perhaps the #MeToo movement’s biggest challenge was witnessed during the hearing of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. In the midst of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a high school acquaintance- Christine Blasey Ford- accused him of sexual misconduct in the 1980s. Kavanaugh denied all charges, saying, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” With the #MeToo movement at its peak, the FBI was brought in to investigate. In spite of the allegations and ongoing controversy, Kavanaugh was confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate and was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, while women and men alike chanted “Shame!” in the streets.

India

Being born and brought up in India, I have always been surrounded by the social stigma that exists around talking about any sort of sexual harassment. In a society that has long inferioritized women and given entitlement to men, sexual harassment or abuse is always considered to be the woman’s fault and blamed on factors as wide-ranging as the way she dresses, who she goes out with, what time she’s out until, or even the fact that she’s educated. The ‘blame the victim’ mentality is perpetuated even by the Ministers of Parliament through their comments on sexual assault cases. Ranked as the ‘Most Dangerous Country for Women’ by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, about 29% of women are physically and/or sexually assaulted in their lifetime.

The #MeToo movement in India gained momentum following the gang-rape of 23-year old Jyoti Singh Pandey in the capital New Delhi in 2012. Suffering massive injuries, Nirbaya (Hindi for ‘fearless’) as she became known died undergoing treatment in Singapore for injuries she sustained during the assault. The instance shook the nation with severe outrage. The perpetrators were given death sentences, and the Indian law for rape (Section 375/376 of IPC) was expanded beyond penovaginal intercourse to include voyeurism, stalking, and acid attacks. Moreover, The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 now makes it easier for survivors to seek medical help and justice. And with this, the #MeToo movement began in India. Today millions of Indian women are standing up and reporting assaults and instances of harassment on social media to the authorities. While sex crimes have not reduced overall, the strong silver lining is that they are now reported more than they once were.

Vietnam

About 87% of Vietnamese women are sexually harassed in public. Of these, the most vulnerable group is journalism student interns and entry-level female journalists, according to research conducted by a Swedish international media development institute, and the Hanoi-based Center for Media and Development Initiatives (MDI).

Although Vietnam has been lauded for having one of the “world’s highest female labor force participation rates, similar educational attainment for men and women, and better-than-average representation of women in its legislature,” sexual violence against women persists. The #MeToo movement began in Vietnam with a sexual assault allegation at Tuoi Tre, a major daily newspaper in Vietnam. A young intern accused her supervising editor of sexual assault, and then afterword attempted suicide. This scandal brought out thousands of female journalists on Twitter with the tags #toasoansach (clean newsroom), #ngungimlang (stop staying silent), and #MeToo. Khuat Thu Hong, founder, and director of the Institute for Social Development Studies said, “The phenomenon of sexual harassment in Vietnam is politicized in a way [that] there are a lot of efforts to silence the victims or cover up what occurred.” Consequently, Tuoi Tre denied all charges against the senior editor in a statement.
The movement has a long way to go in Vietnam, as the Vietnamese Labor Code lacks a clear definition of sexual harassment, and the country lacks clear data on the issue. However, as more women begin standing up for themselves and one another, even the most powerful culprits will be punished.

Uganda

In Uganda, as in a shocking and saddening number of countries, many women are wary of telling their stories of sexual abuse. For one, many of the perpetrators are renowned businessmen, politicians, or people whose power prevents the victims from getting the justice they deserve. In many cases, evidence is destroyed, and in some, the survivors are silenced through bribery or even murder. A second factor is undoubtedly Ugandan culture. The Baganda, the largest ethnic group in Uganda have a saying, ‘ebyomunju tebitotolwa,’ which translates to ‘No woman is supposed to tell stories from their home,’ preventing women in abusive marriages to seek respite. Moreover, Onesmus Twinamasiko, a Member of the Ugandan Parliament, even gave a televised interview encouraging men to beat their wives to “discipline” them. Just like India, the ‘blame the victim’ mentality is prevalent in Uganda as well, preventing women from reporting cases.
But with the #MeToo movement spreading across the globe, many women in Uganda are refusing to be silenced and have come out with their experiences. A University student in Kampala was harassed by her professor to trade sex for grades. Similarly, a secondary school student reported that she too had been sexually harassed but “never complained about it for fear of reprisals from teachers.” Many such instances reveal the gender inequality in Uganda, and although the #MeToo movement resonated with women, it is the apathetic justice system which fails them.

