Home Human Rights
Category

Human Rights
AfricaHuman RightsPrint Article

Tunisia: Influencer of Change

written by Elizabeth Onibokun

Inspired by the attempted January 6th insurrection in Washington, D.C., “Changing of the Guard” is a series of reflections on transitions of power — the peaceful, the violent, and the era-defining.

Tunisia has managed to establish itself with impressive feats such as being the only country in North Africa labelled as “Free” by Freedom House and one of the only Arab countries to be regarded as democratic by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index. It is also the country that largely influenced the 2011 Arab Uprisings which swept through the Arab world and caused large-scale protests and demonstrations in countries such as Syria, Egypt, and Yemen. In Tunisia’s case, they were able to gain democratic freedoms the people had fought hard for but unfortunately the same had not happened for other countries that had followed their example. That being said, Tunisia’s history is one largely characterized by rapid transitions of power and coups. The big question is whether Tunisia has moved on from these instabilities or is there risk of future instability in the region? Were the rights gained in the Tunisian Revolution truly worth it or is there another political leader on the horizon just waiting for the right moment to strike? 

Habib Bourguiba: The Revolutionary

The first major transition of power occurred in 20th century Tunisia with Habib Bourguiba who was one of the most central figures in shaping Tunisia into what it is today. Bourguiba started from humble beginnings and by his thirties was largely involved in the anti-colonial movement that was rapidly gaining traction. He went on to co-found the Neo Destour Party which ended up leading the Tunisian Independence Movement. After decades of struggle, Tunisia finally gained its independence from France in 1956 with Bourguiba appointed Prime Minister by King Muhammad VIII al-Amin. The freedom of shedding a colonial identity can never be overstated. It seems counterintuitive to have to fight for independence seeing as freedom should be a given. Unfortunately, the history of this world has proven this to be false and so the decolonization that swept through African countries during the 50s and 60s is truly a triumphant shift in power. 

The same day that the Constituent Assembly voted to abolish the monarchy, Tunisia was declared a republic. Bourguiba would go on to become the first president of Tunisia’s history. He would go on to have a 30-year reign and even boldly declared in 1975 that he would be “president for life”. It would take a bloodless coup in 1987 to oust him from power and this was carried out largely because of the fear that Bourguiba was no longer acting rationally. However, in his prolonged time in office Bourguiba carried out many reforms that are largely why Tunisia is seen as so democratic today. His contributions to women’s rights are especially noteworthy. His passage of the Code of Personal Status (CPS) represented his commitment towards codifying necessary rights for women such as legalizing divorce and abolishing child marriage. It isn’t a perfect document and there are still issues of gender equality that need to be addressed such as unequal inheritance laws between men and women. These reforms are accurately held as incredibly influential and demonstrated Bourguiba’s willingness to move towards greater equality between men and women. He was seen as a revolutionary for his relentless pursuit of independence and his commitment towards making laws aimed at modernizing Tunisia. The contradiction is clear, his democratic reforms were lauded for being ahead of its time but he was still an authoritarian ruler who didn’t believe his people were ready for political pluralism and ensured that Neo Destour would be the only legally permitted party in 1963. His successor Ben Ali would represent yet another transition in power in Tunisia’s history. 

Zine El Abidine Ben Ali: Deposed by the People

In the bloodless coup in 1987, Habib Bourguiba was replaced by his recently appointed prime minister Ben Ali, who invoked Article 57 of the Tunisian constitution in order to gain power. Ali listed Boruguiba’s failing health as an inability to effectively lead and take control. Ali stated his intent to be more democratic than Bourguiba but by 1989 it soon became clear that this wouldn’t be the case. After all, power and influence are two very potent and dangerous drugs. During his 23-year reign, the press was subjected to harsh censorship, political opponents were largely disenfranchised, and Ali continued to win elections with improbable amounts of votes. There were other major issues in the country such as large amounts of unemployment which greatly angered people who felt ignored and unsupported. Furthermore, not only was freedom of the press largely restricted but there was little to no freedom of speech. All of these came to a head in 2011 when massive protests demanded Ben Ali’s immediate resignation. These protests were greatly fomented by the 2010 self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi which gained international renown. It is hard to imagine the level of repression Bouazizi and others like him faced which drove him to set himself on fire. His actions are credited with being the catalyst for the 2011 Tunisian Revolution (also called the Jasmine Revolution) which in turn influenced the Arab Uprisings. The widespread protests in Tunisia ultimately succeeded in overthrowing Ben Ali. Ousting Ben Ali meant that Tunisia could begin a transition to a truly democractic form of governance uninhibited by an autocrat. In the aftermath of the Jasmine Revolution, Tunisia was able to host free multiparty parliamentary elections. A presidential election then followed where Moncef Marzouki (a former dissident) was elected. To this day Tunisia is categorized as a democratic republic and the revolution was able to grant citizens civil liberties such as greater freedom of speech. In countries like Yemen and Syria, intense civil conflict erupted as a result of the Arab Uprisings but Tunisia largely emerged stable. With new political liberties granted to citizens, many saw Tunisia as one of the few success stories of the Arab Uprisings. For once a transition of power was demanded by the masses and achieved. And unlike countries like Yemen and Syria which erupted into civil war, Tunisia did not experience such a phenomenon. However, 10 years later, there are now those who wonder if it was even worth it in the first place. 

Looking Forward

“The only positive thing we got out of the revolution was the freedom to say anything we wanted…Maybe we understood freedom wrong, because we’ve made no progress in the last 10 years,” said Ayman Fahri, 24, to the New York Times, a trade student who said he wanted to leave Tunis, maybe for Turkey, because of the lack of opportunities at home. A lot of the problems faced by the country which led to the protests in the first place, such as unemployment, are still an issue today. There is also deadlock in the parliament which stems from wealthy elites facing off against each other. This has rightfully caused tremendous frustration amongst the people which has also translated into lower voter turnout (from a high of 68 percent in the 2014 parliamentary elections to 42 percent in 2019). While there is a shared sentiment that the freedom of speech gained from the revolution is invaluable there is still great disillusionment across Tunisia that all the fight was for nought. Since January 2021 there has also been a rise in protests and riots in the country by young people and civil society groups who are highly dissatisfied with the current situation. Citing reasons such as police brutality, corruption, and severe problems as a result of the pandemic, many have taken to the streets to protest the government and their ineptitude in solving these major issues. Unless major and radical change occurs it is hard to envision a peaceful resolution for these protests where over 1,400 people have already been arrested and countless more are willing to risk their lives to fight for what’s right. This is a precarious situation and one that can be easily taken advantage of.


A figure that has grown in prominence and distinction in recent years is Abir Moussi, a former official of Ben Ali’s party. Moussi represents a populist, anti-revolution movement that continues to gain more and more popularity. While she denies any accusations that she is in a bid to gain power, it is wise to approach these words with great caution. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time in the country’s history that a charismatic leader has managed to gain vast amounts of support and gain power. At this point, one can wonder why a country who fought so hard to escape authoritarianism would fall back into it but it’s important to recognize that in other areas of the world, authoritarian regimes are not always seen as bad. It is a very Western-oriented frame of mind to believe that democracies are what should always be instated. If a regime manages to offer stability, prosperity, and security to its citizens then what more could someone ask for. Human rights abuses are commonly touted as a reason why authoritarian regimes should not be allowed full reign and I completely agree with this argument. This is why moving forward, I hope Tunisia remains vigilant and works hard to ensure that leaders who wish to cause harm are not able to come to power. Tunisia has proven time and time again that it is not to be underestimated. It is truly an influencer of change and with luck, it will manage to find a way to ensure stability and bring reprieve to its citizens.

March 10, 2021 0 comment
2 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AsiaHuman RightsWomen's Rights

How Cambodian Women Demonstrate the Gendered Dynamics of Genocide

written by Caroline Mendoza

In light of Women’s History Month, it cannot be understated that women in Cambodia are disproportionately and uniquely affected by a myriad of issues, many of which, if not all, are the result of deeply rooted gender inequalities and normalized sexism. One in five Cambodian women aged 14-59 will experience some form of physical violence, and domestic violence is still regarded as justifiable. The consequences of these issues manifest in a number of contemporary phenomena, however it is rare that we consider how these inequalities arrived as a result of the gendered impacts of the Cambodian genocide. 

As enshrined in the 1948 Convention on Genocide, the acts that constitute genocide include mass killings, mental and bodily harm, and the transferring of children from the affected group. The definition also notes that preventing births is a crucial factor in the complete destruction of a single group- this final point implicates the necessity of a gendered analysis of genocide to truly understand the crime’s causes, effects, and disproportionate burdens on women. 

The impacts of genocide on women are not merely long-lasting, but initiate cultural, structural, economic, and psychological issues that only continue to pile with the passage of time and a lack of justice. Cambodia has witnessed such consequences and continues to grapple with the now generational results of sexual and gender-based violence during the Cambodian genocide. 

The Cambodian genocide, which ran from 1975-1979, was initiated following the Khmer Rouge’s seizure of the country and the regime’s goal of a classless society with no competition. This would be achieved through mass killings and “re-education” camps to encourage a new societal structure, and, while it is difficult to report the true number of casualties in any mass atrocity, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) estimate up to 3 million deaths as a result of the Cambodian genocide. Many of these deaths would come from disease, torture, starvation, and forced labor, during which thousands of women were subject to rape, sexual violence, and forced marriages. 

