"In 1792 Columbus something something-ed..."

The NY Times tells us that:

"Fewer than half of American teenagers who were asked basic history and literature questions in a phone survey knew when the Civil War was fought, and one in four said Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750, not in 1492."

Somehow this is not surprising. I went to a good public high school and while I was lucky enough to have good history teachers (partly because I really liked history and "social studies"-type sybjects), we had a crappy English curriculum (which I liked much, much less-- I don't do boring 19th century sappy English novels), with boring, irrelevent books and insipid worksheets asking you to "discuss the symbolism of the lampposts and doorhandles"-- when your flesh and blood teacher never explained how to 'get' things like symbolism and those other bullshitty things lit people go one about. I'd also like to point out that we had a less-than-ideal writing program-- and I never had to learn to write an actual research paper, partly because my nasty, useless Advanced Composition teacher just gave us stupid worksheets, then criticised us harshly for how we filled them out.

So how to generalise my mixed experience? History is hard to teach, and English lit and writing even more so. And it's even harder to teach kids who aren't interested. I can't imagine being in high school today-- when I was there, the internet was still kind of novel. There was no (get ready for it) Wikipedia (gasp)--- there was no Wiki- anything, come to think of it. There was no facebook or myspace-- and even IMing was a newish thing. We had to gossip on the house landline (oh the horror!!)-- no one had mobiles then. Etc etc etc.

That said, I don't know enough about No Child Left Behind to be able to comment on its role in the shocking ill-knowledge about history and literature. I do know that bumpersticker wags like to say things like 'No School Left Standing'. Maybe I should Wikipedia it....

We're in the wrong business, friends...

Maybe we should have all gone to become MPHs?

(but Prof. Mookerjee was also wrong-- an MBA would be even more useless than usual):

"Global terrorism was a real threat but posed far less risk than obesity, diabetes and smoking-related illnesses, prominent US professor of health law Lawrence Gostin said at the Oxford Health Alliance Summit here.

"Ever since September 11, we've been lurching from one crisis to the next, which has really frightened the public," Gostin told AFP later.

"While we've been focusing so much attention on that, we've had this silent epidemic of obesity that's killing millions of people around the world, and we're devoting very little attention to it and a negligible amount of money.""

...sayeth Yahoo! News

It's something to think about. One's chances in the US of dying of a heart attack are greater than your chances of dying in a terror attack. (As I well know.) But we all focus on terrorism. Maybe because it's big, dramatic and scary? Because we have no control over it, unlike those demises organized one french fry or cookie of death at a time?

Maybe my next degree will indeed be an MPH, rather than a JD.... (since hemorrhagic diseases are much more entertaining than contracts, or so I'm told by a soon-to-be-MPH...)

Remember kids...

...if you're ever President, don't let the press-corps take lots of photos of you on holiday, because someone will put them on their blog and make smart-allecky remarks about you. kthxbai!"

I have to love the comments even more than the snarcky captions.

kthxbai!

Never again?

I got curious about the issues presented in our reading for this coming Monday from the PBS Frontline program, did a bit of Wikipedia-ing and stumbled across this Human Rights Watch report on the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Wow.

I'm utterly stunned. How could any one person (or small group of people for that matter) plan such a barbaric orgy of unrelenting violence? It's just unimaginable. Even on already violent continent. Wow.

I can has bobaraba?

Enough with the serious posts. I found this article on BBC World about Ivory Coast's "big bottom craze." There's a pop song craze that celebrates ladies' plump bums, so now everyone wants one! Many ladies who feel that their bums are lacking in size are turning to "treatments" to plump up. These are likely just quackery-- if anyone knows of a cream that really will make your bum bigger, there's money to be made! I'd suggest to those who find their bottoms to be lacking in size should save their pennies/centimes and come to Pgh for the Primanti's...

I find this amusing. I wonder if this song would be a hit in Pgh since, well... everyone is plumper here... (see aforementioned Primanti's, warshed down with an Ahr'n City beer 'n'at)

(And I'm not posting this to be vulgar-- I'm genuinely amused.)

protection of "cultural property" in war

A question was raised by Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation as to why cultural sights and landmarks are forbidden as targets in armed conflict for US forces. Mention was made of a 1950s treaty dealing with this subject. I'd like to discuss the treaty and to link to a news article on artistic works looted in World War II by Nazi forces.

First, the Treaty.

The 1954 Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict defines the following categories of items and places as being protected in armed conflict:

"...(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above;
-(b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a);
-(c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". " (Art. 1)

In terms of the actions forbidden against such objects and places, cultural property (CP) may not be subject to military danger (Art. 4(1)), theft, vandalism or requisitioning (4(3)), reprisals (4(4)). CP is to be granted immunity from military action (Art. 9) . CP may be transported by a contracting party; such transports are to be protected (Art 12). CP may not be captured (Art. 14(1)), and CP has a distinctive emblem that is to be respected. (Art. 16) And these rules apply in both international and non-international conflicts-- a big step for 1954. (Arts. 18, 19)

These rules sound very much like the rules against targeting hospitals and other medical facilities, especially the provisions on how immunity against attack can be waved if the cultural centres are used for military purposes. Further, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) may be called upon to provide neutral technical assistance in protecting the CP. (Art. 23)

One interesting fact. While 118 states have ratified/aceeded to the Convention, 6 have only signed it: Andorra, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, UK and the US. At least we're not in the company of dictators as we sometimes are in these sorts of Conventions and Treaties. I'm glad to see that the US takes the protection of cultural patrimony seriously in its operations, even if not technically 100% bound to do so under international law.