Louise Burke, a reporter for The Daily Telegraph, wrote that #MeToo “exposed an epidemic of sexual assault and harassment across every corner of the world and unbottled a collective fury which can no longer be contained.” With humble roots, this movement gained rapid momentum and created a worldwide phenomenon of helping survivors of sexual abuse deal with their experiences with fearlessness, encouragement and most importantly, empathy. However, even though this movement is up and running and yielding results through changing laws, arresting and prosecuting offenders, and spreading awareness, there is still a long way to go towards changing the mindset and innate behaviors and attitudes of not just men, but women as well, that allow sexual exploitation and gender inequality to persist. This is just the first step towards learning from the sacrifices of millions of women who have gone through such trauma and hopefully creating a stable system to make the world a more equal place for women and preventing future generations from ever having to experience similar pain in the future.

November 17, 2018 0 comment

Cartoon Donald Trump Featured Geopolitics Human Rights Populism Russia United States Vladimir Putin

Conservatives and the Kremlin: An Emerging Alliance

written by Zach Emanuel

This past summer while leading a Congressional delegation to Moscow, Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama proclaimed in a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that the United States and Russia “don’t necessarily need to be adversaries” and that “the world is better off…if Russia and the U.S. have fewer tensions.” While it is tough to disagree with Shelby, such statements are often expected from the perpetrators of cyber-warfare and election interference, not the victims.

Among fellow Republicans, Shelby is not alone in his conciliatory and even flattering tone towards our former Cold War enemy. Vice President Mike Pence said that it was “inarguable” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.” Likewise, President Donald Trump has gone from calling Putin a “strong leader” and “very smart” to asking “wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia”.

Ronald Reagan would recoil and reject his fellow Republicans’ words. In 1983, Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be an “evil empire” and “the focus of evil in the modern world.” Indeed, these recent statements are a far cry from the hawkish tone Republican leaders used under Reagan. They also differ tremendously from the way Republicans spoke about Russia just a few years ago when Barack Obama still occupied the Oval Office, such as when 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney famously called Russia our “number one geopolitical foe.”

To what can we attribute this sudden, yet strong change of perspective within the GOP leadership?

It might be that former Russia hawks who have reversed their positions have done so out of political necessity. In just four years, the percentage of Republicans who consider Russia an ally has nearly doubled to 40 percent, while just 10 percent now consider Russia the greatest immediate threat to the United States. Russia, like Trump, is popular with the GOP base and Senators, like Shelby, want to keep their jobs.

But if politics can answer the question of why Republican elected officials have changed their minds on Russia, then what can possibly explain the Republican base’s change of heart?

Surprisingly, the Republican base’s pivot towards Moscow began well before Trump entered the political arena, let alone the Oval Office. In August of 2013, Matt Drudge, the conservative pundit and founder of the right-wing Drudge Report, called Putin the “leader of the free world.” Later that year, Pat Buchanan, the same Pat Buchanan who was a senior advisor to both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, penned a column defending both Putin’s leadership and conservative record. And in 2014, evangelist Franklin Graham, long a prominent face on the religious right along with his father, Billy Graham, defended Putin on a host of issues ranging from LGBT rights to military engagement in Syria. What gives?

While Buchanan and Graham’s respective defenses of Putin have been tied to his crackdown on gay rights in Russia, the right-wing obsession with Russia extends beyond “homosexual marriage,” (Buchanan’s words) and into the broader culture war taking place in the U.S. and across the Western world. On issues such as racial diversity and multiculturalism, immigration, LGBT rights, and abortion, the left and right in America and in Europe are increasingly divided.

Where does Putin stand on multiculturalism, gay rights, abortion rights, and immigration? Firmly in the conservative camp.

When it comes to racial diversity and immigration, Russia represents a Trump-Republican’s dream. While whites in the U.S make up 61% of the population, in the next 20 to 25 years, the U.S will become a majority-minority nation. Russia’s population on the other hand is still over 82% white– and not shrinking. And there is no immigration to Russia. As of January of 2018, Russia has granted only one Syrian national refugee status since the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011. To quote HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher, “Russia is a honky oasis and Republicans love it.”

Putin’s record on gay and abortion rights is similar. In advance of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia famously passed a law banning “the propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations,” and threatening stiff penalties for those who “promote homosexuality to anyone under 18.” Same-sex couples in Russia are ineligible for a number of legal protections available to heterosexual couples and there are no laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, in the Russia republic of Chechnya in 2017, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov was accused of rounding up and detaining over 100 men suspected of being gay, three of whom were killed. In the aftermath Kadyrov denied the claims and Putin appeared to back him up.

