It is put forward that Thailand is one of the best established and stable democracies in South East Asia. This stability has resulted in sustained economic growth and development as well as fewer human rights violations than most of its immediate neighbours. However, democracy in Asia is not exactly like the model put forward by its western proponents! Despite the constitutional monarchy’s record, Thailand is currently under a military dictatorship, albeit a benevolent one thus far. The military took control of the government claiming that the people had tired of the former leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, who had just become the first prime minister to lead a government through a full term, but had been implicated in charges of corruption. Elections are scheduled for any day now but in the mean time a number of draconian public order bills have been pushed through parliament under the intern government, which are deemed necessary for national security. The general public has placed a lot of faith in the military government in recent months and it is hoped that the transition back to democracy will be a smooth one. Certainly, the foreign investors have not been scared away as business is booming in Thailand.
My first impressions of the democratic system in Thailand have been mixed. There is no doubt that this government is much more open and accountable than many others in the region and has a relatively decent human rights record. Nevertheless, many people in Thailand do not have a sophisticated sense of democratic values has been evident in the run up to the regional and national elections this December. Corruption is prevalent. Many people I spoke to in the rural areas simply will vote for whoever the village leaders tell them to. The Bangkok Post reported that sixty percent of Thais will vote for anyone in exchange for one thousand Baht (35 Dollars Canadian) and many local and national politicians have been implicated in vote buying. This is either done by direct payments, such as handing out party calendars with money stapled inside them, or by hosting lavish receptions on election days and encouraging their tipsy guests to vote for them. This second problem has become so rife that the sale of alcohol has been banned for three days before regional and national elections, much to the chagrin of those who feel responsible enough to make up their own minds and who also enjoy the odd tipple!
There is a severe lack of education on political issues as most people appear unconcerned or uninterested in politics in general. While this is not unique to Thailand, and indeed, many western states suffer from the same affliction of lethargy, there is very little democratic culture here. Most people would seem to prefer not to have to make any decisions at all. The Monarch remains wildly popular and people place their faith in him. Every Monday all workers wear yellow shirts emblazoned with the Monarch’s symbol and it seems like there is at least one regal celebration per week. All are forbidden by law from criticizing the King or defacing any image of him, of which there are countless thousands posted in every neighborhood. It is the King who seems to hold the country together and who has applied pressure to the military to hand power back to the people. There is a legitimate fear that if the monarchy ends the military will simply depose elected representatives and a return to authoritarianism would be inevitable.
This leads me to ask many questions about democracy’s role in South East Asia. Is it necessary for human rights and economic development? Do all cultures want the same type of democracy? Do some cultures prefer authoritarian states? Is this a ll a matter of education? Can a democratic culture grow? What about minorities in democracies? Many people point to the less democratic regimes in China and Vietnam, who are experiencing unprecedented economic growth and note that authoritarianism produces a more stable foundation for economic development in the long term. I will be watching the Thai elections unfold next week (unfortunately without a soothing restorative) and hope to find answers to these questions in the coming months.
Monday, 17 December 2007
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Human Rights Education and Burma: Part I
It is at times extremely frustrating to teach human rights law to people in a situation like those of my students. As they belong to ethnic minority groups from Burma such as the Mon, Karen, and Kachin, they face a double dose of human rights abuse. In the first place, they suffer the same egregious violations confronting the entire population of Burma at the hands of an unaccountable military junta that uses forced labour, torture, rape, arbitrary imprisonment and forced relocation as regular policy tools. In addition, they are discriminated against as minorities, forced to abandon their cultures through a government sponsored process of Burmanization. As a result, many have fled and sought refugee status in Thailand, China, India and even Bangladesh. Approximately 140 000 live in make shift camps here along the Thai-Burma border.
