Monthly Archives: October 2019

On October 21, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court in his fight against extradition to the United States. Assange has been charged with 17 counts of Espionage in the U.S., where he faces 175 years in prison related to WikiLeaks 2010 publication concerning US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Diplomatic Cables and Guantanamo Bay.

At the case management hearing, the Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied Assanges legal teams request for a trial extension, and refused to allow a preliminary hearing to hear arguments that the extradition request was prohibited on the grounds that the prosecution and charges against him are politically motivated. Assanges lawyer described this as a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information and legally unprecedented move.

After the hearing, renowned filmmaker John Pilger spoke on the plight of his fellow journalist who is imprisoned for journalism:

This extradition is unlawful. And there is no question about that because there is one very explicit statute in this treaty that says no one could be extradited if they are charged with a political offense. This under law is a political offense what the U.S. wanted [him] for. So the whole thing should be thrown out of court and Julian [should be] walking out.

The U.S. governments prosecution of Assange is and always has been politically motivated. He is not in jail for skipping bail. He is not in jail for alleged sexual misconduct. He is there for exposing the war crimes of the U.S. empire. By publishing the documents that are verified to be authentic, Assange through his work with WikiLeaks provided the public with vital evidence of governments wrongdoing. For this, he has become a world famous political prisoner.

He has now been made defenseless under the Espionage Act of 1917. This outdated U.S. federal law, created after World War I for wartime prosecutions has now been weaponized by the state to punish whistleblowers and even journalists. Assange, just as any others, who are charged under this law, will not be able to have public interest defense and receive a fair trial.

Sign of torture

Mondays judicial hearing made states outlandish political retaliation against this multi-award winning journalist open to the public. During the hearing, Assange, who spends most of his time in complete isolation in Londons Belmarsh Prison mentally struggled to state his name and date of birth. When the judge asked him if he understood the court proceeding, he responded saying, "I cant think properly."

Clinical psychologist Lissa Johnson noted this display of disorientation as a sign of the effect on him from prolonged solitary confinement. UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, who has been deeply concerned about the treatment of Assange and his health, has been warning the public that Assange has been subjected to psychological torture.

Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan shared his observation from attending the hearing. After describing how shocked he was to see his friends severe loss of weight and physical deterioration, Murray noted how his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. He then went on to describe how he has been skeptical of those who claimed Assanges treatment amounted to torture, but after seeing the hearing changed his mind completely and now agrees that Assange is exhibiting the symptoms of a torture victim.

Crimes of empire

Despite his waning mental condition highlighted by the mainstream media, Assange is aware of what has been done to him and was clear about the ill treatment he has been subjected to. In a court where he was once again denied his basic rights and his justice was obstructed, Assange gathered the strength to speak his truth in his fight against extradition:

I dont understand how this is equitable. This superpower had 10 years to prepare for this case and I cant access my writings. Its very difficult where I am to do anything but these people have unlimited resources...They are saying journalists and whistleblowers are enemies of the people. They have unfair advantages dealing with documents. They [know] the interior of my life with my psychologist. They steal my childrens DNA. This is not equitable what is happening here.

Truth of the matter is Assanges extradition case is not about conspiracy to commit computer intrusion with his source, former US military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning or about violating the Espionage Act by seeking out classified information. This is all about crimes of the empire their unaccounted historic human rights abuses, torture and oppression, that have been now enacted against Assange and his organization.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

But our costs are real. Over 90% of the not-for-profit Common Dreams budget comes from reader support. If you're a regular readeror maybe a new oneand you haven't yet pitched in, could you make a contribution today and help keep us going?

No amount is too large or too small. Please select a donation method:

The US governments assault on WikiLeaks has been carried out under the radar since as early as 2008, when US intelligence designated the whistleblowing site as an information security threat to the US army. It escalated in 2010, shortly after WikiLeaks published the trove of US classified military records of the Afghan War and the Iraq War Logs.

This unchecked power expanded, creating a long, dreadful persecution of Assange. Before he was put into a maximum-security prison, being treated worse than a murderer as indicated by UN rulings, Assange had been arbitrarily detained without charge. First he was in prison, then kept under house arrest and lived as a refugee in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. For nearly a decade, despite the UN repeatedly issuing statements demanding the UK to honor its international obligations and allow Assange to leave the embassy without fear of arrest and extradition, the UK government, kept him in confinement, depriving him of medical care and sunlight.

In particular, during the last year of his stay in the Embassy, this already untenable situation got significantly worse. Pressured by the US, Ecuadors new President, Lenin Moreno put Assange in isolation by cutting off his access to the Internet, denying him phone calls and visitors, which Human Rights Watch general counsel described as being similar to solitary confinement.

Then came the final straw. Ecuador illegally terminated Assanges political asylum and confiscated his belongings, including legal papers and medical records from his time living in the embassy. Along with his entire legal defense being handed over to the US authorities, he has been denied the basic tools and access to lawyers, being made unable to prepare his defense.

Recently, it came to light that the CIA had been directly ordering a Spanish security company that was supposed to protect Ecuadors Embassy to spy on Assange. Surveillance was carried out with video and audio for 24 hours, 7 days a week, monitoring privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers and even spying on the womens bathroom.

In defense of truth

By enduring this Western governments coordinated brutal persecution, Assange, if not broken, was weakened. Here, a man who always spoke truth to power and courageously defended those who are oppressed, is now becoming unable to use his voice to defend himself any longer.

Seeing his friend, who is the greatest journalist of this century suffer from travesty of justice, being tortured to death by the state, Murray laments, letting people know what is at stake:

I had been even more skeptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought.

The judicial system has become deaf to cries of injustice and the corporate media has been engaged in obfuscation and blackout, covering up the crimes of empire. While Assange is silenced, being brutally persecuted, the public has become his last line of defense.

Around the globe, solidarity is emerging with those who are able to respond to the plea of truth calling on the conscience of ordinary people. Outside of the court, around 200 demonstrators gathered in support of his freedom. In a statement issued after the hearing, German Member of Parliament Heike Hnsel issued a statement urging the British government and the EU to stop bowing to US interests and instead reject this extra-territorial political persecution.

In his home country Australia, where the government has been silent and has not done anything to protect its own citizen, there have been growing demands for the Australian government to intervene to save Assanges life. A day after the hearing, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives formally approved the Parliamentary Group that is set up to work toward bringing Assange back home to Australia.

Assanges first full extradition hearing is set for February. Until we all are able to hear the truth that was brought out at the hearing on Monday, and break the silence to let that truth be told, Assange remains unfree, and with him the free press is locked behind bars.If a concerned public fails to stand up for his freedom now, journalism indeed will soon become a crime. We now must speak for whistleblowers and publishers, those courageous among us who have risked their lives, and given up everything in order to defend our right to free speech. We must act now with courage for this could be the moment before democracy takes its last breath.

Watch:

Read the original here:

Assanges Extradition Is a Case About the Crimes of Empire - Common Dreams

President Lyndon B. Johnson in an undated photo(Lyndon Baines Johnson Library & Museum/Reuters )Lyndon Johnsons 1960s spending initiatives have not paid off with any improvement in education.

