Bibhu Prasad Routray
They have been called by different names - Rohingya, Bengali, Kalar - depending on whether one is referring to their ethnicity, the language they speak, or to the colour of their skin. These pejorative descriptions have provided their Buddhist antagonists among Myanmar's civilian, political as well as military circles to be part of project of annihilation; to cleanse the country off these 1 million unwanted people. Many Rohingyas have fled the country. And a large majority who still remain are simply awaiting a process of slow death under various pretexts. Their eventual extermination, however, will be the only probable end game as the world continues to provide only lip service to the systematic and officially sponsored violation of human rights in new age Myanmar.
Myanmar is a strange country. At one level, its yearning for democracy and reforms has remained one of the often quoted narratives in history, capable of evoking academic debates and unending coffee table talk. The continuing struggle to send the powerful military to the barracks and allow the civilian politicians to steer the country on the path to development has been no less than exemplary. At another level, however, hatred for the country's minority ethnic groups including the Rohingya has curiously united the military and those who oppose them. The campaign to retain prominence of the majority Bamars vis-à-vis the other ethnicities thereby becomes a highly unequal one, pitting the Buddhist 70 per cent of the population with state support versus the non-Buddhist 30 per cent.
While the Rohingya are certainly not the only group to have faced systematic persecution by the Bamar-dominated power centre, the complicity of the state in annihilation projects initiated by Buddhist religious bodies and local administration in the Western Rakhine state certainly makes their case unique. Out of the 1 million unrecognised Rohingya, about 1,20,000 live in internment camps - being victims of the communal riots since 2012. Thousands have fled Myanmar to countries like Malaysia and Bangladesh and hundreds are dead, victims of both direct and indirect assaults. Those Rohingya, estimated to be about 800,000 in number, who are still away from the camps and have not become refugees in strange, foreign lands, have witnessed their economic, political as well as religious rights disappear. This breakup of victims is unverifiable, as Myanmar has systematically prohibited any direct monitoring of the Rohingya plight by international aid organisations, reminding them of their obligation to be "impartial." And yet these numbers somewhat portray the misery and tribulation that continue to sweep the Rohingya off their marginalised and wretched existence.
With this understanding, the 9 October 2016 episode becomes only a pretext for continuing the pogrom. On that day, according to official accounts, hundreds of armed Rohingya carried out simultaneous attacks on security posts along the Myanmar-Bangladesh border region, killing nine police personnel and three other army personnel. Several others were injured. The arrests of two attackers and their subsequent interrogation revealed the involvement of an unknown Islamist militant group, the Aqa Mul Mujahideen (AMM), understood be an offshoot of the defunct Rohingya Solidarity Organisation (RSO). The Myanmar military has described the AMM to be led by Haviz Tohar, a Rohingya in exile, trained by the Taliban in Pakistan. In somewhat conflicting descriptions, videos have emerged where a group led by another person - Abu Ammar Junooni - flaunts several armed cadres. The group has stopped short of declaring a jihad on Myanmar and has merely asked for the rights of the Rohingya to be recognised.
Notwithstanding the exaggerated official claim that AMM has 400 armed cadres operating in the Maungdaw region, a statement that even the state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi has distanced herself from, what has followed in Rakhine state is an annihilation campaign. Operations by the military has resulted in the killing of 33 attackers involved in the 9 October episode, according to official accounts. Rohingya sources, however, document at least 133 deaths, a large number of sexual violence cases in which women and children have been targeted by soldiers, and countless instances of torture. Attacks by helicopter gunships and ground operations have wiped out villages and livestock, burning down at least 1,250 homes and other structures, forcing almost 30,000 Rohingya to seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, where they are largely unwelcome, unsupported, and are likely to be pushed back.
Whether the wretched luck of the Rohingya will ever change is no longer a relevant question. As the friendless, stateless, and right-less Rohingya look down a long and dark alley to an obvious process of gradual obliteration, the Myanmar military has announced its plans to train and arm Buddhist civilians to protect their villages. The erstwhile human rights defendant and now a confirmed politician, Aung San Suu Kyi has pointed at the "unfair" treatment of Myanmar by human rights groups. Feeble protests do take place. A Singaporean has submitted a memorandum to the Myanmarese embassy. Malaysia has cancelled two football matches with Myanmar. Little else has changed as a committee appointed by Suu Kyi headed by former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan tours Myanmar to take stock of the situation. The Committee does not have even a single Rohingya as its member. The new normal in Myanmar is not worth anybody's time.
12 Dec 2016
Paradigm Shift or Business As Usual: Trump’s China Policy
Chintamani Mahapatra
Candidate Trump’s positions on China during the long election campaign and President-elect Trump’s tweets and phone calls have generated the impression of a coming paradigm shift in Washington’s approach to China under the Trump administration.
Whether trade, investment or security issues, Trump has yet to say something substantially positive about China since the campaign days. He promised to raise the tariffs on imports from China to an extent that could threaten a trade war, inducing many US analysts to warn about the negative impact of a trade war with China.
