JURIST - Dateline

Monday, November 16, 2009

PITTSBURGH: Witness for Peace Spokesperson Discusses Immigration, NAFTA
3:24 PM ET

Anna Kavalauskas, Pitt Law '12, attended a talk on the impact of Mexicans' migration in the US, given by Witness for Peace spokesperson Paola Gutierrez Galindo...

Tension surrounding Mexican immigration is growing, and I think almost everyone involved in the debate would say that the system is broken, especially Paola Gutierrez Galindo. From Oaxaca, Mexico, Galindo holds a degree in Indigenous Law and the focus of her current research is the impact of migration on identity and family in Oaxacan indigenous communities. At a recent presentation hosted by the University of Pittsburgh Center for Latin American Studies, she explained her concern about migration as a Mexican worried about the demise of her community, a view unfamiliar to many Americans. She spoke in Spanish and a translator stood at her side. As a former English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher, I was interested to hear Galindo’s perspective, and she had tears in her eyes as she described her fractured family. Her sister left over ten years ago and has since had children. They are natural-born US citizens, but she is still undocumented and cannot contact her family or return to Mexico. Her uncle’s wife left him while he traveled back and forth between the two countries for work.

In the US, the immigration debate begins with genuine concerns, but it can quickly turn into something else. Those supporting stricter immigration laws cite unfairness as the basis of their argument. Illegal and legal immigrants take advantage of job opportunities and may benefit from free immunizations, tuition breaks and workers compensation. Galindo agrees with the basic sentiment that something needs to be done, but in her opinion, neither building a wall, nor opening the doors for complete amnesty are real or viable solutions. The best answers first explore why so many Mexicans have chosen to leave their home communities to live and work in the US and also communicate how this is detrimental to both the US and Mexico.

So why have nearly 13 million Mexicans made the decision to leave home and work in a country with increasing anti-immigration hostility? Galindo affirmed what I had believed to be true, that Mexicans come to the US mainly for employment opportunities, better pay, and to reconnect with family already living abroad. In some cases, families are desperately looking for a solution to low wages and high prices. In other situations, migration is a family tradition.

To Galindo’s dismay, her Oaxacan community is diminishing. Many of those who return for holidays do so with American accents and clothes. There is a disconnect between the visitors and those who remain in Oaxaca, and the gap is wider than just a preference for shoes instead of sandals, or English instead of the Oaxacan dialect. She will tell you that once vibrant and lively communities are eroding and school enrollment numbers are dwindling. As part of her outreach, Galindo travels to schools to explain the dangers and loneliness of emigrating, and more importantly, the importance of community, heritage and tradition.

According to Galdino, the biggest culprit is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and reform is in order. She spoke of the recurring economic crises in Mexico since NAFTA’s inception in 1994, and the acute crises in the countryside. Although many rural Mexicans believed that NAFTA would make business people out of farmers and move the country to first-world status with a reciprocal relationship between imports and exports, this has hardly been achieved. Mexico has failed to industrialize and there has been a loss of secure prices and agricultural products as well as a liberalized entry of US products. Far from benefiting the majority of Mexicans, Galindo argues that NAFTA has caused irreparable harm. Mexicans wearing traditional dress sip Coca Cola, and when those working in the US send money home, it is very often spent on American products such as corn and rice, which are staple foods.

At this point, a joke about American Mexican restaurants broke the otherwise somber tone of the presentation. Everyone seemed to agree that the food you find here just really can’t compare to the real thing. Galindo described how Mexican farming is inconsistent with the idea of mass production. Food is organically grown and cannot easily be packaged and shipped north without quickly rotting. Respecting nature while farming is slow and expensive, and much of the once communal land has been privatized. The only people Galindo sees benefiting in Mexico are the presidents who supported NAFTA and the businesses increasing their profits.

The Trade, Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act (TRADE Act) of 2009 is a bill currently in Congress, where more than half the House Democrats have supported it from the beginning. The TRADE Act calls for an important re-evaluation of NAFTA, including a comprehensive review of existing trade agreements and renegotiation to set terms for future trade agreements. Additionally, the Act proposes the role of Congress in trade policy-making should be strengthened. If this bill were passed, Galindo’s talking points would reach a greater public and the action that she hopes for would begin. Job loss in the US, agricultural dumping in Mexico, and migration trends would be assessed. In addition to the TRADE Act, Galindo stressed that everyone can get politically and socially involved and ultimately work to push for representation of the countryside in both the US and Mexico.

It was interesting to hear Galindo’s perspective on immigration, precisely because she dislikes the idea of Mexicans leaving to work in the US. Her travel to universities on the east coast with the non-profit group Witness for Peace marked her first time in this country. I believe that it is important to engage in discussions such as these because immigrants, both legal and illegal, make up a significant portion of the American population. The very human desire and need for stability, both at work and at home, is driving Mexicans north and Americans apart.

Mentioned in this article:

Witness for Peace

TRADE Act of 2009

Photos courtesy of Witness for Peace

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

PITTSBURGH: Former ECJ Judge Sir David Edward on Nationalism and the EU
2:16 PM ET

Kristine Long, Pitt Law '11, and Joseph Schaeffer, Pitt Law '12, attended the 18th Annual McLean Lecture on World Law, Nationalism, Constitutionalism and the Future of the European Union, presented by Sir David Edward at the University of Pittsburgh...

Kristine Long

Rather fortuitously, I was able to go with Professor Ron Brand, Director of the Center for International Legal Education, to pick up Sir David Edward from his hotel before his lecture. Prior to meeting him, his reputation as a respected judge and scholar made him both impressive and intimidating. Yet, in the car ride, he was engaging and had a sincere interest in Pittsburgh, student life, and the law school. His demeanor was unchanged when he began his lecture, Nationalism, Constitutionalism, and the Future of the European Union. Even though his topic was daunting, Sir David had a warm and engaging tone that prevented his talk from becoming a stuffy lecture on national egotism.

Joseph Schaeffer

I didn't know what to expect from Sir David before he began his lecture, but I learned that he is a man of many talents: he is a respected jurist, historian, and humorist. He opened by noting that he was in Pittsburgh due to his work with the Carnegie Foundation, joking that he felt obligated to give back to the city, since he was "spending funds that originated in Pittsburgh" to help his home country of Scotland. Sir David seemed to have a deep interest in his topic, which he stated was inspired by two seemingly-unrelated events: the death of former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and the German Constitutional Court's judgment on the Lisbon Treaty, whose aim is to create more efficiency and cohesiveness throughout the EU.

Kristine Long

Sir David posed an initial question to the audience: "What is the dream of the European Union?" At first, it could be argued that the EU was attempting to create a version of the "United States of Europe," relying on the belief of incremental integration. Returning to his inspirations, he noted that McNamara believed in such a dream when he was the Secretary of Defense, but gave up on the notion due to the Vietnam War. What McNamara did come to believe in, however, were 11 short lessons. Sir David started by focusing on Lesson Three, which argues that the US underestimated the power nationalism has to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values. In fewer than 15 words, McNamara and Sir David captured the importance of nationalism, a factor that cannot be discounted when discussing international ideology.

