Mines of Monywa- what are the limits of Burma’s reform?

Over recent weeks, events around the Letpadaung copper mine near Monywa have sent shockwaves through Burma’s fragile reform process. For months local people including Buddhist monks, had been demonstrating against the environmental damage and land seizures associated with the operation- a joint venture between a Chinese company and another owned by the Burmese military. Then, in the early hours of 29 November, riot police swarmed into the protest-camps, setting them on fire and injuring dozens of civilians.

In the ensuing days, a number of those who had escaped hospitalisation were held on charges of illegal demonstration, whilst across the country prominent activists such as U-Gambira were rounded up in an apparent attempt to stem the spread of solidarity protests.

The whole incident reflects the continuing absence of rule of law in Burma; which alongside the military abuses in Kachin state and the state-sponsored sectarian violence in Arakan state, presents a stark reminder that the worldwide embrace of President Thein Sein’s administration may have been somewhat over-enthusiastic.

The President was last month recognised alongside Aung San Suu Kyi as Foreign Policy Magazine’s top political thinker of 2012. And having recently visited Washington at the invitation of Barak Obama, he will return to the US next year to receive the International Crisis Group’s eminent In Pursuit of Peace Award at a lavish ceremony in New York. The ex-general will also be jet-setting to London, as part of a rapidly blossoming friendship that this week saw the first UK trade delegation to arrive in Rangoon for decades.

In the wake of events around Monywa, more people than ever are quite rightly questioning whether this is all a bit lavish for the boss of an administration that protects its environmentally disastrous money-making operations by crushing dissent with fire-bombs, tear gas and waves of arbitrary arrests.

They are right of course, yet at the same time it would be naive to overlook aspects of the saga that demonstrate just how far Burma has come. For whilst images of burnt monks on hospital beds naturally stir up memories of the crackdown against the Saffron Revolution in 2007, the differences between the two situations could not be more significant.

Back then the military regime massacred people on the streets without even a cursory nod to due process; but following the violence of 29 November Thein Sein’s administration set up a commission of inquiry and placed none other than Aung San Suu Kyi in the Chair. The authorities also heeded her request for a formal apology, undoubtedly in part out of fear that solidarity protests would escalate, but nonetheless illustrating a more conciliatory approach to the propaganda and lies of five years ago. The overall situation is therefore not so much a clear-cut illustration that nothing has changed, but rather a continuation of the complex and messy governance that has characterised the reform process so far.

The cold hard fact remains that Burma is nowhere near democracy and the abuses taking place across the country on a daily basis should be judged against basic human rights norms, not merely in comparison to the more flagrant violations of previous governments. This means that Thein Sein must be held to account for the attacks on protestors and the ethnic pogroms in Burma, not sycophantically lauded as a reformist hero just because he is less tyrannical than his genocidal predecessors.

However, despite the on-going abuses activists should resist the temptation of completely writing-off this administration’s reformist credentials. In just a few short years Aung San Suu Kyi has gone from being a political prisoner held in near total isolation, to chairing an inquiry into the government’s behaviour in front of both Burmese and international media. Developments like that were previously unthinkable and there are undoubtedly many people waiting in the wings of the government who would like to take Burma back there. Balancing scrutiny and encouragement of the more reform-minded elements will be hard, but it is essential.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Monywa,Letpadaung,copper mine,monks,protest,crackdown,tear gas,fire bombs,Thein Sein,Aung San Suu Kyi,International Crisis Group,ICG,Foreign Policy Magazine,U-Gambira,Arakan,Rakhine,Rohingya,Kachin,UK,USA,Barak Obama,Hugo Swire

Burma’s earthquake- a tragedy and a test

Details of the earthquake that struck Burma on Sunday morning are still sketchy. Various initial death tolls are relatively low (between four and twelve) but the true extent of damage is likely to be far worse; at 6.8 magnitude it is larger than the quake that devastated Christchurch last year, and Burma’s emergency infrastructure is nowhere near that of New Zealand’s. Ominously the epicentre lies near to Mandaly, a city of over one million people second only in size to Rangoon. Tremors were felt as far away and Bangkok and at least two strong aftershocks have been reported.

As things pan out in the comings hours and days the earthquake may represent the biggest test yet for President Thein Sein’s reformist USDP government. Just over four years ago, when Cyclone Nargis decimated Burma’s Irrawaddy Delta region, the military government in which Thein Sein served, covered up early warnings then flagrantly lied about the scale of the disaster once it hit.

As the floods, death and disease spread, they exacerbated the problem further by physically blocking the delivery of relief, expelling aid workers and seizing a large proportion of any assistance that was able to get through. In a fit of paranoia and callousness the regime refused entry foreign to boats full of food and medical supplies, leaving the international community to seriously consider flying unauthorised military aid drops to the desperate population.