When President-elect Trump had a telephonic conversation with the President of Taiwan, China issued a modest reprimand, but others saw in it a paradigm shift in US policy. The reason is simple. No US President-elect or President has had a telephonic conversation with a Taiwanese President since the 1979 US agreement with China to view Taiwan as part of China in acceptance of the "one China” policy.
China retains the right to annex Taiwan by force, while accepting the US view that Taiwan’s final annexation with the mainland should be peaceful. The US, on the other hand, seeks to ensure peace by underwriting Taiwan’s defense preparedness through the supply of 'defensive' weapons. China usually fumes when Washington supplies sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan or a Taiwanese leader visits the US under some pretext or the other.
What explains Beijing’s modest response to Trump’s phone conversation with the Taiwanese President? First of all, the general perception in China during the US presidential election was that Trump would be a pragmatic leader and businessmen who would safeguard the deep Sino-US economic cooperation and not allow issues such as human rights to muddy the relationship. Chinese analysts also felt that the Trump administration would not uphold its traditional alliances in the Asia-Pacific, thus reducing strategic pressure on China. Secondly, when the Trump team contended that the President-elect merely responded to a congratulatory call from Taipei rather than took the initiative himself, the blame suddenly shifted to the Taiwanese President. China promptly admonished and warned Taiwan’s pro-democracy political forces.
Many others, however, quickly pointed out that the telephone conversation was premeditated and part of a political strategy to send signals, and was in no way a coincidence. China’s suspicion deepened when Trump tweeted that China did not consult the US before devaluing its currency and caused losses to US businesses. He also complained against China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea and its construction of military facilities.
The Chinese perception has to an extent changed again, and Trump is suspected of believing that US-China relations are zero-sum and that the greater loss has been to the US in recent decades. He will thus act tough on the rising superpower to make “America great again.” Trump’s rhetoric to make “America great again” is interpreted as his conviction that US' global influence had declined while China’s had increased, and thus there is a need for course correction.
China would have carefully monitored Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s New York visit and meeting with the President-elect. Earlier, Beijing appeared more relaxed with Trump’s remarks that Japan and South Korea should fend for themselves or pay more for their protection by the US military. Washington’s differences with the allies would bring strategic benefits to Beijing. But Trump has apparently assured Tokyo, Seoul and many other allies of substantive continuity in US policy towards allies.
While the details of Trump’s Asia-Pacific policy are not known yet, both the strategic competitors and allies of the US appear to be in a state of anxiety about the Trump administration. China expects the 'business-as-usual' approach, since it has very high stakes in its trade and investment ties with the US and its economy is passing through a difficult transition. Japan, South Korea, Australia and other strategic allies do not desire any turbulence in their alliance relationship with the US.
It is likely that Trump will try to promote economic ties with China without conceding to China’s spreading foothold in strategic areas. Simultaneously, he will try to extract more defence burden-sharing from US' strategic allies. This way, he will try to strengthen US' military and economic presence in the region. The 'pivot to Asia', 'Asian rebalancing', Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may become things of the past. Trump’s engagement with the region will thus neither be a paradigm shift nor will it be business as usual.
10 Dec 2016
Northumbria University International Academic Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018
Application Deadline: Ongoing
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country):UK
About the Award: Usually applicants for the University Post Graduate Research scholarship are expected to have at least an upper second class Honours degree (UK) or equivalent from an overseas university, or a lower second class and a Masters degree in a relevant discipline.
International students, joining full-time courses, who have achieved very good grades in their highest previous academic qualifications, may be eligible for a scholarship of either £2000 or £1500, depending on the grades you achieved.
The scholarships are offered as a reduction in the tuition fees, for the first year of study and apply to all full-time Bachelors, Masters and Research degree programmes.
Type: Research
Eligibility: You will qualify for a scholarship if:
- You have an ‘overseas’ fee status
- You are a self-funding student
- You are studying on a full-time course
You would not qualify for a scholarship if:
- You are sponsored for your tuition fees. If you secure sponsorship for your tuition fees after an offer of scholarship has been made, then the scholarship will no longer apply
- You are progressing to study at Northumbria from a partner university with whom we have agreed reduced fees for progressing students
- You have been awarded another scholarship or discount, except for an alumni discount and/or early payment discount/team northumbria scholarship
Selection Criteria: Each student will be considered for a scholarship based on a range of factors including overall grades and individual subject grades, the level of the qualification, and the type of institution at which they studied. Qualifications from all countries will be considered.
Value of Scholarship:
- $1,500 – UK Honours Degree (2.2) plus a Masters Degree (70%)
- $2,000 – 2.1 OR 2.1 plus a Masters Degree (70%)
Duration of Scholarship: One-time
How to Apply: There is no separate application process, your application for a scholarship is determined once we have received your application form and academic documents from you. Details of any scholarship awarded to you will be indicated to you in your offer letter.
