Pre-Olymic Rio de Janeiro: The Dynamics of Urban Change

William Vazquez

Professor Craig

World Politics

Date of Submission: 30 November 2011

Pre-Olymic Rio de Janeiro: The Dynamics of Urban Change

Yesterday I had the pleasure of going to a very interesting presentation in the McDowell Formal Lounge that was by the Brazilian club, Partners AU, and more. The presenter was Dr. Theresa Williamson from Rio de Janeiro itself, who had come to talk about the favelas that Rio de Janeiro is famous for along with the scenery that is always highlighted in photographs and postcards. Since my only inkling of knowledge about the favelas stems from the film City of God as well as the representations in the popular video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, I figured this was a great chance to learn something factual from a real resident.

Dr. Williamson started off with a quick poll of the people present, asking who had visited Rio and who has a positive, negative, or neutral view of the favelas. The only person in the audience that had actually been to the favelas of Rio was also the only person to think positively of them. Dr. Williamson stated that in basic polls her organization had been conductiong, about 67% of the people who have been to Rio’s favelas say that their impression of the favela is positive. 100% of the people interviewed stated that even though they had not been to Rio’s favelas, their impressions of the favelas were negative. A lot of blame for this negative view fell on negative representations often caught in the media, whether that is in natural disasters or drug-trafficking and violence. Meanwhile it has so many wonderful aspects, like the natural beauty of the humongous urban rainforest, the iconic statue of Jesus Christ, and much more. Meanwhile in the favelas, the areas that most people look down upon, are becoming areas of large innovation, whether in organizing for community dental programs, creating new houses or more.

Dr. Williamson’s group, Catalytic Communities, works mainly out of its website Catcomm.org. This website has been regularly used to inform people of the new local projects in each community as well as garner attention for the problems of the favela. At this time, news was spread through community media centers, but by 2008 the Internet had managed to reach all of the favelas. Thus social networking began to rise while Catalytic Communities began to instruct and train community leaders and members on social media and journalism. In fact, they trained 180 community leaders to use Facebook, and now several NGOs for the benefit of the favelas can be found on there, like CIACAC and CIACAC Galway. This advancement is not just some little thing though: so far social media has managed to put a play a major part in stopping favela evictions. In one case that Dr. Williamson pointed out, within an hour of someone posting about being evicted in Rio on Facebook, 115 comments were made. In another instance just last Friday, a favela just by the main tourist area and beach was occupied by the police, and when people started being evicted, a women from that favela wrote about it on catcomm.org. By the next day, Catalytic Communities had sent a representative to interview the woman, Maria, and spread the news.

Dr. Williamson’s slide show was a big help in getting her points across, as she pointed out the significance of her organization. It is the only organization in Rio working at the intersection of community development, social media, and global networking. It also created another website specifically for the time before the major events coming up, the World Cup and the Summer Olympics in 2016, called RioonWatchorg. This site provides updates from the favelas themselves on any and all recent activities.

Dr. Williamson went into detail about why people have such negative views on the favela. Before 2009, the economy of Rio de Janeiro was essentially stagnant for three decades. The population was dropping, its industry and even its status as the capital city were lost, and inequality amongst the people was stagnant. In our present day, however, Rio’s economy has risen to be the third best of all cities in Brazil, its population is back on the rise and global investment in the city is increasing. Inequality remains stagnant, but it could take a turn for the worse. These factors have played major parts in forming the view of the favela. As Dr. Williamson listed on her slide show, most view the favela as a squatter community (implying that it is illegal housing), a slum (implying that it is squalor), a shantytown (implying that the homes are poorly constructed and could easily collapse), and a ghetto (implying a violent situation). In fact, most of the words commonly associated with the favela and its people are: criminal, unsanitary, miserable, over-sexualized, informal, dense, rickety, ignorant, unconnected, and complacent.

In Rio, there are about one thousand favelas. Of these, about 40 perecent are run by drug traffickers, but within those communities, less than 2 percent of the people are involved in the business. About 42 percent of the favelas are run by militias. The state only runs about two percent of the favelas, and the remaining 16 percent is run by community members and leaders, who stave off both drug trafficking and militias in order to run a safer, happier community. To combat the above statements, Dr. Williamson went over examples of how they are wrong, like how about 40 percent of the people living in the favelas are Evangelists who would never fall into the “over-sexualized” category. There are less people per room in the favela than in most low income housing throughout the world. While most of the housing may be unfinished, it is still sold because of its design. In fact, the fact that they are commonly built horizontally rather than vertically allow neighbors to bond more easily. It is the decades of stigmatization that led to so much crime.

Dr. Williamson prefers to describe the favela as a self-built neighborhood, a do-it-yourself community, and an un-helped neighborhood. In that last sense, the city and state government have done little to improve the favelas, so the people living there have taken it into their own hands. Yet recently the mayor has taken special interest in trying to make Rio look amazing for the upcoming games as well as just to make it into more of a “global city.” In theory, programs have started to improve infrastructure, security, housing, social programs, and to generally upgrade the conditions throughout the city. In practice however, many of these programs seem to be falling short.

Dr. Williamson pointed out that the housing program is building new apartments for the people to live in – the problem being that these are smaller and further away from the city. The security Pacifying Police Units, trained to work more effectively with the people, to not shoot on sight, and to more efficiently capture drug traffickers, are at least one good thing coming out of these programs. Still the main problem is that so much focus is put on improving the conditions of well-known favelas rather than all of the favelas. The City of God, made extremely famous in the film of the same name, now receives many of the benefits of these programs while other smaller communities have the people pushed out of their homes.

Two different favelas were shown on the screen. The first was Procinha, the largest favela in Rio with approximately 150,000 residents. 90 percent of the homes there are made of brick, 94 percent of its residents are employed, and about 6,500 business (90% of which are informal) exist within it. It dealt with decades of control by drug traffickers. After a police occupation of it on November 13^th, 2011, however, when the main drug trafficker in the area was captured as he tried to sneak away, the property values of the area rocketed up 50 percent in three days. Thus this neighborhood is receiving much of the necessary aid. Meanwhile the favela of Vila Autódromo, a small community with about 4,000 residents, has lived in relative isolation until now. Despite to rapid expansion over the past two decades, it is located right next to the site where the Olympics are to take place. Thus city officials have been going around telling people that they have to leave their homes. In fact, groups of nine to ten men began visiting homes to try and convince people through deceiving tactics to sign off on leaving their homes. In response, community leaders along with public defenders went around telling the people the truth of signing off on those deals and tactics.

