Commentary

The 'Joan Baez Stuff' Still Works

U.S. folk singer Joan Baez

U.S. folk singer Joan Baez

July 31, 2010
By Catherine A. Fitzpatrick
At the opening of the 1980 Madrid Conference to review the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (which was signed 35 years ago, on August 1, 1975), a message was read by NGOs from a tiny scrap of paper with miniscule handwriting. It had been smuggled out of a Soviet labor camp from physicist Yury Orlov, a founder of the Moscow Helsinki Watch group and the Helsinki citizens’ movement worldwide.
 
"I'm sewing bags on the machine," Orlov wrote, describing his forced labor in the camp. "I am convinced that our sacrifices are not in vain."

Orlov's movement was revolutionary in our time precisely because it did not use or advocate violence, and ultimately was part of what led to the largely peaceful change of the communist regimes across the region.
 
Limitations Of New Technologies

The sacrifices that he and his colleagues throughout the former Soviet Union made were considerable -- more than 50 men and women in the Helsinki groups were willing to serve long labor camp and internal-exile sentences, and others faced exile abroad for many years for their brave work in making good on the Final Act’s promise to citizens that they could “know and act upon their rights” and monitor their countries’ own pledges.
 
Today, we take it for granted that even in the most oppressive countries, citizens trying to record and transmit human rights violations are increasingly able to get the word out to their own public and to concerned people abroad, aided by new technologies like the laptop and mobile phone and platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Yet these technologies outstrip the ability of governments and citizens to encourage and maintain the kind of civil societies where they can work positively.

More news and more views delivered on more technical gadgets have not led to more tolerance and peace


There was an eerie scene at the border between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in June:  while thousands of people were fleeing their burning homes and the killing of their relatives in Osh with nothing but the clothes on their backs, many were still clutching cell phones in their hands showing pictures of atrocities.
 
The quintessential Helsinki act -- sending information across frontiers upon which many of the other pledges hinge -- is far less than a problem than it was in Soviet times, when Orlov had to scratch out his note of hope in tiny writing to smuggle it out. But the decision-makers at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) who were tasked with responding to the messages from the refugees' mobile phones were sadly disconnected and took far too long to agree to send even 52 unarmed police from the ranks of people they had been spending millions to train at various OSCE seminars for decades.
 
More news and more views delivered on more technical gadgets have not led to more tolerance and peace. A Soviet bureaucrat looking at the carnage from ethnic cleansing and civil wars in the Helsinki territories and the various "frozen conflicts" since the break-up of the Soviet Union might diabolically say of his government’s policies to control media -- "We told you so."
 
Yet, in fact, extremism is only bred by the suppression of basic rights of association and expression -- the denial of media to minorities in their own languages, the refusal to register civic and religious organizations, and the killing of journalists and human rights monitors uncovering corporate corruption and government complicity in abuses. The hand of Josef Stalin pressed onto the map of Eurasia continues to divide and conquer ethnic communities; it will be the legacy of Helsinki's freedoms, and not of Soviet-style control, that ultimately resolves these conflicts.
 
Back To Human Rights Basics

Seemingly having given up on the struggle for these basic rights, the vast and sprawling OSCE institution that was created to realize the hopes of people like Orlov is increasingly ineffective. Symptomatic of OSCE's limp actions were two roundtables on interethnic relations in Osh and a workshop on policing in multiethnic communities held in Bishkek only a few weeks before the conflict broke out in the south.
 
The contrast between the virtuality of countless seminars attended by "resolutionaries" and the grim reality of the pogroms could not be more palpable.
 
The recent announcement of an OSCE summit planned for October that was issued by Kanat Saudabayev, the OSCE chairman in office from Kazakhstan, and his statement marking the 35th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act are tours-de-force in how to get through press releases without actually saying the words "human rights." To be sure, multilateral organizations need summits if they are to retain their purpose of dialogue and cooperation. Yet the "space and community of security" invoked by Saudabyaev appears to have been sanitized of human rights, an essential part of the concept of human security without which no state is secure.

Western governments appear reluctant to insist vocally on an integrated approach linking human rights progress with security. Doing so means resolving such cases as that of Yevgeny Zhovtis, the leading human rights advocate of Kazakhstan, sentenced to exceptionally harsh punishment for vehicular manslaughter, before the October summit in Astana. It means insisting upon a robust civil society component of the implementation meeting, which should be held in Vienna well before the summit.
 
Looking over the 35 years of Helsinki history, we see the spirit has diluted from the once vibrant all-purpose citizens’ groups that tried to make rights a reality in their communities. Human rights groups are victims of their own success, with the institutionalization -- and bureacratization -- of human rights as a profession, translating it into numerous separate agencies, issues, and procedures. That's to be expected, but it's part of why human rights as a nonviolent civic cause has lost its attraction to young people.

Today, a young Canadian endorses the anarchists’ rampage at the G20 summit in Toronto and meets my expression of concern about violence with a sneer -- "That Joan Baez stuff doesn't work anymore." A young Kazakh public relations expert can reply to my protest about the closure of newspapers with a cynical shrug that "plurality breeds confusion."
 
It is precisely because of the loss of faith in these nonviolent human rights ideals among the young that we older Helsinki watchers have to rededicate ourselves to the very basics -- freedom of the media and freedom of association -- at a time of the proliferation of single issues and increasingly exotic rights. Progressives demand a focus on a right Nature violates every day it doesn't rain -- the right to water. Yet authentic citizens' environmental groups to track the effect of hydropower stations on water flow and the fair regional use of water, as well as free media required to report accurately on the issues when outrageous state propaganda flourishes are key to resolving such matters, as well as many other intractable OSCE issues.

