A couple of months ago I wrote an article for a magazine here in Brussels about Eritrea.  Eritrea is a nation struggling to come to terms with conflict, with a looming food crisis and human rights abuse.

In November, Eritrea’s dismal human rights record was put in the spotlight at the United Nations.  A month later, the UN imposed sanctions on Eritrea.

Eritrea is the promise that never materialized and of a freedom fighter turned dictator who has an iron grip on his nation.  Reporters without Borders ranks the press freedom index in Eritrea as the worst in the world….now officially worse than North Korea.

The article created some contraversy on those who defend this nation at all costs.  Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the whole gamut of refugees who’ve managed to flee, are witness.  Their testimonies cannot simply be disregarded.

Eritrea’s Ambassador to the EU, Girma Asmeron, wrote a counter-response to my piece.  This was then followed by another article from a think tank here in Brussels who defended my article.

Read it here.

Transition from military rule to full democracy is never easy and often involves serious questions about accountability. This can involve accountability for past actions, or new questions about how a civilian government can be held accountable to the people. Because of the complicated nature of any transition, some governments opt to take the easy way out with the first question, and implement amnesty laws in an attempt to simply move on from the past. Sometimes this option can work, but as current events in Brazil demonstrate, there still some things that amnesty cannot bury no matter how much time has passed.

In the slow transition to civilian rule, Brazil passed an amnesty law in 1979 for political crimes committed under the military government, while the 1988 constitution granted amnesty to those who had been prosecuted for purely political reasons. These two provisions and other related laws allowed Brazil to transition to civilian rule, but left many seeking justice. While other Latin American governments implemented truth and reconciliation commissions as a way to balance human rights concerns with practical politics, Brazil never officially had a truth commission. That gap in accountability and the example set by other Latin American countries is what has led to President Lula da Silva to propose an official Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate acts of torture that occurred under the military government from 1964 to 1985.  It is also what is creating a political firestorm with victims questioning the sincerity of the new attempt at justice and key military leaders resigning from the government rather than support the creation of a commission.

The controversy illustrates that while often easier in the short run, amnesty is never straightforward.  Thirty years after the fact, Brazil is now having to face the ghosts of its past.  The questions that should have been answered then are finally being asked, bringing to light all the complicated issues that transition involves.  While Brazil is far more stable today and it is unlikely that the issue will significantly undo the progress that it has made in the last thirty years, it is also clear that these issues will not go away.

In order for Brazil to truly move on from its past and fully transition from its military government, it is not enough for civilians to be in charge; there must be some form of accountability as well. This is because the cost of human rights abuses does not end when the abuses stop. Although this has been shown again and again, the events in Brazil over the past month give us one more demonstration of why amnesties usually create more problems than they solve in the long run.

With the holidays coming up and getting the 2009 Year in Review together, we have been a bit light on posting. However here are some links to a few of the human rights stories from this past week.

Detained in Iran, Russia, and China

Last week NPR reported on three human rights stories from Iran, Russia, and China which are now available online. All three deal with the detention of prominent figures under less than ideal circumstances, though the most high profile of the three is likely the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. Liu co-authored Charter 08, modeled after Czechoslovakia’s infamous Charter 77, which calls for greater freedoms, protection of human rights, and the introduction of democracy in China. So far the petition has gained more than 10,000 signatures and as a result, Liu is due to go on trial for subversion this Wednesday. The Pen American Center is tracking the progress of Liu’s imprisonment and trial, which is bound to garner more attention than China would like.

Back in the spotlight: The Lord’s Resistance Army and the ICC

Two new reports released by the UN High Commission for Human Rights highlight possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) against civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan. The top leaders of the LRA were indicted by the International Criminal Court in 2005 for their role in the conflict in Northern Uganda, but there has been little progress since then in bringing them to justice. Similarly, peace talks with the LRA stalled over the issue of the ICC indictments. Although the Ugandan government did an about face and asked for the indictments to be dropped in favor of a complete amnesty in exchange for peace, the ICC refused and the conflict continued in much the same fashion as it has since 1987. These new reports will inevitably bring the LRA back into the spotlight, along with the peace versus justice debate that the conflict in Northern Uganda has come to epitomize.