Of the 140 000 who died, many were direct victims of the regime’s actions: a Crime Against Humanity in most eyes. 

The response to Sunday’s earthquake then, is a chance for Thein Sein’s new administration to prove that things have really changed. Accurate information about the impact, dedication of resources towards relief and unhindered access for external agencies are nothing short of essential if the President is to prove that his is a government serious about taking Burma forward.

Two years into the reform process serious doubts continue to linger about its authenticity. Despite significant political prisoner releases, fair by-elections and the easing of censorship, several familiar dictatorial traits remain. The ongoing military attacks against civilians in Kachin State, the 238 political prisoners still behind bars, and the abhorrent sectarian attacks stirred up by the government in Arakan State have led many commentators both inside and outside Burma to question just how much things have really progressed.

The official response to this natural disaster may go some way to providing an answer.

Technorati Tags: Burma,Myanmar,earthquake,cyclone,Nargis,government,regime,USDP,aid,relief,blocked,Crime Against humanity,November,2012

Yudhoyono- the tyrant who came to tea

Buckingham Palace has played host to some pretty unscrupulous characters over the years including Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao and even Robert Mugabe. This week the odorous list is extended to include Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is not only staying as a guest of Her Majesty but is being personally presented with a prestigious British Knighthood.

Such a warm welcome for the tyrant will be a bitter blow to those languishing under his rule, not least the people of occupied West Papua who harboured such high hopes of British support when David Cameron entered Downing Street in 2010. Having previously met with their inspirational independence leader Benny Wenda, many Papuans hoped that Cameron would take a stand against the Indonesian occupation of their country. Instead the Prime Minister remained silent as Yudhoyono’s troops continued to brutally torture their countrymen and open fire on demonstrations with live ammunition.

Whilst Yudhoyono resides and dines in luxury at Buckingham Palace, one of the most prominent figures in the West Papuan struggle Filep Karma,will remain locked in a squalid cell, serving a sentence for nothing more that raising the banned West Papuan flag. Filep has been frequently denied medical treatment and has been recognised around the world as a prisoner of conscience, yet Yudhoyono sees fit to keep him and others incarcerated for daring to peacefully challenge Indonesia’s colonialist whims.

Back in Indonesia itself, hundreds of thousands more suffer under repulsive state discrimination. Ahmadi Muslims and Christians frequently face brutal mob attacks, spurred on by government hate-speech and met with ludicrously weak sentences for the perpetrators. Recently, in the first case of its kind, a 30 year old citizen named Alex Aan was imprisoned for professing his atheism on facebook. Indonesia-watchers point to such developments as evidence of increasing government hostility against freedom of belief and an on-going erosion of human rights.

This trend appeared lost on David Cameron in April this year, when during a trade visit to Indonesia he somewhat baffling claimed that Yudhoyono’s clique ”neither compromises people's security nor their ability to practise their religion". Unfortunately such sycophancy is likely to be repeated this week when the two leaders meet again, in between royal engagements.  

It is time for the UK and the rest of the international community to get tough on Yudhoyono – tea at the palace and a knighthood is not the way to do it.

Technorati Tags: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,Yudhoyono,Indonesia,visit,Britain,UK,Buckingham Palace,knighthood,Queen,West Papua,Ahmadyyia,Ahmadis,Christians,atheism,atheist,prisoners,Alex Aan,Benny Wenda,Filep Karma,David Cameron,sectarianism,persecution,occupation,dictatorship

Mali–intervention beckons

In crisis-hit Northern Mali it almost certain the international military intervention is just around the corner – and for many of its citizens this cannot come soon enough.

It has been some ten months since a counter-productive military coup destabilised the country and allowed a loose alliance of nationalist Tuareg and Islamist rebels to take control of territory equivalent in size to France. Since then the military has handed over to a shaky civilian administration, whilst the rebels’ marriage of convenience has broken down, with the Islamist groups coming out on top.

The consequences for ordinary Northerners have been catastrophic, following the imposition of a brutally harsh interpretation of Sharia Law across the region. Those accused of robbery have had their limbs hacked off, couples found having sex outside of wedlock have been stoned to death and other ‘offenders’ are regularly flogged, all publicly before terrified crowds.

Yet things are set to get far worse: already the rebels are making lists of unmarried mothers, raising fears of mass-executions. And all the while they are regularly   destroying beautiful ancient shrines, on the basis that they do not fit with their own warped version of Islam. As for the on-going food crisis, rebel activity is both hampering relief in Mali itself and exacerbating shortages in neighbouring states by driving huge flows of refugees over the borders.

These abuses have played a part in the increasingly urgent international response, which in recent weeks has seen a UN resolution laying the groundwork for intervention and the Economic Community of West African State (ECOWAS) begin to draw up a military strategy.