It is with weary sadness that I must teach them about the inadequate enforcement of human rights law and the seemingly insurmountable failure of the international community to cooperate. Let me assure you, answering the question: “Yes, but what can we do if the government violates refugee/civil and political/economic, social and cultural human rights law,” is a disappointing exercise when your students face this situation daily. Perhaps what angers me more than the recalcitrant attitude of the Burmese military junta is the complicity of the neighboring states, such as Thailand, who have sold their dignity in exchange for cheap natural resources and a supply of energy to fuel their own economic growth. For example, Thailand happily invests in dams and the lumber industry in Burma while its own citizens will not permit it to do so within its own territory. Moreover, the direct abuses of refugee rights in the Karen refugee camp, for example, are shocking and will be the subject of my next addition to this blog. China refuses to help and western corporations still profit in conjunction with the Burmese military junta. Our group discussions inevitably conclude that this is the case and I must face the student’s disenchantment directly.
But all is not lost; we take inspiration form the power of human rights education. There has been a remarkable change in the disposition of the students here. Young men and women who were terrified to speak out and had no concept of critical thinking or voicing opinions now challenge everything they are told and ask endless questions triggering discussions that often run late into the night. The students themselves cannot get enough knowledge of human rights and have begun to develop ideas about ways to convey this empowering information tot their own communities. Songs are being composed, plays written and posters designed all putting forward the notion of human dignity as a human right. They have also begun to apply a human rights based approach to their own organizations that are the only groups operating here on the ground. The students insist on participatory and accountable systems, sometimes confronting the established communal hierarchy in the process. They insist that a rights-based approach starts with them and only once it is established can they move on to advocacy. Of course, advocacy means something totally different here, where you take an enormous risk even criticizing the government.
I do my best to explain that human rights have come a long way in 60 years. International law is a slow process that hopefully increases awareness of the issues they confront and forces states to come to the table and discus them; something unimaginable just two generations ago! Great inroads have been made into the notion of unlimited domestic sovereignty and even the Burmese military regime is forced to temper its own violent responses to calls for basic human rights. I try to point out improvements elsewhere in the world and note that nearby places in which advocacy was equally dangerous only twenty or thirty years ago, such as Cambodia or China, are now allowing for civil society action at least in limited forms. Everyday I learn how human rights education empowers, which is in stark contrast to the complete failure of human rights law’s enforcement mechanisms in Asia.
It is with weary sadness that I must teach them about the inadequate enforcement of human rights law and the seemingly insurmountable failure of the international community to cooperate. Let me assure you, answering the question: “Yes, but what can we do if the government violates refugee/civil and political/economic, social and cultural human rights law,” is a disappointing exercise when your students face this situation daily. Perhaps what angers me more than the recalcitrant attitude of the Burmese military junta is the complicity of the neighboring states, such as Thailand, who have sold their dignity in exchange for cheap natural resources and a supply of energy to fuel their own economic growth. For example, Thailand happily invests in dams and the lumber industry in Burma while its own citizens will not permit it to do so within its own territory. Moreover, the direct abuses of refugee rights in the Karen refugee camp, for example, are shocking and will be the subject of my next addition to this blog. China refuses to help and western corporations still profit in conjunction with the Burmese military junta. Our group discussions inevitably conclude that this is the case and I must face the student’s disenchantment directly.
But all is not lost; we take inspiration form the power of human rights education. There has been a remarkable change in the disposition of the students here. Young men and women who were terrified to speak out and had no concept of critical thinking or voicing opinions now challenge everything they are told and ask endless questions triggering discussions that often run late into the night. The students themselves cannot get enough knowledge of human rights and have begun to develop ideas about ways to convey this empowering information tot their own communities. Songs are being composed, plays written and posters designed all putting forward the notion of human dignity as a human right. They have also begun to apply a human rights based approach to their own organizations that are the only groups operating here on the ground. The students insist on participatory and accountable systems, sometimes confronting the established communal hierarchy in the process. They insist that a rights-based approach starts with them and only once it is established can they move on to advocacy. Of course, advocacy means something totally different here, where you take an enormous risk even criticizing the government.