Restrictions on abortion are similarly harsh. In 2011, the Russian Parliament passed a law banning abortions after the twelfth week of pregnancy and instituted a mandatory waiting period of two to seven days to allow the woman to “reconsider her decision.” Moreover, the law mandates that abortion providers devote “10 percent of any advertising to describing the dangers of abortion to a woman’s health” while making it illegal to “describe abortion as a safe medical procedure.”

With bans on public expressions of homosexuality and restrictive abortion laws, its no wonder Christian conservatives in the United States like Franklin Graham and Mike Pence find Vladimir Putin to be a strong and admirable leader. Many Republican voters overlooked Trump’s anti-democratic tendencies when voting for him in 2016 simply so they could finally overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s not a leap to say that those same Republicans could overlook Putin’s despotism for similar reasons.

The Republican base no longer views Russia as an “evil empire” but rather as the “leader of the free world” because the battle lines dividing our world are no longer ideological, but cultural. Communists and dictators are no longer the enemy, liberals are.

The consequences of viewing the world through a cultural lens rather than an ideological one are nothing short of profound. If the features that unite people with one another are their race or policies on abortion and gay marriage rather than their commitment to American values, then it’s no wonder Republicans view Russia, rather than Democrats, as a more natural ally.

At the summit meeting between Russia and the United States in Helsinki this past July, President Trump was asked whether or not he believed America’s intelligence agencies or Vladimir Putin when it came to Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He sided with Putin. While even GOP leaders chastised Trump for his comment and came to the defense of the FBI and CIA, his decision to believe and defend the Russians over fellow Americans is a sign of what’s to come if cultural values continue to supersede democratic ones. To avoid this fate, Americans must again find a way to replace partisanship with patriotism, and commitment to our causes with a commitment to our country.

October 23, 2018 0 comment

Featured Geopolitics Human Rights Middle East Security and Conflict

Ethnicity and Democracy: A Dangerous Mix?

written by Kasia Kosmala-Dahlbeck

In July 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed a law defining Israel as “the national home of the Jewish people”. This so-called “nation-state law” establishes Hebrew as the state’s official language, lauds Jewish settlement as a “national value”, and delineates the right to self-determination in Israel as “unique to the Jewish people”. It also demotes Arabic from an official language to a “special status” and states that Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinians claim as their own, is the capital of Israel. A law that many say has turned a political reality into a legal one, the nation-state bill has generated widespread criticism and inflamed the very crux behind Israel’s identity: the tension between its Jewish and democratic nature. This dual yet contradicting truth has sparked questions about the viability of Israel’s future as a democracy – even leading scholars to term Israel as the only “ethnic democracy” in the world. The implications of the nation-state law are profound. Besides severely weakening the Palestinian narrative, the law strips away the rights of 20 percent of Israel’s population as well as introduces a concerning model for populist-leaning democracies across the West.

Supporters of the law argue that it does not effectively change the status quo but reaffirms what has always been true. Some even express frustration that the law does not do more to protect Jewish interests, especially regarding the building of settlements in the West Bank. However, the bill’s codification into Israeli Basic Law is significant because it delineates this highly contentious reality into law. The state of Israel does not have a constitution; as a result, its Basic Law is the highest law in the land. Moreover, the context and timing of the law’s passing give it a salience that has sparked controversy both in Israel and abroad. Whereas Israel’s particular brand of ethno-nationalism used to be unique in the world of Western democracies, in today’s age of rising global populism it may serve as an example to right-wing governments appealing to the racial identities of their supporters. This, combined with its effects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, gives the nation-state law a unique potential to affect the politics of the region as well as the character of ethnic expression in democracies around the world.

Within Israel, the law has directly affected Arab citizens, many of whom feel as though the government has turned its back on their desire for civil rights. A law stating that the right to self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people explicitly discriminates against Arabs, who make up over 20 percent of the country’s population and already face institutional discrimination in many ways. Additionally, some of the most outspoken opponents of the law have been members of the Israeli Druze community, a religious group that “participate[s] in nearly every aspect of Israeli society” but as a result of the law will not receive the same legal recognition as Jewish citizens. For decades the Druze have been active in the Israeli government and served in the Israeli Defense Forces, often in positions of influence and authority. Many have criticized the law for unjustly stripping them of rights when they have contributed substantially to the survival and success of their country.

