Daily Archives: January 27, 2020

Lucknow: Undeterred by Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanaths loud threats to file cases against them and undaunted by the biting cold, thousands of women are braving it out here to make their voices heard against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and National Register for Citizens (NRC) .

Far from losing steam, as the dharna entered its ninth day under the open skies at Lucknows historical Hussainabad Clock Tower, the number of the demonstrators appears to be increasing. Fridays gathering looked not less than a 8,000-10,000 strong. Significantly, they are neither under a political banner nor guided by any recognised social activist group.

Similar protests by ordinary women have been on in Varanasi, Allahabad, Aligarh, Sambhal and some other UP towns. And despite being charged with the violation of Section 144 or for instigation, the protesters have not given up.

Sprawled over a roughly four-acre stone-paved platform in front of the 19th-century clock tower, these first-time demonstrators in Lucknow refused to get cowed down by Adityanaths threat to charge them with sedition and imprison them.

We are just staging a peaceful dharna in this corner of the city; what is most shocking is that simply because we raised this slogan of azadi, we are being accused of indulging in anti-national activity. How can someone equate our quest for azadi with that of separatists in Kashmir? asked Sabiha Rizvi, a BCom final year student at a local elite college who defied her family to participate in the anti-CAA dharna. She was referring to the chief ministers remark that if the demonstrators continued with their azadi slogan, they would be dealt with most severely.

Rizvi goes on to point out, What we are seeking is freedom from CAA and NRC , besides azadi from unemployment and illiteracy as well as azadi from heinous crimes like rape and dowry deaths.

Watch: During Anti-CAA Protests, UP Police Fired Shots at Most People Above the Waist

Well-known former BBC journalist Ramdutt Tripathi feels, This intimidation by the BJP government is a reflection of their aversion to the word azadi, because these right-wingers had nothing to do with Indias freedom movement; rather, some of them even joined hands with the British to oppose the freedom movement. Tripathi compares this protest to what Mahatma Gandhi did way back in 1906 in South Africa, against a new law that prescribed compulsory registration of all Indians, Chinese, Arabs and other Asians.

Meanwhile, emboldened by the chief ministers offensive attitude against the demonstrators, policemen went to the extent of snatching away blankets brought by volunteers to save the demonstrators from the extreme cold at night. The temperature usually drops very low because of the close proximity of the area to the Gomati river. Blanket snatching was stopped after stories of the kambal chors went viral on social media, leading Lucknows new police commissioner Sujit Pande to castigate his men in khakhi. But then, civic officials got down to switching off all the street lights in and around the area, thereby plunging it into darkness. They also locked public toilets in and around the area, but were compelled to open them after loud public outcry.

The Yogi Adityanath government thinks they can scare us through their petty acts of switching off lights at night or by taking away our blankets or locking up the public toilets, but such acts of intimidation are only giving us more strength to fight, asserts Naish Hasan, a middle-aged social activist.

Women with their children at the sit-in protest at Lucknows Clock Tower. Photo: PTI

The governments oppressive actions have failed to deter these protesting women, observed former Lucknow University vice-chancellor Roop Rekha Verma, who is a regular at the dharna site.

Seventy-six-year-old Verma, who is widely known for her activism, spends some time every day encouraging the younger lot, whose passion to fight for their rights is incredible. All India Democratic Womens Association leader Madhu Garg too extends all support to the protest with her team of activists, who make it a point to join the sit-in demonstration every day.

What came as another shot in the arm was the surprise visit by internationally acclaimed Shia scholar and cleric Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, who is also senior vice president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). The octogenarian, who has been battling cancer for three years now, stepped out of his hospital room for the first time to address the demonstrators. Sitting on a wheelchair, he expressed his admiration for the protestors .

These women have created history by doing what men have not done anywhere. This is the first time that I am witnessing ordinary housewives, young students and grandmothers all joining hands to stage a protest in this Gandhian way. And the manner in which Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Christian women and young girls have joined hands to stage a round-the-clock demonstration braving the cold weather under the open skies is unparalleled, he said.

He went on to tell the protestors, My advise to you all is to not get cowed down by any kind of oppression or threats; maintain peace and calm and do not give up. I can assure you that victory will be yours once day.

Reacting to Union home minister Amit Shahs declaration at a public rally in Lucknow that he would not withdraw CAA or NRC under any circumstances, Sadiq hit back, If you dont take back this law, then these demonstrating women, these children will unseat you once day.

In his feeble but firm voice, he went on to add, Dont get disheartened by adversities and intimidation; remember every night is followed by a morning. He also flayed a UP minister for his saying if these anti-CAA protestors do not listen, we will teach them a lesson that their future generations will remember.

Less than 24 hours after his visit to the dharna site, Sadiq received the governments retort. His son, Kalbe Sibtain, has been booked for unlawful assembly and instigation. He had visited the dharna a day earlier.

Also read: A New Politics and Aesthetics of Protest Is Coming to Life in Kolkata

The UP government had been extremely harsh on anti-CAA protestors when they undertook their first demonstrations last month. Not only were thousands of protestors arrested and put in jails in different parts of the state, but about 17 protestors were killed in police firing. Yet, many of those who suffered were seen joining the dharna at the Clock Tower. These include activists like Deepak Kabir and Sadaf Jafar, who faced police violence and brutality, besides spending weeks in jail. Jafars crime was that she had dared to ask the cops why they were not arresting stone-pelting mobs, while Kabir was put in prison because he went looking for Jafar at a local police station.

That some policemen were trying to be more loyal than the king became glaringly obvious when they hauled up boys flying black kites and beat up others playing with black balloons. There was utter disregard for the fact that displaying black flags or sporting black bands is the most passive form of protest in a democracy.

While everyone wonders whether we are heading towards a police state, popular public support to the peaceful demonstration is becoming increasingly visible. Citizens are busy offering food, water, blankets and other essentials for the protestors. Some battery-operated lights have also been donated for the safety of demonstrators at night.

It would not be unfair to assume that the dharna has turned into a mass peoples movement in Lucknow something that must be making Adityanath and his government very uncomfortable.

Sharat Pradhanis a senior journalist in Lucknow.

Visit link:

In Lucknow, Women's Unprecedented Anti-CAA Protest Gives the Adityanath Govt Jitters - The Wire

On Thursday night, protests calling for the resignation of Puerto Rican Gov. Wanda Vzquez Garced in Old San Juan culminated in violence: Police launched tear gas at the crowd gathered at Calle Fortaleza leading to the governors mansion around 11 p.m. Police Commissioner Henry Escalera told Wapa TV that the decision was made after objects were thrown at officials and claimed there were 14 warnings before gasses were used.Protesters allegedly tried to set fire to a Wapa TV van, which had been spray-painted with embusteros, or liars.

All around the archipelago and throughout the diaspora Puerto Ricans are again mobilizing.

The protest began with a 5 p.m. convening at the Capitol Building. Despite the rainy weather, hundreds of vexed Puerto Ricans attended the demonstration. The call was originally announced by workers syndicates earlier this week, but it was quickly supported by various unions, movements and resistance groups. An extra push was added with the endorsement of two famous Puerto Ricans: rapper Residente, who spoke at the protest, and Major League Baseball player Yadier Molina, who for days has battled back and forth with Puerto Rican senator and president of the archipelagos pro-statehood party Thomas Rivera Schatz on social media. Bad Bunny and Ricky Martin have also expressed support.

Throughout the protests, which began in Old San Juan on Monday, multiple guillotines have appeared. Demonstrators rallied around the execution apparatus on Tuesday evening at the corner of Calle Fortaleza and Calle Cristo as well as during Thursday nights rally. The device complements a new protest chant condemning Vazquez as an assassin who deserves the guillotine.

Protestors carrying a guillotine march in Old San Juan demanding the resignation of Puerto Ricos Gov. Wanda Vzquez Garced and Senate President Thomas Rivera Shatz on January 23, 2020 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Photo by Jose Jimenez/Getty Images

All around the archipelago and throughout the diaspora Puerto Ricans are again mobilizing with posters, chants and cacerolas. Like the #RickyRenuncia movement, which ousted former Puerto Rican Gov. Ricardo Rossell in the summer of 2019, the biggest concentration is in Old San Juan, where daily protesters stomp the same cobblestones of last years historic events. Only now theyre calling for the resignation of Rossells successor, Vzquez.

This is our pueblo. We are the people who get up every day and fight for this country.

But Puerto Ricans have some other demands, too. Some hold signs indicating theyre protesting on behalf of everyone in the south, where thousands have been displaced into shelters and encampments while earthquakes and aftershocks have almost hourly rattled the region for nearly a full month. Others brandish placards about being fed up with governments corruption and lies. There are references to the estimated 4,645 people who died as a result of the crisis following Hurricane Mara, and there is outrage over the discovery last weekend of a warehouse in southern Ponce, a town hit hard by the earthquakes, stocked full of undistributed disaster aid, presumably intended for survivors of the 2017 disaster several items, like bottled water, bore 2017 expiration dates.

Despite the switch of figures in the crosshairs, these latest protests have mostly picked up where last summers campaign left off. Its another page in the same, very long book about colonialism, corruption and the systemic oppression of a people that has been accumulating chapters of resistance that dates back to the revolts of Indigenous Tanos against Spain in the early 1500s.