Joseph Schaeffer

Continuing from this first inspiration, Sir David discussed the American-centric versus Eurocentric perception of the "nation." Quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he argued that the American idea of the "nation" is that of a people created by joint experiences, constantly in flux. In contrast, the European idea of the nation is that of a historically-evolved, stable group bound together by common language and culture, among other factors. He implied that Europe consequently places a stronger emphasis on nationalism, and he ran through approximately 400 years of European history in order to prove his conclusion: despite numerous wars, Europe's current geographical composition has a strong correlation with its linguistic composition.

Throughout his lecture, Sir David led the audience on an extended journey from America to Europe – although his tone was conversational, each of his slides strategically added layers of content which eventually led the audience to realize that any discussion about nations would require delicate handling and balanced discussion of differing opinions. Despite the strength of nationalism in Europe, there are still elements of instability, particularly ethnic tensions, immigration, Euroskepticism, disparities of wealth, and structural imbalances. Returning to McNamara, there is also the divisive force of nationalism, which Sir David implied served as a bar to greater European unity. His position on nationalism was made explicit during the question and answer period, when he responded to a question about the Euroskepticism of England's Tories by stating that they were simply "irrational."

Kristine Long

One of the most alarming elements of instability that Sir David discussed was the lack of representation in the EU. Currently, representation in the EU legislative bodies is largely non-proportional. Germany is by far the largest member of the EU with a population of over 70 million, but a vast majority of the EU members states have far smaller populations (ranging from several hundred thousand to a few million). While there are vastly different population levels, larger states do not necessarily have a greater share of the votes. Germany currently has 24 votes, while other states have from 2-12 votes. This imbalance would be exacerbated by the accession of Turkey to the EU, since Turkey would then become the largest state in the EU. According to Sir Edward, Turkey's entrance to the EU is inevitable, and will bring many related problems.

Joseph Schaeffer

Sir David moved on from his discussion of nationalism when he questioned whether constitutionalism would be a cure to the structural imbalances. Again, he discussed the benefits of a constitution, but also noted its drawbacks. Probably the most amusing moment of the lecture was when Sir David wondered (in the words of Georgetown Professor Michael Seidman) whether these changes would not simply "put the lipstick of disinterested constitutionalism on the pig of raw politics." He then discussed the impact of the German Constitutional Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty under German Law, interpreting the court's ruling as an imposition of strict limits on the applicability of EU law. In yet another humorous turn of phrase, Sir David felt the German court’s holding on the EU issue was "Thus far shalt thou come and no further." The German court held that the Treaty was not representative of the German people and that, at the extremes, Germany might declare EU law inapplicable or even refuse to participate in the EU. As Sir David noted, there is a real concern that states' exercise of nullification powers might lead to further instability. Finally, he concluded by connecting the portion of his talk on constitutionalism to the portion on nationalism, asking whether the German court's decision was a sign of national egotism or a legitimate concern.

Joseph Schaeffer

Sir David left some questions open for the audience, which was perhaps fair because he spent the majority of his allotted time speaking not only on nationalism, constitutionalism and the EU, but also on American federalism and European history. Sir David was a most impressive speaker because of his breadth of knowledge in a vast array of topics. In forty minutes he talked about American law, (citing Oliver Wendell Holmes and the US constitution) political theory, (quoting from Stalin and McNamara) and literature – all in addition to his already extensive coverage about the EU.

Kristine Long

Sir David gave a fascinating lecture and truly lived up to the expectations of the McLean Lecture Series, which seeks to create public dialogue about the need for world peace through the mechanism of world law. He gave a balanced and honest discussion about the state of the EU, which is not an easy task. It is difficult to write a truthful history of any nation because people do not want to hear about their own shortcomings, but Sir David acknowledged that the EU, like any nation, has both its strengths and weaknesses.

Mentioned in this article:

Center for International Legal Education (CILE)

11 Lessons from the Vietnam War

The Lisbon Treaty

The European Union

Photo Credits: Kerry Ann Stare courtesy of CILE

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

IRAQ: Parliamentary Immunity in a Recovering Nation
12:11 PM ET

Sara Burhan Abdullah, Pitt Law LLM '08 and JD '12, writes about an experience in her home country of Iraq...

As an Iraqi lawyer and US law student, I often check some of the Iraqi websites meant to inform people about draft laws being put before the Iraqi Parliament. One day, I was reading through one such website when my eyes caught a brief report on the October 6, 2009 session of Parliament. One comment detailed the Speaker’s support for a request made by a Member of Parliament (MP) to summon the Minister of Transportation for questioning. The Ministry of Transportation had issued a regulation that requires the search of all Iraqi citizens - including the Iraqi MPs - at the Baghdad International Airport. The member who called for the questioning insisted that the requirement of a search was a violation of the immunity of MPs under the Iraqi Constitution.

The Iraqi Constitution affords the MPs the ability to question the prime minister as well as the ministers on matters within the relevant minister’s portfolio. At least 25 members must agree with such questioning and an additional article gives MPs immunity from prosecution based on statements made while Parliament is in session, and guarantees that MPs can not be arrested for felonies during legislative sessions unless plainly caught in the act. This provision can be waived by an absolute majority of Parliament if an MP has been indicted.

The immunity is therefore rather narrowly limited to statements made during session. Furthermore, the prevention of arrest is only temporary, and ends once the legislative session ends, at which time the MP could legally be held accountable and arrested for the earlier crime. It is unfortunate, then, that a statute originally intended only to prevent executive interference in legislative operations is now being interpreted by an MP as a "free pass" to effectively place members above the law. It is even more shocking that before the requisite 25 members favored the questioning, the Speaker supported the motion without hesitation.

It is in these kinds of situations where the legal community must raise these vital issues and criticize the MPs in order to bring a central fact to their attention: that the Constitution has not put them above their fellow citizens. This broad assertion of immunity is an insult to the rule of law, where the rulers and the ruled should be subject to the same legal restrictions. The legal community should inform the public on the misuse of the powers that have been placed in the hands of political and governmental officials through the application of bad legal arguments. These MPs should know that being searched in a public place by the police is in the interest of all individuals without distinction, particularly for a country such as Iraq, given its current situation.

The time has come for the legal community and educators to stand against these kinds of measures, turning the public’s attention to those who should represent them, how these representatives should act, and the true meaning of the rule of law.

See also:

Iraqi Constitution

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

PITTSBURGH: Former Pakistan President Musharraf Explains "The World As I See It"
2:18 PM ET

Pakistani officials announced last week that murder charges had been filed earlier this month against the nation's former president, Pervez Musharraf, who is now on a speaking tour in the US and the UK. Andrew Gilmore, Pitt Law '10, attended one of his lectures in late September...

Having extensively covered the recent legal and political trials and tribulations of Pakistan over the past two years for JURIST's Paper Chase news service, I was thrilled to learn earlier this autumn that former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would be coming to Pittsburgh in late September. His lecture, "The World As I See It," was part of the Robert Morris University "Pittsburgh Speakers Series," and took place at downtown Pittsburgh's historic Heinz Hall on a rainy night. As I took my seat, I noticed a palpable sense of excitement emanating from the crowd. After all, it isn't every day that an American gets to hear the world view of a recently-retired head of state, and Pakistan is a major US partner in the "War on Terror." In addition, Musharraf has an especially checkered history of coup-leading and alleged human rights violations.