I do my best to explain that human rights have come a long way in 60 years. International law is a slow process that hopefully increases awareness of the issues they confront and forces states to come to the table and discus them; something unimaginable just two generations ago! Great inroads have been made into the notion of unlimited domestic sovereignty and even the Burmese military regime is forced to temper its own violent responses to calls for basic human rights. I try to point out improvements elsewhere in the world and note that nearby places in which advocacy was equally dangerous only twenty or thirty years ago, such as Cambodia or China, are now allowing for civil society action at least in limited forms. Everyday I learn how human rights education empowers, which is in stark contrast to the complete failure of human rights law’s enforcement mechanisms in Asia.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
US Propaganda Undermined by Israel
Today, whilst arguing that it ‘had no quarrel with the Iranian people’, the government of the
Today’s announcement by Condoleezza Rice, as reported on the Haaretz website, justifies sanctions on the basis that “the steps the Bush administration is taking are designed to punish the Iranians for their support for terrorist organizations in Iraq and the Middle East, missile sales and nuclear activities” a view shored up by reference to “the administration's concern over statements indicating a desire in Tehran to wipe Israel off the map”. Indeed,
So,
Friday, 19 October 2007
Economic Interests Trump Human Rights in Burma
Chiang Mai, October 20th, 2007
In Mae Sai, one of the few Thai/Burma border towns, it is apparent that it is business as usual between these two countries. Truckloads of goods and an endless line of human porters flow across from Burma. Despite Thailand’s statements admonishing the Burmese junta’s crackdown, trade, the lifeblood of the military government, has not been affected. This highlights the main issue in Burma. Political rhetoric from Burma’s trading partners unmatched by action. This gap is wider now than ever as these trading partners are being pressured to take a stand pubic against the obvious human rights law violations committed daily in Burma. These violations of international law range from the use of forced labour, to unlawful imprisonment and land confiscations, all of which are closely linked to the activities of foreign investors.
How is it possible that Burma is able to act in such blatant violation of basic human rights in an age of international law, global communication and increased cooperation and still be able to do business with its regional trading partners? The answer appears to be that regional powers are unconcerned about the domestic situation in Burma and instead focus on their own strategic and economic interests. The policy of isolation espoused politcally by Western States is ineffective if China, Thailand, Singapore and India continue to unconditionally do business with the SDPC.
Thailand, above all other States, has an immediate capability to seriously threaten the military regime with economic pressure. The Bangkok government, through state-owned agencies such as PTT and EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand), is the biggest purchaser of Burmese gas, contributing between US$1 billion to 2 billion a year to the regime. Burma is dependent economically because the pipelines are set up in a way that leaves them no choice but to sell to Thailand. “A pipeline imposes what we call in economics a ‘monopsony,’ a one-only buyer that likewise one might suppose enjoys some power over the seller,” explained Dr. Sean Turnell, an economist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and editor of Burma Economic Watch.
See: http://www.econ.mq.edu.au/burma_economic_watch
The Thai military government has explained that it is appalled by the regime’s crackdown on peaceful protesters but, as evidenced by border trade, economic investment and gas consumption, they continue to support the regime economically. The current Thai government has gone so far as to claim, ironically, that it is an intern and unelected military government and therefore cannot interfere with the policies of nieghbouring States! Yet, the unelected government has no problem conducting extensive trade with the Burmese regime. Thailand’s overseas oil and gas exploration company PTTEP, a subsidiary of energy conglomerate PTT, has reiterated this week it would be business as usual with the generals, despite a call by many Western countries for tougher international sanctions.
