Senegal

In today’s Washington Post, Fred Hiatt notes that Vice President Biden chose not to mention human rights matters when he faced the press alongside the Chinese leader Xi Jinping this week. Hiatt’s column is about human rights and he criticizes Biden for raising the matter only in private: After Vice President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met on Wednesday, they both, in short statements to reporters in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, hailed the prospect of what Biden called a “new model of major-country cooperation.” Later, a senior Obama administration official briefed reporters on the subjects they covered during 5½ hours of talks: “They spent a good amount of time . . .stepping back to look at the overall bilateral relationship and its complexities. . . . They spent a substantial amount of time on North Korea. . . . They obviously spoke about the air defense identification zone and about the broader regional issues. . . . They had an extensive conversation on economics. . . . They talked about climate and clean energy. . . . And then they, over dinner, had more esoteric conversations about politics and history and governance.” The official concluded: “So that’s — am I missing any significant issues?” As it happens, Danielle Wang could have suggested one. Wang has not seen her father since Chinese police dragged him from his bed early one morning in July 1999 and imprisoned him for “the peaceful practice of Falun Dafa,” she told me, referring to a spiritual group that the Chinese Communist Party finds threatening.... Like the other daughters, Ti-Anna Wang was clear on her goals: China should honor its laws and respect its people’s human rights; their fathers should be freed; and President Obama should do more to press for that result. “His personal intervention is our fathers’ best chance of freedom,” she said. U.S. officials said Thursday that Biden did raise human rights during his meetings with Xi and other officials, even if he chose not to discomfit Xi by mentioning the subject when they faced the press, and even if it did not come up in the readout to reporters. This criticism is fair, and is especially fair in view of a remark made this week by National security Adviser Susan Rice in a speech about human rights: No one–no one--should face discrimination because of who they are or whom they love.  So, we are working to lead internationally, as we have domestically, on LGBT issues.  This summer, President Obama championed equal treatment for LGBT persons while standing next to the President of Senegal, a country that is making progress on democratic reforms, but like too many nations, still places criminal restrictions on homosexuality. Does Rice actually seek to present this as a profile in courage?  So it seems. The administration kowtows to China, but courageously stands up to Senegal. It’s bad enough to do this, and in a way even worse to seek credit for it as Rice did in this speech.    

The elections this week—February 27 in Senegal, March 2 in Iran, and March 4 in Russia—are reminders of the key role elections play in building democracy. It has been fashionable for years to say “elections don’t mean democracy” or “elections should come at the end of the road, when democracy is firmly built.” Of course elections are only part of a truly democratic system, which must also include critical building blocks like freedom of expression and the rule of law. And of course elections held in a non-democratic system and run by a non-democratic regime will be highly imperfect and often flatly fraudulent. But the events of this week show that elections can still unseat those in power or dramatically highlight the nature of the ruling party and leaders. In Senegal, President Wade forced a change in the constitution so that he could run for office a third time. No doubt he was sure that, using the power of the state, he could pull off a first round win. He failed, falling short of the 50 percent needed, and is likely now to lose office to a unified opposition in the second round. Senegal, a Muslim nation with a per capita income of only about $1,000 per year and a literacy rate of roughly 60 percent, is a reminder of the lure of democracy and self-rule across the globe. In Iran, the parliamentary election appears to mark the continuing decline of self-rule in favor of rule by the mullahs and their allies in the Revolutionary Guards. The balance between elected officials and the clergy, theoretically a key part of Iran’s system, has been shifting for years and of course moved greatly after the stolen elections of June 2009 and the crushing of the Green Movement. Candidates for parliament must be approved by the regime, and reformists have been sidelined. But that does not mean this sham election is without impact, for it can only deepen the gulf between rulers and ruled. Some day, when this regime has fallen, the repeated exercise of holding such elections—essentially, of rubbing the noses of millions of Iranians in their country’s political backwardness and lack of freedom—will be seen as a cause. In Russia, Sunday’s election is part coronation of Vladimir Putin, but also a turning point for his corrupt system. The cynicism of his pirouette with Medvedev, a maneuver that entirely excluded the Russian people from any real role in choosing their government, has been widely understood inside Russia as well as outside it. Recent months have seen a rebirth of popular protest against autocratic rule. As in Iran, this election dramatizes for citizens the ways in which Russia is not a democracy, the voter has no control over the government, and the nation continues to fall far short of the standards of decent, open, responsive government. What can Russians think of their country, what can they think of those who claim the right to rule it so that it can “advance,” when citizens of Senegal can vote in free elections but they in Russia cannot? As skeptics rightly say, elections do not democracy make. But the opportunity to vote, and often the denial of an opportunity to vote or the necessity of voting in sham elections, can be mobilizing events. In a world where hundreds of free elections are held each year, often with elaborate safeguards and the presence of international observers, the failure to hold free elections is a mark of shame visible around the globe and more importantly to citizens denied a role in choosing their government.

