US Propaganda Undermined by Israel

Today, whilst arguing that it ‘had no quarrel with the Iranian people’, the government of the USA announced the imposition of sanctions against Iran, and specifically against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's defence ministry and a number of banks. While the imposition of sanctions against Iraq resulted in a humanitarian disaster during the 1990’s, that is not to say that limited and targeted sanctions, undertaken in accordance with international law, and for the purpose of ensuring greater respect for human rights and international peace and security, can never be useful tools with which the international community and the UN can attempt to force oppressive states to adapt their behaviour.

Most recently sanctions imposed against the Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authority by the European Union and USA amongst others have resulted in both a dramatic deterioration in humanitarian standards for the Palestinian people and have crushed the development of a viable and active democratic process in the occupied Palestinian territories. Justification for sanctions must always be well thought out and clearly in line with the obligations upon states as set out in international human rights law. Propaganda however, appears to be at the heart of both the sanctions against the Palestinians and now also against Iran.

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, Iran’s purported intention of destroying Israel as soon as it can get hold of nuclear weapons is regarded by the White House as posing "the single greatest challenge to US security.”

So, Iran is planning to destroy Israel, and we must take direct steps against the Iranian government to prevent such from happening. But also in today’s Haaretz an article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html) reports the comments of Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, who stated that in her "Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel” and she also “criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb,” claiming that he is “attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.”

In effect then, the foreign minister of Israel accepts that Iran is not likely to go about destroying Israel, and furthermore states that her prime minister is only using such arguments for propaganda purposes, the propaganda of fear which has tragically divided jew from arab within all the territories under Israeli control. And this is the basis of US action against Iran? Propaganda takes many forms but it is not perfect. Lies on such a scale as those related to the supposed WMDs in Iraq were seen through by millions prior to the 2003 invasion. Vigilance in this respect need be preserved and increased with regards to US and European threats against Iran.

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.

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 Rangoon that they could not lie down. They were denied toilets, medical treatment and were fed on barely cooked rice, which they were forced to eat with their hands.” (and in a link to the earlier post re arms sales to Israel, Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement "It's time for the security council to end all sales and transfers of arms to a government that uses repression and fear to hang on to power.")

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 Argentina a catholic priest has been convicted of crimes against humanity for his role in torture during the era of the military dictatorship in that country http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,2188308,00.html. “Von Wernich was accused of using his position to comfort prisoners, many of them students and leftwing activists, before betraying their confidences to the police. The prisoners would be murdered and the colleagues they had identified kidnapped. The prosecution accused him of complicity in seven murders, 42 kidnappings and 31 cases of torture. Several witnesses said he was present during torture sessions and killings.”

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 Argentina, the victims of today’s torture will not have to wait 20 years for justice.

UK High Court of Justice to Hear Legal Challenge

on UK Sale of Arms-Related Equipment to Israel

Today see's the second day of a House of Lords hearing in London where a Palestinian is challenging the United Kingdom's practice of selling weapons to the Israeli government. The basis for the legal challenge is the the UK Export Control Act of 2002 which is described in more detail below, but which was intended to prevent the export from the UK of weapons which were to be used by foreign governments for internal repression and human rights abuses. Given the sheer scale of destruction and killings of Palestinians over the past six months in both Gaza and the West Bank, and the repeated condemnations of Israel's actions in the occupied territories, notably highlighted by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the judgment in this case, whether favorable to the applicant or not, should be of great interest, particularly at a time when the relationship between the British Courts and the Parliament is being strained by the differing opinions on human rights and the role of the judiciary in influencing public and foreign policy.

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 London on 10 -11 October 2007 in the case of R (Saleh Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Following the blanket refusal by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to respond to the claimant’s request for a justification of UK policy on arms-related sales to Israel, the High Court will hear arguments in a claim filed on 15 November 2006 by UK Solicitor Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), in cooperation with Al-Haq.

PIL will argue that the UK’s sale of arms-related equipment to Israel is in breach of UK obligations under international law as well as UK statutory law, specifically, the UK Export Control Act of 2002, which incorporates the “consolidated criteria” governing the export of military equipment. According to these criteria, the UK government may not issue export licenses to countries where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for “[i]nternal repression…in violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments” or where export would be “inconsistent with…the UK’s international obligations”. The “consolidated criteria” also makes clear that “special caution and vigilance” should be exercised in the case of prospective arms-related sales to countries where serious human rights violations have been established by competent bodies.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest judicial authority in the United Nations, in its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the Israeli Annexation Wall definitively established that Israel’s human rights record is severely compromised. The Court declared the illegality of the construction of the Wall and its associated regime in the West Bank under both international human rights and humanitarian law. The ICJ called for its dismantling and found that all States have a legal obligation to neither recognise the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the Wall nor render any aid or assistance in maintaining the situation.

The claimant, Saleh Hasan, a 60-year old resident of Bethlehem, is one of tens of thousands of Palestinians who until now have found no effective remedy for Israel’s unlawful acts. In 2005, Israel used military equipment to bulldoze agricultural assets and permanently confiscate his land in order to make way for the Wall. That same year, one year after the ICJ advisory opinion on the Wall, the UK’s arms-related exports to Israel saw a two-fold increase.

PIL will argue that the UK government had and continues to have clear evidence from authoritative international bodies that Israel might use equipment imported from the UK for purposes prohibited under the “consolidated criteria.” As such PIL will seek a declaration from the High Court that in future the UK Government must be transparent about how it has satisfied itself that there is no risk of a breach of these criteria and to make publicly available information that establishes there is no risk of any arms related products from the UK being used for repressive purposes. In the absence of any legal justification for continuing its current policy, Al-Haq, PIL and Palestinians like Saleh Hasan call on the UK government to suspend all arms-related exports to Israel until such time as Israel complies in full with its obligations under international law.

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.