Children for Human Rights

Youth for Human Rights International is doing an extraordinary job of reminding communities and society that human rights are important. They are also doing a great job of pulling us back from our legalistic obsessions (or realism!) with tracing the origin of human rights to determine their validity. Whenever something is framed in the language of rights, it becomes an issue of stark realism: where did the rights come from? Are they justified? Are they contrivances for the gain of some, while disadvantaging others? Indeed, the legitimacy of these questions is not in question, what is in question is the inescapable hold of realism that digs into what claims human rights guarantee or what interests they protect, not to learn the truth, but to discard it with a hideous sophistry that can't be helped. Even if the probe is serious and has no hidden agenda, too little attention is paid to the felt element; deep down there is a sense that human survival is not just instinctive, it's reasoned, planned (... by design?), mandated in some fashion. Youth for human rights have picked this up evidenced by their generosity and compassion. Their work which includes helping in the building of schools in poorer, less fortunate parts of the world shows it.

Remembering the Tragedy of Melody Island

I truly appreciate Kimberly T's comments on the last piece. As always they were insightful and I look forward to responding. As at now, we are still mourning the loss of Natalia Estemirova. Today, I'll do so by telling a tragic story...


On the continent of Stanis, there were three island kingdoms; they lay serenely next to one another. It was impossible to miss the incredible sight they made as you entered the navigational waters of Stanis. How could they ever be missed when they lay in such incomparable beauty. They glistened in the brilliance of the afternoon sun. A sight to behold! Once, a non-stanis traveler called them three princesses that could only rely on the power of personification for life, yet, had the power to arouse the strongest of men.

The one in the middle was Melody Island. To the north of Melody was Sallowmile and to the south, Cacophony. King Gustaro ruled Melody. Sallowmile had its strong man, King Rasule; and King Franksell in Cacophony. Stanis historians tell the story of the three islands having once been part of one big Kingdom until the kings' ancestors, three cousins, many centuries ago decided they wanted their own domains and fought their way to that end. However, as time went on, old wounds healed.

But Stanis historians suggest that time wasn't really the medicine that healed the kingdoms and mended their relationships. The greatest impact came from the tradition of music of the three islands. As the center of the three, Melody Island had the most talented musicians and the most charming sounds came from within its gates. Sallowmile loved the sounds of Melody Island. It brought joy to the neighboring kingdom. Negative emotions under the stresses of daily living were taken away, almost vaporized by enchanting melodies from the center of the three. Cacophony needed Melody Island; its survival depended on it. King Franksell could not be honest with his cousin that there was concern in Cacophony and Sallowmile that fewer and fewer women were being seen in Melody; fewer and fewer women were being heard within its gates.

Even though none of the kingdoms dictated sexual orientation, heterosexuality was dominant. But times were changing. Sexual preference was becoming a diverse reality, especially, in Melody Island. The concern in the neighboring kingdoms was not the sexual orientation of the subjects of Melody, but the dying of the sounds of Melody Island, loss of the voices of women.

Slowly but surely, what had remained a well kept secret in Melody Island started coming to light. The ladies of Melody were being killed, not because of sex, but because of a bizarre ritual. The string instruments had to be made of the flesh of women. At least, that was what they believed. So women were being killed and their flesh used to make the strings. But the music didn't get better; it worsened. Melody knew this but would not stop.

Franksell could not stand up to Gustaro : he needed him. Rasule in Sallowmile was a strong-man, but Sallowmile would not support war at this time. Moreover, Rasule was not one to go against tradition. So no one spoke up about the killings! Before many years passed, Melody Island lost its sounds, and died a slow and awful death. Cacophony needed Melody so it died a few years after. Today, Sallowmile's existence is worse than that of the living dead!

Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Silence is betrayal!"

Don't cry for Melody Island. Remember Estemirova. And my deepest thanks for stopping by. Take care!

We Mourn the Death of Natalia Estemirova and Listen for the Bells of Justice!

An article appeared in The Human Rights Watch newspaper entitled, "Russia: Justice for Killing Natalia Estemirova." The article stated: "Natalia Estemirova, a leading human rights activist in the troubled Russian republic of Chechnya and a close colleague of Human Rights Watch, was abducted near her home in Grozny on the morning of July 15, 2009, and carried off in a car as people on a nearby balcony heard her call out that she was being kidnapped. She was found shot dead later that day in the neighboring republic of Ingushetia."

Here is a dramatic dialogue dedicated to the memory of Estemirova:

Natalia: Have you found me?

Citizen: We never lost you. It happened before our eyes. We cried out!

Fellow Activist: We'll get to the bottom of this. Justice will be done.

Human Rights Lawyer: What does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights say? What precedents guide us in our understanding of its provisions?

Citizen: Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves? Don't we first have to get those responsible for her death to get justice for Natalia?

Natalia: Find me first; in Russia, in the Congo, in Dafur... Then, you would have journeyed closer to justice, don't cry for me nor for Russia, but for humanity...the threat to life, to human rights. Get back at "disregard" and "contempt" for human life.

Good evening, Natalia!

To all, thanks for stopping by.

Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a precious portion of that great document. I have chosen for today's reflection...

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

How Should the United States Continue to Engage with North Korea?

In a recent interview, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton explained her approach to North Korea in terms of motherhood through which she has gained experience on how to deal with children. The gist of her comment was that as a mom she knows one does not give in to a child's tantrums and demands. The implication is clear: the United States will not give in to the whims and caprices of North Korea's childish emotionalism that often boils down to threats and demands.

