Mediaboss Marketing

Events since the presidential election of 2020 have led a great many people to fear for the future of democracy in the United States. I share the view that democracy is in trouble, not just here but worldwide, but not because of anything connected to the last presidential election. As I wrote in my last essay, neither the attempted coup inspired and encouraged by former President Trump, the much-ballyhooed polling that purports to show high levels of Republican support for violence to achieve political goals, nor the many restrictions on voting passed primarily in Republican states after the election have had or will have much if any effect on democracy in this country. I fail to see how something can be a threat if it will have no likely impact.

Yet that doesnt mean these events are unimportant. On the contrary, they matter a great deal, though not for the reasons people imagine. They are a consequence and a cause of the sickening tendency in American society to conceive all social problems as existential tribal grievances. As I described before, virtually every attempt at political persuasion and media propaganda in this country sticks to a drearily familiar, three-step script. First, the event is cast as a life-or-death threat to something the listener holds dear. This could be something intangible or symbolic, like freedom, a way of life, or our most sacred values, or it could be something very real, like a job or property values. Next, the danger is traced to the willful misdeeds of an identifiable person or group, who are imagined not as bumbling and incompetent (and therefore safely ignored) but as organized, well-funded, disciplined and relentless. This concentrates the anger and creates a single-minded focus on a particular target. And finally, a simple solution is put forward that, presto-chango, promises to make everything better. Vote Democratic (or Republican). Buy a gun. Prosecute Trump. Send money.

This tribal blame machine is entirely bipartisan. In the denunciation of former President Trump, the attacks come generally from the political left but nobody can match the propaganda machinery of some actors on the political right. Consider, for instance, the attacks aired by the NRA in 2008 during Barack Obamas first presidential campaign. The gun lobby vowed hed be the most anti-gun president in American history who would support a huge new tax on [your] guns and ammo. One ad featured a veteran: I served my country on the battlefield to protect our freedoms. Theres no way Im voting for a president who will take them away. Another featured a Michigan hunter reacting to Obamas remark that some working-class voters cling to guns and religion because they are bitter. Because I believe in traditional American values, go to church, exercise my right to own a firearm, Barack Obama says Im bitter. Well Im not bitter, Im blessed. And every ad ended with the simple solution: Defend Freedom. Defeat Obama. These ads had it all: real and symbolic threats, a single target, and a simple solution.

The blame machine takes a terrible toll, both on the individual and on society. To begin with, it produces enormous stress. Those who spend their days certain that their most cherished values hang no more securely than the Sword of Damocles endure a truly tormented life. Even before the pandemic, a steadily increasing proportion of Americans reported exceedingly high levels of stress, and things have only gotten worse in the last two and a half years. In 2020, more than three in four Americans said that worries about the nations future were a significant source of stress, nearly seven in ten said the same of the current political climate, and more than seven in ten thought this was the lowest point in the nations history that they could remember. And this was before the inflation crisis and the war in Ukraine. In 2022, nearly 90 percent of Americans said it felt as though they had lived through a constant stream of crises without a break over the last two years.

Of course, many would insist that we have lived through one crisis after another, and that the problem is not with the packaging that explains our reality but with the reality itself. I do not for a minute discount the very real problems we have confronted and continue to confront. COVID-19 and inflation, to name only two, are realities of current life. But separating the problem from its packaging is not that straightforward. Social problems do not simply exist; our knowledge of them comes from the ubiquitous tribal blame machine, from which they emerge twisted and misshapen, sometimes bearing only a distant resemblance to reality. Anyone who doubts this need only recall the mask and vaccine wars of the last two years. COVID-19 is very real, but for a great many Americans, the nature of the threat cannot be separated from the tribalism that brings the threat to their ears. And what is true for COVID-19 is true for all our most pressing problems, from rising crime to rising prices. I cannot think of any social problem that exists in public life as an unfiltered reality; if you can think of one, let me know.

And this gets us to the second, equally serious effect of casting everything as an existential tribal grievance: problems are badly misperceived. It is one of the most enduring features of human existence that we tend to be abysmal judges of them. When it comes to democracy, the effect of this distortion can be catastrophic. As a group of political scientists recently described, partisansDemocrats and Republicans aliketend to overestimate the extremism of their political adversaries. This is bad enough, but even more disturbing is the fact that such overestimation is associated with willingness to take, or support, extreme action oneself. Research shows, for instance, that partisans who underestimate their opponents support for democratic principles are more likely to support anti-democratic practices and violations of democratic norms. Similarly, partisans who overestimate rival partisans support for violence report greater willingness to engage in violence.