The Khmer Rouge wanted to increase Cambodia’s population to ensure the growth of a new generation of Khmer Rouge cadres, therefore relying heavily on Cambodian women to do so. This resulted in group weddings across the nation, rape by husbands and Khmer Rouge officers, and forced pregnancies under the threat of execution. In a 2015 study published as part of the Women and Transitional Justice in Cambodia Project, 96.6% of respondents reported being forced to marry someone they did not want to wed, and 80.5% reported being forced to have sex following wedding ceremonies. Women were also subject to sexual mutilation and rape as punishment for resistance, with 44.8% of respondents who witnessed rape reporting more than one perpetrator. While it is clear that predominantly women suffer from sexual violence in the context of genocide, it should be noted that men were subject to these atrocities as well, with 3% of respondents knowing of male victims of rape. 

With a situation as horrific and scarring as Cambodia’s, it is clear that the effects of such an event can never be truly healed or realized in full. In a post-conflict setting working towards reconstruction, women were, and still are, highly stigmatized and blamed for their experiences during the genocide. Parts of Cambodia maintain that a woman’s value stems from her “purity,” marginalizing those who testify about their experiences. Women also reported a loss of respect from neighbors and community members who felt their marriages were untraditional. Additionally, the vast majority of women forced to marry fell into poverty that has affected their resulting children and lasted for generations. 

In addition to social and economic repercussions, the health effects of the genocide are vast. Women who suffered rape and bodily mutilation would never experience properly functioning health systems for the rest of their lives. Psychologically, these women would go on to suffer from insomnia, nervousness, headaches, and perpetual feelings of guilt and shame that have only been enforced by Cambodia’s remaining gender roles and patriarchy. 

It is important to note that the Khmer Rouge’s gender-specific genocidal tactics are not of their own invention, but rooted in already existing structures of oppression that do not treat women as humans with self-determination but rather as objects for sex or purely reproduction. While this is true of all gender-based and sexual violence, genocide in particular is representative of the immense and urgent change needed to address gender disparities and grapple with the already present results of inequalities.

It is very difficult to think about what steps would need to be taken to begin addressing the vastly intersectional and multifaceted issue that is gender inequality. However, starting with legal justice for the women affected and accountability for perpetrators of the crimes will aid in healing and peacebuilding, and work towards the end goal of preventing genocide as opposed to reacting after the crime has already happened. Pursuing justice and accountability also necessitates formal recognition of the atrocities committed, and will contribute to much needed awareness and visibility efforts. 

Justice, however, especially for women who have suffered from sexual violence, is infamously difficult to obtain. Many believe that sexual violence was not part of the Khmer Rouge’s crimes- this misinformation and occasional denialism, combined with the widespread stigmatization of women who do share their experiences, has made the process to even begin to seek justice an immense challenge, leading to the many former Khmer Rouge officials who continue to live in the countryside, sometimes near survivors. 

While the UN-backed ECCC was established in 2006 and mandated to prosecute Khmer Rouge officers for their atrocities, the Court has been limited to prosecuting a small group of Khmer Rouge leaders, making accountability for individual perpetrators difficult to achieve. Although the ECCC has acknowledged forced marriages and rape as part of the crimes that formed cases eventually charged as genocide, these are lengthy and long overdue trials, and many have criticized the Court for expenditures reaching up to $300 million only to convict very few people. 

In tandem with justice, the role of education should be noted as necessary to both genocide prevention and the closing of gender disparities. In Cambodia, knowledge of and dialogue surrounding the sexual violence during the genocide is generally low. While the topic itself is still very taboo, as time continues to pass and survivors slowly pass away, learning about the genocide and its gendered impacts will serve as a lesson for what cannot be repeated and open conversations on gender equality and issues unique to women. 

As we witness the forced sterilization of Uyghur women and mass rape of Rohingya women in contemporary times, these crimes will end in even more dire outcomes than seen currently if the world continues to act only after atrocities occur. While a country should not be defined solely by its suffering, just as the legacies of genocide are still present in Cambodia, similar consequences will root in new nations if we remain ignorant to the true and gendered costs of genocide.

March 9, 2021 0 comment
3 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AsiaHuman RightsPrint Article

With Burma’s Coup, Ethnic Minorities Cannot Be Forgotten

written by Caroline Mendoza

Inspired by the attempted January 6th insurrection in Washington, D.C., “Changing of the Guard” is a series of reflections on transitions of power — the peaceful, the violent, and the era-defining.

On February 1, the Burma (Myanmar) Army successfully carried out a coup d’etat, detaining leaders from the country’s ruling party and declaring a year-long state of emergency. While the news came as a surprise to the international community, for civilians, the threat of a coup and military rule had been long-looming. The Burma Army previously ruled the nation in a military junta from 1962 until 2011, and has since waged a continuous campaign of violence throughout the country, resulting in war crimes, mass atrocities, and genocide. 

Tensions between the Burma Army and the National League of Democracy (NLD), Burma’s ruling party, had been brewing since the completion of Burma’s national election cycle on November 8 when the NLD won in a landslide victory. The Burma Army claimed the elections were fraudulent after the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party performed poorly in Burma’s 2020 elections, driving the Burma Army to call for constant re-votes until finally carrying out a coup on the morning of February 1. Since then, the Burma Army has cut off and restored internet access, arrested lawmakers, activists, ethnic leaders, and students, caused the nation’s banks to momentarily shut down, and shot and killed 19-year-old protester Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing.

It is much more complicated than disputed election results, however. Burma is home to over 135 ethnic groups, many of which, if not all, have suffered from violence incited by the Burma Army that has gone unchecked and ignored under the NLD’s watch. Since the start of 2021, the Burma Army has forcibly displaced an estimated 4,000 ethnic Karen people after shelling villages in Karen state. In Burma’s Kachin state, close to 100,000 ethnic Kachin are barely surviving in overcrowded and underfunded displacement camps, in addition to the over 200,000 ethnic Chin who have been displaced by clashes incited by the Burma Army since 2018. The same cycle of violence and impunity continues for Shan, Mon, Karenni, and Rakhine states. 

The mass atrocities perpetrated by the Burma Army are of significance not only because of the thousands of lives that have been uprooted, but because they are representative of the deeply rooted ethnocentrism and violence that the NLD permits. Since the country’s first free elections in 2015, the NLD has remained in control of the government primarily due to its leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi— a Nobel Peace Prize awardee and long-time campaigner for restored democracy in Burma. While Aung San Suu Kyi was once a shining beacon of hope for Burma and a powerful woman leader to be idolized by the rest of the world, the Noble Laureate’s legacy is tarnished— in addition to ignoring the Burma Army’s abuses, Aung San Suu Kyi defended genocide against the Rohingya, an ethnic Muslim minority, when Burma was tried at the International Court of Justice in January 2020. Suu Kyi is somewhat of a military puppet, however, as despite the NLD ruling the Burmese government, the Burma Army holds significant power under the 2008 constitution, which gives a quarter of parliament seats to the military, and has multiple business deals and foreign investment projects that funnel money into the regime. 

Clearly, the NLD is not the democratic force for change that the world once regarded it to be. When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Burma in 2011 and announced that the US would no longer block monetary aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the world was encouraged by Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi’s promises for democracy, leading President Barack Obama to lift sanctions and encourage democratization. While these policies were enacted with good intentions, they were implemented based on Burma’s words rather than actions— lifting sanctions placed a US seal of approval on Burma that caused the international community to believe democracy and security could progress unmonitored in the country. The results of these beliefs have manifested in mass violence, ethnocentrism, and now a military coup. 

The abuses committed against Burma’s ethnic minorities cannot be disregarded when speaking on the coup. These abuses represent the extent of the military’s power in Burma and have inflated the egos of a violent and abusive leadership that will affect the entirety of the country, especially ethnic minorities. The NLD’s facade of democracy has allowed the Burma Army to operate unseen by the rest of the international community, and while many policymakers have been quick to report on and condemn the coup, these same experts have stayed silent when it comes to addressing the country’s internal conflict— the root of most, if not all, of the nation’s issues. The coup is not an isolated incident— it is a result of a longstanding history of the Burma Army’s impunity, the NLD’s poor leadership, and the international community’s failure to treat Burma with the urgency it required. 

However, it is important to note that while the NLD’s leadership is vastly far from ideal, the election of the NLD is the closest that Burma has come to achieving a true democracy and must continue to be recognized as the official government of Burma throughout the military junta. The coup is a threat to all steps made towards a democratically-ruled Burma, and while it is hard to imagine what a true democracy in Burma will look like, it is a necessary exercise for the future. 

In the long term, Burma’s government would need immense reform with diversity to the greatest extent in order to represent all ethnic groups and include ethnic candidates that were previously stifled in their election bids. Currently, ethnic minorities do not have a say in how they are governed but are still forced to follow the government’s policies— ethnic leaders with enhanced decision-making rights are crucial to a democratic end goal and necessary to grapple with the rampant Burmanization that has permeated the NLD. The country would also more than likely need to reform the 2008 constitution, which will otherwise continue to give the military power regardless of who is elected to leadership.

In the short term, the military coup needs to be reined in. This starts with holding the Burma Army accountable for their crimes and effectively ending their violent power-run. Decisive action will also need to be made on behalf of the international community and the US, which would include targeted sanctions on military-owned and controlled companies as well as pressure on the Burma Army to release all detained political prisoners. Ethnic minorities’ struggle for representation and basic human rights can no longer go overlooked— justice and the rule of law are in dire need of implementation.

While current events paint out Burma’s future to be extremely dim, there is hope for a country that has long fought for and is deserving of sustainable peace and democracy. Citizens have taken to the streets in mass protest against the Burma Army’s illegal seizure of power, with the rise of the Civil Disobedience Movement bringing artists, teachers, healthcare workers, and activists together in opposition. Burma has required the world’s attention for far too long— action must be taken to support Burma’s transition to security, peace, and democracy. 

