The debate over the definition of human rights is only part of a much larger struggle
over human rights violations. The nations of the world are constantly debating which
countries are in violation of the more commonly accepted definition of human rights. The
most frequent targets of criticism are China, Cuba, North Korea, Israel, and the military
governments of Africa and Latin America. The U.S., in turn, has been labeled a human
rights violator for its continued and frequent use of the death penalty. Countries (like
individual people) are quick to defend their actions and even quicker to point out violations from
other countries.
Even after nations agree on whether another country is violating human rights, it is
difficult to determine how to get the violating country to change. The concept of
sovereignty
prevents one nation from interfering with the internal business of another. Yet the world
community has determined some cases of human rights abuse that have required international
attention regardless of sovereignty. The reaction of the Chinese government to democracy
protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and apartheid in South Africa are two examples of
human rights issues in which many nations of the world felt justified in their
involvement.
WOMEN'S RIGHTS
Women's Rights--What are they?
Discrimination against women ranges from subtle (physical, emotional, and psychological
abuse) to extreme (some custom-based medical practices). While industrialized
countries practice more covert forms of discrimination, such as
sexual harassment, some developing countries carry out more
open forms of oppression, whether legal (some countries have laws denying women
voting and inheritance rights or access
to schooling) or custom-based. Oftentimes developing countries view statements
and actions by the advanced industrialized nations of the West on behalf of women's rights
as a form of cultural imperialism.
Women's rights have long been considered political, economic, and social
issues. Only recently have women's rights been equated with human rights.
The global movement for "women's rights as human rights" began with a series of international conferences in the 1990's: in Vienna
at the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights,
in Cairo at the International Conference on Population
and Development in 1994, and again in Copenhagen at the World Summit for Social Development in 1995. The main outcome
of the Vienna Conference was the affirmation that human rights are universal
and indivisible--meaning that they apply everywhere and for everyone. The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action
drafted at the Conference proclaimed that while "national and regional
particularities and historical cultural and religious backgrounds need to be
considered", it is the "duty and responsibility of States to promote
and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, regardless of their
political, economic and cultural systems."
The legal principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the core of
all human rights treaties and declarations, and provide the foundation for the
protection of women's rights as well. The Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
describes this principle as it applies in all aspects of women's lives. Article
1 of the Convention states both that women should not be denied rights equal
to those of men by the letter of the law (de
jure discrimination), and also that women
should not be denied full enjoyment of all their rights by practice (de
facto discrimination). Human rights advocates have found
it more difficult to persuade governments to eliminate de facto discrimination
than for governments to create and enact new laws favoring equality that may
or may not be enforced.
Recent Developments
Much of the discussion at the Vienna Conference was reaffirmed at the Fourth World Conference on Women in September 1995 in Beijing,
China. There were seven issues dominant on the agenda at the Beijing conference:
- The effects of poverty on women;
- Women's access to adequate
health care and nutrition;
- Violence against women;
- Economic opportunities for
women;
- Women's gaining equal power and
decision making responsibility in politics and government;
- Human rights of
women/discrimination;
- The unequal effects of environmental degradation on women.
The Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action, signed by more than 180 governments
at the Beijing Conference, declared as its primary goal the reduction of the gender gap in education by 2005. The Beijing
Declaration also repeated that the human rights of women (and female
children) are an inalienable and indivisible part of universal human rights.
The main issue for women's rights advocates in the six years since the Beijing
Conference has been increasing the overall social status of women throughout
the globe, through improving women's educational opportunities,
political efficacy, and overall social standing. A United
Nations Development Fund study on the status of women throughout the world released
just prior to the Beijing Conference revealed that women are the primary victims
of poverty and violence, receive lower pay than male counterparts, work longer
hours, and face greater social, cultural, and workplace obstacles. In addition,
particularly in many developing countries, women have far less access to education
than men. According to the recent UN publication The
World's Women 2000, created by a UN Special Assembly at the "Beijing
+ 5 Conference"), 2/3rds of the world's illiterate persons are
women, a gap which is expected to continue because of women's unequal schooling
opportunities relative to men.
Further Considerations
Many of the global divisions over human rights generally also apply to the
rights of women more specifically. The most significant area of disagreement
between women's/human rights advocates and some national leaders has been how
to achieve women's rights in a world with vastly different social, cultural,
ethical, and religious systems and beliefs. For example, in some cultures, women
are believed to be inferior, and the birth of a female child is considered undesirable. Various cultural belief systems also hold that women
should be treated differently from men even in everyday life and in commonplace
activities. This has been carried to its most public extreme in Afghanistan, where
the ruling Taliban, which controls
the majority of the country, has imposed restrictive gender policies based upon
a strict interpretation of Islamic law. Besides the most obvious case of the
Taliban, other non-Western societies are frequent targets of international criticism
on women's rights issues. The leaders of these countries usually respond that
it is their right to preserve their own cultural traditions, or by labeling
the criticism hypocritical given the shortcomings in the status of women which
still exist in the West.