The lecture started, as such things often do, with an introduction by a local public radio personality, who highlighted Musharraf's experience and recent past activities in Pakistan. Curiously, I thought, very little mention was made of the controversial issues which arose during Musharraf's tenure as Pakistan's president. Nothing was said of the impact of the anti-Musharraf lawyers' movement, nor of the alleged pro-Taliban activities at the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, or the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

When Musharraf took the stage, he wasted no time in outlining "The World As I See It," telling the audience that his talk was basically broken up into four sections of concern: political disputes leading to international disharmony, the menace of terrorism and extremism, nuclear concerns, and the developmental inequities among states. He started with the issue of political disputes, and essentially incorporated the other topics into it, rather than expounding upon them as separate and distinct areas.

After his outline of the speech, I was even more interested to hear the insights he would bring to the ongoing discussion of these important topics. However, it was at this point that the speech turned into an apology - what seemed to me to be an attempt by Musharraf to justify his actions and address criticisms lodged against him by various parties, both internationally and in Pakistan.

The former president rooted his world view in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, characterizing it as a great source of destabilization in the Middle East as well as the greater Muslim world, saying that all Muslims are emotionally invested in the conflict, regardless of their national identities or affiliations. He went on to say that nearly all of the world's Muslim extremist and terrorist organizations have been inspired by the conflict on some level, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. Whether true or not, I found this to be an interesting idea, but Musharraf's theory that this single conflict was responsible, at least to some extent, for most of the groups making up the "others" in the "War on Terror" seemed too facile. Portraying this conflict as the backdrop against which Muslim-Western relations should be viewed over-simplifies matters.

Musharraf then moved on, discussing the Indian-Pakistani conflict over Kashmir. Like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict writ smaller, he attributed extremist and terrorist organizations and activity in the Indian subcontinent to this unresolved dispute. Specifically, he identified the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba as the immediate progeny of the dispute, and based the group's founding on the disharmony and instability created in Kashmir.

It was at this point that he launched into one of the most intriguing parts of his lecture. Weaving into the discussion the previously-mentioned Palestinian-Israeli and Indian-Pakistani conflicts, he elaborated on the "Muslim perception" of world events from 1979 to the present day. Mentioning Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, Chechnya, Iran, and Iraq, Mr. Musharraf stated that because these conflicts all occurred in Muslim lands, and because atrocities of varying degrees were perpetrated against Muslims, Muslims have come to believe that they are being targeted by "others." While Mr. Musharraf stated that this "might not be true," he argued that here, as in many other cases, "perceptions are more dangerous than facts." My first reaction to this idea was one of sympathy, reached by placing myself in the shoes of those whom he described: if I looked around and saw my fellow Muslims as the only ones attacked around the world, I would probably feel persecuted, too. However, that sentiment was quickly replaced by disbelief. How, I wondered (and still wonder), could a sane person look at world events and think that the only conflicts or atrocities committed between 1979 and the present day were against Muslims? I thought of Cold War proxy conflicts in Latin America; Protestant-Catholic wars of attrition in Ireland; the millions raped, tortured and murdered in the Congo; the innocent victims of the Rwandan and Sudanese genocides; the wars in Southeast Asia. All of these events happened after 1979, yet everyone is out to get the Muslims? Mr. Musharraf's words insinuated what remained unsaid: he believes that the West's involvement in world events is biased against Muslims and is the reason for 9/11, and for the ongoing fight against terrorism and extremism. Mr. Musharraf's words stayed with me: perceptions are indeed more dangerous than facts.

Musharraf then walked the audience through his country's role in the defeat of the Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan, including the arming of the Taliban and the mujaheddin. Here again, he put the blame for 9/11 and the fight against terrorism and extremism squarely at the foot of the West, specifically the US. After arming and funding the Taliban, according to him, the West and the US left Pakistan "high and dry." In 1989, the US and the West celebrated the end of the Cold War and their defeat of the Soviets, while what Musharraf argued was the main reason for the Soviet collapse - the "Pakistani" victory over the Soviets in Afghanistan - was ignored. He said there was no question of any funding for rebuilding Afghanistan, no "mini-mini-Marshall Plan," as he put it, drawing a hearty laugh from the crowd. Essentially, he said, the US ignored the Taliban, left them to themselves in Afghanistan, armed to the teeth with weapons and an extremist version of Islam provided by the foreign fighters recruited to battle the Soviets, and it was there, with nothing to do, that they coalesced and became al-Qaeda. It was here, Mr. Musharraf stated, that the West made its first blunder: ignoring the mujaheddin and the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and allowed the Taliban/al-Qaeda to emerge from the wreckage of the Soviet defeat. I found it difficult to argue against this theory.

The former president took a more controversial argument in presenting what he believed was the West's second blunder, arguing that the West and the rest of the world should have recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. This approach, he explained, would have opened up the country to foreign missions and embassies as well as the presence of more international organizations - allowing the West and the rest of the world to influence the Taliban from the inside. He believes that this tactic would have presented an easy solution to the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddha statutes, and might even have allowed the West and the US to seize Osama bin Laden from the Taliban, in exchange for political or financial concessions.

After having spent a considerable time talking about political disputes and their affect on world events, Musharraf turned to what he perceived to be the elements of Muslim extremism - al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the "Talibanization" of central Pakistan and creeping extremism in that region, and the misuse of schools for extremist purposes. I found this portion of his talk quite informative, as he discussed the intricacies of the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship, including the great influence of the majority Pashtun tribe over the Taliban. I particularly enjoyed hearing his insights about the tactics male Arab mujaheddin fighters used to integrate themselves into the social and tribal fabric of Afghanistan and Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, including marrying and starting families with local women, as a way to ensure the loyalty of the tribal groups and protect themselves from Western and Pakistani forces.

Having touched on the Indian-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir, Musharraf spoke briefly about the nuclear issue. This seemed to me to be more of a message of reassurance to his American audience, soothing words to tell us that he had seen to it during his presidency to safeguard Pakistan's nuclear assets by creating two army corps to control the country's nuclear material. While his words addressed the issue of Pakistan's physical nuclear assets, Musharraf never spoke about the dissemination of Pakistan's nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya by its eminent nuclear scientist, A.Q. Khan.

After having spent the majority of his lecture on security issues, Musharraf fleetingly addressed developmental inequities among nations, but stressed the importance of this issue, calling it a major problem in the developing world that has led to great political and environmental chaos. With the increasing availability of information via television and the internet, as well as the prosperity globalization has bestowed on limited segments of the societies of developing countries, the "have-nots," living amid abject poverty, illiteracy and desperate living conditions, are able to see first-hand the luxurious lives of the "haves." This in turn has lead to mass urbanization in developing countries, as the rural poor flee their homes for a better life in the cities. Musharraf cited the explosion of population growth in developing countries as a result of this mass urbanization, as opposed to zero or negative population growth in the developed world.