Building on this literature, other researchers who study what they call the perception gap have found, unsurprisingly, that the partisans on the left and right who attend most closely to media coverage are those who are most egregiously misinformed about their political opposites: People who said they read the news most of the time were nearlythree timesmore distorted in their perceptions than those who said they read the news only now and then. In other words, those who consume the largest diet of news packaged as existential tribal threat are both the most misguided about their opponents and the most willing to support anti-democratic behavior. As the psychologists Joachim Krueger and Theresa DiDonato eloquently put it more than a decade ago, The price of social identity is the loss of a neutral perspective.

Nor is it hard to see how this distortion occurs. More than anything, the blame machine makes people angry. For years, scholars have studied how anger influences behavior. Consistent with the lesson of universal experience, researchers have found that angry people are disinclined to make the cognitive effort required to understand complex issues. Instead, anger elicits simpler [mental] processes and reliance on heuristic cues to make snap judgments. Those who are angry tend to engage in motivated reasoning, in which misinformation consistent with prior beliefs is more likely to be accepted, and contradictory information will tend to be rejected. When you are angry, you are more likely to interpret information in a partisan manner and experience reinforcement of prior-held beliefs and affiliations. Angry people are less inclined to compromise and forgive and more inclined to punish and control. And as anyone who has spent five minutes on Twitter can attest, those who are angry are often hostile and rude.

***

No one should misunderstand what I am saying. The January 6 assault on the Capitol was wrong. Its goalto thwart the will of the electorate by violence and intimidationwas obviously anti-democratic. Like any grave moral and legal wrong, it demands an appropriate response. But a mature democracy cannot achieve that response without a fair, sober, even-handed appraisal of the facts, free from hyperbole and pot-banging. Sadly, the tribal blame machine renders that appraisal all but impossible. Instead, it causes personal distress and social distortion that intensifies division and impedes deliberation. And as with the assault on the Capitol, so with each of the many problems we face: we do not inch toward solutions by driving each other apart.

Even in the best of times, democracy is hard. And these are not the best of times. Whether we are prepared to preserve our democracy remains to be seen.

See the original post:
Democracy and the Tribal Blame Machine - Justia Verdict

In an interview on Sunday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) called for three far right Supreme Court justices to be impeached, on the basis that their votes to overturn Roe v. Wade violated pledges they made under oath in their confirmation hearings.

As Ocasio-Cortez raised on NBCs Meet the Press, Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) have suggested that Justices Brett Kavanugh and Neil Gorsuch lied in their confirmation hearings and in personal meetings with the senators about whether or not they would consider overturning Supreme Court precedents while serving as justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also pledged during her confirmation that she would uphold precedents.

If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land. there must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions, Ocasio-Cortez said. What makes it particularly dangerous is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations.

She continued to say that she believes that the justices should be impeached and that lying under oath is an impeachable offense.

Justice Clarence Thomas should also be impeached for recent controversies concerning his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, Ocasio-Cortez said. I believe that violating federal law in not disclosing income from political organizations, as Clarence Thomas did years ago, is also potentially an impeachable offense. I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in, with very deep violations of conflict of interest, are also impeachable offenses.

Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached in U.S. history, none of whom were Supreme Court justices. Impeachment of judges is similar to the impeachment process for presidents; the House would vote on whether or not to pass articles of impeachment and the Senate would vote on conviction. If lawmakers like Manchin and Collins fail to hold the justices accountable, Ocasio-Cortez said, the death of federal abortion rights will also be a stain on their legacies.

But it would likely be impossible to get any of the far right Supreme Court justices removed without a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and even then, with conservatives like Manchin in the chamber, it would be an uphill battle.

However, the current circumstances require an equally extreme response from Democrats, Ocasio-Cortez argued. What we need to do is show the American people that when they give the Democratic Party power and when they actually do vote for us, that we will be using and we are willing to use the power that they do give us in order to merit increased expansions in our majority.

She said that there are a number of actions that President Joe Biden can take even without congressional approval, like exploring opening reproductive care clinics on federal lands in states that have banned abortion or directing agencies to expand access to abortion pills.

