Justice for all

Today I’d like to highlight a wonderful organization, HEAL Africa, which provides holistic care to people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As some of you may know, the DRC has been called the “worst humanitarian disaster since WWII” since about 5 million people have died since 1998. Despite the unstability of the country and the ongoing conflict, not as much international attention is given to the situation as is to Darfur. Yet, many have heard of the mass violence, especially sexual violence, which is widespread in the DRC as a result of the conflict.

HEAL Africa tackles the challenges of working in rural and resource-poor regions of eastern DRC head on, and more than that is taking an effective and unique approach. Here are some of their programs, all of which are very innovative:

• Gender-based violence: The program trains village women as counselors, who become the first stage in the process of healing and refer victims of sexual violence for treatment. There are now over 300 counselors in North Kivo and Maniema provinces. 28 safe houses for women have also been constructed to provide a safe environment for women, including those traveling to access medical care. The program also provides women with the opportunity to learn new skills like literacy and crafts, and can receive small business training.
• Health care: HEAL Africa has a well known teaching hospital in Goma which provides quality care. Community-based healthcare initiatives are also being pioneered, through which health professionals travel to rural areas to provide medical support and supplies. This is one of the few hospitals conducting research in the war-torn area.
• Micro-grants: Thousands of micro-grants have been provided for vulnerable people who live on less than a dollar a day. This is accompanied by financial training, savings collectives, small business training, and community accountability to maximize the impact of the grant.
• HIV/AIDS: This program educates people about HIV/AIDS through education seminars throughout churches in the province. They have a children’s AIDS program which provides children with ARV drugs along with a nutritional supplement to ensure that the children are not malnourished. They also provide home care for those severely ill.
• Gender and Justice: HEAL Africa also works through the law to try to ensure a more fair judicial system to support female empowerment. They work with the American Bar Association to reinforce the justice system, and then work to bring together community members and leaders in a coalition to support gender equity. They also teach gender equity in the classroom, and work to change the attitudes of men (which I argued was so important in my last post.)
• Children Like Us: HEAL Africa actually sends specialized staff into communities to search for disabled children who may need assistance. Then, these children are provided with support and/or surgery, and their families provided income generation grants.

As you can see, their range of programs and services are incredible - not only varied but also each innovative and effective in its own right! I am honestly amazed by how much a grassroots organization is able to accomplish. Beyond just the innovative programs, HEAL Africa takes such a holistic approach to its work and ensures that all the needs of the community: medical, social, and spiritual, are met. This in itself is innovative and proving that such an approach (opposed to specialization) works is significant. Moreover, the organization is setting the foundation for long-term impact rather than short-term fixes. They hire local staff who have an intimate knowledge of the region, and engage in leadership training.

HEAL Africa is doing amazing work to transform communities in eastern Congo even while conflict is ongoing. I encourage you to visit their website (which is also beautifully done) and learn more about them. I only wish more organizations took this approach since it seems to be highly effective.

Image credit: HEAL Africa

Today, President Obama spoke to Africans in his speech to the Ghanaian Parliament. Before reading, I was kept in anticipation, exciting to hear the new vision of our President with regards to Africa. I was excited, especially, after the revelations in his Cairo speech - and I hoped that he would bring a fresh perspective to America’s foreign policy to Africa in his remarks.

Certainly, I was inspired. But, I have to agree with Texas in Africa, who states:

The speech was not surprising and not particularly interesting in that it contained nothing new beyond the reflections of an American president who has a Kenyan father. Obama’s speech presented the same line that American leaders have been delivering to African states since the end of the Cold War: be democratic, stop being corrupt, embrace market capitalism, stop fighting with one another, and we’ll help you deal with disease.

Unfortunately, this is true. Obama spoke about things we all know by now about Africa; he focused on democracy, economic growth, public health, and conflict. But here’s the thing: most people know the challenges facing Africa right now. The media tells the American people over and over again about the HIV/AIDS epidemic, about the genocide in Darfur, about the lack of economic growth and business opportunities in Africa, about poverty, and about dictatorship. He talks about Zimbabwe, pirates in Somalia, Kenya and post-election violence, and South Africa. We’ve heard of these conflicts and problems a million times. What about countries he didn’t mention? There is the conflict in northern Uganda and DRC and CAR, the intervention of the ICC in various countries, and countless other countries with their own stories to tell. But, he doesn’t mention these. Perhaps it’s too much to mention in one speech, but I still think there is more to be said.