February 28, 2021 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
ChinaGeopoliticsHuman RightsNational SecurityReligionTerrorism

Uighurs In China: Suffering in Silence?

written by Elizabeth Onibokun

One of the foremost philosophical questions asked in many history and political science classes seems to be, “If you were alive back then, what would you have done during the Holocaust?” It’s easy to pipe up and boldly declare how you would have fought back but in reality one can never truly know how they would act in that situation. However, when examining the devastating reality in Xinjiang, China, perhaps that question is no longer as “outdated” as one previously believed. 

Uighur Persecution

The Uighurs are a predominantly Muslim Turkic minority ethnic group who reside in what is present-day Xinjiang, but many Uighurs still refer to it as East Turkmenistan, its original name before annexation by China in 1949. There are Uighur communities in neighboring regions such as Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan but a majority, numbering up to 11 million, reside in Xinjiang. As with most cases involving large-scale oppression and discrimination against a group, things escalated incrementally so as to eliminate the shock of such treatment over time. As early as 2011, Amnesty International released a report detailing the Chinese government’s “crackdown” on Uighur groups who revealed their suffering at the hands of the government after the unrest of protests carried out in the so-called autonomous region of Xinjiang. Some of these abuses included, “Hundreds of people [being] detained and prosecuted following the riots, with several dozen sentenced to death or executed and many of these sentenced to long prison terms.” In 2014, China continued with the suppression of Uighur communities and went so far as to ban Xinjiang government officials from fasting during Ramadan, the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, observed by Muslims worldwide as a month of fasting, prayer and reflection. 

In explanation of these measures and the continued smothering of the Uighur community, the Chinese government points to the attacks carried out by Xinjiang separatist groups, incidents that include but are not limited to attacks on the police station and government offices in Yarkant, an Urumqi railway station, and most notably a car bursting its way into Tiananmen Square. While there is no excuse for terrorist attacks carried out by groups such as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the Chinese government specifically used a PR strategy of highlighting these attacks to excuse their disproportional actions against the Uighur community. The construction and continued operation of what China claims are “re-education camps” are closer to concentration camps. 

“Re-Education”

The camps which reports show being used since 2017 are a grim reality which Uighurs are forced to face. The numbers of those detained vary based on the source, but it is at least 1 million, a number that requires a moment of thought and reflection as to the sheer amount of lives that have been forever changed. BBC reported that, “in 2017, President Xi Jinping issued a directive that “religions in China must be Chinese in orientation” and “adapt themselves to socialist society.” To this day, China denies that it is operating concentration camps and, when viewing things from a strategic standpoint, the government makes sure to draw parallels between Uighur separatist groups and al-Qaeda, surely wanting to appeal to the U.S’s continued War Against Terror. In fact, the controversial Guantanamo Bay at one time held 22 Uighur detainees at China’s urging despite there being no evidence of anti-American sentiment or participation in the 9/11 attacks. Testimonies of those who have managed to survive these camps reveal the fact that this is not about education but rather brainwashing, indoctrination, and punishment. With more than 85 identified camps and first hand accounts of those who suffered first hand it bears the question why hasn’t anything been done? Even more importantly, why is it still something many refuse to believe? 

International Response

Despite the fact that the human rights abuses against the Uighur community had been mounting for years and the camps’ existence known from 2017, it wasn’t until July 2019 that a statement was released by 22 countries (with the United States as a notable exception) to the United Nations castigating China for their treatment of the Uighur population. Even more puzzling, merely four days after that statement, a staggering amount of 37 Muslim-majority countries released their own statement praising China for their “human rights achievements.” It’s frustrating that instead of coming out in support of their fellow Muslims in China, countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia chose to defend China but that just speaks to the power politics at play on an international scale. China is a large and powerful country and has cemented itself as a great power in this world. Their economic power is substantial and is the reason why they have so much influence, especially with the successful Belt Road Initiative. The BRI was a method for China to utilize trade infrastructure projects to strengthen relationships and invest in emerging markets. It was launched in 2013 and has many countries in the Middle East not only involved but indebted to China through the massive loans extended as part of the BRI initiative. Money continues to be a driving force in this world and is perhaps the main reason why many countries won’t speak out about China’s oppression of the Uighur people 一fear of harsh retribution.

Conclusion

When concerning huge global topics and relations between countries, it’s too easy to forget those on the ground who are personally affected by the ever-changing policies and nature of the world. In order to help Uighurs, we as people and we as a country are not helpless. Sanctions have always been an effective method of deterrence and a non-violent way of garnering an outcome. In order to rally public support against Uighur mass detentions, awareness is key. Continued education and spreading information helps battle the lies, knowledge is power, and through that we can extend a helping hand to Uighurs fighting for their freedom and lives. The time for philosophical questions and words are over, now is the time for action and taking that initiative. 

November 12, 2020 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EuropeGlobalizationHuman RightsHumanitarian AidImmigrationPopulismSyrian Civil War

Greece’s Migrant Crisis: A Combination of EU Policy Failures & Populism

written by Caroline Mendoza

On September 8, Moria, a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, was engulfed in flames that burned down a majority of the camp and left more than 12,000 Syrian refugees sleeping on the streets of Greece. Although the destruction of the camp initiated promises from European Union officials for new measures to prevent refugee influxes in Greece, it also sparked conversation around the EU’s ineffective policies and Europe’s increase in populist sentiment. 

While Syria’s civil war has raged on since 2011, the over 5.6 million refugees that have fled the country exist in a state of limbo between the jurisdiction of multiple countries, perhaps most notably Greece and Turkey. In 2015, the EU experienced a mass influx of close to 100,000 refugees fleeing predominately from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, prompting the bloc to form the 2016 EU-Turkey deal- to prevent the entrance of refugees at Greece’s shores, the EU bargained with neighboring Turkey to provide monetary aid in return for Turkey accepting all refugees attempting to seek asylum in Greece. Turkey received 6 billion Euros (6.7 billion USD) to aid the now 3.6 million Syrian refugees registered in the nation. 

While the deal worked in Greece’s favor for several years succeeding its conception, recent dynamics have changed- Turkey has expressed that the monetary support from the EU is insufficient compared to the burden of millions of Syrian refugees as well as migrants from Afghanistan. In March 2020, Turkey opened its borders with Greece and openly bused refugees to the nations’ shared northwestern border as a means of exerting pressure on Greece and showcasing the threat of additional refugees. Many have accused Turkey of utilizing the struggling refugees as political pawns, prompting the EU to reassert that the bloc would not be “blackmailed” into exacerbating the migrant crisis for Greece. 

While the current situation remains politically fragile and is only heightened with the threat of COVID-19, the challenges Greece is facing as its camps crowd with thousands of desperate migrants are reflective of the EU’s overall structural issues and policies on asylum-seekers. The EU’s Dublin Regulations, which mandates that the first nation an asylum seeker enters must process the asylum seeker’s registration, disproportionately places large responsibilities on Mediterranean states whose borders are common points of entry for those leaving North Africa and the Middle East. While the Regulations were originally conceived to ensure that those registering do not apply to multiple member states, nations, including Italy and Greece, have led the growing opposition to the Dublin Regulations. 

In an attempt to create responsibility-sharing and ease pressures off of Italy and Greece, the EU initiated yet another lacking migration policy 一 the EU’s relocation scheme, devised after the 2015 influx of asylum seekers, planned to relocate over 160,000 asylum seekers across member states over two years. By the time 2017 arrived, a mere 29,144 people had been relocated.

In an attempt to remedy this, the EU released a new plan to improve its handling of Greece’s refugees following the incineration of Moria. The EU’s most recent migration pact will expedite pre-entry screening at borders by taking a maximum of five days while increasing responsibility sharing amongst member states by having nations contribute based on their populations and GDPs. Poland, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, however, expressed a staunch opposition to the plan in stating that the borders of the EU should remain “perfectly sealed.” 

While the EU’s policymaking and failure to prioritize the rights of asylum seekers are to blame for situations like Moria, the EU’s member states have experienced a recent rise in populism that hinder the success of any relocation or migration plans. Poland, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic’s anti-immigrant stance is a trend across western Europe. In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party has introduced multiple policies to cut back on welfare for migrants- one law requires that migrant children, or those of a “non-Western” background, take Danish language classes for their families to receive welfare. In the Netherlands, a burqa ban was put in place in August 2019 that restricts face-covering clothing from being worn in areas including public transport, government facilities, and healthcare centers. Similar laws exist in Denmark, Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, and France, and are representative of xenophobic and discriminatory policymaking implemented to highlight migrants as “outsiders.” 

A similar sentiment was also seen in many “Brexiteers”一 for members of the UK’s conservative party, an incentive to leave the EU was that the UK would no longer be part of the EU’s “free movement of persons” right, which allows individuals to move and reside freely amongst the EU member states. The conservative argument promoted leaving the EU to prevent refugees who entered through eastern Europe from residing in the UK. Now that Brexit has passed, the UK has already begun implementing policies to prevent immigrants from entering. A new set of laws will close the UK’s borders to immigrants who do not speak English and are unskilled laborers. 

While the EU itself has a history of failed migration plans, there is only so much the commission can do; with raging anti-immigrant sentiment and an increase in European populism, member states are increasingly unwilling to welcome any new migrants, much less carry out responsibility-sharing plans released by the EU. Close to 12,000 asylum seekers will be left on the shoulders of Greece and perhaps exacerbate the already tense relations with Turkey. As the European Commission has already begun financing the construction of new camps to replace Moria, the futures of many refugees may be in cramped, under-resourced camps while the EU attempts to persuade nativist leaders and member states or bribe neighboring states to ease some of Greece’s burdens. Either way, the EU has much work to be done to handle this migrant crisis adequately and humanely, perhaps starting with urgency for more tolerant and inclusive policies in its own member states. 