The International Conference on Human Rights will concentrate on improving
the position of women in global society by seeking to resolve the apparent tension
between gender equality and cultural diversity. The Conference will focus on
developing workable solutions to several problems specific to the area of women's
rights. These include addressing the overall status of women in society; eliminating
continued restrictions on freedom of movement and access to the political system
for women; and reducing the gender gap in education.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS
The history of the modern, globally interdependent economic system has been
defined by dramatic increases in the use, effectiveness, and capacity of one
of the main factors of production,
technology.
Beginning with the early innovations of the Industrial
Revolution in the 17th and 18th century such as the cotton gin and
the steam engine, technology has dramatically changed human life. This
dramatic change continues in the present day, in the development of high-speed interactive telecommunications
and information networks powered by the World Wide Web, satellite technology,
and the personal computer.
This new level of technological innovation has also greatly increased the number and type of products and services
available to humankind. It has enhanced the mobility and linkages between
distant people and nations, and created the need for new and innovative financial
and regulatory systems. Technology in the 21st century has effectively replaced
labor power as the key input in the economic production process, and plays a
major role in development and prosperity at the national, regional, and international
level.
What is the Digital Divide?
Technology in the 21st century is concerned mainly with the exchange and distribution
of information, which explains the widely used terms "information technology"
or what organizations like the World Bank call information
and communications technology (ICT). Although ICT in advanced industrialized
countries is generally used to refer to Internet and computer-based technology,
on a global scale ICT also includes satellite links and telegraph, facsimile, and even
things taken for granted in the developed world such as telephone access. Although the term
"digital
divide" was first used in a domestic setting (comparing Internet
access and use among white Americans to that of American minority groups), it is even
more applicable on a global scale. While according to the Pew Internet and
American Life Project nearly 60% of U.S. homes have computers, and almost
half have Internet access, the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) reports that 80% of the world's population has still
never placed a telephone call (while 33% do not have electricity). While residents
of the U.S. and the other advanced industrialized nations of the West make up
only about 15% of the world's population, they account for 88% of the world's
Internet traffic (according to the UN's International
Telecommunications Union (TCU).)
Advocates of greater global equality in access to technology claim that removing
this "digital divide" can have an important impact on global development.
They argue that technology can help overcome barriers of social, economic, and
geographic isolation while also increasing access to education, health care,
information, and political participation. This is considered to be even more
true in the case of information technology than with previous forms of technology
because of the greater speed, wider reach, and easier portability
associated
with ICT. While ICT is undoubtedly unique in many ways, it is also clearly an
outgrowth of the Industrial Revolution. Those countries and regions with the
greatest access to information technology are those countries and regions which
also had the greatest access to earlier technological innovations. In some ways,
the "digital divide" is simply the latest symptom in a long history
of inequality in the global distribution of technological innovation and access.
Recent Developments
The past several years have witnessed the emergence of a debate over the nature,
causes, and consequences of the international digital divide. This debate is
unusual in that there are advocates and opponents of ICT in both the developed
and developing world.
Advocates: The point of view of the advocates is that more developed
world funding and support is needed to improve technology and connectivity in
the developing world. Advocates have also strongly argued for expanded training
and education programs in LDCs, and for the need to develop and disseminate
more locally relevant and sensitive technology applications and content.
Opponents: Opponents of using funding and resources to promote technological expansion
in the developing world have asserted that "the poor can't eat computers." Some opponents
have also expressed the view that expanding the use of the Internet, mobile
telecommunications, personal computers, etc. in LDCs is merely a way in which
the developers of that technology (overwhelmingly located in the wealthy
nations of the West) can increase
profits while continuing to leave most of the world's poor behind.
International discussions over the future of the "digital divide"
have taken place in large part at recent meetings of the
Group of Eight (G-8), especially at the G-8's 2000 summit in Okinawa,
Japan. At that summit, the Digital Opportunity
Taskforce ("dot force") was created to examine what
steps are needed to bridge the international technological divide. Among the basic principles for action adopted in Okinawa, the
"dot force" stressed the need
to eliminate "either/or" approaches and
emphasized that the development of ICT in LDCs should proceed in combination
with other ongoing international development strategies.
The UN's recent Human Development Report 2001
is sub-titled "Making New Technologies Work for Human Development"
and focuses on information and communications technology, asserting that
ICT can make a major contribution to reducing world poverty. The report concludes
that ICT's potential contributions to poverty reduction and human empowerment
have been limited for economic reasons. The report concludes that ICT cannot
be expanded in the developing world until more investors in the developed world
can be convinced to invest in it. The lack of interest on the part of investors
and corporations in the developed world is considered one of the largest obstacles
to expanding ICT by agencies such as the UN, the World Bank, and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)
and the International Institute for Communications
and Development (IICD) . The position of the major international
organizations on the "digital divide" was best summarized in a speech
given by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1999:
"people lack many things: jobs, shelter, food, health
care and drinkable water. Today, being cut off from basic telecommunications services is a hardship almost as
acute as these other deprivations, and may indeed reduce the chances of finding remedies to
them."