Dr. Williamson said that the main source of conflict in Rio now is real estate. The city officials are trying to push the people of the favelas further away in order to improve the view of the city rather than improving the communities themselves. Oddly enough, only about 15 percent of the people living in the favelas who actually want to move have been. If the current policies continue, real estate values will rise, making real estate companies want to grab up more of the land. This is why community development needs to be refocused on what needs to be improved. On top of that, media coverage of the favelas needs to be less of what is good and bad and just show what is actually going on in the favelas as far as improving communities from the inside and outside goes.

In order to get involved, Dr. Williamson suggested learning Portuguese and joining Catalytic Communities to become an international observer. Then you could write on RioonWatch.org. She also suggested subscribing to Rioonwatch.org, researching the good qualities from the favela communities that are at risk because of forced evictions, becoming a fan of favela groups on Facebook (which I did last night), and encouraging media contacts to focus on the right things. The audience also gave great suggestions, such as having community-led tours through the favelas in order to break down stigmas. The improving economy of Brazil should have a positive effect on the state as a whole, but what about the poorest people? How are the overall improvements going to reach them?

Personally after our discussion of international development, I think providing aid in the communities that most desperately need it would be the most helpful. In fact if the community programs as well as state-led programs are effective in sparking and helping development thrive, why not use the ideas implemented in the favela worldwide in other developing communities? Even in the worst perceived global communities, a lot of good can come out. I think being able to vouch for spreading such great effective community programs worldwide will not only improve Rio de Janeiro’s image but that of all of Brazil. The Olympics and World Cup are there to celebrate the greatness of international understanding and coexistence. By spreading helpful ideas in development to the rest of the world, Rio de Janeiro can truly become the global city that is so desired.

Urban Change in Rio de Janeiro

I just attended a really interesting presentation by Dr. Theresa Williamson called “Pre-Olympic Rio de Janeiro: The Dynamics of Urban Change.” The presentation focused on the “favelas” in Rio and the surrounding areas that are being affected by urban development spurred by the World Cup and the Olympics. Dr. Williamson started off the presentation by polling the audience on two questions: “Who has been to a favela?” and “Who has a positive image of the favelas?” The responses that she got indicated that only one man had been to a favela in the audience and he was the only one who had a positive image of the communities. She commented that in a study done about favelas 100% of people who had never been disapprove of them, while 67% of people who have been have a positive image of the communities. Dr. Williamson attributed these statistics to the stigmatization of favelas as slums, ghettos, squatter communities, and violent drug cartel controlled areas. What she would show us during the presentation changed many of the views held by members of the audience by the end.

Self-built communities or underserved communities are the terms and descriptors that Dr. Williamson would attribute to the favelas. Only 2% of the population within the favelas are involved in drug trafficking cartels and most people seek to rid themselves of even that small percentage of criminals. A majority of the community members are very hard working people who own or work for businesses that serve and benefit society, the have built their own homes, and they have contributed to public works improvements for which they receive no personal compensation. Even though the city government in Rio has neglected, disenfranchised, and marginalized members of the favelas, the people there have still made remarkable strides to improved quality of life for their denizens. Many of the favelas have been aided by organizations like Dr. Williamson’s “Catalytic Communities,” which have worked with community leaders to increase development in areas like housing and infrastructure, to allow members easier access to the internet and social networks, and have formed very global ties with organizations willing to help these underserved neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, the World Cup and the Olympics, which were supposed to bring prosperity to the favelas and to the Brazilian people as a whole, have actually turned out to be a major tool for the city government to use against property owner within these communities. Dr. Williamson explained that the mayor of Rio is sponsored heavily by real estate and commercial developers who seek to dispossess the favelas of their land, which is located in a very valuable part of the Rio peninsula, and use it to put up condos and other high-profit buildings. What the city has done is use eminent domain justified by development for the World Cup and the Olympics to evict people who live in the favelas from their land without proper compensation. In fact, most people are intimidated into signing away the rights to their property by the police and other government officials. Usually they relocate these people away from the tourist and high visibility areas and move them to parts of the city and surrounding areas that are up to two hours away from where they formerly lived. Clearly there are human rights violations going on in the “City of God” but nobody seems to notice.

Because of the massive negative stereotyping of the favelas, few are willing to fight against the city government, developers, and the gentrification movement along the high-valued areas on the Rio peninsula. The disenfranchised people who live in these communities are really being hurt more that helped by the Olympics and the World Cup, which are being used as weapons to further marginalize and overpower them. However, organizations like Catalytic Communities are working to bring transparency to the actions of the city government and show the rest of the world what is being done in Rio. Dr. Williamson commented that it’s movements that grab global attention and scrutiny to Brazil that can really make a difference in the lives of the people who are members of the favelas.

Modern Day Piracy

Jenny Sue Ross

World Politics: Professor Craig

November 28, 2011

Extra Credit Paper 2

On November 21^st I went to a lecture in the SIS Founder’s Room entitled “Somali Piracy: Why Should We Care?" The lecture was lead by Dr. Martin Murphy and Edward Lucas. Dr. Murphy spoke for the majority of time both in the presentation and the Q&A, but this is understandable because he is a leading expert in the field and Mr. Lucas is a PhD student.

Mr. Lucas spoke first, telling us about his research into “maritime super-powers and their roles in suppressing piracy.” He started by explaining how many people define piracy: attacks occurring more than 12 miles from land. Some believe that states should be able to control attacks within 12 miles of their shore. Mr. Lucas however, is looking at attacks both within and outside of that magic 12 mile mark. The majority of Mr. Lucas’ research plans stem from a belief that many share: the hegemony should suppress piracy. Mr. Lucas explained that he is investigating these questions: Should the hegemon suppress piracy? Can they? What would be the cost? Is it in the best interest of the hegemon to provide this public good? His portion of the lecture did not provide any answers to these questions. Mr. Lucas is still researching to try to find the answers.

I found Mr. Lucas’ questions about a hegemon’s responsibility to suppress piracy interesting, but I was a little disappointed that no answers or even theories were discussed. He only briefly touched upon his hypotheses, which he admitted were mildly contradictory, and ended his portion of the lecture. Still, I enjoyed that his research topic correlated with topics we have discussed in class, like hegemonies, power and reciprocity, sovereignty and others. These connections kept me interested during his presentation because I did not feel like it was over my head or unrelated to my own studies.