In 1964, most people would have been excited to receive a signed picture from the president. But a woman known to history as Mrs. Marlow did not want Lyndon Johnsons autograph.

She wanted clothes for her family. And food. All we want is a decent chance for our children, Marlow wrote to Johnson. Marlow felt she deserved as much because Johnson made a much-publicized visit to her family earlier that year, using the Marlows as an example of an impoverished family that Johnsons Great Society programs could help.

If money was the answer, she was in luck. Johnson was about to open the spigots of federal spending like never before in the areas of education, health care, and welfare, promising that Washington would improve schools and lift families out of poverty.

Today, decades and trillions of dollars later, parents like Mrs. Marlow are still waiting for results. Johnsons programs and their legacy have proved to be a curse on taxpayers and low-income families.

Head Start, the federal pre-kindergarten program for low-income children launched under Johnson, has had no lasting learning gains for enrolled students. Whats more, a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found Head Start centers inflating enrollment numbers by doctoring student applications. Taxpayers have spent more than $240 billion on the initiative since its launch in 1965.

Washington has spent $2 trillion on K12 schools since 1965, yet there has been no improvement in actual student learning for disadvantaged students compared with their peers. The achievement gap between children from low-income families and wealthier students was the equivalent of four years of learning decades ago and remains that size today. There has, however, been a notable increase in the bureaucracy. The number of administrators has increased 137 percent since the 1960s.

Today the federal government originates and services 90 percent of all student loans, spending $150 billion annually on loans and grants. Tuition at public four-year universities has increased 213 percent (after accounting for inflation) since 1987. Meanwhile, a slightly smaller proportion of students from families in the bottom quartile of the income distribution graduate from college today, the very students Johnsons loan programs were supposed to help.

By any measurable indicator, the Great Society has been a bust for students.

To make matters worse, special-interest groups have captured many instructional materials and steered classrooms away from content-based teaching and toward subjective analyses of race and oppression. Schools are not helping students become productive citizens.

Want proof? The 2019 Annenberg Public Policy Center Civics Survey found that more than one in five respondents could not name any branch of the U.S. government. One-quarter could only name one branch, which means nearly half of adults cannot even begin to explain how our government operates.

Fortunately, not all is lost. A greater reliance on charter schools public schools that operate independent of traditional school districts and base their curriculum on great works of literature would certainly help. So would education savings accounts K12 private-learning options offered now in five states, which allow families to customize their childs education experience according to the students needs. Another solution: Income Share Agreements, college-payment options under which businesses and universities help students cover postsecondary costs. These ISAs help students get a degree without making the Faustian bargain of a federal loan.

Better learning options are within reach, but lawmakers, taxpayers, and families must confront the failed legacy of the Johnson-era programs. The U.S. Department of Education, created in 1979 after Great Society programs became too much for scattered federal offices to bear, has not given children more opportunities to succeed in school or in life.

The department is overdue for sunset, and voters on both sides should be prepared to support this idea. Evidence demonstrates that low-income children the very children Washington promised to help are no better off today in school than they were when Johnson made his promises to Mrs. Marlow 55 years ago.

In one of Mrs. Marlows letters to Johnson, she wrote, Since your poverty campaign visit to our home on May 7, we havent had a peaceful day. . . . We feel we were cast in the middle of a Democratic and Republican election war.

Too many families and children have watched opportunities slip away amid political squabbles over taxpayer spending for failed programs. And Mrs. Marlows example is illustrative of Washingtons failed responses to our nations education woes. After months of correspondence about the Marlow familys ongoing poverty and public embarrassment, Johnsons assistant, Bill Moyers, wrote back and promised assistance. The day after Moyerss letter, Mrs. Marlow received $200 from someone who wished to remain anonymous.

Lindsey M. Burke, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education at The Heritage Foundation, is the director of Heritages Center for Education Policy. Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst specializing in education issues at Heritage. They are the editors of the new book The Not-So-Great Society.

Follow this link:

The Great Society and Opportunity Lost - National Review

Catalonia is burning.

The skyline of Barcelona is filled with smoke and its streets flooded with marching protestors. The centre of Tarragona is swarmed with brawls and riddled with police violence. The economy has stalled. Transport is blocked. The Catalans are fighting, resisting oppression and standing up for independence.

Two years ago, Catalonias bid for independence plunged Spain into a huge political crisis when the autonomous government held an independence referendum.

Madrid responded by dragging Catalonia back into the fold with an authoritarian fist, sparking a wave of protests in the capital, Barcelona and other areas of the region.

Now, the sentencing of nine Catalan pro-independence politicians and activists to prison for between nine and 13 years for their involvement in the referendum has reignited the fire of rebellion and sparked new anti-fascist Spain sentiments in the region.

Meanwhile, in Manchester, in a country perhaps too distracted by its own separatist issues, Im sat facing two Catalans both sporting the yellow ribbon.

Estibaliz Yebras and Josep Simona are both members of the Assemblea Nacional Catalana group in Manchester.

The ANC was created in 2011 and is a movement of the Catalan citizens for independence. The ANC has established many little assemblies in different countries for expatriate Catalans.

From England, [our aim is] to make the people know, to explain to the people what is happening in Catalonia, says Estibaliz. I think the most important thing is to give the opportunity to people to know what is really happening in Catalonia.

We can explain to the international community what are the problems. To make it public.

From here it is easier for us to help the British people to understand what is happening, because you also get the point of view of a British person, adds Josep.

[We aim] To bring awareness, because I think before 2017 the image of Spain in the international community was not the same image that we have inside Catalonia.

We are giving talks to the people in facts, not in opinions. We are giving facts. Who is Spain? Who is the real Spain? What is Spain doing to us, explains Estibaliz.

I speak to English people every day, and Im happy because some of them know what is Catalonia, what is happening there, what the yellow ribbon means. But they are in shock when we tell them that people are in jail for having a referendum. And they say, What? In Spain? But Spain is a democracy, but no its not.

Since post-Franco democracy was established in 1978, Spain has been able to conceal its true undemocratic nature by scapegoating the Basque terrorism of ETA.

However, in the same week the fascist dictators body has been moved, the Catalan crisis highlights that the legacy of his suppression of Catalonia, Galicia and the Basque country still echoes through the Cortes Generales.

When asked if Spain was a democracy, Estibaliz scoffed: Is it a democracy? No, its not, its a dictatorship.

Franco died in 1975 [and] the new government of that time wanted to give us, well, sell us a democracy, but it was a camouflage, because little things have changed but the important things have not.

In 1978, they made a constitution and if you read this constitution, the articles and the laws protect all the fascist regime, and if you read it and you know a bit of history, you know its not fair.

The sentencing of the nine Catalan politicians and activists for their role in the referendum in 2017 appears to have only deepened the wounds inflicted on Catalonia by Spain.

It wasnt a surprise. Because if you consider they have been in jail for two years, and if you had followed the trial, you could see something wrong was happening, Estibaliz explains.

But when I heard about the sentencing I was, and I am, very sad. Very angry, very upset.

It is an attempt to attack democracy, our rights, our right of freedom of expression and right to assembly.

