In Honor of Martin Luther King Day, Reflections on his Nobel Acceptance Speech:

In Honor of Martin Luther King Day, Reflections on his Nobel Acceptance Speech: Today is Martin Luther King Day (formerly known in my adopted home state of Virginia as “Lee-Jackson-King Day” for Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Martin Luther King, a juxtaposition which I, as a transplanted northerner, always found morbidly amusing).  MLK Day is a banner day for the rule of law as we honor one of the great Americans who staked his life on the principles of human dignity, inherent worth, and justice for all.  

For most of us, when we recall the Reverend Dr. King’s message, we default to the famous “I have a Dream” speech that he gave during the March on Washington in August 1963.  Less familiar is the acceptance speech he gave when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.  It’s a shame, because King’s Nobel Acceptance Speech is no less compelling than “I have a dream,” and in light of current events, even more powerful and relevant.   In particular, as we consider the challenges to freedom of expression, religion, speech, and equality throughout the world, and the inherent problems of governmental corruption, oppression, and predation that lie at the heart of so many current conflicts, it is important to ponder these words (emphasis mine):

I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

He went on to proclaim:

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.  I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive good will proclaim the rule of the land. "And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid." I still believe that We Shall overcome!

This faith can give us courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.

On December 10, 1964, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King issued a call to action.  Today, as we celebrate his life, work, and legacy, I believe we owe it to ourselves to consider how each and every one of us intends to respond. 

Happy MLK Day!

*The full text of the Nobel Acceptance speech can be accessed at http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance_en.html.

**Lee-Jackson-King Day was celebrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1984-2000.

A Few Odds and Ends: Rule of Law Stories that Matter, but No One is Talking About – Almost every day I cache a story or incident that makes me ponder the significance of the rule of law, but since I am not one of those full time bloggers, it’s tough to write about them all.  Today of course, everyone wants to comment on the Paris massacre and the significance of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and I do too – but as part of a larger conversation about how important journalism is to restoring, strengthening, and maintaining the rule of law.  I’m going to hold that thought for a series of posts in the very near future.  For now, I want to mention a few stories that I’m following because I think are more important than the attention they’re getting.

1.  The so-called “Silk Road Trial”:  This is a federal criminal case currently underway in New York against a man who is accused of using a web-page called “Mastermind,” to create an anonymous, online drug market.  He’s accused of running a narcotics, hacking and money laundering conspiracy, as well as a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for mafia dons and drug lords.  What’s interesting to me about the case is that it challenges state authority to regulate these emerging electronic black and gray markets, as well as government authority to use the same tools that hackers and criminals use to circumvent the law in the government’s own efforts to detect, deter, and investigate possible criminal activity.  The case is a cause célèbre for online libertarians who want to restrict the power of the state over the internet.  Ironically, it comes at a time when western governments are increasingly trying to strengthen their ability to control illicit networks and curtail terrorist financing that is empowered by the internet.  Read more here: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/why-silk-road-trial-matters/

2.  The ongoing tragedy of Ukrainian military pilot Nadia Savchenko:  If you recall, Savchenko, Ukraine’s first female fighter pilot and a celebrity in her native country, was kidnapped by the Russians in Eastern Ukraine and spirited across the border into a Russian prison.  She has been charged with the murder of two Russian journalists who were allegedly killed during bombing raids in separatist-controlled parts of Ukraine.  Savchenko is a Ukrainian citizen, and was executing lawful orders in the performance of her military mission at the time.  Let’s just call this what it is:  A show trial by the Russians that is a blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict; a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and Savchenko’s rights as Ukrainian citizen; and a crime (kidnapping, in case you forgot that part).  You can read the latest here:  http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-russia-savchenko-solitary/26784896.html

3.  The conviction of Raif Badawi, a Saudi Arabian blogger:  Against the backdrop of the Charlie Hebdo massacre which was a stated attack on freedom of speech and freedom of the press by radical Islamic extremists, the Saudi government calmly began carrying out a sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail against Badawi, the co-founder of a now-banned website called the Liberal Saudi Network.  The website was designed to create political dialogue and debate.  Badawi was convicted of cybercrime and insulting Islam.  His defense attorney didn't come out of the process unscathed either.  He himself was sentenced to 15 years in prison after being found guilty of a range of offenses in an anti-terrorism court that included “inciting public opinion,” “insulting the judiciary,” and “undermining the regime and officials.”  There are so many issues wrapped up in this case that it’s difficult to know where to begin, which is precisely why it should grab and hold our attention.  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/saudi-arabia-blogger-raif-badawi-public-flogging

4.  Finally, let’s not forget the ongoing Ebola crisis in West Africa.  The world’s attention is elsewhere, but thousands have died and more than 500 health care workers have contracted the terrible disease;  the governments of Sierra Leone and Liberia have yet to demonstrate the capacity to manage the situation; and international capacity building efforts predominately consist of sending in western advisers to substitute their capacity for that of the affected nations.   Is this a medical and humanitarian crisis?  Yes.  However, there is a long term health care governance development effort that is needed, and as the immediate catastrophe subsides, it’s important that we take the long view in our plans for future foreign assistance.