In spite of the effects the law will undoubtedly have on non-Jewish citizens of Israel, some of its larger implications stretch beyond Israel’s borders. The legal establishment of Jewish self-determination over the land of Israel effectively delegitimizes the Palestinian right to self-determination, as well as to ownership over the land they claim. Yet this law is just the latest in a series of blows to the Palestinian cause from the combined leadership and close collaboration of President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May, the withdrawal of American funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and increased violence in Gaza has led to growing Palestinian disillusionment with Israel as well as with American ability to mediate the conflict. The Palestinian Authority recently expressed dismay at the fact that the United States had never been an unbiased mediator, but noted that at least it had been a respectable one. Now however, that reality has come into question. With the U.S unabashedly taking Israel’s side in its conflict with its Palestinian neighbors, Washington may be throwing away its ability to control events in the region and dictate terms in any future agreement.

Furthermore, some of the more lasting effects of the law may have little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all. In a global political climate of rising populism and appeals to race in democracies across the West, the legal establishment of ethnic superiority in Israel sets a powerful precedent. While the circumstances of Israel’s founding as a Jewish state have always differed from other Western countries, the tide of ethno-nationalism sweeping traditionally liberal democracies may lead to Israel becoming an example rather than an outlier. Conservative politicians in democracies around the world may well use Israel’s nation-state law to legitimize their own racialized legislation, endangering the very nature of liberal democracy as it exists today.

October 18, 2018 0 comment

Environmental Change Featured Global Health Globalization History Human Rights International Trade Society and Culture The International Economy

Bayer Acquires Monsanto: Controversy & Implications for Global Agriculture

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Following two years of negotiations and approval seeking from various governmental bodies, the acquisition of the American agricultural biotechnology company known as Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant Bayer was approved in spring 2018. Less than half a year later in August, Dewayne Johnson of the Bay Area was awarded $289 million in a civil suit which charged Monsanto’s infamous Round-Up Ready herbicide–also known as glyphosate–with causing Mr. Johnson’s diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

For years, Monsanto has been decried by environmentalists and farmers alike for its pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified seeds, and seed policies. Additionally, with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, there are concerns for monopolization of the global seed market, as Bayer itself is a highly important player in the field of agriculture. This article seeks to understand the implications of a potential monopolization of the global agriculture system. First, however, this article will provide a background with a brief overview of the various controversies associated with Monsanto.

Criticism of Monsanto has spanned decades. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the largest American manufacturer of Agent Orange, an herbicide and tool of warfare used by the American military. Research in this area suggests that exposure to Agent Orange is associated with negative health effects. Vietnamese people and American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been found to have higher cancer incidence rates than those who were not exposed. Meanwhile, the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam resulted in serious environmental problems, namely deforestation and reduction in the diversity of animal species.

Additionally, the seeds produced and patented by Monsanto have been a major source of controversy. One common charge involves cross-pollination lawsuits. For example, if a farm has planted the seeds of a patented GMO and, by way of cross-pollination, these seeds reach a neighboring farm and produce plants, it is often believed that Monsanto will sue, and has sued, the latter farm simply because of wind patterns affecting the movement of pollen. However, in reality, as one NPR article notes, there have been no such suits. But in 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard a seed saving case involving Monsanto. Based on patent law, the Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, which had sued a farmer from Indiana for saving seeds. Saving seeds refers to the practice whereby after harvest, seeds are saved and planted during the next year. Monsanto requires farmers who purchase their seeds to sign contracts in which they pledge not to save the patented Monsanto seeds they purchase in a given year. Still, this issue and the surrounding debate remain controversial as many question the practice of granting companies patents of living things. Arguably, patenting seeds is especially problematic as seeds are, both literally and symbolically, one of the most important living things on the Earth. Further, in India, over ninety percent of the cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. In fact, some have even argued that increased suicide rates among Indian cotton-farmers is associated with Monsanto’s practices and patents of seeds. The evidence regarding a causal relationship is not conclusive, and many argue that a causal relationship does not exist; still, it is striking that Monsanto owns over ninety percent of the Indian cotton seed.

Additionally, the biotechnology of Monsanto has serious implications for agriculture and the environment. Round-Up Ready, also known as the chemical glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide used in agriculture. Glyphosate is a powerful chemical that is able to eliminate the growth of unwanted plants such as weeds. Yet glyphosate is also capable of killing valuable plants too. It is for this reason that Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that are resistant to glyphosate. The first of the company’s genetically engineered crop was the soybean in 1996. However, the use of glyphosate has the potential of developing so-called superweeds, which are resistant to glyphosate. Also, the development of such superweeds may induce the increased use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers attempting to contain such weeds. It is for these reasons that some protest Monsanto on environmental grounds.