Further Considerations
Conventional wisdom on the relationship of technology to economic development
is that people gain greater access to newer and better technology
as their income (as a measure of economic development) increases. Advocates
of greater global access to information technology (those seeking to drastically
reduce the "digital divide") argue the opposite case, that given the special characteristics
of today's technology this process can be reversed. They believe that providing the technology
first will improve individual and national income and standards of
living. The International Economics conference on the "Digital Divide"
will focus primarily on the "chicken and egg" question of whether
investment in technology is needed to make people more prosperous, or whether
greater prosperity is needed first in order to fully utilize technology.
Global Environment
Environmental issues are by definition international, as natural resources make up a "global commons"
that is shared by all nations and peoples of the world community. Air pollution caused by a
nation affects other nations to varying degrees, as does acid
rain, deforestation, and resource depletion.
Economic development strategies of different nations have significant
impacts not only on a single nation's environment, but also on neighboring environments
and the world ecosystem as a whole.
A significant amount of disagreement over how to address environmental issues
exists between advanced industrialized countries and the developing
world. This difference of opinion centers around the issue of poverty. While poorer countries
strive to pursue economic growth and eliminate poverty by utilizing the heavy industrial
(and highly polluting) model of the developed world, the richer developed nations seek to promote
alternative growth strategies for the developing world that have fewer harmful consequences for
the environment. This dispute has often turned into accusations by LDC's
that the industrialized countries of the world are practicing economic
hegemony and in turn by the industrialized nations that the LDC's
wish to enforce environmental
"double-standards".
This ongoing dispute is further complicated by the fact that nearly all countries claim
international attempts at environmental protection violate their sovereignty. A general
lack of agreement and leadership in the environmental arena among
nation-states gives non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth a great
deal of influence.
Global Climate Change--What is it?
Referred to as "global warming" and
"the Greenhouse
Effect", global
climate change is the most significant international environmental
issue of the last decade, as well as the most disputed. Disagreement over the
cause(s) of climate change, how
bad it really is, and consequences of global climate change occurs not only between
individual nations and blocs of nations, but between different interest groups within
nations. There is also disagreement between environmental NGO's and the international
business community over the same issues.
Global climate change refers to a change in the average temperature of the earth's
climate due to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), a team of the world's foremost climate change
scientists, has confirmed that such a process is underway.
However, there remain conflicting scientific opinions on these issues.
Significant climate change poses serious dangers worldwide, such as coastal flooding,
frequent and intense heat waves, more extreme droughts, a rise in the number of severe
storms, profound changes to biodiversity, and disruptions in crop production and growing
seasons. These outcomes would especially impact the island nations of the world, as well
as dry countries and countries with a significant proportion of their population and
infrastructure (roads, buildings, and transportation systems) located in coastal
floodplains.
Some level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is natural and beneficial, as they
reduce the rate at which the planet's heat is lost by radiating out into space. But when
pollution pushes the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere too high, too much heat
is trapped, and the world gets hotter. The most important greenhouse pollutant is carbon
dioxide, which is produced from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Deforestation also
plays a role as trees (which soak up carbon dioxide in photosynthesis) disappear and those
that are burned add additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Global concentrations of
carbon dioxide have increased by about 30 percent during the last century, spurred
initially by the increase in fossil fuel burning at the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
Since it takes decades to centuries for natural processes to remove excess amounts from
the air, carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere.
Recent Developments
In June, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development UNCED, also known as the Rio Earth
Summit) brought together a record number of world leaders to address the world's
environmental problems, among them global climate change. One significant
outcome of the Rio Earth Summit was the Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The Convention's objective is to cut back on climate change
caused by human activities. As a preliminary step it called upon the industrialized
countries of the world to voluntarily return their emissions (production) of greenhouse
gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
In March/April 1995, at the First Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Climate Change (COP-1) in Berlin, Germany, 120 countries agreed to hold further talks on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This was determined after reviewing the progress made
toward the goals of the Rio Earth Summit and concluding that the voluntary approach had
been unsuccessful. This agreement to pursue further talks resulted in the Berlin Mandate,
which specifically called upon the industrialized nations to set stronger, more specific
reduction targets for themselves.
In December of 1997, the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate
Change (COP-3) was held in Kyoto, Japan. On December 11, 1997, negotiators reached a
compromise treaty, with 38 industrialized countries agreeing to reduce their emissions of
greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States agreed to 7 percent
reductions, the European Union to 8 percent, and Japan to 6 percent, with the overall cut
for all 38 countries around 5 percent.
Negotiators met again in November 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina at the Fourth
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change (COP-4) to expand the
details of the Kyoto
Protocol. The final two-year "Buenos Aires Plan of Action" includes
a firm deadline for
countries to make sure that they are complying with the treaty's goals. Countries must
also decide the rules governing emissions trading
and the Clean Development Mechanisms
(CDMs) (a means of bringing in money for cleaner energy
projects in developing countries). During the Buenos Aires conference, the United States
officially signed the Kyoto protocol, becoming the 60th country to do so, at
the same time stating that it would be unable to meet
its 7 percent reduction goal without the benefit of emissions trading.
