Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s, Prof. Olivier De Schutter’s, second presentation to the UN General Assembly.  The interactive dialogue that followed Prof. De Schutter’s presentation is an excellent example of how the Special Procedures system of the UN Human Rights Council allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to thematic issues like the right to food and to country specific situations. 

The role of a Special Rapporteur and of independent UN mandate holders in general represents progress in the human rights field and within the UN system because it takes a pressing human rights concern that has bubbled up to the UN via civil society and member state activity, empowers an individual or small team to further investigate and recommend solutions to these concerns, and can harness all members of society, from States to grassroots organizations to United Nations bodies to the media, in researching and formulating responses to these problems.  Appointing an independent expert who is both within and beholden to the UN system and yet functions independently and flexibly enhances the efficiency and capability of the UN.  And, it allows for reporting from these experts in a manner that is often impossible for member states of UN bodies to undertake on their own.

Prof. De Schutter’s latest report is a case in point regarding the ability of a special expert to say things that others cannot.  The report takes on current intellectual property rights as they relate to seeds, agricultural technologies, and the right to food.  In the first place it is both innovative and necessary that a right to food approach to food security takes into account the commercial side of food production and related agricultural concerns such as climate change, as opposed to limiting the right to food focus on (the also important and necessary) legal entitlements to this right located in court cases, framework laws, and constitutional provisions. 

Without addressing the commercial regime in which the production of food takes place the right to procure and obtain food rings hollow, as it captures only the demand side of the equation.  Analyzing the commercial concentration of agricultural inputs through a human rights lens and with a focus on the smallest, poorest farmers, who are not only food producers but must use their livelihoods from this production to secure their own food, refocuses the food security debate on those most affected.  While dominating the seed market may be seen as a success for companies such as Monsanto, agro-business monopolies have a significant impact on the lives, livelihoods, and production capabilities of small, poor farmers that is often detrimental.  These monopolies also impact agro-biodiversity, which has become even more crucial to maintain in the face of climate change.  And yet it can be hard for member states who benefit financially from such companies or whose governments are highly oriented to accept foreign investment in any form to take a critical eye or a public voice to such commercial concentration issues.

What is fascinating about the interactive dialogue process between a Special Rapporteur and the General Assembly is that it provides a platform for member states and affiliated organizations to respond to such claims and for the special experts to further explain themselves.  Yesterday, countries were not reticent to comment on their own view of the world’s intellectual property regime and to ask pressing questions.  In turn, Prof. De Schutter was able to respond briefly and advance and further elaborate upon the claims made in his report.  It is always heartening to see a report being put to use to further discussions and plans for action rather than just sitting on a shelf gathering dust. 

And, it is encouraging to see UN member states fully engaging UN special experts on topics that often call for substantial changes to be made at the national level and thus for engagement and resource shifting from these governments.  While no one pretends that the global food security problem will be solved over night, it is nonetheless inspiring to see people in positions of influence asking all of the right questions.

Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, compared the violence in China’s Xinjiang region against the minority Uighurs to genocide on Friday. Speaking about the violent protests that have taken place between ethnic Han Chinese and Uighurs he said, “The event taking place in China is a kind of genocide . . . There are atrocities there, hundreds of people have been killed and 1,000 hurt. We have difficulty understanding how China’s leadership can remain a spectator in the face of these events.”Turks share religious and cultural bonds with the Muslim Uighurs, who have faced increasing crackdowns by the Chinese government this past week after a small protest by Uighers in the predominantly Han Chinese city of Urumqi escalated into riots on July 5. Tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese have been high in recent years, as Uighurs believe that they are often singled out for unfair treatment by the government.

While Uighurs account for over half the population in Xinjiang province, they are a minority in the region’s capital of Urumqi. However the peaceful protest on Sunday concerned a brawl that took place last month between Han Chinese and Uighurs at a toy factory in Guangdong province, more than 2000 miles away. That brawl left two Uighurs dead at the hands of a Han Chinese mob, and no suspects arrested for the incident. However, when Uighurs students peacefully protested the government’s inaction on Sunday, they were met with security forces who dealt with the situation by allegedly firing indiscriminately into the crowd.