Obama didn’t do much to go beyond these common conceptions of Africa. There was nothing new in terms of US relations with African countries, and nothing much said about the new way forward. What is America going to do, other than provide foreign aid? Obama does allude to these facts - that the West is not wholly responsible for the problems in Africa although often blamed for drawing inappropriate colonial boundaries - that Africans must step up and take charge of their continent’s future - and that we will support innovation and technology for African farmers. This is good, but I wish there was a greater redefinition of America’s attitude towards African countries. There was not enough said about what we can do to help.

One thing I did like was his focus on corruption. Corruption, certainly, is a serious problem and I feel that Obama is right in acknowledging this. Corruption is an enormous problem that often isn’t emphasized by the international community. But the reality is this: according to the World Bank - a conservative estimate of bribes paid worldwide (including developed and developing countries) - the “cost of corruption” is essentially 1 trillion US dollars. Not a measly sum by any measures.

As a result, one of my favorite parts of the speech was when he emphasized good governance and rule of law - and the need to end corruption - from state heads and CEOs to the everyday police officer:

This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.

This, I have to say, was truly inspring. Perhaps it’s especially because this summer, I’m working for an organization working to end torture and corruption by prison officials and police through appropriate training. It’s inspiring to me to see one component of our work - which I believe to be so important - to be pointed out by Obama. Along with just mentioning the cost of corruption, I hope Obama implements policies and supports initiatives working to stop this.

At the very least, I hope his speech touched thousands of Ghanaians and inspired people around the world. I hope it educated those who know less about the problems facing Africa. Though I’m not one to criticize, I do at the same time hope that our President will take more prompt action to change things and implement more concrete initatives to benefit the continent. What are your thoughts?

Oftentimes, it seems to me that criminal justice reform falls to the wayside in light of many more seemingly pressing issues, even within the broader human rights community. People tend to look down on criminal justice reform, wondering why resources need to be spent on assisting those who are accused of crimes, when they would be much better spent on the rest of the population that is clearly not guilty. Why should we help people who are criminals anyway?

Sure, I understand this logic and to an extent I would even agree with it. However, in the U.S., far too much money is spent on the criminal justice system. Harsh sentences and prison time are given to those who often have committed nonviolent offenses (e.g. drug dealing) and there are mandatory minimum sentences, which give judges little discretion to adjust or reduce the sentences given for particular crimes - leading to increased years in prison where it is unnecessary. By putting drug offenders in jail and increasing the time in jail for the accused more generally, the government is stretching its justice system to the limits. As more people go to prison for longer periods of time, maintaining this system becomes increasingly expensive and a drain on state resources. By reforming the criminal justice sector, we are helping free up more money and resources for the other sectors - less money spent on the justice system leads to more state resources for education and healthcare. This is just one reason we should care.

Though the justice system in the U.S. is incredibly flawed, I’m even more surprised about the minimal attention given to the failed justice sectors in many developing countries. In much of the developing world, injustices caused by the criminal justice sector are far greater than those in the U.S. Take Zimbabwe, a primary example of the horrid prison conditions for inmates in developing countries. Reports suggest that inmates in Zimbabwe’s prisons are literally starving to death, while sick and healthy prisoners are living together in overcrowded cells.

“There are people there who look worse than the photographs of prisoners in [Nazi concentration camps] Dachau and Auschwitz,” - Roy Bennett, Imprisoned MDC politician, speaking on release in March

If you remain unconvinced, you might argue: well, even if the prison conditions are bad, they are still criminals. Why should a developing country, with even more limited resources than the U.S., work on fixing the justice system when the regular population is itself poor? To this I say - in many countries, it’s not just the horrible conditions of the prisons themselves that is a problem, but the lack of an entire legal infrastructure. This means that in many countries, you could easily be accused of a crime you did not commit, and then thrown into jail without being guaranteed a lawyer or a fair trial; you could languish in jail for years in pre-trial detention and be tortured by the police to divulge information that you may not even have. In Rwanda, for instance, more than 80% of defendants remain unrepresented and without access to a lawyer. Thus, we see that in many developing countries, oftentimes those who are languishing in prison are not the truly guilty - they are many times poor and marginalized, unfairly accused and without access to legal advice, and so deserve as much attention as the average person who has not been accused.

Shocking as this is, what’s more shocking is that there are situations like this in many developing countries. And what’s even more shocking is that the media and even the international human rights community pay little attention to criminal justice reform in developing countries. To be honest, I’m extremely disappointed in the Change.org criminal justice blog because it focuses for the most part on the American justice system, and rarely alludes to the rest of the world, where conditions are often even worse! Change.org is a popular destination and the criminal justice blog is perfectly poised to inform its readers of the failures of criminal justice worldwide - but unfortunately doesn’t fulfill this by choosing to focus narrowly on the U.S. There is so much to be said that isn’t.

Ultimately, I hope people begin to understand the role of criminal justice reform within the broader human rights movement, and I hope that this begins happening soon. The justice sector is in great need of assistance, and though it may not be a “sexy” issue, it is no less important than detainment of journalists and political prisoners, conflict, or even poverty.

Picture credit: rayphua on flickr

A few days ago, I had the privilege of attending a lecture at LSE by Professor Paul Collier, author of The Bottom Billion. He talked about the topics in his new book: Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places. I haven’t read it yet, but am itching to get my hands on a copy as soon as possible - especially after hearing his amazing lecture.

In his talk, he spoke about the rampant poverty and instability of the “bottom billion” countries, and the links between this economic stagnation and political conflict. Essentially, he believes that governance in Africa is one of the main obstacles to economic development, and if Africa is to develop anytime soon we have to focus on helping African countries develop stable democracies elected through regular, free, and fair elections. This is political science 101: economic development and political stability are deeply intertwined.

He started off by stating the two essential functions of the state: to provide security and to be accountable to the people. These are essential public goods that foster economic growth and are necessary for the development of any society. In Europe, states emerged first as a solution to the problem of security. And due to the constant external warfare amongst countries, European states needed more money to fund war, and thus turend to taxation as a means of getting this money. Taxation leads to representation: these states had to become more accountable to the people in order to gain their tax money and support. Thus, war became a rallying point for accountability and national unity. The reason African states are in such dire condition right now, Collier asserts, is because they developed via a very different process that did not allow for security and accountability. African states didn’t emerge autonomously. Their boundaries were drawn arbitrarily by the colonial powers, and there was no sense of common national identity. Some states were too large to maintain internal unity, while some were too small to be effective. There was no external warfare, but lots of fighting amongst various groups within individual states. The countries had no way to mobilize taxation. Most African countries do not have truly free and fair elections, and even if they do the presidents are often overthrown by military coups. So these countries have ended up not providing security nor accountability to their people.

So what can we actually do about this? The way forward, he says, is to work towards both these things: security and accountability. There are regional solutions: African countries can come together to provide security for one another. This hasn’t really worked in the past, though, because many countries may have illegitimate interests and may use these opportunities to exploit one another. In addition, the regional effort for accountability has not been successful — even if many African leaders say they want to unite, they would never give up or share sovereignty themselves. For example, recently Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi has called for a pan-African state and a single African government. But if he had to do so, he would likely never actually give up power in favor of a federal solution. Thus, regional efforts are not likely to make much progress.

And so, Collier turns to international solutions, which he believes are most effective. For security, he cites that post-conflict peacekeeping is highly effective in reducing recurrence of conflict in a particular country; sure, we have to continue aid, but we definitely have to dedicate more resources to ramping up peacekeeping in many post-conflict situations. Collier also supports more robust budget systems with increased governance conditionalities imposed by donors. I certainly see the merit in these suggestions.

But perhaps his most controversial suggestion is international intervention to ensure the accountability of African governments. He proposes the establishment of an international standard for free and fair elections. If a government holds a free and fair election fulfilling these standards, then the resulting winner should be guaranteed “protection” against any coup by powerful international actors, like the US. So essentially, an African president who is elected through free and fair elections, and then continue to rule in a democratic manner with good governance, then the US would help them to stay in power against any party who might try to overthrow him. This would give an incentive for an African leader to help establish free and fair elections with the hope that he would be granted protection, and this would also discourage coups because the threat of US intervention would be too great for any party to attempt a coup.