(This issue of protection for CP has been an issue in the 2003 Iraq War, where the Iraqi National Museum was looted during the lawlessness of the initial period of the military action. There are many reasons this occured-- I do not point fingers-- but it is certainly unfortunant and a loss for all of humanity. I hope the US government, allied governments, UNESCO and/or other international organizations can assist the Iraqi government in rounding up the looted items and those involved.)

Second, the news article.

"Israel's national museum opened two new exhibits Monday of paintings with a tragic history: They were stolen from museums and salons by the Nazis and never reclaimed because many of the rightful owners perished during World War II. "

The subject of returning stolen/looted works to their rightful owners or heirs from the Nazi occupation of Europe has been a long contentious issue. As the article points out, after 60 years, it's increasingly unlikely that these works will be claimed by the survivors or their families. Many in the international community have pointed out the difficulties presented in helping reunite stolen works and goods with rightful owners/heirs because of the facts from the war years: people were driven from their homes with no documents and/or necessary documents were taken from them by the Nazis, making it extremely difficult to prove ownership. This is as much the case with artwork as it is with land, bank accounts, life insurance policies, stocks/bonds and other non-cash commodities. And let us not forget that entire families were murdered, so there are no heirs left to claim the stolen property.

There's also a tremendous difficulty in deciding what is the appropriate course of action when faced with the desire to return cultural or religious objects stolen from communities (synagogues, churches, museums even) when those communities or institutions no longer exist; vast numbers of Jewish communities were wiped off the face of the map by the Nazis and their sacred objects stolen. In such cases, perhaps the best solution is a museum (more or less) dedicated to their preservation and care, and to the story of the museum's acquisition of these objects.

"...Being convinced that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world;..." (Convention, Preamble)

Protection of Diplomats and Diplomatic facilities: a receiving state's responsibility

Lt. Col. Marttala's presentation on the rules of tactical engagement to our class today brought up the issue of a US military installation receiving potentially harassing small-arms fire from some apartment blocks just outside of the compound. I asked if host countries for military forces have the same obligation under international law to protect the 'guest' forces, as is the case for diplomatic facilities and personnel. Lt. Col. Marttala responded that this depends on the type of agreement between the US and host governments. I'd like to comment more fully on the obligations of receiving states with regard to foreign diplomats and diplomatic facilities (embassies, consulates, etc), since it's really interesting and seldom discussed.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 provides that receiving states have the responsibility to protect diplomats and missions from all forms of "intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission orimpairment of its dignity." (Art. 22(2)) In the United States, Missions are protected by the US Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, as are International Organizations. (like the World Bank, IMF, UN, OAS, IADB, etc)

The history of diplomatic immunity is fairly interesting, but the gist of it is to allow states to conduct relations in an unimpeded fashion. (Vienna Convention, Preamble, 'Believing')

These rules are rarely violated by states, even in the case of war and other inter-state unpleasantness: diplomats are asked to shutter their gates and leave. However, the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution was a notable exception. More than 60 US diplomats and staff were held for 444 days by the new Iranian regime. (A few people were released for political and medical reasons.) In late 1979, during what we now call the Hostage Crisis, the US filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice against Iran for having violated the Vienna Convention and other international instruments and customs. The ICJ ruled in favour of the US and ordered Iran to pay reparations. (The decision is available here.) Needless to say, all States were shocked by this action on the part of the Iranian government, and it cost the Iranians serious credibility-- no one will do business with you if you don't play by the rules that you also benefit from. (I'd venture to guess that Iranian diplomats to the US were withdrawn by Iran at the time of the Revolution, or were simply asked to leave by the US government- this is allowed under the Convention and is the proper course of action.)

"Could I have my vente torture-ccino made with soymilk? kthx."

I ran across this article last night and thought I'd share it with you. In it, a former(?) Gitmo interrogator asserts that they don't torture detainees: they get to them to talk in much more contentional, less sexy ways: they chat with them. The interrogator says further that all of this torture business is a collection of myths spread by former detainees, trying to make the US look bad. He felt it was his responsibility to set the record straight and let it be known that the US doesn't need to torture, since conventional interview/interrogation tactics are so effective.

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what to make out of this. Some thoughts:

1) This is propaganda, full stop. The Administration finds someone with the knowledge and authority to speak on the matter, who goes to the press and says that Gitmo interviewers just need to chat with their subjects to find out very important things, and the subjects are just *bursting* to share. So Al-Qaeda is undone, piece by piece, with the help of some Folgers and Marlboros. The bad guys look like wimps and the US authorities are automatically off the hook, since they'd have no need to waterboard/"coerce"/torture anyone.