This led to violent rioting by Uighurs on Sunday, and retaliations by Han Chinese throughout the week that have left hundreds dead, thousands under arrest, and has led to a flood of Chinese military into the region. The violence is the worst in China since Tienanmen Square protests in 1989. Mosques were ordered closed throughout the city for security reasons, preventing the Muslim Uighurs from practicing their religion, while further protests by Uighur women concerning the continued holding of their men folk have been quashed by security forces. An ethnic breakdown of riot causalities released by the Chinese government on Friday showed that most of the 184 killed were ethnic Han Chinese, however those figures are disputed by many outside observers.

Nevertheless, it is not stopping Turkey from pushing the Uighur cause. In addition to Prime Minister Erdogan’s comments, which are some of the harshest made by a foreign official after the violence started, many in Turkey are pushing for a complete boycott of Chinese goods until the violence against Uighurs is stopped.

Many of you have probably followed the debate at the University of Berkley re: the position of Professor John Yoo. Briefly, Yoo is deemed to be one of the chief enablers of the U.S. torture program and the author of key memos in this area. The New York Times, in an editorial, describes the memos (in part) as follows:

The March 14, 2003, memo was written by John C. Yoo, then a lawyer for the Justice Department. He earlier helped draft a memo that redefined torture to justify repugnant, clearly illegal acts against Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

The purpose of the March 14 memo was equally insidious: to make sure that the policy makers who authorized those acts, or the subordinates who carried out the orders, were not convicted of any crime. The list of laws that Mr. Yoo's memo sought to circumvent is long: federal laws against assault, maiming, interstate stalking, war crimes and torture; international laws against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and the Geneva Conventions.

Phillipe Sands has also weighed in strongly noting that “In our system of government, lawyers play a crucial role, as gatekeepers of legality and constitutionality. When the lawyers bend, when they fail to exercise independent and professional judgment, and when they become handmaidens to policymakers, they cross a line that raises the possibility of ethics violations and possibly even criminal violations.”

Economist/blogger/Berkeley professor J. Bradford DeLong joins the fray by asking whether it is time

“…for some appropriate arm of the university that is expert enough to have an informed view to consider the matter, and to advise me and the rest of the faculty (a) why John's memo of March 14, 2003 does not, despite appearances, rise to the level of participating in a conspiracy to torture goatherds from Afghanistan who have been sold to the military by clan enemies falsely claiming they are members of Al Qaeda; and (b) why John's memo of March 14, 2003, does not, despite appearances, constitute a breach of the duty of a lawyer to his clients (in this case, the majors and colonels of the U.S. army who did the torturing) of a level equivalent to that of the falsification of evidence in a scholarly work–or to say (c) that in spite of substantial evidence of participation in a conspiracy to torture innocent goatherds and to deceive the majors and colonels who were his clients and acted in reliance on his advice, the Kantorowicz freedom-of-academic-speech position still applies.”

While I would not have framed my argument in the same way as DeLong, I do feel that Berkley has questions to answer re: Yoo. Actually, let me be more accurate as my feeling on the matter are quite clear:

1. Mr. Yoo should not teach law at Berkley or anywhere else.

2. The California Bar Association should begin proceedings to remove his license to practice law.

I also think that he has a criminal case to answer but fear that this will have to wait until the next Administration takes office.

Finally, I find it hard to argue with the thrust of this comment by Greenwald:

“The fact that John Yoo is a Professor of Law at Berkeley and is treated as a respectable, serious expert by our media institutions, reflects the complete destruction over the last eight years of whatever moral authority the United States possessed. Comporting with long-held stereotypes of two-bit tyrannies, we’re now a country that literally exempts our highest political officials from the rule of law, and have decided that there should be no consequences when they commit serious felonies. “