The Helsinki anniversary, and the fresh wounds in Kyrgyzstan, compel citizens and governments to rededicate themselves to the basics: An international human rights movement focusing on the right of association and free media that refrains from advocating or excusing violence is a precondition for improved government response.

Catherine A. Fitzpatrick is a freelance writer based in New York who writes on human rights issues in Eurasia. Her blog on OSCE can be found here. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
     
Comments
by: John from: London
August 02, 2010 17:30
The "decision-makers" at the OSCE are in fact none other than the member states themselves. This is a consensus organisation with a very diverse membership with increasingly diverse interests, so it is not well placed to be the crisis manager that it is sometimes expected to be. It has done a great deal of work in Kyrgyzstan in recent years and may well have prevented the deadly clashes that took place in June in the south of the country from happening earlier. This may be a small consolation but the violence seems to have been driven for the most part by by the economic despair that is felt by most of the population and for which successive leaderships bear responsibility. So in this case there are forces behind the development of extremism other than those cited here. Kazakhstan, of course, is no paragon of virtue in terms of its human rights record, but there are many people in Kyrgyzstan who can see the benefits of the Kazakh approach of building stability around successful economic reform and worrying about pluralism and democracy later. In the words of Bertolt Brecht Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral, first comes the grub, then morals.

by: Catherine Fitzpatrick from: New York
August 02, 2010 19:20
Ethnic Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan, from all accounts, enjoyed more economic prosperity because they are an entrepreneurial community with restaurants and shops and textile factories. Yet they had no political power and were marginalized by Kyrgyz in the North. The Kyrgyz in the south are unemployed not because of Uzbeks' success, but because of the legacy of Soviet communism, the kleptocratic clan policies of a succession of "democratic" leaders in Bishkek, and Russia's extractive policies toward its neighbors (look who has the fuel concession now) and U.S. and EU focus on energy security more than human rights. All these complex factors don't reduce down to a Marxist-style "economic reason" for extermism; if anything, resentment by Kyrgyz youth of more successful Uzbeks is a moral and political, not an "economic despair" problem, and one for which they need to take accountability as much as their elders in Bishkek. What, a poor young man gets to stab and kill his neighbor just because he's disadvantage?! That's unaccountable.

The reason I emphasize the basics of civil rights rather than only socio-economic solutions is because when Uzbeks can have basic things like media in their own languages; when they have political parties and associations with equivalent powers; when their language is recognized among the official languages of Kyrgzystan, there will be less conflict. And by the same token, when there is free media and less state harassment of journalists and bloggers, then coverage of the nepotism and corruption that has so hampered Kyrgyzstan's development can help bring about more opportunities for Kyrgyz as well as Uzbek youth.

I hardly think the Kazakh "solution" (like the Chinese) of putting economic development first, then tacking on democracy like a module is at all viable. As a Tibetan leader I know once said to a Chinese official: *who* develops?! A "New Class" of Kazakhs developing themselves and their cronies isn't a solution for the future and isn't stability. Civil rights and socio-economic rights need to be integrated so that both can advance, without one at the expense of the other. We've yet to see a really viable model of this "first economic development, then we'll gradually add in freedom" concept work anywhere for long, yet the dream of it seems to die very hard.

At any rate, there are quite a few political opposition leaders, NGO activists and independent journalists in Kazakhstan who do not agree with this approach at all, but they are brutally suppressed, letting us know that this lovely "development" scheme you're touting can only succeed by force. Were force not used, we might see it diminished as an attractive option.

by: edwin from: USA
August 04, 2010 01:13

While I agree that "faith in [certain] nonviolent human rights ideals among the young is essential and perhaps that "older Helsinki watchers [should or must] rededicate . . . to the very basics -- freedom of the media and freedom of association," something is clearly missing in this attempt at parallel.

First, I think the young Canadian was confused to equate Joan Baez (and that era, presumably) with current human rights realities and struggles in Central Asia or (more than likely) anywhere else.
[One could blame Neil Young, I suppose.]

Moreover, the anti-war movement of 1960s America was just that: Anti-war. Rising during the era of the Vietnam War (1965 to 1973), it was "the largest and most successful antiwar movement in U.S. history." It became the "war at home," rooted in early student radicalism protesting political repression on college campuses and considered to be "a direct outgrowth of the Free Speech Movement."

Human rights lies in a broader, often nebulous arena known quintessentially, worldwide today, as: The United Nations. The OSCE with Kazakhstan at its head currently is mere sideshow to that main attraction.
The "spirit" of Helsinki has served it purpose (encouraging and supporting the death of communism) and now also fades in the face of such current, chaotic and challenging realities.

Why are the young not inspired to get involved individually and/or collectively?
I think the answer is certainly that "human rights groups are victims of their own success," in the sense noted here, but the solution offered, albeit reflexively (or even reflectively), "Joan Baez stuff" is no solution at all.

In any case, I applaud Ms. Fitzpatrick for her peaceful "protest" in regards to the closure of newspapers and also in highlighting the Zhovtis case. Plurality of voices (via media) is essential for not only developing personal and public clarity, but for freedom and democracy. The young Kazakh public relations expert needs to get a grip as does his government.

Open and continuous dialogue (free press and association, too) serve as the internal and external preconditions for diminishing violence, for improving government AND institutional response. It is not the limitations of new technologies that should be our concern, but the quantity, and more essentially, the quality of the message that gets conveyed.
     
TEXT SIZE - +

Latest Commentary

Editors' Picks

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile