Well, considering that these are the first multi-party elections to happen in Sudan in nearly 24 years, I’m more surprised by how many people are complaining than how the process is going with its delays and many, many problems. I mean, sure, I would be angered if I were a citizen trying to vote and found the voting station closed or disorganized. But really, what should we expect given the circumstances in Sudan? If you’ve ever been to Sudan, you would understand why I say this.

Now whether or not I expect to be pleased with the outcome, that’s a whole other story. My hopes are not high given that Khartoum will continue to have its death-grip on that country, trying to stifle any progress or sort of human rights, and that so many major political parties have withdrawn from the elections.

Also important to note:

Among the countries “under surveillance” are several democracies: Australia, because of the upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system, and South Korea, where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting selfcensorship.

Turkey and Russia have just been added to the “Under Surveillance” list. In Russia, aside from the control exercised by the Kremlin on most of its media outlets, the Internet has become the freest space for sharing information. Yet its independence is being jeopardized by blogger arrests and prosecutions, as well as by blockings of so-called “extremist” websites. The regime’s propaganda is increasingly omnipresent on the Web. There is a real risk that the Internet will be transformed into a tool for political control.

In Turkey, taboo topics mainly deal with Ataturk, the army, issues concerning minorities (notably Kurds and Armenians) and the dignity of the Nation. They have served as justification for blocking several thousand sites, including YouTube, thereby triggering a great deal of protest. Bloggers and netizens who express themselves freely on such topics may well face judicial reprisals.

Other countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, Belarus and Thailand are also maintaining their “under surveillance” status, but will need to make more progress to avoid getting transferred into the next “Enemies of the Internet” list. Thailand, because of abuses related to the crime of “lèse-majesté”; the Emirates, because they have bolstered their filtering system; Belarus because its president has just signed a liberticidal order that will regulate the Net, and which will enter into force this summer – just a few months before the elections.

These countries will do anything within their power to stop their citizens from freely accessing information on the Internet. The levels to which these countries will go to prevent this access is astounding. I highly recommend you read the report by RSF linked below.

More information on the report is available here.

I recommend by starting with Secretary Clinton’s speech on Internet freedom before moving on to reading Zuckerman’s blog post. Regardless of your political persuasion, this speech is a powerful one that touches on an issue of increasingly profound importance to human rights advocates: the exercise of political rights (and others) through the Internet. This is something we can all get behind, and should. (The speech gave me goosebumps.)

However, Zuckerman takes it one step further and offers a more comprehensive look into censorship and how we can better approach this topic. He offers some keen insight into the pitfalls of censorship circumvention and asks some potent questions we need to ponder before jumping to conclusions.

Excellent post Zuckerman. This will be a scene we need to watch.

I also think it’s worth arguing how I believe the term “third world” is actually doing more harm than good among those working in development. And although this blog post is likely to ruffle the feathers of many organizations even using the term in their names, I stand by my argument. Books could be written about the topic and I’m sure dissertations have been written about it as well. But, as blog posts go, I’m keeping this short and to-the-point. Please feel free to comment.

Definitions & Beginnings

The term “third world” originated in the Cold War in order to define countries who were either non-aligned or neutral to the two battling forces of the time: NATO (representing capitalism) and the Soviet Union (representing communism).

Generally speaking, those countries aligned with NATO and in support of capitalism were considered “First World”, while those aligned with the Soviet Union and in support of communism were considered “Second World”. All others were lumped into the “Third World” category.

As stated well on Wikipedia:

“This definition provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions.”

While most would be quick to assume that the “third world” was an American creation, it is actually a European creation with French origins. I’m not going to go into detail, but I encourage you to read up on the etymology of the third world here.

Associations

Now, you’re probably wondering what connection this term has to do with today’s associations, broadly spoken of as the world’s poor, developing countries, the developing world, the Global South, etc, etc.

In the Cold War, those nations non-aligned or neutral were, for the most part, nations who were just coming out of imperialism of the previous two centuries and in the process of building their economies from the ground up. The Cold War was a war of immense world powers coming together and those caught in the sidelines, i.e. developing countries without military capacities and strong economies, were instantly marginalized as being a part of the “third world”. They either were unable to involve themselves in the war effort, or were simply uninterested and wanted to stay out of the war altogether because of their own internal challenges they were facing.

The Case Against “Third World”

Before I became involved in development, I was as guilty as anyone else in using the term. I tossed the language around without even considering what it actually meant. But being informed of origins and histories when working in development can be your most valuable asset. One day I asked myself, “Why in the world are we still using this archaic term? The Soviet Union doesn’t even exist anymore.” Thus my research began.

An excellent point to make against the use of the term, was the case made by developmental economist Peter Bauer:

“In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term Third World. He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was not based on any stable economic or political criteria, and was a mostly arbitrary process. The large diversity of countries that were considered to be part of the Third World, from Indonesia to Afghanistan, ranged widely from economically primitive to economically advanced and from politically non-aligned to Soviet- or Western-leaning. The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Third World countries was that their governments “demand and receive Western aid” (the giving of which he strongly opposed). Thus, the aggregate term “Third World” was challenged as misleading even during the Cold War period.”

Mr. Bauer took the case against the term another step by stating that it was never even correct to begin with. The term “third world” was loosely thrown around by politicians and journalists and based entirely on non-measurable characteristics of a nation. The Cold war was a time of political alliances and the three-world system made it easy to characterize who was who in the war effort for the media, politicians and academia.

Today’s Alternatives

Today, more and more NGO’s (non-governmental organizations), government agencies, aid groups, and journalists are using new, modern terminology to describe countries that once fell under the third world. The term most commonly used today is developing country, although there is no strict definition or standard for even measuring what this is. While some agencies have their own metric of measurement and classification, the complications of development and economics prevent any sort of system from being adopted across the board. Over the next 20 years, the definition of a developing country is likely to go through an evolution of its own and we will likely see several more alternatives pop up with even more standards being created.