November 9, 2020 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedFreedom of SpeechGlobalizationHuman RightsInternetJournalismSociety and CultureTechnology

Social Media, Protest, and the Freedom of Speech

written by Annabelle Werner

This article is the fourth of five pieces from our summer series for 2020. The theme this summer is “Challenging Narratives.” In the coming days and weeks, The Generation will publish more articles where our writers challenge various notions to provide new and different perspectives on the debates and events shaping your world.

State violence, racial protest, and debates on the freedom of speech are not novel phenomena, but with the advent of social media and its global proliferation, 2020 especially has witnessed a fundamental change in how citizens criticize their government and conduct political protest. In
order for citizens to actualize their fundamental rights in the 21st century, one must navigate the complex relationship between free speech, democratic institutions, and the broadcasting power of social networks. From the Arab Spring a decade ago to the Belarusian election and George Floyd protests of this summer, social media platforms have democratized the ability to rapidly spread information about injustice to millions. Yet as these platforms become increasingly inseparable from our lives, online spaces have become battlegrounds between governments and protesters, and between information and misinformation. Now, the private companies who created these virtual domains must take on a balancing act that was previously reserved for states: protecting the freedom of speech while maintaining public safety. The complication with this role shift is that as international corporations, they must balance many countries’ cultural norms regarding the freedom of speech. To what extent will individual domestic laws be able to influence private, global platforms? In addition, social media companies have the task of remaining politically neutral while protecting election security. They are responsible for codifying checks on their own industry which inherently profits off of scandalous, viral information. The U.S. has seen the influence of online conspiracy theories increase from the 2016 election until now, demonstrating that what goes on in online chat rooms can have effects in the physical world. Conspiracy theories, inflammatory accusations by state leaders, hate speech, and calls for revolutions all violate some sort of public order in physical space, so how will social media platforms design cyber policies that will actualize people’s right to speech while protecting public order? Overall, because social platforms have become whistles for injustice and democratic tools for political organizing, social media companies must develop social media policy that helps users to actualize these freedoms online while fighting against misinformation and hatred that could pose as threats to our democracies.

Social media has catalyzed social and political movements since the Arab Spring in 2011. A viral video filmed by a common bystander ignited this powerful and paradigm altering movement. Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26-year-old fruit vendor who lit himself on fire in front of a government building after refusing to pay a police bribe. He had been unable to find work as a lawyer due to his involvement in the opposition Progressive Democratic Party, and he publicly committed suicide in protest of police harassment and President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime. Bouazizi’s death and his funeral were both filmed and sparked mass protests across Tunisia; President Ben Ali fled the country after a 23 year long reign four days after Bouazizi’s funeral. Like dominos, protests erupted across Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, all objecting to autocratic regimes. Social media created the ability for common citizens, especially young people, to collect and share evidence of state brutality. This technology has served as a system for fact checking government propaganda and has allowed opposition movements of repressive regimes to quickly galvanize and organize people in real life. While the results of the Arab Spring did not result in the “political reform and social justice” that was hoped for (Tunisia was the only nation that gained substantial changes in the form of a new constitution), technology was intrinsic to sparking these revolutionary movements and defining a new, 21st century method of actualizing one’s right to speak and assemble.

More recent examples of how social media has empowered everyday people and helped corroborate state brutality can be found in Lebanon and Belarus. In Lebanon, the government’s handling of the harrowing August 4th explosion in Beirut’s port, in addition to existing outrage over the governmental fiscal policy decisions during the nation’s grim economic recession, has ignited protest around the country. Videos of the explosion were disseminated widely across global news, and soon after, videos of excessive uses of force such as the use of tear gas on peaceful protesters began circulating on social media. According to Human Rights Watch, researchers “observed security forces fire a tear gas canister directly at a protester’s head, in violation of international standards, severely injuring him.” A video of the aftermath of that event where the man is being treated for his injuries was posted on Twitter and currently has 119,000 views. In Belarus, protests have broken out after attacks on members of the opposition party and the corruption of the sitting president. Aisha Jung, Amnesty International’s Senior Campaigner on Belarus, said:


“The people who have gathered to denounce the elimination of opposition presidential candidates from the election list have every right to take to the streets…Protesters claim that the sole reason Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s political opponents have been purged from the campaign is so that he can seek a sixth consecutive term as President, effectively unopposed.”


Peaceful protestors are now camped out in front of the Minsk parliament building in what is known as Independence Square. Anyone in the world with access to Twitter can be witness to these powerful moments; they can see the overwhelming crowd from a bird’s eye view and hear the ringing echo of thousands of voices bounce off the buildings. Yet, one can also find graphic videos of unnecessary and excessive force on peaceful Belarusian protesters in the media. These videos and images serve as evidence of state violence, dispel propaganda, and have captured the world’s attention.


One final example of social media’s role in galvanizing protests includes the recent demonstrations for racial justice across the United States which may be the largest social movement in U.S. history. Everyday people of all races and backgrounds, in addition to celebrities, sports teams, and corporations, have been contributing their support for the Black Lives Matter Global Network. The protests were ignited by the George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police on May 25th. 17-year-old Darnella Frazier captured the shocking image of the killing, which showed one officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck as he begged for his life while three other police officers looked distantly on. In America, protests over police brutality and racism have been catalyzed in the past by similar videos taken by bystanders. The Rodney King Riots of 1992 erupted after four Los Angeles policemen were acquitted for a brutal beating of Rodney King, a violent act caught on camera that made national and global news. Since then, technology has become heavily integrated into our lives and vastly accessible to many, so now more than ever the everyday citizen has the ability to record chaotic and events that could later be used to inform others or corroborate eyewitness accounts.


In an analysis of these events, one can view social media and technology as a widely accessible, democratic outlet where nearly anyone can exercise their human right to the freedom of expression. The people can share their voices, experiences, and opinions in ways that can check political regimes. But social media platforms are also private companies that, especially after the 2016 U.S. election, are reviewing their policies and investigating how they will balance the. universal right to free speech and the need to maintain public safety as well as stopping the spread of maliciously false information that could lead to real life disasters and threaten civic
institutions.


In 2016, a bizarre example of how fake social media accounts and conspiracy theories could develop real consequences arose. Crazed rumors about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s connection to a child sex trafficking ring hidden in a Washington D.C. pizza parlor spread on social media. Bot accounts, which are accounts that “automatically create tweets without direct human oversight”, helped to share and promote information on what became known as “Pizzagate” along with radical online “personalities” like conservative radio host Alex Jones. Edgar Welch, a believer of such theories, showed up to the supposed center of this satanic ring, Comet Ping Pong Pizza, with a “Colt AR-15 assault rifle, a .38-caliber Colt revolver and a folding knife, [and] fired his gun two or three times.” No one was injured, but this strange incident serves as an example of how fake media accounts created for the purposes of smearing a political figure online can have real and violent consequences. More recently, a group founded on similar beliefs to “Pizzagate” called QAnon has amassed followers on mainstream platforms. The Washington Post defines QAnon’s beliefs as


“… a concoction of allegations against Democratic politicians, celebrities and supposed members of a ‘deep state’ government bureaucracy, against whom Trump is seen as waging a valiant battle. Purported pedophilia rings are central to the conspiracy theory, along with Satanism and secret judicial proceedings’. QAnon believers await the ‘Great Awakening,’ or the moment the general public realizes the conspiracy exists, and the ‘Storm,’ when thousands of wrongdoers face justice.”


Despite being labeled a domestic terror threat by the FBI, Facebook only began removing QAnon platforms in August of 2020; this included 790 groups and 440 pages. Conspiracy theorists with fringe opinions spread false information to promote their own interests, interests defined by a system where the more followers one has, the more money one stands to make from advertising deals. For example, Alex Jones was “permanently suspended” from Twitter in 2018 on the grounds that his tweets violated Twitter’s community guidelines against abusive behavior which states “you may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. We consider abusive behavior an attempt to harass, intimidate, or silence someone else’s voice.” Recently in 2020, Alex Jones and his “InfoWars” app were banned from the Google Play store after spreading false information about the coronavirus; Jones also “lost an appeal in a defamation case about his claims related to the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting” and racked up nearly $150,000 total in legal fees before the trial. Yet, cases where platforms that are actually taken down are the exception, and usually after significant harm has done. The spread of maliciously false information has terrible consequences in reality, especially during a pandemic that requires a collective effort and understanding which is constantly undermined by this misinformation complex.


The benefit of social media is that a single person has the potential to reach millions of people at once, but that also serves as a complication in the balancing act between protecting one’s right to self-expression and ensuring public safety. In America, hateful or inflammatory speech is usually thought of as “lawful but awful” and protected as long as it is not meant to incite imminent violence. But social media platforms span across many nations, all with differing regulations regarding one’s speech. An NPR podcast about free speech and social media discussed how hate speech is not protected in Europe and the EU has developed a solution of writing their guidelines into the terms of service that is signed by users of their regions; they warn platforms of passing restrictive laws against them if these rules are not factored in, while the Trump administration is also threatening legislative action if platforms do not conform to their own standards. This creates a tension unique to an international platform that has to balance the various cultural norms regarding free speech laws.

