See below the fold for this week’s international events. If you have an event that you’d like included, please send it to ipsainformer@gmail.com
Jennifer Trahan of the Center for Global Affairs discussed the international justice system at Wagner today. She traced the history from Nuremberg through Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and described current issues with the International Criminal Court (ICC), including its warrant for the arrest Sudan’s President al-Bashir. She displayed impressive knowledge of the intricacies and politics surrounding the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
However, the audience was left confused about a critical issue: when crimes should be prosecuted at the international level rather than within the affected country’s own justice system. By Trahan’s own admission, the criteria are unclear. The ICC’s founding statute gives it jurisdiction when the national government is "unable or unwilling to genuinely prosecute." We can imagine situations that obviously trigger this clause: for example, when legal capacity is limited, or when accused war criminals have powerful allies. But what about ambiguous situations? A dictator’s successors may decide to grant him immunity (as Chile did for Pinochet) or a post-conflict government may decide that prosecution would hurt the cause of national unity.
The crux of this problem: the international community’s interests may diverge somewhat from the affected country’s. Both are interested in justice generally. But while the international community is concerned with the potential deterrence created by high-profile cases, national leaders in the affected country are more interested in how prosecutions might impact their country’s ability to move forward.* There is no a priori reason to think that a single course of action would serve both of these goals. When the goals conflict, the ICC statute language apparently gives the international community a trump card. The country’s interests seem to play no role in whether the ICC plays that card.
The affected country’s interests should be paramount when deciding how to pursue justice. The result of any process will be much more important for that country than for any other. Furthermore, that country will know how to reach the optimal result better than any other. One might object that a post-conflict country is unlikely to articulate or pursue a unified "country interest". Factions will still exist, with a mix of noble and less-than-noble motivations, and they may disagree on the best route forward. But that’s exactly the point. The country needs a way to heal, and part of that requires figuring out how to heal.
The international community certainly has an interest in ensuring punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are instances of clear national governance failure that necessitate international action. But the presumption should always be for the country’s leaders to decide a course of action. The international community should tread carefully before deciding that it knows best.
By: Dave Algoso
*Of course, both groups must also respond to the political demands of their various constituents. But let’s limit this discussion to the moral reasoning and accompanying public rhetoric that is used.
By Chris Pedersen
So often in the news the issue of the US and NATO involvement in Afghanistan is a topic that brings out strong emotions from both those that support and oppose the idea of military involvement. With such a grand question, it is futile to argue such a big issue without breaking down the US-Afghan issue into smaller pieces,limiting the number of variables. Let us focus on the US and NATO role in training Afghan police officers. With troops planning on withdrawing in July 2011, this is a very important task.
The US and Allied forces that are in charge of training the new Afghan recruits face some challenging tasks to say the least. These new recruits have some astonishing characteristics that include:
- One in five recruits test positive for drugs.
- Fewer than one in 10 can read and write, making the simplest tasks of writing down a license plate an obstacle.
- Taliban infiltration is a constant worry. Last November, five British NATO officers training a police unit in Helmand Province were killed by one of their trainees. Taliban later claimed the attack.
Afghanis off the street can become a police officer in under 3 months of training . Recruits are given an eight week training course and then placed throughout the country. With poor pay, the highest death rate of all security forces and lack of equipment, a quarter off all officers quit within a year. Recognizing the inadequacies of the current police training force, the US has tried to address some of the concerns of finding new instructors and creating programs that would raise the moral and identity of the Afghan police force.
Instead of the military or State Department taking the role of training the police force, the US government has hired a private contractor, DynCorp, to take on the large endeavor. The actions of the US should speak for itself of the limit to which the US military is stretched and the unwillingness of NATO allies to commit additional resources to the Afghan campaign.
DynCorp, after receiving a large contract by the US has sent a unit that mainly consists of retired police officers to train the police force. Since arriving, the officers have complained that they are overwhelmed by recruits incompetency and facing challenges in communicating information. NATO officers working with DynCorp complain that shortly after arrival, DynCorp contractors had lost motivation and have shown unprofessional attitudes because of lack of managerial oversight. Brig. Gen. Carmelo Burgio, an Italian Carabinieri NATO force contends that one of the biggest failings of the training program was the State Department’s over reliance on private contractors, whom he described as often over-aged, under-motivated, and expensive. Burgio says, “For the cost of 10 DynCorp, I can put 30 Carabinieri (NATO) trainers in and save money.”
