Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Human rights’ Category

On Feb. 11, 1990 — 20 years ago this Thursday — Nelson Mandela walked through the gates of a South African prison after 27 years of confinement. His release was celebrated the world over. But it had a particular effect on those who were being held as political prisoners by other repressive regimes. The Op-Ed editors asked seven of these former captives to describe what it was like when they heard the news of Mr. Mandela’s liberation.

Freedom’s Dominoes

I was in Mikuyu Prison in Malawi when Nelson Mandela was released. Hearing the news, whispered to me by a daring prison guard, I instantly thought back to the day, a year earlier, when the same guard had told me the rumor that President F. W. de Klerk of South Africa was holding secret talks with Mr. Mandela. Rumors played a critical, if therapeutic, role for us; they were more reliable than the clippings from local newspapers that were smuggled into prison.

In Mikuyu, we had adopted Mr. Mandela as our hero. We had dubbed a fellow prisoner, Martin Machipisa Munthali, the Nelson Mandela of Malawi for his fortitude. The longest-serving political prisoner under President Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s regime, Mr. Munthali had begun his imprisonment a year after Mr. Mandela. Mr. Mandela’s resilience, dignity, integrity and sense of purpose had inspired us to endure even the humiliating daily strip searches.

So when President de Klerk released Nelson Mandela, I joined the choir in the prison yard to thank God. We had no doubt that the release of Mr. Mandela would shame President Banda, a staunch supporter of the apartheid government.

Almost immediately afterward, our food improved, the strip searches happened weekly rather than daily, and political prisoners who had been in isolation were allowed to join us in the general population. The following January, Malawian political prisoners began to be released. (My freedom came on May 10, 1991.) By the end of 1992, there were no more political inmates at Mikuyu, and multiparty elections were in the works. Nelson Mandela’s release changed permanently the politics of Malawi and other countries in Africa’s Great Rift Valley, and perhaps it changed the world.

Jack Mapanje is a visiting fellow at Newcastle University Center for Literary Arts in Britain and the author of a forthcoming memoir about his time in prison in Malawi.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07mapanje.html

__________

Silly Men, Sharp Knives

Nine months before Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa, the Chinese police cracked down on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, and in August 1989 I was sent to Hebei Prison for incitement to overthrow state power. My cellmates, like so many Chinese people at the time, were pessimistic about China’s future. “Why do you persist?” they would ask me. “Democracy and freedom are good, but there is not much hope for them in China.” The prison guards would tell me, “We have guarded many political prisoners before. The smarter ones have been promoted by the Communists to ranks as high as ‘political consultant’; the ones who persisted in defiance never ended well.”

Yet, on Feb. 11, 1990, we read newspaper reports and saw television news reports about Mr. Mandela getting out of jail. (We were sometimes allowed to watch state television and read the state newspaper.) He had never lowered his noble head in front of his enemy, and eventually his enemy had retreated.

“This guy is just as ‘silly’ as I am,” I told the guards, “but he reached his goal. What do you smart ones think?” They looked at each other and said, “Indeed, there are all kind of birds in the big woods!” But they didn’t discuss the prospect of “political consultant” with me anymore. Instead, they would often discuss the differences between South Africa and China.

An old Chinese maxim notes that a knife must be ground to be sharpened. Mr. Mandela’s experience demonstrated that it is important to bear life’s setbacks, and maintain unbending confidence in eventual success.

Wei Jingsheng is a democracy activist who was in jail in China from 1979 to 1993 and now lives in Washington.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07jingsheng.html

__________

Path of Most Resistance

It was back in the 1970s, when I was doing diabetes research in Britain, that I first learned of the political drama surrounding Nelson Mandela. At the time I never would have predicted that one day I, too, would be imprisoned by a repressive regime for advocating human rights and democracy.

By the time of his release from prison many years later, I had already spent 10 years in many labor camps and prisons in Vietnam, and was under house arrest. The Vietnamese communist government had never held a trial.

As I listened to the BBC on a small portable radio with earphones, the word of Mr. Mandela’s release illuminated my mind like a lightning flash. The end to his 27 years in prison had come as a result of concerted international pressure on the government in Pretoria. Bravo, I thought, for the victory of dignity and hope over despair and hatred, of self-discipline and love over persecution and evil.

No government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people, the Freedom Charter that Mr. Mandela helped draft in 1955 had declared. A government founded on injustice and inequality robs people of their rights; a country can never be prosperous until people enjoy equal rights and opportunities; the people must govern; the people must share in the country’s wealth.

Mr. Mandela’s struggle was to me — as it is to activists throughout the world — a shining, vivid example of the courage it takes to fight for liberty.

Three months after Mr. Mandela’s release, on May 11, 1990, I issued a manifesto for a nonviolent movement to rally support for the basic rights of the Vietnamese people, a multiparty system and free and fair elections. One month later, I was arrested again and sentenced to 20 years of hard labor. In prison, and still today, Mr. Mandela has guided my steps on what he has called “the long walk to freedom.”

Nguyen Dan Que is a doctor in Vietnam who has been imprisoned three times.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07que.html

__________

The Radio’s Song of Liberation

Nelson Mandela has won the battle, I said to myself in my cold, tiny cell in the military prison in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Thank God, at last justice and freedom win.

The news of Mr. Mandela’s release had just come over the radio that stood on a shelf in the canteen for prison guards directly in front of my cell. Tears rolled down my cheeks. Justice and freedom will win here in Indonesia, too, I thought, and I will be free. My people will be free from President Suharto’s military regime.

I had been in jail for seven months — nothing compared with Mr. Mandela’s 27 years — but I was entirely out of touch with my family and friends. I had been kidnapped in August 1989 along with other student leaders from the Bandung Institute of Technology, because we had been staging demonstrations against the corruption and human rights violations of the Suharto regime.

Almost every day brought more interrogation and more threats by my guards, but Mr. Mandela inspired me to be strong. I ended up spending three years in jail — including a weeklong stint on Nusakambangan, the prison island off Central Java. I thought of it as my own Robben Island, and that helped me keep my faith that I would one day be released.

Fadjroel Rachman, a political economist who was jailed during the Suharto regime, is the chairman of the Research Institute of Democracy and Welfare State in Jakarta.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07rachman.html

__________

My Hero, Page by Page

News of Nelson Mandela’s release dominated the radio broadcasts by the BBC and Voice of America on Feb. 11, 1990. I felt I understood why he had resisted so long, because in Burma, as in South Africa at the time Mr. Mandela was in jail, the majority of people were struggling to make their voices heard. Within three months, the military junta would refuse to recognize the results of our national election — and I would be locked up in Rangoon’s Insein Prison for leading a demonstration.

Released in 1993, I was sent to prison again in 1994. It was during my second sentence that I managed to read a magazine article describing Mr. Mandela’s autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom.” Single pages of this article were smuggled into the prison over a period of weeks, and I pieced them together from tightly folded scraps. But the story was worth the trouble: Mr. Mandela’s refusal to give up his principles, during more than 27 years in jail, was an inspiration to me and all the other political activists in Insein. “Nelson Mandela is the black power from South Africa, he can overcome 27 years of darkness,” went the refrain of a song that one of my fellow prisoners composed, a song we used to sing to keep up our spirits.

Mr. Mandela wrote that time drags in prison only if you are idle; if you organize, study and work, prison life can be very busy. But his situation seemed in some ways better than mine. He could study openly, whereas my friends and I could do so only clandestinely. We pleaded with the guards to allow it, but they told us we had to renounce political resistance first.

The Burmese authorities repeatedly pressured me to cooperate with them. But I held firm. In 1999, one year after my second prison term was finished, I escaped to Thailand — and right away got a copy of “Long Walk to Freedom.” “The challenge for every prisoner, particularly every political prisoner, is how to survive prison intact, how to emerge from prison undiminished, how to conserve and even replenish one’s beliefs,” Mr. Mandela wrote. “Prison is designed to break one’s spirit and destroy one’s resolve.”

For the Burmese people, the long walk toward a free society is not finished, but we are walking in the right direction, and we will arrive one day.

Ko Bo Kyi spent nearly eight years in prison in Burma before escaping to Thailand and co-founding the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07kyi.html

__________

Ray of Light

During the dictatorship of Hissène Habré in Chad, I was wrongfully accused of political activity and imprisoned. Our jail was infested with insects, and the heat was nearly unbearable. Packed in our cells, we had to take turns to sleep, often on top of the corpses of other prisoners who had died from torture, disease or malnutrition. We were forbidden to pray aloud. And every night, President Habré’s political police took away prisoners who never returned.

As we were cut off from the outside world, our only news was that brought by new prisoners. It was thus that Brahim, a man who would later die in jail, told us that Nelson Mandela had been freed and had walked out of prison a hero.

The news was a ray of light in our dark prison. If Mr. Mandela could survive 27 years, then there was hope for us too. From the depths of that madness, I took an oath before God that if I did get out alive, I would fight for justice. Although I contracted hepatitis, dengue fever and malaria, I did survive. When Mr. Habré was overthrown in December 1990 and fled to Senegal, the prison doors were flung open, and I returned, a walking skeleton, to my family.

Nelson Mandela showed us that prison can strengthen a man. After my release, I gathered the stories of 792 other Chadian prisoners and took them to Senegal. Ten years ago this week, based in part on my evidence, a judge in Senegal charged Mr. Habré with torture and crimes against humanity. Sadly the Senegalese government has not yet brought the case to trial.

Still, I wonder, on the day Mr. Habré was indicted, did he ask himself, “Who is that nobody who is coming after me — me, a man who destroyed entire tribes, entire villages?”

Souleymane Guengueng spent 27 months in a Chadian prison and now lives in New York City.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07guengueng.html

__________

 A Smile to Remember

Twenty years ago, I was in Qincheng, the most well-known of China’s political prisons, along with several hundred other students and intellectuals who had taken part in the student movement of the previous summer. On a particularly cold winter morning, I sat on my bed and picked up my copy of The People’s Daily, the government newspaper we were allowed to read, and saw that Nelson Mandela had been released from prison.

I was overwhelmed by complicated feelings. We had not known much about Mr. Mandela’s story, but the message of his release was instantly clear to me: in the pursuit of freedom, there are times when we must pay the price of losing our freedom. In faraway China, we had been imprisoned for harboring the same ideals as Mr. Mandela.

While I was happy for Mr. Mandela and all South Africans, I could not help feeling sad for the Chinese people. And yet the news gave me more confidence for the future. One tenacious person had prevailed over a system, and I thought, “If Nelson Mandela could persist for 27 years, then why can’t I?”

What struck me most about the newspaper photo of Mr. Mandela leaving prison was the smile on his face. On the day I was released from jail, in 1993, I also walked out with a smile — and held up my right arm and made a V-for-victory sign to my family waiting outside. I was walking in Mr. Mandela’s footsteps.

Wang Dan, a student leader at Peking University who helped organize the Tiananmen protest, was returned to prison from 1995 to 1998 and now teaches history at National Chengchi University in Taiwan.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07wang.html

__________
Full article and photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07intro.html

Read Full Post »

Italy’s African Heroes

WHEN I was a teenager here, kids used to shoot dogs in the head. It was a way of gaining confidence with a gun, of venting your rage on another living creature. Now it seems human beings are used for target practice.

This month, rioting by African immigrants broke out in Rosarno, in southern Italy, after at least one immigrant was shot with an air rifle. The riots were widely portrayed as clashes between immigrants and native Italians, but they were really a revolt against the ’Ndrangheta, the powerful Calabrian mafia. Anyone who seeks to negate or to minimize this motive is not familiar with these places where everything — jobs, wages, housing — is controlled by criminal organizations.

The episode in Rosarno was the second such uprising against organized crime in Italy in the last few years. The first took place in 2008 in Castel Volturno, a town near Naples, where hit men from the local mob, the Camorra, killed six Africans. The massacre was intended to intimidate, but it set off the immigrants’ anger instead.

In Castel Volturno, the immigrants work in construction. In Rosarno, they pick oranges. But in both places the mafias control all economic activity. And the only ones who’ve had the courage to rebel against them are the Africans.

An immigrant who lands in France or Britain knows he’ll have to abide by the law, but he also knows he’ll have real and tangible rights. That’s not how it is in Italy, where bureaucracy and corruption make it seem as if the only guarantees are prohibitions and mafia rule, under which rights are nonexistent. The mafias let the African immigrants live and work in their territories because they make a profit off them. The mafias exploit them, but also grant them living space in abandoned areas outside of town, and they keep the police from running too many checks or repatriating them.

The immigrants are temporarily willing to accept peanut wages, slave hours and poor living conditions. They’ve already handed over all they owned, risked all they had, just to get to Italy. But they came to make a better life for themselves — and they’re not about to let anyone take the possibility of that life away.

There are native Italians who reject mafia rule as well, but they have the means and the freedom to leave places like Rosarno, becoming migrants themselves. The Africans can’t. They have to stand up to the clans. They know they have to act collectively, for it’s their only way of protecting themselves. Otherwise they end up getting killed, which happens sometimes even to the European immigrant workers.

It’s a mistake to view the Rosarno rioters as criminals. The Rosarno riots were not about attacking the law, but about gaining access to the law.

There are African criminals of course, African mafiosi, who do business with the Italian mafias. An increasing amount of the cocaine that arrives here from South America comes via West Africa. African criminal organizations are amassing enormous power, but the poor African workers in Italy are not their men.

The Italian state should condemn the violence of the riots, but if it treats the immigrants as criminals, it will drive them to the mafias. After the Rosarno riots, the government moved more than a thousand immigrants to detention centers, allegedly for their own safety, and destroyed the rudimentary camp where many of them had lived. This is the kind of reaction that will encourage those immigrants to see the African criminal organizations as necessary protection.

For now, the majority resist; they came to Italy to better themselves, not to be mobsters. But if the Africans in Rosarno had been organized at a criminal level, they would have had a way to negotiate with the Calabrian Mafia. They would have been able to obtain better working and living conditions. They wouldn’t have had to riot.

Italy is a country that’s forgotten how its emigrants were treated in the United States, how the discrimination they suffered was precisely what allowed the Mafia to take root there. It was extremely difficult for many Italian immigrants, who did not feel protected or represented by anyone else, to avoid the clutches of the mob. It’s enough to remember Joe Petrosino, the Italian-born New York City police officer who was murdered in 1909 for taking on the Mafia, to recognize the price honest Italians paid.

Immigrants come to Italy to do jobs Italians don’t want to do, but they have also begun defending the rights that Italians are too afraid, indifferent or jaded to defend. To those African immigrants I say: don’t go — don’t leave us alone with the mafias.

Roberto Saviano is the author of “Gomorrah: A Personal Journey Into the Violent International Empire of Naples’ Organized Crime System.” This essay was translated by Virginia Jewiss from the Italian.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25saviano.html

Read Full Post »

The Iranian Exile’s Eye

One day last June, on the quiet Tehran street where I lived, I noticed a man in a white Peugeot across the street looking at me, straight in the eye, as I started to drive out of my garage. “There she is,” he said, and he rushed to start his own car.

I pulled onto the street and looked in the mirror. Behind me was a gray car, already tailing me. Next to it rode two disheveled men on a motorcycle.

So, I said to myself. I’m under surveillance. They’ve sent a whole team.

I drove around the block and returned home. I called a lawyer. My driver went to his office and fetched me papers to sign, so the lawyer could represent me if I was arrested.

But I took no chances. I stayed inside my apartment building for three days. Then I went straight to the airport.

It was time to leave Iran.

I am an Iranian, a journalist now living in exile like hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others. We were driven out after the June elections that were widely considered fraudulent, and the protests and repression that followed. Our offense was that we covered them too thoroughly.

A daughter of a modern, middle-class family, I was raised to be ambitious and independent. I grew up in Tehran, and studied English translation at the university there. I worked as a stringer for Western media, then studied political science at the University of Toronto from 1999 to 2001, and returned home to report from Tehran for The New York Times.

During periods of turmoil, I learned to lie low and report what I could, through a screen of warnings that some things — demonstrators’ slogans, even executions that had been announced domestically — were too sensitive to be reported outside Iran. But I thought the Iranian government was learning to tolerate us.

All of that changed last June.