Still, something has shifted. Many Puerto Ricans seem angrier than they did last summer. The dissolution of the U.S. Federal Oversight Board, locally called La Junta, was demanded then and is being called for now as well. The removal of the governor, along with other corrupt politicians, is accompanied by calls for their imprisonment.

Residents are protesting after a warehouse full of relief supplies, reportedly dating back to Hurricane Maria in 2017, were found having been left undistributed to those in need. The sign reads murderous government. Photo by Jose Jimenez/Getty Images

Schatz, who is the president of the Senate, is one official specifically targeted. Last week, referring to the thousands of Puerto Ricans caravaning regularly to the south to help those affected by the earthquakes, he publicly called Puerto Ricans stupid for mistrusting the government with relief efforts. There are Puerto Ricans who believe the conservative politician is behind much of Vazquezs moves, too.

We have so much evidence [about] the hate this government has for the people.

Two signs held by protesters on Monday portrayed Schatz and Vazquez painted with Hitler mustaches on Nazi swastikas. More than a few activists expressed preferring to see these politicians heads on sticks rather than sitting behind bars.

Natalie Droz, a resident of Bayamn, leaned against the police-guarded barricades situated to block passage to La Fortaleza, the governors mansion, on Monday night. Shed been protesting for more than 10 hours at this point.

We have so much evidence [about] the hate this government has for the people, Droz tells Remezcla. This is our pueblo. We are the people who get up every day and fight for this country.

For Droz, thats only the tip of a massive, long-existing iceberg: We dont even know the quantity of lies weve been told these past few years and throughout our history, she adds.

That Monday night, the acrid stench of spray paint was thick. Stealthily moving among the mass of chanting protesters, all but their eyes covered for anonymity, a group of activists had covered nearly all reachable wall space in the area with anti-government messages: Government of lies, steals from us, kills us, read one. Above it was scrawled, the government doesnt exist. Many of these walls had only recently been repainted after having been graffitied during the #RickyRenuncia protests. A U.S. flag was also burned, lain flat on the cobblestones of Calle Fortaleza, that night.

The sign reads the government wants us dead, while the hide what is ours. Photo by Jose Jimenez/Getty Images

Vzquez initially affirmed she did not know about the warehouse in Ponce or others like it, as reports of which are continually surfacing. But various political figures, including Puerto Ricos Housing Secretary Fernando Gil Enseat who was fired by Vazquez after the scandal along with Emergency Management Director Carlos Acevedo, say she knew about the unused aid. Her signature also appears on documents acknowledging the existence of several warehouses, including the one in Ponce. On Thursday, she admitted in a press conference that everyone knew about the warehouses.

Its really important that they hear us again.

There is a steadfast faction of Puerto Ricans that does not support the protests. That group includes Rey Charlie, a social media personality and leader in last summers protests, who recently posted a video saying he wouldnt join these actions and that everyone should wait until November to vote in local elections.

Activists protesting now, though, say they cant wait. Burn your electoral card, reads another spray-painted message on walls of Old San Juan.

They need this [protest] for a wake-up call, William, a 24-year-old who works in Arecibo and asked that his last name be withheld, tells Remezcla about the government. [They have] to get the f**k out of here.

Like last summers weeks-long movement at La Fortaleza, the call to show up in Old San Juan is ongoing. Protests will likely continue through the weekend.

Additionally, on Wednesday, activists expulsed two political figures Ricardo Llerandi, former director of the Puerto Rico Trade and Export Company and once chief of staff under the Rossell administration (he resigned in the wake of Telegramgate), and Sen. Miguel Romero from a San Juan coffee shop. The protesters condemned the pair for corruption and their roles in loss of life post-Mara, calling them assassins.

A protester holds a sign that reads let the corrupts fall as demonstrators demand the resignation of Governor Wanda Vzquez Garced during new protests in front of Puerto Rico Capitol building on January 20, 2020 in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Photo by Jose Jimenez/Getty Images

Protests have also been organized around the archipelago, including on Monday in the outlying island of Vieques, where a 13-year-old girl recently died, allegedly due to a lack of medical care since the local hospital hasnt been rebuilt since it was destroyed by the 2017 hurricanes. Funds were approved by FEMA on Tuesday to build one.

Yamille Rodriguez, who on Monday had traveled to Old San Juan from the western municipality of Arecibo where he studies at the University of Puerto Rico, wore a rainbow flag like a cape as he stood near a wall that read Gobierno Asesino. His main impetus for making the drive: Were still dealing with the same lies, he tells Remezcla. The 23-year-old expressed complete distrust in the Puerto Rican government, saying he wasnt surprised by the discovery of the secret warehouses but was astonished by the governments continued mistreatment of the people.

The system collapsed a while ago.

They saw that we were able to take out Ricky, Rodriguez says. They saw that were engaged, and they still lie to us. Its really important that they hear us again.

On Google Maps, Old San Juans Calle Fortaleza is doubly labeled. During the summer protests that resulted in the August 2 resignation of former Gov. Rossell, activists renamed it Calle de la Resistencia. Earlier this week, the actual tile bearing the street name was altered again to bear its protest assignation.

Wearing a Calle Resistencia T-shirt on Monday night, Nitzayra Leonor stood outside the Capitol, along with hundreds of others who would soon march back to La Fortaleza, where the first demonstration began.

I feel like the system collapsed a while ago, the 22-year-old says. And we keep acting like the system hasnt collapsed.

More here:

Puerto Ricans Take Over Old San Juan to Oust Another Corrupt Governor - Remezcla

On January 25, anti-war organizers in more than 200 cities across the world answered a global call to action initiated by the ANSWER Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition, CODEPINK, Popular Resistance, Black Alliance for Peace, National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), Veterans For Peace, US Labor Against the War (USLAW) and many more demanding no war with Iran, end the sanctions and remove all U.S. troops from the Middle East. The threat of wind and rain in forecasts across New England did not stop organizers from Manchester, New Hampshire to New Haven, Connecticut from responding to the call. Hundreds came out in support of the demands and to participate in the rallies, marches, and educational events.

Anti-war protesters march through downtown Boston. Liberation Photo.

A vigorous group of over 400 anti-war demonstrators rallied outside of the Massachusetts State House and then marched through downtown Boston to demand no war on Iran and U.S. out of Iraq and the Middle East. The demonstration brought crowds of young people in high school and college, in addition to veterans, union workers and public school teachers.

Nineteen groups endorsed the demonstration, including the ANSWER Coalition, National Iranian American Council, Pride at Work Eastern Massachusetts, I am Harriet Boston, Harvard Bookstore Union UAW Local 1596 and MIT Students Against War. Many speakers condemned sanctions as an act of war that only harm the working and oppressed people of the countries targeted. Others connected U.S. military intervention in the Middle East to the deteriorating living conditions domestically, arguing that the money spent building the war machine could be spent on health care, housing and poverty elimination. During the rally, more than 500 dollars was collected to donate to an earthquake relief organization on the ground in Puerto Rico.

Gerry Scoppettuolo addresses the crowd, speaking for USLAW outside Park Street Station in Boston. Liberation Photo.

Teacher and rank-and-file member of Boston Teachers Union Amrita D spoke about the racism that has anchored the U.S. governments imperialist wars, my students are growing up in a post 9/11 United States where the war on terror has deepened racism against South and Southeast Asians, Arabs and people from the Middle East. We have to talk about war with our young people, they deserve a prosperous and promising future, not a bleak horizon of endless wars for profits.

Mojgun from the National Iranian-American Council told the crowd, I want you all to think about what it means to be at war. Some of us have direct experiences with war. we have a personal connection to war. When I came to the United States in 1983, it was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War. It was devastating for both countries. I remember at night we had black outs, we would board up our windows and pull the shades and curtains and light our candles and wait for the sirens and bombs. we didnt have cell phones and social media back then to get news immediately, we had to wait until the next morning to see what part of the city was hit and how many people died.

No War or Sanctions on Iran! Liberation Photo.

The march grew as it traveled through downtown Boston, with workers and patrons spilling out of coffee shops and stores to join the march, or take videos and educational flyers. It began to drizzle as the protest was ending, and about 50 energized demonstrators walked back to community organizing hub Encuentro5 to warm up with hot cider and talk about the future of the movement.

Over two dozen activists braved the freezing rain and gathered in front of L3Harris Technologies in Northampton, Massachusetts as part of the Global Day of Protest.

Activists rally outside of L3Harris in Northampton, Massachusetts. Liberation Photo.

Resistance Center for Peace and Justice organizer Miranda Groux explained the significance of this location: L3Harris is one of the top 10 defense contractors in the world, and the company is on track to become the sixth largest, providing the military with surveillance solutions, microwave weaponry, and tools for electronic warfare. The stocks in this company have soared since Trump has threatened to escalate in Iran. Organizer Yoav Elinevsky spoke about how the cost of the war is $5.4 trillion of public money.