Another debate influencing free speech online is the one of the major components of Trump’s platform known as “Fake News” which is the idea that traditional media coverage and social media algorithms discriminate against conservative viewpoints. Despite this pervasive allegation from the Right, there has been no evidence to substantiate this claim. In one study, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and the National University of Singapore debunked this assertion of online conservative bias in their work “The Ideological Landscape of Twitter: Comparing the Production versus Consumption of Information on the Platform” where they found that “while partisan opinion leaders are certainly polarized, centrist or non-political voices are much more likely to produce the most visible information on the platform”. Online platforms are methods where both politicians and citizens of many countries can actualize their freedom of expression, but the struggle between governments and these private companies over algorithms and guidelines will only continue as these platforms age and grow.


Finally, other corporations are also weighing in on the issue as Coca Cola, Target and other major companies have recently limited or stopped advertising on Facebook in order to push Facebook to codify new rules regarding hate speech. This debate over the role of the platform in protecting the public order has not only been reactivated by false information about the COVID- 19 pandemic, but about the validity of the U.S. 2020 presidential election as well. Twitter has tacked two disclaimers on President Trump’s tweets this past year about voter fraud and the validity of US elections as well as a tweet “implying [that] protesters in Minneapolis could be shot.” A key factor in this debate over expression on online platforms involves the profile of the speaker. Should public figures with the ability to reach so many, compounded by the legitimacy of their position, have different standards of what they can say on social media than the average person?


Social media has equipped the everyday person with the ability to document injustice and corroborate their experience with evidence. It has catalyzed protests against racial injustice and state brutality in the United States, facilitating one of the largest social movements the world has seen. It has been utilized to ignite revolutions and check autocratic regimes. But social media platforms must practice a balancing act. They must protect the public against false information spread with malicious intent – like defamatory rumors about a political figure spread by an opposition party or hostile government – while also confronting structural incentives that encourage peddlers of misinformation to make millions by circulating hateful conspiracy theories. But who has the right to determine what is a lawful expression of one’s opinion and what are lies intended to incite violence? We know that social media has the power to stir revolutions and instigate social movements. Which movements should be allowed to grow at the risk of violating public order? We also know that social media has the power to make fringe opinions or conspiracies appear to be mainstream understandings. How will companies protect free expression and public safety? Should widely followed accounts of public figures be held to different standards of the acceptability of what they share? Ultimately, this election year will help define this gray area as private social media platforms write new cyber policies to govern virtual communities that have become inseparable from how we exercise our right to expression and protest in our physical ones.

October 27, 2020 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedGeopoliticsGlobalizationHistoryHuman RightsHumanitarian AidSecurity and Conflict

A Call to Amend the Security Council Veto

written by Annabelle Werner

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the global powers came together to create an intergovernmental organization, the United Nations, that would facilitate diplomacy and “save the world from the scourges of war.” The spirit of the UN Charter was to create an international community that would prevent a disastrous third world war in the nuclear age and establish legal procedures and forums to address the world’s darkest problems. Since then, the United Nations has saved countless human lives and acted as a mechanism for preserving and building peace. However, there are many significant structural problems in the institutions of the international community. Multilateral humanitarian intervention, or the deployment of a multilateral peacekeeping force to halt genocide and crimes against humanity, is one of the most controversial actions of the UN. One should be critical of the effectiveness of Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter which allows the permanent members of the Security Council to veto resolutions for this type of military intervention.

The victors of the war had the most influence in forming the laws for this new international agency and for establishing new diplomatic norms. For example, the Allied powers organized the Nuremburg Trials to hold leaders who committed genocide and crimes against humanity during the war accountable. But because the winners, the Allies, were holding the trials, only Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes. The Allied powers also created the legal structure for the Security Council, and the US especially advocated for the veto power because it was an added protection of American domestic sovereignty. But the veto power has continually inhibited the functions of the Council, especially humanitarian intervention, and conflicted with the spirit of the UN Charter.

Multilateral humanitarian intervention exists to protect those who are suffering from the worst of crimes, crimes which are perpetrated by the victim’s own state. And while the UN recognizes the sovereignty of each of its member states and functions in an anarchic international system with no higher enforcement, if a state were to begin systemically exterminating its own people, the UN has the authority under international law to intervene with peacekeeping forces. Thus, multilateral humanitarian intervention is one of the two exceptions to the UN Charter’s ban on the use of force. The deployment of peacekeeping forces is authorized by the Security Council, who is bestowed with this authority because of Article 42 of the Charter. The permanent five (P5) members of the Security Council, the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France, and China, all have veto power when considering resolutions that authorize multilateral humanitarian intervention. Ten rotating non permanent members also vote on related issues and nine affirmative votes are needed to approve a resolution, but one veto from any of the P5 stops it from passing. This presents a problem when factoring in geopolitics and international relations into how the Council votes.

If a P5 nation decides that an act of humanitarian intervention would not be in their interest domestically, or in the interest of their allies, they can stop it from happening. This hypocrisy has been cited as a reason for a failure of preventing or halting genocide in the Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Syria among other cases. Some would argue that multilateral humanitarian intervention should rarely ever be used and that the veto power encourages the Council to keep this type of resolution as a last resort. However, because this intervention is only ever considered in emergency situations, delay only means death for those affected. The Security Council veto promotes inaction by allowing a select few states the ability to act in their own interests at the expense of protecting human life.

It’s also important to remember that humanitarian intervention, which is a use of force, is only allowed as an exception under international law. One of the fundamental purposes of the UN is to prevent war and thus the UN Charter bans the use of force in Article 2(4). This law states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. Yet, the UN also codifies two major exceptions. The first is outlined in Article 51, which makes an exception for cases of individual or collective self-defense as no state would have signed a treaty that prohibited them from striking back after an attack. The other exception, outlined in Article 42, allows the use of force with Security Council approval if it is conducted in the spirit of Chapter V or “maintenance of international peace and security”. The UN gave themselves the power to intervene in another state if international peace is at stake. The exact law that details the structure of the Security Council veto on this type of force is enumerated under “Article 27 (3)…[which] establishes that all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with ‘the concurring votes of the permanent members’”; it also requires 9 affirmative votes out of both the 5 permanent and 10 rotating members to move forward with multilateral action, but the P5 are the only states with the ability to perpetuate inaction by dismissing a draft resolution. Historically, Article 27 (3) becomes problematic when most members (9 or more) will agree on a resolution and then one P5 state halts the process.

Syria has become a visceral example of how gridlocked the Security Council can become. The Syrian conflict began in 2011 when the revolutions of the Arab Spring reached Syrian borders. Assad’s regime began using violence against protestors and turmoil swelled. A civil war began, drawing in many other countries and ravaging the country for the last decade. According to the Human Rights Watch “World Report” that covered the events of 2018,

“The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a monitoring group based in the UK, estimated the death toll since the start of the war to be as high as 511,000 as of March 2018. Years of relentless fighting left 6.6 million displaced internally and 5.6 million around the world, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)”.

Despite the desperate circumstances and the mass migration into Europe, the Security Council was again deadlocked. Russia supported Assad’s regime and vetoed any military intervention. The Syrian people have since suffered from the following human rights violations, described in the The World Report, such as chemical weapon attacks, arbitrary detention, and forced disappearances conducted by Assad’s government, as well as indiscriminate attacks by a Syrian-Russian alliance, persecution by non-state armed groups, deaths and displacement from Turkish military offenses, and violations by US-backed and US-Led coalitions; all of these human rights issues contributed to the disastrous displacement crisis. Because Russia has domestic interests in backing Assad, the Security Council remains deadlocked and no legal military intervention can occur. Instead, other illegal uses of force are occurring, and Assad’s regime continues operating with impunity. In a July 2020 UN Report, the Commission of Inquiry on Syria found “fresh evidence of war crimes committed by all sides in the Syrian Conflict”. The conflict and humanitarian disaster continues on. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and entire cities have been displaced as the veto power halts legal international help.

There are various proposed legal Security Council reforms including: abolishing the veto and then expanding permanent membership to five other states or supporting the resolution “Responsibility Not to Veto” where P5 members’ veto power would not apply to military intervention related to genocide prevention. While these propositions have their own faults, a change to the legal structure of the Security Council is needed to prevent further inaction.

One proposed solution is to abolish Article 27 (3) and expand permanent membership to five other states from differing regions of the world. The reasoning behind this solution comes from a historical analysis of the UN structure. During the creation of the UN in 1945, the Council consisted of five permanent members and only six non-permanent members because the total number of members of the UN was only 51. Following decolonization, the number of states in the UN grew and by 1963, there were 113 member states. In response, an amendment to the Charter was made and went into effect in 1965 to add 4 more elected seats of nonpermanent members; this expanded the total number of members in the Security Council to 15. But now, the UN has 193 members and the Charter hasn’t been amended in 55 years; there are no permanent member countries from Latin America, Africa, or Southeast Asia. One solution is to expand the number of states from 15 to 20 and abolish the veto power. This would provide more representation to other parts of the world and reflect the global changes in international relations that have occurred in the half of a century since the last amendment. In addition, this idea could help solve the gridlock problem caused by the veto, which realistically occurs when all countries are in agreement except for one P5 state. The complications associated with this resolution lie in selecting the states that would form this new Council. One scholar described the frustration of diplomats trying to pass Security Council reforms when he states, “Beyond the idea of expansion, any consensus falls apart, with fierce regional rivalries over who might gain new permanent seats making any changes problematic, if not impossible”. The decision of which states can be on the new Security Council has also produced gridlock in moving forward with reforms.