Faced with furious street protests by an inconsolable political opposition, the government went to extraordinary lengths to suppress any news about the aftermath of the election. Taking pictures of protests became a crime; reporters working for foreign news media outlets were banned from leaving their offices. Many friends and almost all of my sources were thrown in jail.

One day, the phone rang and a sympathetic hard-line source warned me I would be shot by snipers if I was seen on the streets. Still, I kept going out to report. Only after the surveillance team arrived, about 10 days later, did I and my family decide to leave.

And yet, when we boarded the plane, two emotions were pulling me apart. I was relieved at my narrow escape. But a large piece of me longed to stay. Tehran’s familiar maple-shaded streets were now convulsed in some of the largest and bloodiest protests since the 1979 revolution; I wanted to tell the story, to continue being part of Iran’s fate. I was desolate at the thought of being cast out, with my friends dispersed, my contacts unreachable.

More than anything, I feared falling into what Iranian journalists call “the exile syndrome” — my understanding of Iran would be frozen in the moment of leaving, and I’d be unable to keep up with events on the ground. No doubt the government expected the same for me and others.

As things worked out, we could not have been more wrong. Protest was not about to die in Iran. Neither was news about it, nor our part in telling the story. Three things have made all the difference: the global reach of the Internet; the networking skills of exiled journalists and our sources; and the resourcefulness of Iran’s dissidents in sending information and images out.

When I reached Toronto (I had acquired dual citizenship there while a student), I did feel alone and overwhelmed at first. I realized, for the first time, the toll that the stresses of working in Tehran had been taking on me. I felt a bit like an abused child who had not dared speak about the abuse while it was occurring.

In my mind, I went over the times when sources who had been released from prison told me that interrogators had shown them pictures of people outside my home — a signal of how closely my life was being monitored. It had made me fear anything odd happening in public, like the time a sloppily dressed man on a scooter cut me off, flashing a pistol and handcuffs under the back of his shirt as I drove near my home. He dismounted to yell at me. I locked myself in the car. Then he disappeared. After that, I never again took my two toddlers to a public park in Tehran, fearing they would learn too much about the dangers their mother faced.

Soon after reaching Toronto, I went to New York to cover a hunger strike in support of the Iranian opposition. I was stunned to see more than a dozen former sources of mine — onetime members of Parliament, activists and bloggers — who had gone into exile a few years before. Some were so well informed that they seemed to have just come from a meeting in Tehran.

For me, that was like a new dawn: rather than being cut off, I had made contact with another Iran — a virtual one on the Internet, linking reformers abroad to bloggers and demonstrators still inside the country, and to reporters and sources outside. In fact, by following blogs and the cellphone videos seeping out of Iran, in some ways I could report more productively than when I had to fear and outwit the government.

For example, my contacts helped me find and interview a young man who had left Iran after being in prison, where he said a guard had raped him. That interview could not have happened in Iran. Last month, I could freely translate the harsh slogans that protestors hurled about the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. There were palpably genuine videos on YouTube from places I recognized, with crowds chanting slogans I knew — or new ones. The slogans were now in fact fiercer, the leaders of the movement less timid, and at least some of the demonstrators clearly angrier.

So I could report, free of government edicts, that the protests were entering a new phase, even as I remembered a cardinal self-imposed rule for any reporting from Iran: There is no way to predict where any movement might be heading, or when it might be stopped.

There is an irony in all this; the years of authoritarian control had educated much of Iran in the need for circumventing restrictions on the Internet, and now I was seeing and hearing the results on my computer and television.

Last month, during and after the funeral of the reformist Grand Ayatollah Hossain Ali Montazeri, one of the demonstrators’ most useful tools was the Bluetooth short-range radio signal that Americans use mainly to link a cellphone to an earpiece, or a printer to a laptop. Long ago, Iranian dissidents discovered that Bluetooth can as easily link cellphones to each other in a crowd.

And that made “Bluetooth” a verb in Iran: a way to turn citizen reportage instantly viral. A protester Bluetooths a video clip to others nearby, and they do the same. Suddenly, if the authorities want to keep the image from escaping the scene, they must confiscate hundreds or thousands of phones and cameras.

The authorities have tried to fight back against such techniques and the Internet itself, but have fallen short. In November they announced that a new police unit, the “cyber-army,” would sweep the Web of dissent. It blocked Twitter feeds for a few hours in December, and an opposition Web site. But other blogs and Web sites mushroomed faster than the government could keep up.

Perhaps the first leader to use the Internet against Iran’s rulers was Ayatollah Montazeri himself, a revolutionary in 1979 who turned critical of the government and was dismissed as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s heir in 1988. In 2000, while under house arrest, he posted on the Internet a banned 600-page memoir revealing that while in power, he had opposed the execution of some 3,000 political detainees.

That changed his public image from an architect of Iran’s theocracy to a human-rights champion, one reason that hundreds of thousands turned out for his funeral on Dec. 21 despite government restrictions, making it a flashpoint between the protesters and the government.

Five days after the funeral, images of members of the pro-government Basij militia disrupting a speech by former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist, were posted on the Internet. At the same time, from Canada, I could speak over the phone to people marching to northern Tehran in support of Mr. Khatami. I heard gunshots in the background and, the next day, I spoke to a doctor at a hospital where protesters who had been shot were being treated.

On Dec. 30, the government staged a demonstration to counter those by the opposition. Ayatollah Ahmad Alam Olhoda condemned the reformist protesters as “followers of the path of Satan” and praised the pro-government demonstrators as “followers of the path of God.”

But that exhortation did not stand on its own in my mind. Against it played a video captured three days earlier, on Dec. 27 on Karim-khan Street, in a middle-class area of Tehran that I knew well. The video showed a man shooting blindly into the crowd; I could hear protestors identify him as a member of the Basij.

Then came a cry: “Hamleh!” — “Attack!” And dozens of men and women rushed menacingly toward the armed man, in an amazing turnaround. It seemed, to this reporter, safe to conclude that fear had evaporated among many of those who joined the opposition that day.

It is not clear what happened next, but the government has confirmed the deaths of at least eight protesters in Tehran on Dec. 27. The opposition claims the toll is higher. And, as I write, its voice is still being reported.

Nazili Fatha, New York Times

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/weekinreview/17fathi.html

Read Full Post »

Flowers for a funeral

Google and China

Censorship and hacker attacks provide the epitaph for Google in China

“WE’RE in this for the long haul,” wrote a Google executive four years ago when the company launched a self-censored version of its search engine for the China market. Now Google says it might have to pull out of the country because of alleged attacks by hackers in China on its e-mail service and a tightening of China’s restrictions on free speech on the internet. Its change of heart, as the company rightly points out, could have “far-reaching consequences”.

Google’s “new approach to China”, as the company’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, called it on January 12th on the company’s official blog, will certainly infuriate China’s government. The authorities are sensitive to foreign complaints about internet controls in China. In November, during a visit by President Barack Obama, his obliquely worded criticism of Chinese online censorship was itself censored from official reports. If it does close down in China, Google would be the first big-brand foreign company to do so citing freedom of speech in many years.

Mr Drummond’s blog-posting also contained unusually direct finger-pointing by a foreign multinational at China as a source of hacker attacks. It said that in mid-December Google detected a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” on its corporate computer systems “originating from China”. It found that at least 20 other large companies from various industries had also been attacked. A primary goal, of the hacking of Google, it said, appeared to be to gain access to the e-mail of Chinese human-rights activists who use Google’s “Gmail” service. The hackers succeeded in partially penetrating two such accounts.

“Third parties” had also, wrote Mr Drummond, “routinely” gained access to the Gmail accounts of dozens of other human-rights advocates in America, Europe and China itself. Unlike the mid-December attack, these breaches appeared to involve “phishing” scams or “malware” on users’ computers rather than direct attacks on Google’s systems. All this, he said, along with attempts over the past year to impose further limits on free speech on the web, had led Google to “review the feasibility” of its Chinese business.

The company has decided to stop censoring the results of its China-based search engine, Google.cn. Mr Drummond said this might result in having to shut down Google.cn and Google’s offices in China. In the face of much criticism from Western human-rights advocates, Google justified its decision to set up Google.cn in 2006 by pointing out that China often blocked its uncensored engine, Google.com. Better to offer a censored service (with warnings to users that results were filtered), the company argued, than nothing at all. China would certainly not allow an uncensored search engine to be based on its territory.

Google’s decision at the time was presumably driven in part by the lure of China’s rapidly expanding internet market. In part because of intermittent blocking of Google.com, and the slowness of access to the company’s foreign-based servers, Baidu, a Beijing-based company listed on America’s NASDAQ exchange, dwarfed Google’s share of the search-engine business in China. The launch of Google.cn did little to dent Baidu’s domination.

Nor has Google’s acquiescence in self-censorship of its searches made China any less wary of its other, uncensored, services. Google’s video-sharing site, YouTube, has been blocked since March, because of footage of Chinese police beating Tibetan monks. Its photo-album site, Picasa Web Albums, suffered the same fate soon after. Access to Google’s blog service, Blogger, has long been intermittent. It is currently unavailable in Beijing.

Google’s frustrations are widely shared. In the build-up to the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, China lifted longstanding blocks on several websites, as it tried to present a more open image to foreign visitors. Since then, controls have been stepped up to unprecedented levels. Internet access in the western region of Xinjiang has been all but cut off since ethnic riots erupted there in July.

The unrest also prompted a shutdown of foreign social-networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The role of such sites in protests in Iran, after its stolen elections in June, had already alarmed the government. Its fear of dissent around the 60th anniversary in October of the founding of communist China prompted even greater vigilance against sensitive debate online. But there has been no sign of relaxation since then. In recent weeks the authorities have tightened restrictions on the registration of websites under the .cn domain name (only businesses may apply). A crackdown on internet pornography has led to closer scrutiny by internet service providers of non-porn websites.

In December Yeeyan, a site with translations of articles from foreign newspapers including the Guardian and the New York Times, was closed for several days. It was allowed to reopen after putting tighter controls in place on the publication of politically sensitive pieces. Ecocn, a site offering translations of articles from this newspaper, was also briefly shut down as officials trawled for pornography, but resurfaced unscathed. The volunteers who run this informal operation make translations of sensitive articles available only to users they trust.

The anti-porn drive turned up the heat on Google too. Last year Google.cn was among several search engines in China accused by the authorities of providing links to pornographic sites. The state-controlled press gave particular prominence to Google’s alleged transgressions, which the company promised to investigate. The Chinese media have also published frequent criticisms in recent months of Google’s alleged violations of Chinese copyrights in its Google Books venture.

In Silicon Valley, its home, Google’s change of tack in China was widely applauded. But some were asking whether it was “more about business than thwarting evil” to quote TechCrunch, a widely read website. Besides pointing to Google’s failure to eat into Baidu’s market share, cynics noted that, whereas, according to Mr Drummond, Google’s revenues in China are “truly immaterial”, its costs are not. It employs about 700 people in China, some of them royally paid engineers, who may now may have to look for other jobs. Hacker attacks and censorship, critics say, are convenient excuses for something Google wanted to do anyway, without appearing to be retreating commercially. Google strongly rejects this interpretation.

In China, however, the government is clearly fearful that the company’s public stand against censorship will be celebrated by many Chinese internet-users. Chinese news accounts of the company’s decision failed to mention the reason for Google’s actions. Chinese web portals buried the story. Many internet-users in China have become adept at finding ways of circumventing China’s blocks on overseas websites, including the installation of “virtual private network” software. Numerous tributes to Google that rapidly appeared on Chinese internet discussion forums, and flowers laid outside Google’s office in Beijing, showed that the attempts at censorship had failed. Few, however, believe the company’s announcement will dissuade China from keeping on trying.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15267915&source=most_commented

Read Full Post »

No more censored searches to please the Chinese government.

One night in the mid-1990s when I was working as a journalist in Beijing, I went out to dinner with some Chinese friends. I had just finished reading a book called “The File” by the British historian Timothy Garton Ash. It’s about what happened in East Berlin after the Berlin Wall came down and everybody could see the files the Stasi had been keeping all those years. People discovered who had been ratting on whom—in some cases neighbors and co-workers, but also lovers, spouses and even children. After I described the book to my Chinese dinner companions—a hip and artsy intellectual crowd—one friend declared: “Some day the same thing will happen in China, then I’ll know who my real friends are.”

The table went silent.

China today is very different from Soviet-era Eastern Europe. It’s unlikely that its current political system—or its system for blocking foreign Web sites known widely as the “great firewall”—will crumble like the Berlin Wall any time soon. Both are supported and enabled by the current geopolitical, commercial and investment climate in ways that Soviet-era Eastern Europe and the Iron Curtain never were.

I do believe, however, that in my lifetime the Chinese people may learn more about some of the conversations that have taken place over the past decade between Internet company executives and Chinese authorities. When that happens, they will know who sold them out and who was most eager to help the Chinese Communist Party in building a blinkered cocoon of disinformation around their lives—and in some cases deaths.

This censored environment makes it easier for the Chinese government to lie to its people, steal from them, turn a blind eye when they are poisoned with tainted foodstuffs, and cover up their children’s deaths due to substandard building codes. It is a constant struggle, and sometimes literally a crime, for people to share information about such matters or to use the Internet to mobilize against corruption and malfeasance.

That is the information environment that China’s business elites, many of whom have gotten rich running Internet and telecommunications companies, are responsible for helping to build and maintain. For now they are national heroes, having made great (and lucrative) efforts on behalf of China’s economic growth and global competitiveness, making China a force to be reckoned with on the global stage. But if history takes some unexpected turns—and that’s the one thing you can count on Chinese history doing—it won’t always be on their side.

By announcing it will no longer censor its Chinese search engine and will reconsider its presence in China, Google has taken a bold step onto the right side of history.

Four years ago when Google entered the Chinese market and launched Google.cn, Chinese bloggers called it the “neutered Google.” At the time, Google executives said the decision to bow to the Chinese government’s censorship demands had been made after heated internal debates. They said they had weighed the positives and negatives and concluded Chinese Internet users were better off with the neutered Google than with no Google. They drew a red line under search and said they would not bring any other Google products containing users’ personal information—including email and blogging—into China. They held to that line.

Over the past four years I tested Google.cn from time to time and compared its search results with the Chinese market leader, Baidu. I found that Google.cn tended to censor search results somewhat less than Baidu. This supported Google’s argument that it at least gave Chinese Internet users more information than the domestic alternatives.

Google executives also pointed out that a notice appeared at the bottom of every page of censored results on Google.cn, informing users that some information was being hidden from them at the behest of Chinese authorities. In this way, the logic went, they were at least being honest with the Chinese public about the fact that Google was helping their government put blinkers on them.

The company’s effort to walk a fine line between Chinese regulators and free speech critics ended up being unsustainable. Anticensorship activists still viewed its compromise as contributing to the spread of censorship around the world. On the other hand, the compromise was also unacceptable to Chinese authorities, who were unhappy that Google wasn’t censoring as heavily as Baidu. Last year Google came under a series of attacks in the state-run media for failing to censor porn adequately when users—horror of horrors—typed smutty phrases into the search box.

As Google considers exactly what it will do next now that it has refused to censor, some Chinese users are expressing support and sending flowers, others are upset, and others are thumbing their noses, good riddance. Competitors are gloating. Google is in for a rough few months ahead. In the longer run, history will reveal to the Chinese people who their real friends have been.

Ms. MacKinnon is a fellow with the Open Society Institute. She is writing a book about China and the Internet

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000442815795122.html

Read Full Post »

Democracy’s Wane

The world is in a ‘freedom recession.’

After the West won the Cold War, democracy flourished in the world as never before. No more. The tide of political and human freedom hasn’t merely slowed but in recent years has turned in the other direction. Seeing that the U.S. midwifed the post-1989 world, these trends are of more than passing interest.

Democracy’s troubles are summed up in “Freedom in the World 2010,” the yearly report card published today by Freedom House. We’re in a “freedom recession,” the advocacy group says. For the fourth consecutive year, more countries saw declines in political and civic rights than advances, the longest such period of deterioration in the 40 year history of this widely cited report.