Historian and director of the Tri-continental Institute for Social Research Vijay Prashad closed out the rally with a reminder, Its not Iran that has provoked the United States, its not Iran that has intervened in the U.S. political system, its the United States that since at least 1953 has intervened in Iran. He continued, Its important that we stand here against the war that is already going on in Iran, it is important that we stand here against the state that has totally given over to the mechanism of destruction.

Activists gather outside the Rhode Island State House in Providence. Photo courtesy of Mike Malpiedi. Used with permission.

Despite the cold and dreary weather, 50 people answered the global call to action at the Rhode Island State House in Providence. Endorsing organizations included No Endless War or Excessive Militarism, Providence Antiwar, RI based Advocacy Team, Brown War Watch, Rhode Island Anti-War Committee, East Bay Citizens for Peace and Providence Democratic Socialists of America.

ANSWER Coalition organizer Satya Mohapatra said in his speech All U.S. wars and occupations of the Middle East have been based on lies and deception WMD lies; Humanitarian Intervention lies. Many veterans were present to confirm these lies, and several Vietnam War era protest songs were sung during the rally, including Edwin Starrs War and Nat King Coles Aint Gonna Study War No More.

Direct Action for Rights and Equality member Terry White said, Lets stop U.S. war outside and war on our communities. The significant impact that the military industrial

Iranians do NOT want a war with the U.S.A. Photo courtesy of Mike Malpiedi. Used with permission.

complex has on communities of color was rightfully addressed during several of the speeches, specifically how military tactics are being taught to local and state police departments and government agencies. Monica Huerata of the group No LNG at PVD said, ICE and policing are the same extension of U.S. militarism.

Michael from the climate action group Sunrise Movement said War is a climate change issue and the U.S. military is the biggest polluter in the world. Matt Ritchie of Brown War Watch, a student anti-war group inside Brown University, stressed that student anti-war activism could boost the general anti-war movement now.

Rally organizer Jonathan Daly-LaBelle called out two Rhode Island Democrats U.S. House Representative James Langevin and Senator Jack Reed for being complicit in Trumps war by supporting the National Defense Authorization Act to increase the military budget.

Members of the local Iranian community brought signs written in both English and Farsi that read Iranians dont want war with the U.S.A. The intimate rally closed with a chant demanding that the U.S. stop this aggression with Iran and a call to action that people continue to stay informed.

Members of the New Haven Peace Council and others rally on the steps of New Haven City Hall. Liberation Photo.

Despite heavy rain, over three dozen people came out to protest in downtown New Haven. Henry Lowendorf of the Greater New Haven Peace Council kicked off the rally: Do we want a war with Iran? The crowd shouted back an emphatic No! Would we like the troops out of Iraq? Yes! The assassination of General Soleimani he said was an act of war and has escalated an economic war on Iran, a war that includes assassinations and sabotage going back to the 1950s overthrow of Mosaddegh.

Ward 3 Alder Ron Hurt, also an organizer with New Haven Rising, said I represent a ward where there is a hunger. The children in my ward go to sleep at nighttime without dinner. Theres an opioid crisis in our land. All this money theyre spending on defense can help curb these situations. Earlier in the week, the New Haven Board of Alders passed a resolution urging the Congressional delegation from Connecticut to support Tim Kaines resolution in the U.S. Senate against escalating military conflict with Iran.

A teach-in held at the New Haven Library on imperialism in the Middle East and the wars at home. Liberation Photo.

Jim Pandreau, an anti-war veteran and organizer reminded the demonstration that as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, the United States government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. King also said that a nation that keeps on spending more on war and the military is slowly approaching spiritual death, Pandreau said, to cheers from the crowd.

After the rally, people went to the New Haven Library for a panel and discussion on U.S. wars at home and abroad. Puerto Rican liberation activist Jason Ortiz drew connections between the movement against U.S. wars in the Middle East and the illegal U.S. occupation of Puerto Rico. Ortiz pointed out that its the same system U.S. imperialism that oppresses people around the world and our fight needs to include all those victims. Finally, Ahmad Abojaradeh, a Palestinian activist and the Founder and Executive Director of Life In My Days, talked about the urgency of raising up and centering the voices of oppressed people in the anti-war movement.

More than a dozen peace activists gathered at Veterans Memorial Park in Manchester at noon. They took turns leading chants to put forward a loud, clear and unified message, and held signs with slogans like Support the Troops End the Wars and U.S. Out of Iraq! End the Occupation!

ANSWER Coalition organizer Jamarr Jabari speaks at the rally in New Haven, Connecticut. Liberation Photo.

Over the course of an hour, the rally engaged with many passers-by. Drivers honked and waved in support. People at the park and nearby bus stop came over to converse. One man shared that he was illiterate and asked what the signs said and meant. He related to the events anti-war goals and shared that his father was a veteran. Many people approached the rally initially out of curiosity and ended up staying to have friendly, productive conversations about the dangers of war and the importance of building a strong anti-war movement in the United States.

At one point, the group circled up and everyone took turns sharing why they came. The majority of people said that they felt responsible to stand up to the violence being carried out by the U.S. ruling class in our name.

Before the action ended, the attendees made plans to follow up. There will be more actions to demand that U.S. troops exit the Middle East and to end the sanctions on Iran. In addition, there will be events joining the anti-war movement with the movement to free political-prisoner Leonard Peltier. One organizer said, just as we oppose national oppression and colonialism abroad, we oppose them at home. The anti-war struggle is also an anti-racist struggle and a struggle to free all political prisoners.

Read more:

Anti-war protesters in New England take the streets for global day... - Liberation

802 Views

The Syrian Refugee crisis has become a devasting disaster in the recent memory resulting in the death of Innocent Civilians, including Women, children, elderly and other vulnerable people. The available data suggest that the Syrian crisis has taken the lives of around 200,000 people and out of which an approximate 8000 documented killings of Children who have not attained the age of 18. The Population of Syria is approximately 22 million, of which the crisis has resulted in 7.6 million Internally Displaced Person, and additionally 3.2 million refugees. Moreover, the crisis has put a population of around 12.2 million in the immediate need for humanitarian assistance.[1]

Most of the Refugees from the Syrian flee to their neighbouring countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and turkey, and the number of Refugees reaching these countries are 600,000,1.14 million, and 1.6 million, respectively. Besides this, Syrians are also seeking shelter in Egypt, Iraq and some of the EU union nations like Greece, Italy and Germany. The Influx of refugees in these countries has propped up new challenges like physical protection, shelter, health, education, employment of these incoming people.[2]

The plight of these people has become increasingly dangerous as countries like Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon has no obligation to treat Syrians as refugees because they are not Signatories to the refugee convention of 1951 and its associated optional protocol. Hence the international responsibility of these countries to protect these people are legally absent. Another country that hosts most of these Syrians is turkey, and it is a signatory to the refugee convention 1951. But turkey has a geographical limitation on the Refugee convention of 1951 by making its obligation only applicable to the refugees from European Union Area who were affected by the events before January 1951. Hence the responsibility of Turkey concerning Syrian Refugees have been Negated by this Limitation.

However, Turkeys Obligation is different from other countries by being a member of the European Union. Besides Turkey, other European Union nations have also taken some of the burdens of the Syrian Population like Greece, Italy and Germany. Hence it becomes the Response of the EU to Syrian crisis becomes paramount in reducing the pain and degradation suffered by the Syrian Population. Besides Refugee Convention some of the Instruments that apply to Refugees in the area of European Union Includes association agreement in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership more famously known as Beijing declaration, European Neighbourhood policy instrument, Global Approach to Migration

and Mobility. In the backdrop of these legal instruments, it is vital to analyse the Response of the European Union to the Syrian crisis. This paper will trace the Syrian crisis from its origin and the Response of the European Union Nations to this conflict from the refugee law perspective.

The Syrian crisis started with the peaceful uprising against the president as a pro-democratic movement during the Arab spring in 2011. Even before the crisis began, there has been massive disenchantment with Syrian people against its president due to massive unemployment, corruption, and oppression. The Arab spring in the neighbouring countries gave a considerable impetus to the social, economic and political injustice felt by the Syrian People. Soon the peaceful uprising turned violent, and a large-scale civil war broke between the government and opposition supporters whose aim was to overthrow Dictatorship of the President.

Syria is a vast plural country comprising of the various ethnic groups like Sunnis, Shias, Alawis and Kurds. This plurality and diversity of opinion have given catalyst to the uprising and has been a source of exploitation for the international players to take sides based on their self-interest. Moreover, The Syrian Crisis has slowly transformed into a sectarian religious war between the majority Sunni Muslim community against the Shias Alawite sect of the president. The Religious Sectarianism has led to the further mushrooming of the fundamentalist jihadist groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaida to flourish. Another key player in this struggle is the Syrian Kurds who demand the right of self-government.[3]

Kurds are the ethnic minority people living in countries like Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Alongside Arabs, they form a critical ethnic group in the Syrian Region. The Kurds live mostly in the northern part of Syria bordering turkey. The Kurds got involved in the Syrian crisis to protect their territory from the chaos of the Syrian civil war. The warring factions in Syria to the following groups

Read More:

Countries like Russian and Iran support the pro-government militias. On the other hand, Countries like Turkey, USA, and several other gulf states who subscribe to the Sunni ideology of Islam have supported the forces fighting the ruling party. Additionally, the government had the backing of Lebanons Hezbollah and other militias from Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. Each International power has different interests and motivations to be involved in the conflict. For, Example, one of the motivating factors for the turkey to support the rebel is to contain the spread of Kurdish forces in the north, whom the turkey believes may affect their internal security.[4]

The international Legal Refugee Protection has two Fundamental Principles namely the Principle of Burden Sharing and The Principle of Non-Refoulment

The modern Refugee law has origins from the mid of the twentieth century after the second world war. The International Legal Refugee Protection has a crucial concept called the Burden Sharing. According to this concept, it is the responsibility of the international community to offer protection and shelter to the refugees. According to this Principle, the refugee problem is the concern of the entire humanity. From the perspective of the Syrian crisis, the International Community is bound by a higher moral norm because most of the Developed Nations are involved in the Syrian crisis in some form or other.