Next, Dr. Murphy spoke about his research into Somali piracy. I was very excited for this portion of the lecture because Somali piracy has made its way into the news quite a bit in the past few years, but I honestly do not know a lot about it. Dr. Murphy began by posing the question why should the US care about Somali piracy? He explained that his answer would be broken down into six categories: economic cost, human security, privatization of naval force, naval performance, geo-strategic issues and political implications.

With respect to the economic cost, Dr. Murphy said the effects of piracy are relatively negligible. He compared the cost of Somali piracy to the cost companies bear due to shoplifting. However, he pointed out that the cost of piracy could become much more significant if paying ransom became illegal, as some have suggested it should. If this were the case, sailors would be too afraid to sail to the region near Somali because it would become much less likely that they would be released alive if captured. The hostages would become monetarily worthless in the eyes of the pirates. This fear would greatly hinder trade in this region and make the cost of piracy more significant.

Then, he spoke about the aspect of human security. This is the humanitarian reason the US should care about piracy. Dr. Murphy mentioned that there have been reports of physical and psychological abuse of the hostages. Also, he said that the effect of piracy on the families of the hostages should be considered. These families have no source of income while their loved ones are trapped, often for months, as a hostage.

The following issue discussed was the privatization of naval force. The states have been unable to protect the sailors, so they have had to hire private security to travel with them. This sets the precedent that the protection of trade is a private problem rather than a state problem. Dr. Murphy suggested that the US should decide if we back this idea, and if we take issue with this practice, then the use of private security becomes a US concern.

Dr. Murphy’s subsequent point was that there are less than 30 ships protecting the region around Somali, which is the size of western Europe. This lack of state protection, as previously stated, has lead to a rise in the use of private security. If private security becomes the norm, then what is the role of the navy? Also, the insufficient state protection of this region causes the public to believe the navy is failing. The future role of the navy and soothing public opinion are both issues that Dr. Murphy suggests that the US should care about.

Next, the geo-strategic importance of controlling Somali piracy was explained. This region holds 8 percent of the world’s oil and 35 percent of European oil. As a member of the world community who consume some of this oil and as an ally of many European countries, the US has an interest in keeping the area stable. Dr. Murphy stated that if this piracy is allowed to continue it could cause instability from the Red Sea to Kenya.

Finally, he spoke of the political importance of Somali piracy. Dr. Murphy explained that continued US indifference to Somali piracy could lead other countries to question its ability to protect “the system,” a hegemonic duty. He also suggested that the navies cannot do any more or better than they currently are without political backing for their efforts.

Dr. Murphy concluded his presentation by explaining what can be done to help lessen Somali piracy. He said that the rewards for piracy need to be decreased and the risks need to be increased. This makes sense, but he did not really explain how to change the balance of benefits and risks. There was a slide on the subject, but he breezed by it. This, I felt, left the presentation on a lackluster note. In spite of the disappointing conclusion, I found his points to be interesting and compelling.

Mr. Lucas and Dr. Murphy approached the subject of modern day piracy differently, but both focused on the duty of the hegemon. Dr. Murphy seemed to have made the assumption that Mr. Lucas was challenging, the hegemon should be involved in suppressing piracy. I could not help but wonder while I was listening to Dr. Murphy what his response will be if Mr. Lucas’ research challenges his primary assumption by concluding that the hegemon should not be involved in suppressing piracy due to cost or inability to solve the issue.

Book Review of "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute

I recently read "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute. While the book is a work of fiction, I thought that it had a lot to offer in terms of international relations. Instead of taking a look at what a proliferated nuclear war would look like, the author instead focussed upon the aftermath and upon the people who it affected. The novel seeks to humanize what can sometimes seem a very abstract, cold, and calculated aspect of nuclear war.

The author briefly describes the cause of the war and its development. What started as a war between Israel and the surrounding Arab states progressed to match NATO against Russia and finally Russia against China. Mr. Shute did not ever explain why or how the war developed in such a way, quite possibly to again emphasize the role of the innocent human bystanders to the war and not the aggressors themselves. I did, however, find it interesting that the book was published in 1957 and still it accurately demonstrates much of the global conflict that exists, specifically in the Middle East, and portrays the course of a war that could yet very well develop in real life, however unlikely that may be.

The novel is set in southern Australia. Since the war took place in the northern hemisphere, the fallout takes quite a while to filter down into the southern continents. The novel opens by introducing Peter Holmes who is a Lieutenant Commander in the Australian navy stationed in Melbourne. He is torn between his position and duty to fulfill tasks for the navy and his wife and newly born daughter at home. The secondary focus of the novel is upon Commander Dwight Towers, who operates the U.S.S Scorpion, which is an American nuclear powered submarine. Towers faces a deep internal struggle because he knows that his wife, son, and daughter who lived in Connecticut are all dead, but he cannot bring himself to accept that fact.

In an attempt to see if snow and rain could cleanse the air of nuclear radiation, to search for life in the northern hemisphere, and to locate the source of a mysterious radio transmission coming from the Seattle area, the U.S.S scorpion sets off on a months long tour of the northern hemisphere. Holmes is very conflicted about whether to leave his family in order to help with the mission, but in the end decides to go. Towers buys gifts for his deceased family to bring along with him on the trip. The tour merely served to confirm that everyone in the north has died. They all died in ghastly ways due to the effects of radiation sickness. At this, Holmes calls his wife and worries that he will not make it back before the fallout reaches her and their daughter. He tells her that she should euthanize them both if that should happen.

The novel really seems to vilify the concept of hope throughout the plot line. It is hope that his family is alive that deludes Towers into buying gifts for wife and children, which ends up torturing him. It is also hope that the fallout will not reach Australia that prompts the submarine tour and separates Holmes from his family for months. It is hope that they will be immune to the effects of radiation that motivates some people to refrain from killing themselves, however they all die very slowly and painfully. The author really seeks to emphasize that nuclear war is not a selectable option to dealing with international conflict. He wants to show that it is unacceptable to pursue nuclear war because of the effect that it would have upon the people who are affected by it. Even those nations who had nothing to do with the war would face the same ultimate consequence. Innocent families and individuals will die because in the end no one survives nuclear war.