Start with the “axis of engagement” states that President Obama sought to butter up diplomatically in his first year in office. The authoritarian regimes in Russia, Venezuela, Iran and China all became more repressive in 2009, according to Freedom House measures. America’s attempts to play nice didn’t make the other side any nicer.

Military coups rocked four African states. Central Asia’s one democratic hope, Kyrgyzstan, was demoted this year from the “partly free” to “not free” category.

The Mideast remains the world’s least fertile soil for democracy. Only one nation—Israel—qualifies as “free.” Most of its Arab neighbors went further down the path of repression. There were declines even in Jordan and Morocco, whose moderate kings moved in the past year to concentrate political power.

Iraq and Lebanon are notable exceptions. Along with Turkey, both can lay a claim to being Muslim democracies. Both, not incidentally, were beneficiaries of George W. Bush’s “democracy agenda” in the mid-2000s.

The picture isn’t all gloomy. Eighty-nine countries—which represent nearly half the world’s population—are “free,” according to the Freedom House measures, and 116 are electoral democracies. Twenty years ago, only 61 and 76 fit those respective categories. Never before have as many people lived without tyranny.

The recent reversals coincide, however, with America’s own waning interest in democracy promotion. This didn’t start with the Obama ascendancy. Chastened by the 2006 midterm election debacle and sinking public support for his Mideast policies, President Bush took rhetorical and practical emphasis off his own flagship foreign-policy agenda.

The current Administration has changed the focus entirely. In its dealings with Russia and China, strategic issues trump any talk of democracy or human rights, which earlier this year in Beijing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton notably called a distraction to bilateral relations. Ditto in Iran.

If in the days of Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, we worked to fashion the world into a better place guided by the belief that the urge to live in freedom is universal, today we act as if we are resigned to taking the world as it is. We used to nudge countries toward liberal democracy. Now we assume the price of nudging is too high.

Meanwhile, the enemies of democracy have set out to undo the gains of the post-Berlin Wall era, and many are succeeding.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104574652450396097132.html

Read Full Post »

Don’t mess with us

Harsh justice in China

No forgiveness; no quarter. Happy Christmas from China

A SEASON of good cheer in much of the world, late December saw a typically harsh apportionment of justice by China’s legal system, and a typically rigid display of governmental indifference to foreign opinion. On Christmas Day a Beijing court sentenced Liu Xiaobo, a veteran human-rights activist, to 11 years in prison for “inciting subversion of state power”. China swatted away all criticism about this as groundless meddling in its internal affairs.

In a separate case that was not entirely an internal affair, China’s reaction was not much different. On December 21st Akmal Shaikh, a 53-year-old Briton charged with smuggling drugs, had his death sentence upheld by China’s Supreme People’s Court. Rejecting pleas for clemency from Mr Shaikh’s family, international human-rights groups, and the British government, Chinese authorities executed him by lethal injection on December 29th in the north-western region of Xinjiang, where he was first arrested in late 2007 after carrying roughly 4kg of heroin into the country.

Family members claimed Mr Shaikh suffered from bipolar disorder, and was the victim of manipulation by the drugs traffickers who, they claimed, tricked him into carrying the contraband. British officials announced news of the execution before China did. Hours after it took place China’s foreign-ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said it would brook no outside interference in the workings of its legal system, and expressed “strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition” to Britain’s complaints. The prime minister, Gordon Brown had said he was “appalled” and condemned the execution “in the strongest terms”. Ms Jiang said Mr Shaikh’s case was handled appropriately and all his legal rights had been honoured at trial. A day after the execution, Chinese newspapers were full of angry commentary over Britain’s attempt to intervene. Many drew comparisons to the Opium War.

Although it ended in the first known execution of a European in China since the 1950s, Mr Shaikh’s case was otherwise not unusual. According to available (and incomplete) statistics, China executed 1,700 convicts in 2008, or nearly five each day.

Neither was the harsh treatment meted out to Mr Liu unusual by Chinese standards. Criticism of the government, though always risky, is sometimes tolerated. Attempts to organise criticism, however, as Mr Liu had by helping draft a petition calling for political freedoms, are routinely met with a firm thumping. Jailed twice before for his political activities Mr Liu knew this as well as anyone. He had said he was ready to face prison again.

The document he helped write in December 2008 was called Charter 08. It soon attracted more than 300 other Chinese signatures. Its publication marked the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the year since its release, thousands more have signed it.

Charter 08 calls for sweeping changes in China’s political order, including an end to limits on free expression, political activity and religious practice. It proposes drastic reforms that would dismantle one-party rule, allow public supervision of government officials, and free the army and judiciary from Communist Party control.

Mr Liu was detained just before the release of the manifesto and held for six months before charges were lodged. His sentencing came two days after a trial lasting less than three hours. The 11-year term exceeds any other known sentence for the vague crime of “inciting subversion”. Within days of the sentencing, Chinese media published a speech by a senior security official who warned of threats to China’s social stability from “hostile forces stirring up chaos” and called for “pre-emptive attacks” against them. “In the new year, there will be no relaxation of stability preservation, and no lightening of pressure on stability,” said Yang Huanning, a deputy minister of public security.

Mr Liu won supporters on the internet, a central theatre these days in the struggle for civil liberties. The authorities are moving to tighten their control there. Besides stepping up monitoring and blocking “unsuitable” web traffic, regulators have put new restrictions on the registration and operation of websites by individuals.

The founder of a web-hosting service in Beijing says that internet servers have been unceremoniously unplugged under new rules and new standards of enforcement. “For nine years I have run a successful and legal business, and now I have suddenly been told that what I do makes me a criminal.” Worried that his company may not survive, and angry about the arbitrary changes, he will not, however, circulate a protest petition—not if he is wise, that is.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15187020&source=features_box_main

Read Full Post »

The cry going up in China: Where is the president of the United States?

Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”

The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”

In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?

Gerald Ford came to regret not meeting Solzhenitsyn.

For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions: e.g., squeezing in a condemnation of Iran before a round of golf. With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?

As Yogi Berra put it, it’s déjà vu all over again. In his eagerness to downplay freedom in his foreign policy, Mr. Obama resembles no president so much as Gerald Ford. Barely a year into office, President Ford also made a symbolic choice for realism over rights.

The year was 1975. For its dinner in Washington, the AFL-CIO had invited Alexander Solzhenitsyn, a Nobel Prize winner exiled from his Russian homeland a year earlier, after publication of the first volume of his “Gulag Archipelago.”

Republican senators tried to arrange for a meeting with Ford. Acting on the advice of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Ford nixed it.

The pragmatists thought that having the president get together with Solzhenitsyn would sour efforts for détente in a forthcoming meeting with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. As usual the pragmatists were highly impractical. The refusal to meet Solzhenitsyn made Ford look weak. In many ways, the moment would forever define his foreign policy.

One of the leading critics of President Ford’s decision was Ronald Reagan. In his own time as president, Reagan met with dissidents. He quoted Solzhenitsyn often. And when he so famously upset the establishment by referring to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” Reagan no doubt recalled that night in 1975 at the AFL-CIO dinner—when Solzhenitsyn had referred to the Soviet Union as “the concentration of world evil.”

Reagan set a tone that hit the Soviets in their most vulnerable spot: their lack of moral legitimacy. In retrospect, we can more easily see that Reagan’s willingness to give voice to freedom-loving dissidents only increased his leverage as president as he dealt with the Soviets and their allies.

George W. Bush also made it a point to meet with dissidents and signal which side America was on. He met with a defector who spent 10 years in the North Korean gulag. He met with persecuted Chinese Christians, marked the 20th anniversary of a famous pro-democracy uprising in Burma by meeting with Burmese dissidents in Thailand, and awarded the Medal of Freedom to a jailed Cuban political prisoner. In 2007, he even spoke to a whole conference of dissidents in Prague organized by another alumnus of the Soviet prison system: Natan Sharansky.

Now it’s not easy for a president to meet with dissidents. When you do, some won’t think you are strong enough. And even Ronald Reagan was criticized in 1986 for not meeting with Yelena Bonner, wife of jailed Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov.

More important are the internal pressures—some key trade deal, some delicate negotiation, some huge foreign policy concession your staff has been working on forever. Yet precisely because all the momentum is in the direction of accommodation, it’s important for a president to remember the one argument to the contrary. By meeting with some brave soul whom others want silenced, he sends a signal that cuts through the fog, compels respect from his enemies, and will be remembered long after the concerns of the day are forgotten.

Barack Obama has spent his first year as president determined to prove to the world he is not George W. Bush. He has succeeded. Let’s hope that in so doing he has not sent the message that he is the new Gerald Ford.

William McGurn, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624551416209452.html

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court tries to ensure rights of transvestites

Hijras are both feared and pitied in Pakistan

Pakistan’s Supreme Court ordered authorities on Wednesday to allow transvestites and eunuchs to identify themselves as a distinct gender as part of a move to ensure their rights, a lawyer said.

Known by the term “hijra” in conservative Muslim Pakistan, transvestites, eunuchs and hermaphrodites are generally shunned by society.

They often live together in slum communities and survive by begging and dancing at carnivals and weddings. Some are also involved in prostitution.

Iftikhar Chaudhry, chief justice of Pakistan, ordered the government to give national identity cards to members of the community showing their distinct gender and to take steps to ensure that they were not harassed.

“The government’s registration authority has been directed to include a separate column in national identity cards showing them as hijras,” Mohammad Aslam Khaki, a lawyer for hijras told Reuters.

“By doing so, they think they will get a distinct identity and it will help them get their rights.”

A hijra association welcomed Chaudhry’s order, saying it would ease their suffering.

“It’s the first time in the 62-year history of Pakistan that such steps are being taken for our welfare,” the association’s president, who goes by the name Almas Bobby, told Reuters.

“It’s a major step towards giving us respect and identity in society. We are slowly getting respect in society. Now people recognize that we are also human beings.”

Khaki said the court also ordered the government to evolve a mechanism to ensure that hijras are not harassed and also take steps to ensure their inheritance rights.

Hijras are often denied places in schools or admittance to hospitals and landlords often refuse to rent or sell property to them. Their families often deny them their fair share of inherited property.

Hijras are both feared and pitied in Pakistan. They are feared for their supposed ability to put curses on people while they are pitied as they are widely viewed as the outcast children of Allah.

The number of hijras in Pakistan is not known but community leaders estimate there are about 300,000 of them.

In June, the Supreme Court ordered the government to set up a commission to conduct a census of hijras.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/12/23/95066.html

Read Full Post »

Combating Prisoner Abuse

When Mississippi inmates sued their prison, charging that they had been sodomized by a staff member, the claim was thrown out. Under a harsh federal law, inmates must show that they suffered a “physical injury” to prevail in a suit challenging cruel prison conditions. A federal district court ruled in 2006 that the alleged sexual assault did not constitute physical injury.

Congress included the physical injury requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which it passed in 1996 to deter inmates from bringing frivolous lawsuits. What the law has done instead is insulate prisons from a large number of very worthy lawsuits, and allow abusive and cruel mistreatment of inmates to go unpunished.

Legislation introduced by Representative Robert Scott, Democrat of Virginia, would undo the worst parts of that law. Most important, his legislation, the Prison Abuse Remedies Act, would remove the physical injury requirement. Prisons across the country have used this requirement to dismiss suits challenging all kinds of outrageous treatment: strip-searching of female prisoners by male guards; revealing to other inmates that a prisoner was H.I.V.-positive; forcing an inmate to stand naked for 10 hours.

Mr. Scott’s bill would allow prisoners to prevail under the same conditions as plaintiffs in other kinds of civil rights cases. It would also make important changes in the 1996 law’s “exhaustion” requirement, which forces inmates to bring their complaints to the prison’s own grievance system before they can sue. A carefully drawn exhaustion requirement could help resolve problems locally, and avoid unnecessary litigation. But the one in the current law lets prisons put up procedural hurdles that make it difficult or impossible for prisoners to navigate the bureaucracy and get their complaints heard in court.

Juvenile inmates are not a significant source of frivolous lawsuits, but they are at increased risk of abuse in prison, especially sexual abuse. The current House bill would remove all of the 1996 law’s restrictions for suits brought by inmates under the age of 18.

There are many problems with American prisons, including crowding, inadequate medical treatment and little opportunity for rehabilitation. Mr. Scott’s bill addresses one that is less well-known, but no less real. The House should pass it, and the Senate should get to work on its own version.

Editorial, New York Times

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21mon3.html

Read Full Post »

The Long Arm of China

Why were members of China’s Uighur minority group recently deported from Cambodia?

On Saturday night under cover of darkness, a special Chinese plane departed from the military section of the Phnom Penh airport carrying 20 Uighur asylum seekers. For this group of men, women and children, this was the end of their failed effort to seek freedom from the Chinese regime.

Cambodia’s decision to deport the asylum seekers, who were in the process of applying for refugee status at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is a reminder that Beijing’s oppression of the Uighurs does not stop at China’s borders. The Uighurs are a predominantly Turkic, Muslim people who live in East Turkestan (also knows as the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region). For decades they have been the victims of systemic human-rights abuses at the hands of the Chinese government.

Fearing further persecution, these 20 Uighurs had fled to Cambodia in November with the assistance of Christian aid groups. The Cambodian Foreign Affairs Ministry initially declared it would cooperate with the UNHCR regarding the asylum interview process, but, in an about-face with tragic consequences, two days later issued a proclamation of “illegal entry” by the 20 Uighurs. UNHCR officials had yet to finish reviewing their cases when the Uighurs were handcuffed and forcefully taken from UNHCR protection by Cambodian authorities. China’s track record of mistreating repatriated Uighur refugees leads us to fear that they can expect even worse on Chinese soil.

A riot policeman holds back a crowd in Urumqi during protests on July 7, 2009.

There’s little hope these deportees will receive fair trial: Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesmen have already declared them to be criminals without offering any evidence to back up their claims (and despite the fact two of the Uighurs are children). China’s insistence on the guilt of these Uighurs in the absence of proof is consistent with its treatment of other Uighurs detained after the July unrest in Urumchi, whom Chinese officials declared to be criminals prior to the start of any criminal trials.

Beijing leaned hard on Phnom Penh to secure the deportation of these Uighurs, because once free they would no doubt contradict the official version of the events of July 5, when security forces cracked down violently on Uighur protestors and unrest spread through the city of Urumqi. The government has portrayed the unrest solely as a criminal act carried out by a small group of violent Uighurs, ignoring the security forces’ killings of Uighur protestors, the mass arbitrary detentions of Uighurs and the systemic human-rights issues that led Uighurs to engage in a peaceful protest on the afternoon of July 5. At least two of the recently deported Uighurs reported having witnessed security forces beating and killing Uighur protestors on July 5.

The Cambodian government must be held accountable for its act of complicity with the Chinese government. Cambodia is a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, but turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the U.S. and other democratic countries on behalf of these Uighur asylum seekers. Phnom Penh’s decision was no doubt influenced by enormous Chinese pressure, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and a reported $1 billion in foreign direct investment. Prime Minister Hun Sen has labeled China as Cambodia’s “most trustworthy friend,” and Cambodian officials were loathe to disappoint Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping on the eve of his Dec. 20 visit to Phnom Penh.

The deportation of the Uighurs in Cambodia is a sign of China’s increasing ability to resist international pressure regarding its human-rights violations. As China’s economic influence grows throughout Asia and the world, so too does its diplomatic clout. Economies in Central, South and Southeast Asia are increasingly dependent on cooperation with China, as the Chinese market seeks to feed its ravenous need for the natural resources available in these nations. Governments of countries neighboring China are reluctant to take any action that would displease Chinese authorities, leaving Uighurs nowhere to flee.

The United States and other nations committed to the preservation of human rights must call upon China to provide the 20 repatriated Uighurs with due process of law and must continue to express concern about their situation despite China’s protestations over what it terms “interference in its domestic affairs.” During my time in a Chinese prison, my jailers often told me the world did not care about me or the Uighurs’ struggle for freedom, but my treatment did improve when officials from the U.S. and other democratic countries campaigned for my release. If there is to be any hope for the safety and well-being of these Uighur asylum seekers, it is vital that world powers continue to press China regarding their welfare.

Ms. Kadeer is the president of the World Uighur Congress and the Uighur American Association.