Another Fundamental Principle of Refugee law is the Principle of Non-Refoulment. According to this Principle, the states cannot return foreign nationals to their home territory where they are subjected to torture, inhuman treatment or where their lives and freedom might be at risk. Also, The Principle is reflected in the following international instruments Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, United Nations Convention on

Torture and other cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment which possess the prohibition of refoulment.

The principles of Refugee protection and the Right to Asylum have in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Article 14(1) of the universal declaration of Human Rights, it has been stated that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. In terms of the International Institutions, The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the main body responsible for providing international protection to the refugees. The Key Function of the UNHCR in the Syrian Crisis is to assist the refugees of Syria in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey. According to its mandate, its primary function is to promote the conclusion and ratification of international conventions for the protection of refugees, supervising their application and proposing amendments thereto[5]

Some of the key provisions of the International Law about Refugees Include the following:

The International refugee law is derived from two main sources

The 1951 refugee convention and its 1967 optional protocol has the following obligations to the state parties under the convention like Recognising those fleeing from war zones as refugees,

The major European countries where the Syrians have applied for asylums include Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France, Belgium etc. As of 2011, nearly 112,000 Syrians are living in the regions of the EU. It is believed that these Syrians are helping the refugees from Syria to reside in Eu without applying for asylum status. The Refugees from Syria reach the Eu through the land, sea and air routes. There has been a wide discrepancy between the

number of people fleeing and crossing Syria to the number of people being registered as asylum seekers or migrants in Europe. Hence it brings to the notice that many Syrians reach Europe unnoticed, which can be a huge challenge for the International Organizations like UNHCR to target and provide help to the Refugees who flee the conflict zone.

The approach of the European Union to the Syrian crisis can be grouped under the following actions, namely external and internal. The External responses include assisting the Syrian people by humanitarian assistance and, implementing a Regional protection programme in which a resettlement programme for the refugees within the EU region is envisaged. At the same time, the internal response mechanism includes increasing border security, granting asylum to several Syrians and, refraining from forcibly returning the Syrians to their homeland by rejecting asylum status.

The European Union countries also provide monetary support to the Refugees fleeing for their lives from Syria. According to European commission justice and home affairs council, the member states of the European Union has approximately provided 230 million in humanitarian assistance to the Syrian crisis. The European Commission claims that this comes around 53% of the international response making it the leading international donor in the Syrian crisis. Moreover, because the fundamental problem in the Syrian crisis is a political issue the EU has tried to bring about political change in the situation Syrian Region by bringing about the political change reflecting the pluralistic character the Syrian community.

Providing food, water, shelter and medicine to the displaced persons forms the core of the humanitarian assistance to the Syrian refugees. Through the channels of the Red Cross and other Ngo, the EU makes sure that Humanitarian Assistance reaches the Syrian refugees. However, some of the other actions by the European Union to the Syrian crisis has not conformed with the object and purpose of the International Refugee law and other Human Rights Convention.

The EU is taking external actions about the Syrian crisis by trying to bring political change in the Syrian Region and providing humanitarian assistance to the Victims. The ways

of political measures include imposing economic sanctions on the ruling Syrian government and by also terminating EU-Syrian bilateral cooperation.

Furthermore, the EU is taking several measures like condemning the Ruling regimes action through UN resolutions and calling for investigations about the rights abuses perpetrated by the regime.[6]

As the means of Internal action, the Eu states are taking strong measures by increasing security along their Border to prevent the Influx of refugees from these areas. For Example, Greece, which is an Eu nation that has been receiving Syrian refugees, has deployed additional forces in its Border, and this has significantly reduced the inflow of the refugees. This response mechanism is in complete violation of the Principle of Non-Refoulment Discussed. According to this Principle, the states which are party to the Refugee convention of 1951 and its optional protocol cannot return persons seeking asylum to their state of origin or prevent them from fleeing the war zone.

Thus, the Internal response mechanism adopted by the EU Countries is in Completely violation of its obligation under the International refugee law and its Core principles.

In conclusion, the action taken by the European Union nations has not in spirit satisfied the objective and purpose of the International Refugee Law. Some of the action taken by the European Union in form internal actions may jeopardise the wellbeing of the refugees and violate the Principle of the Non-Refoulment. Also, the European Union in addition to the Principle of the Burden sharing has special responsibilities towards Syrian refugees because it has actively engaged in armed combat operations in the Syrian Region by offering indirect help to armed militias which wage war against the authoritarian government. The European Union should be more welcoming of the Refugees from the Syrian Region and offer them full Refugee status under the Principles of the Refugee convention 1951. Granting Refugee status and providing them with asylum status is Vital to preserve the peace and stability of the Middle East and the Eastern European Regions like Greece, Turkey, Italy.

In order to fulfil the obligations under the Principle of Burden sharing, the European Union nations could initiate measures like providing proper educational opportunities in schools colleges and further following it with the adequate employment opportunities for the Syrians. Additionally, the European Union countries need to diffuse any misconceptions about these refugees as an internal security threat. The research has time and again proved

that refugees do not constitute a threat to inner peace and in most cases, they lead a peaceful life helping the host countries economically.

Also, refugees must be allowed to practise their religion peacefully in asylum countries without any discrimination and fear. In this regard, the government may facilitate access to religious sites and provide adequate security to the refugees when practising their religion. The most important step the European Union countries could take is to refrain from taking harsh measures in their border region against the incoming refugees because this endangers the lives of the refugees. The European Union is obligated both by international law and through high moral norm to respond to this crisis in a humane manner. The Positive Response by the European Union to the Refugee Crisis will contribute immensely to the Global and Regional Stability of the Middle East Region.

References:

[1] The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Refugees, Conflict, and International Law. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.democraticprogress.orginfo@democraticprogress.org+44

[3]Why is there a war in Syria? BBC News. (n.d.). Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229

[4] Who Are the Kurds, and Why Is Turkey Attacking Them in Syria? The New York Times. (n.d.). Retrieved December 30, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/world/middleeast/the-kurds-facts-history.html

[5] The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Refugees, Conflict, and International Law. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.democraticprogress.orginfo@democraticprogress.org+44

[6] Fargues, P., & Fandrich, C. (2012). MPC-Migration Policy Centre The European Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis What Next?

By, MrBlessan M, LLB In IP Law, IIT KharagpurPresently pursuing LLM in Human Rights Law from National Law School India, Bangalore

Summary

Article Name

Syrian Refugee Crisis and The Response of the European Union

Description

The Syrian crisis started with the peaceful uprising against the president as a pro-democratic movement during the Arab spring in 2011. Even before the crisis began, there has been massive disenchantment with Syrian people against its president due to massive unemployment, corruption, and oppression.

See original here:

Syrian Refugee Crisis and The Response of the European Union - thepolicytimes.com

About 900,000 Rohingya have fled from Myanmar to Bangladesh since August 2017, the result of a campaign of violence by the countrys security forces against the Muslim minority group. Even before that, the Rohingya faced decades of discrimination and persecution, including being denied basic citizenship rights.

Last year, a United Nations fact-finding mission documented consistent patterns of serious human rights violations by Myanmars military officials, including mass killings and gruesome sexual violence. The UN report concluded that members of Myanmars military officials should be investigated and prosecuted in an international criminal tribunal for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In November, Gambia took action, bringing a case against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague for genocide, accusing the country of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing.

And on Thursday, the West African country got a victory, when the ICJ unanimously ordered Myanmar must protect the remaining Rohingya still within its borders, and required the country to report on its progress.

This is not a final verdict, not even close this is just a provisional decision in a yearslong case. But its the first time an international court has held Myanmar accountable for its campaign against the Rohingya.

Myanmar has denied it committed acts of genocide, though its own commission admitted some members of its security forces may have committed war crimes in its so-called counterterrorism campaign against the Rohingya.

Myanmars de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the former political prisoner who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar, has conceded disproportionate force may have been used, but has framed it as part of a campaign to root out insurgents or terrorists. Aung San Suu Kyi has insisted that Myanmar can handle this internally, but she has been roundly criticized for for ignoring the plight of the Rohingya, if not being outright complicit in their oppression.

And it turns out, even with evidence of human rights atrocities, proving a country carried out genocide is a challenging legal task. To better understand this case, why Gambia is pursuing it, and what might happen next, Vox spoke to Michael Becker, an adjunct assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin and former legal officer at the International Court of Justice.

The conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.

So what exactly is the International Court of Justice?

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It hears disputes between states. It is different from any of the international courts that are focused on criminal prosecutions where you have a prosecutor bringing a case against a specific individual. No individuals appear as parties at the ICJ. Every case is between two states. In a way, its more analogous to a civil suit rather than a criminal case.

This particular lawsuit was bought by Gambia. And I wonder why?

Youre absolutely right to notice that because most cases are brought by two states where one is directly affected or injured in some way by what another state is doing. So where two states have a dispute over their boundary or, where one state uses force against another, and one state claims it was unlawful.

But there are certain types of obligations under international law that are considered to be enforceable by everyone, whether or not you are the party that has actually been injured or affected in some way.

And so the Genocide Convention, or not engaging in genocide, is considered one of those obligations. Its called an obligation erga omnes an obligation owed to everyone. And if its an obligation owed to everyone, any state can seek to enforce it if it feels its not being lived up to legally.

Thats why Gambia is legally able or has legal standing, as we would say to bring this case. Why Gambia in particular? Thats a little bit complicated.

How so?

Theres the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is an international organization made up of Muslim majority countries. Gambia is part of that.

As I understand it, this Organization for Islamic Cooperation was talking about one of their member-states bringing a case for quite a while. The interest there is that the Rohingya are a Muslim minority in a Buddhist state. Gambia ended up being the state that took up that challenge.

But that also has to do with the fact that Gambias minister of justice is a former war crimes prosecutor at the ad hoc international tribunals in the Hague. He has personal expertise and interest, and he was able to persuade his government to bring the case.

Thats why Gambia: a combination of this obligation erga omnes, which any party to the Genocide Convention can seek to enforce, combined with individuals who felt strongly about wanting to do it.

So this decision is not the final verdict in the case this is just the first step in a very long process. But my sense the court is saying theres evidence there might have been genocide, and Myanmar has to take steps to protect the population. Is that gist of what this decision represents?

Youre absolutely right that this is a long process. An ICJ case will typically take anywhere between three and five years, sometimes longer.

Thats obviously a long ways away, and one of the advantages of bringing a case at the International Court of Justice is they do have this power to issue what it calls provisional measures. In US legal language, its the equivalent of getting a preliminary injunction.

The court hasnt decided anything in todays decision about whether Myanmar has committed genocide. It hasnt decided anything about whether Myanmar has breached its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

What it has found is that for the Rohingya population that remains in Myanmar, the situation is serious enough that there is a real risk that acts constituting genocide might take place.

Thats the basis for issuing these measures, which are meant to protect the Rohingya in Myanmar from anything that might constitute genocide until the court can rule on the merits questions.

It also seems that, as part of this provisional ruling, there was some sort of obligation to preserve evidence? Can you explain what that means in reality?

Part of proving genocide can involve things like showing that entire villages have been burned down, or trying to figure out how many fatalities there have been, which might involve preserving a mass grave.

The idea here is that Myanmar should not be doing anything to further disturb sites, physical sites where some of the acts alleged by Gambia took place. Myanmar shouldnt be bulldozing over village sites and building on them. If there are mass graves, Myanmar shouldnt be doing anything to conceal those mass graves. It certainly would include if there are any relevant government documents. How Gambia is going to get ahold of those documents is quite a different thing.

This might be an inelegant metaphor, but this ICJ provisional ruling strikes me a bit as telling a murderer to stop killing and also preserve all evidence hes killed in the past. Are there any enforcement mechanisms? Whats the incentive for Myanmar to comply with this ruling?

A few things about that. The main orders imposed here are simply telling Myanmar to comply with obligations it already has. By telling Myanmar to take all measures to prevent genocide against the Rohingya from taking place, the court isnt creating any new obligations for Myanmar. This is what Myanmar is supposed to be doing anyway under the Genocide Convention.

But whats youre saying how can we really expect a bad actor to clean up his act because you tell them to? theres some truth to that.

Myanmar has made some important concessions, as it recently said gross human-rights abuses against the Rohingya may have taken place and some may have even risen to the level of war crimes. But Myanmar staunchly rejects the idea that any of this could be construed as an intent to destroy the Rohingya population, which is the requirement for genocide. That is difficult to prove. There is a high legal standard to prove genocide.

But the order, in a way, puts Myanmar on notice.

There already is a lot of scrutiny on Myanmar thanks to the work of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar, which found that top Myanmar officials should be investigated for genocide and human rights atrocities against the Rohingya. That has already put a lot of attention on the situation. This ICJ decision adds to that. It means that anything Myanmars security forces are doing will be looked at through this additional lens.

The ICJ also imposed a reporting requirement on Myanmar, so Myanmar has to send a report to the court after four months and then every six months after while the case is pending to show what steps it has taken to prevent conduct that might constitute genocide.

Gambia may dispute what Myanmar claims it is doing. If the situation is grave enough, if new information comes to light about things are taking place on the ground in Myanmar that threaten the Rohingya, theres nothing to stop Gambia from going back to the ICJ.

Of course, you could say, Isnt that also more of the same? They werent that effective first time. What would make them effective the second time?

When it comes to international law, enforcement of international court judgments often comes down to the political will of states. This ruling could provide something for states to focus on in their own assessment of what the government of Myanmar is doing, and to help them decide to put further pressure on Myanmar to change its policies or to undertake new efforts in resolving the situation of the Rohingya.

But can an ICJ case like this do anything on the ground for the Rohingya in Myanmar?

There is definitely a risk in people expecting an ICJ case to be the solution to the entire problem.

The ICJ case can play an important role in responding to this particular situation. But it needs and this is true of many other situations too, that might involve international litigation strategies or international courts it has to be part of the broader political diplomatic strategy.

Since this is the top court of the United Nations, can the court make recommendations for the UN Security Council or other UN bodies to step in?

The ICJ not going to impose orders or direct anyone to do anything that isnt a party before it. So the ICJ would never even recommend action to the UN Security Council in a dispute between two states.

But can the UN do anything? Well, yes. The UN can always do something if theres political will. The remit of the UN Security Council is to deal with the maintenance of international peace and security or to respond to threats to international peace and security. At this point in history, that definition is extremely broad. So if the UN Security Council wanted to take action with regard to Myanmar or the Rohingya, they could.

Politically speaking, thats extremely unlikely. Particularly because of the relationship between China and Myanmar. As you know, China can obviously veto Security Council resolutions.

That makes sense the realities of politics often get in the way of political will.

One really interesting thing about the decision today was that it was unanimous, which is fairly unusual.

In the ICJ, if a state doesnt have a judge on the court from the country, its allowed to appoint a judge for that case. Normally, there are 15 sitting judges on the court, but in this case, there are 17, because Gambia appointed a judge and Myanmar appointed a judge.

Judges on the court are independent actors, but its not surprising when these appointed judges side with the country that appointed them. They dont always, but its certainly not surprising when they do.

But here we have a unanimous decision. Even the judge appointed by Myanmar found that the requirements for provisional measures were satisfied and that the situation posed a serious-enough risk of possible genocide to issue the measures.

It sounds then like the bar for this provisional decision is much lower than for the final ruling.

Its much lower because the provisional measures are meant to address or prevent the potential loss of human life while the case is still being decided. The court does have a much more relaxed standard about what evidence its going to credit.

The court cited the UN fact-finding mission report quite a lot in these provisional measures to establish theres a real risk to human life right now. But those fact-finding reports are going to get a lot more scrutiny in the next phase. The court will have to do a much more rigorous assessment of all of the evidence at that stage.

So its really quite important to say that there is a more relaxed or forgiving standard when it comes to provisional measures. You cant necessarily read that much into what the court has said here when it comes to how it might act on the merits.

So in terms of where we move from here, you mentioned that there will be a reporting requirement from Myanmar moving forward. Does Gambia get to investigate this case in the same way you would in a civil suit like, depose witnesses? Or does the ICJ do this? How does this all play out?

Thats a real tricky issue. The procedures for handling or gathering evidence at the end of the international level are not nearly as well developed as they are in most domestic legal systems.

Gambia requested which the court actually rejected a measure that would have required Myanmar to allow UN investigators into Myanmar. So far all of these UN fact-finding reports have been based on work that has been done outside of Myanmar, such as extensive interviewing of the Rohingya whove had to flee to Bangladesh and elsewhere. They havent gotten into Myanmar because Myanmar wont allow them in.

But since the ICJ rejected Gambias request, it leaves the fact-finding situation in a little bit of flux.

Gambia is relying on all of this evidence that the UN has gathered, that NGOs have gathered, that journalists have gathered. But Gambia can decide if it wants to ask the courts to authorize some kind of investigation of its own. I think thats unlikely, but they might want to press it.

But there isnt any equivalent to deposing witnesses or anything like that. And so this is something that the International Court of Justice and some other international courts have been criticized for for not having evidentiary practices that can really do justice to some of the claims that they have to decide.

I dont know what Gambia is going to do now. It may come down on them continuing to rely on the very solid fact-finding work the UN investigators have already done. Ive suggested that either the parties or the court itself might want to consider calling as witnesses the people involved in putting together the UN report. They should be subject to questioning and cross-examination at the ICJ.

