Event Summary:
Dealing with Dictators:
What should Canada and the International Community do about tyrants?
January 22, 2009
Expert Panel:
Professor Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, Canada Research Chair in
International Human Rights, Wilfrid Laurier University
Judy Jackson, Award-winning documentary film maker of
“Ungrateful Dead: In Search of International Justice”
Razmik Panossian, Director, Policy, Programmes & Planning,
Rights & Democracy
Summary by Andrew Do
This event discussed what it is that needs to be done with dictators and autocrats around the world. Dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan or Than Shwe of Myanmar presents to the international community a problem with regards to human rights and international justice and are thus, an affront to the conscience of a common humanity. It is the purpose of this event therefore to discuss and debate how the world can act to deal with these despotic regimes.
The first speaker of the evening is Razmik Panossian, the current director of Policy, Programmes and Planning at Rights and Democracy and an expert on post-Soviet transition, and ethnic conflict. He begins by making four general points about dictatorship, all which are important to keep in mind. The first is that not all dictators are alike. They are not a monolithic bunch of people, a point that is often forgotten. The second is a dictator’s authority is never total. There will always be points of resistance, either within the structure or outside of it. Thirdly, dictators exist within a structure that reinforces dictatorial regimes. Dictatorships are not reducible to merely one individual. Lastly dictators are not born but rather, they are made.
With these points in point, Razmick argues that the best method to deal with dictatorships is by mobilizing civil society within these regimes to overthrow dictatorship through non-violent resistance. His humorous example of the “Panties for Peace” campaign aimed at protesting the current dictatorial regime in Myanmar is particularly indicative of the various non-violent methods civil society have at their disposal. He points to four strategies the international community ought to utilize in dealing with these dictators. The role of the international community should be relegated to supporting these civil society groups for they face great danger in directly engaging and critiquing their regimes and need international support to back them up. The second strategy, related to the first is finding these civil society groups who wills serve as the entry points that will challenge the regime. Thirdly is to use international legal mechanisms such as the ICC or the UNSC to induce change in these dictatorial regimes. Dictatorships under sufficient international pressure will capitulate. Lastly, it is central to document the activities of these dictators to substantiate the allegations of human rights abuses against them. This is a necessary requirement for justice. In short, there must be a holistic approach, with domestic actors and the international community working in tandem, with domestic actors in the form of civil society taking the driver’s wheel.
The second speaker of the evening is Professor Rhoda Howard-Hassmann of Wilfred Laurier University, the current Canada Research Chair in International Human Rights. Her research interests include state-induced famine and human security. She argues that the most effective method to deal with dictators that systematically abuse their citizens is by forcibly removing them from power through military force. She points to the case of Zimbabwe, in which hundreds of thousands of people are starving due to state-induced famine. It is what she terms as “genocide by attrition,” in which a state implements policies designed to cause physical and/or psychological harm to citizens as to bring about their destruction. She argues that the very concept of genocide needs to be broadened and updated to include state-induced famine. She further points out that Mugabe’s policy of state-induced famine can be considered “politicide” as his policy of land distribution were meant to rewards his supporters and punish his non-supporters and political enemies. The resulting famine and malnutrition thus primarily slowly kill off his political enemies. In such a case like this, she argues that military force ought to be pursued.
The last speaker of the evening is Judy Jackson, a critically acclaimed documentary film-maker, whose latest work includes the “Ungrateful Dead: In Search of International Justice,” which sought to account for the prospects of international justice using ICTY and the ICC. She argues that universal jurisdiction under the ICC would be the best method for dealing with dictators. She emphasizes how societies require justice to move forward, a theme that permeates all of her works. Dictators like Mugabe she argues are war criminals or are committing crimes against humanity and there is a universal norm within the international community that denounces both and hence, a practice of universal jurisdiction has slowly emerged. She traces this rise with example of the arrest of the former Chilean dictator throughout, Augusto Pinochet, who was arrested under a warrant issued by a Spanish court in 1998, while Pinochet was in London. This is only the beginning according to Judy Jackson. The hope for international justice is especially salient at this point in time, given that the ICC is set to conduct their first trial this on January 26, against Thomas Lubanga, a rebel leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is only a matter of time that murderous dictators can be held to account at the ICC.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question
Given the post 9/11 world order, it seems that those who criticize the government are seen as enemies of the state, and in some cases, are even considered “terrorists.” What legal mechanisms are there to protect dissenters?