Guatemala: It’s never too late to make right

In a ruling released on Monday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights condemned the Guatemalan government for failing to adequately investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the 1982 Dos Erres massacre where more than 200 civilians were killed by military forces over a three day period. The Court ordered the government to pay more than $3 million in compensation to survivors and family members of those killed. Despite the fact that the massacre occurred almost three decades ago, the Court also order the Guatemalan government to carry out a legitimate investigation to identify those who had participated in the massacre and the officials who ordered it.

The Dos Erres massacre was one of many that took place during Guatemala’s 26 year long civil war, but for many became emblematic of the general conflict. Although peace talks ended the conflict in 1996, few officials have been brought to justice for their role in the violence that left a quarter million dead, many of them indigenous Maya. The ruling by the IACHR makes it clear that others in the region have not forgotten and are determined not to let Guatemala sweep its bloody past completely under the rug.

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

– The Dalai Lama

As the year closes, it is appropriate to stop to look back and see how we have progressed or regressed in the area of human rights in 2009.  The thing about human rights is that the path to progress is rarely ever a straight line; often what looks like a step back will actually allow people to take a step forward. Such may be the case with top human rights stories of this past year such as the Green Movement in Iran, healthcare rights in the US, or the climate change talks currently going on in Copenhagen. One thing is certain: there are still many challenges ahead of us in the fight for human rights. However here are some thoughts on 2009 and what to look for in 2010 from regular bloggers Nikolaj Nielsen, Jessica Corsi, and Kimberly Curtis.

Person of the Year:

It’s always difficult to pick out one person in the course of a year who stands out. What is interesting is that this year all three of us chose groups rather than a single individual as the most important persons of the year.

Nikolaj’s pick: Frontline Journalists and Human Rights Defenders

Vincent Kessler/Reuters

This past year has seen numerous journalists and human rights defenders killed or imprisoned for their work in revealing the human rights abuses.  Many of these people worked on the frontlines, risking their lives to bring the truth to the rest of the world. The importance of this work, particularly in the past year, is one of the reasons why the European Parliament awarded the Russian human rights watchdog group Memorial the prestigious Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought this past week. Although the award will do little to bring back the journalists that have been slain this past year such as the 31 Filipino journalists killed in November or Russian journalist Natalya Estemirova who was killed in July, it again highlights the high value of their work and the price that so many have paid this past year for the human rights of others.

Jessica’s pick: Reproductive Rights Leaders in the United States

Recognition should be given to the myriad leaders and activists who organized in the U.S. to make sure that reproductive rights were not left out of the historic U.S. health care reform package.  In the midst of the economic crisis and the political opening of landmark U.S. healthcare reform–reform that would finally bring the U.S. closer to the rest of the developed world in terms of providing access to health care–reproductive rights advocates became locked into a battle with religious leaders that had successfully captured political power during the George W. Bush era.  While many within the U.S. Democratic Party, including the few women Senators and congress people, were willing to give up access to reproductive health care in order to sidestep this fight, reproductive rights advocates ranging from high school and University students to seasoned lobbyists and journalists made sure to keep the spotlight on access to safe and affordable abortion.

Ben Curtis/AP

Kimberly’s pick: Ordinary people coming together

From the record-setting attendance on the National Mall for Barack Obama’s inauguration to crowds of people in Berlin that marked the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seems that 2009 was all about ordinary people coming together.  Some of these crowds celebrated change, while others such as those in Iran and Guinea came together to fight for their rights, often with grisly consequences. The predicted potential of virtual social networking seemed to finally be realized as people used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to not just talk about the latest developments in their social lives with friends, but communicate real information to the rest of the world about what was happening in their countries.  Although revolution did not happen in many of these places, 2009 showed that the power of the people is still alive and well in the 21^st century.

