Human Rights Panel Question

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

From Andrea Barron:
I am impressed by how sophisticated the discussion has been in answer
to the question on US policy toward Pakistan, and by the diversity of
opinion among students.

Here is this week’s question on the Human Rights Panel featuring
Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid, Maureen Meyer from the Washington
Office on Latin America and Cristina Finch from Amnesty International.
You can answer one or more of the following questions:

** Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to
use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

** How should the international community, including the United
States, respond to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful
demonstrators and other civilians in Syria?

** Do human rights groups like Amnesty International have the right to
demand that foreign governments stop committing human rights
violations against women, such as the “virginity tests” the Egyptian
army forced women demonstrators to take this past March?

[Jacob Bundy]

I believe at the current moment that it is a terrible decision to use
the military to try to enforce peace and control the drug trafficking
industry. Until Mexico can rid the the military of the high levels of
impunity that exist and drastically reduce the corruption that has
infested them, it will be a futile endeavor to use the military as law
enforcers. The military must be reformed to resemble the police
practices, at least when it comes to the prevalence of and decision
to use force against citizens. As of now the areas that the military
have the highest military presence, also have higher levels of
violence, obviously showing that the military are failing in their
assigned task.

I believe the international community should continue to voice its
disapproval of Assad's crackdowns and provide aid to the refugees,
especially if the buffer zone is created by Turkey in Syria. However
the international community should not become physically involved in
stopping the crackdowns becuase the conditions of Syria are different
then the revolutions that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia, both of which
had the institutions and civil society apparatus in place that primed
them for a quicker and smooth transitions. Syria was less prepared for
such a revolution so the transition is going to take longer becuase
they must develop the institutions needed to introduce a new political
system. As long as the massacres that are occurring stay small, in
terms of death, and the movement remains nonviolent, then the rest of
the world should let the revolution run its own course.

Amnesty International has the right to demand the government of a
country to stop abuses against women if they have signed CEDAW and
agree to its terms. This requires certain standards that a country
should adhere to in terms of how they treat their women, so if a
signee is in violation of these terms then Amnesty and other
international organizations are in the right to condemn said country
in order to end the human right's abuse taking place. However if the
country hasn't signed such an agreement then it is much harder for
Amnesty to find grounds to make demands on that government, although
Human right's are universal and should be respected everywhere,
regardless of the circumstances.


On Jun 22, 11:06 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[AK LAVOIE]

I think it is interesting that all of the questions have, to some degree, a question about the use of force. In the first two cases it seems that there is the ability to use force to obtain and end,whether it is correct or not. In the third case, Amnesty International has the right to demand that foreign governments stop the abuse of women, but they lack the teeth to enforce the demand.

 

It could be argued that in the first two cases things could have been handled differently. However there is an old saying that when you are holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Perhaps we need to take the hammer away from Assad and the Mexican military and give it to Amnesty International.

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob Bundy <jaket...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:33 pm
Subject: Re: Human Rights Panel Question
To: International Affairs Summer 2011 <international-af...@googlegroups.com>

> I believe at the current moment that it is a terrible decision
> to use
> the military to try to enforce peace and control the drug trafficking
> industry. Until Mexico can rid the the military of the high
> levels of
> impunity that exist and drastically reduce the corruption that has
> infested them, it will be a futile endeavor to use the military
> as law
> enforcers. The military must be reformed to resemble the police
> practices, at least when it comes to the prevalence of  and

> decisionto use force against citizens. As of now the areas that

[Ivan Ho]

"Perhaps we need to take the hammer away from Assad and the Mexican military and give it to Amnesty International."Amnesty International has the right to demand that foreign governments stop the abuse of women, but they lack the teeth to enforce the demand." "

Are you trying to say that Amnesty International should use military force? I don't think giving military capabilities to a private NGO would solve anything.

[Adam Portoghese]

While the idea of an Amnesty Army does sound appealing, I believe the overall concept was one of accountability. NGO's are great at playing the watch dog role, but they have a real heard time bringing human rights offenders to court. For that we rely on the United Nations or countries to be willing to give up their leaders, which is rarely the case. Recently, however, Serbia turned over a high ranking war criminal, but that can really viewed as a way of gaining favor among European nations and helping their application to the EU. The truth is that it was for political reasons, but for justice. If they wanted to keep him and not turn him over they could have and all the international community would have done was complain. 

Despite the good intentions of NGO's like Amnesty, they are dealing with nations who are sovereign powers and dislike other countries, let alone NGOs, to be all up in their grill. What is needed is more cooperation between supranational bodies and countries in order to ensure accountability among state leaders

--
Adam Portoghese

aporto...@elon.edu

adampor...@gmail.com

407-712-3555

Elon University Class of 2012

Alpha Phi Omega- President

Model United Nations- Military Coordinator

Men’s Club Volleyball- Club Officer

[Alexander Henderson]

I strongly disagree with the Mexican President's decision to use the military to wage war against the drug cartels. That will only create more violence. Instead, we should follow the advice of the Former Mexican President, Vicente Fox.