Since the Buenos Aires Conference, there have been three additional COPs. These Conferences have
become increasingly frustrating to national delegations, as the deadlines to implement reductions agreed upon at Kyoto approached without one widely
acceptable strategy emerging. For example, the fifth Conference of the Parties
(COP-5) held in Bonn, Germany in 1999 concluded with most major decisions
postponed--despite the calls
of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for ratification of the
Protocol so it can take effect by 2002. Most observers have concluded that COP-5 accomplished little because of the continuing dispute between the U.S. and the EU over limits on the use of
mechanisms such as
emissions trading credits and Clean Development
Mechanisms (CDMs) (the U.S. opposes such limits, while the EU
supports them).
Frustration over these same issues culminated at COP-6 (held at the Hague in
November 2000). The division
between the U.S. and the EU worsened, with the U.S. moving closer toward a rejection
of the overall principles of the Kyoto accord. While the original goal of the
conference was to promote the entry into
force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002, by the end of the two weeks the Parties had
failed to reach any consensus on this goal. The decision was reached to
adjourn the Conference and reconvene it as COP-6 Part II in July 2001, with many close to the negotiations predicting that
the Kyoto Protocol was "dead."
A major breakthrough was achieved
at COP-6 Part II, as, after more than 24 hours
of consecutive negotiations, a compromise was struck
between the EU and the majority of the Umbrella Group
(though not the U.S.). This compromise dealt with the questions of how to
enforce the provisions of the Kyoto agreement, the use of emissions
credits for protecting forests, the acceptability of emissions trading, and the promotion of emissions reduction in LDCs
(who remain outside the treaty). While the compromise kept the original reduction
targets intact, it also postponed working out the details for full
implementation to future rounds of negotiations.
The Kyoto protocol
will become international law when at least 55 countries have signed and
also ratified (approved) the
agreement. As of July 2001, 84 countries have signed and 37 countries
ratified the Protocol (see http://www.unfccc.de/resource/convkp.html
for the most recent list). However, threatening
the future of both the Kyoto Accord and other attempts at reducing
global carbon emissions is the opposition of the United States, which
remains the world's largest per-capita contributor of greenhouse gases.
Further Considerations
There
are four key negotiating blocs (or groups) that have emerged on the issue of global climate change:
- The
European Union (EU) supports limits in the use of mechanisms such as
emissions trading, so that parties obtain most of their reductions
through domestic measures to reduce industrial emissions. Although the EU is
considered the most “green” of the blocs, its critics have pointed out that the
EU's positions are self-serving because its members have only agreed to meet
a collective
target (the “bubble”). EU countries can effectively trade among themselves to
achieve this common target, while other countries like the U.S. and Japan
must meet their targets directly.
- The
Umbrella Group, which includes the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and
Australia, has supported emissions trading and emissions credits for
financing reductions abroad ("market
mechanisms") to promote
cost-effectiveness. The EU especially claims this group is trying to
exploit loopholes and not make any significant domestic changes. This
group is in jeopardy of collapsing following the Bush administration’s
backing away from the Kyoto Protocol.
- The
Economies in Transition group is made up of the countries of the former Soviet
Union, including Russia (which is also in the Umbrella Group). This group
shares a common
perspective because they suffer many of the same environmental and economic
problems, since they were all formerly planned
socialist economies. All of these countries want to be eligible for
financial aid from the Global Environment Facility for capacity building,
technology transfer, and adaptation.
- The
G-77/China group seeks to make the developed countries’ commitment to
reduce emissions binding under international law. This group also wishes to make progress on implementing the Climate
Change Convention commitments on technology transfer and funding. Finally,
this group
is also suspicious of whether market mechanisms will work and believes that
richer countries will continue to avoid taking concrete steps to reduce
their emissions.
The upcoming Global Environment Conference should follow up on the outstanding issues
related to the Kyoto treaty, namely:
- How reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries can be
enforced;
- The acceptability of emissions trading to countries bound by the Protocol;
- The role of forest preservation in reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere;
- Ways in which developing countries can be encouraged to cut back on their own
greenhouse gas emissions, outside of the Kyoto agreement; and
- How/whether the agreement can proceed with or without key participating
countries such as the U.S.
Country teams participating in the Global Environment Conference should keep in mind
the difficulty of balancing economic growth and environmental protection. This balance is
of most concern in developing nations, and addressing environment/development conflicts
in LDCs during the negotiations is very important. However, this same balancing
of priorities is also relevant in the industrialized world, as much of the debate between the EU and
the U.S. suggests.
CONFLICT/COOPERATION
Since the first Nazi V2 rockets fell on London
during World War II, many countries have sought to develop a defense against missile attack. Most recently it has been the United States who
has most vigorously pursued the creation of a ballistic missile defense
(BMD). While the missile threat has changed dramatically from its peak during the
Cold War, many top political leaders in the U.S., including President George W.
Bush, have argued that potential new threats are emerging which would be best met by a national missile defense
system.
National Missile Defense--What
is it?
