Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Preventing the formation of Dictatorships through a framework of UN rules

I would like to debate here the substantive issues around the "Dealing with Dictators" motion that fell at Green Party Conference due to poor chairing. As the proposition is scattered around this blog with other issues, I am re-posting the rejected motion here, so that maybe we can get some real debate about the issues, rather than speeches from influential members saying in effect "I do not like this".

This does on reflection, seem to contradict my resolve to withdraw from the GP policy making process, but I think members who were not at Conference should be able to see what is wrong with the debating process, hopefully to avoid fiascoes in the future. Secondly, as I take this forward in other arenas, it will be useful to have it stress-tested.

This is the motion as presented, with minor improvements in [square brackets]:
 _______________________________________________________________
Motion on Dealing with Dictators
Synopsis:

While the Global Index of Human Rights will add a steady, continuous pressure for all countries to improve their human rights, unfolding world events frequently demonstrate the need to restrain dictators who are acting against the interests of their citizens. At present the international response to dictators is ad-hoc, politically driven and inconsistent, depending on whether major powers regard the dictators in question as useful allies or trading partners.

The UN needs to set up a fair, open and pro-active approach to would-be dictators, aimed to dissuade them from progressing towards absolute dictatorships, and rewarding steps taken towards a more democratic and open regime.

This is based on sound psychology. It is well established that the best way to modify unwanted behaviour is to set a consistent and fair framework of punishments for unwanted behaviour and rewards for appropriate behaviour.
______________________________________________
 
Motion
Insert new IP 336 and re-number.

IP 336
The Green Party will press for the UN to set up a framework of international rules of governance that will help all dictators, indeed all rulers, to learn that certain courses of actions will certainly lead to unwanted effects on their freedom to act to the detriment of their citizens.

Specified forms of conduct that indicate a tendency towards dictatorship will be matched with a tariff of targeted sanctions which are applied in a measured, stepwise and consistent basis.

IP337
There are a number of identifiable steps on the road to dictatorship. The following examples are advanced as indicators of such a tendency:
1.    Electoral fraud
2.    Intimidation at the polling booths
3.    Ignoring the result of a democratic election
4.    Banning critical newspapers and media
5.    Banning non-violent opposition parties
6.    Imprisoning people for their beliefs
7.    Use of torture
8.    Violent suppression of peaceful demonstrators
9.    Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator
10.  Disproportionate spending on arms
11.  Oppression of minorities

Each of these steps will be legally defined, and the question of whether the regime in question has committed them will be tested in a timely way in an international court.

IP338 Each step, or constellation of steps, will have a specific sanction attached to it. The targeted sanctions applied will be made appropriate to the specific case, will be recommended by the international court of law, and will be subject to ratification by the UNSC.

Examples of the tariff of sanctions are:

1.    At the mildest level, increased intensity and frequency of inspections by UN rapporteurs will take place, and the regime will be offered education in the ways and advantages of democracy.
2.    [Next,] tightening up of border [(customs)] controls.
3.    Banning [of] opposition parties [may] lead to financial support to non-violent opposition parties whose aims are judged to be helpful to the welfare of the people of the country.
4.    Ignoring the result of a democratic election [may] result in a ban in foreign travel for members of the regime.
5.    Use of political imprisonment and torture could result in the regime being denied eligibility to serve on appropriate UN councils, for example, the Human Rights Council .
6.    Lavish expenditure on palaces for the dictator could result in sanctions against the import of luxury goods.
7.    Violent suppression of minorities and peaceful demonstrations will result in freezing of financial assets of the regime.
8.    [Proven use of torture would result in a] ban on foreign travel for members of the regime, with possibility of arrest of such people if they do travel abroad.
9.    Disproportionate spending on arms will result in a total ban on arms sales.

The sanctions will be cumulative and progressive, and will be withdrawn promptly, in reverse order,  if the regime takes action to retrace its steps.
_______________________________________