Most Unexpected Event:

Both Jessica and Nikolaj picked the same event: Barack Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the highest honor awarded in the humanitarian field, many around the world were surprised that he was awarded the prize before achieving any significant feats on the international stage.

But as Jessica notes, there were other reasons why the award was surprising:  Many claim that President Barack Obama

Bjorn Sigurdson/AP

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to express international support for the U.S.’ reengagement with multilateral peace efforts, including efforts to bring an end to wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Another reason for the award might have been his policy of re-engagement with Muslim nations.  What was so surprising about this award was its timing.  It was given before the U.S. had fully elaborated withdrawal timelines and procedures for ending its wars, and after it had engaged in some decidedly unpeaceful and certainly unexpected military operations, such as the September 14 assassination of a suspected terrorist by U.S. Special Forces helicopters in southern Somalia.  If the prize is read as an indication of global sentiment for substantial changes in U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to a congratulations for actions that have already been taken, it comes as less of a surprise.

Kimberly chose the obvious event that has been written about on several other blogs: the Iranian election protests. Although Iranians overthrew the Shah in massive protests more than 30 years ago, Iran is not really known for street action due to the oppressive policies that the government is notorious for. That is one of the reasons why the post-election protests took so many by surprise. It’s also why the results of the protests - killings, arrests, prisoner abuses, and kangaroo courts - were not surprising at all. Still, there is a reason why most of the world was engrossed with the protests while they took place: whether you like it or not, Iran is an important regional power and will continue to be so. The post-election protests, while not a revolution, definitely altered the course of Iranian politics and will almost certainly be viewed in hindsight as the start of an important new chapter in Iranian history, hopefully one that gives more credence to human rights and the will of the people.

What to Watch for in 2010:

Kimberly’s predictions:

The general trend of using international law and universal jurisdiction to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity will continue as the International Criminal Court becomes more prominent and takes on new cases. However because justice is a retroactive approach to human rights abuses, there will also be increasing pressure on prescriptive action as well. In light of this and Obama’s Nobel lecture, the debate over the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P) is due for a revival. Only this time around, corporations will also be brought into the fold as their actions in conflict zones and with oppressive regimes will be increasingly scrutinized.

Jessica’s predictions:

Economic and social rights, legal entitlements for the poor: Poverty, increasing and deep, will continue to plague us for years due to the global recession.  As a result, we’re likely to see an increased focus on Economic and Social rights, such as the right to work, the right to fair remuneration, the right to food, and the right to health and healthcare.  Increased poverty will also refocus efforts around legal entitlements for the poor such as land ownership and community ownership of natural resources.

Climate justice: Climate justice will gain traction as the poor nations and poorest peoples of the world become better legally equipped and politically organized to hold everyone from corporations to governments accountable for the effects of climate change and pollution.  As a result we will see increased legal accountability for non-state actors.

Increasing legal accountability for State action during conflict: Powerful governments such as the US and the UK will be held more responsible than ever for violations of human rights during conflict, a trend helped in part by the increasing power of the International Criminal Court.  For example, a Milan Court convicted and sentenced 23 former CIA agents for the abduction of a Muslim cleric and rendition practices.  This trend of conviction in national courts will continue.

Anti-Muslim sentiments: Anti-Muslim racism and tension between the “Muslim world” and “the rest” will continue in the short and medium term, leading to more human rights violations, claims, court decisions, and policy developments on everything from religious clothing to state conducted or supported torture that was motivated by a person’s Islamic affiliations.

The mainstreaming of LGBT rights: LGBT rights will continue to become more mainstreamed in the global North.  We will witness expanded recognition of gay marriage and related civil rights and family law claims such as child custody and health care rights.

The Obama administration took a major step today in fulfilling its promise to close the discredited Guantanamo Bay detention center and follow the rule of law with the announcement that five detainees charged with planning the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the USS Cole will be prosecuted by a federal court in the Southern District of New York.   