The third largest trader with Burma after Thailand and China is Singapore, who currently holds the rotating chairmanship of Asean. Little action is expected from this partner not the organization it currently presides over. Asean continues its policy of "constructive engagement" while members of the Singapore Democratic Party were arrested for protesting against the State’s business links with the Burmese military. While China may hold the most political sway over Burma, the links between States such and Singapore and Thailand cannot be underestimated. Thus far, they have been given a relatively free ride by the international community. However, companies from both countries are on a list published by the London-based Burma Campaign UK, an NGO seeking to spotlight human rights abuses. The list of about 100 companies includes PTTEP and EGAT, plus SapuraCrest Petroleum and Shangri-La Hotels based in Singapore, among more than 20 Asian businesses that deal with the junta.
See: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.php
As is common in many situations conducive to human and environmental rights problems, the specter of oil and gas development is present. Even States that purport to be democracies and to support democratic movements worldwide cannot resist the temptation to exploit these important natural resources no matter where the are found. For an excellent example of the gap between political rhetoric and economic action, the Canadian government’s policy on Burma can be cited. While Canada is busy granting Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi honourary Canadian citizenship for her role in the pro-democracy movement, Canadian corporations such as Ivanhoe Mines are still profiting in Burma. The Canadian Helicopter Corporation is providing airlifting services to the Yadana Natural Gas Project that provides the military junta more than 2 billion dollars each year and the Montreal-based Power Corp holds a 4 percent of share in French’s oil company, Total, that is operating the Yadana Gas Project, along with Petrana from Malaysia and TPPC from Thailand. TranCanada Pipeline, Canada’s largest pipeline firm, is one of 13 foreign companies currently getting involved in the development of Shew Gas Project, and the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) has more than 2 million shares with Ivanhoe Mines at the market values of 60 million dollars. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) holds more than a million shares with Ivanhoe at the current value of 20 million dollars. Clearly, political rhetoric from Ottawa does not alter economic priorities!
Civil society groups in Canada constantly strives to draw attention to Canadian firms operating in conjunction with the Burmese government. See: The Canadian Friends of Burma at: www.cfob.org
The US based Exxon oil company is another case in point. While the United States continually announces various programmes of economic sanctions, this corporation’s investments are never threatened. The oil and gas industry in Burma are inextricably linked to human rights abuse and environmental degradation.
For more information on this link see the various reports issued by EarthRights International. For example see: Total Denial. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2003. Available at: www.earthrights.org.
With Chevron’s discount purchase of Unocal, they have inherited a partnership in long legacy of human rights abuse in Burma. The Unocal situation, in which they operated a joint venture with the Burmese military, who violated a long list of customary international law norms such as forced labour and torture, famously shone light on the problematic relationship of foreign investment and human rights violations. Unocal was tried before the courts of the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The case proceeded to the supreme court where Unocal went into damage control mode and settled for a few million dollars with the Burmese villagers and promptly sold up the operations to Chevron.
For full details see: Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Nat’l Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 67 F. Supp.2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 110 F. Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal. 2000); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 27 F. Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) See also: Forced labour in Myanmar (Burma): Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)Parts III.8, V.14(3) (1998); Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar. UN Doc. A/RES/50/194 1995.
Many advocates of corporate social responsibility insist that such cases will prevent corporations from doing business in recalcitrant human rights regimes. In Burma, there has been very little of evidence of this. Despite high-profile cases investment into oil and gas continues unabated. Besides Exxon’s continued presence at the Yadana pipleine, the Shwe Natural Gas Project is presently being developed in Western Burma. A consortium of South Korean and Indian corporations have completed survey and exploration are moving towards the production phase. The project is destined to become the single largest source of foreign revenue for the military regime in Burma, with projected earnings of US$12-17 billion over 20 years. The Governments of South Korea and India own stakes in three of the four involved corporations and thus have the power to prevent abuses.
For more information on the Shwe Gas Pipeline Project see: The Shwe Gas Movement (http://www.shwe.org).