Like many other parts of the region, family structure and reliance between family members for survival is crucial. Loyalties between family and the police force has been an issue where family ties prevail. For example, if one family member is in the police force and another in the Taliban, communication will not even seize and usually grow. NATO commanders have been frustrated with failed missions where police forces have planned to ambush the Taliban only to find out that Taliban forces have been tipped off by the Afghan police forces themselves.
This brings me to my last point: When President Obama addressed the world with his future plans of US involvement in Afghanistan, one of the key points that he brought up was the idea of withdrawing in July 2011. Although we will continue to have a presence, both with boots on the ground and monetarily beyond 2011, what confidence does that bring to the Afghan people, whose trust the US and Allied forces have worked so hard to win? If you were in the boots of an Afghan police man, which side would you lean to support, the Taliban who show no signs of leaving their native land or a police force that is backed by an Allied foreign military that will begin its withdrawal in 18 months?
See below the fold for this week’s international events at NYU and around the city. If you have any events that you would like included in the IPSA Informer, please send them to ipsainformer@gmail.com
See below for this week’s international events. Don’t forget about the IPSA General Meeting on Friday!
Just over two years ago, I awoke to the news of Benazir Bhutto’s death. My immediate reaction, like the rest of the international community, was shock. But after the initial shock passed, I was overcome by grief. That day, I wept for her, for her family, for Pakistan, and also for those of us who had lost a great role model.
In November 2002, I attended a special lecture of Bhutto’s at Middle Tennessee State University. I was a junior in high school, and had decided to attend the lecture because of the promise of extra credit for history class. At my parents’ encouragement, I was told not only to attend her lecture because it may improve my grade, but to really listen to what she had to say. And I did.
I sat close to the back of the large auditorium in which she spoke, but over seven years later, I still remember her face. Dressed in royal blue and her trademark loose-fitting hijab, she was gracious, well-spoken, and often just downright funny. She told the audience of her days growing up in Pakistan as the privileged child of a wealthy political family, her studies at Harvard and Oxford, her avid belief in democracy and its impact on her rule as Pakistan’s first female prime minister, her struggles against gender discrimination, her travels across the world, her imperfections, and most importantly her ultimate mission in life – to return to Pakistan and improve the lives her people.
To say that Benazir Bhutto left an impression on me that autumn evening would be an understatement. She inspired me. My home country, Sierra Leone, was barely out of a brutal decade-long civil war, and though I was young, I too knew I wanted to improve the condition of my land and my people. I wanted to follow in Bhutto’s footsteps. In many ways, I did. In the years that followed, I spent an ample amount of time traveling and studying world cultures and religion. I went on to study comparative government at Harvard, and wrote my senior thesis on democracy-building in Sierra Leone. As time passed and as the memory of that November evening became increasingly distant, I never forgot how Bhutto motivated me to pursue a career in public service.
So in early 2007 when Bhutto reappeared onto the international scene, ready to return to Pakistan from exile and to run again for political office, I could not help but to take notice and to see what next she would achieve. For the last few months of her life, I followed her every interview, every rally, every political move. And though the threat of violence was imminent, I never imagined it would ultimately claim the life of the woman who I admired so much.
It has been two years since Benazir Bhutto was assassinated after leaving a political rally in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The memories of that day are still fresh in my mind – the last image of her waving toward a crowd of supporters, her entry into the vehicle which moments later would be attacked, the shots and blast that took her life, the rioting in the days afterward… For her life to come to such a violent end, for her to never see Pakistan fulfill its potential, one may sadly conclude that Bhutto lived her life in vain. I know that this is not the case. To me, Benazir Bhutto exemplified strength and grace in the face of opposition and illustrated to the world the profound impact that a life of public service can have. It is for these reasons I thank her and will always remember her.
–
Effie O. Johnson
Master of Public Administration (MPA) Candidate, May 2011
International Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy
Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University
A.B. Harvard University, 2008
It’s tough to fit the degrees that IPSA members get on a resume, especially "Master of Public Administration in Public and Nonprofit Management with a specialization in International Policy and Management." But despite the lengthy name, the degree is still quite general. It could set you up for a wide range of career paths. Success on the job market, however, requires specialization. Potential employers see many resumes from candidates that could do the tasks described in the job posting. What they’re looking for are the candidates with the best overall fit.