National Missile Defense
(NMD) is a
system to detect, intercept and destroy ballistic missiles before they hit their
targets. President Bush cites two main types of threat in justifying such
a system: "the
world's least-responsible states," such as Iraq and North Korea; and
"accidental missile launches" by nuclear powers such as Russia and
China. The
latest version of NMD would incorporate land-based, ship-based and airborne
radar and missile systems designed to destroy hostile missiles. As the system is
expected to work, radars would be used to detect the launch of hostile missiles,
at which time interceptor missiles
are used
to intercept and destroy them,
either soon after the hostile missile is launched or later in its flight. According to President Bush,
NMD could be
used to "protect our (American) friends and allies and deployed forces
overseas", although it is not yet clear how this additional goal would be
included in an NMD system.
Experts on missile defense systems differ
greatly over the feasibility of, as well as need for, a NMD system. Supporters such as the Heritage Foundation say missile defense is not only
workable but necessary. Skeptics such as the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace reply: "There is not now and never has been an
effective national missile defense system. . . . It is highly unlikely that any system can be shown to be militarily effective during the next eight
years." A 1998 commission (chaired by now Secretary of
Defense
Donald Rumsfeld) determined that the threat to the U.S. and its allies from hostile nations
seeking to obtain and arm ballistic missiles with biological or
nuclear payloads is great. On the other hand, the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) has argued that the U.S. is more
likely to be attacked with other weapons of mass destruction
(including chemical and
biological weapons) delivered by means other than missiles.
Complicating this ongoing debate over
national missile defense is the tragic September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Opponents of NMD have argued that this
tragedy demonstrates that the greatest threats to security will not be delivered
by long-range ballistic missiles, but by cheaper and more accurate means that
can only be stopped with improvements in intelligence and law enforcement.
Supporters of NMD counter that U.S. national security has never been in greater
jeopardy, further proving the need for NMD (as well as other methods of "homeland
defense".)
Recent Developments
The collapse of the Soviet Union, the resulting decline in the
threat of massive nuclear exchange, and the emergence of new types of
threats and crises has led to a change in priorities with respect to NMD. Under
Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the focus began to shift to the
threat from missiles with shorter ranges. In 1993, President Clinton and
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin responded to this new threat, renaming Reagan's
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO), and changing its focus from nationwide to theater
(regional) missile
defense. They argued that not only was the short-range missile threat far more
developed, but the goal of effective defense was more likely to be achieved.
The 1998 Rumsfeld report
as well as growing Congressional support for NMD
persuaded the Clinton Administration to move
toward deployment of missile defense, although there were doubts about the high level of technical risk in the
program. In the 2000 federal budget the Clinton Administration added $6.6 billion
to create a $10.5 billion NMD program over the next five years. The
new George W. Bush Administration has embraced the NMD program and has expressed an interest in
further expanding it. On May 1, 2001, he outlined his Administration’s approach to
missile defense, emphasizing that his Administration was committed to the
development of missile
defenses to a far greater extent that was planned by the
Clinton Administration.
Secretary of State
Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and the
President have all stressed
the U.S.
commitment to developing a
major NMD system during meetings with American allies in
Europe. The Bush Administration plans to
pursue defenses based on land, at sea, and
in space and to seek multiple intercept
capabilities, and has requested $8.3 billion
dollars for research and development of these capabilities in FY2002.
Further Considerations
The development of a U.S. national missile
defense system raises a number of questions with respect to U.S.-Russian,
U.S.-Chinese, and U.S.-European relations. Since the emergence of a missile threat to the United States in the late
1950s, American policymakers have relied on a mix of deterrence, arms
control agreements, and diplomacy in formulating a strategic nuclear
policy, any or all of which could be significantly affected by the deployment of
NMD.
Deterrence
The United States and Russia
still maintain large arsenals of nuclear weapons. However, with the end of the
Cold War, the basis and structure of international security have significantly changed. The massive military
forces built up by both sides have declined, and the two countries have sought
to work together on security issues. Despite this, a stable balance has not emerged,
and the two countries have struggled to break away from nuclear-based strategies of
defense.
Supporters of deterrence during the Cold War
were mostly opposed to national missile
defenses, believing that they would simply encourage the development of even greater offensive force to overcome
the defenses. Both the U.S. and the USSR recognized at the time that a NMD
system could not provide 100% security in the event of
a massive nuclear strike because some missiles would always get through to their
targets. In
recent months President Bush has called on Russia to
join the United States in developing a new framework for international security that would replace the Cold
War idea of deterrence through massive retaliation with a new model that
includes both offensive and defensive capabilities.
Russian President Vladimir
Putin has opposed Bush's NMD plans. Putin has argued that
if NMD were implemented by the U.S., Russia would be forced to stop planned
reductions in its strategic nuclear arsenal. Russia's failing economy would make such a decision
to return to nuclear escalation and deterrence extremely costly for Russian
society. The documented lack of nuclear safeguards and rampant
corruption in the Russian government would make such a buildup extremely
dangerous as well.