The objections raised at Conference, both in the workshop and the plenary were as follows, and also amplified form the debate on this blog, are below. My responses are in italics:
  1. An objection to use of the word "Dictator". Well, OK. Any other suggestions? Totalitarian/authoritarian? Oppressors? And why the objection to the word anyway? Is this PC? Let's call a dictator a fecking dictator. It is not as if they are sensitive flowers.
  2. The fact that the effects of the policy could equally apply to the US or Britain. Well, exactly. Great. This is not an objection to the proposal, but a comment presented as an objection.
  3. The exact circumstances of a regime should affect the situation. Which is why there is a legal process involved, in the proposal itself. If a regime has crossed one line, say has set aside the results of an election,the allegations are tried in court, and if found to be in breach of the rules, a penalty is imposed. The court will look at all the circumstances, that is what courts do.
    The thing is here, we are in a double bind. If we insert every detail, it is criticised for being too long. If we condense it, it is criticised for leaving details out.
  4. The objection that "luxury goods" had not been rigorously defined. See above.
  5. The motion is unchanged from last time, when it was referred back. This is because I placed it on the International and Policy discussion lists, and there was zero response.
  6. "The following examples are advanced as indicators of such a tendency" is vague: Well, OK. But if it had read "Here are the indicators of such a tendency", objectors could respond "What about X? You've left X out!"
    The fact is that the UN will have the job of final legal definitions. This objection is perfectionistic.
  7. It is is ludicrous to imagine that dictators "will be offered education in the ways and advantages of democracy". No it isn't. This is an integral part of the UN's existent Responsibility to Protect mechanism.
  8. The motion adds nothing to the Index of Human Rights policy. Yes it does. I co-wrote the Report on the Global Index of Human Rights with Peter Tatchell, and in the writing, while Burma and Zimbabwe were bubbling around in the news, I thought "The Index does not really address Burma and Zimbabwe as they are.  How can we improve it? And we came up with this idea. OK, I came up with it (not wanting to drag Peter into the matter, he has enough on his plate right now).
  9. The motion is trivial. No it isn't. Ask the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda. The entire point is to prevent average regimes from setting off down the slippery path that leads to dictatorship. OK, to authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. Once a dictatorship is formed, it is bloody hard to get rid of. Prevention is better than cure.
  10. "Sanctions" will hurt the people. The motion says targeted or "smart" sanctions, which are designed to have  effects on the regime without affecting the wellbeing of the population. It is important to distinguish between these measures and the anti-humanitarian sanctions that did such terrible harm to Iraqis after the Gulf war.


Looking at it again, I can see that the language could do with smoothing out, but as there was no feedback in the inter-Conference period, this smoothing did not come about. I suggest that the 10 objections assembled so far all lack staying power.

OK. Open for comments...

19 comments:

Jim Jepps said...

Me again.

Most of these objections don't apply to me or why I voted against, and I have some that you've not mentioned.

I agree with the criticism that "The exact circumstances of a regime should affect the situation" in that we need to have far more flexibility - in some cases some of the measures you mention will be meaningless, or they could have terrible effects on the population of the nation without detering the dictator.

Although I kind of agree around the use of the word dictator I'd be happy to let that pass, although it is true what we're really talking about here is human rights abuses and in some situations there is no dictator to speak of. I don't like the way it personalises the political issues but this was not a killer for me.

I was extremely uncomfortable with proposals to restrict immmigration controls for the country - when many people will understandably hoping to leave. We shouldn't force people to be 'refugees' just because they want to escape their home nation.

Likewise I thought other proposals were likely to hurt the population more than the 'dictator'. The experience of sanctions against Iraq was that the regime was strenthened and many thousands died from lack of medicines, food and poverty. Sanctions can themselves be weapons of mass destruction.

I was also uncomfortable with the idea that we're persuading dictators to do things rather than promoting democracy.

This was summed up for me by the phrase "help all dictators, indeed all rulers, to learn"... my personal views is that dictators should be deposed by their people and the lesson they need to learn is not to rule more wisely but to step aside so a legitimate government can operate...

I think that is closer to my objections (and the people I was sitting with) than those you've outlined from the workshop.

DocRichard said...

Jim

Thanks. This is exactly what I was hoping for. I see that you are Policy Wossname - congratulations! - and this is a big opportunity for me to engage with Policy. A first, even.

So, your objections. I am not trying to compete on this, and I do not expect you to have all the answers, because you have other things to do.

They have one common weakness - they lack instances. No doubt some in the Policy community will be able to come up with them.

I have put the arguments on the post, to avoid the debate points from being dispersed.

Thanks for taking the time.

DocRichard said...

Jim. I see that some are expansions of the objections above.


JJ: I agree with the criticism that "The exact circumstances of a regime should affect the situation" in that we need to have far more flexibility - in some cases some of the measures you mention will be meaningless...

RL: The court will have the facility to show this flexibility, both in assessing the wrongdoing and delivering the penalty.

JJ: ...or they could have terrible effects on the population of the nation without deterring the dictator.

RL: The motion says targeted or "smart"sanctions, designed to have terrible effects on the dictator without affecting the population.
http://www.smartsanctions.ch/

DocRichard said...

JJ: I was extremely uncomfortable with proposals to restrict immmigration controls for the country - when many people will understandably hoping to leave. We shouldn't force people to be 'refugees' just because they want to escape their home nation.