Another possible solution is the acceptance of the “Responsibility Not to Veto” or the RN2V initiative which is associated with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. R2P was a paradigm shift in the early 2000s that changed how the international community viewed state sovereignty when faced with atrocious human rights violations; it was in reaction to the failures of the UN to stop the genocides of the 90s, including Rwanda and Srebrenica. R2P claims that the international community has a responsibility to protect citizens of other countries if their states begin to commit egregious human rights violations against them; it thus views sovereignty as a responsibility which could be revoked by the international community on the grounds that the state is committing a crime so atrocious and offensive, they have disrupted international peace. The RN2V is an initiative to eliminate the deadlock of the Security Council veto so that humanitarian intervention can be effectively applied. More specifically, the RN2V requires that “‘[t]he Permanent Five members of the Security Council should agree not to apply their veto power, in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes for which there is otherwise majority support’”. This initiative has met resistance from most of the P5, but has actually found support from France. The Official French diplomatic website states,

“…in 2013 France launched an initiative proposing a collective and voluntary agreement by permanent members of the Security Council whereby permanent members shall not exercise the right to veto in the event of mass atrocities. The Security Council’s ability to prevent or put an end to situations of mass atrocities is key to its legitimacy. As of September 2020, the political declaration of support to this initiative, carried by France and Mexico, had been approved by 105 countries”.

Like the previous solution of expanding P5 membership, which France also supports, many of the complications lie in the process of implementing these new laws. What will convince the P5 to sacrifice their own power? In addition, the RN2V initiative “explores the interaction of power and law, and the role of secondary rules therein…. Hence, the legitimacy crisis of the Security Council is at the same time a legitimacy crisis of international law”. Circumventing international law, even to provide necessary action, only decreases the legitimacy of these conventions. The ability for the P5 to restrain their own power and reform the Security Council represents the complicated interaction of power, politics, and international cooperation.

In conclusion, the inaction created and perpetuated by the Security Council veto is deadly. While the Allied Powers had the most influence in creating new international norms 75 years ago, future international conflicts ought to have leadership that more accurately represents the current international community and not just the domestic interests of the P5. The evidence for reform is clear. There is already a legal precedent for Security Council veto reform as a result of an increase in membership in the United Nations. There are many case studies where the veto power cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and Syria specifically serves as an example of when human life was lost when military intervention could have stopped militias from systematically massacring their own people. The international community already accepts, as a result of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, the idea of humanitarian intervention for the purpose of stopping or preventing the worst of humanity’s crimes is needed to maintain international peace. However, Article 27 (3) prevents the UN from fulfilling its duties because it codifies the ability for the most powerful states to act in their own interest at the expense of the most vulnerable.

The Syrian case study also presents another dilemma: how society interprets international law. If states and civil society see case after case of deadlock that is only alleviated by illegal uses of force, what precedent does that set for international norms? The validity of Article 2 (4)’s ban on the use of force will be questioned or even disregarded. The cornerstone purpose of the UN is to prevent war, but unless the Security Council reforms its veto power, the status quo for genocide prevention will be inaction until illegal action is taken: the world cannot afford either. Two possible reforms could include abolishing the veto and expanding permanent members or accepting and promoting the Responsibility Not to Veto. Either of these reforms provide solutions, yet may be difficult to instate because they would require the most powerful states to limit themselves.

The issues of the veto power thus represent the broader dilemma of international cooperation. There is no overarching power, only states with individual interests that must work together to solve humanity’s most complex and dark problems. But, reform has occurred before and these necessary changes could save millions of lives. Reforming the Security Council to check the most powerful will increase the validity of the UN and international law in the future, which will help ensure that international aid will not forget the most vulnerable. Beth Simmons perhaps describes this power dilemma and importance of international human rights law when she states,

“No other international legal regime has aimed quite so consistently, explicitly, and universally at improving the quality of human existence… The key question is not whether crime exists – that is an indubitable point. It is, what and how has international law contributed to the chances that human beings will enjoy their rights more fully than would have been the case in the absence of the major human rights treaties?”

While international legal institutions, like the Security Council, need reform, a world without global forums dedicated to protecting human rights would be much worse. Therefore, reforming these institutions is not a sign of failure, but a commitment to the laws that will protect the human rights of future generations.

October 25, 2020 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AsiaHuman RightsMilitaryPrint Article

The Story of Genocide, Hope, and Youth in East Timor

written by Taylor Fairless

This article originally appeared in The Generation Spring 2020 print edition. The theme for this edition is “Youth Voices.” A link to our online version of the print publication can be found here: https://www.flipsnack.com/thegen/the-generation-spring-2020.html 

“…We had no sense that they were in imminent danger. After all, we reasoned, what place could be safer than a bishop’s house in a predominantly Catholic country?”1 These were the thoughts of UCLA’s own Geoffrey Robinson on September 5, 1999 when he served for the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) during their referendum. On that day, dozens of militia groups armed by the Indonesian government with machetes and handguns had attacked crowds of East Timorese who had sought refuge in the bishop’s home.2 Those perpetrators came to be distinguished by their red and white bandannas — an emblem for pro-Indonesian rule. 

Just days prior, the UN had overseen a vote that resulted in East Timor’s independence from Indonesia, a country that had committed a genocide against them. Young East Timorese carried the burden of resistance against the Indonesian army and their local proxies for twenty-four years. They were innovative, adaptive, and above all, exceptionally brave.

Prior to 1999, East Timor was a half-island country in Southeast Asia that was colonized by the Portuguese for about 300 years, with a brief interruption by Japan during World War Two. Then, in 1975, neighboring Indonesia invaded East Timor and took control of the country, killing an estimated 20% of their population. Routine sexual exploitation, deliberate starvation, and massacres led to the United Nations declaring a genocide had occurred.

East Timorese continued to live under authoritative rule by the Indonesians for two decades until the UN became involved and orchestrated a vote for independence in 1999. Massacres took a new turn between January and October that year, which were the months leading up to and following the vote. Close to 2,000 civilians were publicly decapitated, hacked to death, or killed in other horrific ways.3 Among the many women and girls who were raped, a noticeable amount were members of the Catholic Church. By the time the violence ended, over four hundred thousand people had been displaced.4

What caused this violence? It’s a good question that requires extensive political and historical thought. In 1975, Portugal relinquished its claim to East Timor, which created a vacuum of power that local political parties took advantage of. Chief among them was Fretilin, a social-democratic party that was heavily influenced by the 1960’s propagation of communism as a fix for colonial-induced violence and inequality.5 Their leaders were also just barely in their twenties, which brought a sense of renewed energy and novelty to this movement. Their drive for self-determination compelled them to call for immediate independence.

Three hundred years of brutal colonial rule had finally come to an end. But tragically, it was short lived. Just one week following their declaration, President Suharto of Indonesia launched a mass invasion against East Timor, citing communist insurgents and economic instability as their main concerns. Supplementing Suharto’s desire to intervene was East Timor’s enticing oil and natural gas reserves. Remarkably, great powers sat back in silent acquiescence as civilians, nuns, priests, and children became subjected to immense torture that was justified by the Cold War head space of containing communism.

This all compounded in 1991 with the Santa Cruz massacre. Just a few weeks prior, eighteen year-old Sebastião Gomes convened with a group of resistance members outside of Dili’s Motael church, a place heavily monitored by Indonesian authorities. They peacefully waved their pro-independence flags until the Indoensians began taunting them to draw the protesters to a fight.6 As tensions grew, more Indonesian provocateurs joined with automatic weapons. Despite being unarmed, Gomes, who had just turned eighteen the month prior, bravely risked his life in order to end decades worth of nauseating disregard to human rights. Like many others that were far too young, his fight ultimately cost him his life, and his body was found near the church early the next morning. 

About 1,500 people marched in protest at the Santa Cruz cemetery, where Gomes was buried. Most of their leaders were high school and university students, another reminder that those at the forefront of change in East Timor were incredibly young. They were joined en route by many others who were exhausted by the burgeoning disregard to Timorese life and the lack of foreign intervention. Among them were school children on their way to class. They began to display Fretilin flags and posters of the thirty-five year-old independence leader and future first president, Xanana Gusmão. Their chant, “Viva Timor Leste, Timor Leste…Timor Leste…,” became a merge of consciousness that translated their jarring reality.7 Upon arriving at Santa Cruz, they were greeted by another 500 activists.8

The Indonesian army arrived at about 8 a.m. and began to fire into the crowds with automatic weapons. Many people sought safety inside the chapel during the course of the massacre. Twenty-six year old British journalist Max Stahl said the chapel was akin to “a 14th century scene of hell.”9 Amid the encircling militias, Stahl took out his video camera and began recording what he saw: teenagers running over one another in a frenzied escape while children fell to their knees in desperate prayer.

He was caught by the Indonesians, but managed to hide the film under a gravestone before they reached him. After retrieving it the next day, he handed it off to his friend who hid it under her dress as she flew from East Timor to Singapore, where the video was eventually aired.10 Stahl’s footage is the only video evidence in existence of this massacre; without his act of bearing witness, and without the incredible amount of bravery by those young East Timorese that day, the world would have remained naive to the atrocities that were ensuing.

Finally, the circumstances on the ground were so horrific that the United Nations had to intervene. In 1999, the UN orchestrated a referendum where the locals would vote for whether they wanted to be independent from Indonesia. In essence, this was the same as asking if they wanted to be free, or continue to live under the control of those who perpetrated a genocide against them. The foreseeable outcome was undeniable. The locals were certainly going to vote in favor of independence.