"We have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of producers — so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it and shops that sell it ... I don't want to say that legalizing means that drugs are good. They are not good but bad for your health, and you shouldn't take them. But ultimately, this responsibility is with citizens." (Time.com, January 19, 2011). The best way to combat terrorist and paramilitary groups is to starve them of there money. I learned that from a counterterrorist expert that works with the Justice Department. The same thing applies to the drug cartels. The main source of money for the drug cartels are, believe it or not, American citizens just wanting to get a little high. The illegal status of drugs, such as marijuana, doesn't stop very many people that them from using them. You could arguably compare the prohibition of marijuana to the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. In fact, Marijuana was only added to the list of Schedule 1 drugs after a smear campaign led by William Randolph Hearst in the 1930's. The motives behind Hearst's campaign were obvious, the popularity of hemp was trampling on his investments in the timber industry. It is not very hard for people to find a source to obtain illegal drugs, however, the sources they are getting them from are the very criminals we would rather not allow to make money. The prohibition of marijuana in particular is ridiculous. Our country spends way too much trying to combat something that could be a potential source for tax revenue. Not only is it a waste of money, but it was a mindless decision to criminalize marijuana when we allow for people to buy tobacco and alcohol. A recent UK study found that alcohol and tobacco both are much more dangerous than the smoking of marijuana. My father is a doctor, and many of his friends are doctors, and I've had many discussions on this issue with them. None of them smoke, or at least admit to smoking, marijuana, but they all agree that alcohol and tobacco are much much worse for the human body than marijuana. So any kind of argument against it being illegal for health reasons is pretty much discredited. Now the drug cartels in Columbia may be bringing more money if from cocaine, but the drug cartels in Mexico get hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars from sales of marijuana. We could starve them of this money by just legalizing it and allowing for America to do what it does best, and that is, make a legitimate business out of it. By decriminalizing drugs, mainly marijuana, we would be starving the drug cartels of their biggest supply of money, and this would dramatically decrease the amount of violence we have seen take place along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html#ixzz1Q6ejnH7E

 

As for Assad's regime, I feel that we should continue to criticize the regime's brutal crackdown on its citizens, however, we should not even think of directly interfering unless the demonstrators make a coordinated plea for help from the international community or the US. The citizens of the Arab countries that are experiencing, or have experienced, uprisings are proof that the citizens want to become responsible for their own futures. The US and the rest of the international community should refrain from giving any military support until it is clear that the demonstrators agree that it is in their best interests for the international community to get involved. In the meantime, I believe that it may be appropriate to pass sanctions on the Syrian government. Even though sanctions are not usually as effective as they are intended to be, they would serve as a clear signal of the feelings towards the Syrian government's response to the peaceful demonstrators. If there is a strong will among the demonstrators to seek outside help, then I would not be opposed to giving help to the demonstrators, but we would also have to seriously assess whether helping the demonstrators would be within our interests as well as reflect our values.

 

Finally, Amnesty International has every right to "demand" for governments to stop committing human rights violations. NGO's should have every right to freedom of expression. As long as they do not directly violate the laws of another country while within the jurisdiction of that country's government, then they are not doing anything wrong. Just as I have the right to "demand" that the US government decriminalize marijuana, NGO's should have the right to "demand" that government's refrain from committing human rights abuses. Now, if Amnesty International started taking up arms and launching attacks against foreign governments then they would be stepping outside of their rights. But I highly doubt that it would come to that.

 

I wasn't able to make it to the Human Rights Panel, so I may not have been informed about some of the things that were discussed there and sounded like a complete idiot for not knowing something. In that case, I apologize.

--
Alex Henderson

[Nariman Saidane]

The Human Rights Panel discussion/lecture was the most enlightening
panel discussion that I have attended so far; it was great that the
panelists did not just focus on one area or topic in international
affairs and so I appreciate the diversity of the panel.

In response to the first question about Mexican President Felipe

Calderon’s decision to use the military to wage war against the drug

cartels, my area of study is not focused here so I must admit that I
am limited in knowledge when it comes to Latin American politics.
Nonetheless, I will try to address this question by bringing forth
something Maureen Meyer (WOLA) pointed out herself (I didn't take
notes so feel free to correct me if I quoted her wrong). I remember
she argued that the military and the police have two completely
different functions, and this is actually pretty common knowledge. The
police's role in society is to be an organized civil force for
maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the
laws while the military's role is pretty much solely for the purpose
of combat and war. Now, does it make sense to deal with a systemic
problem such as drug cartels, that is so evidently prevalent in Latin
American countries, by waging war against it? This does not make sense
to me. The President's decision to use the military to wage war I
believe is a way to communicate to the people involved in the drug
cartels as well as the public that this matter is out of control and
he has to use the most aggressive amount of force to combat it.
However, from what I understand, corruption is rampant through both
the police and the military and so if the President is serious about
waging war against drug cartels, there needs to be a bottom-up
approach where the community at large is involved in addressing this
problem. NOT a top-down approach that, sure in the short-term will
wipe out the problem, but essentially will never address the root of
the problem in the first place. Which really means that the decision
to use military force, instead of a comprehensive bottom-up approach
where all of society is involved in addressing the problem, is bound
for failure from the start.