RL: I recall that this was mentioned in the debate. Where do you find these proposals? There is a misreading here.

I guess you mean this: "ban on foreign travel for members of the regime, with possibility of arrest of such people if they do travel abroad."

"Members of the regime" means er...key members of the ruling class. A legal definition would be drawn up, as a framework, and the court would specify who could not travel: whether the ruler (rulers in the case of Burma), or the Cabinet, or the upper layers of the Civil Service.

DocRichard said...

JJ: I was also uncomfortable with the idea that we're persuading dictators to do things rather than promoting democracy.
This was summed up for me by the phrase "help all dictators, indeed all rulers, to learn"... my personal views is that dictators should be deposed by their people and the lesson they need to learn is not to rule more wisely but to step aside so a legitimate government can operate...

RL: Of course dictators are best deposed by their people, and they all fall eventually, but this is a long and painful process, often lasting a generation, and much blood is spilled. The key thing is that this is about preventing the development of oppressive regimes.

Please take a moment to let that sink in.

preventing the development of oppressive regimes.

That is key.

Having said that, a full set of these measures could be brought to bear on an established oppressor.

Dave the Rave said...

As an outsider to this debate and forming my judgement on what is presented in the discussion here then, had I been at the conference, I would have voted against the motion.
Jim Jepps objections are cogent.

The muddle that must follow "... a full set of these measures could be brought to bear on an established oppressor." and the earlier: "The key thing is that this is about preventing the development of oppressive regimes." suggests a lack of focus and preparedness on your part, Doc.
Probably the main beneficiaries of this motion, if ever it were implemented, would be international lawyers.

Perhaps you should take some time to let Jim Jepps' objections sink in?

Jim Jepps said...

I must go to bed so just a quick one "RL: I recall that this was mentioned in the debate. Where do you find these proposals? There is a misreading here."

In the post you have "2. [Next,] tightening up of border [(customs)] controls. "

I don't have my book to hand but I'm pretty sure it just said border controls before, and that's what I was refering to (not the members of the government which is different)

DocRichard said...

Hello Dave
"Jim Jepps objections are cogent".
RL:Please point out where my responses to Jim's objections are not equally cogent.

DtR: "The muddle that must follow
"... a full set of these measures could be brought to bear on an established oppressor." and the earlier: "The key thing is that this is about preventing the development of oppressive regimes." suggests a lack of focus and preparedness on your part, Doc".

RL: There is no muddle, except in your reading. It is quite clear that the motion is about preventing the development of oppressive governments, by meeting each step towards dictatorship with a disincentive.

In the case of an established oppressor, the full whack of disincentives can be rolled out. This point has arisen during the discussion, and does not appear in the motion.

There is no muddle.

DtR: "Probably the main beneficiaries of this motion, if ever it were implemented, would be international lawyers".

RL: Yes, lawyers are involved. To adapt Churchill, "Lawyers are better than warriors".

Which brings up a challenge for objectors: If you find this policy so unacceptable, what is your solution to the problem of rulers who are setting down the path to dictatorship? Or for established dictators?

Here are the options, to get you started:
1 military action?
2 laissez faire?
3 Broad unfocussed sanctions on the country as a whole?
4 passing resolutions to condemn them?
5 other?

I am aware that option 2 is often advanced in Green Party circles. I think I understand this, but will not go into it here.

Dave, you have the option of voting against it. That's fine. But what the Green Party needs is fair and balanced debate.

DocRichard said...

Hi Jim

In the post you have "2. [Next,] tightening up of border [(customs)] controls. " I don't have my book to hand but I'm pretty sure it just said border controls before, and that's what I was referring to (not the members of the government which is different)"

RL: It did say border controls. I have introduced [customs] in the post in order to clarify, as a result of this discussion. There is an explanation of the use of [brackets] on the post.
I could have added "in order to suppress smuggling of arms and luxury goods in anticipation of future targeted sanctions". In every motion there is a need to balance brevity and explicitness. To read "prevention of freedom of movement" into "tighten up border controls" is clearly a distortion. It was such a jump that I did not even mark it down for rebuttal. It went underneath the radar. I think it is not too strong to say that it was a slur.

The whole Index project is about Human Rights. Remember that it is policy, voted on overwhelmingly by Conference, albeit against the wishes of your predecessors on the Policy Committee. Their spirit seems to live on in the objections that were raised, but there is no logic to them. C12 is a simple expansion and extension of the Index policy. The Index acts as an ongoing, pervasive positive influence in HR affairs globally. The Prevention of Oppressive Regimes (better title than Dealing with Dictators? - but less snappy), is designed to make the Index ideas effective in real time, as political developments take place. Kagame being a case in point. I will stress this again: the Green Party should be much more aware of what has been happening to our sister Green Party in Rwanda.