He proposed a number of solutions to this problem, which I found to be quite interesting. Describing foreign sovereign debt and debt service payments as the "biggest drag" on developing countries, Musharraf called for the forgiveness of the debts of well-performing developing countries. Displaying a shrewd sense of timing, he characterized the forgiveness of these debts as being much less costly than other nations' shoring up of domestic corporations in the wake of the recent global financial crisis. He also proposed politically controlling "unscrupulous" developing country leaders who steal their countries' wealth and transfer it to European banks for their own personal and familial profit. Finally, and to my mind, convincingly, he called on the global community to "share knowledge for the mutual development of mankind, including the development of the developing world."

Perhaps the most surreal event of the night happened during the question and answer session. At the beginning of the evening, ushers collected questions written by audience members on slips of paper contained in the program pamphlets. My question was one of those read out loud on stage for Musharraf to answer: "Please discuss your thoughts on the Pakistan lawyers' movement and its role in opposition to your removal of Pakistan Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry, and declaration of emergency rule and suspension of the Pakistan constitution in November 2007." His answer to that question was wholly unsatisfying. In a soft tone, he mumbled that he suspended Chief Justice Chaudry because there were "allegations" made against him by then-prime minister Shaukat Aziz, and that those unspecified "allegations" were referred to him. Again, Musharraf nearly mumbled that he only sent those "allegations" on to the Supreme Judicial Council, as he was required to do by the constitution, and that in response, the lawyers "came onto the streets, and the situation was politicized." Almost completely glossing over the turbulent late spring, summer, and fall of 2007, he said that "Bhutto came [to Pakistan], got assassinated, and I felt I had to resign." And that was it. No mention of the declaration of emergency rule, no mention of the numerous other judges he himself suspended along with the Chief Justice, and certainly no mention by of his own affirmative act of suspending the constitution. No matter, though, as he told the audience in his final comment of the night: "Whatever I did, whatever actions I took, were validated by the National Assembly of Pakistan and the Supreme Court of Pakistan." Well, then. A marginalized legislative body and a stacked high court can't be wrong, can they?

While I enjoyed Musharraf's lecture, I was left disappointed by his refusal to speak frankly about the events that led to his resignation. Even though he is the former president of Pakistan, he seemed to speak as if he were still an active political figure, but perhaps he is. Two comments struck me in particular, as they relate to the future of Musharraf and Pakistan. While speaking of Pakistan's protection of its nuclear assets, he stated unequivocally that "religious groups will never control Pakistan." Somewhat more ominously, when discussing Taliban incursions into the Swat valley of central Pakistan, he took great pains to stress to the audience that "the whole nation is behind the Army to eliminate the Taliban" and that "the whole country is behind the Army, after their success in Swat, to eliminate the Taliban threat." Coming from a former Army general, commander of the armed forces, and a military officer who seized control of Pakistan from a civilian government in a bloodless coup, I found those statements impossible to ignore. After hearing from Musharraf, I didn't leave with a clear idea of where Pakistan is headed, but I did get a better sense of its recent past.

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Thursday, October 22, 2009

PALAU: Jury Trials Come to the South Pacific
1:19 PM ET

Tom Carpenter, Pitt Law '11, spent his summer as a Legal Extern at the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Palau...

The most recent general election in the Republic of Palau, held on November 4, 2008, was a historic event for the small island nation. In addition to electing a new President, Vice President, senators, and delegates, the people of Palau passed 22 constitutional amendments. The amendments included a ban on gay marriage, the establishment of Palauan as the prevailing language of the Constitution of Palau, and the setting of eligibility requirements for public officials.

One newly-passed amendment in particular will substantially alter the Palauan legal system, which is largely based on the legal system of the United States. Palau shared a close relationship with the US after American forces liberated the island from Japanese occupation during World War II, and voted for full independence from the United States in 1994. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of Palau allows the Olbiil Era Kelulau (OEK), the legislative branch of the Palauan government, to provide jury trials in criminal and civil cases. In order for a jury trial to be appropriate in a criminal case, the alleged offense must have been committed after December 31, 2009, and must be punishable by imprisonment of 12 years or more. The amendment provides no such limitations on jury trials in civil cases.

The former judicial system consisted of a trial court and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau, which served as an appellate court. Four judges preside over these courts and split the case load evenly at the trial level. If an appeal is taken by the Supreme Court it is heard by the three judges who did not hear the case at the trial level. In addition to the trial and Supreme courts, there is a separate trial court that only hears land disputes. This land court has several of its own judges, and as with the general trial court, appeals from the land court are taken to the Supreme Court. Currently, this system is still in place, and it will remain so until the OEK passes a bill to implement jury trials.

The Palauan Senate, which along with the House of Delegates makes up the OEK, has wasted no time in preparing a bill for the provision of jury trials. While the bill is still in the early stages of the legislative process, it passed its first reading in the Senate this past January. In its current form the bill requires juries consisting of six jurors to reach unanimous verdicts in all cases in which the parties elect for trial by jury. A jury trial can only be waived if the defendant does so in writing, the prosecuting attorney for the Republic of Palau consents to the waiver, and the court approves the waiver.

The bill also establishes guidelines for examining and selecting potential jurors. According to the most recent version of the bill, objections to potential jurors by the parties in dispute are appropriate where the potential juror is related to key individuals involved in the trial, has served on another jury that has heard evidence concerning the offense charged, or "has a state of mind" that would preclude him or her from being a fair and impartial juror. Admittedly, this language is broad and confusing, and raised some troubling questions in my mind about the jury selection process. How closely must a potential juror be related to a key individual before an objection is appropriate? Who qualifies as a "key individual?" What does the OEK mean when it states that an objection is appropriate when a potential juror has heard evidence concerning the offense charged? What "state of mind" will preclude a juror from being fair and impartial? Unfortunately the OEK has not answered these questions, and has left that complex task to the courts. Another task left to the courts, specifically the Supreme Court, is the promulgation of rules and regulations for the implementation of the bill.

After passing the bill on the first reading, the Senate solicited comments on the bill from the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Palau, and the Palau Bar Association. So far, the Supreme Court is the only organization to have responded. Since Palau has had no experience concerning jury trials, the Supreme Court looked to Guam and US jurisdictions for guidance. In its commentary, the Supreme Court recommended establishing qualifications for jurors, since the current bill includes no mention of juror qualifications, and only describes situations when an objection against a potential juror can be made. Another recommendation was to include mandatory jury fees to be paid to individuals on jury duty, thus encouraging them to be jurors. However, the Court failed to specify how the fees should be funded. Similarly, the Court also recommended that the Senate include statutory protection of the juror's employment while serving on jury duty. The Court's recommendation recognizes that jury service can be an inconvenience, especially for employers, and statutory protection for employees serving as jurors would further encourage citizens to perform their civic duty.

The Supreme Court's commentary on the bill deviated from the concepts followed in Guam and many US jurisdictions on the issue of requirements for the valid waiver of a jury trial by the parties in dispute. The Court indicated a belief that as long as a judge has the discretion to reject a defendant's waiver of a jury trial in the interest of justice, there is no reason to require the prosecuting attorney to approve the waiver. The Court also expressed its belief that a unanimous verdict should not be required from a sitting jury, and that there should be no minimum size requirement for a jury. However, the Court stopped short of making recommendations to the Senate on these issues.