India in particular has increasingly supported the military regime inside Burma. They have reversed their previous opposition to the government and have come onside in order to cash in on the natural resource sale being held by the junta. Why would a democratic state shift its policy in support of an odious regime like the junta in Burma? It is simple. After the 1988 massacre and the military suppression, China moved in and India lost its position in Burma. Basic geopolitics dictate a strategic decision. India "lost" Burma to China because it had taken a moral stand. Now the politicians have decided that morality gives way to pragmatic economic concerns. Burma's vast oil and gas reserves can meet a big chunk of India's demand of 2.8 million barrels a day.
Even as the international condemnation was occurring over the recent violent repression of the peaceful protests of September, the Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in Rangoon to sign an energy deal on the Rakhin [Arakanese] coast of Burma. Reuters reported that the deal was done the following week and that the Indian State-run Oil and Gas Corp. will have a one hundred percent holding in blocks off of Arakan state. Reuters cited a company official stating, "It's a government to government deal.” This sends a clear message to the Burmese generals that they have a free reign to do as they please as long as the gas continues to flow.
All of this comes down to the geopolitical influence of China. China clearly holds the key to the situation in Burma but is not willing to act. At least the Chinese are straight forward about their economics first policy. China provides political protection for the Burmese government in exchange for lucrative natural resource access. The Asian Times has reported that this political assistance has been more valuable in the past than economic incentives from India in gaining natural resource concessions.
See: http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/II11Ae02.html
Moreover, China seeks access to the Bay of Bengal in order to shorten supply routes which are required to satisfy the hunger of its rapidly growing economy. It seems very unlikely that China will endorse any action that allows the international community to pry into the internal affairs of a fellow one-party State in Asia for fear of setting a precedent unhelpful to its own position. Yet no States are willing to take them to task over this inaction and any thoughts of Olympic boycotts as so far unrealistic.
George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian, informs us that “China has become the world’s excuse for inaction. If there is anything a government or a business does not want to do, it invokes the Yellow Peril. Raise the minimum wage to £6 an hour? Not when the Chinese are paid £6 a year. Cap working time at 48 hours a week? The Chinese are working 48 hours a day. Cut greenhouse gas emissions? The Chinese are building a new power station every nanosecond. China is our looking-glass bogeyman. If you behave well, the bogeyman will get you.” The regional players are all terrified of conceding even more ground to the Chinese economic machine. If Exxon pulls out, the Chinese State companies will move into the vacuum. If India does not engage the military regime, then China will secure even greater access and undermine India’s territorial advantage in the Bay of Bengal. The Burmese generals are benefiting from the game of geopolitical strategy.
Without meaningful economic sanctions by regional as well as international trading partners, the regime retains impunity despite the outrage of international civil society. The time to act is now while the media attention lingers on Burma. The initial euphoria expressed by Burmese activists in Northern Thailand about the global media and civil society support has been replaced by a cynical resentment of the international community for failing to act. People in Burma believed that if they were brave enough to stand up that the international community would protect them. Instead, Burmese human rights have been prioritized somewhere below oil and gas profits. It is perceived that as usual, corporate investment rights are better protected than people’s human rights. It is worth noting that Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently backed the use of economic sanctions against Burma, noting that the lives of regular citizens can hardly become worse. The people of Burma and those working to support them in Thailand wait for real action from the international community.
Chiang Mai, October 20th, 2007
In Mae Sai, one of the few Thai/Burma border towns, it is apparent that it is business as usual between these two countries. Truckloads of goods and an endless line of human porters flow across from Burma. Despite Thailand’s statements admonishing the Burmese junta’s crackdown, trade, the lifeblood of the military government, has not been affected. This highlights the main issue in Burma. Political rhetoric from Burma’s trading partners unmatched by action. This gap is wider now than ever as these trading partners are being pressured to take a stand pubic against the obvious human rights law violations committed daily in Burma. These violations of international law range from the use of forced labour, to unlawful imprisonment and land confiscations, all of which are closely linked to the activities of foreign investors.