Award Provider: Northumbria University
Online Course: How to Communicate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by Université catholique de Louvain
Enrolment: February 6, 2017 – Self-Paced
Timeline: 6 weeks @ 4-6 hours per week
Skill Level: Intermediary
Course of Study: Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)| Course Platform:Edx
Created by: The Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)
Cost: Free
About the Course
Driven by global crises in financial, economic, and governance systems, companies all over the world devote massive resources to their corporate social responsibility (CSR). In uncertain modern climates, CSR is a crucial driving force of a (r)evolution in business. This course addresses CSR in two ways:
- As a reflection of corporate self-awareness
- As a source of innovation and a means to deal with heightened competitiveness, demands for sustainable development, and shifts in international governance
By presenting insights from CSR experts, from both academia and practice, this course provides a way for managers, consumers, and citizens to acquire in-depth insights and critical perspectives on companies’ CSR activities and communications.
The multi-industry case study structure of this course enables participants to confront the challenges facing today’s managers as they seek to develop and communicate their own CSR initiatives. Dedicated discussion forums also are available for participants to present personalized CSR cases.
To help participants manage and communicate about CSR with various internal and external stakeholders, this course seeks to:
- Support current and future business leaders in their efforts to make responsible leadership, sustainable production, and consumption central to their corporate vision.
- Help citizens to function more effectively as informed watchdogs and responsible consumers.
Eligibility Criteria
If you are interested in the relationship between business and society, this course is for you! It is especially relevant for industry, public policy, and academic professionals working on CSR, as well as students following a traditional business curriculum who are interested in key value questions. The content is also accessible for consumers who are curious about how to make informed decisions while pursuing their own well-defined, long-term, responsible consumption goals.
Requirement
- No prior knowledge is required, though interest in the topic of corporate social responsibility will be helpful
- Students who are unfamiliar with business concepts and language might have more difficulty understanding certain notions
Certificate offered? Yes
How to Enrol
Online Course: Global Resource Politics: the Past, Present and Future of Oil, Gas and Shale
The goal of this free online course is to examine the numerous critical energy challenges we are facing, and the complex interaction between the economics and politics of global energy markets.
Enrolment: 9 January 2017
Timeline: 6 weeks @ 3 hours per week
Skill Level: Intermediate
Course of Study: Global Resource Politics: the Past, Present and Future of Oil, Gas and Shale | Course Platform: FutureLearn
Created by: Hanyang University, South Korea
Cost: Free
About the Course
Energy is often said to be the lifeblood of modern society. Multiple sea changes are currently afoot in the global economy, at the heart of which lies energy.
Over six weeks, explore: the causes and implications of low oil prices for global energy markets and geopolitics; the success of North American shale gas and the desire of other countries, particularly China, to replicate it in future; the state of US natural gas and oil production; and the impact of the shale revolution and low oil prices on OPEC and Russia.
Global Resource Politics will give you an introduction to the basic elements of energy production, consumption and transportation, and the functioning of the global energy markets, industry and investments.
Learning with Professor Younkyoo Kim, from the the Division of International Studies at Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea, you will acquire an understanding of energy security and energy policy in today’s highly politicised, volatile energy markets.
Eligibility requirement
Global Resource Politics is open to anyone with an interest in energy security and energy policy.
Certificate offered? Yes
How to Enrol
Government of Japan MEXT Scholarships for Nigerian Primary/Secondary School Teachers 2017/2018
Application Deadline: 31st January, 2017
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Japan
About the Award: The Embassy of Japan is pleased to inform you that the Government of Japan will provide scholarship for Nigerian Primary/Secondary school teachers who desire to take teacher training course and Japanese language training in Japan.
The scholarship is open to graduates of universities and teachers training colleges no more than thirty-four (34) years of age (must be born on or after April 2, 1982), who have worked as teachers at primary/secondary schools or teacher training college for at least five years in their home countries at the time of application.
The Embassy will like to use this opportunity to attract Nigerian Schools that wish to start Japanese Language class or course at their school. Beneficiaries shall upon their return, help to promote Japanese Language education in Nigeria.
Type: Training
Eligibility:
(1) Nationality: Applicants must have the nationality of a country that has diplomatic relations with Japanese government. An applicant who has Japanese nationality at the time of application is not eligible.However, persons with dual nationality who hold Japanese nationality and whose place of residence at the time of application is outside of Japan are eligible to apply as long as they give up their Japanese nationality and choose the nationality of the foreign country by the date of their arrival in Japan. Applicant screening will be conducted at the Japanese Embassy or Consulate (hereinafter referred to “Japanese diplomatic mission”)in the country of applicant’s nationality.
(2) Age：Applicants, in principle,must be born on or after April 2, 1982.
(3) Academic and Career Background：Applicants must be graduates of universities or teacher training schools and have worked as teachersat primary/secondary educational institutions or teacher training schools (excluding universities)in their home countries for five years in total as of April 1, 2017.In-service university faculty members are not eligible.
(4) Japanese Language Ability：Applicants must be keen to learn Japanese. Applicants must be interested in Japan and be keen to deepen their understanding of Japan after arriving in Japan.Applicants must also have the ability to do research and adapt to living in Japan.
(5) Health：Applicants must be judged that they are medically adequate to pursue study in Japan by an examining physician on a prescribed certificate of health.
(6) Arrival in Japan： Applicants must be able to arrive in Japan by the designated period(usually October) between the day two weeks before the course starts and the first day of the course. (If the applicant arrives in Japan before this period for personal reasons, travel expenses to Japan will not be paid. Excluding cases of unavoidable circumstances, if the applicant cannot arrive in Japan by the end of the designated period the applicant must withdraw the offer.)