The Spanish government is targeting the citizens, just Catalan citizens.

The laws that apply to Catalans, are not the same as the laws that apply to the Spanish, Josep adds.

How is it possible that in Spain five men raped a girl, they were free, now they're in jail but they only got nine years in jail. But they raped a girl and filmed it. And the politicians got 10-13 years for having a referendum and they didn't hurt anybody, says Estibaliz.

They are political prisoners. If they were from the other communities they wouldn't be in jail.

And it is all because Madrid wants to control everything.

Following the 2017 referendum, Madrid retaliated by withdrawing Catalonias right to autonomy by applying Article 155 of the constitution.

After the referendum, they decided to be in control of everything. They closed the delegations, everything, explains Estibaliz.

They applied 155 article, which means Catalonia does not have control of anything. No rights. And that has only happened in Catalonia. Never before have they applied the 155 article, not in any other community.

And what they are applying is not the 155 article. They have interpreted it the way they want, continues Josep.

It is not only Catalonia that has become militant. The fight for independence has spread across the world and Manchester has joined the battle.

When asked what the European community can do to help the Catalan fight, Estibaliz replies, I think its important to speak about our problem with Europe, with the European community.

Because I know you are very busy at the moment with Brexit but if England and different countries give support to Catalonia and bring that support to the European community [it can help].

But I think the European community doesnt want to know anything about Catalonia.

If Catalonia breaks with Spain, who will pay the debt Spain has with Europe? Who will pay it? Nobody. I think maybe its for this reason.

But the countries in the European Parliament are democratic countries and I think when one of the countries in the community is always doing wrong things, I think the rest can help. They can intervene and try to solve the problem.

On Saturday 12th October, pro-Catalan independence protests were held in London, Glasgow, Cambridge and Manchester and more held yesterday across the country.

All people who believe in democracy, who want to defend human rights can come, doesnt matter if they are English, Russian or Chinese, it doesnt matter, enthuses Estibaliz.

But Catalan people are solidarity people. To be independent doesn't mean leaving Spain to die. I would like to make it clear that Catalonia is fighting against fascism, not against the Spanish people, states Estibaliz.

We want to help people like us. We want to open our doors as always. Its not about closing Catalonia to the rest of the world. We want to be free.

I think that for all our history, the Spanish have always been fighting and persecuting the Catalan people.

They want to be in control all the time in everything.

For me, its persecution. Its discrimination.

You cant understand the violence of the police these days without understanding the ethnic hatred element. Because you see those images of the police, and its so violent that we say its not the police, its ethnic hatred, explains Josep.

Maybe only in non-civilised countries you would see that.

There was a picture today from the China Daily that was comparing the police in Hong Kong with the Police in Spain, saying we are more constrained than the Spanish police.

The recent sentencing appears not to have deterred the Catalans from fighting for their freedom.

When you keep all your anger from two years ago then maybe the moment to explode is right now, claims Estibaliz.

Mobilisation all the time is the only thing we can do. Non-stop. We cant go back now. The only way to solve the problem is continue fighting until we get independence.

View original post here:

'The only thing to do is keep fighting': Catalan activists chat to MM about the constitutional crisis in Spain - Mancunian Matters

Fifty-four percent of South Africans are hungry or at risk of hunger. Hunger affects peoples health, as well as their ability to live full and productive lives. Thats why hunger represents a violation of their basic human rights not only the right to food, but also the rights to dignity, health and education, since all of these are affected by hunger.

Hunger, malnutrition and related illnesses are not evenly spread. There are significant race, class and gender differences. For example, black South Africans are 22 times more likely to be food insecure compared with white South Africans. Food insecurity is defined as not having physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

This unequal distribution indicates a situation of severe food injustice in South Africa. Yet from my research with urban farmers its clear that people do not know of the right to food, and dont see unequal access to nutritious food as an injustice. As a result, questions of hunger are largely absent in South African politics. While there are frequent protests around access to jobs, education, housing, water and electricity, we rarely, if ever, see protests about access to food.

There are international examples of governments taking their obligations seriously with regard to the right to food. In the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, for example, the government has rolled out numerous food and nutrition security programmes to combat hunger. In India, activists used litigation to hold the government accountable, leading to the enactment of the National Food Security Act in 2013, and various anti-hunger programmes such as school meals, subsidised grain distribution and assistance to pregnant women.

South Africans could learn from these examples, and do more.

The concept of food injustice seeks to address issues of equity, fairness and control amid inherent inequality of the food system. Developed by researchers and activists in the US, it is equally relevant in South Africa, where centuries of oppression under settler colonialism and apartheid have created one of the most unequal societies in the world.

One of the drivers of unequal access to food is the way in which the industrial food system works. For example, a few large companies dominate each aspect of the food value chain.

This concentration means that smaller scale producers, processors and retailers are squeezed out. Because the large companies dominate the supply chain, they are able to maximise profits at the expense of small-scale producers, to whom they pay very low prices, and low-income consumers, who cant afford the marked-up prices in shops.

The system has been normalised to the extent that it is rarely challenged.

In my study with urban farmers I asked participants about the right to food. The majority had never heard of it. Even when I explained the right, it was difficult for them to comprehend how it could work in the context of the current food system.

One woman in Bertrams, Johannesburg, challenged the concept:

A right to eat, but where will we get the food to eat? Youll go to Spar [supermarket] and say, I want to eat, yet you dont have money to buy food.

When asked if food manufacturers and retailers should help hungry people, another participant in Alexandra, said:

Yeah, I think they must help, but if theyve got money. Because also they must get something and then they can manage to help people.

This view was expressed by a pensioner struggling to feed her grandchildren. On the other end of the scale might be the CEO of major retailer Shoprite, who earned R100 million (and additional incentives) in 2017 1332 times more than employees, who made R75,150.

The idea of food being sold for profit has become entirely normalised. This is despite the fact that for most of human history, people had access to food either by producing (or gathering) it themselves, or through trade. Some of the older participants in the study actually experienced this during their childhoods in rural areas. Their households were largely self-sustaining growing crops, raising livestock, and sharing or trading with neighbours as needed.

Many of the research participants had monthly household food budgets of around R450 per person per month. At this rate, a healthy diet is simply unaffordable. The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Household Affordability Index suggests that the cost of a basic nutritious food basket for a family of four is R2,327.17 (or R581.79 per person).

Tackling food injustice requires a transformation of the structural inequities of the food system. It needs to ensure that marginalised producers, processors and retailers have an opportunity to earn a decent living. At the same time corporate dominance needs to be addressed.

To break the cycle of poverty and malnutrition, the government also needs to ensure that children have access to sufficient, healthy food. This might entail food provision linked to pre- and post-natal care, as well as provision of healthy meals at early childhood development centres.

It requires providing alternative means to access healthy food. This could be through access to land and water, or through subsidised fresh produce and healthy meals. Programmes such as those in Brazil or in India provide examples of how government interventions (through subsidies and distribution) can improve access to food.At the most basic level, it requires that South Africans know they have a right to food in the first place.

Eight years ago the then UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter criticised South Africas progress on this score and made a number of recommendations for improvement. Sadly, little has changed. Its time South Africans demanded government action.