Arms Control Agreements
- The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)
In the midst of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union ratified a treaty
in which they agreed not to try
to defend their entire territory against missile attack. The Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (ABM) (signed in 1972) allows each
country to build two sites (later reduced to one) to protect
limited areas from nuclear attack. As the Treaty states, such a site may not be used as a nationwide missile defense system or
become the basis for developing one. The ABM Treaty was an important step in the nuclear age, and legally
prevented the development of a major anti-ballistic missile defense.
To date President Bush
has offered
no clear statement that the U.S. is prepared to withdraw from the ABM Treaty.
However, both he and
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have
indicated that they consider the treaty
to be out of date and would prefer
the United States move past it and develop missile defense technologies.
Critics of this position have argued that violation or abrogation
of the ABM Treaty could
have serious implications for the success of other related nuclear arms control and
reduction strategies.
- The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) process has played a major part
in reducing the strategic nuclear arsenals built up
in the U.S. and Russia during the Cold War. These long-range arsenals peaked in the late 1980s
at around 24,000 warheads. Under START I, which is still being
implemented, U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces must drop to
6,000 warheads or less each. In 1996, the U.S. Senate approved ratification of
the next round of reductions, START II. In April 2000, the Russian Duma
followed suit. Once START II enters into force, long-range arsenals are
supposed to drop
to 3,000-3,500 deployed warheads for each country.
START II cannot take effect until the U.S.
Senate approves a protocol to START II, as well as three agreements to update
the ABM Treaty. The linkage of the START process to the ABM
Treaty, the delay in taking action on START II, and the breakdown of START III
are all important factors which are likely to be impacted by further development
and implementation of a U.S. missile defense program.
- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT)
Critics have also argued that a U.S.
NMD program could threaten efforts at nuclear non-proliferation such as the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under the
NPT, the five declared nuclear-weapon states--China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom and the United States--agreed to pursue nuclear
disarmament. In return,
all other Treaty members (a group which includes every country in the world
except India, Pakistan, Israel and Cuba) agreed to renounce nuclear weapons
entirely.
In 1995, the NPT was made
permanent when Treaty members
agreed to three binding commitments: a permanent
Treaty; a strengthened review process for the Treaty; and a set of Principles
and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. In
April and May of 2000, at the first NPT Review Conference, a significant number
of parties to the Treaty raised concerns about the U.S. plans for national missile defense and
issued support for the ABM
Treaty. A serious breakdown was avoided, however, when the five nuclear powers--the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France--agreed on a statement that called for the "preserving and
strengthening" the ABM Treaty. This wording allowed the U.S. to maintain
that modifying the Treaty would strengthen it, while others could continue to
oppose any changes.
Diplomacy
If the U.S. and Russia
reach agreement leading to further cuts in their nuclear arsenals, one of the
more difficult issues raised by U.S. missile defense
deployment would be resolved. However, there would remain significant
sources for backlash against missile defense among potential rivals such as
China and traditional U.S. allies such as Britain, France and Germany.
During the Cold War, China
was not a significant player in the nuclear arms race. While the USSR and the United
States (as well as the United Kingdom and France)
developed substantial arsenals of multi-warhead, long-range missiles, China only
kept a
relatively small force of 20 or so long-range, single-warhead missiles empty of fuel and hours away from launching. China's concern over
the proposed American missile defense system stems from the fact that the
system would be so extensive that
China's current nuclear arsenal would be inconsequential. Given that China's original motivation for developing
a nuclear
weapons program was to
prevent nuclear domination by Russia or the U.S., this concern could lead to a Chinese decision
to significantly increase its nuclear arsenal. A larger Chinese arsenal would not only increase the threat to the United
States, it could have significant impacts on nuclear proliferation in
Asia as well. India and/or Pakistan could respond by increasing their arsenals, while Japan and South
Korea might also feel pressure to react.
America's European allies have also expressed
objections to U.S. proposals for a national missile defense system.
First and foremost, they fear the system could ignite a new
arms race and increase tensions with Russia. Second, European critics think U.S. missile defense
relies on
technology that is far too elaborate to respond to what they feel is an unlikely
threat. France and Germany in particular have voiced concerns that a unilateral U.S. missile
defense system could lead to a more confrontational U.S. security policy.
British officials have suggested that any missile defense should be
extended to protect the United Kingdom if not Europe as a whole. British opinion
is particularly relevant because the U.S. plans to upgrade radars based
in Great Britain for the national missile defense system.
The Bush Administration
has
taken an
active role in consulting with U.S.
allies about
NMD and in ensuring the allies that the United States would include them in
its missile defense efforts.
For example, President Bush spoke with European and NATO leaders prior to his May
1, 2001
speech on missile defense, and he sent several delegations to Europe and Asia
after the speech
to consult with the allies about missile defenses. However, these
consultations did not win
widespread support for the Administration’s position. Officials in many
NATO nations have
argued that the Administration’s representatives offered few details of the
U.S. plans and failed to answer questions about the new
strategic framework
envisioned by the Administration.