Another issue is that there are concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human health. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. And, as discussed, a recent court ruling in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson, who claimed that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready herbicide caused him to develop cancer. Monsanto, now considered a ‘unit’ of Bayer, faces thousands of other similar lawsuits, with many dying individuals in Northern California being given expedited trials. Still, Bayer is arguing that Mr. Johnson and the court ignored certain pieces of scientific evidence which claim that their is no link between cancer and glyphosate, and are seeking a mistrial.

However, it ought to be noted that the link between glyphosate and cancer is one that is under debate. For example, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Monsanto has also been accused both of attempts to suppress scientific research reports which offer a negative assessment of Monsanto pesticides, and also instances of ‘ghostwriting’ scientific research findings which hold that glyphosate is safe for human health. For example, The New York Times notes of one 2015 article posted on the Forbes website that is believed to be ghostwritten by Monsanto but is credited to an academic named Henry I. Miller. Still, however, a study published in Scientific Reports found a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease. Along with the recent court ruling, the possibly carcinogenic nature of glyphosate has been particularly salient in the last several weeks following a report that found traces of glyphosate in cereal such as Cheerios. The environmental research and advocacy group that published this report, Environmental Working Group, claim that such traces of glyphosate can says could “increase cancer risk for children.” However, as stated, findings about the nature of glyphosate remain inconclusive.

Amid the debate on the health and safety of glyphosate, there has been much talk in the European Union on the question of whether or not glyphosate should be a banned chemical. Many contend that glyphosate should be banned across all EU member states. While states such as Belgium voted against re-licensing glyphosate in the European Union in 2017, the vote ultimately ended in Monsanto’s favor with glyphosate’s license being extended for an additional five years. It will be interesting to see whether the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German company, will have any effect on the use of glyphosate in the EU.

Further, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto suggests that alterations in the agricultural arena await. First, it should be noted that there has been a recent trend of consolidation in the agriculture industry. For example, before the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the companies Dow and DuPont merged, as did Syngenta and ChemChina. As Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst notes, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto indicates that “$1 out of every $3” that farmers spend on seeds, pesticides, and herbicides will go to Bayer. In other words, a third of the world’s agriculture supply is now controlled by one company–Bayer. This consolidation has farmers across the globe concerned. For many, the increased trend of monopolization means increased prices. This is supported by data and research from the Farmers Business Network. In research that focused on the price of corn seeds and chemicals, this group found that greater market share was associated with higher market prices for products. As mentioned, Bayer now controls a third of the market share. Dow-Dupont and Syngenta-ChemChina are not far behind.

Monsanto has historically been associated with a variety of controversial products and practices. Despite all this, it is undeniable that the science and innovation of Monsanto has been remarkable. For instance, in the 1990s, the ringspot virus threatened to destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii. However, Monsanto, which had a patent on transgenic technology, allowed for this technology to be used to create the Rainbow Papaya, a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the ringspot virus. This saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. However, there is the the fact that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a biochemical weapon with possible long-term health effects, that was used in Vietnam. But Monsanto was not the only company contracted by the American government to produce this war chemical. There is also the fact that Monsanto’s patents over biological entities, such as seeds, has also received considerable attention. However, sensational claims of Monsanto suing small farmers because of wind patterns and pollen drift appear unsubstantiated. Also, the health and safety of Round-Up Ready is a current and hotly-debated topic. Thus, while Monsanto has been a topic of debate for decades, it is not clear whether Monsanto has done more harm than good, especially with regard to the agriculture industry, human health, and the environment.
Finally, while the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer means that, legally, the name Monsanto refers to a company of the past, doubtless, the issues associated with (what was) Monsanto will continue to persist. Further, this recent acquisition marks a highly significant moment for the global agricultural sector. It is especially important to see how all of this will unfold in the coming years.

September 24, 2018 0 comment

Australia Europe Featured Human Rights LGBT Marriage Equality

The Dangerous Precedent of Marriage Equality Voting in Australia and Ireland

written by Xinong Wang

The institution of marriage in most countries around the world refers, by default, to marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage equality – the right of two persons to marry regardless of gender and sex, often equated with “same sex marriage” – is only fully legalised in 26 countries to date. In many countries, the idea of changing the laws to allow for marriage equality can be a contentious and often partisan issue. Marriage equality is inseparable from the rights of LGBTQ+ populations, therefore a largely classified as a liberal cause invoking debates on religious freedom as well as civil rights. Two countries so far, Ireland and Australia, have referred the matter directly to their citizens through a popular vote; that is, a vote which was extended to each country’s entire voting population. Ireland’s 2015 Referendum and Australia’s 2017 Postal Vote both returned majority “yes” votes, resulting in the passing of legislature that allows any two people to marry regardless of gender. Yet together, Ireland and Australia have set a dangerous precedent where a majority population was given the right to decide on equal access to human rights for an underprivileged group.