What happens to "carrot and stick" diplomacy as the U.S. approach in dealing with North Korea? Does it still work in this context? "Carrot and stick" diplomacy requires some rewards and some punishment to induce behavior. I suspect that anything that remotely resembles punishment would be totally unacceptable to North Korea despite the carrots to go along with it. Does this mean we are left with the Bush doctrine with respect to the policy of preventive war? This policy essentially held that foreign regimes should be deposed that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the united States, even if that threat was not immediate..." Can a soft-heart policy be adopted towards North Korea?

Thanks for stopping by. As always remember change begins with you!

Is Lazarus Really Rising?

Sometime in 2004, J. Peter Pham wrote an interesting article in the International Journal of Not-for-profit Law, entitled, "Lazarus Rising: Civil Society and Sierra Leone's Return from the Grave." Did he see it happening? I ask that question only because if he saw Lazarus rising, then he was witness to a miracle of Christ. Wait! Knowing everything that I do about the miracles of Christ, everything in me says we should not ask whether the miracle was completed; I personally will not be caught faithless. Indeed, "rising" implies "in the process of." If anything, we should question what Pham saw.

I went back and read the Pham article. While it might have been well-intentioned, it boiled down to nineteenth century prose/pontification dripping with hideously rich paternalism, viewed with great suspicion. The narrative goes: the country was founded by the British, Freetown was founded as a settlement for slaves driven out of America for being loyalists in the American War of Independence. At Sierra Leone's independence, they were given the ball (great economic reserves) to run with, they didn't do it. They failed as evidenced by a decade of civil conflict! You are welcome to quarrel with my reading of Pham.

But wait! Pham states: "While the forceful intervention of an international military force, seconded by a not inconsiderable civilian presence, ultimately turned the tide in the protracted Sierra Leonean conflict, the groundwork for recovery had been laid by the patient—albeit at times seemingly ineffectual—efforts of the country’s civil society organizations. This gives rise to the hope that Sierra Leone might indeed break free of the endemic cycle of frustrated expectations, economic stagnation, social alienation, government collapse, and communal violence that has plagued it and many other African states since independence. If it can fully avail itself of the rare opportunity that the fortunate juncture of international attention, donor interest, democratic politics, and civic spirit has given it, Sierra Leone might not only return from the dead, but also live up to the aspirations of the liberated Africans who endowed the very name of its capital with its true meaning two centuries ago."

Look, there is a profoundly positive note in Pham! Something of a soft-heart view. I love it. I am a dreamer. I am a believer in possibility, even the conscience of language must be awakened and celebrated. But the question is still critical: did Pham see Lazarus rising? I know Jesus can perform the miracle, but what did Pham see? Could it be that Pham saw something rising because he projected his point of view into the distance (not the soft-heart view, but one covered in messy paternalism)? Can Sierra Leone rise in the spirit of the "liberated Africans" and be itself? Is that the best resurrection for that country? Perhaps. You let me know.

In March 2009 Africa News reported the return of civil unrest in Sierra Leone. The two major political parties were at each other's throats again: All Peoples' Congress party (APC) and The Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP). According to the report, people were killed and others injured. There has recently been international intervention. Here, again, I'm not sure what Pham saw in 2004, but I'll ask Christ Himself!


My deepest thanks for stopping by. As always, change begins with you!

Constructing/Sustaining a Soft-Heart View of the World: How is it Really Done?

I always comment on something I think is lamentable about the human experience. We ignore the individual when we are trying to solve big problems. In fact, we are educated to think of complex and complicated realities when we think of war and peace, economic crisis, famine, devastation by natural calamities, racism, hate crimes etc. We don't think small. Yeah! Many of us go along with the slogan "Big problems require big solutions." I am as guilty of this as the next person. Especially when dealing with race issues, we look to the great civl rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King jr. for guidance. But in general, America looks to other originators of big ideas like Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others; on an international scale, the nations look to the U.N., that great assembly of nations, of humankind.

This intellectual, social, and historical orientation to solve problems and tackle complexities by looking to the collective or leaders of the collective is indeed a cultivated tendency to respond to a grand impulse. But what is often missed is that solutions to problems (great or small) are not always found in the quarters, contrivances, intiatives, and prevarications of the great gatherings of humanity. Who bothers to look small, search at the mircro-level? Who bothers to look to the individual, my needle person in a haystack? We are obsessed with John Donne's great statement: "No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main..." This is true! Its entrenchment in our consciousness is a protective armor against deadly creeps of isolationism, withdrawal, and senseless individualism.

But sensible individualism/ individual action is a critical ingredient in the mixture of survival. Instrospection, self-reflection, quiet self-examination are indispensable. While banal, the urge is irrisistible to recall Socratic wisdom in the idea that "The unexamined life is not worth living." At this point, let me point out that Botswana has strict two term limits on how long a person can be president.

Upon the enactment of the two term limit, was there opposition? What do you think? Don't say, "Yes, because African politics is like that, and leaves too much to be desired." Would you say, "Yes, because Lord Acton said, wisely, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.'" Constructing and sustaining a soft-heart view is as much an individual, and perhaps even more, an invidual project than a collective one. Soft-hearts can feed society moral meat; they can make society better. But they have to know that their project is both conscious and subconscious. It is an error to try to render it completely through the conscious mind. One of my concerns would be the emergence of hypocrisy should such a hallowed project be rendered completely through a conscious mind. What would your concern be?

I am sure there was some opposition in Botswana, but the river of tradition and time are waters even the opposition has to deal with. It is entirely possible that inviduals who were ones opposed to short term limits on the presidency in Botswana have become use to it. Perhaps, now it has merged with the individual conscience. Is it not in this context, now, that we can expect the soft-heart view of former presidents of that country to come out and praise a two term limit in a Botswana that is proud of its stabilty?

I am not sure what would happen if you unplugged the consciousness of opposition (political or otherwise) from the ear of conscience? If you know what would happen, leave me a comment about it below.

My deepest thanks for stopping by...Always remember, change begins with you!