(7) Visa acquisition：Applicants should,in principle,acquire “Student” visas before entering Japan and enter Japan with “Student” residence status. The visas should be issued at the Japanese diplomatic missions located in the country of applicants’ nationality. Those who change their visa status to one other than “Student” after arrival in Japan will lose their qualification to be Japanese Government Scholarship recipients from the date when their visa status changes.
(8) Applicants must return to their home country and resume their work immediately after the end of the scholarship period.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship:
- Allowance：143,000 yen per month. (In case that the recipient researches in a designated region, 2,000 or 3,000 yen per month will be added. The monetary amount each year may be subject to change due to budgetary reasons.)
- Transportation to Japan：The recipient will be provided an economy-class airplane ticket, according to his/her itinerary and route as designated by MEXT,from the international airport nearest to his/her home country residence,where in principle is in the country of nationality, to the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses when they enter to Japan.
- Expenses such as inland transportation from his/her home address to the international airport, airport tax, airport usage fees, special taxes on travel, or inland transportation within Japan including a connecting flight will NOT be covered. (*Although the address in the home country stated in the application form is in principle regarded as the recipient’s “home country residence,” if it will be changed at the time of leaving from his/her home country the changed address will be regarded as “home country residence.”)
- Transportation from Japan：The recipient who returns to his/her home country within the fixed period after the expiration of his/her scholarship will be provided, upon application, with an economy-class airplane ticket for travel from the Narita International Airport or any other international airport that the appointed university usually uses to the international airport nearest to his/her home address, wherein principle is in the country of nationality.
- (Note 1) Any aviation and accident insurance to and from Japan shall be borne by the recipient.
- (Note 2) Should the recipient not return to his/her home country soon after the end of the scholarship period to resume his/her duties, the transportation fee for the return to the home country will not be provided.
- Tuition and Other Fees：Fees for the entrance examination, matriculation and tuition at universities will be paid by the Japanese Government.
Duration of Scholarship: The term is the period necessary to complete each university’s training course and should be between October 2017 (or the starting month of the course)and March 2019.Extension of the term is not permitted
How to Apply: Interested candidates can access application forms are HERE
For guidelines and application forms please click : http://www.ng.emb-japan.go.jp/mext% 20education.html , to get the form online, or come to the Embassy at the address below.
Award Provider: Government of Japan
Important Notes:
(1)The recipient is advised to learn, before departing for Japan, the Japanese language and to acquire some information about Japanese weather, climate, customs, and university education in Japan, as well as about the difference between the Japanese legal system and that of his/her home country.
(2)As the first installment of the scholarship payment cannot be provided immediately upon the recipient’s arrival, the recipient should bring at least approximately US $2,000 or the equivalent thereof to cover immediate needs after arrival in Japan.
Download to View other Application conditions of the scholarship via the Webpage link above.
Carrington Youth Fellowship Initiative (CYFI) 2017 for Young Nigerian Entrepreneurs
Application Deadline: 31st December, 2016
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Nigeria
To be taken at (country): Interviews follow at the US Consulate, Lagos, Nigeria
About the Award: The CYFI fellowship is built around year-long social innovation projects that are designed by fellows and supported by the U.S. Consulate and private partners. Following successful completion of their projects, fellows remain involved with CYFI and the U.S. Consulate through the CYFI Alumni Program.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Walter Carrington, was a champion of civil liberties, democracy and closer ties between the U.S. and Nigeria. CYFI invites applications from fellows who are committed to putting the ideals of Walter Carrington into practice. The CYFI Board of Directors will select fellows who demonstrate the exceptional passion, skill, experience, strategic thinking and vision necessary to implement their own innovative and impactful projects.
Type: Entrepreneurship
Eligibility:
- Passion
You are committed to making a significant contribution to your community and country - Skill & Experience
You have a unique set of skills and experiences that you can use to make an impact - Strategic Thinking
You are excited about the opportunity to launch an innovative CYFI project.
You know how to design a project that is based on sound research, uses resources creatively, builds or improves on existing systems, and leverages partnerships with complimentary organizations - Vision
You know the area of social change in which you would like to work, and you can articulate the positive change that you would like to make
Selection: Applicants selected for an interview will be notified by the CYFI Board. Interviews will be held at the U.S. Consulate General in Lagos.
Value of Program:
- Implement concrete, youth-oriented solutions to issues that concern you
- Access U.S. Government resources and contacts
- Catch the attention of American and Nigerian leaders in the public and private sectors
- Work alongside talented and motivated peers with diverse backgrounds, but similar visions
- Participate in CYFI Alumni Program
How to Apply: Application opens 10th December. You can only fill the application form after this date.
- In addition to providing biographical information, applicants will be asked to complete a hypothetical scenario. All fields are required.
- You may save the application and return to it at a later time. Please note however that incomplete applications will not be considered.
- To start the application, proceed to fill the form (to be available soon).
Award Provider: An Initiative of the U.S. Consulate General, Lagos.