New Zealand: Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?

The brain drain is a phenomenon most often associated with developing nations. Therefore, it might come as a surprise that New Zealand is also suffering from the emigration of skilled workers. However, in some ways, what’s happening in New Zealand is quite different from the phenomenon seen in developing countries; rather than a brain drain, what’s happening in New Zealand may be considered a “brain exchange.”

On the surface, it would appear as though the brain drain in New Zealand is worse than in any other developed nation; roughly 24.2% of people with tertiary educations born in the country now live overseas (Collins). The only two other developed nations that come anywhere close to this level of brain drain are Ireland and Luxembourg, whereas neighboring Australia only has about 2.5% of its highly educated workers living outside of the country (Collins).

According to a study conducted by the World Bank, New Zealand’s government loses approximately US$10,000 for every skilled worker that leaves through foregone taxes and expenses associated with such things as education and healthcare (O’Hare). However, it is also true that many of those that leave are replaced by immigrants that boost the economy, and many emigrants return to visit.

The main reason for New Zealand’s brain drain appears to be the higher salaries that skilled workers can earn in other countries. A portion of the 24.2% living outside of New Zealand are those lured elsewhere by the promise of greater incomes to help pay off student loans. Currently, these loans average over $14,000 per student – a strong incentive to go where the money is (Collins). Additionally, on average, highly-skilled New Zealand emigrants earn US$116,000, compared to the average salary in New Zealand of only US$65,000 (O’Hare).

However, the large figure also reflects New Zealand’s small size alongside a much larger neighboring state; about three quarters of New Zealand-born expatriates have gone to Australia (Collins). An agreement exists between Australia and New Zealand which allows for free travel between the two countries; this agreement has been around for about thirty years, and it is unlikely that either government will attempt to change it. Therefore, it is difficult for New Zealand’s government to control the outflow of skilled workers to Australia (“Government”).

According to Peter McDonald, the Director of the Demographic and Social Research Institute at the Australian National University, people are attracted to Australia because of the potential to earn higher wages. This incentive outweighs social benefits, such as the better health care system, in New Zealand. According to McDonald, “Most New Zealanders going to Australia are initially not thinking of going for life, they’re thinking of going and making some money and coming back. […] So those social differences won’t matter much, it’s the wage difference in the short term that’s going to matter” (qtd. in “Government”). McDonald predicts that the pattern of emigration of skilled workers from New Zealand to Australia is likely to continue as long as the Australian economy remains strong.

Whereas the brain drain effect is typically a negative when it occurs in the developing world, the same might not be the case for New Zealand. The concern over the brain drain has to do with the welfare of the country – the productivity of its workers, its human capital, and its living standards. Typically, if a country is losing large numbers of its skilled workers, the welfare of the remaining population will decrease. One might therefore be inclined to worry when they learn that New Zealand loses almost a quarter of its most skilled workers. However, by and large, emigrants from New Zealand are replaced by migrants to the country; the total net migration can be seen on the following graph:

It is therefore possible that what New Zealand is experiencing is better classified as a “brain exchange” than a “brain drain.” New Zealand’s Treasury explored this possibility in a paper published in December of 2001. According to this report, immigrants to the country appear to be more skilled than emigrants and the general population (Glass and Choy). The following chart shows the skill distribution of emigrants from and immigrants to New Zealand, compared to the general population:

As the graph shows, there are more high-skilled workers migrating to New Zealand than leaving it. This supports the hypothesis that the country is experiencing more of an exchange of skilled workers than a loss of them. The report thus makes the argument that a brain drain and a welfare gain are not mutually exclusive; brain drain can cause welfare gain if it stimulates the acquisition of human capital in the remaining population, or leads to higher-skilled return migration (Glass and Choy). Return migration occurs when citizens who have left a country later return; in New Zealand’s case, many return migrants come back with new, better-developed skills in their field of work. The main cause for concern, according to the Treasury report, would be if immigrants cannot get jobs to make use of their skills.

Whether one wishes to call what New Zealand is experiencing a brain drain or a brain exchange, there are things that the government can do in order to make the country more appealing to its own citizens and potential immigrants alike. Increasing investment in capital goods such as infrastructure, education, and technology can lead to increased productivity in the long-run. And, according to the Treasury report, if general productivity can be increased, then the country can afford to pay higher wages, thus attracting high-skilled workers. Additionally, encouraging the use of more high-skill technology could provide more opportunities within the country for those with skills to put them to use (Glass and Choy).

Works Cited

Collins, Simon. “Quarter of NZ’s brightest are gone.” The New Zealand Herald. APN Holdings NZ Limited, 12 Mar. 2005. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

Glass, Hayden and Wai Kin Choy. “Brain Drain or Brain Exchange?” The Treasury. New Zealand Treasury, Dec. 2001. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

“Government ‘powerless’ to stop brain drain.” TV NZ. Television New Zealand Limited, 15 Sep. 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

O’Hare, Sean. “New Zealand brain-drain worst in world.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2 Sep. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2011.

Causes and Consequences of the Arab Spring: Libya, Egypt & Syria

I have to admit, I did not really get into the Arab Spring. Sure, I watched the news and read news articles every now and then, but that’s about it. Yes, I know it is ignorant, and I probably should have taken more time to learn about what was going on, but I didn’t. It is definitely an issue that we discuss all of the time, and something that I am unable to contribute to due to my lack of knowledge. For that reason, I decided to go to a discussion on the Arab Spring led by Professor Josef Olmert in order to learn a little bit more about it. He focused on the causes and consequences, paying special attention to Libya, Egypt and Syria. Although the discussion was on the Arab Spring, Professor Olmert did not actually touch on the actual revolutions but on how they were caused and their effects. He also found many contradictions to common beliefs of the Arab Spring and predicted different outcomes for the Middle East.

Professor Olmert began by discussing the movement as a whole. He quickly pointed out that eruptions of this kind definitely are not new to the Middle East and can be compared to Pan-Arabism and Nasserism He furthers by arguing that movements in the past have had a larger impact on the region than those of the Arab Spring. Perhaps the only reason that the Pan-Arabism Movements did not last was because there were not strong enough foundations laid to continue to change the Middle East.