The five detainees in question — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi — have already been charged by the military commissions established under the Bush administration, but the change of venue to federal court places their legal fate in civilian hands.  The lack of civilian justice in terrorism cases thus far has been a major issue for human rights groups who questioned the fairness of the military commissions and their ability to meet international legal standards.  

The decision is a big one, and wrought with legal and political risk.  But for now it is being hailed by several rights groups and online commentators, including Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and The Constitution Project.  According to the Associated Press, there are still 215 detainees being held at Guantanamo while an estimated 565 have been released since the prison opened in 2002.  Of these, about 65 are considered to be viable for civilian prosecution, meaning that some detainees will still be processed by the military commissions.  This was confirmed when the Justice Department also announced on Friday that five other detainees would proceed with their trials under the military commissions.  However, the fact that this administration is willing to allow some of the most high profile detainees be prosecuted publicly under a civilian judge is a good sign that the US is on the right path to balancing security with human rights in the age of terrorism.    

Further links of interest:

Transcript of Attorney General Eric Holder’s press conference, courtesy of The Globe and Mail  

“Getting Back on Track to Close Guantanamo: How to Get to Zero” — new report by the Center for American Progress  

Interview in Rolling Stone with Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo on the Justice Department’s decision

A state news agency in China confirmed today that nine people have been executed for their role in the rioting that overtook the northern city of Urumqi in July. As reported earlier on this blog, the rioting had a long simmering ethnic component to it that pitted the majority Muslim Uighur population against the growing Han Chinese. While there were many causes to the violence, a lot of it has to do with China’s policies towards ethnic minorities who find themselves being even more politically vulnerable than the mainstream population. The three days of violent rioting in Urumqi brought this issue into the international spotlight.

Though both sides participated, the majority of the violence was blamed on Uighurs. As a result, the security forces focused mainly on Uighurs in the rioting’s aftermath. Though China pledged to apply its justice evenhanded, eight of the nine prisoners convicted in October over the riots had Uighur names. It is unclear whether these nine prisoners are the same that were executed, but it seems likely since the prisoners sentences were confirmed by the Supreme People’s Court which is required for all death sentences.

The news has not received a lot of press coverage so far, perhaps because the confirmation came on the same day Europe is celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany. However it does not speak well for the trend of increasing oppressive policies on the part of the government towards ethnic minorities in China. Thus, while the world marks the anniversary of the end of one struggle against oppression twenty years ago, more than anything this news demonstrates that political and economic oppression can take many forms and have many different outcomes.

Months after Iran made headlines for human rights violations following the presidential elections in June, Iran is making headlines again.  Earlier this week Amnesty International condemned the execution of a 21 year old convict who was just 17 when he was accused of murder.  He is the third juvenile offender to be executed in Iran this year, and another 140 are estimated to currently be on death row.

Then on Tuesday, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom urged US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Iran on human rights during upcoming talks on the Iranian nuclear program.  The Commission was created in 1998 to monitor and make recommendation to Congress and the President on issues of religious freedom around the world.  From the letter:

“Over the years, the Iranian government has engaged in prolonged detention, torture, and executions of its citizens based primarily or entirely upon the religion of the accused.  The government also has imposed harsh prison sentences on many prominent activists, clerics, journalists, and dissidents in the Shi’a majority community who have advocated for reform.  Many have been tried under criminal laws on trumped-up charges of ‘insulting Islam,’ criticizing the Islamic Republic, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards.”

Then 2003 Nobel Prize recipient Shirin Ebadi criticized not only Iran’s record on human rights, but the West’s stance towards it when it places the ongoing nuclear issue over the health and security of Iranian citizens. Meanwhile, Iranian news sources are reporting that three more opposition leaders have been sentenced to death for their role in the election protests.  At least one of them, Mohammad-Reza Ali-Zamani, was part of the en masse trial that Iran held following the election violence which has been condemned as patently unfair by human rights groups.