Originally posted here:

South Africa still has a long way to go on the right to food - The Conversation Africa

On 20 October 2019, the Relief and Repatriation Commissioner of Bangladesh, Mahbub Alam Talukder, declared that the country will start relocating Rohingya Muslims to the flood-prone island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal, as part of a plan to solve the problem with overcrowded border camps in Coxs Bazar, which Bangladesh is currently experiencing following the influx of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar. Numerous human rights watchdogs have expressed concerns regarding the move, considering the islets remoteness and predisposition to flooding and devastation from cyclones. Nevertheless, the government of Bangladesh has stated that the repatriation will take place only in accordance with the will of the people and that the island is equipped with all the necessary facilities, including cyclone shelters, food warehouses and flood protection embankments.

A Muslim minority ethnic group in Buddhist dominated Myanmar, the Rohingya constitute about 4 percent of the countrys population. They inhabit the northern part of the Rakhine (formerly Arakan) State of Myanmar, one of the least developed parts of the country. Persecuted for decades by the Burmese State, their numbers inside Myanmar have diminished steadily over the years from well in excess of a million to a few hundred thousand. Denial of citizenship, religious persecution, killings, rape, massacres and refusal to provide even the most basic of human rights by subjecting them to forced labor, seizure of their land and property, extortion, denial of the freedom to travel to find work, and placing restrictions on marriage and the number of children they can have, has led to hundreds of thousands of impoverished Rohingya fleeing to neighbouring countries, especially Bangladesh, over the course of the last seven decades. Currently, more than 1 million Rohingyas live in Bangladesh, as a result of Myanmars brutal crackdown on the ethnic group, which reached its apogee in 2017 and has only exacerbated since then.

As a response, in March 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) established a Fact-Finding Mission in order to determine the facts and circumstances of the alleged human rights violations and abuses by the military and security forces in Myanmar against the Rohingya. Despite the fact that in 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh agreed on a repatriation plan as per which Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh would be taken back to Myanmar under the condition that the latter provides them with equal citizenship and their basic human rights, no refugees have yet agreed to return voluntarily, due to safety concerns. And indeed, as the findings of a report issued by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute's International Cyber Policy Centre further prove, currently the government of Myanmar has embarked on the systematic destruction of human settlements and the construction of highly securitized camps and military bases in the Rakhine state, demonstrating how the conditions there are not conducive for the safe return of the refugees.

During the 42nd Session of the UNHRC in Geneva, Marzuki Darusman, Chair of the Fact-Finding Mission in a Report stated that the estimated 600,000 Rohingya remaining inside Myanmar experience systematic persecution and live under the constant threat of genocide. Myanmar is failing in its obligation to prevent genocide, to investigate genocide and to enact effective legislation criminalizing and punishing genocide, Darusman argued. The Report describes how the Rohingya Muslims remain a subject of torture, killings, rape, forced displacement and numerous grave human rights violations, which constitute the agenda of the government of Myanmar of erasing their identity and removing them from the country. Considering the almost complete absence of accountability at the domestic level for those serious violations, the Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar in its report, encourages concerted international efforts in bringing the perpetrators to justice, promulgating institutional reforms and providing forms of reparation.

However, certain legal boundaries might obstruct the course of justice. Myanmar is not a signatory party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction of prosecuting individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression. The ICC does not have any power over the territory of Myanmar; yet, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) could still refer the case to the ICC, which is visible from the UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation in Myanmar, Yanghee Lee's move on 24 October of calling upon the UNSC to bring the situation in Myanmar to the attention of the ICC in order to establish an ad hoc tribunal, which will ensure justice for the Rohingya. Lee during a press briefing at the UN General Assembly in New York, further urged for targeted sanctions against the country's military-operated businesses and governmental authorities, which have been culpable of gross human rights abuses against the ethnic minority. However, the scenario of the UNSC initiating an international tribunal appears highly unlikely considering Myanmars ally, China, which holds a veto power and has been opposing and boycotting numerous probes into the Rohingya issue, reiterating that it understands and supports Myanmars stance in the conflict, while denouncing any international intervention.

Recognizing those deficiencies, earlier in June, the presidency of the ICC sought authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber III to investigate crimes committed by Myanmar, which have occurred on the territory of Bangladesh, that is a party to the Rome Statute. However, such investigation will not be entirely comprehensive, since it is restricted by the fact that the allegations of violence must have partially taken place in Bangladesh; those would include deportation, violating the right to return home in safety and persecution on ethno-religious grounds. It still remains to be seen whether the authorization will be given and the Bangladeshi-Myanmar border will come under investigation.

Meanwhile, Myanmar is a signatory party to the UNs Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which provides the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the jurisdiction of prosecuting States culpable of genocide, if put forward by another State that believes that the country in question has breached its obligations. During the UN General Assembly in New York at the end of September, the Republic of Gambia announced that the country is ready to take and delegate the Rohingya issue to the ICJ on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), calling other stakeholders to support and join this process. If the proposition is passed, it will establish an exceptional precedent considering that the UNSC until now has remained silent on the issue and constrained by veto-wielding members such as China and Russia.

According to an analysis published by the Security Council Report, the UNSC has been particularly reluctant in resorting to other UN bodies since it does not have necessarily control over their actions. From the perspective of the P5, when it comes to the Court more specifically, the Courts jurisprudence has, at times, been perceived as hostile to their interests, the article explains.

That has been particularly visible in the case of China, which has been widely supporting a non-interventionist approach in internal affairs in Myanmar by any international legal body. Beijing has been wary of having the Rohingya issue internationalized for numerous reasons; first, the country does not want the Rohingya crisis to jeopardize its investments in Myanmar, which constitute a vital element of Chinas Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and its String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean; second, the Burmese State is an essential market for Chinese military arms and equipment, many of which have been used by the security forces in perpetration of human rights abuses; and most importantly, China fears that an investigation into the Rohingya crisis will set up a pattern and possibly allow for an enquiry into the situation in its northwestern region of Xinjiang, where more than a million ethnic Muslim Uyghurs are currently detained in camps, designed to eradicate their identity, echoing the bitter plight of the Rohingya people.

EFSAS Study Paper Chinas String of Pearls exhibits The Dragons Great Game of Loans and Debts, describes how, situated on the coast of the Bay of Bengal, the Rakhine State provides China with a strategic location for the development of its Maritime Road. Chinas aim in developing maritime infrastructure in the deep-sea Kyauk Pyu Port is to turn it into a major hub and entry point for an oil and gas pipeline, which could provide an alternative route to the Strait of Malacca for the provision of energy fuels and a land corridor could then link Kyauk Pyu Port to Chinas own Yunnan Province. The Kyauk Pyu Port is part of a plan to create a special economic zone that is estimated to cost approximately $10 billion. For China, the crackdown on Rohingya Muslims, which the Myanmar armed forces the Tatmadaw broadly justify under the pretext of counter-insurgency and counter-extremist operations, is fostered and welcomed since Beijing does not want to risk the investments it has made in its resource-rich neighbor. Furthermore, by extending its support to the Burmese country, which has been facing worldwide ostracism, China pulls Myanmar closer to its sphere of influence, making it dependent on its funding, since many other international players have left. This is further substantiated by the fact that China is the major supplier of military hardware to Myanmar, part of which has been directly utilized in the repression and persecution of Rohingya Muslims, as a Report issued last month by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar explains.

