Michael Keating

Who would have imagined slavery still existed anywhere in the world in this century?

Why should state sovereignty mask human rights abuses?

We had hoped that mankind had gone beyond this act of bestiality. If anyone, like me thought this
aberration had been abolished from society then you are in for a shocker! John D Sutter’s CNN
report, ‘Slavery’s Last Stronghold’ shows that this practice still persists in Mauritania.

Mauritania is a West African country bordering the North Atlantic Ocean and a multiethnic
society of more than 3 Million citizens of which sadly up to 20% are still said to be slaves. Slave raiding and
trading has been a feature of the Mauritanian society since slave trading first occurred with
Europe and America. The descendants of these slaves are still enslaved by the descendants of
their forefathers’ masters; the Beydane or white Moors, the ruling caste in Mauritania.

There have been different attempts to abolish slavery in Mauritania since 1905. It was in that
year that the Colonial French Administration abolished slavery in Mauritania. Subsequently
in 1961, after its independence, the constitution further again declared that slavery had been
abolished. In 2007, the country made slavery criminal with a jail term of 10 years but since then
only one person has been successfully prosecuted.

The Mauritanian government denies the presence of slavery within its borders but the
testimony of escaped slaves tells a different story altogether. Stories of rape, starvation,
poverty, death and degradation flow out of this place.

This horror is not limited to Mauritania; it exists in varying degrees in other places. Take
for example, the ‘Osu Caste system’ in the Eastern part of Nigeria which still influences many
courtships and marriages. Additionally, in India, especially in the rural areas, violent clashes still
occur because of the caste system.

There have been various suggestions to ending human bondage situations:

1. Allowing the international community to carry out a survey of slavery;

2. Rehabilitating freed slaves and

3. Providing legal representation for victims.

All these suggestions are valid but they are dependent on the cooperation of the Mauritanian
government who in many parts has denied the existence of slavery within its territory.
The doctrine of State sovereignty gives any government the authority to govern itself and
maintain law and order within its territory; it also protects it from invasion from any other
state. The few exceptions to the general rule of non-intervention in the affairs of a state include cases of genocide.

Should this veil of sovereignty that covers a state not be lifted in situations like this to restore
some dignity to these people whose hope has been stolen, and whose fundamental human
rights have been violated even though there is no outbreak of violence? The sovereignty
of a state presupposes that the sovereign authority will protect the interests and rights of
every citizen. If this duty is not being discharged by the government how can these people be
protected without the help of the international community?

I believe this issue in Mauritania falls within the provisions of the Genocide Convention and an
intervention from the International Community is needed to put an end to it.

Professor Darren Kew, Executive Director of the Center for Peace, Development and Democracy at UMass Boston reflects on the relationship between ethnic diversity and democracy for a forum published by the Zocalo Public Square, a social networking site for critical thinkers. The complete forum is found here.

Darren’s contribution is below:

On the surface, ethnic and religious diversity seem like a lethal mix for democracy. Commentators typically precede descriptions of ethnic, racial, or religious conflicts with words like “intractable,” under the belief that these identity differences follow an inescapable logic of mutual animosity that must at some point come to blows. It is feared that, since one or the other religion must be “right,” or one or the other language or cultural patterns must be dominant, democratic compromise and negotiation will break down in this climate of mutual suspicion and conflicting values.

Many authors have cited democratic successes such as Finland or Japan as proof that less diversity is better for democracy. Others note that diverse democracies like the United States built their institutions during periods of ethnic hegemony first, and only later expanded the franchise. In our case, for instance, some argue that Anglo-Saxon dominance of American life for the first couple centuries ensured a fairly mono-cultural imprint on our political behavior during the critical years we were building our institutions—so that they could withstand the stresses once other ethnic and religious groups were allowed equal footing in the polity.

These views miss the fundamentals of how democracy thrives. First and foremost, democracy does not presume a common system of beliefs or identities. In fact, it assumes the opposite: that people have an array of opposing interests and beliefs that must be worked through in order to find a broader public good. The only principles that we need to have in common for democracy to work are beliefs in negotiation, compromise, and mutual respect. The rest can be negotiated sufficiently to govern well, even though we may not agree on core issues. Effective public policy does not need unanimity—it only needs a sufficient consensus. Brazil, Ghana, India, Turkey, South Africa, and many other democracies are emerging well despite massive ethnic and religious divides.

Second, democratic systems depend upon a balance of power in order to thrive. This not only means checks and balances among the arms of government, but also requires healthy balances between the state and society, unions and management, rich and poor, and so on. Consequently, religious and ethnic diversity plays a very important role in keeping society from being monolithic, and thus in preserving the balance of power against authoritarian government and society. Multiple identities promoted by multiple religious and cultural institutions ensure a diversity of structures in society that serve as countervailing forces to prevent any one group or view from winning every policy debate and squelching opposition. In the absence of a vigilant and diverse political opposition, the public lacks alternatives to replace a government it no longer favors, and democracy loses its most basic check against irresponsible leaders and, ultimately, against oppression.

Darren Kew is executive director of the Center for Peace, Democracy, and Development at UMASS Boston, and Associate Professor in the UMASS Department of Conflict Resolution, Human Security, and Global Governance.

“The goal is to get the world’s poor on the research agenda of the nation’s top universities,” reports the Chronicle of Higher Education in its coverage of the announcement that the U.S. Agency for International Development will disburse $100 Million over the next five years to schools with winning concepts.

This initiative represents a return to a much tighter relationship between USAID and the nation’s institutions of higher learning. It also represents a return to a science and technology focus as USAID will have its first science and technology office in 20 years.

Alexander Dehgan, the agency’s top science adviser wants to use the power of university research to reach beyond the typical approaches to development. He wants students to get involved in a big way. He also wants to do a little bit of social engineering within Universities themselves. He believes that the 19th century ‘discipline silos’ need to be broken down and that new trans-disciplinary paradigms need to emerge. In other words he wants universities to act and think different, to paraphrase the 90′s Apple advertisement.

It’s rare that a government agency gets out front on issues of major social change but USAID may really be on to something here. As Dehgan told the Chronicle its no longer going to be about ‘what’s your major?” but rather “what major global problem are you working on?”

It might be a lot to ask but it sure sounds cool.

(Note: Not to be outdone Harvard has launched its own innovation challenge. It will make $100,000 available to student teams who come up with the best entrepreneurial solutions to major development challenges.

Welcome to UMass Boston Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!