Although the idea is appealing, I have to say I’m not completely convinced. Is the only solution to stability, economic development, and democracy in Africa related to military intervention? There have to be ways in which economic development and bottom-up approaches can also help these societies: it seems pessimistic to assume that international intervention is the only solution to these problems - even in the long run. Where do NGOs and businesses come into play? And how would this work out politically - what happens if the US guarantees against a coup but then has to actually intervene? Would the US, UK, UN, etc actually agree to such a plan? Sure, his solution might work out, but suggesting politically unfeasible solutions isn’t all that effective.

Overall, I have some reservations, but still hope to read the book because I am sure it’ll provide valuable insights into the state of democracy and governance in Africa. What do you think: is military intervention a good idea to ensure security and accountability in the countries of the bottom billion?

We need more - we need the truth. We need to look back at the Bush Administration and investigate what went wrong with America’s rule of law during our “war on terror”: torture, illegal wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and other human rights violations. Why did this happen? Who let it happen? And how can we ensure it never happens again?

We desperately need to establish a Truth Commission to investigate these abuses, and America agrees. After all, 62% of Americans agree that the government should undertake a criminal investigation or set up an independent panel to investigate these anti-terror measures, according to a Gallup poll.

But President Obama said it is more important to move forward, rather than to look back. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed such a commission, but President Obama didn’t seem to be too keen on the idea. Yet, President Obama really should consider an informal commission - if not a formal investigation. Personally, I believe that criminal prosecutions are necessary. Necessary for accountability and deterrence. Only by conducting formal investigations will America come to terms with the gravity of what has passed. And only this way can we ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.

Moreover, if we don’t conduct investigations into the allegations of waterboarding and other torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, foreign courts (and even the ICC, though that likely won’t happen anytime soon) will have the right to prosecute U.S. officials under “universal jurisdiction.” It’s only right that we fulfill our responsibilities.

As a legal matter, we are compelled to investigate by the Convention Against Torture, a binding treaty, that requires its signatories to investigate and refer for possible prosecution credible evidence of torture under their jurisdiction. — David Cole

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have been set up around the world - in Rwanda after the genocide, in Argentina, in Chile, in South Africa. There is a precedent for their success. Truth Commissions in some countries led to eventual criminal prosecutions, as they uncovered valid evidence through the process. I’m not saying the crimes of the “war on terror” are in any way comparable to genocide, but I am saying we have a responsibility to at least look into it.

We lock up people for low-level drug offenses through harsh mandatory minimum prison terms, rather than giving them the support services they need. New York spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year imprisoning people convicted of drug possession, but we can’t investigate into something as serious as allegations of torture? It seems a little ironic to me that drug possession lands you in jail for years, but something like approving torture of indefinitely detained prisoners doesn’t even require an investigation.

And sure, people argue that many of those involved simply followed the legal advice of the Justice Department which stated that waterboarding was not torture. But don’t people have responsibilities for their actions regardless? These officials should have had the ability to judge on their own whether what they were doing is wrong. It’s that plain and simple. Following orders blindly can be wrong, as we see from the Holocaust. Again, I’m not comparing these two situations at all - just pointing out similarities. People need to be held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether it was their idea or not in the first place.

Michael Ratner sums this up well:

This is why President Obama is wrong when he argues that prosecution is looking backward; it is not. Prosecution is a means of preventing torture in the future…..Some claim that to prosecute those who approved torture techniques would criminalize a policy difference. But torture is against the law. The claim that the administration officials who promoted the use of waterboarding and other measures were acting in the national interest does not absolve them; if it did, all torturers the world over would use the same justifications.

And so, we need an investigation because America is a role model for countries around the world. We need to show that we are not just changing our policies, but being truly accountable for our actions. Only then can we become a strong advocate for human rights around the world, and only then can we encourage other governments to end human rights violations without hypocricy at home. And we need to investigate so that those responsible will be brought to justice. Together, we have to say - never again.

This post was also featured on the Brazen Careerist network. Please click here to read more comments on it.