While the transition to jury trials has so far presented no insurmountable obstacles, there are many significant issues facing the Palauan legal community. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome is integrating jury instructions into the legal system. The law concerning jury instructions must be developed from its infancy, and lawyers and judges must learn, or at least re-learn, how jury instructions fit into the litigation process. Comprehensive, legally accurate, and easily-understood instructions must be drafted, and Palauan law must be developed to allow appeals alleging defects in the jury instruction process.

Another significant hurdle for Palau to overcome is the strain that will be placed on the judicial system by the increased time and money required for jury trials. With only a trial division and the Supreme Court, and only four judges to oversee both, the judicial system is stretched thin and can ill afford the lengthy trials that juries will surely bring. While there is a separate land court with several judges, it is just as busy as the other courts. In addition to the judicial system, the Attorney General’s Office will also feel the strain of the impending jury trials. The Office has only six attorneys and two investigators, and is already overworked.

Additionally, the increased costs of jury trials will place a strain on the government as a whole. This strain will be especially difficult to absorb given the current global financial crisis, which has greatly affected Palau. Increased costs will likely come in the form of higher administrative and overhead expenses brought on the by the increased time commitment jury trials require. The private sector, with the exception of attorneys, will also feel a financial strain. Jury trials will increase the amount of hours an attorney works, thus increasing the fee charged to his or her client.

In addition to the general problem of increased time and costs, Palau faces unique problems in its implementation of jury trials due to the country's size and demographics. With a land area roughly twice the size of Washington, DC, and a population of approximately 21,000, of which around 3,000 are immigrants and about 5,000 are children, Palau has a very small pool of potential jurors. Compounding this problem are the strong and extensive family ties that run through the nation, and the strong allegiances created by the traditional clan system. These issues have caused great concern that fair and impartial juries will be almost impossible to convene, and that as a result, criminal convictions will be very rare. A related concern is that jurors will be bribed. While this is a concern in any system utilizing juries, Palau is particularly susceptible to this concern because of its strong familial and clan allegiances. These allegiances, coupled with Palau's small population and geographical size, provide easy access to jurors thus increasing the potential for bribery.

Another problem is that because Palau is so geographically small, with courthouses only in the main city of Koror and the national capital in Melekeok State, it is impossible to remove a high-profile trial out of a potentially unfair venue as is done in the US. This procedure is followed in the US because extensive media coverage of a trial, or events leading up to a trial, can create a bias in the local jury pool. By moving the trial to a venue where the media coverage has been slim, or ideally none, this bias is eliminated. In Palau the potential for a media created bias is even higher than in the US because Palau is so small, and there is no alternate venue to move to thereby eliminating the bias.

A unique concern at the Attorney General's Office is that the Republic of Palau is statutorily barred from appealing court decisions from the trial level. Therefore, if the government were to lose a case because of what they believe was a defect in the jury selection or instruction process, they would be bound by the result and unable to appeal. The fact that the government cannot appeal from the trial level is already a problem, and adding jury trials would compound this problem because it would lead to more situations where a government appeal is warranted but prohibited.

The Palauan legal system is substantially based on the United States system, but until now has lacked an element fundamental to this nation's notions of justice. By implementing jury trials, Palau has embraced that missing element. While the implementation process will be unique because of Palau’s own characteristics and challenges, the experience can serve as a model for other nations both in the Pacific region and around the world seeking to implement jury trials in their legal systems.

Mentioned in the article:

Palau Senate Bill 8-31, Eighth OEK, First Regular Session January 2009

Official Comments to Senate Bill 8-31, provided by Arthur Ngiraklsong Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Palau

Photo Credits: Tom Carpenter

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

PITTSBURGH: Sulmasy on National Security Courts
12:36 PM ET

Joseph Schaeffer, Pitt Law '12, attended a talk on a proposed national security court system given by US Coast Guard Captain Glenn Sulmasy*, a law professor at the US Coast Guard Academy and a National Security and Human Rights Fellow at Harvard University...

Over the past seven years the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has excited more controversy than perhaps any other aspect of the "War on Terror" except Operation Iraqi Freedom. Positions have hardened, battle lines have been drawn, and compromise seems remote. On the one side are those who support trying detainees in a system of military commissions. On the other side are those who propose trying the detainees in the American civilian court system.** Enter Captain Glenn Sulmasy with a third system of "national security courts" and a plan that he says reconciles the policy goals of both sides into a workable structure. Anxious to learn more about his proposed solution, I attended his talk, which he focused on principles and ideas set forth in his new book, The National Security Court System: A Natural Evolution of Justice in an Age of Terror.

Sulmasy began with the obligatory praise of the groups which had invited him, the Pitt Law Federalist Society and the Pitt Law Veterans Society, and moved on quickly to his four proposals for the "War on Terror." It appeared that he was not only prepared to propose a solution for the Guantanamo detainees, but also for the problems with the War on Terror, in general. The audience would have to wait to learn more about national security courts.

First, Sulmasy proposed changing the name of the "War on Terror" to the "War on al Qaeda." By specifying an enemy, the United States would gain the possibility of eventually claiming victory rather than continuing to fight against indeterminate forces. Specificity would also prevent states like Iran from attempting to gain politically by framing themselves as victims of American aggression. Second, Sulmasy proposed that the United States call for an international conference treating the rights of detainees under existing agreements, such as the Geneva Conventions. Not only would the United States gain good will through such a proposal, but it would remove uncertainty about detainee rights which exists under current agreements. Sulmasy joked that, knowing the international community, the negotiations could take years or even decades, eliciting a laugh from the audience. Third, Sulmasy argued for the necessity of a military surge in Afghanistan similar to that employed in Iraq. Fourth, Sulmasy proposed a National Security Court System (NSCS) to try the detainees captured in the War on Terror.

But all this was only a preview of what was to come. Sulmasy felt obligated to rebut the feasibility of the military commission and the civilian court system alternatives, perhaps to preempt criticisms that his third way is unnecessary. According to Sulmasy, the primary defect of the civilian court system consists of its strict evidentiary and procedural requirements. While this might initially seem counter-intuitive, it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Guantanamo detainees were not captured according to civilian evidentiary and procedural requirements. Trial courts could deal with this by either acquitting detainees en masse or relaxing evidentiary and procedural requirements, thereby raising constitutional issues and weakening the protections afforded all Americans. Neither of these options seems particularly attractive. Sulmasy also argued that civilian court judges lack the requisite experience to try national security cases and that it would be difficult to find impartial jurors. Turning to military commissions, Sulmasy defended their use while simultaneously acknowledging their impracticability. Arguing that military commissions are both constitutional and just, since most detainees have more rights than in their home countries, Sulmasy nonetheless acknowledged that the previous administration's public relations blunders meant that the military commission would need to be abandoned. One could argue that this was a gross understatement, but Sulmasy seemed anxious to move on. It was time to discuss his proposed National Security Court System.