This fit can occur along three major dimensions: issue area, functional skill set, and geographic focus. Issue area refers to things like education, health, microfinance, human rights, environment, etc. Other things being equal, a microfinance organization is likely to look favorably on a candidate who has microfinance experience. Functional skill set means the type of work being done: fundraising, program implementation, policy research, monitoring/evaluation, grant making, finance — to name but a few. Finally, geographic focus is self-explanatory. If knowledge of the local context is important, then an organization would prefer to hire a candidate who already understands the country or region in question. (Of course, more subtle types of fit — like organizational culture and work-style — are also important, but these are harder to assess in the job application process.)
Ideally, you have a dream job in mind and you build the experiences that make you a perfect fit along all of these dimensions. But in reality, there are often trade-offs. If your dream job isn’t immediately available to you, what can you add to your experience (i.e. resume) that will get you closer? Suppose the jobs, internships, classes, etc. available fail to align with your dream job in at least one dimension. You want to work in education grant making in India, but your best options right now are: health grant making in India, education policy research in India, or education grant making in Cambodia. Which do you choose?
The panelists at Wagner’s session on international development careers in November all agreed that the best candidates are those who fit in all ways, but their responses varied when discussing the trade-offs. The two panelists who worked in issue-focused organizations said knowledge of the issue area was important, while the one whose organization was geographically-focused (on Africa) emphasized the need to understand the local context. So the moral seems to be: these trade-offs matter, but the actual priorities are not easy to predict. Each dimension carries different weights for different positions.
What are your thoughts? Are more nuanced distinctions needed? How do you think about your career path and specializing? Or is it all so fluid that trying to make analytical categories is a waste of time, and being opportunistic is more important?
By: Dave Algoso
As we all prepare for finals, there are no events this week. However, see below the fold for some great opportunities for the spring!
In a recent NY Times article, Andrew Rice digs in to a meaty issue: agro-imperialism. He tells us about American Botanist Robert Zeigler who flies to Saudi Arabia to lend his expertise regarding food security to come face to face with the intense reality that the problem is being confronted by some countries with aggressive "land grabs", or "purchases", or "investments", depending on how you see the issue. The fact that countries like Saudi Arabia are increasing their holdings in other countries for food production highlights the deep fear food insecurity poses and perhaps the beginning of a land rush.
The buying or leasing of land at crazy low prices on the one hand seems unfair. It doesn’t belong to them! Its exploitative of a poor country! But its also creating jobs, that pay a whole 75 cents a day. And it wasn’t being used before (if you close your eyes tight enough, you might not see all the people that live there). In Ethiopia every farmer leases land from the government, including, quite legally, the Saudis. Given this, and the fact that despite action to the contrary, development organizations and local governments have been saying for years that Africa needs agricultural investment, is it really a "land grab"? Rice asks us "Is there such a thing as agro-imperialism?"
Well, in Ethiopia, 10 percent of the population suffer from food shortages, so to me, it does seem a bit disgusting to be leasing land to foreign governments. Rice makes an excellent point when he says "it looks bad politically for countries like Kenya and Ethiopia to be letting foreign investors use their land at a time when their people face the specter of mass starvation". The countries leasing the land justify their argument, claiming they are doing it legally, creating jobs, exploiting the land more efficiently. These arguments are all too familiar. Remember the last time foreign countries came to Africa to use the land better? Heck- they managed to find rubber, oil and diamonds! And think of all the "jobs" that were produced!
Rice doesn’t go so far, but for me despite my inability to really pick apart the problem with the whole thing, just feel that its wrong. I’d love to be more specific but I can’t even figure out if food security is a production problem or a distribution problem. I’m hoping to learn more at IPSA’s upcoming Spring Conference on food security.
In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Is there such a thing as agro-imperialism?
IPSA is pleased to announce that Frances Moore Lappé will deliver the Keynote Address at its 2010 Spring Conference on Friday, March 26, 2010.
Ms. Moore Lappé is the co-founder of Food First and the Small Planet Institute. See her full bio for more information. Previous talks she has given can be found here.