Beyond human rights, an even more pressing concern for many states is the continental or even global implications of a new base of power for radical Islamist groups, especially given that vast numbers of foreign Jihadists have flocked to the area bolstering al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the local incarnation of the international network. With al-Shabab on the back-foot in Somalia and moderate successes against Boko Haram in Nigeria, any consolidation of power by the rebels would present a major set-back to the struggle against violent Islamism in Africa, which is seen as a key battleground in the broader global picture. For this reason states across the world are keen to line-up behind the imminent ECOWAS intervention, with France in particular already promising practical logistical support.

However whilst it brings wider support for intervention, the international-jihadist context of the crisis also threatens to make this long and bloody affair. Furthermore, whilst the Tuareg nationalist militias have no love for the Islamists and may even play some role in deposing them, they will be disinclined to allow the Malian state to reassert its authority in the territory they regard as Azawad. On top of all this, friction remains between Mali’s weak government and assertive military, with the possibility of a future coup still lingering. ECOWAS troops may then ultimately find themselves caught between a jihad, a secessionist conflict and a national power struggle.

Right now- for the sake of those suffering under the rebels and for the wider region, ECOWAS intervention seems the only viable option…but it won’t be an easy one.

Technorati Tags: Mali,Malian,Islamists,coup,Timbuktu,shrines,human rights,flogging,stoning,ambutations,abuses,intervention,ECOWAS,Economic Community of West African States,Tuareg,Azawad,al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,AQIM,Ansar Dine,Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa,Iyad Ag Ghaly,Yahya Abu Hammam

The Security Council’s African crisis

On 1 January 2013 South Africa will relinquish control of the African seat on the UN Security Council. For human rights activists around the world it’s presence won’t be missed.

Perhaps prior to the collapse of Apartheid, the prospect of an ANC man sitting at the table and influencing international response to conflict and humanitarian situations across the globe, would have been the ultimate dream. The reality however has been both sordid and abusive.

For South Africa has consistently used its position to back oppressors; from blocking condemnation of ethnic cleansing in Burma, to undermining pressure on Bashar al-Assad as he butchers his own people. Closer to home, successive ANC administrations have supported Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the indicted War Criminal Omar al-Bashir in Sudan. And when it comes to China and its occupied territories, the decision to deny the Dalai Lama a visa on two separate occasions aptly spelt out the South African government’s unfortunate stance.

It is little wonder therefore that leaders such as Aung San Suu Kyi and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have openly criticised the state’s leaders for facilitating and protecting the kind of tyranny they once suffered themselves. Unfortunately, South Africa’s replacement on the council – Rwanda, is unlikely to improve matters.

Paul Kagame’s RPF regime is widely accorded international sympathy, stemming from its role in halting the 1994 genocide, and Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo has suggested that the slaughter will allow Rwanda to bring a “unique perspective” on conflict to the council However, the RPF’s appalling record on human rights and perhaps more significantly on backing brutal rebel groups in the neighbouring DRC, is already raising serious concerns about how Rwandan influence will be used in practice.

Most pressing is a report leaked just twenty-four hours before Rwanda was elected to the seat, confirming that not only equipment and support but direct orders are being given by Kagame’s officials to Bosco Ntaganda’s notorious M23 Rebels. This group is currently destabilising swathes of the DRC through an orgy of massacres, rapes and child soldier recruitment. Now Human Rights Watch has voiced fears that Rwanda’s new position will simply allow the RPF to prevent any sanctions that it may have faced as a result of.its involvement.

The end of South Africa’s poor showing at the council is no bad thing…but the new set up is unlikely to be any better at all.

Technorati Tags: Bosco Ntaganda,M23,Rwanda,Rwanda Patriotic Front,RPF,Paul Kagame,South Africa,Tibet,Burma,Sudan,Bashar al-Assad,Omar al-Bashir,UN,United Nations,UNSC,United Nations Security Council,DRC,Democratic Republic of Congongo,Human rights

Sexuality, deportation and persecution

Back in 2010 David Cameron promised to end the UK’s shameful practice under Labour, of deporting gay asylum seekers to states where they had “well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of their sexuality. Sadly that did not happen – not in practice anyway; and this week a 28 year-old  Nigerian nursing student by the name of Ola Ayelokun became the latest victim of an asylum system that has dramatically fallen behind domestic LGBT rights legislation.

Despite a huge public outcry and intervention from within the Conservative party, Ola was put on a plane back to Nigeria, where the penalty for homosexual activity is fourteen years imprisonment and the government has been consistently criticised for failing to prevent widespread homophobic attacks. Ola’s summary of the situation was at once simple and heart-breaking: “I am very afraid they are going to kill me in Nigeria." 