A National Security Court System would be established by Congress under its Article III powers, similar in nature to current specialty taxation, bankruptcy, and FISA courts. The NSCS would be firmly in the public sphere, overseen by the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Defense, and proceedings would be presumptively open. As explained by Sulmasy, this means that the press, international observers, etc., would have access to the proceedings, except where classification and national security issues mandated otherwise. Detainees would be represented by either Judge Advocate Generals or federal public defenders and would be guaranteed a habeas corpus hearing within three months of capture and full trial within one year of capture. Detainees would not receive the full benefit of American constitutional protections, but would rather be subject to lessened evidentiary and procedural requirements. Sulmasy acknowledged the controversiality of these lessened protections without prompt, but argued again that the majority of detainees still would have more rights than in their home countries. The trials would occur on military bases for security reasons and would be chaired by special military National Security Court judges. Finally, the NSCS would be established with a sunset provision, which Sulmasy proposed setting at five years, in order to force Congress to reevaluate its efficacy and Constitutionality at some future point.

Sulmasy raised several interesting points during his talk, particularly the Catch-22 presented by trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts. Should the courts strictly apply procedural and evidentiary rules, thereby freeing possibly dangerous individuals, or should the courts relax these rules to secure convictions, thereby weakening these Constitutional protections for all Americans? While I left Sulmasy's talk with a new perspective on the difficulty faced by policymakers tasked with solving this issue, I was unconvinced by Sulmasy's solution. I remain unpersuaded that the National Security Court System is much more than military commissions in civilian disguise.

* Capt. Sulmasy has written opinion pieces for JURIST Forum.

** On Thursday, October 15th, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would permit Guantanamo detainees to be subject to trial in federal courts on American soil.

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

G-20 EXTRA ~ A Dialogue with Medvedev
6:06 PM ET

Ingrid Burke, Pitt Law '11; and Rick Grubb, Pitt Law '10; attended a University of Pittsburgh speech by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev speech during the G-20 summit...

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev came to the University of Pittsburgh during the G-20 summit to give some remarks of his own on the 50th anniversary of President Nikita Khrushchev's 1959 visit to the city. The format was very casual and Medvedev spoke briefly about the timing of his visit, acknolwedging the divide between Khrushchev's ideology and his own. Often, question-and-answer sessions with heads of state are heavily planned, with pre-screened questions and a moderator to avoid any unwanted surprises. Instead, Medvedev began calling on members of the audience directly. Surprisingly, he displayed a willingness to answer any and every question asked.

Russia and International Relations: Rick Grubb

The first question dove directly into matters dealing with relations between Russia and Georgia. Medvedev noted that the two nations share a long, close history with many similar traditions, but that he could not and would not work with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. He repeated his allegations that Georgian aggression was the cause of last year's hostilities, but stated that politicians could not spoil the personal relationships between the two populations. I anticipated that Medvedev would receive some validation of his oft-repeated assertions of Georgian aggression from the EU's report on last summer’s conflict.

Mirroring the query about Georgia, Medvedev answered two questions pertaining to Russia’s relations with Ukraine and Belarus. He was quick to note that Russia stands in a sisterly relationship with these states, responding to an assertion made by one of the questioners, who stated that Russia is the "big sister". Medvedev patterned his response after his statements on Georgia, speaking about the shared history and close relations of each nation’s respective populations. He did distinguish the two situations in one area, however. He attributed the difficulties with Belarus to emotional responses to their own national interests, whereas he believed that in Ukraine the conflict was due to President Yushchenko's failure to build a relationship. Medvedev did mention that he planned on meeting with Belarussian President Aleksandr Lukashenko in the near future. In contrast to this policy of engagement, Medvedev mentioned no plans for Ukraine beyond what some have called his interventionist letter to President Yushchenko and a video of his opinions posted on his blog.

Judicial Reform in Russia: Ingrid Burke

I had the opportunity to personally ask President Medvedev about his plans for judicial reform and his thoughts on the current state of Russia's justice system. He was glad to discuss the issue, which has been very important to him due to his legal training and his work in the field. He started by explaining that the Russian Court is seriously outdated and in need of modernization in order to restore the faith of Russian and international critics regarding the respectability of the Court. As it stands, people are highly reluctant to turn to the courts in Russia in order to resolve their problems. They will turn to any number of other institutions for help, but the courts are so devoid of respect that many people refuse to believe that any judicial proceeding will end with favorable results. In order to address this problem, he has recently implemented a program to promote judicial independence. Currently, judges are too easily influenced by external sources, whether in the form of local or federal government actors or agencies, or by businesses and other wealthy individuals. Once external influences are removed from the equation, Medvedev feels confident that faith in the justice system will be restored. In order to curb external influences, he hopes to increase the salaries of judges, thereby decreasing any willingness to be bribed. Furthermore, the Duma has recently passed a series of anti-corruption laws, including one aimed specifically at the judiciary. While the problems plaguing the justice system are complex and numerous, and while judicial reform will be extraordinarily difficult, President Medvedev insists that reform is absolutely necessary and will occur.

Iran Sanctions: Rick Grubb

President Medvedev also fielded an audience member's inquiry regarding the interplay of the recent decision by the Obama administration on ABM bases in Eastern Europe and possible UN sanctions on Iran over its questionable nuclear program. The questioner theorized that the shift in US policy was part of a deal that would see Russia shifting its own position to support sanctions on Iran at the Security Council level. Medvedev immediately responded that the Obama administration’s decision was entirely based on its own assessment of the strategic interests of the United States. Further, it was not part of a larger Russo-American policy alignment. He then gave a somewhat opaque answer to the question of Russian support for sanctions on Iran, stating that he supported all countries' – including Iran's – rights to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He premised his answer with a statement on the shared responsibility of all state actors in upholding international law, thereby promoting the safety of individuals around the world. At the same time, he emphasized the importance of developing nuclear energy in a peaceful manner, and in ensuring that all states are free to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs. He remains skeptical that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful in nature. Medvedev qualified his answer by saying that although he would not get into a discussion of the effectiveness of sanction regimes, sanctions have not been the most effective tools in the past, and he would rather create positive incentives for Iran. Regarding nuclear weapons proliferation, however, Medvedev seemed to hint that sanctions could be utilized when other viable options have failed.

Plans for Economic Crisis and the G-20 Summit: Ingrid Burke and Rick Grubb

When asked for his plans on solving the global financial crisis, Medvedev explained that his studies in civil and commercial law had given him a complex understanding of economics. He refused, however, to disclose the plans that this complex understanding had led to due to their sensitive nature. Despite his apprehensions prior to the first G-20 summit in Washington DC last year, he had every faith that the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh would lead the way to global economic recovery. He felt that if the work of the G-20 were ultimately to culminate in building the foundations of a new structure that would reshape the global economy, the G-20 would have proven to be a success.

Medvedev said he did not want to over-dramatize the economic situation and stated that there were signs of small improvements emerging. He also spoke of legislation to create jobs as part of his domestic response to Russia's economic problem. He pushed the legislation through the Duma earlier this summer. Medvedev did inject personality and humor into the event when he told the crowd he could not reveal his suggestions for the global economy, fearing another head of state might steal his good ideas. Despite this, he did briefly mention that there is no "magic answer" to the problems. He did assert that the architecture of the world economy, in place since the Brenton Woods Agreement, should be updated to reflect the realities of today. President Medvedev pointed out that the growth and development of the world economy needs commensurate changes in the framework it is built upon. Yet, he did not specify what form these changes may assume.