Another reason for Chinas outright support for the suppression and ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas by the Myanmar government is that the country itself deploys a similar practice in its handling of the Uyghur Muslims. As Rebiya Kadeer, Uyghur political activist and former President of the World Uyghur Congress argues, China uses the Rohingya as an example to influence those within and outside of its borders by showing that China isnt the only iron fisted state. By ensuring the oppression of people outside of its borders China cements it authority to oppress within its borders. By promoting the security efforts of the Myanmar military, Beijing succeeds in justifying its own actions and diverting international attention from its own ethnic cleansing campaign.

The latter seems to be a very successful strategy, since the Muslim world has remained deafeningly silent on the plight of its brethren in Xinjiang. Although, commendable for its endeavours to bring the Rohingya crisis to an end by engaging with the ICJ, the OIC has failed to raise the issue of the Uyghurs to the international fora. Yet, that does not come as a surprise when one notices the economic loans for infrastructural projects extended to Muslim countries by China, as part of its BRI. For those countries, speaking about the situation in Xinjiang is not in their interest since that might put in peril their dealings with Beijing. Thus, the hypocrisy of OICs members who are all preaching slogans of championing Islam clearly gets exposed in the shadow of China, since they are currently queuing up for a pay roll and economic investments from China, while conveniently forgetting the hardship of the Muslim Uyghurs.

As Alip Erkin, an activist at the Uyghur Bulletin network, has spoken for the Business Insider Nederland, ...the principle of Muslim brotherhood has become a selective foreign policy tool that has more to do with the international politics of Muslim countries and less to do with its true message of solidarity.

As a relevant example, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, where thousands have rallied in solidarity with the Rohingyas and its Prime Minister Imran Khan, has trumped himself as a global defender of Islam by condemning world powers of Islamophobia at supranational platforms such as the UN, has remained completely numb on the detention of millions of Uyghur Muslims under concentration-like conditions. The Pakistani leader on numerous occasions in interviews with international news channels has stated that he lacks enough knowledge on the topic and is unaware of the issue, highlighting the countrys double standards regarding the protection of Muslims and its succumbing to the wishes of Beijing. Considering that Pakistan shares a border with the region of Xinjiang, which is also the starting point of its joint infrastructural project with China, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Khans ignorance not only seems unlikely, but manifests itself as willful amnesia.

As Andrew Gilmour, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights has stated, ...the Rohingya, and indeed the entire world, owe an immense debt of gratitude to the Government and people of Bangladesh for their generosity in hosting and providing for such a large refugee population. All international humanitarian and grass-root organisations should also be commended for their efforts in addressing the Rohingya crisis, yet what is also crucial to be recognised is how countries such as China brazenly take advantage of such human tragedy in order to pursue its egregious agenda, while making a mockery of the international community.

Chinas oppression of the Muslim minority and silence of the Islamic world have established a reality where once a country becomes a client to the monetary bids of the rising Asian superpower, any proclamations of a sacred Muslim Ummah (Community) are unceremoniously discarded.

View original post here:

EFSAS Commentary: Boisterous outcry over the Rohingyas and deafening silence on Uyghurs, exhibits the brutal price of China's Belt and Road Initiative...

Climate campaign group Extinction Rebellion (XR) received intense criticism after enraged commuters in east London dragged activists from atop a Tube carriage during rush hour.Katie Tarrant speaks to Zion Lights, editor of XRs Hourglass magazine, to find out what can be learned from this episode which senior figures in the movement now admit was a mistake.

On Thursday (17 October), two days before their Autumn Uprising was scheduled to come to a close, XR made headlines for a move which intensely split supporters.

A small group of protesters stood on top of Tube carriages in Stratford, Canning Town, and Shadwell all historically working-class and ethnically diverse areas of east London preventing platforms full of commuters from getting to work. In a viral video of the incident, one bystander can be heard shouting: I have to get to work too I have to feed my kids. At Canning Town station, members of the public took justice into their own hands and dragged protesters from the roof.

There is a growing consensus that we could have as little as 18 monthsto take decisive action against global heating, so it is unsurprising that a majority of the public are labelling climate destruction as the most important issue facing our times, as shown by a poll conducted across eight countries by Hope Not Hate.

With XRs two-week Autumn Uprising having now reached its conclusion, it is a crucial time for the movement to reflect on its methods of addressing this crisis.

Climate models are indicating that areas of London will go underwater, so if people are that reliant on the Tube, what will happen when it doesnt work?

Extinction Rebellion has three demands: that the government tell the truth and declare an ecological climate emergency; that it adopts a target of zero carbon by 2025; and for the creation of a citizens assembly to decide future policy on the environment.

Source: Rebellion.earth

When protests began on 7 October, XRs disruption tactics targeted Westminster and converged on six government departments, as seems coherent with the groups calls for the government to take action.

But targeting east London commuters does not seem logically conducive to achieving their demands. MPs and CEOs of companies in the most polluting industries are most likely not catching trains in working-class east London, are they?

Zion Lights,editor of XRs newspaperHourglass,was among73% of XR activistswho voted against Thursdays action in Canning Town station, which was carried out by a fringe affinity group ofsix people.

I think we should apologise and distance ourselves from that action, she toldRightsInfo. But, explaining XRs reasons for targeting the Tube in general, she said it shows how easily things can fall apart climate models are indicating that areas of London will go underwater, so if people are that reliant on the Tube, what will happen when it doesnt work?

Over the last two weeks we protested outside Downing Street, the Ministry of Justice, the BBC, the Bank of England Too many actions to recount, but they barely made the news. When a small group did the same DLR action back in April, that news went global. And so it was again Just remember that these people care very deeply for the health of the planet and the safety of their children.

However, the controversy strikes deeper than placing methods and demands at loggerheads, with action not seeming to target those crucial to achieving their aims. The disruption-as-metaphor notion becomes unfavourably ironic when protests disadvantage those who will suffer first and most at the hands of climate breakdown which will be the case if XR continue to target working-class areas of London.

In June, UN special rapporteur Philip Alston toldRightsInfo that in the UK, as elsewhere, the poor will suffer by far the most as a result of the climate crisis. It may be that this widespread disruption is a metaphor for the reality we could soon face due to the decline of the planet. But that doesnt change the fact that ordinary people need to work and earn their livelihood.

The arrest of more than 1,800 XR activists in London has raised questions about the groups inclusiveness. Should the group idolise being arrested as the greatest sacrifice when this is simply not viable for black and minority ethnic (BME) and working-class members groups at risk of harsher treatment and lacking access to legal advice and support?

The notion of XR being out-of-touch with the BME groups has been compounded by instances like activists delivering flowers toBrixton police station,where at least three young black men have died in custody. Over the weekend, XR activists in Scotland released a statementdistancing themselves from this gesture.