This sparked an uproar by the Indonesia army who recruited and armed militia groups and police forces to target those suspected of voting in favor of the referendum. Just days before the vote, twenty-four year old university student Bernadino Joaquim Afonso Gutteres had been gunned down by an Indonesian police officer. The local militia was setting on fire a neighborhood home, a taxi, and posters of Gusmão. They then started firing at the emerging crowds as pro-integration police officers stood by and watched. One of those officers told Gutteres to stop “exciting the people” with his pleas for help. As Gutteres turned and ran, the officer shot him in the neck, and he fell to his knees.11 Robinson was there in the aftermath, and said “it spoke volumes about the political situation in East Timor in the final days before the vote.”12

Gutteres moments before he was gunned down

An Indonesian military officer had this to say: “We don’t regret anything. What happened was quite proper. They were opposing us, demonstrating, even yelling things against the government. To me, that is identical with rebellion.”13

Perhaps no other moment showed the most harmonious and wide-spread sense of heroism than on ballot day. Many East Timorese had walked miles during the night, dressed in their best clothing, just to arrive by the station’s opening time of 6:30 in the morning. UNAMET reported that about half of all registered voters were in line before that time.15 And at the end of the day, a staggering 98.6% had voted (for reference, the closest America has ever gotten to that number was in 1876 when 81.8% of registered voters cast their vote).16 The result? 78.8% voted for independence.17 

Contrary to predictions, virtually all registered voters cast their ballot, without a disruption by any major act of violence.18 Even the most jaded UN personnel and police officers were moved by this colossal act of determination in the midst of such atrocities.

In the aftermath, however, the Indonesians did not respect the vote, and violence of the same nature proliferated. The UN compound in Dili, a former high school in which Robinson and his colleagues were relocated to, came under siege, effectively trapping 500 UN staff and 1,500 East Timorese refugees.19 A surprising decision was made unanimously by the UN Security Council to support an armed intervention and land representatives on the ground. Although long overdue, this, supplemented by unprecedented pressure by international forces, eventually put an end to the violence.

The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) took political and military control. Elections were held in late 2001, and a draft constitution was assembled and finished the following year. On May 20, 2002, East Timor became formally independent, with resistant leader Xanana Gusmão elected as the country’s first president. Four months later, East Timor became a member of the United Nations.

 In order: Refugees at the UN Compound in Dili; Indonesian militia men; UNAMET Staff preparing for evacuation, including Robinson pictured in dark blue on the right.

When you first started reading this article, the cover image may have caught your eye. It’s actually more conducive to the story of Timorese resistance and resolve than its initial impression. I first saw it when I read Geoffrey Robinson’s book about East Timor’s referendum, “If you Leave Us Here, We Will Die.” When I asked him if that photo held any significance, seeing as East Timor’s history is heavily weighted with extraordinary acts by young people, even elementary schoolers, he replied that those children were playing in the remains of their home, which became one of thousands that were demolished by pro-Indonesian militias. They reflect this incredible level of hope and perseverance amid devastation that seems almost inherent to East Timorese. Their youth shows that this has no boundaries.

What this story conveys is that the means of preventing or bringing an end to on-going genocides and humanitarian crises are not exclusive to the acts of major players. It wasn’t necessarily the work of the UN, great powers, or the Security Council that ended this genocide and war. But instead, it was the work of individuals and their incredible tenacity and repeated bravery that caught the world’s attention. They forced powerful leaders to land their feet on the very ground where so many East Timorese had died fighting for freedom. They captivated the world with their resistance, and they took advantage of small moments that allowed for their courage to run free. Today, some young East Timorese are remarkably sowing the seeds reconciliation while bringing light to this seemingly unknown crime against humanity. While failures of prosecution, economic reconstruction, and a renewed sense of community continue, East Timorese are nonetheless proliferating this incredible message of determination in the face of what seemed to be a hopeless, sempiternal reality.


—
E N D N O T E S :

[1] Geoffrey Robinson. “If You Leave Us Here, We Will Die.” Princeton University Press, 2011. p. 162
[2] Ibid, p. 165
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid, p. 1
[5] School of Humanities and Social Sciences Staff. Companion to East Timor – FRETILIN. The University of South Wales.
[6] School of Humanities and Social Sciences Staff. Companion to East Timor – Santa Cruz and the Aftermath. University of South Wales.
[7] Max Stahl, video footage of the Santa Cruz Massacre. 12 November, 1991 (3:11)
[8] Companion to East Timor – Santa Cruz and the Aftermath
[9] Mary Boland. Footage of a Massacre that Changed History of Timor-Leste. Dili Letter: Filmmaker Max Stahl’s Images Ensured an End to East Timor’s Long Isolation. The Irish Times. 10 November 2017. 
[10] Ibid.
[11] Geoffrey Robinson, p. 145
[12] Ibid, p. 144
[13] Geoffrey Robinson. History of Southeast Asia since 1815 Lecture 19, 9 March 2020.
[14] Geoffrey Robinson, p. 153
[15] The American Presidency Project. Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections 1828 – 2012. University of California, Santa Barbara.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid, p. 156
[18] Ibid, p. 164
[19] Ibid.

June 5, 2020 1 comment
12 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedHuman RightsMiddle EastMilitaryNational SecuritySecurity and ConflictTerrorism

One of the World’s Most Silent Genocides: the Yezidis

written by Taylor Fairless

In August of 2014, ISIS fighters invaded the Iraqi city of Sinjar, the former home to about 8 million Yazidis.1 Today, their population in Iraq stands at about 500,000.2

Who are the Yezidis? Perhaps one of the more violently-targeted, yet lesser-known groups, the Yezidis are ethno-religious minorities concentrated in Iraq. This group’s struggles with deportation, human trafficking, and terrorism are all too compelling, and articulates a wider, global phenomenon of inaction towards acts of genocide.

Discrimination and persecution of the Yezidis lies within their association with devil worship. This derives from their praise of the “Peacock Angel,” which in Islamic mythology is believed to be the Devil. Though in Yezidism, this is a God-like creature who manifests both good and evil traits, which Yezidis believe are integral parts of a whole.3 Violent militia groups, such as ISIS, have used this to justify Yezidi-extraction from Iraq or forced conversion to Islam.4  With the latter, many Yezidis have been executed for resisting conversion, and this push back helped to catalyze the 2014 invasion by ISIS which the United Nations identifies this as an act of genocide and a crime against humanity.5

The extremists aimed to eliminate the Yezidi population by murdering their men and taking their women as sex slaves.6 Many of these women and girls are still missing today, and are only returned if ISIS members decide to sell them back to their families at a costly rate most cannot afford.7 Mosques and churches were continuously destroyed for almost a decade, meanwhile those who survived the attacks were forced into Arab and Suni assimilation, which often resulted in their deportation.8 About 40,000 Yezidis who managed to escape the encircling jihadists fled to the mountains of Sinjar, where some remained for years after this initial contact.9 To add to this, the Yedizis do not have a military to defend themselves, which makes it easier for terrorist groups to target their population. 


Following the ISIS takeover of Sinjar, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Australia sponsored air drops of food and water to the captive Yezidi people.10 Although the Yezidis have now begun to construct their own army, they are still heavily reliant on foreign aid and makeshift militias who are sparsely manned and under-armed. Out of desperation, they’ve recently created an all-female militia, called Êzîdxan Women’s Units. For these reasons, they still remain a weak target in the eyes of violent extremist groups looking to rid the Middle East of their presence.11 

The ethnic cleansing of the Yezidis is only a short bit of their long history of oppression and discrimination. While suffering from unemployment, poverty, and violence motivates the Yezidis to seek safer grounds, they are unable to relocate due to their citizenship being tied to their homeland. To exacerbate these problems, variances within the Yezidi community itself have also factored into this group’s deteriorating stance. Disunity arises from differences in political affiliation, religious beliefs, language, and even discrepancies over their origins.12

Their confrontations with ISIS underscores two prominent components of discrimination. The first deals with how identity is projected onto minority groups and how groups respond to that encroachment. Members of ISIS or other ethno-religious majorities in the Middle East have identified the Yezidis as “devil worshipers,” despite limited and incomplete evidence, alongside the group’s steadfast denial. This projection of identity is inextricably linked to hostile ideas about character, merit, intellect, and civility, which have been used to justify malicious behavior towards the Yezidis. Their history of violence and discrimination, furthermore, have led to a pressing refugee and humanitarian crisis that continue to affect Syria, Turkey, Russia, and Greece. In recent years, this violence and migration have caused the Yezidis to focus more on creating an army. Yet, Iraqi-crackdowns on their illegitimate militias means the Yezidis have to operate covertly to fight ISIS, which extremely limits their capabilities to garner weapons and train their citizens.

The second point deals with domestic intervention into instances of discriminatory violence. The Yezidi genocide is only one of dozens of genocides that have taken place in Iraq.13 Iraqi officials have turned a blind eye to the Yezidis and have failed to effectively persecute any member of ISIS that participated in the 2014 attacks.14 This point ties to the falters of the Iraqi penal code in which crevasses have allowed for minority communities to not be granted the same protection under the law. Today, officials have restricted aid to Yezidi refugee camps, which face poor sanitation, food scarcity, and, perhaps worse, are even booby-trapped by ISIS fighters.15 The many who have been born in the refugee camps and will now grow in a territory that has stripped away their education, voting rights, and freedom of speech.16 Even more pressing, they will grow up in one of the most insecure and deadly regions in the world.


Although the Yezidis may be a lesser-known group for many Westerners, their history may still come across as familiar. Violence and oppression against minority groups transcends national borders. Just this past year, for example, Christian minorities in Sri Lanka were the targets of a deadly ISIS bombing. Smiliar events took place in Canada and New Zealand in 2017 and 2019, respectively, where Muslim minorities were mass-murdered for their beliefs. And, of course, other minority groups in the Middle East, such as the Armenians during their genocide, have faced similar acts of violent discrimination. The history of the Yezidis, although distinct in many ways, in its most rudimentary form is certainly not unique to this group, or even unique to the Middle East.