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704376704574607001504303582.html

Read Full Post »

In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Thursday, President Obama talked about the quiet dignity of human rights reformers such as Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi, the bravery of Zimbabwean voters who “cast their ballots in the face of beatings” and the need to bear witness to “the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran.” Earlier in the week, thousands of Iranians did just that, gathering at university campuses in the most substantial demonstrations in the country since the summer, when hundreds of thousands protested Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed presidential election.

But back in June, even as much of the world cheered the Iranian protesters, Obama seemed reluctant to weigh in. “It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling,” he said at the time. The White House may have feared that public support from Obama would allow the regime to paint the demonstrators as American stooges or might undermine U.S. efforts on Tehran’s nuclear program. Such fears seemed to paralyze the administration.

The irony of Obama’s Nobel Prize is not that he accepted it while waging two wars. After all, as Obama said in Oslo: “One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek.” The stranger thing is that, from China to Sudan, from Burma to Iran, a president lauded for his commitment to peace has dialed down a U.S. commitment to human rights, one that persisted through both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back at least to Jimmy Carter. And so far, he has little to show for it.

The reasons for this shift are complicated. After a number of conversations with current Obama advisers and former White House officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, I’ve concluded that the president’s reasons for demoting human rights may have been well intentioned — even if the strategy isn’t working out as he planned.

For one thing, Obama clearly wants to distinguish himself from George W. Bush, who badly tainted the human rights agenda by linking it to the war in Iraq and by adopting an overly moralistic, evangelical tone about democracy. According to administration officials, this desire may have led Obama, early on, to be reticent about forcefully advocating democracy abroad, even as he boosted funding for democracy-promotion programs. But they believe the administration has reversed course, and they say the president is now talking more aggressively about democracy and human rights.

Some officials believe negotiating about human rights behind the scenes works better than bullying in public, since it permits nasty regimes to save face while, at least theoretically, allowing them to quietly make concessions. And some of the administration’s top human rights advocates came into office focused, not unnecessarily, on cleaning up America’s own abuses, from Guantanamo Bay to our rendition program — believing that human rights advocacy starts with setting a better example at home.

In other cases, Obama seems to have decided that winning support on challenges such as nuclear proliferation and climate change means treading quietly around human rights. With China, the president may also be hesitant to risk alienating our $800 billion banker. Finally, the president seems to believe that, no matter how brutal a government he is dealing with, he can find common cause.

Yet there is little evidence that his strategy will succeed. Obama may have toned down U.S. rhetoric, but who’s to say whether this will propel Iran and North Korea to halt their nuclear programs, or whether China will prove to be an effective partner on climate change. “The harder-to-fathom thing for me is why they think that cutting off support — rhetorical or material — to democrats and dissidents in repressive societies will gain the U.S. anything on the other agendas,” said Tom Melia, deputy executive director of Freedom House, a global democracy watchdog.

On occasion, the administration has diminished the focus on democracy at some basic institutional levels. Though the Bush administration established a deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy, Obama’s National Security Council structure has explicitly downgraded the role of democracy specialists. And some parts of the government seem to be backing away from even the word “democracy.” “The USAID Mission in Amman called in all its implementers (grantees and contractors alike) to announce, among other things, that the Democracy and Governance portfolio (and the titles of people in the Mission) would no longer be ‘democracy & governance,’ ” Melia wrote in an e-mail. The United States Agency for International Development did not respond to a request for a comment.

These subtle signals have emerged even from the highest levels of the government: In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton highlighted “three Ds” that would allow the United States “to exercise global leadership effectively”: defense, development and diplomacy. Democracy apparently did not make the cut.

The extent of the administration’s shift is also visible on the ground — even if the payoffs aren’t. In Egypt, a critical arena for democratization efforts, the United States has cut funding to independent civil society groups that promote democracy and is instead working more closely with government-linked nonprofits, according to several human rights activists who closely follow Egypt. “The administration doesn’t want to antagonize Egypt, a major Middle East ally, now that they might need Egypt’s help if there is going to be action against Iran,” said David Schenker of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who previously worked on Middle East issues in the Bush administration.

In Sudan, a country whose leader is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, U.S. policy now involves closer dealings than in recent years, and the administration’s special envoy to the region, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, has deemphasized human rights abuses there. In September, he told The Washington Post that the United States should be “giving out cookies” to Khartoum, offering inducements for good behavior rather than punishment for bad — as if a regime accused of genocide were a misbehaving child.

Obama has changed the U.S. approach toward Burma, too. For more than a decade, Washington emphasized the use of sanctions, visa bans and other tools to isolate the Burmese junta, which is accused of overseeing forced labor, mass rape campaigns and other abuses. But the Obama administration has called for direct dialogue with the junta. And although the assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, Kurt Campbell, has noted in congressional testimony that the administration maintains sanctions and is not writing the regime a blank check, it’s not clear exactly what further bad deeds the junta would have to commit to warrant a more severe reprimand.

Of course, the administration’s approach toward China has attracted the most notice. On his recent trip there, Obama was conspicuously silent about human rights in his public statements. At a town hall forum in Shanghai, he responded to a question about the Internet by saying, “I’m a strong supporter of noncensorship” — a strangely twisted phrase from a normally masterful communicator.

Later, in a joint news conference with Chinese President Hu Jintao (in which the two men took no questions from journalists), Obama said that he “welcomes China’s efforts in playing a greater role on the world stage,” but he did not criticize Beijing’s human rights record or mention its recent crackdown on Uighurs in Xinjiang. “We were told that the administration privately brought up Uighur issues, but that’s it,” said Omar Kanat, vice president of the World Uighur Congress, an activist group.

And in October, Obama’s administration became the first since 1991 not to meet with the Dalai Lama, even privately, when the Tibetan leader was in Washington. According to Kanat, the administration has also refused any high-level meetings with Rabeeya Kadeer, the most prominent Uighur dissident and a woman welcomed to the White House by Bush. “We’ve asked for meetings with senior people at the NSC, State, but they always just say they are too busy,” Kanat said.

When asked about these points, one administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, replied that the White House has welcomed other dissidents, including several Zimbabwean activists, and said administration officials will try to meet with Kadeer soon.

“Advancing human rights and promoting democratic principles are key tenets of this Administration’s foreign policy,” said the National Security Council’s spokesman, Mike Hammer, in an e-mail. “The Obama Administration will meet with dissidents any time those meetings can serve to advance a just cause. The President spoke in Shanghai to an on-line audience of millions of Chinese about human rights and democratic freedoms as universal values. The President has been interviewed by a Cuban dissident blogger as well as the progressive Chinese Southern Weekly, and he will meet with the Dalai Lama.”

On matters of democracy and human rights, past presidents have wielded the bully pulpit to impressive effect, sometimes winning the release of high-profile dissidents. After Bush highlighted the case of Ayman Nour, the most prominent Egyptian dissident, in early 2005, Hosni Mubarak’s government released him from jail — but when attention faded, the regime locked him up again.

Conversely, Obama’s approach to Sudan may be encouraging the regime to use even tougher tactics in war-torn southern regions of the country. According to Michael Green, an NSC senior director for Asian affairs under Bush, “Authoritarian states take what leaders say more seriously than what bureaucrats say.” In other words, when the president does not make human rights a priority, it becomes easier for Beijing or Khartoum to ignore requests by lower-level American officials.

For all Obama’s compromises, the choice between human rights and other priorities may be a false one. Obama may not need to pick between criticizing regimes like those in China and Iran and working with those governments on other challenges. “You can see the Dalai Lama and rhetorically push on human rights and still have the other elements of the relationship with China,” said Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch.

Obama’s speech in Oslo reminded us why the Nobel committee decided to honor him with the peace prize: This was Obama at the height of his oratorical powers, speaking of war and peace and, yes, human rights, and calling upon mankind to “reach for the world that ought to be.” But the committee didn’t set out to merely applaud Obama’s great rhetoric; it bestowed this honor on him as an aspirational prize, one that would inspire him to even greater actions.

“The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone,” Obama said in his speech. “. . . We must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”

Let’s hope he follows through.

Joshua Kurlantzick is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

__________

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102593.html

Read Full Post »

THREE years ago I was invited to the Tehran International Book Fair; afterward I traveled around the country. The mosques I visited were so empty as to give the impression that Iran was as secular as Western Europe.

It wasn’t until I took a trip to a place of pilgrimage in the mountains that I saw large numbers of the faithful. The traffic started piling up even before my group reached the town of Imamzadeh Davood. A few of the pilgrims were making the trek on foot, together with the sheep they intended to sacrifice. The narrow streets were bustling just as at Christian places of pilgrimage: booths crammed with junk, groups of teenagers taking pictures of each other, every nook and cranny packed with candles lighted by believers in the hope their wishes would be fulfilled.

I was received by the mayor and invited to dinner — the first Swiss he had ever met. He showed me the mosque and led me to the tomb of the saint. I, the unbeliever, was allowed into places where even pilgrims were not permitted. During my three weeks in Iran, my faith, or rather the lack thereof, was never an issue. However bellicose the political face of Islam often appears, in everyday practice what I experienced was a religion of hospitality and tolerance.

Switzerland, on the other hand, appeared alarmingly intolerant last weekend, when 58 percent of our voters approved a ban on the building of new minarets. When the minaret referendum was proposed by the rightist Swiss People’s Party, no one really took it seriously.

Some consideration was given to having it declared invalid on the grounds that it was unconstitutional as well as a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, but in the end the government agreed to allow the referendum to go forward, probably in the hope that it would be roundly defeated and thereby become a symbol of Swiss open-mindedness. So certain were the politicians of prevailing that hardly any publicity was fielded against the initiative. As a result, the streets were dominated by the proponents’ posters, which showed a veiled woman in front of a forest of minarets that looked like missiles.

Minarets have never been a problem in Switzerland. There are four in the entire country, some of which have been standing for decades. (One of them is in my city but I’ve never seen it.) And only two other minarets were being planned. Most mosques are in faceless industrial districts where no one notices them. But perhaps that is exactly the problem. Islamic immigrants don’t live with us but beside us, just as French, German, Italian and Romansch-speaking Swiss live alongside each other without a great deal of animosity — or interaction.

The average Swiss citizen has no real contact with Islam. Headscarves are seldom seen on the street, and chadors are practically nonexistent. Moreover, when young proponents of the ban talk about problems with Muslims, they almost exclusively mean young men from the Balkans, who come across as male chauvinists but are almost never active members of Muslim communities. Most people encounter Islam only through the news media, which don’t report on the Muslims in our country but focus on terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Iranian plans for an atomic bomb and Muammar el-Qaddafi’s absurd proposal to abolish Switzerland.

It’s hard to find one overarching explanation for why the Swiss voted as they did. Similar referendums have brought surprises: 35 percent of voters wanting to do away with the army, for instance, or 58 percent approving of same-sex partnerships. The prevailing Swiss attitude is both conservative and liberal: on the one hand everything should stay the way it is, on the other everyone should be able to do what he or she wants.

What’s most conspicuous in these referendums is that we are a nation of pragmatists, inclined to our dour obstinacy, and we owe our success not to grand ideas but to problem-solving. So focused are we on getting things done, it almost doesn’t matter if the problem isn’t a problem, or if the solution risks sullying the country’s reputation. We Swiss sacrificed our good standing as a multicultural and open-minded society to ban the construction of minarets that no one intends to build in order to defend ourselves against an Islam that has never existed in Switzerland.

Perhaps Muslims here are more Swiss than the rest of us might think. They too will solve the problem we’ve made for them: they are likely to swallow the results of this referendum, do without their minarets and continue to assemble for prayer, unnoticed and unperturbed.

Peter Stamm is the author of the novel “On a Day Like This.” This essay was translated by Philip Boehm from the German.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05stamm.html

Read Full Post »

Freedom’s Martyr

IT’S important for Americans to recognize our national heroes, even those who have been despised by history. Take John Brown.

Today is the 150th anniversary of Brown’s hanging — the grim punishment for his raid weeks earlier on Harpers Ferry, Va. With a small band of abolitionists, Brown had seized the federal arsenal there and freed slaves in the area. His plan was to flee with them to nearby mountains and provoke rebellions in the South. But he stalled too long in the arsenal and was captured. He was brought to trial in a Virginia court, convicted of treason, murder and inciting an insurrection, and hanged on Dec. 2, 1859.

It’s a date we should hold in reverence. Yes, I know the response: Why remember a misguided fanatic and his absurd plan for destroying slavery?

There are compelling reasons. First, the plan was not absurd. Brown reasonably saw the Appalachians, which stretch deep into the South, as an ideal base for a guerrilla war. He had studied the Maroon rebels of the West Indies, black fugitives who had used mountain camps to battle colonial powers on their islands. His plan was to create panic by arousing fears of a slave rebellion, leading Southerners to view slavery as dangerous and impractical.

Second, he was held in high esteem by many great men of his day. Ralph Waldo Emerson compared him to Jesus, declaring that Brown would “make the gallows as glorious as the cross.” Henry David Thoreau placed Brown above the freedom fighters of the American Revolution. Frederick Douglass said that while he had lived for black people, John Brown had died for them. A later black reformer, W. E. B. Du Bois, called Brown the white American who had “come nearest to touching the real souls of black folk.”

Du Bois was right. Unlike nearly all other Americans of his era, John Brown did not have a shred of racism. He had long lived among African-Americans, trying to help them make a living, and he wanted blacks to be quickly integrated into American society. When Brown was told he could have a clergyman to accompany him to the gallows, he refused, saying he would be more honored to go with a slave woman and her children.

By the time of his hanging, John Brown was so respected in the North that bells tolled in many cities and towns in his honor. Within two years, the Union troops marched southward singing, “John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, but his soul keeps marching on.” Brown remained a hero to the North right up through Reconstruction.

However, he fell from grace during the long, dark period of Jim Crow. The attitude was, who cares about his progressive racial views, except a few blacks? His reputation improved a bit with the civil rights movement, but he is still widely dismissed as a deranged cultist. This is an injustice to a forward-thinking man dedicated to the freedom and political participation of African-Americans.

O.K., some might say, but how about the blotches on his record, especially the murders and bloody skirmishes in Kansas in the 1850s? Brown considered himself a soldier at war. His attacks on pro-slavery forces were part of an escalating cycle of pre-emptive and retaliatory violence that most historians now agree were in essence the first engagements of the Civil War.

Besides, none of the heroes from that period is unblemished. Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, but he shared the era’s racial prejudices, and even after the war started thought that blacks should be shipped out of the country once they were freed. Andrew Jackson was the man of his age, but in addition to being a slaveholder, he has the extra infamy of his callous treatment of Native Americans, for which some hold him guilty of genocide. John Brown comes with “buts” — but in that he has plenty of company. He deserves to be honored today.

For starters, he should be pardoned. Technically, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia would have to do this, since Brown was tried on state charges and executed there. Such a posthumous pardon by a state occurred just this October, when South Carolina pardoned two black men who were executed 94 years ago for murdering a Confederate veteran.

A presidential pardon, however, would be more meaningful. Posthumous pardons are by definition symbolic. They’re intended to remove stigma or correct injustice. While the president cannot grant pardons for state crimes, a strong argument can be made for a symbolic exception in Brown’s case.

By today’s standards, his crime was arguably of a federal nature, as his attack was on a federal arsenal in what is now West Virginia. His actions were prompted by federal slavery rulings he considered despicable, especially the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision. Brown was captured by federal troops under Robert E. Lee. And the Virginia court convicted him of treason against Virginia even though he was not a resident. (He was tried in Virginia at the orders of its governor, probably to avert Northern political pressure on the federal government.)

There is precedent for presidential pardons of the deceased; in 1999, Bill Clinton pardoned Henry O. Flipper, an African-American lieutenant who was court-martialed in 1881 for misconduct. Last year, George W. Bush gave a posthumous pardon to Charles Winters, an American punished for supplying B-17 bombers to Israel in the late 1940s. In October, Senator John McCain and Representative Peter King petitioned President Obama to pardon Jack Johnson, the black boxing champion, who was convicted a century ago of transporting a white woman across state lines for immoral purposes.