This sacrifice of being arrested has been justified by figureheads of the movement such as Guardian columnist and climate activist George Monbiot, who defends the controversial tactic as the only real power climate protesters have. Pointing to its effective[ness] for democracy and rights movements of the past, he says he has a moral duty to use [his] privilege.

Also, if XR continue to adopt a tactic of major disruption, how can they ensure that action does not disadvantage anyone but decision-makers and key contributors? Neither the group nor the planet cannot afford to alienate people from the cause.

Human rights and laws are constantly evolving to keep up with new eras of social change and acceptance. Should the right to protest now come with a new set of responsibilities in a movement where people are fighting not only for every human alive, but for the planet?

What I will say though is that we are well aware that structural oppression and inequality is a societal issue and that XR is not somehow immune from it. What we want to do it work out how to unpick it.

Zion suggested to RightsInfo that its a minority of people who idolise arrests, and explained that many members take responsibility to make sure that all volunteer roles are generally recognised as equal. However, as a woman of colour herself and the daughter of migrants, she acknowledged the issue of racial imbalance as applicable to the green movement as a whole.

Last week, at a journalism conference a woman of colour told me that we should platform diverse voices more, she said. But women of colour spokespeople who we have put forward have had death threats and awful trolling comments.

Its hurtful and requires serious resilience, which many marginalised groups simply dont have. I have also been recognised from TV, which worries me at times. So, I am hesitant to agree that we should platform these speakers just to appear less visibly white there is a rise of fascism in this country and putting them in the firing line is not right.

What I will say though is that we are well aware that structural oppression and inequality is a societal issue and that XR is not somehow immune from it. What we want to do it work out how to unpick it.

With the structure XR currently has in place, it may be impossible to ensure such conditional responsibilities are fulfilled. XR defends their post-consensus organisation as an important part of what has made us such a dynamic, fast-growing and vibrant movement, but ultimately it means that disagreeable action can be placed under the banner of XR.

Not everyone in the movement is in favour of the current organisation of the movement, Lights told RightsInfo.

We are in constant talks about issues like this, she said. In all honestly, the movement has grown so rapidly, so unexpectedly, that its often a case of learning from mistakes and laying foundations after the fact. Remember that we are all volunteers!

The Hourglasseditor suggested that some kind of structure may be needed to approve actions, but worries that it would be difficult, time-consuming, and potentially draconian.

Campaigning for governmental action to reduce climate breakdown requires unity, and after the events of Thursday the movement seems currently to be causing confusion and apathy.

EDITORS NOTE: Updated 21 October 5pm to further clarify Zion Lights opposition to Canning Town action.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Rightsinfo

Help us increase understanding and support for human rights in the UK.

Help spread accurate information about human rights by sharing this site

Read more:

Extinction Rebellion: What Can Be Learned From Canning Town? - RightsInfo

Saturday October 26

The Austrian national Edmond Sichrovsky arrived at Ben Gurion Airport on October 24, Thursday, 7:45AM from Amman, Jordan. At immigrations and passport control, he was detained by Israeli authorities and questioned by two separate officers. His luggage was searched and he was forced to hand over his mobile phone to Israeli intelligence officers, who searched his private messages, chats, social media, phone contacts, photo gallery, and browsing history, as well as subjecting him to a body search. He was accused of volunteering in Palestine, which is not prohibited under Israeli law. Their claim was based on the finding of several missed calls on his phone from unsaved numbers registered in Palestine. Sichrovskys interrogator then informed him that he was banned from entering Israel and would be forcibly deported. Authorities demanded he admit to volunteering in Palestine and sign a document accepting his deportation due to illegal immigration considerations, which he refused to sign. After 6 hours in detention, he was released to the airport departure zone. After being forced to wait in the airport for almost 17 hours, he was deported to Amman, Jordan at 00:30 on October 25. Israeli authorities initially told him the deportation flight would be paid for by the Israeli government. After boarding, Sichrovsky was informed that he had to pay $500 USD for his own deportation flight, which he was forced against his will to board, or face legal action from the airline for unpaid fees.

Sichrovsky had previously volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), documenting and reporting on human rights abuses by Israeli forces in Occupied Palestine. He wasviolently assaulted in Wadi al-Hummusby officers from the notorious Israeli riot police unit Yassam while opposing demolitions of Palestinians homes. The 22-year-old is the grandson of Harry Sichrovsky, a renowned Austrian Jewish writer and journalist, and nephew of Peter Sichrovsky, two-time European Parliament member and former head of the far right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO).

Sichrovsky said: Growing up, my grandparents being some of the only ones in their entire family to survive the Holocaust in Austria,Never again is something I heard a lot and resonate strongly with. To me, Never again isnt just for Jews, it means never again should anyone in the world have to suffer because of their religion, race, or what they were born into. Thats why I came to volunteer in Palestine. Israel claims to be a homeland for Jewish people around the world, yet by banning and deporting me and other Jews with differing political opinions, they have shown that Israel is a home for Jews only if they dont question or speak up about the governments apartheid policies. My ban and deportation from Israel only confirms what I have seen again and again in Palestine: that the Israeli government will do anything to keep people from seeing its brutal Occupation, ethnic cleansing, and daily violations of Palestinians basic human rights.

Sichrovsky also called on Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Schallenberg to make a public statement on Israels detention and deportation of an Austrian citizen who had not violated any Israeli law. He called the Austrian embassy in Tel Aviv while being held in Ben Gurion airport, but was told that they could not provide any assistance.

An ISM spokesperson gave the following statement: ISM strongly condemns the Israeli governments banning and deportation of an international volunteer. By forbidding entry to its those with differing political viewsIsrael is acting like the anti-democratic state it really is. Governments whose citizens have been banned must call out Israel on these blatant attempts to hide its crimes from the world. To not do so is to condone Israels abuse of human rights and silencing of those who speak about them.

Note to journalists:

Israel controls all borders and entrance points (land, sea, and air) into Palestine, except a small land border between Gaza and Egypt, meaning virtually anyone intending to enter Palestine must enter through Israeli immigration authorities. Israel routinely bans and deports volunteers, activists, human rights observers, and academics suspected of anti-Occupation views or of activities in anti-Occupation or Palestinian organizations. Prominent Jews banned from Israel due to their political views include CODEPINK co-founder Ariel Gold, and American-Jewish academics Normal Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky.

In 2017, Israel passed a law permitting foreign nationals to be banned from Israel for calling for the boycott of Israel or Israeli illegal settlements. There is, however, no law prohibiting volunteering in Palestine or association with legal organizations active in Palestine.

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the long-entrenched and systematic oppression and dispossession of the Palestinian population, using non-violent, direct-action methods and principles.