The lawmaker pulled no punches over the weekend in her criticisms of mainstream Democrats calls to vote in response to the Roe overturn. The Democratic Party needs to step up in this moment and realize that its bigger than just abortion rights, she said.

This is not just a crisis of Roe. This is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached its authority, Ocasio-Cortez said. This is a crisis of legitimacy.

Read the rest here:
Crisis of Our Democracy: AOC Calls for Supreme Court Justices to Be Impeached - Truthout

Over the last few months, even perhaps the last couple of years, a quiet, unobtrusive and perhaps unnoticed transformation has been taking place in the Pakistan Army. There was a time when the Pakistan Army would unabashedly interfere in the politics of the country and play favorites to a point. Apparently, it has now changed track and adopted a hands-off approach, allowing politics to play itself out. This shift in approach surprisingly signifies a more accommodating stance towards democracy and politics.

In recent years, the Pakistan Army has been trying to stabilize civilian governments instead of destabilizing them. Cynics will of course disagree. They might claim that the military had no option but to cut its losses that prompted its current neutral stance. However, this is at best a half-truth and overlooks the fact the military could have intervened decisively as it did in the past. Instead, the military now allows Pakistans political, constitutional and judicial processes to run.

Does this mean that the military will stay out of the political domain forever? The answer is that we do not know for sure. A lot will depend on both civilian and military leaders as well as political and economic conditions in the country.

As of now the Pakistan Army led by General Qamar Javed Bajwa is letting civilian politicians run the country. Imran Khan has been voted out by the parliament and Shehbaz Sharif is the new prime minister in a coalition government. This government is running the country with little interference from the military, which is largely trying to stabilize the situation.

Bajwa was not always so benign to democracy. He interfered with the Nawaz Sharif (elder brother of the current prime minister) government who was eventually pushed into exile in 2017. Next year, Bajwa favored Khan and helped him become prime minister. Reports reveal that some candidates were pressured to change loyalties, others were persuaded against running for office, elections were manipulated and other dirty tricks employed. After the 2018 elections, independent members were corralled into Khans party. The military backed Khan both at the national and the state level. His party won a majority in the state legislature of Punjab, Pakistans dominant state.

From 2018, Bajwa has changed course. The military has not been interfering in politics. Bajwa served Khan loyally and tried to make his government a success. The military fixed many of Khans blunders vis--vis close allies like China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Even when Khan went against the militarys advice, Bajwa did not act against the elected government. Eventually, Khan lost the confidence of his parliament because he was incompetent and grew delusional over time.

Most importantly, the military top brass accepted cuts to the defense budget in 2019 as Pakistan faced economic woes and rushed with a begging bowl yet again to the International Monetary Fund. The military supported the Khan government when it passed legislation to steer Pakistan out of the Financial Action Task Forces (FATF) grey list. The FATF is an organization that focuses on combating money laundering, a common practice in Pakistan where some of the proceeds are used to finance terrorism.

Bajwas biggest achievement has been pushing better ties with India despite Khans incendiary anti-India rhetoric. He has called for talks with India, begun back channel initiatives to kick off trade and negotiated a ceasefire on the Line of Control that forms the de facto border with India. Most recently, 50,000 tons of Indian wheat has been rolling through Pakistan for Afghanistan, saving millions of lives. For the first time, there is hope that the military is finally supporting the normalization of ties with India.

Unlike many of his predecessors, Bajwa did not step in when the Khan government suffered a meltdown. He has scrupulously avoided displaying any Bonapartist tendencies in the land of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf. Now, a coalition is in charge and the Bajwa-led military is abiding by the constitution. If the military withdraws from politics and democracy strengthens in Pakistan, Bajwa would have left an enduring legacy for his country.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observers editorial policy.

Read more:
General Bajwa Has Reformed the Pakistani Military and Strengthened Democracy - Fair Observer

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights pronounced the following keynote speech at the Solemn Hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on 25 June 2022.

President Spano,President of the Hellenic Republic,Distinguished Judges, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

As Commissioner for Human Rights, I attach crucial importance to dialogue with the Court. There have been many occasions on which I have had the honour to come to this room (but also to address this Court remotely by taking part in the first digital hearing in the history of this institution). It is always a special feeling to be present in the place where decisions are taken on matters which not only bear great importance for the individuals concerned but also reflect topical issues with which democratic societies are confronted, and that is why it is an immense honour to have been invited to deliver an address at todays Solemn Hearing. I see this invitation as a sign of particular attention to the current human rights challenges, but also as a result of the continuous dialogue that has been established between our institutions. I consider it a good example of synergies that, each within its own mandate, contribute to the good functioning and sustainability of the Convention system.