US-Russia Relations: Ingrid Burke

Medvedev also reflected on the current state of relations between the US and Russia, noting that while there are still differences in opinion, disagreements create dialectics which in turn become progress. When asked later for his five-year plan regarding US relations, Medvedev's disdain for the Bush administration was made clear with the statement, "One year ago...[US] relations hit the dead end. They almost slid to the level of the Cold War." He is, however, very comfortable with President Obama, feeling that they are peers. When Medvedev was a law student at the University of Saint Petersburg, he used to read the Harvard Law Review, which was edited by Obama, also a law student at the time. He stated that he appreciates the fact that dialogues with Obama are truly dialogues, and that conversations with him do not feel rehearsed and therefore futile. He said that Obama's legal training is apparent in every discussion, as reflected by his active listening and his interlocutory prowess. He further praised Obama for his proactive efforts to defend US interests with regard to anti-ballistic missile defense sites, despite the opposition he faced initially from Russia, Europe, and China.

Medvedev’s Re-Election Plans: Ingrid Burke

When asked whether he would consider running for reelection in 2012, President Medvedev said that as long as the Russian population trusts him and as long as he maintains their support, he sees no reason not to run. When asked the same question with regard to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, he declined to answer but hinted that Putin tends to share his perspective on the matter of reelection. Another audience member then asked whether he and Putin might consider swapping roles in 2012, and Medvedev said that he does not like to make guesses about what the future will hold, but he is willing to take on any role so long as his doing so will benefit his people.

Conclusion: Rick Grubb

Among the various questions touching on serious policy areas, President Medvedev also fielded a number of "lighter" questions ranging from Russian cultural visits to Pittsburgh, to advice for students, to love. It was a pleasant surprise to hear questions such as these and their candid responses. Combined with his willingness to utilize humor and his hands-on approach to the event, it was a pleasant contrast to the serious and scripted nature of the week’s affairs, while still maintaining the worthwhile insights that a prominent head of state brings to such occasions. Here's hoping that the University of Pittsburgh will not have to wait fifty more years until the future leaders of Russia return to speak.

Link | e-mail post

| post comment | 0 comments | how to subscribe | © JURIST

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

LIBERIA: Destruction of Documents Undermines Common Law System
5:20 PM ET

Adrienne Lester, Pitt Law '11, interned at the Honorable House of Representatives for the Republic of Liberia this summer...

West Africa evokes images of Juju child soldiers, dismembered limbs, and volatile men in short-sleeved safari suits with aviator sunglasses. When I had the opportunity to intern with the House of Representatives for the Republic of Liberia in the summer of 2009, I accepted with a mixture of excitement and uncertainty. However, planning for an internship in the world’s fourth least-developed nation (as determined by the UN Development Index) proved to be quite an endeavor unto itself. There are few resources about Liberia online or in print, and there is even less information coming out of the country.

Liberia has been at war for nearly two decades, a fact I knew prior to my departure but which was resoundingly affirmed within moments of my arrival. However, the most significant casualty of the violent civil war has been the legal system, founded on common law tradition. Due to the physical destruction of valuable documents, including statutes and court decisions, the judiciary cannot utilize what would otherwise be its greatest tool for sustaining the rule of law: precedent. This situation severely threatens the consistency and reliability of the law within Liberia.

The civil war involved intermittent fighting from the Doe Regime of 1980 up to the interim government established in 2003. During this time, Liberia experienced a series of autocratic regimes with corresponding rebel forces. This period was characterized by horrific ethnic violence, rapidly-shifting political dynamics, and the wholesale collapse of the rule of law. The event with potentially the largest impact on the legal system of Liberia was the looting and destruction of the archives of the National Legislature. As a result, documents are either completely missing, or as with the Culture and Tourism statutes, only partially intact.

A major complication of my internship was determining where genuine gaps in the law exist, because Liberia lacks a centralized archival system. Currently, there are at least four archives in Liberia: The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the University of Liberia. There is no central body which has cataloged the remnants of Liberian archives or which tracks the loaning of documents. Also, there is no internal organization of documents within the archives, leading to stacks of papers and books strewn about on the floor. Another, perhaps obvious, observation is that electronic management of governmental documents is non-existent. Electricity from generators is inconsistent and computers are too expensive for the government of a country staggering under $1.8 billion in debt - 123% of the GDP.

Allegations circulate regarding the smuggling of forged statutes into the archives for socio-political gain. With the post-conflict limitations, it would be difficult to determine the legitimacy of the entire archive, let alone the fallibility of one document in particular. Additionally, this scenario further undermines the legitimacy of the Liberian government in the minds of the people, because these stories are covered regularly in the Liberian press. Thus, when statutes and case law are applied in the courts, there is a sentiment that the laws are unreliable and may serve the personal, corrupt interests of others.

A common solution in post-conflict countries is to use laws from other, established legal systems. In Liberia, US law serves a gap-filling function: if there is no Liberian precedent on point, US law is applied. While both countries have common law legal systems, they have major differences in governmental structure and culture. Thus, there are dangers in copying without understanding the cultural foundation, legislative history, or precedent. The resulting law may be ineffective in regulating behavior, and may remain on the books without being enforced.

Working in the Liberian context necessitated creative legal research and drafting. For instance, I was instructed to draft an amendment to the definition of Sexual Harassment in the Code of Conduct for all Public Servants for the Republic of Liberia. However, instead of confining research to the Penal Code's sections dealing with rape, I had to broaden my the scope to include international legal sources. Definitions from African nations, the European Union, the United Nations, as well as the United States were examined and synthesized. The result was a definition that took advantage of established legal orders, but was also sensitive to the Liberian cultural context.

Despite obstacles to precedent and legal research, post-conflict recovery in Liberia boasts a number of accomplishments. Most notably, the elections of 2005 produced the first democratically-elected female head of state in Africa - Her Excellency Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. A more recent milestone, and one I experienced during my internship, was the release of the official report from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This report represents the next step towards accountability for war crimes committed in Liberia. As the country prepares for its second democratic election in 2012, the burgeoning spirit of democracy in this coastal African country will be tested, and hopefully prevail, creating fresh images of West Africa.

Sources:

Jeremy I. Levitt, The Evolution of Deadly Conflict in Liberia 194- 202 (Carolina Academic Press 2005).

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, This Child Will Be Great 202-5 (HarperCollins 2009).

Code of Conduct for all Public Servants for the Republic of Liberia (pending legislation, House of Representatives for the Republic of Liberia, 2009).

Photo Credits: Adrienne Lester

Link | e-mail post

Friday, October 2, 2009

G-20 EXTRA ~ Anarchists in Pittsburgh
4:23 PM ET

Ingrid Burke, Pitt Law '11, Lynsie Clott, and Aaron Freudenthal attended licensed and unlicensed protests primarily organized by self-proclaimed anarchist groups during the G-20 Summit....

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire

The City of Pittsburgh undertook an enormous security burden by agreeing to host the G-20 summit. For two days, the heads of the EU and the 19 wealthiest nations were in the city. Regardless of the popularity each might enjoy both domestically and internationally, each has their share of enemies by virtue of policies they’ve inherited or implemented. It was clear from the start that the city and federal security forces would be expected to take any measures necessary to ensure the well-being of the officials specifically and Pittsburgh in general.