Despite being a near-universal practice, marriage is not a universal institution. Each country has its own definition of what constitutes a valid marriage under the law, canonised through laws, acts, even constitutions. Commonly, because dominant historical and cultural narratives see marriage as being between a man and a woman, it is accepted as implicit that this is also the legal definition. A country wishing to extend the right to marry to their LGBTQ+ population will often have to go through a process of legitimising it through amending existing legal texts. This is regardless of whether or not those texts explicitly forbade same-sex marriage in the first place. In countries such as the US, the sovereignty of governing bodies allowed them to determine the institution of marriage without involving the population – the Supreme Court exercised this to outlaw bans on same-sex marriage in a ruling in 2015, allowing for marriage equality to exist in all states of the US. Ireland and Australia exercised direct democracy instead.

Pre-polling in both Ireland and Australia had already indicated that the majority of those countries were overwhelmingly in favour of marriage equality. Yet the issue was forced into a popular vote in Ireland as a matter of judicial legality. Ireland has an extensive Irish-English constitution. Marriage is defined under Article 41, which was interpreted to implicitly restrict that marriage be between a man and a woman. That is, the Constitution never explicitly forbade same-sex marriage, but did not endorse it either. In order to insert the proposed 34th Amendment to the Irish Constitution which would definitively allow for marriage to be contracted “by two persons without distinction as to their sex”, there was a process stipulated by the Irish Constitution. After a bill which proposes to amend the Constitution passes parliament, it is mandatory to then seek the approval of the majority of all Irish electors (those eligible to vote in general elections) in a Constitutional Referendum. Hence overall, since the power to grant marriage equality in Ireland lay in the Irish Constitution, and a Constitutional Referendum is a necessary step in installing a Constitutional Amendment, a popular vote in Ireland was necessary. The Irish Referendum, held on the 22nd of May 2015, had a turnout of 60.5% and returned results of 62% yes and 38% no. Following its passing, the government legalised marriage equality on the 16th of November that year.

The Australian popular vote often claimed the Irish vote as precedent, but there is in fact a key distinction: there was no legal necessity for a vote in Australia. Unlike Ireland, the Australian Constitution only mentions marriage where it decrees that marriage and divorce came under the legislative power of the Australian Parliament. The Australian parliament holds discretionary powers on all matters relating to the institution of marriage in Australia, and they chose to define and parameterise marriage under the Marriage Act of 1961. The government is not obligated to seek approval directly from the people when changing Acts. Yet Australia opted for a vote because of a promise made by the Australian Liberal Party in the election of 2016 that they would refer the question of marriage equality directly to the voters (in Australia, the Liberal party is conservative and the Labor Party is liberal, though both are more centrist and less polarised than the conservative-liberal divide in the US). Hence despite having the power to circumvent this divisive popular vote, the Australian parliament essentially arbitrarily decided to conduct a survey on an issue entirely within their power of legislation, based on upholding an election-time promise.

The word “survey” is the correct one to use as a second key distinction should be made between the Australian and Irish votes: the Irish Referendum was binding, the Australian postal vote was not. The Irish Constitution states that the results of a Constitutional Referendum must be honoured. The Irish President is still required to sign the bill into law as a formality, but since the Irish public voted yes to changing the Constitution, the parliament had no power to overturn the result. However, since the Australian parliament’s legislative powers cover marriage, they could have either refused to pass the bill, or passed it anyway even if the postal vote had resulted in a “no” vote. Indeed, multiple members of parliament declined to vote in accordance with the results returned by their electorate, and a small number abstained from voting rather than vote with their electorate. If politicians who opposed marriage equality had simply outnumbered those who were for it, the conscience vote for the eventual bill could have sunk marriage equality regardless of the voting result.

The right to marriage and family is Article 16 on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It specifies that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”. (NB: while the singular form “a man and a woman” would decree that marriage be between men and women only, the plural form of “men and women” remains open to be two men, or two women, etc). It further stipulates that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. That is, governments ought to consider that discrimination in the institution of marriage based on gender is not simply a question of politics or civil liberties, but free and equal access to human rights. No other human right is, by default, curtailed by the gender of those under its protection. There is no reason, despite historical conventions, that marriage should be.