Jews banned from Israel for political reasons:

Ariel Gold:https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/deports-activist-supporting/

Noam Chomsky:https://www.haaretz.com/1.5121279

Norman Finkelstein:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa

Others banned from Israel for political reasons in 2019:

British activist Garry Spedding:https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-denying-entry-to-left-wing-british-activist-for-second-time-since-2014-1.6844179

US Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-usa-ban/israel-will-not-let-u-s-congresswomen-visit-deputy-foreign-minister-idUSKCN1V51

For more details contact Edmond Sichrovskyat

Phone: +20 0127 983 4929

Email: edmond.sichrovsky@gmail.com

Or contact ISM at:

Phone: +44 7757 616902

Email: palreports@gmail.com

See the original post here:

Grandson of Holocaust survivors deported from Israel for volunteering - International Solidarity Movement

Narendra Modi has embarked on his second term as Indias prime minister, following a convincing victory in Mays elections. In this article, a leading specialist on South Asian affairs argues that Japan is wrong to focus exclusively on economic cooperation in its relations with India, and should no longer turn a blind eye to the dangerous side of Modis Hindi supremacist project.

Against most expectations, Narendra Modis Bharatiya Janata Party won a convincing victory in the general elections in India in May this year. The response from the Japanese government and business leaders has been overwhelmingly positive, and Prime Minister Abe Shinz lost no time in sending his congratulations, becoming the first foreign leader to do so. A report in the Asahi Shimbun newspaper on May 24 quoted a senior figure involved in Japans foreign policy as saying that the next five years promised to be an ideal period for building a closer relationship between Japan and India in fields such as national security and economic cooperation.

Personally, I predict that the BJP government is settling in for a long period (Nakamizo 2019). In this essay, both as a Japanese citizen and as a specialist in Indian studies, I want to consider the relations between the BJP government and Japan and to examine some of the questions affecting how Japan should position itself in relation to the BJP government.

The first thing we need to do is to understand the essence of the BJP. It is a right-wing religious party whose aim is to make India into a Hindu Rashtra (nation). Its parent organization is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which can be loosely translated as National Volunteer Organization; the RSS, along with other, similar right-wing religious volunteer organizations, are collectively known as the Sangh Pariwar. Their philosophy is inspired by the idea of Hindutva, or Hinduness, as defined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in a book published in 1923. He describes Hindus as a people of a common nation (rashtra), common race (jati), and common culture (sanskriti) for whom India (Sindhusthan) is their fatherland (pitribhu) and holy land (punyabhu). For this reason, those who have converted to Islam or Christianity cannot be Hindus, even though they share the same fatherland and culture with the Hindus, because their holy land is outside of India.

India has been rocked by a succession of violent attacks on Muslims since Modis re-election. This violence is a manifestation in extreme forms of the partys central claims that it will make India into a Hindu Rashtra.

Prime Minister Modi is a product of the RSS and a true believer in this supremacist creed. Realizing the Hindu Rashtra is a key part of his political faith. In Japan, there is a tendency to see him simply as a leader who has introduced a barrage of economic reforms, but to emphasize this side of him alone paints a distorted and misleading picture. Modis political engine is driven by the twin cogs of economic growth and Hindu supremacy; it cannot move forward on one of these alone. During the recent election campaign, he strongly attacked Pakistan for terrorist incidents, a move that actually was aimed at hiding his governments own miserable failures in solving the unemployment problem. This approach of laying the blame on terrorism and Pakistan can be fairly described as emblematic of his approach to politics.

Modi first showed his political acumen in the context of communal violence and riots. After being all but wiped out in the 1984 elections for the lower house, the BJP successfully revived its fortunes and considerably increased its number of seats in the 1989 elections by using religious mobilization and related communal violence. Not long after this success, the BJP organized the Ayodhya mobilization (Rath Yatra) marshalling right-wing religious forces to oppose the presence of a mosque on a site regarded as sacred by Hindus. This was in part carried out to counter the mobilization of backward castes through the 1990 declaration of the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, which sought to redress caste-based discrimination. More than 600 people were killed in the riots related to the Ayaodhaya mobilization in 1990, exacerbating tensions between the Hindu and Muslim communities (Nakamizo 2012: 249257).

Communal violence reached a new nadir not long after Modi assumed office as chief minister of Gujarat state in 2001, with the Gujarat carnage of 2002 (Nakamizo 2015: 219243). Government statistics say 1,180 people lost their lives in the violence. Modi was widely believed to have been complicit in the killings, and although he was later absolved of legal responsibility, he was roundly criticized by international society. Famously, he was barred for a time from entering the United States. Achin Vanaik, a former professor at the University of Delhi, has argued that Modis travels as prime ministermore than 60 visits to foreign countries in his first three years in officehave had much more to do with Modi wanting to overcome his international pariah status after the Gujarat pogrom (where, despite his command responsibility, he has gone unpunished) and to pose as a global statesman, than with having to make diplomatic deals at the very highest levels with all the countries visited (Vanaik 2017: 369).

At the state assembly elections held in December 2002, nine months after the massacres, Modi won an overwhelming victory by fanning the flames of communal feelings. After securing his power base, he shifted his focus to economic development, eventually achieving economic growth above the Indian average and boasting of what he called the Gujarat model. Hopes for wider economic growth were the biggest factor behind his victory in the 2014 general election, and during the five years of his first term, he claimed to achieve average economic growth rates of 7% a year, although some doubts remain about the methodology used to measure this growth.

But his government was not all about the economy. He did not fail to put the Hindu supremacist project into practice as well, and his first term in office saw new strategies unleashed for oppressing Muslims and other religious minorities. One example is the rise of, and implicit encouragement for, vigilante groups of cow protectors, who have terrorized Muslims in many parts of the country. Although there have not yet been any major religious riots on the scale of those in Gujarat in 2002, vigilante violence has spread across the country and has become even more common since Modi was re-elected in May 2019.

The sudden announcement on August 5, 2019, that Jammu and Kashmir would be stripped of their special status and placed as union territories was another aspect of his Hindu supremacist policy. Now that it has achieved the first of the three main agendas of the BJP , by getting rid of Article 370 of the Constitution, the government is likely to push ahead with the remaining two, namely drawing up a uniform civil code (abolishing separate personal law for Muslims), and building the Ram temple at Ayodhya. I am of the strong conviction that the overt and direct repression of Muslims is likely to become more intense, and Indo-Pakistan relations are going to get worse.

How should Japan deal with Modis government, given these characteristics? As I said at the outset, the personal relationship between the two prime ministers seems to be extremely cordial. Modi chose Japan as the destination for his first overseas trip outside South Asia after becoming prime minister. The reason is not difficult to discern. In a context where the United States and other Western countries were continuing to ask awkward questions about his responsibility for the Gujarat carnage, Japan did not make it an issue at all. On the contrary, Japan continued to invest in Gujarat, and thus supported Modis bid to become prime minister. It is only natural that he should have felt a debt of gratitude.