If Gambia succeeds in making this difficult case, what would happen?

The standard for proving genocide is quite high, and very challenging to meet, even in the face of abundant evidence of mass atrocity. Thats not enough. That alone is not enough to meet the strict legal definition of genocide.

If Gambia succeeded, theres a separate question about what kind of relief it would be able to ask for. Thats all over the map. One focus might be on financial compensation.

There are bigger questions, too, about whether the court is in a position to compel Myanmar to change its citizenship laws, for example. The Rohingya have essentially been made stateless by being denied the right of citizenship, which has contributed to making their existence so precarious.

Those questions are years away, but they raise a lot of challenging and interesting legal questions about what type of relief might be available and how likely would it be that relief could ultimately be implemented.

Myanmar also established an Independent Commission of Enquiry (ICOE) to investigate atrocities against the Rohingya, and this week the commission said there was evidence of human-rights violation, even war crimes, but no genocide. How big a deal is that? Or was this an attempt to basically get out in front of this ICJ decision?

The commission of inquiry that Myanmar set up has been widely criticized because of the personnel involved. It looks very close to the government. It looks like it fails basic requirements to establish a baseline of independence and impartiality.

Its very tempting to just criticize the commission on those grounds and say its a complete whitewash. Im sympathetic to that, but Ive tried to make the argument that even if thats the case, its important to respond to its assertions and findings in a forensic way.

But, in a way, Myanmar also seems to be appealing to the international community to say, look, We are taking it seriously. So back off. Theres a strategic rationale for why they may be willing to admit to what are very serious transgressions. This is part of the overall narrative of Myanmars government, which is to say its dealing with an internal armed conflict. This is about counterterrorism; its not the governments plan to wipe out the Rohingya. This is about military or security forces engaged in counterterrorism getting out of hand.

I think they will try to use that to undermine the claim that theres genocidal intent. Its quite a cynical argument: We engaged in war crimes, so it cant possibly be genocide.

Sort of like mistakes were made.

This is the problem with the courts test. The ICJ has said if you are inferring genocidal intent, that has to be the only inference you can draw from the evidence.

If you can draw other inferences from the evidence such as the possibility of counterterrorism run amok that can defeat a genocide claim. Thats why genocide is so hard to prove.

Read more:

ICJ decision Q&A: Top UN court ordered Myanmar to protect the Rohingya - Vox.com

Chennai: Twenty-six-year-old Arivus small room on the fourth floor terrace of an apartment in suburban Chennai is as lively as his music. It is in this room that Arivu shot his now iconic rap song Sanda seivom, which effortlessly ripped the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens apart.

Ambedkar and Buddha are looking over him and an ektara (the instrument) standing tall. It was a gift from the Tata Institute for Social Sciences when I recently visited them, Arivu says. I intend to learn and even use it in my rap. A single stringed instrument, the ektara might not sit well with his fast-paced rap, but Arivu is used to challenges right from his childhood in Arakkonam.

I lived in an urban cheri, so to say. It was also a Muslim neighbourhood, and there was a beef slaughterhouse around. In todays India, perhaps a hugely controversial place. But life was a celebration there, he beams. His parents Kalainesan and Thenmozhi provided Arivu and his younger sister, now a qualified doctor, an intellectual atmosphere.

Appa was a professor in government college (he became one only when he was 45) and amma a government school teacher. Both of them were also working with Arivoli Iyakkam (knowledge of light movement a Left literacy movement). Theirs was an Arivoli marriage. We had no television at home, and we never got to hear the songs from movies. But there were Arivoli movement songs that shaped Arivus imagination and politics. Even as lullaby, appa or amma would sing only Arivoli songs, Arivu says, breaking into one.

Maadu meikka kannu unna naan anuppa maatenda,Paadupattu naan uzhaichhu pallikoodam serpen da.

(My dear, I would never send you to rear cattle,I would work hard and put you in a school.)

Conversations at home were generally about meetings that would happen near the Ambedkar statue, barely half a kilometre away. We had all sorts of meetings there Dalit cultural nights, leaders anniversaries and protests. I used to go with appa for everything, basically because there was no other form of entertainment.

Arivu performing. Photo: Special arrangement

And then there were books Arivoli Iyakkams monthly publications and Dalit Murasu, Kodangi etc. apart from his fathers research papers on Dalit leaders like M.C. Rajah and B. Parameswaran. Back then, I never realised how important they were but I read them anyway. To me, an incident [of some atrocity] in Dalit Murasu read like a short story. Today I realise its immense value and its huge influence on me.

Arivus parents always stressed on education but he thinks it was a mistake to have put him an expensive private school. I learnt nothing there, he rues. My parents had this peer pressure, but today I feel if they had saved all the money that they spent on educating us in a private school, we could have got a house of our own. I faced huge discrimination there, but until recently I never realised it was discrimination. There were teachers who abused me by my caste name, students who taunted me for being dark. I remember fighting with my mother for giving birth to me as dark person, and once since I cried so much, she took me to a hospital. The doctors laughed when they were told I am there because I am dark. Everything was painful but normal as a child.

Arivu learnt more from the music and books at home than at school. Soon enough, he wrote poems. I wouldnt call them poems, but my attempts, he smiles.

When he entered college Arivu studied engineering at a college in Coimbatore and later did an MBA he was ready with his first poetry collection. It was released by IAS officer Sivakami (a writer and vocal Dalit rights activist) and I managed to sell all 1,000 copies to my friends in college. The publication earned him a reputation in college he was seen as a writer and soon he was in the college band as a lyricist. But he was stopped from performing his own songs, because he had no formal training.

Also read: New Hindi Play Kusur Is a Provocative Duet Between Guilt and the Guilty

Since I entered college, I would practice singing at home in front of the mirror. When I was denied the opportunity, the pain was more acute. Because of my age, I was more aware. The song was given to someone much junior and I was told I could do a minute or two long performance in between. I decided I will use it, and put all my thoughts into it and sang in a thick voice. My friends said it sounded like rap that was the first time I was hearing of it.

After college, Arivu tried his hands at various things including the civil services, and he spent most of his time studying. But occasionally, when he got some money, he would go to Coimbatore to record a song that he had written. He had no idea, though, how to get them across on a public platform.

One day in 2017, he decided to take off from his studies in Chennai to go to Vellore, where director Pa Ranjith was coming for a meeting. He is a huge inspiration; I would listen to his interviews where he stressed on education for the oppressed. When I was tired of studying, I would listen to him and feel rejuvenated. I did not mind taking a day off to meet him.

In the train, he came across a person reading the familiar Iyothee Thass Pandithar. It turned out to be Udaya Ranjiths associate. Twenty days later, Udaya called Arivu to attend an audition for an independent music group put together by Ranjith, that would later be called Casteless Collective. Most of them were Gaana singers. I did a rap, a song on Ambedkar and read out a poem titled The grandsons of Ambedkar from Android age. I told them I want to use my art to pursue equality. Ranjith anna was impressed, and asked me to write lyrics for Casteless Collective.

Over the next ten days, Arivu was obsessed with the Casteless Collective writing song after song on reservations, Ambedkar and so on. The performance was a huge hit and people told him he would soon be offered a chance to write lyrics for Ranjiths movies.

That was never my idea, though. Ranjith anna always said we should use any form to speak about peoples issues. I believed it. One day when I was in his office, anna played Bob Marleys One Love to me and pointed out how his music was a relief to his people. That is when I realised art should also be celebratory. It was a defining moment in my life.

Arivu. Photo: Special arrangement

A day after Arivu performed a song on womens choices at documentary filmmaker Malini Jeevaratnams movie on LGBT+ issues, Arivu got a call from Ranjith to do some small work in Kaala, starring Rajinikanth. The song Nilam Engal Urimai (Land, our right) turned out, arguably, to be the most important protest song in a mainstream movie. The song, six minutes long, also features Jai Bhim slogans.

Uzhaikkum kaikalukke naadu naaduAdakkum kalam illaNamakkum veli illaVediththu poraadalamBayame illaNilame engal urimai.

(The country belongs to the hands that workThis is not the time for oppressionThere are no fences for usLet us break into protestThere is no fearLand, our right.)

AfterKaala, Arivu has been getting offers to write in movies, but he has been careful with his choices in mainstream cinema. Also, I would never quit independent music. That platform with all its limitations is dearer. Arivus Anti-Indian independent rap was a sensation, but such songs, surprisingly, never came in the way of his chances in mainstream cinema. In fact, directors have asked me to write similar songs, but tone it down a bit. Arivu has lost count but says he has written for some 20 films, including Suryas upcoming Soorarai Potru.

Of course, I write love songs too, but I maintain my ethics. I insist on gender equality in such songs, will never do body shaming or have phrases in praise of a skin colour. I celebrate love, but will never allow it to become an excuse for sexism.

Arivu has no great plans for his future, but there is one thing he knows he should do, either as research project or as music document work drawing parallels between oppari (the folk genre sung at funerals) and hip-hop. People say I write well, but I know I cannot hold a candle to the grandmothers singing oppari in my village. See this:

Naan anju maram valarthenAzhakaana thottam vachenEn thottam sezhichaalumEn thondai nanaiyalaiye.