Now, Iraq must invest heavily into peace-building measures and a sustainable end to violence. Key challenges that arise post-conflict include rebuilding Yezidi communities, which comes with reconstructing the psychological idea of “community,” addressing grievances, and more importantly, providing adequate protection against another, and somewhat inevitable, invasion by extremist groups.

On a positive note, their story has captured attention by domestic and international NGOs who are now working to support Yezidi refugees and are focusing on locating and returning their captured women. These NGOs are now targeting the government and demanding that they improve legal rights and protection for this minority community. Importantly, other countries and global organizations, such as the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund, must amplify their disapproval of the Iraqi government’s furthering of this issue, and take measures to pressure their government to make improvements for these civilians.

E N D N O T E S :

[1] Katharine Holstein, author of “Shadow on the Mountain: A Yazidi Memoir of Terror, Resistance and Hope,” interviewed by Taylor Fairless. February 25, 2020.
[2] Raya Jalabi. Who are the Yazidis and Why is Isis Hunting Them? The Guardian. August 11, 2014.
[3]  Devdutt Pattanaik. The Peacock Angel of the Yazidis. Articles World Mythology. 4 December, 2017
[4] Razan Rashidi. UN Human Rights Panel Concludes ISIL is Committing Genocide Against Yazidis. The United Nations. June 16, 2016.
[5]  Birgul Acikyildiz-Sengul. The Yezidis: An Ancient People, Tragedy, and Struggle for Survival. Chapter 11. p. 149
[6]  Ibid. p. 147, 149
[7]  Ibid. p. 153
[8]  Ibid.
[9] Raya Jalabi. Who are the Yazidis and Why is Isis Hunting Them? The Guardian. August 11, 2014.
[10] Birgul Acikyildiz-Sengul, p. 153.
[11] Birgul Acikyildiz-Sengul. p. 153
[12] Katharine Holstein, interviewed by Taylor Fairless.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.

March 18, 2020 2 comments
14 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Source
FeaturedGeopoliticsGlobalizationHuman RightsHumanitarian AidImmigrationReligion

The Rise of Buddhist Extremism in Myanmar: The World’s Largest Refugee Crisis and What To Do

written by Abdus Najmi

Known previously as Burma, Myanmar was subject to British colonial rule from around 1820 to 1948, like its surrounding neighbors of Bangladesh and India. Surprisingly, for most of Burma’s history, the Rohingya Muslim minority actually lived peacefully with their Buddhist neighbors in the Rakhine state, situated right next to Bangladesh’s Cox Bazar. Many legal documents claim Muslim minorities acted as “advisors to Buddhist royals,” even having a deliberate say and place in Burma’s politics since the 1500s. In fact, it was only towards World War II where religious violence began to erupt in the modern form that one can see today. The British began recruiting the Muslim minority as their soldiers, while the Japanese army aligned themselves with the Burmese Buddhists. Both of these governments’ armies used religious divisions as a political and military means; it was from here that we can start to see a Burmese resentment towards the Muslims as being traitors to their nation. 

After Burma gained independence, the government published a list of the 135 official ethnic groups native to the country. The Rohingya are nowhere to be found on that list. There is even a law that limits the civil rights of the Rohingya. The 1982 Citizenship Law has complex procedures in which Rohingya men and women are only allowed to raise two children, and they are not allowed to marry unless given permission. This is usually done by bribing authorities or providing evidence that the couple does not follow Islam, such as giving pictures of the bride without a hijab to prove secularity. Rules governing property ownership and taxation also are extremely cumbersome and arbitrary. The Rohingya are not legally considered citizens; they are forced to carry around “white cards” which allows them legal standing as temporary residents in Myanmar. 

The amount of persecution has skyrocketed within the last decade. Dildar Begum and her 10-year old daughter were repeatedly raped by Myanmar troops on August 30, 2017. She watched soldiers hack her 5-year old son “to death in front of her,” and was forced to witness the slitting of her husband’s throat. As a Rohingya Muslim, Dildar Begum’s idea of statehood and the “home” is nonexistent, as she is being kicked out of Myanmar by state soldiers, but is also unwelcomed into Bangladesh. For people like Dildar Begum, being Muslim and Burmese becomes a contradiction of sorts. She never fits in with Bengalis because of her language, but cannot be considered Burmese because of her faith. Dildar Begum’s case is not an isolated instance of violence. Mamtaj, also thirty years old, faced a similar situation where one of her sons was “thrown into a fire,” while the other was shot from behind in the head.  In both of these cases, their husbands and sons were killed first so the Myanmar troops could proceed to rape the women without resistance. Myanmar’s State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi has received tremendous amounts of criticism in terms of the delayed response to the persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority. 

Kutupalong is the world’s largest refugee settlement, housing the Rohingya people and spanning over the Cox Bazar area of Bangladesh. Estimates predict that there are about one million refugees total; women and children make up most of the population of the camp, according to UN data.  Recent weather analysis and scientific reports have rendered Kutupalong as one of the most susceptible areas to climate change, as the geographical positioning next to the Bay of Bengal makes the camp prone to intense cyclones and “vigorous monsoons,”  further exacerbating inequality by destroying homes and requiring constant efforts to rebuild the camp. Due to massive overcrowding, water resources have become scarce as well; environmental scientists tested the groundwater at random locations around the camp and found that 70 percent of their samples contained E. coli. In addition to geographical positioning, Ukhia, in Cox Bazar, is home to many forests and contributes vastly to the world’s biodiversity. Due to overcrowding within the camp, people have shifted towards deforestation and land degradation to accommodate the influx of refugees. This depletion of resources has actually hampered the survival of refugees. The Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) representative Atiq Rahman has in fact argued that cutting down trees “destabilizes the terrain” as Bangladesh’s hills are “soft soil hills,” getting much of their stability from the roots of trees. The risk of hill collapse becomes imminent. As the camp continues to expand and accommodate new refugees on these faulty hills, more tragedies and environmental disasters await. Expanding the refugee camp is simply not a sustainable solution. 

To this day, most of Burmese nationalists refer to the Rohingya minority as “Bengali Muslims,” and fail to use the Burmese word Rohingya as it would give credence to the fact that this minority group originally stemmed from the Arakan Kingdom in Burma. Even State Chancellor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has denied to call them Burmese citizens, allowing the massacre to continue within her own borders. To call them Rohingya would be to humanize them as Burmese. To Buddhist nationalists in the Ma Ba Tha movement, they are anything but human. 

The Ma Ba Tha movement is a nationalistic association of Buddhist monks and worshippers who preach against the rise of Islam. They fear what many of them term as the “Islamification of Asia,” a phenomenon which leader Wirathu has claimed will “destroy Burmese culture and the future of Buddhism.” In one of Wirathu’s speeches, he argued that the Muslim is one who is prone to be “inherently violent […] want[ing] to eat their own kind.” 

Wirathu, known as the “Burmese bin Laden,” was on the cover of the 2013 Time Magazine under the title “The Face of Buddhist Terror.” In this piece, the magazine points out that the slogans and ideology that Wirathu is preaching is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Buddhist extremism has been prominent not only in Myanmar, but also Sri Lanka during their civil war, where many Buddhists rallied around claims of taking back Buddhism from Tamil Hindus. The same is true in Thailand. The narrative has always been as such: Buddhism is on the decline because of a foreign enemy, we must fight back to protect our way of life.  These monks use the idea of sangha (or the importance of a monastic community) to justify their violent behaviors. For them, Buddha’s message is on the decline, and if there are no more monks, a “Buddhist End Times will begin.” They term this the final kalpa, where an apocalypse will occur with a massive rainfall to end all life on Earth, just to begin a new one. In order to forestall the “End Times” from happening, extremist Buddhists resort to violence to preserve Buddhist monasticism. In Meiktila, 40 Muslims were killed by a group of Buddhists. In one Rohingya village, 70 Muslims were slaughtered. It’s vicious killing campaigns like these that cause the Rohingya to flee into neighboring Bangladesh for refuge. The misguided effort to preserve Myanmar’s Buddhism has been a central tenet guiding the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims. Despite the doom-and-gloom rhetoric, it is important to highlight that positive steps are definitely being made towards the rights of the Rohingya people, and can potentially be guaranteed with external pressure from groups like ASEAN or countries such as China or India. Recently in 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh hashed out a deal regarding the issue of repatriation, despite an eventual postponing of the deal later on. Even the international community, such as the US and EU, have attempted to impose sanctions on Myanmar for their behavior. Empirically, they have worked. Foreign direct investment from the West decreased from $3.14 billion to “$1.34 billion” due to sanctions. Tourism from Europeans is “down by […] half.” People are becoming more and more aware of the atrocities that are occurring in the Rakhine state. However, international relations scholars have posited that if any external force can help solve this crisis, it’s China. China is Myanmar’s “largest trading partner,” composing almost 33% of its trade. Due to China’s involvement in Myanmar’s economy, they may have the upper hand in securing a deal that can drastically limit the casualties in the region, if they can get Bangladesh to properly agree. The biggest place policymakers must look at when dealing with this should be China’s One Belt, One Road Initiative. Some of the infrastructure plans under this project include a multi-billion sea port project in the Rakhine state. Putting hardline pressure with China’s economic investment plans in Myanmar might be the key to getting them to cave in on reforming their human rights policies. Only time will tell.

October 9, 2019 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Newer Posts
Older Posts