Now, addressing the second question of how should the international

community, including the United States, respond to the Assad regime’s
brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and other civilians in

Syria, is not too difficult to answer. Firstly, I firmly believe that
as a key international player, the U.S.A should stick to one role and
one role only, applying as much pressure on the Assad regime as
possible; this can be achieved by applying even more intrusive
diplomatic pressure on the Syrian government by condemning the
outright human rights abuses and the lack of effort for the regime to
listen to its own people as well as economic pressure which, in honest
truth, is what really starts to wake people up since money is what
makes the world go round as they say. HOWEVER, it's obvious that the
U.S.A does not have the guts to do this because they can't afford to
due to their vested interest in seeing stability in Syria, regardless
of what type of government they have. And let's face it, it's all
about strategy when it comes to the Middle East.

@ Jacob Bundy. My friend your statements about Syria really confused
me. Now, I definitely agree with you that the international community
should not be physically involved in Syria but NOT for the reason you
say that

''The conditions of Syria are different then the revolutions that

occurred in Egypt and Tunisia, both of which had the institutions and
civil society apparatus in place that primed them for a quicker and

smooth transitions..and that Syria was less prepared for a transition"

Foreign intervention in the manner of boots on the ground should not
occur for the reason that what is going in Syria is a domestic affair
that has to do with the Middle East. Anyone who argues that Syria is
not set up for the institutions and civil society apparatus is lying
to you. Syria, Egypt and Tunisia all have/had the same type of
dictators with the same type of repressive regimes and the same type
of institutions funded by their allies, including the U.S.A. Syria's
capability to have a smooth transition has nothing do with the fact
that 'Syria is less prepared' and has everything do with the fact that
the international community, with the United States taking the lead,
can afford to have chaos ensue in Tunisia and Egypt but CANNOT afford
to have instability in Syria with it's key strategic role in the
Middle East between Israel and Iran. Now you argue that,

'As long as the massacres that are occurring stay small, in terms of

death, and the movement remains nonviolent, then the rest of the world

should let the revolution run its own'

This is really depressing to read this. Do you know what happened in
1982 in Syria? The Syrian army, under the orders of the president of
Syria Hafez al-Assad, conducted a scorched earth policy against the
town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the Sunni Muslim community
against the regime of al-Assad. The attack has been described as among
"the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own
people in the modern Middle East where the vast majority of the
victims were civilians". Do you know who's still in power right now?
The son of Hafez al-Assad who pretty much has the capability and the
authority to commit an even more disgusting massacre. Do you think the
international community cared when this massacre happened? The
massacre wasn't 'small' that's for sure. And they didn't care at all
because the Assad family is still in power. Since when does violence
against ones own people constitute legitimacy in the name of
stability? It didn't work in Tunis. It didn't work in Egypt. And it's
not going to work in Syria this time. The international community
should let the revolution run it's course but NOT at the expense of
the massacre of innocent populations, which the Assad regime is en
route to doing if there isn't enough pressure from the international
community to make him step down.

On Jun 23, 11:04 am, Alexander Henderson <hende...@mail.gvsu.edu>
wrote:

> Read more:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2040882,00.html#ixzz1Q6...

> *Alex Henderson*

[Mercado, Edgar]

I agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to use the military to wage war against the drug cartels because the situation is getting out of hand. In fact it has gotten to the point where northern region is so overrun by the cartels that Mexico is in jeopardy of collapsing and becoming a failed state if drastic action is not taken. Therefore, military intervention is the only logical course of action if Mexico is to have a chance at avoiding this outcome.

 

 

 

Thank You,

Simon Mercado

[Christine Hoguet]

Hi all, 

I'm taking this opportunity to respond to the third question (most other responses seem to revolve around Calderon and the military). 

I think that women's rights are important, and they constitute an important step on a country's road to democracy. However, international groups like AI have to tread carefully here. Obviously, such violations of human rights as forced virginity tests, or the prohibition of driving a vehicle are despicable, and should be stopped. 

But international aid and advocacy groups cannot just try to enforce such women's rights in cultures that are still to far away from accepting that women deserve equal treatment. A top-down approach would likely only cause further problems, such as uprisings from males who oppose women's rights. Changes in women's rights have to happen incrementally, and from the bottom up. They have to go hand in hand with other structural changes in how a society treats its members. This ought to be an important part of democratizing oppressive countries. But it cannot happen without the support of the broader indigenous society, and must happen from within, not be imposed by some foreign agency. 

Nevertheless, in such extreme cases as forced virginity tests that are then even used to accuse women of acts they have not committed, there ought to be help available that protects women from such violation against their rights and their privacy. AI and other organizations could host shelters or so, for as long as the women are in danger of being violated.

Obviously, women's rights are important, but international organizations have to take the local culture and the broader picture into account before trying to help women. Empowering women should include helping them change the broader structures that are currently keeping them confined. Telling them that they deserve to drive or do other things currently not widely accepted might only put them in danger of retaliation from other, less progressive or tolerant members of the society. 