Kashmir: Human Rights Observed In Breach
Abdul Majid Zargar
Physicians for Human rights (PHR) is a New-York based, nobel peace prize winner, international organization which attempts to use Science & Medicine to prevent human rights violations around the world. In its report of December 2016, Kashmir has found a special mention with respect to latest intifada post killing of Burhan Wani in July 2016. The relevant extracts of the report are reproduced hereunder:
“In July 2016, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir erupted in protests against the killing of prominent militant leader Burhan Wani by security forces. In the violent clashes that ensued between Indian authorities and protesters, at least 87 people were killed and thousands injured. The State used excessive and indiscriminate use of force against protesters by Indian state police and Central Reserve Police Forces with weapons misleadingly represented as “less than lethal.” These included tear gas grenades, pepper gas shells, live ammunition, and 12-gauge shotguns loaded with metal pellets, which account for the majority of injuries. While Indian authorities claimed that the use of these weapons was meant to reduce the potential for injuries or fatalities, PHR researchers found that their use had in fact caused serious injury and death.
PHR also found that authorities actively impeded protestors’ access to urgent medical care, both by harassing medical workers attempting to treat protesters and by preventing doctors from reaching the hospitals where they work. PHR documented several instances where police were present at hospitals and monitored protesters being admitted for treatment. They were reported to have asked for the names and medical information of patients admitted at the end of the day in order to later arrest them for unlawful assemblies.
The excessive use of force and the intimidation tactics employed by authorities against medical workers attempting to treat the injured violate India’s obligation to protect the rights to life, health, and freedom of expression and assembly. The police response to these protests shows complete indifference to the international standards and principles guiding the use of force, and a lack of accountability leaves security forces free rein to further abuse their power.”
Human rights structure was erected in 1940s & 1950s after two brutal world wars and the failure of international community to prevent Nazi Germany’s Holocaust against Jews which gave birth to International Declaration of Human Rights and the Genocide Convention. The United Nations was made custodian of these rights and tasked with the primary objective of ensuring international enforcement of these rights . It was also authorized to take appropriate action, including use of Force, against erring member States.
But the UN and its accredited agencies have miserably failed to restrain India from committing grave human rights violations amounting to war crimes & crimes against humanity in Kashmir. Name any crime which has not been committed by rogue State & its security apparatus in Kashmir. It has killed unarmed people by firing on peaceful protestors. It has killed intellectuals & human rights defenders of Kashmir through covert operations(Dr. Guru, Jaleel Andrabi for instance). It has committed individual & mass rape of women, rape of daughters in front of mothers & rape of newly wed brides(Kunanposhpura, Budsgam incidents). It has burnt people alive in live infernos (Sopore incident of Jannuary1993). It has indulged in involuntary & enforced disappearances & created a long trail of half-widows & half-orphans ,making Kashmir a unique place in the world to contribute new words to human right lexicons. It has buried thousands in unmarked graves and has the audacity to deny identification of such graves. It has destroyed & damaged properties on a large scale. It has blinded, fully or partially, hundreds of youth through use of deadly pellets It has denied medical aid to wailing injured(See Report of physicians for human rights) . Even human rights defender, Khurram Parvez was recently imprisoned under the draconian Public safety Act, a lawless law, to prevent him to report to the world, the Indian atrocities in Kashmir . These grave crimes should have, in the normal course, seen India in the international dock long ago but the inertia of the United Nations Human Rights Council has not only enabled India to escape a serious trial but allowed it to continue with its nefarious pogrom. There are strong reasons to believe that present UN General secretary, Ban-ki-Moon has allowed his personal relations with India to act as a shield to her wrongdoings. Ban’s daughter is married to an India and by his own admission he has a special affinity towards India.
Organizations affiliated with UN such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International(AI) mandated with reporting and organizing campaigns in response to the crimes of states have also failed in respect of India. They were accorded special status in the United Nations to promote moral agendas such as human rights and international law .The purpose was that they give testimony, submit reports, and make recommendations in order to improve human rights practice, while “naming and shaming” those governments with the worst records. Their record Vis-à-vis Kashmir is for every body to see. The Indian chapter of AI has been fully Indianzed and has become an integral part of the Indian political theater of the absurd.
The Overall failure of the UN in upholding human rights structure can be explained in part to the failure of these so-called human-rights organizations. If the humanity has to survive in a civilized order, an entirely new structure for enforcing human rights is necessary because the institutions , processes & systems that were created long ago have miserably failed.
Decline Of Human Rights Protection Regime
Pushkar Raj
The recent summoning of Chhattisgarh officials by the National Human Rights Commissions (NHRC) for abuse of power is significant due to the expectations from human rights protection institutions in the country to deliver on their mandate. However, concerned officials may never appear before the commission to explain their conduct indicating a steep decline in human rights protection regime in the country.
Like many other countries, the human rights regime was initiated in India in the aftermath of 1993 Geneva world conference on human rights. Consequently, the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA) was passed by the parliament for “better protection of human rights” paving way for setting up the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and a number of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC) in the states.