Furthermore, Nasser opposes the claim that the implementation and affects of social networking have had a unique impact on the Arab Spring that has never been applicable before. Many argue that social networking has allowed for a newer and quicker type of communication in a warzone. Although somewhat valid, Professor Olmert pointed out that social networking was also used during the time of Nasserism. At the time, the radio was the only social networking source that the world new, and it was used widely during the conflicts. Nasser used the radio to reach large groups of people and inform them of current events, just as Facebook or Twitter does today. He also pointed out that music was a way to portray messages to the people. Songs were written by revolutionaries that used music to spread information about the revolutions. In this case, the radio and music were simplified versions of current social networks, but they were definitely the social networks of the day.

Professor Olmert continued by discussing a couple of the causes of the Arab Spring. He claimed that one possible predicator of the Arab Spring was actually by the actions of the UN. In an effort to involve the Middle East in peacekeeping and prevention on conflict, they appointed 200 Arab political scientists and economists to a committee that analyzed Arab conflict. They later issued a report predicting the conflicts of the Arab Spring. He believed that the community should have been ready for the Arab Spring if they had read this report and taken it seriously. Furthermore, he noted that the Arab Spring was not caused by an Arab-Israeli conflict, but more so that the people lived in oppression and poverty. He also noted that some are worried that the Arab Spring will lead to the rise in Islamic governments which could be bad for the Western World.

Although the lecture was about the causes and effects of the Arab Spring, Professor Olmert focused on Libya, Egypt and Syria as models. He began by giving factual background on Libya, noting that Gaddafi began his rule on September 1, 1969. Because he never held any form of legitimate rule, he tried to do whatever to keep the people happy and tried to form a sense of community in the country. As a result of his oppressive rule, the people finally decided to revolt. Professor Olmert predicts that Libya will remain unstable because there are still too many problems that have been unresolved. He believes that the governmet needs to be restructured completely because for the past 40 years the country has only known a government with a dictator.

During the Egyptian revolts against Mubarak, it was a common belief that the success was due to the determination of the people. However, Professor Olmert argues that the people were not successful at all. The reason that Mubarak was defeated was through the work of his generals who wanted the power for themselves. Furthermore, he predicts that the country won’t really change. He discussed the three stages of the election process which is run by the military. If they do not favor the way that the election is tuning in one stage, they can easily shift the elections in their favor for the next election period.

Lastly, he focused on Syria. Like Egypt, Syria was ruled by an illegitimate regime that created a strong military and an acceptable economy to please the people. They did so in an effort to prevent the people from resisting. They also tried to accept the rights of all the people to keep them happy. In the end, however, Syrians still revolted and Professor Olmert predicts the disintegration will continue to occur until serious reform takes place.

Lastly, Professor Olmert touched on two very interesting points concerning the Arab Spring as a whole. He briefly discussed the importance of nonviolence in the movement. Professor Olmert believes that there was violence and that the Arab Spring would have failed if there wasn’t any violence. He stated that to expect a situation without violence means no change in a regime. He also argued that if people were desperate enough for change they would eaily turn to violence. Perhaps his most noteworthy point was that everyone views democracy differently. Therefore, countries such as the U.S. may perceive success in the Middle East differently than people in the region do. They will support Muslim influence in governments while the U.S. probably won’t. For this reason, it will be difficult to actually ever determine whether the Arab Spring was a success.

I found the discussion by Professor Josef Olmert to be very enlightening. He not only opened my eyes to what has went on in the Middle East, but what he believes the future will bring. I enjoyed hearing his unique take on the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring, especially since they went against most of what I had researched before attending his lecture.

"New Dynamics of US-China Relations"--A Lecture by Dr. Quansheng Zhao

It was a Wednesday afternoon in the SIS building, and members of the SIS community ranging were gathered in a classroom, sipping on free coffee. The classroom was filled to its capacity, with people ranging from freshman to professors waiting in interest to hear Dr. Quansheng Zhao give a lecture titled, “New Dynamics of US-China Relations: A Dual Leadership.” With the relations between US and China being a hot topic, and Dr. Zhao’s perspective as a Chinese professor in America holding much promise for new insights, I was personally expecting quite a bit from this lecture. However, Dr. Zhao neglected to delve much deeper than the surface level of the topic, leading to a somewhat lackluster lecture.

Dr. Zhao began his lecture by stating that the relationship between US and China is one of the most important international relationships. This was a fairly bold statement, but it was not altogether shocking given all the press and discussion surrounding the topic of US and China. Dr. Zhao’s following statement was more intriguing: a new leadership structure is in fact emerging and in development. With that, Dr. Zhao proceeded to clearly state what the main points of his lecture would be: that the US, as the existing hegemon, is the world’s military and executive power, and that China is the world’s new economic power.

With his main points stated, Dr. Zhao transitioned into the topic of the changing world structure. He began with the Power Transition Theory, his definition being that when a rising power (presumably China) challenges the existing hegemon (the US), great conflict arises. He then continued by presenting a list of characteristics of international leadership. According to his list, international leaders are powerful, rule-making, a leader in international organizations, and a provider of public goods. One could conclude that the US and China embody all of these characteristics, leading to the idea that either country could assume international leadership. With this point made, Dr. Zhao then stated that if both countries were to emerge as leaders, cooperation is the key to success. According to him, the deliberate changing of behavior of one country is contingent on the other country’s behavior. Therefore, two nations must cooperate in order to act effectively.

Next Dr. Zhao proceeded to support his claim that China is the new world economic leader. He presented Power Point slide after Power Point slide of charts and graphs illustrating the multitude of ways China leads the world economically. One slide consisted of a list of countries, ranking them based on their economic standing. China was ranked firmly at #2. A second showed China’s current GDP growth alongside that of the US, with China’s annual growth at 10%, while the US’s annual growth was only at 2.7%. Another slide illustrated how China is the world’s largest creditor, owning 20.8% of all foreign-owned US cash and security holdings. Dr. Zhao’s final statistic to demonstrate China’s economic dominance was that from 2009-2010, China invested a total of $110 billion in developing countries—a record breaking amount for the World Bank.

After that, Dr. Zhao began to support his claim that the US is still the world’s military and political leader. He first stated that the US spends $698 billion on its military whereas China spends $114 billion, connecting the amount each country spends on their respective militaries to each country’s military dominance. Then, the professor provided a list of reasons as to why the US is the world political leader: the US’s foreign policy reflects a high moral stance, the US leads news media to guide public opinion, the US has a strong international credibility that maintains its alliance relationships, and the US’s domestic and foreign policies are relatively easy to change and correct. All of these statements were meant to be determining factors for the US’s political dominance.