Turmoil v. Freedom of Expression: Community Policing into the Fray

Turmoil v. Freedom of Expression:  Community Policing into the Fray -- Watching the spiraling violence that surrounded the protests in Ferguson, Missouri this week, I was reminded of a discussion that I had with a friend of mine from Freedom House (http://freedomhouse.org/  Look them up -- they do great work!) about the importance of freedom of assembly as a fundamental right.  We were talking about Burma (aka “Myanmar”) which frequently uses its Peaceful Assembly and Peaceful Procession Law as a way to arrest and imprison political and human rights activists.  The Burmese Parliament amended the law in June, but the changes have been criticized as cosmetic, and Burmese police continue to arrest those who are protesting against government actions.  As my friend and I explored development options (how do you change a culture of repression and control?), we realized that we had a growing list of countries that have been unable to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the need to maintain public order and safety.  It further reminded me of the discussions that my French Gendarmerie Deputy and I used to have in Afghanistan about the balance between policing as a security function for the government, and policing as a tool to ensure that individual rights are protected and dissenting voices are heard.

With this in mind, I watched the escalating violence in Ferguson and its increasingly militarized policing response over the past four days.  Until last night, it appeared as though nothing short of calling out the National Guard was going to quell the unrest.  And then, into the fray, stepped Missouri State Police Captain Ronald Johnson, the highway patrol official appointed by the governor to take control.  Captain Johnson ordered troopers to remove their tear-gas masks, and in the early evening he accompanied several groups of protesters through the streets, clasping hands, listening to stories and marching alongside them.  It worked.  The situation deescalated, and news this morning showed residents and protesters hugging Captain Johnson, and applauding his community policing-centric approach.   

Not all protesters have peaceful intent, of course, and there are always bad actors who will use public assembly as an excuse to incite violence and other criminal activity.  Crowds frequently get out of hand  (Recall the pro-Palestinian protests in France recently, which led to attacks on Paris Synagogues and Jews.) and when I was in Afghanistan, military commanders frequently opined that community policing techniques were irrelevant given the level of violence and instability.  But community-centric approaches do work.  They remind the public that the police are a part of the fabric of the community and not merely the face of the government.  They validate individual concerns, and the importance of individual rights.  They allow voices to be heard and frustrations to be aired. 

There are important discussions ahead about the increasing militarization of police in America, and the ability of police to demilitarize in unstable or repressive regimes abroad.  But what events in Ferguson illustrate is that it’s not an either/or proposition.  Community policing is as relevant in high tension and conflict as it is in peace.  And regardless of context, it can and does work.

Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law

Branding “God” and Other Judicial Decisions – The flip side of the rule of law:  Last week, I participated in a high level round table on strengthening national rule of law capacity.  It was an initiative of the Rule of Law for Development program run by Loyola University Chicago’s School of Law, and was hosted at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service.  The participants were fantastic – a select group representing Open Society, the World Bank, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Oxfam and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. 

Everyone was in violent agreement on the importance of strengthening the rule of law in developing and transitioning States.  But they expressed increasing concern over the way in which nations are using “rule of law” to justify suppressing dissent, limiting transparency, and restricting individual freedoms such as free speech and freedom of religion. 

So it was in light of that discussion that I did my usual morning news scan, and the one that really caught my attention was a decision by the highest court in Malaysia that Christians cannot use the word, “Allah.” http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2014/06/top-malaysian-court-dismisses-allah-case-20146232448487953.html.  Had I not been thinking about the roundtable, I probably would have missed this story as it wasn't widely reported in the U.S.  But the more I read, the more it concerned me.

Basically, what happened is this: Christians in Malaysia have been using “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, in their Malay-language Bibles and other publications for basically as far back as anyone can remember.  And then in 2007, citing concerns about public order, the Malaysian Home Ministry threatened to revoke a Catholic newspaper’s license unless it stopped using the word.    An appeals court later decided that the newspaper had a constitutional right to use the word, and anti-Christian violence ensued.  The high court reversed the ruling.  Apparently, there is a risk of, for want of a better term, brand confusion when talking about God that might cause Muslims to think they can convert.  So Christians are prohibited from using it. 

To be fair to the ruling, the court is trying to clarify that the ban only applies to the newspaper, but the basis for that distinction is really unclear.  It’s arbitrary and has the effect of limiting freedom of the press in addition to limiting free speech -- and belief.  And (potentially) interfaith dialogue that may be important to conflict resolution in a religiously-pluralistic Muslim country that is, like so many others, experiencing increasing tension between religious groups.  Because how do you search for common ground if you aren't allowed to speak the same language or share the same words?

In cases like this one, upholding the rule of law means that the State protects individual rights, with even greater vigor than before, to make a demonstration that they matter.    The non-rule of law approach, disguised as "upholding the rule of law" because it comes out of a court, is to restrict individual rights because there is risk.  It's a balancing act, and Malaysia got it wrong.