In the days leading up to the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, many interest groups took advantage of the opportunity to draw attention to their various causes. I had the chance to learn about several of these groups by attending events and speaking with organizers. Some of these experiences were very informative, but of all the groups I spent time with, one made an unforgettable impact: the anarchists.

To be honest, they were the group I had been least interested in covering. Before last week, the thought of anarchy evoked in my mind images of angst-ridden preteens with overly simplistic conceptions of society and governance. After two experiences among the anarchists, my sentiments changed. My personal views are diametrically opposed to those of the anarchists, but I can’t deny that their presence in Pittsburgh shed light on the free speech issues underlying several of the measures taken by Pittsburgh officials. In order to tell the anarchists’ story in the context of these issues, I’ve enlisted the help of a couple of insiders: social movement researchers Lynsie Clott and Aaron Freudenthal.

Background

The G-20 summit is notorious for attracting the condemnation of protesters. Based on concerns of this nature, the City of Pittsburgh was very conservative in granting licenses to interest groups that wished to engage in various forms of public demonstration. This conservatism led to a lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against the City. The suit culminated in the granting of a license to advocacy group Code Pink to set up a tent city demonstration in Pittsburgh’s Point State Park, but stopped short of granting a permit to another advocacy group, the Thomas Merton Center, or granting permission to camp in public parks during the summit. The city’s refusal of licenses has provoked a great deal of criticism with regard to the protection of protesters' free speech.

Thursday: the unlicensed protest, by Aaron and Lynsie

A group of anarchists organized the Arsenal Park march on Thursday, the first day of the summit. Historically there has been contention between anti-capitalist groups and the state, thus it was not surprising when this march was not granted a permit by the city. Despite their lack of a license, the anarchists organized themselves and reached out to other political interest groups in order to contribute to their cause. This mass action created a feeling of solidarity within the grassroots community, but the resulting hodgepodge of messages was confusing to onlookers. This confusion was perpetuated by video clips on the evening news as it is difficult for anyone to delineate their political motivations in a sound bite.

After personally engaging in direct action with anarchist and other anti-capitalist organizations for several years, we have gained a better understanding of their philosophies. We hope to humanize these people by sharing our experiences, despite our personal feelings about their tactics. Anarchists and anti-capitalist groups today are mostly made up of young and educated middle- to upper-class individuals with a passion for becoming the voice for disenfranchised and disadvantaged people worldwide. While they are angry with the current economic and political climate set by the political elites, they refuse to abandon their principles of non-violence. This is why they oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They feel that direct action and free speech are the only effective democratic processes because the state's role in capitalism is to protect the interest of the "haves" at the cost of the "have nots." Activists point to instances when our government was willing to deploy brutal police forces in order to restrain citizens' rights to free speech, while it also turned a blind eye to white collar crimes. This belief is echoed in the protester’s chant, "This is what a police state looks like!"

Those who watched the news coverage of the G-20 resistance march received a slanted view of the real events. Our story from the front lines is very different than that portrayed in the news. The actions of the protesters we witnessed were not filled with violence and destruction, but rather with solidarity, compassion, and commitment. Prior to the protest, Arsenal Park became a community gathering place. One masked anarchist wearing goggles ran around offering fellow protesters sandwiches and water. Groups of friends painted each other faces, while others danced or played music. Members peacefully linked arms and watched as a mother taught her young daughter how to use a discarded car bumper as a drum.

Upon their arrival at Arsenal Park, the riot-gear-clad police confronted the protesters by blockading one side of the park, but protesters circumvented police by shifting over a couple of blocks. Soon, instructional chants such as, “Slow it down, tighten it up” were used. The police then shot pepper spray into the crowd, splitting up the group. “Masks up, goggles on,” began to echo from the cloud of gas shortly thereafter. We witnessed protesters running to the aid of anyone who had fallen and was choking or in need of an eye flush. Dumpsters were pulled into streets to obstruct sonic cannons. While some rogue individuals engaged in the destruction of property, the majority of protesters condemned their actions and attempted to prevent further damage, as demonstrated by one runaway dumpster headed towards a parked car. Five individuals placed themselves between the dumpster and the car in order to protect it. We witnessed National Guard personnel in unmarked vehicles randomly grabbing individuals and hauling them away. No Miranda rights! They simply disappeared. Many protesters complained about being chased for hours and corralled into suburban areas.

More locals' daily routines were disrupted by the inconvenience of the G20 summit, blockades, overly zealous police, and military than by a few hundred protesters. In fact, near the Children's Hospital an ambulance needed to get by the protesters. We were able to clear a path faster than most cars do for an ambulance. The protesters' message was directed at the G-20 summit and at particular businesses downtown, not at locals or small businesses. In an attempt to placate Lawrenceville and Bloomfield neighbors, protesters chanted, "We love Pittsburgh, not the G-20."

We have developed respect for these interest groups, who have a dedication to justice, peace, equality, and community. No one can expect to understand or even begin to empathize with these protesters when most citizens have little knowledge of what the G-20 is or what it is capable of doing. If the G-20 leaders were more forthcoming and people educated themselves about the summit, the anarchists' actions might seem less reckless.

Friday, by Ingrid

I was apprehensive about going to the licensed protest on Friday. I'd missed Thursday's activities and had only news reports and frantic text messages from friends to influence me. Not wishing to explain an arrest to the state bar association's Character and Fitness evaluators two years down the line, I planned to get a few good pictures and then get out of there. Lynsie then convinced me to join the anarchists who had dominated the middle section of the crowd that filled Fifth Avenue. As we approached, she explained that the scarf wrapped around every anarchist's face could be utilized as a makeshift gas mask. Similarly, goggles were strapped on in order to preserve eyesight in such instances. I'd always assumed both were basically popular for their capacity to make just about anyone look tough.

During our march downtown, I was surprised by the sense of community amongst the anarchists. A number of people handed out water and snacks. Cheers such as, "You're sexy, you're cute, take off that riot suit!" and "Get out of your uniforms and into the streets!" conveyed the sense that these people were idealists rather than mere troublemakers. They truly believe in the utopia that they fight for, and envision a world without bureaucracies where individuals flourish in the context of small communities and where social imbalances and injustice are things of the past. They want to include everyone in this world, even the uniformed men waving night sticks at them from the sidelines.

While I don't share their views, I do respect the fact that they have a vision that they're willing to fight for. Most of the people who were marching that afternoon did so without inflicting harm on anyone or anything. In some respects, these people are doing a favor to everyone out there with ideals, or even more broadly - anyone unwilling to commit to a future spent blindly following the orders sent from whatever administration is in power. Free speech comes at a price, and we each must accept that right as enjoyed by our ideological adversaries. Regardless of our political stances, the anarchists who came from afar to disrupt the G-20 did so despite an ordinance aimed at silencing free speech in the name of security. And while the ordinance as well as their actions are debatable, in the end they risked a great deal to advocate for a constitutionally-protected right, a fight that works to the benefit of all citizens.

Link | e-mail post