Justice would be served, belatedly, if President Obama and Governor Kaine found a way to pardon a man whose heroic effort to free four million enslaved blacks helped start the war that ended slavery. Once and for all, rescue John Brown from the loony bin of history.

David S. Reynolds, a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, is the author of “John Brown, Abolitionist” and “Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson.”

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/opinion/02reynolds.html

Read Full Post »

The World from Berlin

The Mahmud Mosque in Zurich has one of only four minarets in Switzerland. No more will be built following Sunday’s referendum.

Switzerland’s vote to ban minarets is a disaster for its image, write German commentators. The vote doesn’t just reflect a fear of “Islamization” but also shows that setbacks in recent years have shaken its national self-confidence. But Germans would probably vote the same way, warn some observers.

Switzerland’s decision to ban the construction of minarets in a referendum on Sunday has drawn condemnation from politicians across Europe and from Muslim leaders, but far-right politicians have welcomed it as a courageous step that should be copied by other countries.

Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the country’s top cleric, called the ban an “insult” to Muslims across the world but called on Muslims not to be provoked by the move. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was shocked by the decision which showed “intolerance.”

However right-wing and far-right parties such as Italy’s Northern League in Italy and France’s National Front were quick to welcome the decision. The right-wing populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is famous for his anti-Islam views, called the result “great” and said he would push for a similar referendum in the Netherlands.

More than 57.5 percent of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons voted in favor of the ban on Sunday. The initiative was brought by supporters of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party and a smaller party. The campaign’s organizers had argued that minarets are a symbol of a Muslim quest to dominate others and to introduce Shariah law, and that banning them would help stop an “Islamization” of Switzerland. Muslims make up around 5 percent of the Swiss population.

In Germany, Wolfgang Bosbach, the spokesman on domestic security for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats, said the vote expressed a fear of Islamization that also exists in Germany. “One has to take this concern seriously,” Bosbach told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.

German media commentators writing in the Monday editions of Germany’s main newspapers said the decision reflects more than a fear of Islamization. The vote, they write, is a sign of how unsettled Switzerland has become in the last two decades that have seen its self-confidence shaken by the collapse of national economic symbols such as the airline Swissair, international criticism of its secretive banking system and setbacks in its foreign policy.

But mass circulation Bild, which can claim to have its finger on the nation’s pulse more than other newspapers, said Germans would probably vote the same way if they were allowed a referendum on the issue:

“The minaret isn’t just the symbol of a religion but of a totally different culture. Large parts of the Islamic world don’t share our basic European values: the legacy of the Enlightenment, the equality of man and woman, the separation of church and state, a justice system independent of the Bible or the Koran and the refusal to impose one’s own beliefs on others with ‘fire and the sword.’ Another factor is likely to have influenced the Swiss vote: Nowhere is life made harder for Christians than in Islamic countries. Those who are intolerant themselves cannot expect unlimited tolerance from others.”

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“The referendum is a disaster for Switzerland. There is no such construction ban anywhere else in Europe. When those six words ‘the construction of minarets is prohibited’ are written into the Swiss constitution, they will breach that constitution in several ways, as they violate its guarantee of freedom of religion and the ban on discrimination.

“The ban also constitutes a flagrant breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It won’t take long before someone affected by this ban takes the case to the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which will result in an embarrassing condemnation and possibly Switzerland’s expulsion from the Council of Europe.

“There will be a storm of outrage, especially in the Muslim world. The worst mistake now would be for Switzerland to react by stiffening its stance. Because in its heart, this country is cosmopolitan and liberal.”

The conservative Die Welt writes:

“The Swiss decision gives the wrong answer to the right question. The question concerning all European societies is how to find the right way to deal with a growing Muslim minority, and where the limits of tolerance should be regarding the practice of traditions that are in some cases backward.

“The referendum has provided an excessively simplistic answer. It condemns the minaret which it interprets as a symbol of Islamic power — as if the traditional architectural feature so closely related to the Christian church steeple were more important than what is preached inside the mosques.

“It throws Switzerland back behind the level of enlightenment and tolerance that Europe has toiled to attain in the past — and which turned multi-ethnic Switzerland into such a successful model.

“The referendum shows how deep the fear of Islam runs in Europe and that the issue isn’t being taken seriously enough by the political elite — and not just in Switzerland. But it doesn’t provide a solution to Europe’s pressing integration problems.”

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

“Fundamentally democratic, cosmopolitan, tolerant — that’s how the Swiss always liked to see themselves. But with the vote to ban further minarets, the country has also shown other traits that smack of narrow-mindedness, fear and the desire to wall themselves in.

“Many Muslims in Switzerland have integrated themselves well. The problems that do exist can’t be solved with a ban on minarets. But the Swiss People’s Party has succeeded in broadening the issue to Islamization. Existing problems with immigrants from Kosovo, for example, were simply combined with the religion issue.”

The left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes:

“The campaign was targeted at a Swiss population that has felt increasingly unsettled since the end of the Cold War. Switzerland, which according to official myth is ‘neutral’ but which is de facto aligned with NATO, hasn’t come to terms with the loss of the communist bogeyman as well as the members of the Western alliance have. From compensation claims for the theft of the assets of Jewish refugees by Swiss banks, to the recent softening of banking secrecy for foreign tax evaders — all corrections of obvious historical lies and foreign policy mistakes since 1989 took place not through a realization of wrongdoing on the part of Switzerland itself, but through pressure from outside.”

“In addition, the collapse of Swissair and other objects of Swiss national pride was also painful, as was the humiliating treatment by Libya’s dictator Moammar Gadhafi who has been holding two Swiss nationals as hostages for more than a year. The global economic crisis has also left clear marks on Switzerland.

“The perfectly devised campaign for a ban on minarets provided a suitable bogeyman for those who were unsettled by this general uncertainty and whose self-confidence has been shattered. Encouraged by their victory on Sunday, the initiators will next call for a ban on mosques and Islamic cultural centers. It is also to be feared that there will be more frequent acts of violence against such institutions.”

Der Spiegel

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,664231,00.html

Read Full Post »

There is a Persian saying that goes, “Your coming is in your hands, but your leaving is in the hands of God.”

Shortly before I left Iran on June 24, there was a late-night knock at the door of my hotel room. Alright, I thought, this is it.

By then I was one of the few Western journalists left in Tehran after a savage post-election clampdown and I had been working for more than a week despite the revocation of my press pass.

As I moved, heart thumping, toward the door, I imagined being dragged blindfolded into the hell of Evin prison, built by the shah for the brutalizing of his political prisoners, used for the same purpose by the Islamic Republic.

“Laundry, sir. We forgot these.”

A hotel employee was holding a couple of shirts. I thanked him, tossed them on a sofa, and breathed out: Fear the worst but never bow to it.

I looked down at the lights of Tehran, cradled in its mountainous amphitheater. In 1936, the shah’s father had banned the veil in a furious Ataturk-like push for Westernization. In 1979, the Islamic Republic had re-imposed the hijab on all women. Now, in 2009, a reformist movement trying to chart a middle course — a non-theocratic but also non-secular path — had been bloodied before my eyes. Iran’s tragedy overwhelmed me.

A few days later, I did leave and found my parting in the hands not of God but of the Revolutionary Guards at Imam Khomeini International Airport. The stubble-faced ghouls duly toyed with me, leaving me humiliated, before letting me go.

The last people I saw were Nazila Fathi, long the wonderful New York Times local correspondent in Tehran, her husband Babak Pasha, and their children, Shayan, 5, and Tina, 3. Through 12 tumultuous post-electoral days Nazila was at my side as we were chased and tear-gassed. She never lost her composure.

By then her apartment — seen in paranoid regime eyes as a center for fomenting “velvet revolutions” and “soft overthrows” — was under constant surveillance. Evin, or worse, beckoned.

On July 1, a week after me, Nazila and her family left with a suitcase for a long-planned vacation in Canada. Five months later, they have been unable to return. They have followed millions of Iranians — an immense pool of lost talent — into exile. Dual Canadian and Iranian citizens, they have settled for now in Toronto.

That is why I came here. My debt to Nazila is immense.

She calls me — that bright, sing-song voice — and tells me there’s been a murder at the entrance to her Toronto apartment building. I start laughing. But it’s true. Canada has put on a little Iran show for us.

On Nazilia’s table are Iranian pistachios — a taste of the forbidden. She turns on the TV and there, on “60 Minutes,” is another Canadian-Iranian journalist, Maziar Bahari, who was seized in June and held in Evin prison for 118 days. We see images, filmed by Bahari, of the Basiji shooting into the crowd on June 15 and a slain man falling. Nazila and I were 100 yards from the scene.

I shudder. Bahari, a Newsweek correspondent, tells his story (as he does also in the current Newsweek) with a fine lucidity: the slapping, the lashing and death threats, the accusations that he was a velvet revolution “mastermind.”

When Bahari watches himself making a forced “confession” — that the media did give “moral support for the people who took part in those illegal gatherings” — his remorse is almost too much to bear. When you’re “broken under pressure,” he remarks, it’s hard to “gather your pieces.”

Nazila and I give each other a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God look. There are hundreds like Bahari. Iran since June 12 has veered into a paranoid bunker. President Barack Obama has been too weak on human rights abuses in Iran.

To say “the world continues to bear witness” to the “powerful calls for justice” of Iranians, as he did on Nov. 3, is not good enough. He needs to express the outrage of the United States of America.

Sure, Iran sees Evin as the mirror image of Guantánamo. But undoing that U.S. aberration was central to Obama’s message. Speaking out against the abuse of Iranian political prisoners must be equally so. Obama should continue to seek engagement — it’s the only way forward — while denouncing the outrages.

His bedside reading should be Haleh Esfandiari’s brilliant, shattering book “My Prison, My Home,” in which the Wilson Center scholar recounts her own 2007 Evin nightmare.

Hillary Clinton did mention Bahari. That, the Newsweek man says, is the “best thing that can happen to any prisoner, that you know someone cares about you.” Obama has not made it clear enough, name by name, that he cares.

“Fathi” — the name of his beloved, lost, longed-for grandfather — is the word little Shayan has scrawled on his bedroom walls.

Iran is betraying its aching children. There is a middle path, Shiite and democratic, of which Nazila and Babak and countless others could be part. Their country has been hijacked. The waste is immeasurable — and unnecessary.

Roger Cohen, New York Times

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/opinion/27iht-edcohen.html

Read Full Post »

Poland to Ban Communist Symbols

Vestiges of ‘Genocidal System’

Poland is considering criminalizing its communist past.

Reforming Poland’s hate-crime legislation may mean criminalizing communism. An amendment to the criminal code awaiting the president’s signature would ban a broad category of communist symbols. Left-wing politicians say the law does more to violate human rights than protect them.

Poland is on the verge of banning communist symbols in a change to the country’s penal code that could make everything from the hammer and sickle and red star to Che Guevara t-shirts illegal.

The amendment would adjust the country’s hate-crime legislation to criminalize the “production, distribution, sale or possession … in print, recordings or other means of fascist, communist or other symbols of totalitarianism.” The punishment could be a fine or up to two years in prison. Exceptions could be made for artistic, educational, collecting or research purposes.

Elzbieta Radziszewska, the Polish government’s special representative for equal rights issues and a member of the country’s ruling Civic Platform (PO) party, proposed the changes to the law in the spring. It has enjoyed broad support from other Civic Platform politicians as well as members of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, of which Polish President Lech Kaczynski was formerly a member. The two parties control 375 of the 460 seats in the Polish parliament.

The amendment would beef up an existing hate-crime law that banned “public propagation of fascist and other totalitarian systems.” Similar bans on symbols of the Nazi era exist elsewhere in Europe, including Germany, but the breadth of Poland’s law — and its application to symbols of communism — is unusual.

‘Communism Comparable to Nazism’

When the changes to the law were passed by the Polish parliament in early November, Jaroslaw Kaczynski — the president’s twin brother and head of the Law and Justice party — spoke strongly in support of it. “Communism was a genocidal system that led to the murder of tens of millions of people,” PiS head Jaroslaw Kaczynski said. “No symbol of communism has a right to exist in Poland, because these are symbols of a genocidal system that should be compared to German Nazism.”

The law’s critics say the word “symbol” leaves the law broad to the point of absurdity, making everything produced during Poland’s more than 50 years under communist rule potentially illegal, from popular communist-era movies and TV shows to the iconic Palace of Culture, a Stalinist behemoth built in 1955 that towers over central Warsaw.

“It’s just a silly thing,” Tadeusz Iwinski, a parliamentarian from the left-wing Polish Social Democratic party who opposes the change, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “What does it mean, ‘symbol’? Does that mean when government officials go to China and make pictures under the banner of the Communist Party they are breaking the law?”

The amendment has already been approved by the Polish Senate, and still needs the signature of the Polish president. President Kaczynski has until Monday, Nov. 30 to sign off on the penal code amendments. Iwinski says if the law goes into effect — it’s part of a larger bill including other changes to the nation’s penal code — it will likely be struck down at the European level.

Handcuffed for a Red Star

There is, in fact, a clear precedent from Hungary, where symbols of communism like the hammer and sickle and red star — along with the swastika — have been banned as “symbols of tyranny” since 1994. In 2003, Hungarian politician Attila Vajnai was arrested, handcuffed and fined for wearing a red star on his lapel during a demonstration.

Vajnai appealed his sentence all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, which decided last year that the ban was a violation of the freedom of expression, calling the Hungarian ban “indiscriminate” and “too broad.”

“Merely wearing the red star could lead to a criminal sanction and no proof was required that the display of such a symbol amounted to totalitarian propaganda,” the court ruled. “Uneasiness alone, however understandable, could not set the limits of freedom of expression.”

Right-wing Polish politicians are also pushing for a law that would force local authorities to re-name street signs and buildings bearing the names of communists.

___________

Full article and photo: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,663154,00.html

Read Full Post »

Death to law

What Russia’s ‘legal nihilism’ means in practice

RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Dmitry Medvedev keeps giving speeches about ending the lawlessness and corruption that have overtaken his country. That would be encouraging — except that Russians who try to act on the president’s words keep turning up dead. The latest victim of what Mr. Medvedev calls “legal nihilism” is Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year-old lawyer and father of two who was reported to have died last week in a Moscow prison, after more than a year of detention without charge.

Mr. Magnitsky was working for Hermitage Capital Management, once one of the largest foreign investors in Russia. After its high-profile American-born owner, William F. Browder, was banned from the country four years ago, a criminal group including senior police and security officials took over several of the firm’s Russian holding companies and used them to steal $230 million in government funds, according to the company.

After Mr. Magnitsky presented evidence implicating Interior Ministry officials in the theft, he was arrested by those same officials, denied bail and held in increasingly harsh conditions until his death. He was denied visits from his wife and children; his repeated written requests for medical attention in recent weeks were ignored. His lawyers were told that he died of an abdominal rupture and heart failure on the night of Nov. 16. There is, of course, no independent confirmation of this account. As the head of his law firm noted, Mr. Magnitsky’s death was, in one way or another, brought about by the Russian authorities whose corruption he sought to expose.

Mr. Browder was once conspicuous in his loud defense of Mr. Medvedev’s mentor, Vladimir Putin, even after the persecution and imprisonment of the country’s biggest private businessman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Once authorities turned on Mr. Browder, revoked his visa and drove his business out of the country, Mr. Putin publicly denied that he had ever heard of the famous investor. From London, Mr. Browder has been doing his best to expose Russian corruption and to warn foreign investors; he even produced a YouTube video about “how companies are stolen, criminals take over banks and murderers dictate to judges.” Now he will have to add the death of his own lawyer to that litany.

Editorial, Washington Post

__________

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/23/AR2009112303040.html

Read Full Post »

Beijing arrests a human-rights lawyer.

President Obama soft-pedaled human rights in Beijing this week, presumably in an effort to cajole China into better behavior. The country’s public-security apparatus has responded by proceeding with business as usual.

The wheels of Air Force One were barely off the runway when Beijing’s security forces beat and seized human-rights lawyer Jiang Tianyong as he was taking his daughter to school yesterday morning. Two of his colleagues told us he was still being detained at a police station as we went to press.