The crux of the problem that has led us to this point is not necessarily a dismissive attitude towards LGBT rights on the government’s part; after all, Cameron’s administration is actively trying to build on Labour’s advances in equality legislation and has threatened to cut aid to those countries persecuting their gay citizens. Nor is there any top-level policy failing when it comes to protecting LGBT asylum seekers; they are formally entitled to remain here on the basis of homophobic persecution in their home state. Rather the failing is a procedural one that neither Labour nor the coalition have ever tackled head-on.

In short there are currently no guidelines for courts dealing with these kind of cases, which effectively leaves the outcome resting on the judge’s interpretation of somebody’s sexuality. As a result we are faced with numerous situation’s like Ola’s, where lack of understanding, adherence to stereotypes, or simple prejudice has caused a judge to determine that the asylum seeker is actually not gay at all and can therefore be sent home without danger.

This of course not only leaves the judge in charge of a decision that they may be utterly unqualified to make, but also puts the emphasis of the determination in completely the wrong place as Ola’s lawyer pointed out: "with respect to the…judges here, it is not what they believe to be his sexuality that is important. It is what is believed by those people who persecute and prosecute people in Nigeria for being gay that counts."

The solution it appears, would be relatively straightforward; a number of other European countries have already put in place guidelines for judges in order to prevent travesties such as Ola’s deportation, and LGBT rights groups are now calling on the UK government to do the same. That is not only a sensible course of action, but an essential one if we are to stop any more innocent people being sent home to face persecution – or worse.

Technorati Tags: Ola Ayelokun,deporation,Nigeria,persecution,LGBT,LGBT Rights,LGBTI,gay rights,UK,Theresa May,David Cameron,Labour,Conservatives

The devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize?

Two hundred and thirty-one people and organisations were nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, widely heralded as one of the most prestigious honours in global politics.

Among them was Svetlana Gannushkina, a veteran Russian human rights activist whose tireless work for displaced people including many thousands of Chechens, has made her an enemy of Vladimir Putin’s autocratic regime.

Across the Belarusian border Ales Belyatsky, laureate of the 2012 Lech Walesa Award, was in the running for his work supporting political prisoners under the Lukashenko dictatorship. Belyatsky is currently serving a four and a half year sentence himself, following a show-trial condemned around the world.

Among the Arab Spring activists nominated was Lina Ben Mhenni, whose blog during the Tunisian revolution was in many situations the only source of information being relayed to the outside world. This of course came at great risk to her own life.

Everyone will have their own view on who the Prize should have gone too. Perhaps Malala Yousafzai, the fourteen year old girl who took a stand against the Pakistani Taliban by demanding education for women and was barbarically shot in the head as a result. Or maybe it should have been awarded en-masse to the young Somali reporters working in one of the world’s most dangerous territories to shine a spotlight on its strife.

Another option for a collective award would have been those involved in Burma’s historic and seismic reform process; including Aung San Suu Kyi, President Thein Sein, and significant foreign players such as Hilary Clinton and William Hague.

Yet the five-person committee responsible for selecting this year’s laureate did not regard any of these as worthy candidates. Rather they selected a regional body better known for its economic crisis than its contribution to world peace: the European Union.

The rationale: that there has not been a major European conflict since the early forerunners of the EU were formed in the wake of World War II, holds some weight. But whether this is actually because of the EU’s existence is very questionable. Furthermore, the body did little to prevent or halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo as the East of Europe disintegrated into conflict during the 1990s. Rather it was the UN, NATO and individual states who stepped into the breach as the Brussels bureaucrats floundered helplessly at the side-lines.

Yet such a bizarre and unjustified choice is not without recent precedent. In 2009 Barak Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his nomination coming after just twelve days in office. Shambolically his award came at the expense of Morgan Tsvangirai, the Zimbabwean Prime Minister who has done more than almost any other to advance human rights and democracy in his country; and Hu Jia, the then political-prisoner who selflessly stood up for rule of law in China.

There is a genuine danger that if such inane choices of laureate continue, the Nobel Peace Prize will be increasingly devalued. Whilst the vast majority of recipients are those who have made a genuine difference, usually at great personal sacrifice, it would be a tragic day when the shabby figures of Obama and the EU characterise the award above the inspirational forms of Suu Kyi and Ramos-Horta. 

Technorati Tags: Nobel Peace Prize,EU,European Union,Bosnia,Kosovo,Srebrenica,Barak Obama,Morgan Tsvangirai,Aung San Suu Kyi,Ramos-Horta,Ales Belyatsky,Somalia,journalists,Burma,Thein Sein,William Hague,Hilary Clinton,Svetlana Gannushkina,Belaurs,Russia,Putin,Lukashenko,Malala Yousafzai,Pakistan,Taliban,Chechnya