It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the need for this system today is as pressing as it was when it was established more than 70 years ago. Back then, the leaders of European countries took the foresighted decision to create a system for the collective enforcement of human rights with the aim of safeguarding individuals from state abuse and newly established democracies from the risks of backsliding into totalitarianism. We should not forget this.

When the Convention was adopted, our continent looked very different. The death penalty was widely legal and operative. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans were still waiting to be repatriated or resettled after WWII, while thousands of new refugees were escaping through the Iron Curtain. In several countries homosexuality was criminalised.

If todays picture looks much better, it is largely thanks to the Convention system and the Courts dynamic and evolutive interpretation doctrine that has been instrumental in applying a text adopted in 1950 in light of major societal changes which happened along the past seven decades. No wonder then that the Convention, its Protocols, the Court and the whole human rights protection system that the Council of Europe has established have become a lodestar for those pursuing justice, dignity and equality.

But success stories, too, come with obstacles to overcome: the Convention system has been repeatedly attacked and delegitimised in some European countries; key judgments of this Court have still not been implemented; and states often fail or do not even try to address the structural problems that deprive people of their Convention rights.

In the long run, the non-enforcement of the Convention rights and the disregard of basic principles of international law can lead to deleterious consequences.

The case of the Russian Federation stands out in Europe as one of the worst examples of disregard for human rights. Todays hearing takes place in extraordinary circumstances for the values our Organisation represents. Exactly four months ago, Russia started a brutal military attack on Ukraine, which has caused terrible human suffering to millions of people. Many thousands were ruthlessly killed, including hundreds of children, and millions of people saw their lives turned upside down.

I could see for myself the traces of the atrocities committed in Ukraine during my visit at the beginning of May. In Kyiv, Irpin, Bucha and Borodyanka I listened to shocking stories of extrajudicial executions, violence and destruction.

The current situation is the tragic epilogue of years of departing from agreed human rights standards. For years, the government of the Russian Federation has ignored judgments of this Court and recommendations from our Organisation, including my Office. The unresolved impunity for the grave human rights violations stemming from the war in Chechnya, the brutal internal repression of dissent and free expression and now this ruthless aggression against Ukraine and its people are painful illustrations of what can happen when a state disregards international law and order and ignores human rights standards and the common rules established to guarantee international peace.

It is an extreme case, hardly comparable with other situations in our member states. There are, however, signs of an increasing lack of compliance with the most basic human rights standards of our Organisation in member states, which requires serious attention and more resolute action on the part of states within the collective system of our Organisation.

One worrying trend I have observed during my mandate as Commissioner is the erosion of the rule of law in a growing number of our member states. I think we all agree that without full respect of the rule of law, it is not possible to protect human rights.

The erosion of the rule of law manifests itself when governments refuse to abide by court decisions, undermine public confidence in the judiciary, violate judicial independence, weaken judicial bodies, pressure individual judges, and reduce parliaments to a rubber-stamp.

Invariably, it goes hand in hand with a hardening of governments against the standards set in the Convention and by the institutions of the Council of Europe.

Standards on freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly are a case in point. As part of my mandate, I work constantly with human rights defenders, civil society and the press. Their reality is far from reassuring.

The case of Osman Kavala is emblematic. He has been in detention in Trkiye for almost the past 56 months despite a judgment of this Court from 2019, as well as nine decisions and one interim resolution by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. His case shows the wrongs and unfair treatment that individuals may face when the judiciary provides tools for repression instead of remedies against it. It also shows the limits of what an international system can achieve. In the end, the ultimate responsibility for upholding human rights norms lies with states.

Just last week this Court issued its judgment in the case of Ecodefence and Others v. Russia -- a long awaited one which is also very important for civil society.

Non-execution of judgments sometimes affects not only individual applicants, including human rights defenders, but also the broader democratic fabric of a society. For almost thirteen years now, the judgment of this Court in the case of Sejdic and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina has remained a dead letter, mainly because of a lack of political will. The non-implementation of that judgment and of others like Zorni, laku and Pilav dealing with the discriminatory nature of the countrys electoral system is one of the factors that sustain a status quo based on the ethnic divisions that represent a constant threat to peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Judgments of this Court on individual complaints as well as more broadly those which reveal systemic problems set the record straight and give visibility and recognition to victims. These judgments are also an authoritative counterweight to the forces that seek to evade justice by discrediting the international system of human rights protection and by adopting laws that stifle dissent as well as individual and associative rights.