Answers
RHH: We can redefine terrorism and limit its scope in which terrorists are those whose violent activities are systematically aimed at causing harm to civilians. Publishing editorials critical of the government would not be considered a terrorist act as such.
RP: A legal framework is necessary but hardly sufficient without the political will to utilize these frameworks as to protect dissenters.
Question
What if people democratically elect a leader who when in power, begins developing dictatorial tendencies such Hugo Chavez? Would that not also disillusion people to the idea of democracy?
Answer
RP: The question that needs to be asked in this case is what do you do with the losers? A democracy will not just pander to the government’s supporters. Under the rule of law, there are legal mechanisms that will ensure that the needs of the non-supporters will also be met. You also need institutional mechanisms to constrain leaders. It’s easy to critique democracies for their shortcomings but one cannot fall into the trap of morally equating democracies with dictatorships.
Question
How can we expect states to comply with international law when the United States refuses to do so?
Answers
RHH: US disobeying international law does not preclude other states from doing so. States do not need permission from the US to obey international law.
Question
How do we convince China to talk about the plight of the Tibetans?
Answers
RP: The Tibet issue is delicate and while we support Tibet’s struggle, we must cooperate with China to do so.
RHH: As part of a human rights and democracy delegation to China, we simply cannot induce China to change their policy towards Tibet, let alone their human rights practices by simply criticizing them as a whole. However, criticizing them by way of naming and shaming by imputing them to particular Chinese officials have proved effective to some extent as they have loosened up their policy towards Tibet.
Question
When a state acts under the doctrine of responsibility to protect (R2P), where does that responsibly end?
Answers
JJ: Post-conflict building is an important responsibility that cannot be ignored for it makes or breaks a lasting peace. It requires a lot of resources however. Sierra Leone is a tragic example where there was political will for post war reconstruction but no resources to make it happen. There is also pre-conflict prevention. One only has to keep up to date with the news in conflict-prone countries as there are always indicators that a war is about to break out.
Question
The US Congress enacted legislation that was intended to put pressure on the Mugabe regime to change their stance but it has thus failed to make an impact, thus casting doubt on the efficacy of policy to induce regime change. We must also put aside the notion that dictators are psychopaths and insane for their methods for holding onto power show that they are highly rational and calculating. We have to engage is his logic and his rhetoric. Furthermore, Zimbabwean grievances are articulated at the domestic level and only reached the attention of the international community due to the grievances of the white farmers living there. What is to be done?
Answers
RHH: It is true that the problem in Zimbabwe only got known due to the plight of white farmers but we must still reform international law to effectively deal with the Mugabe regime.
JJ: Canada is a signatory to the ICC and therefore, can exercise universal jurisdiction over Zimbabwe and launch a case against Robert Mugabe. It should send a strong message to Mugabe and all dictators alike.
RP: Reform the law is necessary but doing so presupposes political will, which is what we should work on building. Realistically, a military intervention in Zimbabwe will not occur in the near future so what we should instead be doing is supporting the domestic actors within Zimbabwe that are actively challenging the Mugabe regime.
Questions
How do we address the issue of sovereignty in authorizing a humanitarian intervention?
Answers
RP: Should not be too much of a problem as the Westphalian notion of sovereignty is not quite as relevant as it is today given that the UN has adopted the principles of R2P. It indicates there is political will.
JJ: I do not think it will realistically happen. If the West were to intervene, it would be perceived as an imperialist enterprise.
RHH: There are precedents for humanitarian intervention like Tanzania intervening in Uganda and the Vietnamese intervening in Cambodia. However, these interventions were out of the state’s national interest. Maybe South Africa and Botswana will intervene in Zimbabwe to stem the flow of refugees. However, we will need an international humanitarian force to intervene for humanitarian intervention to be legitimate.
Questions
Do we not create a double standard when we accuse dictatorships of committing atrocities when democracies likes Israel also commit atrocities as well?
Answers
JJ: It is indeed a double standard. If we look at the ICC, there is a fear that it may just be an African court for war crimes as all their investigations to date are based in Africa.
RHH: It is not necessarily hypocritical as there are voices that condemn Israel for its atrocities. Israel as well as Hamas ought to be tried for war crimes, whether they kill 10 civilians or 1300 civilians.
View the event flyer: Flyer.
View an article in the Varsity: The Varsity.
|
|
|
|