It's not an easy issue. It's complicated and will take time. 

--
Christine Hoguet

International Studies / Anthropology major

Case Western Reserve University

[Ivan Ho]

" I remember she argued that the military and the police have two completely
different functions, and this is actually pretty common knowledge. The
police's role in society is to be an organized civil force for
maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the
laws while the military's role is pretty much solely for the purpose
of combat and war."

Are you so sure about that, because you are wrong. The military has fulfilled the same role as the police numerous times. And it's a complete misconception that the military is for "combat and war." Since the Cold War, western nations are solely involved in peace-building, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, numerous African nations. Every UN peace-keeping operations that's been conducted is performed by the military. Even in Afghanistan, the military and police roles are merged into one. Sometimes you need the military to perform police duties, in Iraq, the military out performed the police since they were getting into gun battles with insurgents. In Mexico, this is the case, the police are running into gun battles. The police aren't trained to tackle the problems, while the military are. They can also easily convert into a police role. Don't forget, every military force out there has "military police."

[Kevin Stone]

I think Calderon's decision to use military force would only be good if it was coupled with increasing Mexico's economic prosperity. Try to "beat" the drug cartels is a false goal. The real issue is the U.S demand for drugs and the lack of economic opportunity in mexico. If the economy was not inhibited by corruption, then perhaps more jobs would be created and less young people would be inclined to join a cartel. If the U.S blocked the demand for drugs through rehabilitation programs, better enforcement, and more drug intervention policies and programs, then there would be subsequently less drugs flowing through Mexico and less cartels to worry about. What Calderon has happened, unfortuneately, is Calderon has waged this war on drugs without any comprehensive policy to address the underlying causes.

The United States should not act unilaterally in physically outsting Assad, but it should be much more vocal and forceful in other - non-military- ways to lead the world and pressure Assan. It is in the international communities interest to end the bloodshed in the Middle East. The violence is so severe and the oppression so great that I think the harm to our "interests" in the region if we be more forceful and upfront with Assan are minimal in comparison.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.j...@twc.edu> wrote:

--

Kevin Stone 

International Relations and International Business Major & Spanish Minor

Valley Residential Senator 

Associated Students Committee On Inclusion and Diversity 

University of San Diego

(425) 306 - 9996

kevin...@sandiego.edu

 

[Catherine Gauthier]

Hi all:

1. Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

From a normative point of view, I do not agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon's decisions to intervening with military force against the drug cartels. I think violence is more likely to increase when there are military forces and I therefore would not support it. I would rather prefer non violent solutions, even if from a positive perspective it does not seem to be as efficient as other ways (considering military force help to improve the situation).

2. Do human rights groups like Amnesty International have the right to demand that foreign governments stop committing  human rights violations against women, such as the “virginity tests” the Egyptian army forced women demonstrators to take this past March?

Whether it is a human right violation or not, I don't think we - as Western countries - have a right to ban such practices (banning involves coercion). Amnesty International supports women and their communities so they can educate and empower themselves to make this change happen, maybe through a democratic process. Even if we would ban or try to stop governments committing such violations, it would not be accepted by both the government and the population. And so, the only was to make women rights more respected is to raise awareness and educate people. It will not be easy and it will require ongoing efforts in a long-term perspective to achieve this goal. 

Catherine Gauthier

[Jennifer Gardener]

Do human rights groups like Amnesty International have the right to
demand that foreign governments stop committing human rights
violations against women, such as the “virginity tests” the Egyptian
army forced women demonstrators to take this past March?

 

I agree that groups like Amnesty International have the right to demand that foreign goverments stop committing human rights violations against women.  Every individual, no matter the region or nation, deserves to be protected.  It is a priveledge to live in the US where our natural rights are recognized and protected, therefore it is our duty to protect those who are born into countries without guaranteed rights.  Some may suggest that it is not our job to interfere with the actions of other countries, but I don't believe in isolationism when the US has the resources and the power to assist others.  As a woman, I may be more passionate about enforcing and protecting the rights of other females, but the mistreatment of others should not be ignored.

Jennifer Gardener

---

From: "Indhika Jayaratnam" <indhika.j...@twc.edu>
To: "International Affairs Summer 2011" <international-af...@googlegroups.com>

[Victoria Zopf]

How should the international community, including the United
States, respond to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful
demonstrators and other civilians in Syria?

 

I believe the United States should continue the steps we have started to take outside of our previous role as a global policeman. Regarding Syria, this means that we should not directly intervene with Assad's brutality. Instead, we should continue our support for Syrian protestors and their cause. If the Syrian people request help from the international community, that would be the time to reconsider our position. Similarly, if the international community decides to intervene, as in Libya, the United States should consider playing a similar role.

 

While it is certain that the steps Assad is taking against his people are breaches of human rights, it is unwise, especially regarding our current position in Pakistan, to infringe upon another nation's sovereignty. The Obama adminstration is not as interventionist as some previous presidencies have been, and I think this change is improving our relations with the rest of the world. Barack Obama has taken what steps he can to reduce Assad's stronghold in Syria, specifically in May when he enforced sanctions against Assad and froze any assets he may have in U.S. territory, but he should not take any more direct actions agaist Assad.