Another alternative that stems more closely from academia, and is definitely worth noting, is the “Global South“, although there are dilemma’s in geography. I, personally, find this study to be very fascinating and worth a read if you are interested and have a knack for sociology and development like myself.

Putting it to Rest

It’s long overdue to put the term “third world” to rest. I have long advocated to use the term “developing country” for many reasons. One, the “third world” term is archaic, historically inaccurate, and without measurable characteristics as described by the late Peter Bauer and others. Two, although it is hard to truly define economies that are developing, developing countries comes closest to define what is happening in the world today in a more practical way.

Today’s developing countries are growing by leaps and bounds, largely due to the exponential pace of technology. It would probably not be an exaggeration to say more growth has happened in the past 10 years than the past 50 due to technology in its many forms. While the etymological arguments against the third world term are plenty to validate its expulsion from our vocabulary, many still use it today. I believe the public perception between the two terms of “third world” and “developing country” could be measured in a way to show one is looked upon more positively than the other. And with more people today than ever before involved in anti-poverty efforts, it is time we define these countries by the proper terms and make a conscience effort to change public perception of these nations. This change starts with knowledge and much of the burden rests upon the shoulders of the media and academia.

Much more can be said about this topic, but hopefully I have provided an impetus for discussion. Feel free to comment and provide your own insights into this topic below.

I stumbled upon a great writeup by a gentleman who I really admire in the law profession, Mr. William A. Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, a superb human rights establishment in my opinion (also the desired home of my human rights PhD).

Mr. Schabas summed up the indictment eloquently on the blog “PhD studies in human rights”,

African States have traditionally been among the strongest supporters of the International Criminal Court. But since the proceedings began against President El Bashir of Sudan, just one year ago, the wind has changed. A few days ago, the African Union agreed by consensus to a resolution declaring that ‘The AU member states shall not co-operate… relating to immunities for the arrest and surrender of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the ICC.’ The statement is not available on the AU website, but I have managed to obtain a copy: http://www.mediafire.com/?oiz295lpz0r.
President Mills of Ghana (which has a judge at the Court) told the media yesterday that ‘he was convinced by the argument that the court’s case against President al-Bashir differs from cases against former Congolese rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba and Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony’. It seems clear that by prosecuting an African head of State, some sort of qualitative change took place. The issue of immunity is not a simple one, and unfortunately the Bashir arrest warrant decision of March 2009 completely glossed over the nuances.
According to the Pre-Trial Chamber in the arrest warrant, Bashir has no immunity before the Court because article 27 of the Statute says there is no immunity before the Court. The problem – which the Pre-Trial Chamber did not address – is that article 27 may only apply to States that have joined the Court. Immunity of heads of State results from customary international law, and it seems it can only be taken away from a State if it agrees. That is what article 27 does. By ratifying the Rome Statute, States agree that their head of State enjoys no immunity before the Court. And that is why article 27 only applies to States that have joined the Court, and not to States that have. A day or two after the arrest warrant against Bashir was issued, the Guardian editorialist perceptively noted that the Americans, in their glee about the arrest warrant, should understand the consequence: their president too is subject to prosecution by the Court. Like most provisions in the Statute, there is more than one plausible interpretation. But the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber might have addressed the difficulty and not ignored it.
Many commentators answer that Bashir has lost his immunity because of the Security Council resolution. The case comes to the Court not by the consent of Sudan but by resolution of the Security Council. But that argument is not straightforward either. First, the Security Council did not strip Bashir of his immunity in any explicit manner. So the theory that its resolution removes his immunity is based upon implication. Here’s the problem: the Security Council only triggers prosecutions at the Court, it does not change the Statute. The Security Council cannot add crimes to the Statute, or change the age limit for prosecution, or require it to deal with cases prior to 2002. I think the Security Council takes the Statute as it finds it. It is in no different a position than a State Party that refers a situation to the Court. And if a State Party cannot refer a situation to the Court by which a head of State is stripped of immunity, then how can the Security Council do it?
Whatever the legalities – and these legal problems are raised in the African Union resolution – the real problem is a political one. The Court hardly needs this antagonism from Africa. When the Prosecutor declined to go after the British with respect to war crimes perpetrated in Iraq, many found his explanations to be unconvincing. It was often said that the decision was ‘political’, because it would be reckless to bite off such an ambitious case in the early years of the Court. And that made some sense. If the United Kingdom were to be angry with the Court, then that might have serious consequences, especially in its fragile, early years.
Instead, the Prosecutor has chosen ‘soft targets’, compliant African States. But it looks like the Court may have bitten off more than it can chew. If the Court is going to be ‘political’ about NATO States, and about its wealthy supporters, then it needs to show the same kind of deference to African States. Otherwise, they will react just as they have done. We all want a Court that is free of these political concerns. But as it flexes its muscles and shows that it is not afraid to go after even a head of State, maybe it should have started with a European instead of an African?

While this didn’t really cause me to come to a conclusion regarding the indictment (nor was it supposed to), what it did do was open up a slew of questions that I believe are crucially important to understand before making such rash decisions ‘for’ or ‘against’ the ICC indictment. As Mr. Schabas communicated, the situation is highly complicated and political and doesn’t just encapsulate Sudan, but the whole of Africa and even the rest of the world.

The question I think more people should be asking about the indictment is, “Now what?” How do we move forward? Those questions are being asked by many with the debate over justice vs. peace and which comes first and how to deliver those two things to the people of Sudan who thirst for it on a daily basis. I will definitely be watching this debate as it unfolds.