Reality
Though the task of protection of human rights was to be carried out under the leadership of NHRC, but it has failed to do justice to its mandate. It is evident from a recent Supreme Court observation in Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association versus Union of India case when the court censured the commission for inefficient functioning. The court criticized it for closing down some of the cases of encounter killings “without any application of mind’’ and on the basis of a magisterial inquiry which is essentially an administrative finding. The observations of the court were not unfounded given that the commission has an investigation wing headed by a DGP rank officer. The court went on to describe the commission as a toothless tiger.
The court’s comments echo a general feeling amongst the human rights activists in the country that the NHRC has failed to fix accountability for serious human rights violations, inspire SHRCs and send messages to the government on important issues related to human rights.
For many years now, the NHRC has failed to take a concrete stance on death penalty despite documented studies (Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India; Amnesty India-PUCL) that it is closely related to one’s access to justice and is usually awarded to the poorest, without leading to any deterrence to crime. While the outgoing chairman of the commission, Justice Balakrishnan supported the death penalty, the commission never clarified its position on it.
The commission failed to take remedial measures when the government cancelled several human rights organisation’s licenses under Foreign Contribution (regulation) Act, without which they cannot solicit funds from abroad. It is alleged that the government’s move was vindictive and a violation of the UN declaration on HRDs that confers on CSOs the right to solicit, receive and utilize resources.
Reason
The commission has come to this pass because the government, irrespective of political party, seems to have lost interest in human rights’ protection and promotion, thereby, encouraging and maintaining only a façade rather than substance on this matter. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to appoint credible people to these institutions if any improvement in the situation of human rights is to be realized. But the government’s actions have only been disappointing.
In 2010, the government appointed a chairman of NHRC who faced serious allegations of corruption. The matter dragged in the Supreme Court for years and was subsequently withdrawn by the government on the plea that the judge concerned had retired from the office.
It has chosen to appoint retired police officers to the commission. While the previous government appointed a former chief of anti-corruption bureau , CBI and a former director of anti-terror agency, NIA as the member of the NHRC, the present government nominated a BJP leader to be its member. By this count under the category of ‘persons having knowledge of human rights’ the present commission has one former police officer who is a terrorism expert and other, if confirmed, would be an active politician.
The government has not cared to put NHRC annual reports before the parliament for discussion, so much so that commission has now even stopped preparing them on a regular basis. It has caused dilution of its accountability inbuilt under the legislation under which it was setup.
Repercussion
This cynical approach to these important institutions has reduced the human rights regime in the country to a farce and sent a damaging message across the country. Out of 24 SHRCs, 10 are without chairpersons, nine have vacancy of members and some, including Maharashtra- with consistently high police custodial deaths- have retired police officers as members on their bench.
As majority of the complaints made to these commissions relate to police, appointment of retired police officers to these institutions have dealt a serious blow to their credibility, eroding people’s faith in these institutions. For example, Soni Sori, a victim of police atrocity and sexual violence did not expect a fair hearing from the Chhattisgarh SHRC, and when she approached the NHRC it was quick to give a clean chit to the state government (The Hindu, 15 April 2013).
The erosion of authority of human rights institutions is a major blow to the preservation and promotion of human rights in the country. It is a matter of grave concern in light of expenses involved in approaching the judiciary reeling under millions of pending cases. Clearly, the government has a lot to explain and do if it cares for its constitutional and international obligations.
Trump And The Attack On Free Speech
William T. Hathaway
Let’s welcome our new Commander in Chief by demonstrating how little he knows about the Constitution of the United States. Each incoming president is required on inauguration day to take the oath of office, affirming to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” But Trump proved his ignorance of this document when he recently wrote, “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag — if they do, there must be consequences — perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!” The Supreme Court, however, thinks otherwise. It has twice ruled that burning the national flag is not a crime but a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, a legal way to protest government policies.
Let’s give Big T a lesson in the Constitution on January 20. We the people should exercise our rights by burning the flag during his swearing-in ceremony. We can counter his jingoistic nationalism with a display of true patriotism, affirming our love of a country which was founded on the principles of egalitarianism rather than elitism, of government by the people rather than by just the rich.
Trump’s autocratic proclamations make it clear we’re going to have to fight to maintain our rights. His appointments to key offices display the pro-rich, anti-worker character of his administration. Our already low wages and benefits are scheduled for further slashing, our already suffering environment for further abuse. The future of our country and planet depends on our willingness to defend both against this attack by rightwing demagogues.
A battle lies ahead. We need to recognize that and prepare for it, showing defiance and courage from the start. Beginnings set the tone and direction of the future. If we passively accept his assault, fear will rule us and our resolve will weaken, and he will respond with more aggression. But if we fight back, we’ll discover our strength. Rebelling is invigorating, an authentic life rather than a lackey life. And we can win! In the final analysis we are stronger than they are and we love our country more. Now we have to show it. The first step towards making America great again is to dump Trump and the whole rapacious mentality he represents.
Hillary Clinton would not have been significantly better. As senator she co-sponsored a law to criminalize flag burning with a penalty of a year in prison, but it never came to a vote. Her differences with Trump, like those of Obama with Bush, are superficial rather than substantial. The advantage of Trump and Bush is that their crudeness makes it easier to mobilize resistance.