Next, Dr. Zhao presented what he called the “Three C’s”, with one set of C’s for the positive development of a dual structure between the US and China and another set of C’s for the negative development. The “Three C’s” of positive development were coordination, cooperation, and compromise. His claim was that if all of these were invoked by US and China, then a peaceful dual structure would arise. However, there would not be peace if the “Three C’s” of negative development were invoked: competition, conflict, and confrontation. This would instead lead to the great conflict he referenced in his definition of the Power Transition Theory.

Dr. Zhao closed his lecture by presenting two questions. The first question was whether or not the new dynamics of US-China relations was a zero-sum game; that is, would the rise of one country lead to the fall of the other? He then explained to his audience that the idea of a zero-sum game is a perspective of realism that, when applied to the US and China, illustrates China as a threat to the US. However, his second question contrasted this, asking if this emerging dual structure would actually be a win-win situation. He presented the idea of China’s rise benefitting the US, and his closing remark was about how China and the US are interdependent.

Dr. Zhao’s lecture on the “New Dynamics of US-China Relations” was disappointing to me because I felt it only scraped the surface of the topic. On the one hand, his lecture did replace an afternoon of searching for statistics via the fruits of Google, and it provided a real-world application to terms we learned in class (albeit long after the date of the midterm). On the other hand, was his audience—a classroom full of international relations students and professors—actively questioning the current economic dominance of China? If I may speak for myself, I was hoping he would delve far deeper into the interdependence of the two countries, rather than merely mentioning it at the end of his lecture. This would address many counterpoints to China’s rise, such as the idea that China’s rapid GDP growth is only catch-up growth and the statement that China needs the US just as much as the US appears to need China. Unfortunately Dr. Zhao did not delve deeper than this. However, one thing we can do with this lecture is to take it as a launching point for discussion and address other ideas that Dr. Zhao might have left out.

Peace Corps and Politics: An Unfortunate Mix

On November 22, 1963, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, only two and a half years after he had created the Peace Corps. Following the death of President Kennedy, the Corps began to conflict with following presidents, mainly over the very purpose and foundation of the organization itself. Two separate visions emerged: one centered on the Peace Corps as a government agency effecting US foreign policy and the other centered on the Peace Corps as an independent apolitical organization committed to third world development. In general, the White House and the federal government championed the former view, while the Corps and the volunteers who composed it championed the latter. The conflict over whether or not the Peace Corps should be political is one which has determined its effectiveness over the years. As demonstrated by two case studies – Ethiopia in the late sixties/early seventies and Honduras during the eighties – whether or not the actual mission itself is apolitical is irrelevant so long as the Peace Corps volunteers function in an apolitical environment. This apolitical environment is a key element in determining the success of a Peace Corps mission.  

In examining the relationship between a political environment and the success of a Peace Corps mission, Ethiopia and Honduras provide two strong case studies. Both are politically controversial missions, though for different reasons. In Ethiopia, volunteers inadvertently contributed to a revolution that ultimately resulted in the ejection of the Peace Corps from the entire country. In Honduras, the Reagan agenda and focus on Central America caused a massive injection of volunteers into the country, substantially blurring the independence of the Corps from governmental foreign policy. The failure of the program in Ethiopia, when contrasted with the success of that in Honduras, provide effective studies through which to analyze the effect of politics on the success of Peace Corps missions.

From 1930 to 1974, Ethiopia was ruled by Emperor Haile Selassie I, who kept the country one of the world’s poorest and least educated throughout his reign. In 1968, Ethiopia resembled a medieval feudal society, with seventy percent of citizens living as tenant sharecroppers. America exercised massive influence in the country with large aid programs, one of the larger being education. The Peace Corps played an important part in this focus on education: in 1965, there were 450 volunteers teaching in Ethiopian secondary schools.  Americans taught the students to question authority, to think independently, to analyze rather than accept. In the dictatorial rule of Selassie, these thoughts were subversive.

Those same students began striking in 1969, eventually focusing their protests on the overthrow of Selassie’s government. One of the issues that protesters clung to was Selassie’s ties with foreigners, mainly American. Thus, as the strikes progressed and grew so did anti-American sentiment, dramatically shrinking the number of volunteers in Ethiopia, down to 100 in 1971. Finally, in 1974 the strikes exploded, as the military joined them on the streets, and Selassie was overthrown. A new anti-American government was set up, and in 1977 the Corps terminated the program in Ethiopia, due to political instability.

It is clear that the Peace Corps program in Ethiopia was political, if not intentionally. Peace Corps programs in Ethiopia were almost exclusively educational, which to some extent was a political choice, tied in with Selassie’s strong desire to modernize his country. The Peace Corps in Ethiopia served to politically awaken and radicalize students throughout the country. Volunteers encouraged their charges to think independently of the state, exposing them to materials that either implicitly criticized the state or envisioned a better alternative (Orwell and the Declaration of Independence). Taken together, the actions of the volunteers caused the Ethiopians to question, criticize, and dissent from their government. A large part of this dissent took the shape of opposition to American influence in the country. It is highly ironic that the actions of the volunteers, albeit indirectly, resulted in further inflaming anti-American sentiment by urging their students to stand up to the American-backed Ethiopian government.

The political nature of the Peace Corps programs in Ethiopia had a definite negative effect on the program: through anti-American sentiment. As protests grew, and more and more Ethiopians became inflamed against America, attendance in classes held by volunteers plummeted to twenty-five percent in some areas. Mobs would form to attack volunteers, with the fierce and occasionally violent sentiment against Americans the main reason for the dwindling size of the Ethiopian program. Interestingly enough, even those students that did graduate secondary school, barely twenty percent, entered an economy that did not have enough jobs for even those educated few.

 Honduras demonstrates a successful Peace Corps program, in which the operations were apolitical and yielded far different results than in Ethiopia.  When Reagan came to power in 1981, he was determined to reassert American authority over Central America which had waned after a revolt in Nicaragua overthrew a military dictatorship aligned with the United States. The rapid expansion of Peace Corps programs in Honduras during the 1980s was a result of this new focus in American foreign policy, as Reagan sought to expand influence over a neighboring country to Nicaragua. Most of the actual projects that volunteers completed had little to do with any Reaganite agenda – consisting of “agricultural production, tree planting, freshwater fisheries development, soil conservation” and other projects. While military staging for contra soldiers to fight in the ongoing Nicaraguan civil war disrupted some projects, many were left unaffected. The projects in Honduras would grow to be extremely successful, with the country continuing to house “one of the largest Peace Corps programs in the world long after… the Reagan administration came to an end”.