How is it possible that Burma is able to act in such blatant violation of basic human rights in an age of international law, global communication and increased cooperation and still be able to do business with its regional trading partners? The answer appears to be that regional powers are unconcerned about the domestic situation in Burma and instead focus on their own strategic and economic interests. The policy of isolation espoused politcally by Western States is ineffective if China, Thailand, Singapore and India continue to unconditionally do business with the SDPC.
Thailand, above all other States, has an immediate capability to seriously threaten the military regime with economic pressure. The Bangkok government, through state-owned agencies such as PTT and EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand), is the biggest purchaser of Burmese gas, contributing between US$1 billion to 2 billion a year to the regime. Burma is dependent economically because the pipelines are set up in a way that leaves them no choice but to sell to Thailand. “A pipeline imposes what we call in economics a ‘monopsony,’ a one-only buyer that likewise one might suppose enjoys some power over the seller,” explained Dr. Sean Turnell, an economist at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and editor of Burma Economic Watch.
See: http://www.econ.mq.edu.au/burma_economic_watch
The Thai military government has explained that it is appalled by the regime’s crackdown on peaceful protesters but, as evidenced by border trade, economic investment and gas consumption, they continue to support the regime economically. The current Thai government has gone so far as to claim, ironically, that it is an intern and unelected military government and therefore cannot interfere with the policies of nieghbouring States! Yet, the unelected government has no problem conducting extensive trade with the Burmese regime. Thailand’s overseas oil and gas exploration company PTTEP, a subsidiary of energy conglomerate PTT, has reiterated this week it would be business as usual with the generals, despite a call by many Western countries for tougher international sanctions.
The third largest trader with Burma after Thailand and China is Singapore, who currently holds the rotating chairmanship of Asean. Little action is expected from this partner not the organization it currently presides over. Asean continues its policy of "constructive engagement" while members of the Singapore Democratic Party were arrested for protesting against the State’s business links with the Burmese military. While China may hold the most political sway over Burma, the links between States such and Singapore and Thailand cannot be underestimated. Thus far, they have been given a relatively free ride by the international community. However, companies from both countries are on a list published by the London-based Burma Campaign UK, an NGO seeking to spotlight human rights abuses. The list of about 100 companies includes PTTEP and EGAT, plus SapuraCrest Petroleum and Shangri-La Hotels based in Singapore, among more than 20 Asian businesses that deal with the junta.
See: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.php
As is common in many situations conducive to human and environmental rights problems, the specter of oil and gas development is present. Even States that purport to be democracies and to support democratic movements worldwide cannot resist the temptation to exploit these important natural resources no matter where the are found. For an excellent example of the gap between political rhetoric and economic action, the Canadian government’s policy on Burma can be cited. While Canada is busy granting Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi honourary Canadian citizenship for her role in the pro-democracy movement, Canadian corporations such as Ivanhoe Mines are still profiting in Burma. The Canadian Helicopter Corporation is providing airlifting services to the Yadana Natural Gas Project that provides the military junta more than 2 billion dollars each year and the Montreal-based Power Corp holds a 4 percent of share in French’s oil company, Total, that is operating the Yadana Gas Project, along with Petrana from Malaysia and TPPC from Thailand. TranCanada Pipeline, Canada’s largest pipeline firm, is one of 13 foreign companies currently getting involved in the development of Shew Gas Project, and the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) has more than 2 million shares with Ivanhoe Mines at the market values of 60 million dollars. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) holds more than a million shares with Ivanhoe at the current value of 20 million dollars. Clearly, political rhetoric from Ottawa does not alter economic priorities!
Civil society groups in Canada constantly strives to draw attention to Canadian firms operating in conjunction with the Burmese government. See: The Canadian Friends of Burma at: www.cfob.org
The US based Exxon oil company is another case in point. While the United States continually announces various programmes of economic sanctions, this corporation’s investments are never threatened. The oil and gas industry in Burma are inextricably linked to human rights abuse and environmental degradation.