I have observed other systemic problems that illustrate the hardening of certain governments against the spirit and the letter of the Convention: fixing these problems is primarily the member states responsibility. Everyone should be able to seek and receive justice at home, in line with the subsidiarity principle. Recourse to an international court should be seen for what it is essentially a failure by a state to provide proper national remedies.

But we all have our role to play. As an institution enshrined in the Convention since the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 in 2010, I share the responsibility to help make Convention rights a reality for all.

The Convention has been a permanent reference point in my work, be it in my country monitoring, thematic work or third-party interventions before this Court. As amicus curiae, my role is obviously not to provide this Court with a specific assessment of a case before it. However, as stressed in the explanatory report to Protocol No. 14, the Commissioners work and experience may help enlighten the Court on certain questions, particularly in cases which highlight structural or systemic weaknesses in the respondent or other High Contracting Parties. These elements, and the protection of the general interest to which the explanatory report to Protocol No. 14 also refers, are my compass while selecting the cases on which, as a friend of this Court, I submit observations. So far, I have made 16 amicus curiae interventions. Most of them have dealt with harassment of human rights defenders, the denial of migrants rights, gender inequality and limitations to womens rights. They have also covered several countries, including Azerbaijan, Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden and Trkiye.

Much has been said about the Convention as a living instrument. Therefore, I will not dwell on this aspect. Suffice here to say that this Courts dynamic and evolutive interpretation has made the Convention system a source of inspiration within Europe and beyond.

Such a dynamic and evolutive interpretation has brought a contemporary reading of the rights protected and of the obligations of the High Contracting Parties, also in the face of new challenges emerging in society. Particularly noteworthy in this context is the role of this Court in assessing the compliance of measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic by several High Contracting Parties which was discussed at your seminar this afternoon.

If new challenges in society put the evolutive interpretation of the Convention to the test, old ones pose a more existential threat to the Convention system. I refer here to situations in which a High Contracting Party violates the right to individual applications or refuses to recognise the binding nature of judgments and the obligation to execute them.

Here too the Court has been able to adapt and defend foundational principles. I consider of particular importance for example the Courts principled case-law in terrorism-related cases where it reaffirmed the duty states have to comply with their Convention obligations even when this may lead to unpopular decisions. In the same line, the Courts role in the protracted non-compliance of its judgments by states represents a bulwark against arbitrariness.

The Court has also been innovative in addressing emerging challenges and exploring new avenues, like the reinforcement of the dialogue between courts, including the Supreme Courts Network, and in giving a voice to NGOs and civil society, which are often the first in bringing human rights violations to light.

This is all important and has already been stressed.

What I think should be stressed more is the role of the Convention as a life-saving instrument. Here I would like to provide a few examples from my field work that show the impact that the Convention system can have on peoples lives.

In November 2021 I was in Poland to assess the human rights situation of asylum-seekers and migrants on the border with Belarus. Late one night, I accompanied human rights defenders in the border areas and witnessed how a group of asylum-seekers, who had been stranded in the cold and wet woods for many weeks and pushed back to Belarus many times, could finally safely leave the woods thanks to the protective guarantee of the Courts interim measures. It is evident to me and has also been stressed by many activists and lawyers helping asylum-seekers that I have spoken with that for many of these people, the Courts interim measures were the only protection from an immediate return across the border. These people would have otherwise been left in freezing conditions and without access to even the most basic humanitarian assistance, and possibly subjected to severe ill-treatment at the hands of the Belarusian authorities.

Several of the interim measures addressed to the Government of Greece urging the protection of the health, life and physical integrity of asylum seekers held in several reception facilities were equally life-saving. Having been in such reception facilities in Lesvos, Samos, and Corinth, I cannot but attest to the importance of your decisions.

I do not have the slightest doubt that interim measures have saved many human lives across our continent.