The apolitical nature of programs in Honduras, while not ensuring their success, contributed to it, as a necessary condition. First off, a distinction must be made between the escalation of the Honduras program and the actual day to day operations of volunteers in the country. While the escalation was clearly political and part of the Reagan agenda, the actual operations of volunteers in Honduras were apolitical. Projects that had the volunteers planting trees and building fisheries had ecological and economic effects, rather than political ones. The apolitical nature of these projects helped prevent the buildup of anti-American sentiment and ensured that the projects addressed real needs in the community. Indeed, the one project that was political in nature, Plan Alfa – an attempt to replicate in Honduras the successful literacy program carried out by rebels in Nicaragua – was a total failure. Farmers in the area did not have time to devote to literacy classes, busy with their livelihoods, and the program quickly fell apart.

Comparing and contrasting the programs in Ethiopia and Honduras, then, reveals a number of things about what makes a successful Peace Corps program. The first is that the program must be apolitical, with a distinction made between the drive behind the program and the actual activities of the program. In Honduras, the drive behind the program was very political, an attempt by Reagan to shore up American influence in Central America. Aside from Plan Alfa however, the actual day to day functions of the program were apolitical, contributing to the great success that the Honduras program was. In Ethiopia, day to day activity had a strongly political effect in creating a mentality that would contribute to strikes and protest against Selassie and America.

On a side note, it is clear as well that Volunteers need to be engaged in activities that address specific needs within the community. By engaging in developmental activities in Honduras, volunteers were able to make a real difference in the lives of locals. In contrast, the program in Ethiopia focused almost exclusively on education. Although this focus on education was not due to politics, it was a clear misallocation of resources, as the focus proved useless. Even those students who graduated were unable to utilize their education. Far more effective would have been projects that focused on developing the Ethiopian economy. The failures in Ethiopia do not seem to be overtly linked to poltical meddling, it is clear that politics could have an influence on the types of programs commisioned. This is something that must be watched for.

Of course, these observations are based off of only two case studies. Further research and investigation into other Peace Corps programs would have to be done into order to fully confirm what Ethiopia and Honduras suggest. At the same time, what Ethiopia and Honduras suggest are not that controversial. It makes sense that the less a program embroils itself in domestic politics, the more successful it will be. The purpose of the Corps is neither to foment revolution nor to maintain the political status quo; either action engenders distrust and hatred from some quarter and makes volunteer programs all the more difficult. As Honduras shows, the Peace Corps is capable of making a positive difference in communities all across the world. If the Corps cultivates and maintains an apolitical stance, than Americans can continue to improve lives and communities throughout the globe.

Works Cited

Meiser, Stanley. "The Rich Lady in Her First Job for Pay." When the World Calls: The Inside Story of the Peace Corps and Its First Fifty Years. Boston: Beacon, 2011. 148-59. Print.

Meisler, Stanley. When the World Calls: The Inside Story of the Peace Corps and Its First Fifty Years. Boston: Beacon, 2011. Print.

Meisler, Stanley. "The Fall of the Lion of Judah." When the World Calls: The Inside Story of the Peace Corps and Its First Fifty Years. Boston: Beacon, 2011. 117-28. Print.

Human Rights in Developing Countries

Ben Richardson

Professor Craig

World Politics 001H

16 November 2011

International development is difficult to define. In fact Goldstein and Pevehouse call it a “subjective” concept “that cannot be measured statistically” (Goldstein 461). It is a measurement of the quality of life of a state’s citizens, but it includes so many factors that experts’ standards of development vary wildly. Most agree that international development has an economic side, consisting of statistics like a nation’s GDP per capita. But perhaps the most important determinant of a nation’s level of development is the security of its citizens’ human rights.

Violations of human rights are so common in developing countries across the globe that it is impractical to try to address each instance as it happens. Instead, it makes more sense for human rights abuse to be considered a facet of under-development. Visit the website of an organization like Human Rights Watch and you will find headlines upon headlines regarding countries in the Third World. The violations of human rights that occur in developed countries like the United States are a far cry from the torture and murder perpetrated by governments of developing countries against their own citizens.

Consider the current situation in Syria as an example. Syria’s government has been cracking down on its citizens since anti-government protests began in March, unlawfully arresting peaceful protesters and proceeding to torture those they detain. Syrian forces have also taken to “cutting off communications and...restricting movement in and out of neighborhoods and the delivery of food and medicine” (“Syria: Crimes Against Humanity in Homs”).

The Human Rights Watch report “We Live as in War” includes the accounts of more that 100 Syrian victims of the violence. These accounts are invariably gruesome stories of abominable torture: victims were electrocuted, burned and beaten, occasionally to their deaths (“We Live as in War”). Some of the most heinous acts occurred in mosques or even at funerals (“We Live as in War”).

Authorities, including the International Monetary Fund, consider Syria a developing state. In that sense the actions of the Syrian government are not out of the ordinary, or at least they are not unexpected. The dominant discourse in international relations is that developing countries like Syria are naturally more susceptible to violations of human rights, and yet we continue to try to stop the violence without addressing the issue of development enough to make long-term progress. If we want to protect human rights, this leaves us with two viable options.

One, we can stay the course, and try to prove the prevalent theory wrong. Perhaps the development of Third World countries is not necessary to curb violations of human rights. But given the lack of Syria-scale crimes in First World countries, the second option seems a better bet. If human rights face the biggest threat in under-developed countries, which seems evident, it makes sense to assist with development as much as possible.

Both South Korea and Taiwan have demonstrated a decline in human rights violations since the eighties, and they have been among the fastest-developing countries over that same period. Their progress indicates that development is indeed the best path to combatting crimes against humanity. The next step in this process is to put the plan in action for countries like Syria.

Philip Alston and Mary Robinson address this in their book Human Rights and Development: “there is a great deal more that the human rights community can do in terms of...[demonstrating] how human rights dimensions can best be integrated into work being done on many of the key challenges that confront those seeking to promote human development” (Alston). Alston, Robinson, and numerous other contributors, go on to suggest economic and social actions that could or should be taken to assist with the development of nations and protect human rights.