 

Victoria Zopf

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.j...@twc.edu> wrote:

--
Victoria Zopf
vz...@student.umass.edu
(617) 775 - 5080

[Barnes, Eglee]

Revolutionaries in the Middle East deserve admiration and respect for their efforts in demanding rights from their leaders. In countries such as, Egypt the old regime is out and new structures are forming. Therefore, I believe they need aid in rebuilding their fractured societies. If there is no community order or direction in implementing a new government there will surely be consequences. I agreed with Ammar Abdulhamid's opinion that even though the people in America may be far away from the conflict we must still become involved with the situation. The world is interconnected; therefore, we cannot prevent the revolutions in the Middle East from affecting us. Furthermore, I believe we must address the issue in Syria with Assad regime's brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. Like Ammar Abdulhamid said at the Human Rights Panel we must write to our congressman about this issue and let them know that we care.

Eglee Vanessa Barnes
________________________________________
From: international-af...@googlegroups.com [international-af...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Indhika Jayaratnam [indhika.j...@twc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:06 PM

To: International Affairs Summer 2011

Subject: Human Rights Panel Question

From Andrea Barron:

[Melissa Rodgers]

"Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon�s decision to
use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?"

I think declaring a military war on drugs risks obscuring the larger
underlying issue of corruption. Effective law enforcement simply isn't
possible if drug lords can buy off local officials and enforcement
officers. A war on drugs may sound tough, but will probably only lead to
increased violence without addressing these structural issues. The problem
is much broader than what can be solved through military intervention.

[Jared Pack]

In regard to the question of whether or not I agree with Mexican
President Calderon's decision to use the military to curtail drug
cartels, I most certainly understand his thought process, but I would
disagree with the decision. There is a certain rationality behind
using the military to stop the drug cartels. The military has more
technology, more personnel, and more jurisdiction than the police. The
military is also a highly trained group of soldiers that, in theory,
should be able to appropriately respond to any situation. The
challenge, however, lies in what the military are trained to do.
Soldiers are trained to fight. They are trained to wage war and defend
the nation at all costs. They are not trained as drug task force
agents. They are not trained to handle purely domestic matters and
rarely operate within the cities and municipalities that drug cartels
would operate. All of these factors considered, the police and
national police would be more capable and more equipped to handle the
problems of drug cartels.

Jared Pack

[Farzaneh Perez]

I do believe that the Human Rights panel of this past Monday was a very educational and informative panel. All three presenters were able to provide us with very relevant knowledge for our program.

With reference to the question regarding the authority that groups like Amnesty International have in order to demand from governments the end to human rights violations , yes, I do think that organizations such as the one mentioned above rely on the legitimate right bestowed upon them by the very principles that their organization was built on. Amnesty International, alike other international humanitarian organizations, was founded as an organization with the sole mission and objective to advocate for human rights, raise awareness, and demand an end of those who trespass the rights of the people. Nevertheless, this objective and mission are not always carried out or accomplished as they per their intentions . For this reason, I believe it is highly significant that we understand the motives of these organizations and support them to the degree they merit , since someone ought to raise awareness of what takes place in this world. As I see it (and I may be terribly wrong) organizations such as Amnesty International pioneer the awareness frequently needed in order to begin a social movement that is likely to detain the problem, or at least inform those with the power to do so.

“Virginity tests”, as discussed during the panel, is a test that is still today, considered a social requirement in some countries around the world. Many consider that this test is psychologically degrading as well as life threatening, since this test subjects women to reveal information about themselves that might, in some countries, jeopardize their lives. Therefore, women should have the right to decide whether they accept or decline this sort of testing.

Perhaps what might empower Amnesty International even further on its demand to the Egyptian government to cease these violations of human rights is that if governments were to become involved, it might very well affect their international relations, thus jeopardizing foreign government’s relations among each other. Therefore, I support Amnesty International’s demand to the Egyptian government.

Sent from my iPad

[TJ Gerrett]

In regards to President Calderon’s decision to use the military to wage war against drug cartel, I believe in theory this would be a fantastic idea as it shows that he is serious in the crackdown on this drug problem that is overrunning the country. Although, it is know that Mexico’s military is deeply infested with corruption and is not trained to handle public security tasks, and thus I don’t agree with the president’s decision to use the military. It is necessary that the military is cleaned up before it can start making a difference in the war on drugs. Currently the UN is questioning the usage of the military and requesting that they are pulled out of the streets because of security concerns over citizens who have disappeared. I support the UN in this request. 

> From: fper...@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: Human Rights Panel Question

[IanC]

How should the international community, including the United States,
respond to the Assad regime's brutal crackdown on peaceful
demonstrators and other civilians in Syria?