This is only the latest installment for Mr. Jiang, who has been harassed since he agreed to represent a Tibetan “living Buddha” accused of inciting unrest during the March 2008 riots. Last year, the government suspended his legal license temporarily, and this year he has been effectively disbarred since June.

None of this dissuaded Mr. Jiang from talking about the true state of human rights in China. On Oct. 29, he addressed a Congressional human-rights commission during a trip to the U.S. He returned to China and was placed under house arrest, but he still tried to meet Mr. Obama Wednesday, according to a colleague. The police escorted him back to his house. The U.S. embassy press office in Beijing said it was not aware of any invitation for Mr. Jiang to meet with the President.

Mr. Jiang’s case isn’t an isolated incident. Over the past few months, the government has pressured human-rights lawyers to drop sensitive cases, denied them license renewals, or resorted to physical violence. Democracy activists and other groups threatening to one-party rule have also come under increased scrutiny.

The Obama Administration has gone out of its way to not criticize China’s human-rights violations in public, although Mr. Obama reportedly spoke strongly in private to the Chinese leadership on the topic this week. That will be of little comfort to Mr. Jiang and the millions of Chinese who support what he stands for.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574545122107289750.html

Read Full Post »

Neo-Nazis gather in Wunsiedel in 2001 for a parade to honor Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess.

Germany’s constitution strongly and explicitly protects the freedom of speech. Still, the country’s highest court has now said that — given the injustice and horrors of the Nazi regime — it is constitutional to make an exception that bans speech glorifying Hitler’s ideology.

Wunsiedel is a small town of about 10,000 in the northeastern corner of Bavaria. Every year, on one particular day, this otherwise sleepy town is on high alert. In late August, thousands of people come here from all over Germany and abroad. Dressed in black, these neo-Nazis come to march in commemoration of Rudolf Hess, the Hitler deputy and convicted war criminal who has been buried here since 1987.

Some of the locals board up their houses and get out of town. Others bring banners to protest the parade and even block it with vehicles used for transporting liquid manure. In 2004, the town’s mayor, Karl-Willi Beck, launched a campaign called “Wunsiedel is colorful, not brown.” Together with town councilors, church officials and citizens, he tried to block the streets. A group of skinheads insulted him as a “traitor to his fatherland” and a “grave desecrator.” The neo-Nazis threatened to run him out of town.

But, since 2005, he hasn’t had to deal with the crowds. In that year, the Bundestag, the lower house of Germany’s federal parliament, passed an amendment that strengthened the legal article dealing with incitement to hatred. Otto Shily, who was Germany’s interior minister at the time, said that it was done “in solidarity with the democratic public of Wunsiedel.” The amendment was meant to make it easier to outlaw neo-Nazi commemorative marches in Wunsiedel and elsewhere. The amendment worked. And, last year, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the decision upholding a ban on such assemblies based on the new law.

Still, Jürgen Rieger, the recently deceased Hamburg-based lawyer and neo-Nazi who organized the Hess commemorations, was determined to keep marching. To do so, he placed his hope in Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, based in Karlsruhe. Sure, the judges had already dismissed a number of Rieger’s expedited motions. But, in this case, they had expressly determined that the new ban “raised a series of difficult constitutional issues.” However, they also felt that these were not the type of questions that could be dealt with in expedited proceedings.

Challenging the Amendment

Now, the Constitutional Court has finally decided that the strengthening of the article in the penal code is constitutional — and that the administrative court’s ban on such assemblies can logically follow from it. Although the judges have determined that Rieger’s constitutional complaint is “unfounded,” their decision, announced on Tuesday, also shows the enduring trickiness surrounding the fourth paragraph of Article 130 of the German Penal Code. That paragraph prescribes a sentence of up to three years for whoever “approves of, glorifies or justifies the violent and despotic rule of the National Socialists” in a way that “disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims.”

In German law, if a complainant dies, a legal case is usually closed. Accordingly, Rieger’s sudden death in October almost allowed the legal dispute to remain unanswered. But, in this case, the judges believed it was warranted to still deliver a judgment that was long in the making. It was their belief that, since the decision was meant to clarify a legal issue that “transcended the highly personal matter of the complainant” and applied to “a number of future gatherings,” the decision had “a general constitutional significance.”

Wrangling over Wunsiedel

Neo-Nazis held their first march to honor Rudolf Hess, their “martyr of the fatherland,” in Wunsiedel in 1988. Two years later, the march saw violent confrontations between skinheads and counterdemonstrators. As a response, the gathering was outlawed in 1991. For years, various courts approved the ban.

But, beginning in 2000, Rieger was given the legal green light to start marching again. The increasingly astute lawyer was able to persuade the Constitutional Court with his arguments. In 2003, the court’s justices determined, on the one hand, that there was “no indication” that the police were not able to carry out “their duties” related to preventing and combating individual criminal acts and, on the other hand, that “glorifying persons and ideologies of National Socialism” could not, in and of itself, be used to justify a ban on such gatherings.

Peter Seisser, a member of the Social Democrats (SPD) who represented Wunseidel’s district in the state parliament at the time, was not impressed with the ruling. He said that — according to its legal reasoning — if it gave the go ahead for a march for Hess, then it couldn’t forbid a public ceremony to commemorate Adolf Hitler. In early 2005, 40 prominent residents of Wunsiedel — from state-level politicians to Catholic priests — traveled to Berlin to ask members of the federal parliament specializing in domestic issues to draft new criminal legislation specifically tailored to Wunsiedel’s particular situation. “They really pestered us,” recalls Cornelie Sonntag-Wolgast, who chaired the Bundestag’s Internal Affairs Committee at the time. “It was one of the major reasons we managed to get a majority to amend this law.”

Legal Wranglings

The amendment made itself felt. Whether it was in Wunsiedel, Magdeburg, Aachen or Hanover, a whole series of demonstrations were outlawed for providing “sufficient indication” that events surrounding the gatherings would violate the newly amended law.

But, in the wake of the decision, there was also serious doubt about whether the strengthening of the penal code was constitutional. It’s a doubt that has now actually been confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

According to the Basic Law, the name given to Germany’s constitution, limitations of freedom of speech are only permitted when they are based on a “general law.” In the case of this paragraph, however, the justices determined that it is not a “general law.” What’s more, earlier court decisions also hold that such a law cannot “be directed toward the expression of an opinion as such.” Instead, it must serve to protect a “legal right per se, without regard for a certain opinion.”

The Nazi Exception

Ulli Rühl is a Bremen-based expert on constitutional law and legal philosopher. Already during the process of drafting the law, he warned that, in constitutional terms, the proposed expansion of the law against incitement was very “borderline.” As he saw it, “in point of fact,” the law only applied to “adherents of old- or neo-Nazi ideologies,” which automatically meant it wasn’t “free of bias when it comes to opinions.” And Rieger criticized the law on his Web site, saying things like: “Stalin killed over 30 million people, but he can be glorified.”

Still, if you look at the reasoning of the Constitution Court in a certain way, you can see that the Germans are in no way trying to pass judgment on Stalin’s crimes. Rather, the real issue here is the horror of Hitler’s regime.

In a sense, the fact that Germany’s Basic Law was meant to consciously and decisively make a break from the Nazi era means that, in its very essence, it is designed to explicitly forbid Nazi propaganda. As the judges put it, the Basic Law can “almost be understood as the exact opposite of the totalitarianism of the Nazi regime.” For this reason, they claim, it is permissible to have “regulations that set limits on the propagandistic endorsement” of the Nazi regime and that this was permissible — as an exceptional circumstance — as a targeted restriction on one’s freedom of speech.

When it comes to Rieger’s argument that the march was only meant “to honor Rudolf Hess,” the Federal Administrative Court had already delivered a decision that shot it down. According to that court’s decision, a “reasonable observer” would have “clearly recognized” that the commemorative march — if it were to ever be held again — “would endorse the totality of the National Socialist regime without restriction.”

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,662031,00.html

Read Full Post »

The folly of expecting good faith from Iran’s hostage-taking rulers.

Iran’s big news yesterday is that the government will formally kill five people who participated in June’s pro-democracy rallies. Consider, though, the implications for the West’s peace-brokers of the case of Frenchwoman Clotilde Reiss.

It is now 20 weeks since Ms. Reiss was arrested while trying to leave Iran and 12 weeks since she was released to the French Embassy “to await her return to France,” in the words of President Sarkozy. She’s still waiting.

This week, the Islamic Republic resumed legal proceedings against her. Iran has refused to let her leave the country, and the French have complied. But by delivering her to an Iranian court for proceedings this week, Mr. Sarkozy is gambling with the 24-year-old’s life. Coming from a politician who has offered stern denunciations of Tehran’s nuclear programs, one has to wonder how that decision was made.

In its 30 years, the Islamic Republic has used assassination squads, fatwas, terrorism and hostage-taking as tools of its war with the West. A nearly unbroken string of outrages connects the taking of the U.S. embassy in 1979 to the death sentence demanded for writer Salman Rushdie in 1989 to, more recently, the grabbing of British sailors in 2007. Add to that the detention and trial of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi earlier this year, the 12-year prison sentence meted last month to Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakshsh and, most recently, the charges of espionage leveled against the three American backpackers who stumbled across the Iranian border in July.

Ms. Reiss’s ordeal is merely of a piece of this. But it ought to be an instructive piece, particularly as Iran’s nuclear ambitions come closer to realization. That’s the real significance of this week’s report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran’s formerly secret uranium enrichment facility near Qom, which the agency concluded had no possible relevance to any purported civilian power program. Once Iran goes nuclear, the whole world becomes its hostage.

For too long the West has responded to these various outrages by offering Iran little more than meek compliance, plus a clean slate the moment any one crisis is resolved. Now President Barack Obama is again beseeching Iran to take the nuclear deal offered to it last month. Nobody should expect Iran’s leaders to show good faith. Not when their days are spent executing protestors and abusing the likes of Clotilde Reiss.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal

___________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574542070988141550.html

Read Full Post »

Korea’s Berlin Wall

Obama, China and the stranded refugees.

One trigger for the collapse of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago was the flow of East Germans across their country’s newly opened border to Hungary, then on through Austria to West Germany. One day a similar flow of refugees from North Korea to China and on to South Korea could help bring down Kim Jong Il’s barbarous regime and help re-unify Korea.

We hope the subject of North Korean refugees in China is on President Obama’s agenda when he visits Beijing next week. There are at least tens of thousands of refugees hiding in China and perhaps as many as 300,000, according to human rights groups. Beijing’s policy—contrary to international law—is to track them down and send them back to the North, where they face severe punishment for the “crime” of leaving their country without permission. Anyone who helps the refugees is subject to fines, arrest and jail time. Under Chinese law, even giving food to a refugee is a crime.

Specifically, Mr. Obama could ask Beijing to release five North Korean refugees who were caught recently trying to sneak across China’s border to Vietnam. That’s a popular escape route for refugees, who then usually go on to safety in South Korea, whose constitution requires that it accept all North Koreans who request asylum. The five arrested refugees were trying to reach the South. Nine other refugees recently received asylum at the Danish embassy in Hanoi.

The five refugees are awaiting repatriation in a Chinese detention center near the North Korean border, according to the International Network of North Korean Human Rights Activists in Seoul. They include one man, three women and a six-year-old boy, the Network says. Two of the women had been sold to Chinese men. The going price for a North Korean “bride” ranges from “$700 for a plain-looking woman to over $1,000 for a more attractive” woman, says Tim Peters, a Seoul-based American pastor who helps refugees. The boy is half-Chinese.

If sent back to the North, the refugees are likely to end up in Chongori prison camp, an experience they are unlikely to survive. The Chosun Ilbo newspaper in Seoul recently broke the news of the camp, which is dedicated to repatriated refugees and whose harsh conditions are intended to stop the flow of refugees to China by scaring citizens into staying put. At Chongori, the paper reports, “inmates are doomed to die of malnutrition.” They are forced to work 14 hours a day and their daily diet consists of two potatoes and a handful of cornmeal, refugees told the paper. The U.S.-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea commissioned satellite images of Chongori. They are posted at www.freekorea.us.

Mr. Obama’s nominee for Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues is Robert King, whose confirmation hearing was held earlier this month in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. King said he would press China to uphold its obligation under the international Refugee Convention not to forcibly return North Koreans.

In Beijing next week, Mr. Obama could pledge U.S. assistance should China be overrun by refugees fleeing the North. This is one of Beijing’s big worries in the event of a destabilized North Korea. But a humanitarian crisis is taking place now. The President could demonstrate the U.S. commitment to the human rights of the refugees already in China by demanding the release of the five we know about.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704576204574531390889926128.html

Read Full Post »

Report sheds new light on the economics of the jails and why they evade crackdowns despite violating Chinese and international law.

Kidnapping villagers who have travelled to Beijing to lodge complaints with China’s central government and keeping them in unofficial jails to silence them has evolved into a lucrative cottage industry that police refuse to crack down on, a human rights group said Thursday.

The report by New York-based Human Rights Watch on China’s “black jails” is based mainly on interviews with 38 people who said they were nabbed by thugs while trying to bring grievances to the central government. They reported being held for days or months in makeshift detention centres, deprived of food and sleep, beaten and threatened. Police allegedly aided the captors or refused to intervene in several cases, it said.

Black jails emerged in China about six years ago after police were barred from randomly detaining vagrants. The jails, usually makeshift lockups in hostels, apartment buildings or abandoned factories, have been well-documented by human rights groups, lawyers and the international media.

However, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang rejected the Human Rights Watch study and questioned why it was released.

“I don’t know what their motivation was,” he said at a regular news conference Thursday. “I can assure you there are no so-called black jails in China. We put people first, and we are an administration for the people.”

The report sheds new light on the economics of the jails and why they evade crackdowns despite violating Chinese and international law.

It blames a civil service evaluation system that uses a point system to penalize officials if too many people from their jurisdiction complain to the central government and rewards those who are able to minimize grievances. Because bonuses and promotions are linked to evaluations, it is economical for officials to pay people to intercept, detain and intimidate petitioners, it said.

The report cites an alleged internal government directive given to authorities in Shimen, a county in south China’s Hunan province, in 2007 that says officials get two points if they bring petitioners back from Beijing or the provincial capital of Changsha, while those who fail to do so have a half-point deducted.

Officials typically pay black jails between 150 yuan to 300 yuan (($22-$44) per day to hold petitioners until they can be picked up and returned home, the report said. It estimated that Beijing’s black jails detain up to 10,000 people each year, though that number includes some people who are detained on multiple occasions.

Police in Beijing and other cities are aware of the jails but ignore them because they keep potentially troublesome petitioners away from cities, Human Rights Watch said. In some cases, police also have “directly assisted black jail operators,” it said.

“It’s completely illegal, but the national authorities have done nothing to stop it so far,” said Andrew Nathan, an expert on Chinese human rights issues who was not involved with the report.

“At the same time, though, this informal system cuts against the ability of the central authorities to learn about what’s going wrong at the local level,” said Mr. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University in New York. “In the long run, it would be smarter for Beijing to let the petitioners exercise what are after all their legal rights.”

Alexa Olesen, Globe and Mail

__________

Full article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/complainers-in-china-disappear-into-black-jails-rights-group-says/article1360410/

Read Full Post »

Beijing’s abuses affect many issues the U.S. holds dear.

“Don’t they know they need us?” So wrote a Chinese human-rights activist friend of mine, expressing frustration at the Obama administration. Since taking office, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—both of whom mustered some criticism of China’s rights record while they were candidates—have said that human rights shouldn’t “interfere” with other issues in the U.S.-China relationship, knuckled preemptively under Chinese pressure not to meet the Dalai Lama, and generally behaved as if the United States has no power in the bilateral relationship.

The Obama team seems to think that such an approach will elicit greater cooperation from China. This is a miscalculation that demoralizes China’s small but vibrant human-rights community and gives the government leeway to crack down harder. As President Obama prepares for his first trip to China later this month, he needs to rethink his approach.