Hence Australia’s postal vote foregrounds a question which is understandable, or at least explainable in the case of Ireland – the question of why a government is allowing an entire country to vote on whether or not a historically underprivileged group can exercise their full and equal human rights. It is a dangerous precedent, especially considering that a former administration of Australian parliament had been responsible for prohibiting marriage equality in the first place. The Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill in 2004 was the first to explicitly define marriage in Australia as the “union of a man and a woman”, and was passed by policy makers alone without a popular vote. Clearly, there was precedent for parliament to alter the institution of marriage in Australia. In polling its citizens, the government asked citizens to grant a minority group rights that politicians alone had taken away. It was the government which denied its citizens access to a human right, and yet they put the responsibility on the country as a whole to restore it.

In a way, the affirmative outcome of both countries’ postal votes is ominous; this is an issue which extends beyond marriage equality or the LGBTQ+ population. It is a question of the role of government in upholding universal human rights. Underprivileged populations have a long history of appealing to the government for their rights. For example, the 19th Amendment of the US Constitution handed down by the Supreme Court mandated that states not withhold voting rights based on gender, giving (initially only white) women the vote. Australia and Ireland, intentionally or not, have set a precedent in the opposite direction. Ruling bodies now have a clear and positive precede for devolving the question of human rights to a majority population. They can now cite Ireland and Australia as examples where the will of the people was respected with the ostensible faith that history moves in the right direction. This can now be applied to many partisan political issues of the day which have an underlying foundation in human rights issues: treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants can be linked to Article 15, the right to a nationality. Freedom of speech and buzzwords such as “politically correct” is relatable to Article 19, the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Debate on abortions and contraception tie back to Article 3, the right to life, liberty, and security of person or Article 6, the right to recognition as a person under the law.

Now the issue is not only in the intangible, hypothetical future – through putting the question of marriage equality to a vote involving not just politicians but each individual in the country, the pressure to pass or deny also falls to each individual in the country. A key and immediate issue presents itself: marginalised groups, instead of lobbying politicians who have civil and legal obligations to them as constituents, are now forced to appeal for their equal rights from every single voter. These are voters who have no constraints on how they treat political and civil issues apart from their personal beliefs. The onus now falls on individuals to prove their worthiness to equal treatment under the law. Where human rights are concerned, equal treatment should be something that is protected by governing powers and not begged for from the sum of individual opinion.

Overall, Ireland and Australia have set a positive precedent, but a dangerous one nonetheless. All citizens of Ireland and Australia now have the right to freely marry, yet this right had to be earned by convincing the majority of a voting population that a marginalised group was worthy of equal treatment. This precedent should be approached with great caution. The victories of Brexit in the UK and President Trump in the US were outcomes which shocked the world – in a world of ever increasing political partisanship, voting is increasingly turbulent and the lines between conservative and liberal are growing wider. It is a dangerous precedent to leave to sheer numbers the human rights of minorities.

April 27, 2018 0 comment

Asia Featured Human Rights Immigration

The Uphill Fight for Migrant Rights in Singapore

written by Jemma Tan

With its sleek high-rises and spotless, chewing gum-free streets, Singapore is the crown jewel of Asian development. Somehow, an island lacking in natural resources has dominated the world rankings for education, GDP per capita, and internet speed. It’s a Cinderella story of globalization and development. While Singaporean citizens see the rise of this wealthy metropolis as a point of national pride, the lesser acknowledged truth is that much of the physical brickwork was laid by foreign hands.

Nearly half of Singapore’s foreign residents are Work Permit Holders, who predominantly work in the construction, marine, and domestic sectors. They account for 1 in 10 of Singapore’s population and the work they do keeps the nation’s infrastructure running smoothly everyday. However, the neoliberal policies that enabled Singapore’s rapid success have also resulted in barely existent legal protections for foreign laborers. With few structural provisions in place, many foreign workers are at risk of potential abuse at the hands of their employers.

The Migrant Worker’s Center (MWC) is a non-governmental organization aimed at improving the conditions of foreign workers, in the event that such abuses arise. Bernard Menon, MWC’s executive director, recounts a recent case of occupational abuse concerning Bangladeshi construction workers: “The place where [the employer] was housing them, the standards were, I mean, I would say downright illegal. And the food he was providing for his workers – bear in mind he charges them for the food they cater in – they were preparing the food at 11 PM for consumption the next day … Breakfast is consumed maybe seven hours after preparation, lunch is consumed more than 12 hours after preparation. The workers call us and say they regularly, frequently throw lunch away because it’s not consumable.”