The United States and the rest of the international community should
respond to the Assad regime's actions in bold and unforgiving fashion,
with a strategy rooted in delegitimization followed by individual-
empowerment/democratization.
The United States can begin the process of delegitimization by
withdrawing its ambassador and encouraging other major countries to do
the same. This sort of rejection on the world stage will dissolve any
remaining political capital Assad still holds, and thus embolden the
opposition movement. Furthermore, rather than calling on Assad to lead
the transition, the United States (particularly the president), needs
to come out and explicitly declare Assad's rule illegitimate as France
and Israel have done. A progressively influential actor in the region,
Turkey, must continue to facilitate the transition in Syria by
intensifying its rhetoric, encouraging reluctant members of the
Security Council to support measures against Assad, and providing
support to the thousands of Syrian refugees spilling across its
southern border.
With regard to individual empowerment/democratization, the
international community must encourage meaningful reform that includes
installation of the basic laws and institutions fundamental to a
modern, well-functioning democracy, i.e. free and fair elections,
freedom of the press, an equitable legal system, basic human rights
etc. This can only be accomplished by partnering with the leaders of
the opposition and listening closely to the rest of the Syrian people
so as to ensure it is done in a socially and culturally acceptable
manner.

On Jun 22, 11:06 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[timothy damon]

1. Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to

use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

I agree with the use of military force to combat the drug cartels, but not the use of the Mexican military force against them. The Mexican army has its own corruption issues to sort out and is meant for a battlefield rather than police work. Maureen made a good point when she recognized that soldiers are trained to deal with situations using lethal force, and that this makes them less ideal for use in general security. If the President wants to be most effective, he should send the soldiers out and take the war to the cartels' own turf and eliminate them that way - putting soldiers in population centers will only complicate matters.



2. How should the international community, including the United

States, respond to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful
demonstrators and other civilians in Syria?

The Syrian people want Assad gone, so I think it would be wise for us to encourage him to do so, rather than see him try to hang on to power until the bitter end. He may still do this anyway, but at least the new government that replaces his (whatever that looks like) will be more likely to support the U.S. (and the international community) since we took their position with our foreign policy. The aim should be to provide support short of military action, considering how heavily committed the U.S. and NATO already are elsewhere.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Barnes, Eglee <ev...@my.fsu.edu> wrote:

Revolutionaries in the Middle East deserve admiration and respect for their efforts in demanding rights from their leaders. In countries such as, Egypt the old regime is out and new structures are forming. Therefore, I believe they need aid in rebuilding their fractured societies.  If there is no community order or direction in implementing a new government there will surely be consequences. I agreed with Ammar Abdulhamid's opinion that even though the people in America may be far away from the conflict we must still become involved with the situation. The world is interconnected; therefore, we cannot prevent the revolutions in the Middle East from affecting us. Furthermore, I believe we must address the issue in Syria with Assad regime's brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. Like Ammar Abdulhamid said at the Human Rights Panel we must write to our congressman about this issue and let them know that we care.

Eglee Vanessa Barnes
________________________________________
From: international-af...@googlegroups.com [international-af...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Indhika Jayaratnam [indhika.j...@twc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:06 PM
To: International Affairs Summer 2011
Subject: Human Rights Panel Question

[Wayne P. Wright]

Regarding Calderon's decision to use his military, along with U.S. funding, to combat the drug cartels plaguing his nation, I think he has made the entirely wrong decision. It is a widely-acknowledged fact that drug usage has spiked since the "War on Drugs" began in the 1970s and '80s. Also, since Calderon came to office, roughly 40,000 Mexicans have been murdered in cold-blooded, drug-related violence. Clearly, the current strategy for combating drugs has proven ineffective. Similar to what occurred in the U.S. under Prohibition in the 1920s, I believe if drugs were legalized in Mexico, Central America and the U.S., drug violence would dramatically decrease. This is because the lifeblood of the cartels would be sucked out of them, leaving them with no purpose. They would shrivel away and die. Drug legalization would also be a boon for the federal government's of these countries, as it could function as a major source of tax revenue. However, as long as the "moral majority" continues to dominate the political discourse, rationalists unfortunately stand little chance of success.

Parker Wright
________________________________________
From: international-af...@googlegroups.com [international-af...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ivan Ho [iv...@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:33 AM
To: international-af...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Human Rights Panel Question

"Perhaps we need to take the hammer away from Assad and the Mexican military and give it to Amnesty International."Amnesty International has the right to demand that foreign governments stop the abuse of women, but they lack the teeth to enforce the demand." "

Are you trying to say that Amnesty International should use military force? I don't think giving military capabilities to a private NGO would solve anything.

> <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu<mailto:indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>>wrote:

[Alena Hontarava]

Of all people, Mexicans should know better than asking the military
for help. There were plenty of examples in Mexican and other Latin
American countries' history when military officers overthrew existing
governmetns and established military law. Why would anyone think it
can't happen again. The reasons why I think his decision is a BIG
mistake are:
1) Mexican military does not have proper training for taking down drug
cartels. Many from the military personnel are in cahootz with the drug
lords which will only perpetuate the circle of the existing crimes.
2) WikiLeaks report that the U.S. has sold arms to both the military
and the cartels. Calderon's decision is convenient for the U.S.
contractors who now can sell double the amount of weaponry just south
of the border. To an extent, it will be in the U.S. best interest if
the war between the military and the drug lords continues because that
will create a somewhat stable demand market.
3) I doubt that Mexican military staff, here I mean lower ranks,
undergo any type of testing or eligibility process. I would assume if
they can hold arms and shoot the target, they are in. Now, literacy
rates in Mexico in general are very low, especially so in the southern
regions. Many of these uneducated men, who now have weapons and
distorted illusion of power, are more likely to engage in violence
against civilian population, especially women. This will not improve
but deteriorate overall stability in the country and the number of
crimes, both reported and unreported, will increase (well, it already
did).