Negotiators considered a solution to the complex
problem of a U.S.-led national missile defense system should strive to balance
the security concerns of the U.S. and some of its allies with the many questions
raised by critics of such a program. Some questions to consider include:
- What is the best way to maintain
international nuclear security--nuclear deterrence, or arms control and
diplomacy? Can both be pursued simultaneously?
- How should the world deal with rogue states
and actors that seek to develop or obtain long-range ballistic missiles? Is
NMD an effective strategy?
- Can the U.S. maintain its existing security
arrangements and alliances and still develop a NMD system?
- Is NMD compatible with current international
law?
- What should a nation emphasize, the
preservation of international legal agreements or the pursuit of its own
perceived national interests and security?
WORLD HEALTH
Among the most significant of diseases affecting the developing world in
terms of political, social, and economic impact is HIV/AIDS. The devastation
brought about by HIV/AIDS is particularly severe in Africa, a continent which has now
buried approximately 75% of the over 20 million people who have died from AIDS
and AIDS-related complications worldwide since 1981. Almost 4 million new cases of
AIDS infections were reported in Africa in the year 2000 alone. Over 33 million people are living with HIV/AIDS worldwide;
sub-Saharan Africa
(the southern
two-thirds of the African continent, south of the Sahara desert) is the most affected region. In some
countries in southern Africa, up to one in four adults are now living with HIV/AIDS. Increasingly
HIV/AIDS is becoming a problem during pregnancy and childbirth. In Zimbabwe, for example,
20%-50% of pregnant women in some areas are infected with HIV and risk infecting their children. In
Botswana life expectancy at birth has fallen from 70 to almost 50 years. These
staggering figures, however, provide only an introduction to the international public
health crisis of AIDS in Africa.
What is HIV/AIDS?
HIV is a virus--the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Illnesses caused by a virus cannot be cured by
antibiotics. People who have a less serious virus (a cold, for example) usually get better after a few
days or weeks because the white blood cells of the immune
system--which are responsible for fighting diseases--successfully overcomes
them. When a person is infected with HIV (that is, when a
person is "HIV positive"), the immune system cannot make enough of the
proper antibodies
in order to defeat the virus. Many people do not feel ill at all
when they are first infected with HIV, and may not feel the symptoms of the
virus for a long time. This is because HIV acts by gradually destroying the immune system of the infected
person. After about 5 to 10 years (although much earlier in some cases) the immune system becomes so weak
and deficient that it cannot fight off infections. At this stage, complications
such as intense diarrhoea, fever, pneumonia, and liver failure often set in as
HIV develops into full blown AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).
The process of acquiring the virus itself is widely agreed upon by
scientists, but nevertheless has been the subject of a great deal of misinformation
around the world. HIV is found in bodily fluids such as blood, semen, vaginal fluids
and breastmilk. It is transmitted only in very specific ways, such as through sexual
intercourse, in infected blood (for example through blood transfusions or in the
use of contaminated needles and syringes), or from an infected mother to her baby. Although the process of transmitting
HIV is well established scientifically, myths about transmission
persist in both the developed world and in lesser developed regions such as
sub-Saharan Africa, and weaken efforts to control the spread of the disease.
AIDS in Africa--Recent Developments
According to the WHO, over two-thirds of all the people now living with HIV in the world--nearly 21 million men, women and children--live in
sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS in Africa has now reached pandemic
proportions, effecting every aspect of public life. The spread of AIDS in Africa
has occurred in a much different fashion than did the AIDS epidemic
in other parts of the world. In the developed world, the disease was brought under control through
intensive education, vigorous political action and expensive drug
therapy and has been limited to specific high-risk groups. In Africa, on the other hand, the disease has spread at a
frightening pace due to shortcomings in all three areas--education, political action, and
drug treatment.
Because of the political, cultural, economic, and moral dimensions of the
crisis, AIDS in Africa has been high on the international health agenda for
several years, and has begun receiving a significant amount of attention in
Western political and media circles. As far back as 1987, community-based
responses to AIDS began receiving attention (Uganda's The
AIDS Support Organization was the first and remains a role
model for similar activities throughout Africa). At the same time the WHO
established its Special Program on AIDS, later to evolve into the Joint
United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) in 1996. While the
Ugandan initiative was for the most part unique to that country until only
recently, the early activity by the WHO focused a tremendous amount of
discussion and study about the problem of AIDS in Africa by global organizations
such as the UN, WHO, the World Bank, the Organization
for African Unity (OAU), and the African Development Forum
throughout the 1990's.
One recent high-profile initiative is the International
Partnership Against AIDS in Africa, or "the Africa
Partnership." This coalition is made up of most of the governments of
Africa as well as the United Nations, major international aid donors, and
private sector interests and has a broad mission: "to reduce the
number of new HIV infections in Africa, to promote better care for those already
suffering from HIV, and to mobilize society to halt the advance of AIDS."
It is referred to as a partnership mainly because it seeks to identify, on a country-by-country basis throughout Africa, those plans and
strategies that have had some level of success. This approach has been
structured to avoid the shortcomings of the more traditional
"top-down" approaches to international health and development.