So all in all, not a good week in the press for Iran.

Uganda has made headlines this past week for violent clashes in the capital city of Kampala over development, property rights, and the traditional Buganda king. The unrest is unusual for Uganda, but highlights growing discontent with the government of Yoweri Museveni.

The cause of the clashes was a planned trip by the Buganda king, King Ronald Mutebi II, to a neighborhood filled with a rival ethnic group. When police attempted to stop the visit, some Bugandan loyalists burned tires in protest and things quickly spiraled out of control. Several days of violence followed, and while death counts vary it is believed that at least 20 were killed and over 100 wounded in the riots while 600 protestors have been arrested.

Buganda is the largest of the five ancient Ugandan kingdoms and the Baganda people are the largest ethnic group in the country. All kingdoms were abolished under former president Milton Obote in the 1960s, but were reinstated by Museveni after the Ugandan Bush Wars. However the king only has ceremonial powers and is prohibited from interfering or attempting to influence politics. It is this last point that has brought increasing conflict between Museveni and King Mutebi, and by extension between the government and Buganda loyalists.

The primary conflict between the government and Buganda kingdom is over land rights and sovereignty issues, namely the alleged legal obligation that the government has to hand over all Buganda land that was seized by Obote in 1967. Not surprisingly, Museveni has declined to do this. Instead, the government has enacted some very creative laws that appear to be designed to marginalize the Baganda, at least as much as the largest ethnic group in Uganda and a key political base for Museveni can be marginalized. As described in The East African, examples of these reforms include:

Donating Buganda’s land to “investors”; settling non-Baganda newcomers in these areas and then proposing laws to protect the new “tenants”; creating new districts under “decentralisation,” whose “district land boards” then claim and sell Buganda’s land; creating new “kingdoms” out of ethnic minorities within Buganda; using the 1995 constitution-making process to “constitutionally” remove Kampala from Buganda and most recently, tabling a Bill to expand the same Kampala’s boundaries to eat up areas previously constitutionally defined as being within Buganda.

Such abuse of land laws has been reported on in the past but of course much of this has been lost in last week’s rioting. Instead, people appear to have taken advantage of the chaos to express their growing discontent with the government and with Museveni specifically, who has been in power since 1986. Thus the riots ended up being not so much about Buganda as about what Ugandans see for the future of their country.

In this regard, the government’s response is also telling. Hundreds of people have been arrested including a Baganda MP and radio talk show host, while four radio stations have been shut down. Today, he blamed the opposition for fueling the violence. In other words, Museveni has responded with political and military force to show that he has no plans to leave anytime soon, and perhaps hint to what may lie ahead to those who challenge him, regardless of the rights of those who are in his way.

Click on the photo to launch the 5 minute audio-photo slide. Testimonies…in their own words.

Yesterday I met two Iranian political refugees.  Their relatives are at Camp Ashraf, a refugee camp north of Baghdad with around 3500 Iranians.  At the end of July, Iraqi security forces entered the camp and beat the residents.  Eleven died and 500 were injured.

More info and previous posts here:

The Ashraf Saga

Massacre at Ashraf

I just attended a meeting of the subcommittee on human rights at the European Parliament in Brussels.  On the agenda was Burma.  And as ever, the lack of political will and inaction in the international community was particularly salient.

For two decades Aung Sun Suu Kyi has been in the headlines.  Her cause celebrated and discussed ad hominem among the elite here in Brussels, in Washington, in Paris as well as in the inner circles of the United Nations.  A large banner of  Aung Sun Suu Kyi hangs dominant just outside the European Parliament. On it - we are reminded that she was awarded the coveted Sakharov prize 19 years ago.  On it - we are reminded that she won the Nobel Peace Prize.

And that is just the point. Nineteen years and here we are today with a military junta that now has access to the Obama administration, to a military junta that commits egregious violations of human rights, to a junta that pretends to lay down a democracy but will pull all the strings, to a junta that can now sideline China.