The network created by the cartels expands far beyond the Mexican
borders. No one is talking about Mexican and Colombian cartels
operating in the U.S.. It is easier to pretend that they are not here
even though 239 U.S. cities have identifiable distribution. I believe,
U.S. Senate on Foreign Relations Committee has some of those maps on
their website.
Engaging in this already bloody war was not a wise move on Caldron's
account.

[Katherine Bogue]

In regards to the Amnesty International discussion about whether they
should have the authority to stop the mistreatment of women in Egypt,
I believe they do...to an extent. The virginity tests are absolutely
appalling and as a fellow woman, it saddens me to realize that this
type of degrading and demoralizing treatment of women is still
extremely prevalent in many countries today. As stated by previous
students, Amnesty International has the motive and the intentions to
end such activities. It is a long standing argument between many
people that organizations can misappropriate their aid, force their
ideas down the throats of others, or do not take the best course of
action. That being said, it is extremely imperative that we continue
to draw support from the cries of these women. Amnesty has heard the
cries, and is choosing to answer. Whether that be by sending in direct
help, or by gathering support from people in the country by working
with the people there to fight this type of treatment, it is always
better to be heard than not.

It is definitely true that women do not have the same rights as men in
a large amount of countries, and it will take time and willpower to
reconcile this. Amnesty's work in gender equality is one that cannot
be achieved by just one voice or organization, but the collaboration
of many. This also can only be successfully achieved through the work
of not only organizations like AI, but through empowering the women in
the countries themselves. Western countries may have the ability to
change policies and destructive cultural practices, but it is only
through the support and empowerment of the indigenous individuals that
make them sustainable.

[Katherine Strike]

I do not support President Calderon's decision to use military force to combat Mexican drug cartels. As the conflict continues to escalate, I certainly understand why the military seems to be the only solution to this epidemic, but in a nation riddled with corrupt military officials and rampant impunity, this decision can only continue to fuel the violence that afflicts the Mexican populace. However, it is unfair to share this criticism without offering a recognition of why the military was selected as a potential solution. With violent, indiscriminate crime rates on the rise, it can seem that the only recourse is to fight violence with violence. In fact, this policy may be the only quick, visible means of confronting the issue that is guaranteed to produce tangible results for the general population. Unfortunately, this complicates the situation both domestically and transnationally as these drug cartels are certainly not contained within Mexican borders. With increasing communication demonstrated between these organized criminal cartels in employing gang factions on an ad hoc basis, it is unwise to begin systematically eliminating these groups if only because the lines of who is the enemy can easily become blurred. This blurring of lines implies the risk of slipping into vigilante organizations indiscriminately killing any suspected criminal, as has been documented in much of the Northern Triangle, which borders Mexico to the south. In addressing the drug cartel problem, it is important that Mexico upholds the (albeit frail) universality of judicial process that it guarantees to all citizens. While this dependence on the judicial process is clearly a historic challenge for Mexico, in addressing the drug violence President Calderon has the opportunity to apply stricter guidelines to combat police impunity and guarantee citizen security, as well as empower regional and local forces to crack down on the drug cartels, rather than turning to the military, as has been the knee-jerk response in most Central American conflicts. This will necessitate both greater hemispheric communication and accountability if this issue is to be resolved effectively.

 

Katie Strike

University of Arkansas

Seraphim Global

[Shannon]

In response to the third question, I feel this is a very difficult
topic and one that we have been discussing in my human rights class.
The problem is that every nation has its own sovereignty and it should
be a last resort to interfere in the affairs of another country.
Another issue with this question is how ingrained these practices are
into the culture. Some might argue that by interfering we are pushing
western civilization on a different culture. However, there are
rights that every individual has that exists to provide them with, at
the bare minimum, their sense of human dignity. When looking at
protecting this dignity, subjecting women to a virginity test and many
of the other human rights violations against women exists to maintain
an ideal that women are a lower class of people. These practices are
discriminatory in that men do not have to undergo them, therefore I
would say when discrimination to an entire class of people along with
practices to take away human dignity occur, it is a human rights
violation and groups like Amnesty have the right to interfere to
protect those who cannot protect themselves.

On Jun 22, 11:06 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>

wrote:

[JoAnna Beth Adkisson]

Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

 

If it weren't for the serious human rights violations and killings of innocent civilians over the past three years of this war, I would probably be all for it. However, the manner in which this war is being conducted seems quite futile. The Mexican army does well in destroying marijuana fields, but when it comes to fighting groups trafficking cocaine through border cities, they are rather incompetent.With high rates of corruption in the police systems, Mexico's economic struggles and its location in the movement of drugs through the Americas, a better solution is hard to conceive.