For more information on this link see the various reports issued by EarthRights International. For example see: Total Denial. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2003. Available at: www.earthrights.org.
With Chevron’s discount purchase of Unocal, they have inherited a partnership in long legacy of human rights abuse in Burma. The Unocal situation, in which they operated a joint venture with the Burmese military, who violated a long list of customary international law norms such as forced labour and torture, famously shone light on the problematic relationship of foreign investment and human rights violations. Unocal was tried before the courts of the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The case proceeded to the supreme court where Unocal went into damage control mode and settled for a few million dollars with the Burmese villagers and promptly sold up the operations to Chevron.
For full details see: Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp.880 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Nat’l Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 67 F. Supp.2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 1999); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 110 F. Supp.2d 1294 (C.D. Cal. 2000); Doe I v. Unocal Corp., 27 F. Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d 248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) See also: Forced labour in Myanmar (Burma): Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)Parts III.8, V.14(3) (1998); Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar. UN Doc. A/RES/50/194 1995.
Many advocates of corporate social responsibility insist that such cases will prevent corporations from doing business in recalcitrant human rights regimes. In Burma, there has been very little of evidence of this. Despite high-profile cases investment into oil and gas continues unabated. Besides Exxon’s continued presence at the Yadana pipleine, the Shwe Natural Gas Project is presently being developed in Western Burma. A consortium of South Korean and Indian corporations have completed survey and exploration are moving towards the production phase. The project is destined to become the single largest source of foreign revenue for the military regime in Burma, with projected earnings of US$12-17 billion over 20 years. The Governments of South Korea and India own stakes in three of the four involved corporations and thus have the power to prevent abuses.
For more information on the Shwe Gas Pipeline Project see: The Shwe Gas Movement (http://www.shwe.org).
India in particular has increasingly supported the military regime inside Burma. They have reversed their previous opposition to the government and have come onside in order to cash in on the natural resource sale being held by the junta. Why would a democratic state shift its policy in support of an odious regime like the junta in Burma? It is simple. After the 1988 massacre and the military suppression, China moved in and India lost its position in Burma. Basic geopolitics dictate a strategic decision. India "lost" Burma to China because it had taken a moral stand. Now the politicians have decided that morality gives way to pragmatic economic concerns. Burma's vast oil and gas reserves can meet a big chunk of India's demand of 2.8 million barrels a day.
Even as the international condemnation was occurring over the recent violent repression of the peaceful protests of September, the Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee was in Rangoon to sign an energy deal on the Rakhin [Arakanese] coast of Burma. Reuters reported that the deal was done the following week and that the Indian State-run Oil and Gas Corp. will have a one hundred percent holding in blocks off of Arakan state. Reuters cited a company official stating, "It's a government to government deal.” This sends a clear message to the Burmese generals that they have a free reign to do as they please as long as the gas continues to flow.
All of this comes down to the geopolitical influence of China. China clearly holds the key to the situation in Burma but is not willing to act. At least the Chinese are straight forward about their economics first policy. China provides political protection for the Burmese government in exchange for lucrative natural resource access. The Asian Times has reported that this political assistance has been more valuable in the past than economic incentives from India in gaining natural resource concessions.
See: http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/II11Ae02.html
Moreover, China seeks access to the Bay of Bengal in order to shorten supply routes which are required to satisfy the hunger of its rapidly growing economy. It seems very unlikely that China will endorse any action that allows the international community to pry into the internal affairs of a fellow one-party State in Asia for fear of setting a precedent unhelpful to its own position. Yet no States are willing to take them to task over this inaction and any thoughts of Olympic boycotts as so far unrealistic.