Dave the Rave said...

Doc.
Briefly, people usually only vote for something when they have a clear understanding (at least in their own minds) of what they are supporting.

If your main target is pre-dictatorial conditions (rather than a fully fledged dictator) then you could have abandoned the word 'dictator' which seemed to have presented problems (of individualisation) and explained with greater clarity how harm to the 'innocent' section of the population could be avoided - this is where my concerns arise. Legal process doesn't always protect populations from harm, check: Goldsmith, Blair, Iraq.

Jim Jepps said...

Your challenge - no the other thread - was what the alternative is is a useful one.

There is a good case for not the UK not having a foreign policy at all. It would certainly have been beneficial to the world and us if that had been the case in the last fifty years.

My own position is for what Robin Cook called 'an ethical foreign policy' that is both pragmatic but directed at the common good, not business interests or the narrow sectional desires of the British state.

That means a flexible approach, decoupling our foreign policy from the USA's and concentrating on trade issues. It also means holding UK based corporations to account for their actions around the world.

DocRichard said...

Hi Jim

Well, that i_is_imaginative.
No foreign policy.
It sounds like the laissez faire idea that floats around sometime, based on all the bum decisions that we are all so ashamed of. It's a point of view...
Why not put it to Conference? It should go through no problem, coming from Policy.

What I am..no, was...trying to create was precisely Robin's ethical foreign policy. I can still remember switching on the radio, hearing Robin's announcement, and cheering. Then sobering up over the next few days as the FCO rowed splashily away from Robin's aspiration.

I think you will find precisely such a declaration in the Internaional section of the PSS. But there is more to policy than declarations - it has to be worked out in more detail. Which, as I was saying, was what I was trying to do.

As to corporations, it is not just US corps that act like sociopaths. Campaigns empowered me to call a conference of NGOs last february, and the results are in their files - filed - and also here.

Sincere thanks for taking an interest.

Jim Jepps said...

Richard, can I point out that I said clearly that I'm in favour of an ethical foreign policy so I'm unlikely to move a policy I don't believe in.

My point that there is a case for having no foreign policy (which some nations do) was simply a response to your digs at laissez faire which, in the case of the UK, would have actually been an enormous improvement over what has gone before.

DocRichard said...

Dave
It would be rather sanguine to believe that every voter in Conference has a full understanding of everything that is implied. It is much more a case of who speaks, with what degree of conviction/passion/clarity/authority, the number speaking on either side, and whether or not peoples' stomachs are empty.

I reiterate that my complaint is that the debate was unbalanced. It was not well chaired. I am trying to help Conference here by making sure in future that chairs...well, I don't need to repeat it.

DocRichard said...

Jim
Do you support the UN? I certainly do, vigorously. I was born just after the war, at the same time the UN was set up.
It is a unique mix of idealism and realpolitik. The latest example was in the setting up of Responsibility to Protect - to which the Index is complementary.

The UN is being undermined by the corporate media with a drip-drip of critical reports, of which I am aware. It makes mistakes, sure - but the world would be a far worse place without it. (although maybe the population problem would not be so severe. Due to war deaths.)

Its up to you. If you really believe we should have no foreign policy, you are in a very good position to get it into the PSS.

But I think that would open Caroline up to some pretty severe attacks to the Paxos of this world.

As I have said, the Index is there to help her answer the "what would YOU do about Saddam?"

Jim Jepps said...

"If you really believe we should have no foreign policy, you are in a very good position to get it into the PSS."

I've said twice now that is not my position.

DocRichard said...

Jim
Sorry. I was thrown - and alarmed - by your opening sentence "There is a good case for not the UK not having a foreign policy at all". I accept that is not your position.

I hope you accept that the Index is a good plan for implementing and ethical foreign policy, since an ethical FP would seek to see nations cooperating together to protect the HR of their citizens?

Jim Jepps said...

No probs.

"an ethical FP would seek to see nations cooperating together to protect the HR of their citizens"

I agree with that.

DocRichard said...

Hmm. That could suggest that you do not agree with the first half of the sentence. Maybe I'm misreading you, but the Index was driven through in the teeth of Policy resistance, so you may be continuing the tradition.

You are free to get Conference to delete the Inndex.

Which is a bit depressing for me as a member of the Green Party, and as the driver of the Index policy.

But on the other hand, this is all now blood under the bridge for me. It ratifies my decision to withdraw from the Green Party policy making process.
I'm moving on. I have a submission to the 21st Century benefits to write up.
And apples to preserve.