Supporters attend the launch of Senegal's controversial African Renaissance statue, April 3, 2010. (Eve Coulon/Courtesy Reuters) This is a guest post by Mohamed Jallow. He is an interdepartmental associate at the Council on Foreign Relations and graduate of the CUNY Colin Powell Center for Policy Studies. Mohamed came to the United States as a refugee from Sierra Leone in 2003. I recently returned from a three-country tour of West Africa. It was my first trip back since I left in 1999, when the Charles Taylor-backed Revolutionary United Front (RUF) invaded my home of Freetown, Sierra Leone. My recent trip took me to the Gambia via Senegal, and then to Sierra Leone, marking an emotional and exhilarating homecoming. Much more than that, the trip was an opportunity to reacquaint myself with the struggles of a continent I hold dear and to assess the changes that have taken place since I left. My first destination was Dakar, Senegal, where in 2003 I boarded a Tap Air Portugal flight to the United States after fleeing the madness in Sierra Leone. At the Dakar airport where the imposing African Renaissance Monument greets visitors from a mountaintop overlooking the capital, one gets the feeling of a continent and a country on the move. This country was and still is regarded as one of the few outposts of tranquility in a tumultuous region. While recent political issues regarding presidential succession and an economic crisis fueled by the global economic downturn have threatened that stability, these problems, from my initial assessment, appear to have been averted, and the economy is slowly growing again. Businesses are flocking to the country, and it has since replaced Ivory Coast as the economic hub of West Africa. After a few days in Dakar, and a spine bending road trip through Senegal’s countryside, my next stop was neighboring Gambia, the smallest country on mainland Africa, dubbed the “Smiling Coast.” My initial impressions of the Gambia were how I imagined 1950s Stalin Russia, with pictures of the president everywhere. Back in 2002-2003 when I lived here, the Gambia was an insignificant outpost better known as a cheaper Caribbean for European tourists. Today, the country is a different place despite its share of governance issues. I could see noticeable improvements in infrastructure and the economy for a country that once boasted only one paved road, and an economy dependent on peanuts and foreign aid. The sheer number of cell phone companies and foreign banks competing in this tiny economy shows just how far the country has come from less than a decade ago. Sierra Leone was the last stop on my trip. My most recent memory of Sierra Leone was being holed up in a corridor at home during intense fighting between RUF rebels and Nigerian soldiers acting under the umbrella of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). Since fighting ended in 2002, Sierra Leone has begun to recover, so much that I could hardly notice the physical scars of the war. Spending for development and anti-poverty measures has dramatically increased, evident through improved roads, schools, and health care facilities. Corruption is down and economic activity is booming again. While Sierra Leone continues to rely on foreign assistance, the country is indeed making progress towards self-sufficiency, and I could see that in the enterprising spirit of the people. Besides the good food and spoiling attention I received from family and friends, this visit was a real eye opener. While there is still the poverty, corruption, and political issues, these countries are no longer stagnant as they had been when I left them a decade ago. They are making considerable strides both economically and politically. The people in all these countries seem to have realized that their destiny should be to make their own countries better so people like me won’t have to leave.

Opposition supporters attend a rally in Senegal's capital Dakar, July 23, 2011. (Finbar O'Reilly/Courtesy Reuters) Kate Collins, a special assistant here at CFR, has written about the recent unrest in Senegal. Initially, protests were sparked on June 23 by octogenarian president Abdoulaye Wade’s attempt to change the constitution so that a candidate could win with only 25 percent of the vote (as opposed to requiring a runoff) if his total was higher than that of any other candidate. The amended constitution would also establish the office of vice president in which, according to the BBC, Wade would likely try to install his son. While Wade has subsequently backed away from amending the constitution, this Saturday protesters gathered again to oppose his announcement that he would seek a third term. The constitution allows for only two terms, but Wade and others have argued he can run for a third term because he was elected before the constitution establishing term limits was put in place. At the same time, “backers” of Wade gathered to show their support for the president. Reuters quoted one attendee as saying that he had been promised payment for attending the rally. Senegal is often considered a West African success for it relative stability and the peaceful democratic transfer of power to Wade in 2000. Unfortunately, eighty-five year old Wade’s quest for a third term, and rumors about Wade’s desire for his son to lead the country, do not bode well for the orderly and democratic transfer of executive authority. Read Kate’s article here.