And resist we must. In the present situation burning the flag is not an act of destruction but of purification, burning out the greed and domination that have corrupted our country. Setting that lovely cloth in flames is symbolic of what the rich cabal that controls both political parties and the mainstream media have done to the values that inspired the first American revolution. A new revolution lies before us, one that will take as much struggle and sacrifice as the first. But it will also bring as much benefit to humanity.
Let’s start it by burning the flag on inauguration day! Do it in groups or individually, in front of city hall or in your own backyard. Post the photos all over the internet. There’s already a Facebook page devoted to the celebration, Inauguration Day Flag Burning EXTRAVAGANZA!!: https://m.facebook.com/events/1162913243829454
Sometimes a paradox is needed to express the truth: Show your love of our country by burning its flag.
Sri Lankan president asks Trump to end war crime investigations
K. Ratnayake
Sri Lanka’s Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government is desperately seeking the support of US President-elect Donald Trump to cover up Colombo’s war crimes and prop up its continued rule.
Late last month, President Maithripala Sirisena revealed that he had written to Trump seeking his help in pressuring the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to drop war crime allegations against Sri Lanka. On December 2, Mike Pence, Trump’s future vice president, phoned Sirisena during which they discussed “strengthening relations” between the two countries.
Addressing a party meeting on November 28, Sirisena declared: “I have sent a special message to US President-elect Donald Trump asking him to give us the fullest support at the UNHRC… I am asking him to help completely clear my country [of war crimes allegations] and allow us to live freely.”
Sirisena said he would send a special envoy to meet the new US president and follow up his request. The Sri Lankan president admitted that he had made “a similar appeal” to the UN secretary-general-designate, Antonio Guterres, who is due to take up his post in January.
UN experts and independent bodies have estimated that tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed during the final weeks of the brutal military offensive against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009. Nearly 200,000 civilians perished during the almost 30-year communal civil war waged by successive Sri Lanka governments. Seven years since the conflict ended, hundreds of troops still occupy the former war zones in the north and east ruthlessly imposing Colombo’s dictates on the local Tamil population.
Washington supported Colombo throughout the bloody conflict, even providing logistic support. It only began to criticise the government of President Mahinda Rajapakse during the final weeks of the war because of its close ties with China, which had become the principal provider of financial assistance and military hardware to Colombo.
The Obama administration, which was developing its confrontational “pivot to Asia,” against China, wanted Colombo to distance itself from Beijing. In an attempt to pressure Rajapakse to break these relations, the US sponsored a resolution at the UNHRC demanding an international investigation into Sri Lankan war crimes.
When Rajapakse failed to respond, the Obama administration in late 2014 supported a regime-change operation to oust Rajapakse and install Sirisena as president. This involved United National Party leader and now Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga along with various trade unions, civil society groups and pseudo-left organisations which painted Sirisena as a champion of “good governance.”
As soon as Sirisena became president and began initiating a shift towards Washington, the US co-sponsored another UNHCR resolution, dropping demands for an international war crimes investigation and supporting a domestic inquiry instead.
The cynical manoeuvre was another example of how the US, which has waged war in country after country during the past 25 years, selectively uses “human rights” issues in order to advance its hegemonic interests.
Sirisena’s efforts to persuade Trump to pressure the UN to drop all war crime allegations are aimed at appeasing the Sri Lanka military and Sinhala chauvinist groups who are hostile to any investigation of atrocities carried out during the war.
Former President Rajapakse, who backs the Sinhala communalist campaign, used the occasion of Trump’s election victory to congratulate the billionaire and complain about the Obama administration’s sponsorship of war crime resolutions in the UNHCR.
Rajapakse suggested the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government contact Trump over the war crime allegations. Sinhala Buddhist chauvinist groups were also elated over Trump’s election, praising his nationalist rhetoric and demanding that Colombo seek support from the new US administration.
During his election campaign, Sirisena said he would end all discrimination against minorities in Sri Lanka and promised “justice” for war victims. On becoming president, Sirisena insisted that there had been no war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Tamil National Alliance, the main Tamil bourgeois party, politically supports the Sirisena administration and remains silent over Sirisena’s appeal to Trump.
It is not yet clear whether US Vice-President election Mike Pence’s phone call to Sirisena last week was in direct response to Sirisena’s pleas to Trump. According to an official Sri Lankan government press release, Pence promised to “work towards arranging a visit by President Sirisena to Washington for a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump.”
Other matters discussed during the call included, “[ensuring] the progress of relations between the two countries based on common values of democratic governance and Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the middle of Asia.” The press release also said there was discussion on “cooperation directed at securing the safety of sea lanes, countering drug smuggling and working together in disaster management as partners.”
That Pence and Sirisena discussed Sri Lanka’s “strategic location” and “securing the safety of sea lanes” is highly significant. Sri Lankan workers, youth and the poor must recognise the dangerous implications of these developments. Under the banner of “maritime security,” Washington has expanded its naval presence in Asia as part of its preparations for war against China.