Don’t forget that General Than Shwe had the “decency” to organize a referendum on the constitution last year under the aegis of the so-called Burmese State Peace and Development Council (SPCD).  Remember cyclone Nargis?  Despite the humanitarian disaster that followed the storm - the regime reported a massive turnout in favor.

“Whole villages had voted against the constitution but were counted as having voted in favor,” said Emmanouil Athanasiou of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) who also present at the committee.

Aung Sun Suu Kyi’s detention was extended which will prevent her from participating in the up coming elections.  The American who swam across the moat has since been released thanks to the intervention of one US senator.  But the consequences of this man’s bizarre act and desire for international attention? has reinforced the junta.

“The breach of security allowed the regime to detain her and establish direct links with the US administration.  The regime can now ignore pressure from China over the attacks on ethnic groups on the boarder,” Harn Yawnghwe, Director of the Euro-Burma office, told the gathering of EU deputies.

The General maintains close political and economic relations with neighboring countries and ASEAN.  How then can EU sanctions have any impact?  If anything, they strengthen the resolve of the regime while some 30% of Burma’s population just - and only just - manage to feed themselves.

The reports of continued crimes against humanity cannot be ignored.  The military junta has banned NGOs and denied the UN  Special Rapporteur access to investigate human rights abuses.  But public sources on the ground, from individuals and clandestine groups continue to document abuse.  Mr. Yawnghwe told me after the meeting that they have secret sources who are able to send the information via satellite.

How many more testimonies, how much more evidence is needed to push the international community into a proactive stance against the regime?  At the 2005 World Summit, world leaders harped on about the “responsibility to protect” victims. Perhaps there is too much money at stake.  The list of international companies, American, European and Asian that deal with the regime is long.

Aung Sun Suu Kyi has repeatedly asked people not to visit Burma as tourists because it helps finance the regime and undermine the opposition. So let’s see what the BBC’s Lonely Planet endorses by encouraging tourism in Burma.

1. Extrajudicial killings in ethnic minority areas by the Tatmadaw (the Burmese army). The Tatmadaw is using murder as a weapon of fear and have a “shoot on sight” policy.  Their target - Shan, Karenni and Karen communities in the east of the country.

2.Death in custody of political prisoners:  The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) have documented 139 political prisoners who have died because of severe torture.

3.Violations of the right to life: The Depayin Massacre on 30 May 2003 demonstrated the regime’s brutality.  Evidence was later revealed that the military regime had premeditated the attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her entourage.

4. Enslavement:  Individuals are abducted and forced to work under threat of violence. These people can be found toiling away at military camps where they do any number of tasks from portering to heavy construction to services for the profit of private individuals.

5. Rape:  Rape is common throughout the country.  The military use it as a means to terrorize the population and establish control over land and resources of ethnic minority groups.   Shan Women’s Action Network (SWAN) and Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF) documented 173 incidents of rape involving 625 girls and women committed by the Tatmadaw.  Eighty-three percent were committed by officers, mostly in front of the troops.  Twenty-five percent ended in death. Sixty-one percent were gang rapes.  For more information on this see “License to Rape.”

And the list goes on and on.

The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), working with individuals and clandestine civil society organizations inside Burma, is demanding action for the international community to stop dealing with the junta as if it were a legitimate government.

“We have received reports of crimes against humanity and war crimes which are still occurring and yet the international community focuses on the political issues,”  said Mr. Athanasiou.

The FIDH wants the UN Security Council to appoint an international Commission of Inquiry that would channel the widespread accusations of human rights abuse.  This Commission would investigate and verify allegations, document, and make recommendations.

“We support the FIDH,” said Mr. Yawnghwe, “but  their solution is on a long term basis.  We want solutions now.”

Mr. Yawnghwe is instead hoping for a domestic solution to the problem that entails supporting the upcoming elections if only to expose the farce.