Beijing is clearly moving backward on human rights. Since Mr. Obama took office, the Chinese government has disbarred human-rights lawyers, rolled back key legal reforms, imprisoned critics and further tightened Internet and press censorship. It has tried to unilaterally impose new filtering software on all computers sold in China—ostensibly to block pornography but probably to control political discourse too. It has executed Tibetans suspected of taking part in March 2008 protests, despite concerns about due process, and “disappeared” dozens of Uighur men and boys in the wake of the July protests in Xinjiang.

chinadoveThe human-rights deterioration in China directly affects the U.S. and other Chinese trading partners. For example, the domestic press was prepared to write about a widespread case of tainted milk in June last year, but due to the ban on bad news during the Beijing Olympics, the story wasn’t published until September. By that point, tens of thousands of children, including some outside China, were sickened, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a general alert against processed foods from China. This had echoes of the SARS outbreak, which Beijing tried to handle by stifling all news of it. While the profusion of domestic Chinese media outlets in recent years implies a trend toward greater openness, the reality is that the government can and does continue to restrict expression, regardless of the consequences.

Given China’s importance to efforts to fight climate change, the Obama administration has expressed unprecedented interest in China’s environmental practices. But hopes for real environmental change will go unfulfilled if the Chinese government does not provide more transparent information about pollution and environmental degradation, and does not improve its tolerance of whistleblowers and environmental activists. It is precisely these people who should be sought out by U.S. government, because they would be instrumental in actually enforcing any agreement on the ground.

The crackdown has an impact on businesses operating in China, too. Executives of Australian mining giant Rio Tinto were jailed in July on grounds of violating state secrets laws and are still behind bars. While the charges were downgraded in August to “industrial espionage,” the fact that they were initially accused and held for a month under the state secrets law still is worrying. The contents of the state-secrets law are classified, making it impossible to know how to avoid violating it, especially in a commercial context. A “state-secrets” charge cannot be challenged in open court—and can be applied retroactively.

Nor is this the only threat to foreign businesses posed by China’s legal system. Jude Shao, an American businessman arrested in China in 1998 on charges of bribery and tax evasion, was unable to speak to a lawyer until his trial commenced more than two years after his arrest. After a trial without due process, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison, 10 of which he served before being released on parole. It is manifestly in the interest of the global business community to press for systemic legal reform.

Ironically, the most vigorous—and effective—defense of human rights to date from the Obama administration emanated not from the White House or the State Department, but from the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce. When the Chinese government announced in June its intention to install Internet filtering software on all personal computers, these two agencies publicly objected not just on pragmatic policy grounds that to do so would be incompatible with World Trade Organization rules, but also that it would threaten “freedom of expression, and the free flow of information.”

These incidents demonstrate that basic, universal human rights—such as the right to freedom of speech and assembly—are inextricably linked to trade and security issues. It is profoundly shortsighted not to try to make progress on both. Without the right to speak one’s mind peacefully in public, and without the right to seek redress through a legal system that considers all who come before it equal, the potential for serious unrest remains high. The state-run press has quickly mobilized sometimes virulent and violent anti-American sentiment, clearly illustrating the relationship between the uncensored flow of information and the full spectrum of U.S.-China relations.

As President Obama himself told the United Nations General Assembly in September, democracy and human rights are not “afterthoughts,” but are instead “essential to achieving” America’s core economic and security goals. The president needs to explain publicly that the protection and promotion of human rights in China is not a millstone in the larger bilateral relationship, but part of the fundamental premise. Without it, all major goals in U.S.-China relations will remain elusive.

Ms. Richardson is the Asia advocacy director of Human Rights Watch.

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574514294265318058.html

Read Full Post »

Hillary Versus State

You can’t split the difference on free speech.

First the good news: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes in free speech. The not-so-good news is that her department may not be of quite the same view.

In a short speech last week marking the publication of State’s annual report on international religious freedom, Mrs. Clinton took aim at various attempts—frequently spearheaded by the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference—to criminalize free speech in the name of protecting religious sensitivities. “Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree,” she said. “The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions.”

Just so. So we were puzzled to discover that last month the U.S. cosponsored a resolution with Egypt to. . . limit free speech to protect religious sensitivities.

The resolution, passed by the U.N Human Rights Council, contains the kind of fuzzy language that will surely be used as ammunition by countries seeking to muzzle critics of Islam. It condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups” and “urges States to take effective measures…to address and combat such incidents.” And it speaks about the media’s “moral and social” responsibility in “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Defending the resolution, State Department official Douglas Griffiths described it as “a manifestation of the Obama Administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement.” Mr. Griffiths was quoted by a U.N. notetaker as calling it a bridge over an “unhelpful divide.”

When President Obama decided in March to join the Human Rights Council—another reversal of Bush Administration policy—U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice explained that “by working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.” Mrs. Clinton might want to tell her colleague that splitting the difference with Islamists over free speech is probably not the best way of going about that.

Editorial, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513692621084128.html

Read Full Post »

Secret Mission Rescues Yemen’s Jews

yemen 1

UNDER SIEGE: The State Department has resettled about 60 Yemeni Jews in the U.S. since July amid rising violence; more are expected to arrive. Here, the father of Moshe Nahari, who was killed in December, with his daughters outside a court in Yemen following a hearing in the murder case.

In his new suburban American home, Shaker Yakub, a Yemeni Jew, folded a large scarf in half, wrapped it around his head and tucked in his spiraling side curls. “This is how I passed for a Muslim,” said the 59-year-old father of seven, improvising a turban that hid his black skullcap.

The ploy enabled Mr. Yakub and half a dozen members of his family to slip undetected out of their native town of Raida, Yemen, and travel to the capital 50 miles to the south. There, they met U.S. State Department officials conducting a clandestine operation to bring some of Yemen’s last remaining Jews to America to escape rising anti-Semitic violence in his country.

In all, about 60 Yemeni Jews have resettled in the U.S. since July; officials say another 100 could still come. There were an estimated 350 in Yemen before the operation began. Some of the remainder may go to Israel and some will stay behind, most in a government enclave.

The secret evacuation of the Yemeni Jews — considered by historians to be one of the oldest of the Jewish diaspora communities — is a sign of America’s growing concern about this Arabian Peninsula land of 23 million.

The operation followed a year of mounting harassment, and was plotted with Jewish relief groups while Washington was signaling alarm about Yemen. In July, Gen. David Petraeus was dispatched to Yemen to encourage President Ali Abdullah Saleh to be more aggressive against al-Qaeda terrorists in the country. Last month, President Barack Obama wrote in a letter to President Saleh that Yemen’s security is vital to the region and the U.S.

Yemen was overshadowed in recent years by bigger trouble spots such as Afghanistan. But it has re-emerged on Washington’s radar as a potential source of regional instability and a haven for terrorists.

The impoverished nation is struggling with a Shiite revolt in the north, a secessionist movement in the south, and growing militancy among al-Qaeda sympathizers, raising concern about the government’s ability to control its territory. Analysts believe al-Qaeda operatives are making alliances with local tribes that could enable it to establish a stronghold in Yemen, as it did in Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The State Department took something of a risk in removing the Yemenis to the U.S., as it might be criticized for favoritism at a time when refugees elsewhere are clamoring for haven. The U.S. calculated the operation would serve both a humanitarian and a geopolitical purpose. In addition to rescuing a group threatened because of its religion, Washington was seeking to prevent an international embarrassment for an embattled Arab ally.

President Saleh has been trying to protect the Jews, but his inability to quell the rebellion in the country’s north made it less likely he could do so, prompting the U.S. to step in. The alternative — risking broader attacks on the Jews — could well have undermined the Obama administration’s efforts to rally support for President Saleh in the U.S. and abroad.

“If we had not done anything, we feared there would be bloodshed,” says Gregg Rickman, former State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

Mr. Yakub says the operation saved his family from intimidation that had made life in Yemen unbearable. Violence toward the country’s small remaining Jewish community began to intensify last year, when one of its most prominent members was gunned down outside his house. But the mission also hastens the demise of one of the oldest remaining Jewish communities in the Arab world.

Jews are believed to have reached what is now Yemen more than 2,500 years ago as traders for King Solomon. They survived — and at times thrived — over centuries of change, including the spread of Islam across the Arabian Peninsula.

“They were one of the oldest exiled groups out of Israel,” says Hayim Tawil, a Yeshiva University professor who is an expert on Yemeni Jewry. “This is the end of the Jewish Diaspora of Yemen. That’s it.”

Centuries of near total isolation make Yemeni Jews a living link with the ancient world.

Many can recite passages of the Torah by heart and read Hebrew, but can’t read their native tongue of Arabic. They live in stone houses, often without running water or electricity. One Yemeni woman showed up at the airport expecting to board her flight with a live chicken.

Through the centuries, the Jews earned a living as merchants, craftsmen and silversmiths known for designing djanbias, traditional daggers that only Muslims are allowed to carry. Jewish musical compositions became part of Yemeni culture, played at Muslim weddings and festivals.

“Yemeni Jews have always been a part of Yemeni society and have lived side by side in peace with their Muslim brothers and sisters,” said a spokeswoman for the Embassy of Yemen in Washington.

In 1947, on the eve of the birth of the state of Israel, protests in the port city of Aden resulted in the death of dozens of Jews and the destruction of their homes and shops. In 1949 and 1950 about 49,000 people — the majority of Yemen’s Jewish community — were airlifted to Israel in “Operation Magic Carpet.”

About 2,000 Jews stayed in Yemen. Some trickled out until 1962, when civil war erupted. After that, they were stuck there. “For three decades, there were no telephone calls, no letters, no traveling overseas. The fact there were Jews in Yemen was barely known outside Israel,” says Prof. Tawil.

After alienating the West by backing Iraq during the first Gulf War, Yemen sought a rapprochement with Washington. In 1991, it declared freedom of travel for Jews. An effort led by Prof. Tawil and brokered by the U.S. government culminated in the departure of about 1,200 Jews, mainly to Israel, in the early 1990s. Arthur Hughes, American ambassador to Yemen at the time, recalls that those who chose to remain insisted: “This is where we have been for centuries, we are okay; we’re not going anywhere.”

The few hundred Jews who stayed behind were concentrated in two enclaves: Saada, a remote area in Yemen’s northern highlands, and Raida to the south.

In 2004, unrest erupted in Saada. The government says at least 50,000 people have been displaced by fighting between its troops and the Houthis, a Shiite rebel group.

Animosity against Jews intensified. Notes nailed to the homes of Jews accused them of working for Israel and corrupting Muslim morals. “Jews were specifically targeted by Houthi rebels,” says a spokeswoman for the Yemeni embassy in Washington.

In January 2007, Houthi leaders threatened Jewish families in Saada. “We warn you to leave the area immediately… [W]e give you a period of 10 days, or you will regret it,” read a letter signed by a Houthi representative cited in a Reuters article.

Virtually the entire Jewish community in the area, about 60 people, fled to the capital. Since then, they have been receiving food stipends and cash assistance from the government while living in state-owned apartments in a guarded enclave, says the Yemeni embassy in Washington.

President Saleh, a Shiite, has been eager to demonstrate goodwill toward the Jews. On the Passover holiday, he invited TV crews to videotape families in the government complex as they feasted on lamb he had ordered.

Raida became the last redoubt of Yemeni Jews, who continued to lead a simple life there alongside Muslims.

Ancient stone homes dot the town. Electricity is erratic; oil lamps are common. Water arrives via truck. Most homes lack a TV or a refrigerator. The cell phone is the only common modern device. Some families receive financial aid from Hasidic Jewish groups in Brooklyn and London, which has enabled them to buy cars.

Typically, the Jewish men are blacksmiths, shoe repairmen or carpenters. They sometimes barter, trading milk and cow dung for grass to feed their livestock. In public, the men stand out for their long side curls, customarily worn by observant Jewish men. Jewish women, who often marry by 16, rarely leave home. When they do, like Muslim women, only their eyes are exposed.

For fun, children play with pebbles and chase family chickens around the house. At Jewish religious schools, they sit at wooden tables to study Torah and Hebrew. They aren’t taught subjects like science, or to read and write in Arabic, Yemen’s official language.

“I showed them a multiplication table and I don’t think they had ever seen one,” says Stefan Kirschner, a New York University graduate student who visited Raida in August 2008 and says he sat in a few classes.

In September 2008, militants detonated a car bomb outside the U.S. Embassy in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa, killing 16 people. The attack raised fresh concern about Muslim extremism and the government’s stability.

Then, on Dec. 11, a lone gunman shot dead Moshe Nahari, a father of nine and well-known figure in Raida’s Jewish community. Abdul-Aziz al-Abdi, a retired Air Force pilot, pumped several bullets into Mr. Nahari after the Hebrew teacher dismissed his demands that he convert to Islam. In June, the shooter was sentenced to death.

Israel’s offensive against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip later in December sparked protests in Yemen. Jewish men and children in Raida were heckled, beaten and pelted with rocks. A grenade was hurled at the house of Said Ben Yisrael, who led one of three makeshift synagogues in Raida, and landed in the courtyard of his two-story home.

From the safety of his new home in suburban New York, Mr. Yakub recounted his last months in Yemen. Rocks shattered the windows of his house and car. Except for emergencies and provisions, Jews began to avoid leaving home. When they did, Mr. Yakub and other Jews took to disguising themselves as Muslims.

“This was no way to live,” he said, seated at the head of a long table surrounded by his wife and children.

Salem Suleiman, who also arrived recently in New York, bears scars from rocks that hit his head. “They throw stones at us. They curse us. They want to kill us,” he said. “I didn’t leave my house for two months.”

New York had a community of about 2,000 Yemeni Jews. Yair Yaish, who heads the Yemenite Jewish Federation of America, says he was barraged with “desperate calls from the community here saying we have to do something to get our families out.”

yemen 2

The U.S. Ambassador to Yemen urged Yemeni ministers to facilitate the departure. After initial reluctance — the government preferred to give the Jews safe haven in the capital city — Yemen agreed to issue exit permits and passports.

“It was the embassy’s view, and the Department concurred, that because of their vulnerability, we should consider them for resettlement,” says a spokeswoman for the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.

Jewish Federations of North America raised $750,000 to help the effort. Orthodox groups also pledged to pitch in. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was tasked with their resettlement.

Word reached Jews in Raida that there was an American plan afoot to rescue them.

The first applicants signed up at the U.S. Embassy in January. To avoid attracting attention, families convoyed to Sanaa in taxis at dawn.

Later they traveled to a hotel for interviews with U.S. officials. To establish a case for refugee status, they had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. For many of the women, it was the first time speaking with anyone outside the home.

As news spread of their imminent departure, many families reported trouble selling property. Potential buyers offered low prices or refused to bid, thinking they could get the property free after it was deserted.

“All they have is this little house worth $15,000,” says Yochi Sabari, a Jew from Raida who lives in New York and has relatives in Yemen. “They can’t leave until they sell it.”

About three weeks before their travel date, the U.S. embassy contacted the first four families cleared for travel. On July 7, their 17 members traveled to the airport in Sanaa and boarded a Frankfurt-bound flight.

When the Yemenis landed in New York the next day, Jewish organization officials there to greet them spotted several women cloaked in black robes, only their eyes exposed.

“The Jewish women were the ones in burqas,” says Gideon Aronoff, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. He says he was “initially shocked.”

Several families missed the two flights offered to them by the U.S. and, therefore, forfeited their chance to move here. Family members say they are having trouble disposing of assets. An undisclosed number of people have reached Israel, including the family of Mr. Ben Yisrael, whose home was the target of a grenade, and the family of Mr. Nahari, who was slain in December 2008. In the U.S., the Yemeni refugees are being settled in Monsey, a suburban enclave of ultraorthodox Jews, lined with strip malls that sell black coats and wide-rimmed hats worn by Hasidic men.

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society’s network established a Monsey office, where case managers arrange housing and disburse food stamps, cash and other refugee benefits to the Yemeni arrivals. Many of the adults, caseworkers say, aren’t yet capable of budgeting, following a schedule or sitting still in a structured classroom to learn English.

On a recent morning, Mr. Suleiman, a 36-year-old father of three, retrieved an alarm clock that he received with his furnished apartment.

“I still don’t know how to use this,” he said. “The children have been playing with it.”

Miriam Jordan, Washington Post

__________

Full article and photos: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125693376195819343.html

Read Full Post »

israel wojo

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers. Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Read Full Post »

Human rights “interfere” with President Obama’s campaign against climate change.