Abe Shinz and Narendra Modi visit the Central Technical Center of Fanuc, a leader in the field of industrial robotics. Taken on October 28, 2018, in Oshino, Yamanashi Prefecture. ( Jiji)

Abe also feels a personal affection for India. The most important strategic reason for wanting a strong relationship with India is to help build a coalition capable of containing China. But in Abes case, the significance of India goes beyond this. For him, India is a country that has shown its friendship and loyalty by supporting the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere ideology he is fond of. In Abes view, it was the Indians who above all else responded to the promises of Japanese propaganda to smash Western colonial rule in Asia during the "Greater East Asian War". Indians helped form the Indian National Army and fought alongside the Japanese in the Imphal operations, and it was an Indian judge, Radhabinod Pal, who declared all the Class A war criminals not guilty at the Tokyo trials after the war.(*1)

In fact, Japans war caused catastrophic suffering in India, albeit indirectly. Nevertheless, India renounced any claims against Japan, and Kishi Nobusuke, Abes grandfather, later became the first Japanese prime minister to visit India (Horimoto 2017: 1415). In light of this, it is not difficult to understand why Abe went out of his way during his first visit to India as prime minister in 2007 to visit Pals eldest son despite an illness. In his speech to the Indian parliament, he said: Justice Pal is highly respected even today by many Japanese for the noble spirit of courage he exhibited during the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.(*2)

Is it really true that India supported the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" ? In fact, leading figures including Gandhi and Nehru were strongly critical of Japanese imperialism and militarism (Takenaka 2017: 302), and the Indian National Congress took Chinas side throughout the Second Sino-Japanese War. It is true that some members of the independence movement supported Chandra Bose, who led the Indian National Army, but they were a minority far removed from the mainstream of the independence movement. The idea that India as a whole was sympathetic to the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" is a nothing more than a myth.

Another myth holds that no historical problems exist between Japan and India relating to the Second World Warunlike those that continue to bedevil Japans relations with China and Korea. In fact, Japans war caused huge suffering to Indian society. The Battle of Imphal, in which Japan attempted to launch an invasion of British India, is well known in Japan, because many Japanese soldiers lost their lives there. Less widely remembered today is the fact that after the Japanese occupied British Burma in 1942, they carried out air raids and bombing attacks on major cities along the Bay of Bengal in India and Ceylon, including Calcutta.

When I visited Trincomalee in Sri Lanka, one of these sorties was still remembered by a signboard marking the site of a Japanese suicide attack. But the most serious consequence of the war in India was the Bengal famine of 194243. In preparation for an expected Japanese invasion, the British colonial government imposed a series of denial policies designed to deprive invading forces of food and other useful materiel, including boats. The policy resulted in the seizure of many boats and ships crucial to commerce in the Bengal region, making transport of grain impossible. An estimated 3 million people died in the resulting famine.(*3)

A signboard in Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, commemorates an attack by a Japanese fighter plane during World War II. (Photo by the author)

This figure, almost equal to the number of Japanese war dead, leaves no room for doubt that Japans war caused catastrophic losses in Indian society, albeit indirectly. Similar denial policies were implemented in Orissa, where farmers apparently appealed to Gandhis disciple Mirabehn, asking: Do we all have to be killed before the Japanese invasion? (Nagasaki 1989: 192)

If I ever mention this in my lectures, it is clear that almost none of the students have ever heard anything about it. My guess is that most Japanese people would be the same. When discussing our relations with India, people often refer back to the positive exchanges the country had with cultural figures like Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore before the war. But if we are going to go back that far, I believe, it is important to be aware of the serious suffering that Japanese militarism brought to Indian society as well.

In light of the points I have made so far, how should Japan deal with India as it exists today, dominated by a party driven by a Hindu supremacist philosophy? I would like to make two propositions.

The first is that the discourse of shared values that seems to receive obligatory lip service at summits and similar occasions should not be simply window-dressing. Presumably these common values are supposed to be things like liberty, democracy, and respect for human rights. It is hard to say that these values are being respected in India today, where Muslims and other religious minorities find themselves oppressed and persecuted. The violence perpetrated against Muslims by the cow protection vigilante groups is no secret: it is described in considerable detail not only in the Indian media but in the annual reports on religious freedom published by the US State Department, among other sources.(*4)

In a high-flown speech during his first visit to India as prime minister, Abe made the following statement: I would like to emphasize today to the people of India that the Japanese people stand ready to work together with the Indian people so that this spirit of tolerance becomes the leading principle of this century.(*5) I strongly urge Abe to carry out his word. In fact, the United States, Japans most important alliance partner, not only expresses deep concern about the oppression against religious minorities, but also maintains contact with the leaders of religious minorities and NGO activists. The Japanese government should convey serious concern about the violation of human rights in India and urge a stop to them at top-level meetings. Regarding the Indo-Pakistan relationship, the Japanese government should strongly urge self-restraint.

It remains difficult, however, to imagine that the Abe government will put any pressure to bear on Modi with regard to human rights. The key will be solidarity between the citizens of Japan and India. The Modi government has taken steps to cut off funding from overseas for NGOs working in India that have been critical of the government. A personal acquaintance of mine who operates an NGO in India has been forced to reduce the scale of the organizations activities for this reason.

In this situation, solidarity between citizens across national borders is not easy, but it is important and crucial to let people who are facing discrimination and human rights violations in India know that they are not alone. It is not always easy to obtain enough information about India in the Japanese media, but reports are gradually increasing. I hope the media will report more information about what is actually happening in India, and that readers in Japan will stop regarding themselves as mere bystanders and become more engaged in learning more about what is happening. These are important first steps toward resolving the current crisis facing democracy worldwide.

The second point I would make is that we should be cautious with regard to widening the frame of military cooperation. Military cooperation is currently expanding across a multilateral framework encompassing many countries, including India, in the name of securing sea lanes for oil, and ensuring free and open navigation across Indo-Pacific. The reality is that this is part of a strategy of military containment designed to fight back against Chinas apparent string of pearls strategy to develop a series of strategic military and commercial centers from the South China Sea to the Horn of Africa.

A major point of debate in Japan at the moment concerns the extent to which the Self-Defense Forces can be allowed to operate outside the parameters of homeland defense. The reality is that the definition of what is permissible is widening all the time. We have already reached a situation in which military cooperation is cited alongside the economy as a priority area for the Japan-India relationship. It is essential to be prudent in the years ahead and to make sure we discern carefully what the true objectives of both governments are.

Japan and India are two Asian countries that pride themselves on having followed a democratic system since the end of World War II. India now finds itself on the front lines of a widening global democratic crisis, and freedom of expression is under serious threat in Japan too. In this context, citizens can play a significant and important role. I hope the people of Japan and India will pool their collective wisdom and cooperate to build a better world together: This would be the best way to protect the democracy that both countries have valued more than anything else in the years since the war.

(Originally published in Japanese. Banner photo: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrives at Kansai International Airport on June 27, 2019, to attend the G20 Summit in Osaka. Jiji.)

(*1) ^ See Nakazato (2011) for an excellent study that uses historical documentary evidence to show the fictitious way in which the Pal myth was created in Japan. Nakazato (2016) covers the subject in English.

(*2) ^ Confluence of the Two Seas. Speech by Abe Shinz at the Parliament of the Republic of India, August 22, 2007. https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/pmv0708/speech-2.htmlaccessed on August.2, 2019

(*3) ^ The number of victims is normally put at 3 million, but a government investigation team estimated the number as between 1 million and 3 million people. See Nakazato (2007: 190).

(*4) ^ US Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, India 2018 International Religious Freedom Report. https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/ (accessed on August 2, 2019.)

(*5) ^ Confluence of the Two Seas, referred to in footnote 2.

Read more from the original source:

Japan and India: Looking Beyond the Economy - Nippon.com