Works Cited

Alston, Philip and Mary Robinson. Human Rights and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005. Print 16 Nov 2011.

Goldstein, Joshua S. and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. New York: Longman, 2010. Print.

“Syria: Crimes Against Humanity in Homs.” Human Rights Watch. 11 Nov 2011. Web 16 Nov 2011.

“We Live as in War.” Human Rights Watch. 11 Nov 2011. Web 16 Nov 2011.

Kathryn Sikkink: The Justice Cascade

Kathryn Sikkink: The Justice Cascade

Last week, I attended a talk given by author Kathryn Sikkink on her book The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics. During the talk, she explained the premise, the main points addressed, and some of her findings; though I haven’t read her book, I would now like to.

Sikkink’s book explores the impact that prosecutions for human rights violations have, and the effectiveness of bringing violators to justice on reducing future violations. There has been a trend in recent years of more and more states and officials being held accountable for the human rights violations for which they have been responsible. This trend countermands the notion that the law follows the powerful – in other words, that victorious armies and those in power cannot be held accountable, or that they can operate free of the law.

According to Sikkink, her book addresses three key questions: Why are state officials increasingly being held accountable for human rights violations through criminal prosecution? What effects do these prosecutions have and, in particular, can human rights trials reduce human rights violations? And finally, how can the justice cascade help to advance theoretical debates about explanations for norm emergence and diffusion, compliance with international law, and deterrence of crime?

Sikkink began her explanation by discussing three “models of accountability” that demonstrate the changing opinion about who can – and should – be held accountable. The first is the Sovereign Immunity Model, which was common prior to World War II. This model held that states could not be held accountable. Post-World War II, a new model emerged: the State Accountability Model, which states that states could be held accountable using reputation, their peers, and occasional legal measures. In the 1970s and 1980s, this model was expanded into the Individual Criminal Accountability Model, which held that individuals, and not just states, could be held accountable.

The justice cascade, according to Sikkink, is a result of concentrated efforts of global human rights movements, working in conjunction with state allies, to create relevant human rights laws and prosecute cases. The use of prosecution is associated with improvements in human rights; this is a result of a combination of deterrence and normative socialization. It is as yet unknown if the severity of a punishment deters crime, but it has been shown that knowing the likelihood of punishment does indeed act as deterrence. Furthermore, high-profile prosecutions serve to transmit norms of society broadly, and this normative socialization can help to reduce human rights violations.

Sikkink argues that a decentralized, interactive system of global accountability now exists. She says that there has been an increase in prosecution for human rights violations in the domestic, foreign, and international arenas, and that the increase in foreign and international prosecution makes it more difficult for those guilty of human rights violations to escape. Latin America plays a large role in promoting the justice cascade; the ten early adopters of human rights trials were Greece, Portugal, Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, Guatemala, Paraguay, El Salvador, Panama, and Chile during Huntington’s third wave of democracy. According to Sikkink, there are key conditions under which individual criminal accountability emerges. The emergence is most likely to occur in countries undergoing democratic transition, where regional human rights laws are already in place, and where domestic and regional human rights networks are strong. The presence of human rights networks are important because the emergence of prosecutions in a transitioning country is more likely to occur if there have been actual litigated human rights trials in the region, rather than just pressure for them. Furthermore, if a state has a monopoly over prosecution, it is less likely to prosecute its officials well.

Currently, there are more countries with transition than with Transitional Trial Experience, but both numbers have generally increased over the years. Sikkink showed data which demonstrates that states with more trial experience tend to be less repressed, and states with multiple years of trials show a more consistent pattern of improvement. It is important to keep in mind that trials don’t control everything; structural factors such as inequality, poverty, and war have a greater long-term impact on number of human rights violations. However, trials are easier to carry out than solutions to those long-term factors and therefore still prove useful in combating violations.

Following her brief overview of her book, which left me curious to learn more and better understand her findings, Sikkink opened the floor to questions. Through her responses, I was able to learn more about the implementation of human rights prosecutions and what they mean in terms of their importance to justice. Sikkink says that there are three dimensions to consider when deciding whether or not to prosecute: the legal, the ethical, and the political. Legally, it is a violation of human rights treaties to allow crimes against human rights to go unpunished. If prosecution is incorporated into domestic law, this can lead to a “norm cascade.” In other words, social and state practices evolve into norms and, eventually, these emerging norms become stable norms within a society. Ethically, society owes victims of human rights violations the right to see justice done.

Politically, whether to prosecute is a question of the quality of democracy. Sikkink believes that there is a measurable impact on the quality of democracy if a country does prosecute violators of human rights. There is a concern that if you push too much for justice, other pressing matters faced by transitioning democracies will be forgotten. According to Sikkink, however, this has not happened; no interruptions in democracy have been seen, but rather the quality of life within those democracies has increased. Furthermore, democracies that have tried justice have improved human rights in other areas as well, as evidenced by the presence of more freedoms and more rights for the people. Sikkink argues that even the worst performing democracy is better than the most efficient dictatorship, and typically segments of a population that supported dictatorship have disappeared when the truth about those years when the dictator was in power came to light. In Argentina, for example, there is great support for trials (80%). This bodes well for the future, and shows a greater understanding of the relationship between accountability and civil society, justice, rule of law, and quality of democracy.

Another major line of questioning that emerged concerned prosecutions in areas of the world such as Asia and the Middle East, where less democratization has occurred. Sikkink says that improving human rights and prosecuting violations won’t be easy – but it’s never easy anywhere. She does believe, however, that it can happen; persistence, external pressure, and legal ingenuity are necessary. There are concerns, however, over going about it the wrong way; in Libya, for example, soldiers that supported Gaddafi were murdered. When something like this occurs, it can serve to discredit a movement. It’s important to remember that justice – not revenge – is the goal in prosecuting human rights violations. Sikkink ended her talk by reminding her audience that prosecutions by themselves are not entirely effective, and that they should be mixed with such things as institutional reform in order to maximize the effect.

Over all, Sikkink’s talk was very interesting because she explained the importance of prosecuting violators of human rights on promoting healthy democracy and creating a global norm. However, her talk only gave an overview of the issue and her findings; I definitely plan to read her book so that I can better understand the matter.