Behind the backs of the population, the Sri Lankan government hopes that its willingness to increase involvement in Washington’s diplomatic and military aggression against Beijing, will encourage Trump to support the shutdown of any UNHCR investigation into Colombo’s war crimes.
German defence minister on the offensive in the Middle East
Johannes Stern
German Defence Minister Ursula Von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) is currently on tour in the Middle East. The central goal of the trip is the strengthening of Germany’s political, economic and military influence in this resource-rich and geo-strategically critical region.
Von der Leyen’s first stop was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where she was met Wednesday evening at the King Salman Air Base in Riyadh by Saudi deputy defence minister General Mohammed bin Abdullah Al-Ayesh, German ambassador Dieter Walter Haller and defence attaché Colonel Thomas Schneider.
On Thursday, the defence minister visited the headquarters of the so-called Islamic Military Counter-Terrorism Coalition and asserted in an official press release that Saudi Arabia was a country which “decisively combats terrorism and is aware it has a special role in combatting Muslim-Arabic terrorism in the Islamic world.”
This is patently absurd. Hardly anything could more clearly expose the German government’s empty phrases about human rights and propaganda about the “war on terror” than the close military and political collaboration between the Western powers and Saudi Arabia.
The reactionary and Islamist character of the Saudi regime is so obvious that even the German media could not avoid raising some issues. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, there were “throughout last year … more than 150 executions. There are also frequent public floggings, [and] the rights of women and minorities are massively curtailed.”
About the impact of Saudi Arabia’s bombing campaign in Yemen, the Süddeutsche Zeitung noted: “The bombardments have destroyed the infrastructure of the Arab world’s poorest country and repeatedly kill civilians. According to investigations by human rights activists, one in three attacks strike civilian targets.” According to the UN, “the more than 10,000 victims of the war include more than 4,000 civilians––many die from bombs from the air which frequently strike hospitals.”
And, according to public broadcaster ARD, “Saudi Arabia is … a strict Islamic governed monarchy, in which––much like the Islamic State (IS)––political opponents are beheaded and women stoned if they end a marriage.”
In Syria, Saudi Arabia is among the chief sponsors of Islamist militias with close ties to al-Qaeda and which are officially designated as terrorist organisations by the German government. The Ahrar al-Sham militia, backed financially and politically by Saudi Arabia, is a “foreign terrorist organisation,” according to the German attorney general, and “one of the largest and most influential Salafist-Jihadi organisations in the Syrian uprising movement.” It pursues the goal of “toppling the regime of Syrian ruler [Bashar al-] Assad and establish a theocratic state based entirely on Sharia law.”
None of this has prevented the German government and defence minister from intensifying military cooperation with Saudi Arabia. According to reports, Von der Leyen pledged to train Saudi soldiers in Germany. The training of “several young officers and contractors with the Saudi Arabian military” will begin in Germany in the coming year, the German ambassador announced Thursday.
In addition, further arms exports to the Gulf monarchy are planned. Recently the Federal Security Council, meeting in secret, approved the shipment of 41,644 shells to Saudi Arabia, even though Germany’s official export guidelines prohibit the supplying of arms to states “engaged in armed conflicts.” According to government sources, weapons exports totaling more than €484 million [$US 511 million] were approved to Saudi Arabia in the first half of the year, including helicopters and components for fighter jets.
With its massive rearmament of the Saudi monarchy, Berlin is pursuing two main goals. First, Riyadh is to be placed in a better position to violently suppress social unrest on the Arabian Peninsula. In early 2011, a few weeks after the revolutionary upsurges in Tunisia and Egypt, Saudi troops and tanks intervened in Bahrain with brutal violence to suppress mass protests taking place there. In addition, the German government views the heavily armed Arab monarchies as important allies in the imposition of German imperialist interests in the region.
After her stay in Riyadh, Von der Leyen travelled directly to Bahrain. She participated in the Manama dialogue, the most important security conference in the Middle East. Several heads of state and government, ministers, military personnel and representatives from security agencies attended the event organised by the influential International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank to discuss the wars and conflicts in the region.
Von der Leyen’s last destination is Jordan, where she will symbolically hand over 24 “Marder”–type armoured vehicles.
Von der Leyen spoke in Bahrain in 2015, announcing greater German engagement in the Middle East. At the time, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung enthused in an opinion piece, “Germany is no longer indifferent. Germany has managed to expand its foreign policy weight. At the Manama Dialogue, Defence Minister Von der Leyen can point out that the Federal Republic is no longer holding back.”
The “fundamental German interest” in the region was already summarised in a strategy paper by the CDU-aligned Konrad Adenauer Foundation in 2001, “It is directed primarily towards a stabilisation of those states and societies to prevent dangers to its own security and that of its European partner states, to secure a seamless supply of raw materials and to create export opportunities for German business.”
The study, entitled “Germany and the Middle East: standpoint and recommendations for action,” emphasised the importance of the “export markets in the region’s core states (Egypt, Turkey, Iran), but above all the wealthy Gulf states” for German exports. Here it was necessary to “make a contribution to securing sales markets, obtain the broadest possible access to these markets and compete with the US, the Eastern European countries and also the East Asian industrial countries.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)