Beyond labor conditions, the emotional toll of working as an immigrant is also tough. For example, Robina Navato is a Filipino domestic worker who has been working in Singapore for the last 22 years. For Navato, the hardest part about being a foreign worker is by far the separation from her family. She has three children, all of whom grew up in the Philippines while she was working in Singapore: “This was the only way I could provide for them. I left them when my eldest was three years old and my youngest was one. The first time I went home was after 6 years. The first question my daughter asked me was ‘are you my mother? I’ll never forget that.’”

Prospects of change look slim. Many of these workers are uneducated and illiterate, unaware of what their employment rights are. Those that are find themselves constrained by legal restrictions on strikes, prohibited by the Industrial Relations Act, which has been the cornerstone of Singapore’s labor policy since 1968. Furthermore, the foreign status of these workers gives them no electoral input into the political processes of their host state.

Unable to petition the government directly, many migrant workers seek the assistance of non-governmental organizations. Navato is a service recipient at the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics, a non-profit providing emotional support to and advocating on behalf of foreign domestic workers (FDWs). Menon’s Migrant Worker’s Center has investigated claims of employer abuse, including the recent food safety scandal and also runs a 24-hour helpline.

Still, Singapore’s paternalistic policies and hyper-emphasis on economic efficiency make legal reform difficult. Due to its affiliation with the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), the MWC has significant financial and administrative capabilities. Dealing with nearly 4,000 cases a year, it has the largest scope of all the migrant welfare organizations. However, the NTUC’s close partnership with Parliament also blunts the MWC’s appeals with conservative caution. Clout comes at a price.

On the other hand, working within the system does lend much-needed prudence to a budding social movement. In 2012, 171 Chinese bus captains went on strike, causing the nation’s public transport system to experience massive delays. Menon credits the strike with raising awareness regarding the migrant workers’ cause and drawing attention to issues of social inequity. However, he laments at how the illegality of the protest led to 5 workers jailed and 29 deported. After the strike, the MWC realized it had to exert a greater effort in processing the workers’ frustrations before the latter undertook actions that could jeopardize their residence in the country.

The MWC’s careful approach is not for lack of heart. “Your understanding of the challenges and anxieties of migrant workers become almost second nature to you because of the work,” Menon admits. “In the course of everyday’s work, you naturally come into contact with areas where you start to question, ‘How come the law is structured like this? It doesn’t make sense.’” Ultimately, though, he concludes that it is a war of attrition.

Despite slow progress on the political front, the center has made headway in promoting social integration of foreign workers. The 2012 strike and the 2013 Little India riot have moved what Menon refers to as a “silent majority” of Singaporeans from apathy to speaking out against the conditions endured by migrant workers. The most fertile soil for activism? Students.

“Generally, every year, I used to speak to 100 to 200 students,” says Menon. “But in the years since the riot, annually, I easily do student engagements in the thousands, four, five, six thousands in a year.” He notes the increased number of teachers willing to engage their students with community issues, as well as the eagerness of the students. Students have started grassroots initiatives aimed at fostering understanding between migrant workers and the local population, such as It’s Raining Raincoats, a project that provides construction workers raincoats during the wet seasons. At least among the youth, public opinion of migrant workers has shifted towards the positive end of the spectrum.

It isn’t much, but it’s a start. After all, the first step to solving a human rights issue is to recognize the humanity and assert the dignity of those that are being abused. Navato echoes this sentiment: “If you’re having a problem with a bad employer, the first step is to talk to them … it’s not easy, but you have to do it. Otherwise, there’s no way out. You have to start with communicating.” Wholesale change starts with the individual.

So while there are few immediate political mechanisms to advance the rights of foreign workers, there is modest hope for the future. However, for a truly effective movement, NGOs and citizens alike cannot be merely satisfied with increased awareness. They must capitalize on this momentum and use it to tackle the roots of the issue. The current conditions may not be ripe for change and Singapore’s political structure may not necessarily allow it. Still, advocates must not lose sight of the end goal and keep pressing until there are legally codified guarantees for fairer contracts, firmer prosecution of abusive employers, safe living conditions, and decent wages. Persisting in this uphill fight is the only way to build a Singapore where everyone can benefit.

February 2, 2018 0 comment