George Monbiot, writing in the Guardian, informs us that “China has become the world’s excuse for inaction. If there is anything a government or a business does not want to do, it invokes the Yellow Peril. Raise the minimum wage to £6 an hour? Not when the Chinese are paid £6 a year. Cap working time at 48 hours a week? The Chinese are working 48 hours a day. Cut greenhouse gas emissions? The Chinese are building a new power station every nanosecond. China is our looking-glass bogeyman. If you behave well, the bogeyman will get you.” The regional players are all terrified of conceding even more ground to the Chinese economic machine. If Exxon pulls out, the Chinese State companies will move into the vacuum. If India does not engage the military regime, then China will secure even greater access and undermine India’s territorial advantage in the Bay of Bengal. The Burmese generals are benefiting from the game of geopolitical strategy.
Without meaningful economic sanctions by regional as well as international trading partners, the regime retains impunity despite the outrage of international civil society. The time to act is now while the media attention lingers on Burma. The initial euphoria expressed by Burmese activists in Northern Thailand about the global media and civil society support has been replaced by a cynical resentment of the international community for failing to act. People in Burma believed that if they were brave enough to stand up that the international community would protect them. Instead, Burmese human rights have been prioritized somewhere below oil and gas profits. It is perceived that as usual, corporate investment rights are better protected than people’s human rights. It is worth noting that Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently backed the use of economic sanctions against Burma, noting that the lives of regular citizens can hardly become worse. The people of Burma and those working to support them in Thailand wait for real action from the international community.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
Torture: Today and Tomorrow
Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture which entered into force in June 1987 provides that:
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
For the purposes of this Convention, Article 1(1) states that torture means:
…any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
International human rights law and its advocates are, for the most part, daily dealing with unresolved issues. Questions such as the meaning of self-determination, or achieving adequate protection of migrant workers, or promoting the justicability of economic and social rights are issues around which a body of literature and experience gathers in order that the appropriate standards can be agreed upon and applied. Some issues however, although they may have seemed to have been resolved in the past, are beginning to appear as intangible as ever. Torture threatens to be one of these. Prior to 2001 there was a clear consensus, as evidenced by the Convention Against Torture, that in no circumstances could torture be tolerated. Thus was the prohibition of torture considered to be a rule of customary international law.
In recent years however, many western governments have either rejected the dictates of humanity by advocating for the toleration and open acceptance of torture within their own jurisdictions, or else they have turned a blind eye to matters such as ‘extraordinary renditions’ which either make use of or take place on their territory.
Three articles from today’s Guardian Unlimited website highlight the role of torture in contemporary international affairs, but also highlight the role which criminal justice and human rights has in holding to account those responsible for torture, even many years after the actual crimes were committed.
In the first http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2189000,00.html we hear how the Burmese junta has tortured monks and others who may have been involved in the recent protests for democracy in that country “A recently released monk revealed today that he and hundreds of others were interrogated to provide the names of the ringleaders of the protests. When they failed to answer they were kicked and beaten, he told Reuters news agency. Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, he said they were packed in so tightly at a makeshift prison at the Technical Institute campus in
In the USA, former US president Jimmy Carter spoke out yesterday http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2188844,00.html to claim that the US government’s assertions that it does not torture were false, noting that "We've said that the Geneva conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantánamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime." He noted that the interrogation methods used, including "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," constitute torture "if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honoured - certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated.”
Finally, in
Given the rapid development of international law in recent years, and particularly of international criminal law, it is imperative that the torturers of the present, be it senior members of the US government, or thugs in the Burmese junta, it is imperative that the absolute prohibition on torture under international law be consolidated and categorically respected as one of the few certainties in international law. By supporting this principle it is likely that unlike the case in
on
This is al Haq's press release on the case:
A full public hearing will be held before the UK High Court of Justice in
PIL will argue that the
This hearing is of great significance, and any support you can offer is most welcome. Aside from actually attending the hearing, it would be greatly appreciated if you could forward this letter to any other parties you think may be interested. Al-Haq is in the process of organising various public meetings prior to the hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact haq@alhaq.org if you have any questions, comments or require further information pertaining to the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)