 

I agree with my peer who spoke to the fact that the issue of drug-trafficking is directly linked to the U.S. support of this Mexican export. Although it may be Mexico's job to deal with its citizens, it should be just as much a U.S. priority to address the policies surrounding use of drugs trafficked through Mexico. This would ultimately decrease the amount of drugs flowing through Mexico by removing the demand on the cartels by the U.S.

 

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.j...@twc.edu> wrote:

From Andrea Barron:
I am impressed by how sophisticated the discussion has been in answer
to the question on US policy toward Pakistan, and by the diversity of
opinion among students.

Here is this week’s question on the Human Rights Panel featuring
Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid, Maureen Meyer from the Washington
Office on Latin America and Cristina Finch from Amnesty International.
You can answer one or more of the following questions:

**  Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s decision to
use the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

** How should the international community, including the United
States, respond to the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful
demonstrators and other civilians in Syria?

** Do human rights groups like Amnesty International have the right to
demand that foreign governments stop committing  human rights
violations against women, such as the “virginity tests” the Egyptian
army forced women demonstrators to take this past March?

--
JoAnna Adkisson

Vice President

Student Government Association

Belmont University

[Chalisa Wangsang]

> Do human rights groups like Amnesty International have the right to
> demand that foreign governments stop committing human rights
> violations against women, such as the “virginity tests” the Egyptian
> army forced women demonstrators to take this past March?

Thinking on the different levels of power each entities have, human
rights group, NGOs and such, fall below the sovereignty of a nation.
They can advocate for change, but how much "power" does amnesty
international really have to be able to coerce a nation into change.
That's the real question. I'm not saying that Egypt or any other
countries should continue to commit human rights violation. AI can
only do everything in its organizational powers to shed light and
bring attention to other countries to coerce countries like Egypt to
stop the violations; staying in between the lines of advocacy (not
because it has to, but can it step beyond its bounds?). They can even
bring attention to the U.N. and collectively the countries in the
assembly can condemn Egypt. AI's mission is not wrong, but
realistically, how much will they get out of just singularly demanding
a sovereign nation to stop its actions. Advocate to the louder voices
in the crowd, Amnesty International, so your mission could be
fulfilled. Otherwise your other option is becoming NATO's human rights
enforcer and I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen.

[Kendall Clark]

Do you agree with Mexican President Felipe Calderon's decision to use
the military to wage war against the drug cartels?

In my opinion I believe Calderon has no other choice but to utilize
the Mexican army during such times of contention. Unfortunately, the
police in Mexico have been pressured to cooperate with the drug
cartels due to violent death threats because of their unwillingness to
support and smuggle cartels through the region. Drug cartels in
Mexico, as well as Central and South America have the monetary assets
to bride police forces and provide incentives if forces protect the
cartels. This is the unfavorable reality in Mexico's defense and
security sectors. Although, we have seen economic and social
improvements during the Calderon administration, most of the country
still lives in dire poverty. Therefore, fiscal brides presented by the
drug cartels are attractive to those fighting and living in
impoverished states in Mexico. Nevertheless, who's to say that the
Mexican military will not be caught in this same quarrel between
protecting their citizens or alleviating their families out of
poverty.
Military regimes revolting and disobeying their government's is not a
new story in countries like Mexico. We have seen similar instances
around the world and even in our own backyard in Chili, Colombia and
various other Latin American countries where high unemployment
resides, social and educational programs are lacking and poverty
plagues large percentages of the population. The Mexican military is
extensive in their influence in part because of Mexico's size.
However, the military has not had the practice and or experiences to
deal with such challenges.
I believe it is the United States' duty to help the Mexican military
patrol the activity of drug cartels around the region. The US has more
military experience than the Mexicans in such areas of security and
defense, and could not only be a strong leader in the war against
drugs but establish a non-corrupt police force. What I believe is the
biggest reason for defending Mexico is in part because of the
addictions we foster here in the US. We have fueled the drug cartels
all across Latin America. It is difficult to predict that if the US
legalized marijuana then the cartels wouldn't be so strong in Latin
America. However, marijuana is only marginally part of the problem.
Cocaine and opiates also fuel the cartels movement toward the US
border. And as an American citizen, there is absolutely no way
Congress would ever reason to pass legalization of these drug
especially since they are so hesitant to work on marijuana
legislation.
Of course the drug cartels in Latin America commit violent crimes on
their way to the US. Nevertheless, I believe it is only appropriate
that the US should reevaluate their addiction issues and accrue
stricter laws against drug perpetrators. Drug addiction and greed have
feed the movement of violent drug cartels in Latin America. It is
irresponsible for the US to ignore this problem especially since we as
an addicted country are half the problem. The US not only needs to
help Mexico and the rest of Latin America fight drug crime but
reevaluate it's values and morals in relation to drugs and
addition.

On Jun 22, 11:06 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>