These are some examples that speak for the ability of this Court to interpret the Convention in the light of emerging problems and the potential of the Convention system to remain a life-saving instrument. These aspects must be protected. We all have a role in that: the Court, monitoring bodies, my Office. But the primary responsibility rests on the shoulders of all state Parties institutions: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

I think this message resonates with the President of the Republic of Greece, Ms Katerina Sakellaropoulou, whom I am happy to see among us today. Madam President, you took a clear stance on several occasions on the need to protect human rights and the rule of law to ensure a healthy democracy. Such messages coming from high level state officials are crucial to influence the commitment of state authorities to render the Convention rights practical and effective at national level. Because for all the international mechanisms that we may have to protect human rights, the reality is that the best human rights protection is one which happens at national level.

To their credit, member states have been foresighted in establishing the Convention and its mechanisms over the past 73 years. They have enriched the Convention with additional Protocols, they have created a unique mechanism in the world where individuals, NGOs or groups of individuals can hold states accountable. Thanks to Protocol 14 and the adoption of Rule 9 by the Committee of Ministers, states gave my office motu proprio access to the Court and the possibility to intervene in the process of the execution of judgments. With Protocol 16, they laid down the basis for a more harmonised integration of human rights law at national level through the possibility for the Court to give advisory opinions to the highest courts and tribunals of Contracting Parties. This has a huge potential to reinforce both the principle of subsidiarity and the role of national judges in protecting the rights of the Convention.

The challenge now is how to enforce this unique system of collective responsibility to improve human rights protection. I think that one of the main steps that member states should take is to remove obstacles which impede or slow down the implementation of judgments.

The problem of non-implementation or cherry-picking Court judgments is one stark illustration of the faltering commitment to upholding human rights standards in many of our member states. The failure to implement some of the interim measures ordered by this Court is also part of this trend. At the root of this problem lies a misplaced belief by politicians that they enjoy a higher democratic legitimacy than the judiciary. This often results in the adoption of legislation which is not aligned with international or even national jurisprudence, the dismantling or the control of democratic institutions and the subordination of human rights standards to a states interest. Such trends undermine the democratic fabric of our societies, and must be reversed.

I have said this on other occasions, and I think it is worth repeating it in this room of justice: states should no longer procrastinate in realising human rights for all.

They should recommit to the values and norms of our Organisation. State authorities - and I include here the three branches of power should become more robust defenders of human rights and of the collective system put in place to protect, promote and fulfil them.

I see in particular four areas where states should intervene.

One crucial step is to embed the standards of our Organisation and the case-law of this Court into national legislation, jurisprudence and practice.

The prevention of violations and the provision of effective remedies at national level is another key area of intervention. To this end, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary should be respected and reinforced and cooperation with National Human Rights Institutions, NGOs and civil society improved.

National judges should be frontline actors in giving effect to Convention rights. They should be supported not constrained in this endeavour. In this sense, following the tabling of the Bill of Rights Bill by the United Kingdom government earlier this week, I cannot but feel concerned at the restrictions it appears to entail on the national judges ability to interpret the Convention rights as ordinary judges, and to take this Courts case-law fully into account while preserving it as a living instrument. The adverse impact of this on individual access to Convention rights, and on the principle of subsidiarity must also be mentioned in this context.

Third, I see the need for increased awareness and education about the standards of the Convention system, both among the public and legal practitioners. This is particularly important at the present juncture because the shorter time available to lodge a complaint introduced by Protocol 15 may complicate the exercise of the right to individual applications, which carries the risk of reducing the effectiveness of the Convention system.

Lastly, I think that member states should make better use of the tools of the Organisation to exert the necessary pressure to ensure respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law by their peers.

Mr President,

Reaching the conclusion of my intervention, I would like to quote you when, in a recent speech given in Oslo, you said that: Bringing rights home is an integral part of the system itself and we should embrace it and attempt to make this transformative change as smooth as possible.

This is the key to giving effective meaning to the Convention system.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

The key principles of the Convention system, in particular respect for human rights for all and the guarantees provided by a solid rule of law, are the lifeblood of our democracy. They are not an abstract concept, but indispensable nutrients of just and thriving societies.

The Council of Europe and its Court are the main protectors and promoters of this system. It is therefore necessary that member states, both within their borders and as part of a community, strengthen their commitment to the founding values and institutions of our Organisation and to the universal protection of human rights.

The Convention system stems from the vision and courage of leaders who understood that defining common European norms and applying them at national level was the best antidote for oppression.

The times of those leaders were not easier than ours. Our task is not bigger than theirs. It is now our turn to give renewed impetus to the ambition of safeguarding a system based upon justice and international co-operation.