Nobody should get too hung up over President Obama’s decision, reported by Der Spiegel over the weekend, to cancel plans to attend next month’s 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany’s reunited capital has already served his purposes; why should he serve its?

To this day, the fall of the Berlin Wall on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, remains a high-water mark in the march of human freedom. It’s a march to which candidate Obama paid rich (if solipsistic) tribute in last year’s big Berlin speech. “At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning—his dream—required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West,” waxed Mr. Obama to the assembled thousands. “This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom.”

berlin wall

And the walls came tumbling down. Berlin, 1989.

Those were the words. What’s been the record?

China: In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Beijing with a conciliating message about the country’s human-rights record. “Our pressing on those [human-rights] issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis,” she said.

In fact, there has been no pressing whatsoever on human rights. President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama last month, presumably so as not to ruffle feathers with the people who will now be financing his debts. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading signatory of the pro-democracy Charter 08 movement, was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.” But as a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing admitted to the Journal, “neither the White House nor Secretary Clinton have made any public comments on Liu Xiaobo.”

Sudan: In 2008, candidate Obama issued a statement insisting that “there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing. . . . The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately.”

Exactly right. So what should Mr. Obama do as president? Yesterday, the State Department rolled out its new policy toward Sudan, based on “a menu of incentives and disincentives” for the genocidal Sudanese government of Omar Bashir. It’s the kind of menu Mr. Bashir will languidly pick his way through till he dies comfortably in his bed.

Iran: Mr. Obama’s week-long silence on Iran’s “internal affairs” following June’s fraudulent re-election was widely noted. Not so widely noted are the administration’s attempts to put maximum distance between itself and human-rights groups working the Iran beat.

Earlier this year, the State Department denied a grant request for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The Center maintains perhaps the most extensive record anywhere of Iran’s 30-year history of brutality. The grant denial was part of a pattern: The administration also abruptly ended funding for Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.

It’s easy to see why Tehran would want these groups de-funded and shut down. But why should the administration, except as a form of pre-emptive appeasement?

Burma: In July, Mr. Obama renewed sanctions on Burma. In August, he called the conviction of opposition leader (and fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner) Aung San Suu Kyi a violation of “the universal principle of human rights.”

Yet as with Sudan, the administration’s new policy is “engagement,” on the theory that sanctions haven’t worked. Maybe so. But what evidence is there that engagement will fare any better? In May 2008, the Burmese junta prevented delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. Some 150,000 people died in plain view of “world opinion,” in what amounted to a policy of forced starvation.

Leave aside the nausea factor of dealing with the authors of that policy. The real question is what good purpose can possibly be served in negotiations that the junta will pursue only (and exactly) to the extent it believes will strengthen its grip on power. It takes a remarkable presumption of good faith, or perhaps stupidity, to imagine that the Burmas or Sudans of the world would reciprocate Mr. Obama’s engagement except to seek their own advantage.

It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that “interferes” with America’s purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them. Yet that is exactly the record of Mr. Obama’s time thus far in office.

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with “Free Tibet,” “Save Darfur,” and “Obama 08″ bumper stickers. I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn’t belong.

Bret Stephens. Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574481341183751038.html

Read Full Post »

China Daily Assails Prisoner Abuses

Inmates in China’s 2,700 pretrial detention centers suffer bullying and torture at the hands of fellow prisoners and police officers, and some experts want a neutral body to take the centers out of police control to curb the abuses, the state-run English-language newspaper, China Daily, reported on Tuesday.

The newspaper noted that the Communist Party’s latest four-year plan for legal reforms does not contemplate changes in the detention system. The full-page article said that since February 8, five inmates had died under suspicious circumstances while in police custody. Amnesty International, the human-rights advocacy group, last week reported two additional deaths that the police say were due to illness. Family members dispute those explanations.

All seven deaths occurred in police detention centers, where inmates accused of crimes can be held for months awaiting trial or formal charges. The centers are officially run by the national public-security ministry, but are effectively controlled by local police officials who, one expert was quoted as saying, regard them “as part of their turf and the most profitable piece of their territory.”

Another criminal procedure expert, Chen Weidong of Renmin University, was quoted as saying that officers “will sometimes have the detained suspects, especially new ones, tortured so that they can get confessions and complete an investigation as soon as possible.”

The centers drew national attention and outrage last month after a 24-year-old inmate in Yunnan Province, Li Qiaoming, died of brain injuries. Officials first said he had hit his head while playing “elude the cat,” a hide-and-seek game in which the seeker is blindfolded, with other prisoners. An investigation revealed that he had been beaten to death by three other inmates, and six police officials at the center were dismissed or punished.

Since then, six other inmates have died in custody, including one 18-year-old from Hunan Province whom local Communist Party officials said became unwell while being interrogated.

Police officials have said that three inmates died of illness. But in one of those cases, family members say, the body of a Hebei inmate said to have died of pneumonia had bruises and a broken tooth, evidence of beating. The other two cases remain in dispute.

China’s state-appointed legislature, the National People’s Congress, established a committee to investigate the centers during its meeting earlier this month, and the newspaper said it recently conducted surprise inspections in Liaoyuan, a city in Jilin Province.

But most experts believe the only way to significantly reduce abuses is to remove centers from the authority of the local police. “That has always been resisted by police departments,” Hou Xinyi, deputy dean of the law school at Nankai University in Tianjin, was quoted as saying. The police, he said, “complain such a reform will not help their investigations and the crackdown on crime.”

Amnesty International argued in a March 20 statement that the problems in the detention centers are symptoms of a larger lack of accountability and fairness in China’s justice system, in part because inmates frequently have little access to lawyers or even family visits. The organization called on the Chinese government to change its criminal procedure law to explicitly ban the use of confessions obtained through torture or ill treatment.

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/world/asia/25china.html?hp

__________

Call to put inmates in ‘neutral hands’ (China Daily)

chinese-jail-1

Family members of Xu Gengrong, the 19-year-old high school student who died while in a detention center in Shaanxi province, cannot hide their grief after learning of his death on March 8. Xu had been held for seven days on suspicion of stoning a schoolmate to death. Xi He.

__________

After two high-profile deaths at detention houses across China, as well as reports of inmates being regularly tortured, experts on criminal justice have said only a radical reform of the system will bring an end to the scandals.

Employed to hold unconvicted suspects during criminal investigations, the facilities fall under the management of the nearest public security bureau. But after being brought into the spotlight by five tragedies in the past three months, many have said only when they are put under the control of a “neutral” organization will the tragedies cease.

“Detention houses are supposed to be neutral ground where defendants are held pending the outcome of prosecutions,” said Chen Ruihua, a professor at Peking University. “They should be safe places where inmates are protected from harm.”

Detention facilities first hit the headlines last month when 24-year-old Li Qiaoming was beaten to death in Yunnan province. Local authorities initially ruled out foul play, blaming his death on an accident during a game of hide and seek. It was only after a public uproar, which led the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) to intervene, was the truth uncovered.

The issue was made worse when 19-year-old Xu Gengrong died on March 8. The student was in his seventh day of detention in Shaanxi province on suspicion of stoning a schoolmate to death, with an autopsy report showing he died from several injuries. Authorities were investigating two police officials.

The three other cases involved robbery suspect Hu Fenqiang, who died after spending 12 days in custody on Mar 12 in Hunan province; 58-year-old Luo Jingbo, who was beaten to death by fellow detainees on Mar 2 in Hainan province, and Zhai Junbao, who died on Feb 16 in Hebei province.

Several officers at the centers in Hunan and Hainan were sacked and detained for investigation, while the head of the Hebei detention house was suspended, according to police sources.

__________

chinese-jail-2

__________

Although the centers are the absolute responsibility of the Ministry of Public Security, which is empowered to arrest, detain, interrogate and investigate, Chen said the power was at risk of being abused at local level, with police officers given full control over the timing, frequency and location for interrogations without any third-party supervision.

“Gradually, detention centers have become a place controlled by the police as part of their turf and the most profitable piece of their territory,” he said. “Every suspect will face pressures in interrogation to confess and implicate others in wrongdoings in the hope of shortening their jail term.”

Chi Susheng, head of the Susheng Law Firm, based in Heilongjiang province, said the solution to violence in detention houses is to put them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.

“If we could separate the investigation role from the detention role, at least we could set up a checks and balance mechanism to avoid the frequent events exposed by the hide-and-seek incident, or so-called ‘eluding the cat’ incident,” he said.

In China, while unconvicted suspects are put in detention, the condemned are kept in jails under the management of Ministry of Justice. But there has not been as many problems with bullying and torture in the prison system, where inmates are allowed to have jobs, given time to enjoy the outdoors every day and receive regular visits from relatives.

Bullying and torture in police custody has become a persistent problem over the past few decades,” Jiang Jianchu, deputy procurator-general of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, told China Daily yesterday.

The length of detention time can usually last from a few days to several months – and in some special cases even a few years, according to the Criminal Procedure Law.

Chen Weidong, a criminal procedure professor with Renmin University of China, said that the conditions and security in detention facilities were “worrying”.

“Police will sometimes have the detained suspects, especially new ones, tortured so they can get confessions and complete an investigation as soon as possible,” he said.

“Inside, inmates form a small social system in which the newcomers lie at the bottom. Their rights and physical security are in danger,” Chen said, and explained that all newcomers faced a “greeting gift” from fellow detainees.

And when an inmate is attacked, he or she has no effective channel to call for help, with the shocking fact that, in Li Qiaoming’s case, the monitoring facilities in the detention center were not even working.

“The case not only reflects the chaos and malpractice going on in facilities, but also society’s long-term indifference on the management of the sector,” Chen added.

That indifference seems to be turning into outrage for many people. But despite calls for a change in management for the centers, the coming round of judicial reform will not include such a radical plan, according to guidelines for the coming four years released in January by the central politics and law committee of the Communist Party of China.

The document highlighted such areas as power distribution, intensifying judicial forces and extra financial support. But insiders have told China Daily it has no such designs to separate detention facilities from police control.

“That has always been strongly resisted by police departments, which complain such a reform will not help their investigations and the crackdown on crime,” said Hou Xinyi, deputy dean of the law at Nankai University in Tianjin.

As the highest authorities work on effective measures to stop the torture, several pilot projects have already been rolled out, including the enlisting of 20 National People’s Congress deputies and members of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference to spring surprise inspections on detention centers in Liaoyuan city, Jilin Province.

Li Guizhi, a 48-year-old community director in the city, was one of the public investigators and visited one facility five times between March and September last year, asking inmates face to face about conditions and whether they have been told about their rights to see a lawyer or doctor.

Those on the inspection team who have legal training are able to put forward proposals for improvements after each tour.

“Through the introduction of public supervision, which is more independent, to oversee the detention center exercising its power, the system is conducive to ensuring prisoners are treated in accordance with the law,” said Chen Weidong, a professor who is in charge of the program.

“Public supervision allows close and independent observation, the result of which is more convincing and can help improve China’s image in protecting human rights.”

Sponsored by the European Union, the program was part of cooperation agreements in political, legal, cultural and economic fields. The first phase, which started in 2006, ended last year, with the second seeing the cities of Jinzhong and Zhangjiagang added to the visiting list.

It is hoped the system, which was considered as an innovation of China’s judicial reform, can be promoted nationwide.

Cao Jianming, procurator-general of the SPP, said the inspection of detention houses and prisons had always been one of its major tasks, while SPP spokesman Tong Jianming said it will be intensifying prison inspections this year, as well as using more electronic technology to monitor detention houses.

“But the responsibility to eliminate bullying and torture in detention lies with the departments managing the facilities. Prosecutorial supervision is important but it should not be solely responsible for safety,” Tong told China Daily.

In Beijing, Changping district people’s procuratorate has set up a monthly meeting with the local police department, with both sides agreeing to crackdown on bullying.

The procuratorate will also hold frequent lectures for prosecutors and police working in the detention facilities to remind them of their supervision responsibilities.

__________

Full article and photos: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-03/24/content_7608163.htm

Read Full Post »

Student facing 20 years in hell

pervez_146981s-2-1

An Afghan policeman escorts Pervez Kambaksh from court in Kabul.

__________
Afghan court secretly sentences student whose cause was taken up by The Independent. His crime? To download article on women’s rights.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the student journalist sentenced to death for blasphemy in Afghanistan, has been told he will spend the next 20 years in jail after the country’s highest court ruled against him – without even hearing his defence.

The 23-year-old, brought to worldwide attention after an Independent campaign, was praying that Afghanistan’s top judges would quash his conviction for lack of evidence, or because he was tried in secret and convicted without a defence lawyer. Instead, almost 18 months after he was arrested for allegedly circulating an article about women’s rights, any hope of justice and due process evaporated amid gross irregularities, allegations of corruption and coercion at the Supreme Court. Justices issued their decision in secret, without letting Mr Kambaksh’s lawyer submit so much as a word in his defence.

Afzal Nooristani, the legal campaigner representing Mr Kambaksh, accused the judges of behaving “no better than the Taliban”. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into Afghanistan’s legal system and 149 British soldiers have died there since 2001, but experts admit that state justice is still beyond the reach of most ordinary Afghans.

President Hamid Karzai promised last year that justice would be done “in the right way”, after worldwide protests at how Mr Kambaksh was convicted. But Mr Nooristani claimed yesterday that there was “no respect for the law”, even in the highest court in Afghanistan. “They have ignored the principle of crime and punishment, they have ignored the principle of innocent until proven guilty. They have got the same mindset as the Taliban.”

The Supreme Court’s decision means Mr Kambaksh’s best hope is now a presidential pardon, which will force Mr Karzai to choose between fundamentalists in his government and the rule of law. It has also raised serious questions over the millions of dollars spent on Afghan justice reforms since 2001, which appear to have been wasted. Mr Nooristani said: “The whole system is corrupt. Even with more investment, the system won’t work.”

Mr Kambaksh was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death last year for circulating an essay on women’s rights which questioned verses in the Koran.

It later emerged he was convicted by three mullahs, in secret, without access to a lawyer. The sentence was commuted to 20 years on appeal. At that appeal, in October, the key prosecution witness withdrew his testimony, claiming he had been forced to lie on pain of death. The prosecution then appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence. The defence appealed to quash his conviction altogether.

Meanwhile, the student has been languishing in a Kabul jail, fearing for his life. Islamic fundamentalists have been baying for his blood while moderate groups have led marches countrywide demanding his release.

In February, the Supreme Court Judge Bahauddin Baha vowed the appeal would be held in “a very open court” but that promise has proved hollow. Mr Nooristani said he was told of the verdict when he arrived to submit his written defence. And Mr Nooristani has himself been threatened. Prosecutors have warned him they are gathering evidence against him for “defending infidels”.

Western diplomats insist they have been lobbying hard to have the case reviewed. But critics say their softly-softly tactic hasn’t worked. “The Afghans know the money just keeps coming no matter what they do,” said an American lawyer in Kabul.

Even if Mr Kambaksh wins an 11th-hour pardon, there are thousands of people just like him, convicted illegally, with no recourse, support or international scrutiny.

Mr Kambaksh’s case has been passed to the prosecutors’ office for “execution of the sentence”, which means he could be moved to Kabul’s notorious Pul-e Charkhi prison, or north to Mazar-i-Sharif, where he was first found guilty. Both hold murderers, rapists and violent Taliban sympathisers. Conditions inside are grim and both are prone to deadly riots.

A spokesman for the Supreme Court claimed there had been no irregularities in the case. But a spokesman for the British embassy said: “We have serious concerns about the fairness of Mr Kambaksh’s trial. We continue to call on the Afghan state to comply with the international human rights standards, to which it is a party – this includes the right to a fair trial.”

Our Pervez campaign

Worldwide outrage over Pervez Kambaksh’s death sentence was sparked after The Independent reported his plight in January 2008. Our campaign led to the Afghan President Hamid Karzai being inundated with appeals, while political figures including the former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice lent their support. The Government raised the matter directly with Afghanistan after more than 100,000 Independent readers signed the petition and in October 2008 a Kabul appeals court lifted the death sentence. The court ruled however that he should serve 20 years, which his lawyers contested on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/student-facing-20-years-in-hell-1643069.html

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.