2) This is half truth, half propaganda. The Folgers-Marlboro method of interviewing probably does work nicely, sometimes. So these cases are made famous, in the hopes of sequelching the more infamous "difficult" cases, that require more "coercisve" methods.

3) This is all true. It wouldn't be unimaginable that these 2 former detainees have invented all sorts of things to make the US look bad on the international stage-- shame is shockingly effective and not just for dinky poor countries. Nor would it be unheard of that the detainees' counsel "enhance" certain elements of their clients' detention, both to win the sympathy of the world (and thereby for the clients) as well as to further their own careers once this Gitmo business is sorted. (Think about the things that defence attorneys say on the courthouse steps with regard to their clients during domestic proceedings.) And it's not unreasonable to think that certain peacenik NGOs have been using this Gitmo thing as a way of bashing the US, a pasttime for them.
But these doubts are a bit of a stretch, no? The stories coming from Gitmo, from a variety of governmental, non-governmental and private sources, are oddly similar. They tell of harsh treatment, limited and seemingly arbitrary processes and a number of other things that are not supposed to happen at the hands of Americans. (Did no one read the Declaration of Independence? That's a list of the sorts of injustices (as perceived by the Colonists) that are not supposed to happen in this 'country on a hill'.)

Am I convinced by this guy's sudden revelations? Not entirely. I do believe that the Gitmo administrators and staff probably don't break out the waterboarding kit staight away, perferring the coffee and cigarettes approach initially. That's common sense, and one hopes, good conscience. But do I believe that "coersion" with shocking similarities to torture occurs? More so than not.

The Geneva regime as a social good

“Previous administrations at least paid lip-service to the existence of normative constraints by concealing and denying their covert operations. The Bush Administration… lets the mask slip, to the discredit of the nation and… at the peril of the soldiers whom so many of the rules are designed to protect.” – Byers, p. 135

Byers makes 4 very good points that touch the heart of what we've been calling the Rules of War in this quote:

1. norms are fragile and can be undone much more easily than they are made
2. when norms weaken, the conditions they were created to ameliorate can return
3. the "old days" of warfare were really quite unpleasant
4. norms have a strong element of reciprocity built in

I'd like to discuss these points.

1) Norms are fragile. We have to look at the definition of a 'norm'-- a standard of behaviour in the international community. They are formed by state practice, and gain strength on the basis of their universality and adherence by powerful states. We take many norms for granted, but we've seen how difficult it is to build them in the first place. How many years were required for the norm of landmine non-usage to take root, before it could grow further? True, there are a handful of norms that developed before the banned conduct (the norm against chemical weapons, for example), but on the whole, norms are fragile. Economists would call them 'social goods': they exist only because society/people recognise them as goods.

Norms exist and have force because states act in deference to them and allow themselves to be constrained by them. When norms are not in a state's interest, states do what they want but still try to respect the norm. This is partly out of self-interest (you don't cut your nose off to spite your face) but it is also to avoid shame and condemnation, in my opinion. (The Soviet Union was a master at this dance.)

So the danger of the Bush Administration's proud violation of norms on detainee treatment is much greater than that this bunch of detainees may treated poorly. The real danger is that in the future, all detainees may be treated in such a cavalier manner, including Americans. If enough states do this (or if enough powerful states do this), the Geneva regime would be seriously weakened, perhaps to the point of irrelevence. (Some already fear that this is happening to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, as more states gain nuclear weapons while bristling at the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.)

2 & 3) Without the Geneva regime, the ugly old days of warfare could return. Let us remember the origins of the Geneva Conventions: after a battle during this Crimean War, in which the injured and marooned were abandoned to die. I don't know the specifics on the treatment of prisoners of battle at that time, but I'd venture to guess that the conditions were pretty grim. (Interestingly, there were customs amongst Europeans about prisoners even before the Geneva regime: the GC built on these elements of what we'd call customary international law.) And while it's easy to imagine voluntary compliance amongst European and North American powers in a war without a strong Geneva regime, given a common cultural reference and concepts of morality, what would happen in a war between Europeans and non-Europeans? Or amongst non-Europeans? This is point no. 4.

4)If nothing else, following the Geneva regime and helping to keep it strong is good tactical sense: reciprocity will protect your own troops. Reciprocity has a VERY long history in international law and relations, and is often the basis for clever solutions to mutual problems. So in a war between peoples of different cultures, where war has different conceptualizations, the GR helps keep your troops safe, since you're also following the rules on handling the enemy's troops. I'm convinced that this might be less important amongst Europeans (remember the Falklands War?) but is of the utmost importance in dealing with non-Europeans.

Take the US's conflict in Iraq. Why encourage a population with an already aggressive culture to be more violent? Clearly they will commit acts of barbarism, but we are to know better and to follow the GR carefully. Our adherence of the GR is both a good example and can help prevent the sowing of grivances for future atrocities.

Having said this, I agree whole-heartedly with Byers. Openly violating the GR is much worse than quiet violations, since blatent violations challenge the legitimacy of the regime and work to erode it. The Geneva regime is only as strong as states believe it to be.