Read more:
At the crossroads Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law - Council of Europe

At what point can the United States and other countries no longer afford the massive transfer of weapons to the Ukrainians, lest they jeopardize the readiness of their own militaries? When does the arsenal of democracy shift to the arsenal for self? These are questions that are starting to be raised as the demand for weapons becomes clear in what is now a protracted war in Ukraine.

The contributions by the U.S. and Ukraines other supporters have been immense. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said that as of mid-April approximately60,000 antitank weapons and 25,000 anti-aircraft weaponswent to Ukraine.

Javelins, Switchblades, and Stingers have been deployed regularly by Ukraine in its struggle against Russian invaders. Images ofburning tanks, often with their turrets blown off, are a testament to the effectiveness of these weapons.

There is more on the way. Already, Ukrainessupportershave begun sending in artillery, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft systems, and other heavier weapons that allow the Ukrainians to successfully push back against a Russian invasion.

Calls to limit Western largesse are being voiced, because, asHal Brandswrites inThe Washington Post, This is presenting Western countries with a stark choice between pouring more supplies into Ukraine or husbanding finite capabilities they may need for their own defense.

This is not unlike the pushback to President Franklin Roosevelts March 1941 Lend Lease policy that rushed U.S. materiel support to Great Britain and the Soviet Union, including aircraft and warships. Arguably, this assistance kept the besieged British in the war.

In the euphoria of the Allied victory in 1945, the contentiousness of the debate in the United States about providing this support when the United States was not in the warislargely forgotten to history.This division is perhaps best seen in two close votes in Congress. Conscription to begin preparing the U.S. Armed Forces for the warwas extendedby only 1 vote in the House; the vote in the same body onLend Leasewas not as close262 for to 16o againstbut still reflected concerns about a widening American role in the European War. The victors justice imposed by the Allies on Germany after the Great War, particularly their dividing up the spoils to add to their own colonial empires, still angered many.

The wartimeoutputof Americas arsenal of democracy was astounding: 197,760 combat aircraft, 88,410 tanks and self-propelled artillery, 257,390 towed artillery, 2,382,311 military trucks, 137 large and small (jeep) aircraft carriers, 349 destroyers, 203 submarines, and 2,710 Liberty cargo ships.

Roosevelt, however, facedoppositionto Lend Lease from an unexpected quarter: his own military. The generals and admirals were concerned that the President was giving away the very weapons and materiel they needed to equip Americas own mobilizing military. The demands were significant. When General George Marshall became Army Chief of Staff in September 1939, theArmy had only 200,000 officers and enlisted in its ranks; in 1945 its ranks numbered nearly 8,300,000. At the most basic level, each soldier had to be provided boots, uniforms, and a weapon that were not in existing stocks.

American industry, particularly in the days before Pearl Harbor, was struggling to equip U.S. forces. To the alarm of the generals, the President was giving away what they believed they so desperately needed.

What FDR realized is that any weapon used against Nazis was well given. Similarly, every Russian tank killed by a Javelin or Switchblade and every aircraft downed by a Stinger supports Secretary of Defense LloydAustinsApril statement that: We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.These weapons are, after all, built to destroy enemy weapons. When they do it, and by whom they are fired, is irrelevant. The United States may have to restock its inventories, but the Russians will have to rebuild their Army.

One of the central lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War could be that the prevailing view that future wars will be short and decisive needs rethinking. If this conflict is any harbinger, the United States and its allies and partners may need to be prepared for protracted wars that have insatiable appetites for materiel, munitions, and, tragically, people. If that is true, then the American arsenal of democracy, as well as those of its allies and partners, may have to be rejuvenated.

Furthermore, the challenge may not be only the demand shown by confronting Russian aggression. The National Security Strategy identifies China as the principal long-term U.S. challenge. If the United States is indeed serious about preparing for competition and potential conflict with China as well as Russia in the future, the demands could be significant given Chinas enormous capabilities.

Consequently, the ongoing war in Ukraine could lead to a rethinking of what a 21stcentury American arsenal of democracy will have to be to meet the challenges of the future.

DavidJohnsonis a retiredArmy colonel. He is a principal researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author ofFast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the U.S. Army, 1917-1945. From 2012-2014 he founded and directed the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group for General Raymond T. Odierno.

Follow this link:
What Better Way to Use the Arsenal of Democracy? - RealClearDefense