However, it still faces the major
challenge of mobilizing local support and overcoming political and
cultural barriers to improved AIDS education and treatment.
The Third Conference of African
National Human Rights Institutions held in Lome, Togo in March 2001 approved the
Lome Declaration
which linked the issue of HIV-AIDS in Africa to human rights on
a broader scale. The Lome Declaration, passed on to the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, urged African nations to: (a) ensure that their laws, policies,
and practices respect human rights in the context of those affected by HIV/AIDS;
(b) promote more effective programs for AIDS prevention; and (c) improve the
quality and access to care and medication.
In April 2001, the OAU convened a
special African Summit on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and other related Infectious
Diseases in Abuja, Nigeria. In response to worldwide criticisms of a
perceived lack of African political leadership, this summit issued one of the
most strongly worded statements of African commitment to the fight against AIDS
on record. The Abuja Declaration states
that AIDS is a "State of Emergency on the [African] Continent." In
addition to expressing support for international efforts to control AIDS, the Declaration issued a
commitment of personal responsibility and leadership aimed at promoting awareness of the impact of AIDS on women and
children and a greater
respect for human rights for those people living with AIDS.
In June 2001, the
UN General Assembly convened a Special Session on HIV/AIDS which concluded with
the approval of a Declaration of Commitment in which 189 member states framed a
national, regional, and international leadership strategy to combat what they
termed a "global emergency." The UN also urged the support
of regional organizations and initiatives to combat HIV/AIDS--especially with
respect to Africa--and pledged greater involvement globally by the UN and other
international organizations to develop innovative, public-private
partnerships and multi-sectoral approaches.
The Declaration concluded that these approaches should be structured to include people living with AIDS and vulnerable groups in order to promote
awareness and information about the disease.
The continued emphasis placed on information and coordination by international organizations like the UN,
however, has been criticized by some as a symbol of bureaucratic
inertia while the effects of the disease in Africa worsen. This is the source of much tension and debate between the
developing world and public health and AIDS advocates on the one hand, and the
developed world and international organizations on the other.
Further Considerations
Unlike the rest of the world, HIV in sub-Saharan Africa has mostly spread through sexual
contact between men and women, meaning that women are more heavily affected in Africa
than in the rest of the world (about 4/5ths of the world's women infected with
HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa). An even higher proportion of the children living with HIV in the world are in Africa - an estimated
90%. There are a variety of reasons why HIV/AIDS impacts women and children so
dramatically in Africa. First, more women of childbearing age are HIV-infected in Africa than elsewhere. Secondly, African women have more children on average than those in other continents, so one infected woman may pass the virus on to a higher than average number of children. Thirdly, nearly all children in Africa are
breastfed (this is thought to account for between a third and half of all HIV transmission from mother to
child). Finally, new drugs which help reduce transmission from mother to child before and around childbirth are
generally difficult to obtain if available at all.
The plight of AIDS in Africa has been undoubtedly been worsened by the
persistence of highly
patriarchal belief
systems and cultures that promote promiscuity
as well as false information about the disease.
The role of men in the transmission of AIDS in Africa has been a key subject of
concern for UNAIDS' two-year World AIDS Campaign in 2000-2001, "Men Make a
Difference." In addition, the inability and in some cases unwillingness of
some African political leaders to
publicly acknowledge the extent and causes of the disease has indirectly lent
support to the patriarchal and promiscuous customs and practices that promote
its spread. The lack of political leadership on the AIDS issue--as recently as
April 2000, South African President Thabo Mbeki is on record denying that AIDS is
directly caused by HIV--has lent an air of confusion, stigma,
and denial to the disease. This sense of denial in turn has limited information
about what the disease is and how to avoid contracting it to a minimum and led
to the shunning of those who suffer from it. In many countries the social
pressure to practice this denial has led doctors to misdiagnose what really is
AIDS, or to falsely list the cause of death as something other than AIDS.
The rampant spread of AIDS in Africa has long been a subject of concern to
international health and aid agencies, and in recent years has been prominently
featured in major Western media outlets such as Time magazine, The New
York Times, CNN, the BBC, and the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes.
Despite this increased awareness of the horrible suffering and economic, social,
and political dislocation that AIDS has caused in Africa, it remains in some
ways a self-contained crisis that does not directly impact the daily lives of
people of the developed world. Or does it? AIDS in Africa--often
cited as the world's foremost public health crisis--may also be the leading test
of international morality. Because of
Africa's relative political and economic marginalization,
the continent is often overlooked by Western leaders and citizens alike, with
some arguing that Africa's problems are for Africans to deal with. Will
this pattern continue with respect to the AIDS crisis?
Negotiators seeking to deal with the problem of AIDS in Africa should
consider what strategies might work best for dealing with
the problems of education and culturally driven stigmas, as well as the
impacts that poverty and underdevelopment play in limiting access to health care
and drug treatment. Should the disease be combated separately, or as part of an
overall development strategy to reduce all the problems of poverty? Also, the
role that political leadership in both Africa and the West might play in
alleviating the crisis should be analyzed.