(I planted five trees,And nurtured a beautiful gardenMy garden flourished,Yet my throat is parched.)

In these four lines, they talk about life. That is our folk art for you.

Arivu performing. Photo: Special arrangement

The cultural appropriation of hip-hop in Indian society is something that deeply bothers Arivu. In Africa, hip-hop was a form of protest. People used it communicate their pain and oppression. When you import it to the Indian context, it should have naturally spoken in an anti-caste voice, because caste is the most important issue in our country today. But instead, hip-hop is used for teasing women, to glorify men. You copy their caps, hoodies and jeans, but leave the politics behind. How can that be right?

His attempt to draw parallels between oppari and hip-hop is perhaps also a move to restore the art form to its originality. I firmly believe oppari is our form of hip-hop, he declares.

His association with Ranjith and Casteless Collective has helped him see his own family in a different light. I was that chill guy who had no respect for his grandfather. But now I realise his importance. My grandfather accepted oppression as a way of life. Even today, he wouldnt walk straight into a home of a dominant caste person. He would say he doesnt want to offend them. For my parents, love was the tool not anger. I realise the generational shift when I go in a car to a street where my grandfather couldnt have walked in slippers. And that makes me acutely aware of my own responsibility.

Also read: Does Increased Visibility of Trans People in Performing Arts Translate into Progress?

That, perhaps, explains why Arivu is not willing to let go of his independent platform, despite getting a good number of chances in mainstream cinema. He has his own channel now, Therukural (Street Voice), through which he intends to take art to the streets. There are people who say I should appear comfortable for those in cinema, so I can survive. But that is not my job. I want to be a tough artist speaking some tough truths, but please know this: I can still entertain.

Heres Arivu singing his anti-CAA song,

The full translation of the rap is produced below:

They call me Arivu,Im one of you,Equality is my dream,Ambedkar and Periyar lives forever,And my rap is the product of their rationality!

Democracy is the face of a free nation,Giving respect, should be the duty of the religion,Conferring equality, that should be the role of law,And foundations of our constitution too,Killing secularism is a foolish act,So, Its important to tell the truth.

Its the birth place of Thirukkural and the land of peace,We lived here as so many tribes,Then, some people came here on their horses,They subjugated us from then till now.They grabbed our lands, exploited our resources,Generation after generation, they refused to touch us

They segregated us into separate religion and castes,They getting rich by exploiting our work is whats history.We cannot forget that.

Who is minority here?Working class is the majority all around the world,But, the reality is that we stay divided!!

Those who came after is after our lives,While, those who are struggling for us are getting shot.Who should live here?Who should rule here?Who is the citizen?Who is Indian?Who is Tamizhan?Who are you to tell me what I am?Ones motherland is not in their birth.

Let us fight,Come forward Tamizha, let us fight,In the streets, let us fight,United as one, let us fight.If our rights are taken away, let us fight.

Kavitha Muralidharanis an independent journalist.

Go here to see the original:

Meet Arivu, Who Wants to Take Rap in India Back to Its Political Roots - The Wire

By Melanie Phillips, JNS

A profound and bitter battle between Israel and Poland has been brought to crisis point by the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is being commemorated by world leaders this week at Jerusalems Yad Vashem and next week at Auschwitz itself.

The roots of the row lay in remarks made last December by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He claimed that Poland helped start World War II, and accused it of being an anti-Semitic country that had welcomed Hitlers plan to liquidate Europes Jews.

A few days later, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki hit back. Without Stalins complicity in the partition of Poland, and without the natural resources that Stalin supplied to Hitler, the Nazi German crime machine would not have taken control of Europe, he said.

This dispute escalated when the Polish President, Andrzej Duda, wasnt invited to speak at the Fifth World Holocaust Forum at Yad Vashem on Jan. 23. It had previously been decided that, in addition to Germany, the only speakers would be from the United Kingdom, United States, Russia and France as the four nations that defeated Hitler.

Despite this explanation, Duda decided to boycott the Yad Vashem ceremony on the grounds that he wouldnt be able to respond should Putin use the event to repeat his accusations against Poland of anti-Semitism.

The row then escalated still further in salvos of mutual accusations between Russia and Poland, each accusing the other of facilitating or standing idly by Hitlers assault on Europe and the slaughter of the Jews.

The truth is that both sides are trying to sanitize their highly complex pasts. Both are using their undeniable suffering at the hands of the Nazi regime to absolve themselves of complicity in either Nazi aggression or the onslaught upon the Jews.

The Soviet Union may have made its infamous pact with Germany in 1939 merely as a defensive measure, as Putin has implied. And the Soviet Union was critical to the eventual defeat of Hitler. Nevertheless, that pact gave Hitler the confidence to provoke world war by invading Poland.

The Polish government believes that Putins main motive in provoking this row is to weaken Polish influence in the European Union. Warsaw strongly supports maintaining sanctions on Moscow for its annexation of Crimea and has also been fighting a planned Russian gas pipeline.

If Putin, however, was being cynical, Polands revisionism has been egregious. Both the Polish prime minister and the head of the Auschwitz museum have declared that the Yad Vashem ceremony shouldnt have been held at all, with the sole commemoration being the one held every year at Auschwitz.

It is extraordinarily offensive to claim that the State of Israel, which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, should have no role in commemorating the liberation of the most infamous of the Nazi extermination camps.

The main reason behind this claim appears to be that one of the events organizers was the World Holocaust Forum Foundation. This was founded by Moscow-born philanthropist and Jewish activist Moshe Kantor, who is said to be close to Putin. So the Poles viewed the Jerusalem ceremony as a Russian provocation.

But it was also organized by Yad Vashem and the office of Israels President. So the Polish boycott was an insult to Yad Vashem and the State of Israel. Yet on BBC radio this week, the Polish prime minister doubled down and insisted that the Yad Vashem ceremony was disrespectful to Poland.

Such arrogance is of a piece with Polands appalling historical revisionism. True, its history is complex. The Poles were indeed badly victimized by the Nazis, forming the second-largest group murdered in the extermination camps.They also suffered greatly from Soviet oppression, both during Soviet occupation under the pact, as well as under Stalinist rule after the war.

Its also the case that more Christian Poles have been recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations for risking their lives to aid Jews during the Nazi period than citizens of any other country in Europe.

But these heroic Poles were themselves targeted and killed by other Poles for trying to save the Jews. There were also Poles who helped the Germans hunt down Jews and kill them.

For what Poland goes to such lengths to deny is that the culture of the country has always been riddled with anti-Semitism, due in large measure to the primitive prejudices promulgated by the Catholic Church.

Before World War II, anti-Semitism became increasingly open in Poland with government authorities taking formal measures to exclude Jews from key sectors of public life.

Both during and after the war, there were Polish pogroms against Jews. In 1941, several hundred Jews in Jedwabne were burned alive by their Polish neighbors.

In Kielce in 1946,42 Jews were killed and more than 40 were wounded in a pogrom conducted by Polish soldiers, police officers and civilians.

Yet Poland furiously denies its historic culture of anti-Semitism. Last year, its governments attempt to prohibit rhetoric accusing Poland of complicity in Nazi crimes created a furious row with Israel.

An uneasy peace was brokered when the two countries agreed on a joint declaration stressing the involvement of the Polish resistance in helping Jews. This was condemned by Yad Vashem and other Jewish historians who claimed that this overstated the Poles rescue efforts and understated their anti-Jewish atrocities.

The current Auschwitz row has provoked claims that this Polish revisionism is being promulgated by populist nationalist politicians. In fact, it has a deeper cultural lineage.

For more than two decades, Poland has denied the centrality to the Holocaust of the Jewish genocide by claiming that the Nazis murdered the Jews in Poland because they were Poles. Denying the victimization of the Jews as Jews enables Poland to deny its own anti-Jewish past.

Ever since the country was liberated from Communist oppression, it has tried to construct a national identity around its status as a victim of both Nazism and the Soviet Union. But in trying to deny their countrys anti-Jewish past, Poles repeatedly indulge in anti-Semitism.

Both before and during World War II, attacks on Jews were fueled by the belief that the Jews were behind Soviet communism. This has developed into the now widespread accusation of Jewish-Bolshevism that makes use of Jewish texts to support obscene claims of Jewish responsibility for the Holocaust.

In an interview in Tablet, Elbieta Janicka, a Polish historian who focuses on Polish anti-Semitism, has spoken of how a conference on Polish Holocaust studies held in Paris last year was disrupted by a group of Poles who distributed anti-Jewish propaganda, harassed participants and subjected to them to crude anti-Semitic remarks, all under the noses of Polish state representatives.

The French minister of science sent an official protest note to the Polish minister of science. In return, she was advised to deal with French anti-Semitism. Now the conference organizers have prepared a lawsuit.

Last year, the Polish prime minister himself made a notorious comment that Jews were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Challenged about this on the BBC, he refused to retract his words and merely implied that he was referring to Jewish collaborators in what he agreed were terrible times.

This Auschwitz row is effectively holding the memory of the Jewish dead hostage to international politics. It tells us yet again that, despite such commemorations, too many still regardthe Jews as little more than a troublesome and even despised impediment to their own agendas.

Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her personal and political memoir, Guardian Angel, has been published by Bombardier, which also published her first novel, The Legacy, in 2018. Her work can be found at:www.melaniephillips.com.

Go here to read the rest:

A Polish-Russian row over commemoration of the Holocaust - EJP - European Jewish Press

AI technology is a mirror of society and may exacerbate existing power imbalances.

Photo: Shutterstock

Share this article

As we enter a new decade, what has been termed a global AI race is starting to dictate the agenda of policymakers across the globe.

To boost competitiveness and national security capabilities, many national governments have released national AI strategies in which they pledge substantial investments into AI innovation. Supranational organizations are not lagging behind. Since 2018, the European Commission has been contributing 1.5 billion euros ($1.6 billion) to AI innovation via the Horizon 2020 framework.

While it is unclear how much corporations invest directly or indirectly into AI innovation (e.g., via R&D or M&A), global investment into AI startups has risen continually. In 2019, it was at $37 billion, compared to $1.3 billion in 2010.

But with big investments come big risks.

While governments and corporations are hedging their bets, they are turning a blind eye to the substantial challenges that this supersized AI hype brings for society. For example, there is mounting evidence that AI systems not only perpetuate but exacerbate inequalities.

Often, these inequalities occur along the well-known fault lines of race, gender, and social class, and their intersections. For example, algorithms that are used in the U.S. health care systems have been proven to be racially biased. A 2019 study showed that a risk-prediction tool that is widely deployed in the U.S. to help identify and target patients complex health needs privileges white patients.

The same risk score saw black patients to be significantly sicker than white patients, effectively denying the additional care they needed. Similarly, object detection systems, which are used in autonomous vehicles, have been proven to show higher error rates for pedestrians with darker skin tones.

In theory, this predictive inequity puts pedestrians with darker skin tones at a higher risk of being struck by an autonomous vehicle (though, it should be noted that most autonomous vehicles use more than one type of sensor).

We have also seen highly problematic uses of automated decision-making systems in the criminal justice system. For example, in 2016, the risk assessment algorithm COMPAS, used to inform fundamental decisions about a defendants freedom, was found to operate with racial bias, thereby privileging white defendants.

In a famous HR example, a companys hiring algorithm taught itself that characteristics of maleness (such as playing baseball) were predictors for a successful career within the company. This meant that CVs of women were sent to the bottom of the pile, even though they did not explicitly state the gender of the applicant.

Gender-based discrimination has also been proven to exist in the context of job advertising algorithms, not showing certain job or housing adds to women. Another example is the existence of gender bias in automated decisions about credit lines, putting women at a disadvantage despite a better credit score.

There is also proof of discrimination based on social class. For example, class-based discrimination has been shown to occur when government agencies use algorithms to automate decision-making in areas such as child welfare or unemployment payments, systematically putting poor people at a disadvantage by increasing their risk of losing custody of their children or losing their benefits.

Since 2018, new ideas around making machine learning and AI fair, ethical and transparent have captivated technologists and researchers alike (not least evidenced in the success of the ACM FAT* conference). The main idea behind these interventions is to mitigate the social impacts of AI by technological means. But there are big obstacles to this quest.

Making AI fair requires a sound definition of fairness, related to anti-discrimination law, and of bias that can be codified. But statistical bias is something entirely different from cultural and cognitive bias, and fairness in AI design will point us to bigger questions around the moral and legal foundations of fairness and to how data is classified and processed.

Similar issues arise in the context of ethical AI.

For example, ethics codices have been shown not to affect decision-making in software development, and the idea of a moral or ethical machine remains abstract and unfit for real-world contexts.

It remains questionable if there can even be a technological fix for a social problem. AI technology is a mirror of society and may exacerbate existing power imbalances. Issues of discrimination and oppression require policy action, not just attention from governments and companies alike.

AI systems are designed for scale. But that also means their adverse impacts scale for better and, often, for worse. Currently, regulators are not prepared for this scope. To date, the regulatory and legal environment of the (often global) development and deployment of AI technologies remains weak and patchy.

While the General Data Protection Regulation has brought some clarity with regard to data collection and processing (but notably not inferential analytics), it has created legal asymmetries between EU-based users and non-EU-based users using the same service.

There are ongoing efforts to establish rules for responsible AI, notably by the European Commission. Such frameworks spark important conversations about changing business practices in AI design, but they are still to be tested in practice, and above all, they remain unenforceable.

We see this void being filled by precedent lawsuits. The systemic and potentially devastating discrimination that can occur through AI systems may eventually lead to class action lawsuits, for example, in the context of government use of AI systems, or in the context of corporations using AI in hiring.

And this is not all. It is likely that more challenges, harms and risks will emerge in the context of AI and the climate crisis, misinformation, automated warfare, worker and citizen surveillance, mobility, city design and governance, and more.

In the meantime, the narrative that technology can fix society and will lead us into a prosperous Fourth Industrial Revolution has helped us to ignore the actual abilities and limits of AI. This is an illusion that poses a risk in that it hinders sustainable innovation.

AI technologies cannot easily be deployed into work processes and the organization of social life. Often, underpaid workers and individuals labor to integrate AI technologies, making up for technological shortcomings through human intervention (whether that is in front or behind the screen).

We must be mindful of the fact that AI technologies continue to be grounded in statistical analysis. This means that automated predictions are based on correlation, not causation, limiting what conclusions can be drawn from an inference.

While many firms generously invest in AI, the return on investment, especially for machine learning projects, is turning out to be slow. New interventions, such as algorithmic auditing, are also seeing a slow uptake with new specialist firms only fairly recently entering the market (such as ORCAA and ArthurAI).

Against that backdrop, both governments and corporations would do well in considering the social, economic and ecological opportunity costs of the AI hype: In 2020, innovation must look beyond AI to address the planets most urgent problems, ranging from inequality to the climate crisis.

View post:

Ethics Codes Are Not Enough to Curb the Danger of Bias in AI - BRINK

Imran Khan rode a populist wave to become Pakistans prime minister in 2018. Since then, his tenure has been marked by economic turmoil, violence, skirmishes with neighboring India, and rising Islamic extremism. On Jan. 22, he met with Foreign Policys editor in chief Jonathan Tepperman at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The following conversation has been edited for brevity and syntax.

Jonathan Tepperman: How was your meeting with President Trump this morning?

Imran Khan: The No. 1 thing that is very important for the United States and for Pakistan at the moment is Afghanistan. The only other country, apart from Afghanistan, which wants peace after 40 years of conflict is Pakistan, because we get directly affected by what happens there. The tribal areas which border Afghanistan have been devastated since 9/11. And we feel that the only way we can rebuild those areas is if there is peace in Afghanistan and trade between the two countries. Of course, Afghanistan is also an economic corridor to Central Asia, so its very important that there is peace there.

Until recently, the U.S. believed that there was a military solution. I, for one, have always opposed this military solution. I always believed that the so-called war on terror was the wrong way to fight terrorism; I felt that it created more terrorism due to collateral damage. We were witness to that in our own country and in Pakistans tribal areas: the more drone attacks, the more people got killed, the more people joined the militants. I was opposed to this, and for that I was considered anti-American and pro-Taliban.

Now, the policy under President Trump is that there should be peace talks and a political settlement. So we are on the same page, and thats why Pakistan has, for the first time, a decent relationship with the United Statesbecause relationships are built on common objectives.

Previously, we had this awful situation where the U.S. expected Pakistan to help them win the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan should never have accepted this challenge, because we couldnt deliver. As a result, we were divided, we lost 70,000 people killed in the war on terror, and at the end, we were held responsible for the U.S. not succeeding. Now, our objectives are the same. The United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan want peace.

JP: The last time you met, President Trump suggested he might be willing to get involved in Kashmir. Youve called to internationalize the issue. India, of course, has always opposed it. Is there any chance its going to happen?

IK: I am a firm believer that military means are not a solution to ending conflicts. So from day one, I believed that the only way forward was to try to have a peace settlement. Because of my cricketing background, I probably am the one Pakistani who knows India better than anyone else and has more friendships in India than anyone. I felt that made me ideally placed to improve the relationship between the two countries, so after taking office I immediately reached out to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. I was amazed by the reaction I got, which was quite weird. The subcontinent hosts the greatest number of poor people in the world, and the best way to fight poverty is to have a trading relationship between the two countries rather than spending money on arms. This is what I said to the Indian prime minister. But I was met by brick wall. Then this suicide attack in Pulwama on the Indian side of Kashmir happened, and Indian soldiers got killed. I immediately told Modi that if you can give us any actionable intelligence [that Pakistanis were involved], we will act on it. But rather than do so, they bombed us.

After Mr. Modi won a second election in 2019, he unilaterally annexed Kashmira disputed territory between Pakistan and India, according to the U.N. From then on, things went from bad to worse.

Let me say one last word on whats happening in India, because I think its a disaster for the people, especially for the people of Kashmir, who for over five months now are literally in an open prison, kept there by 900,000 troops. Its a disaster for India, because India is a multicultural society and a secular society. That was the vision of Mahatma Gandhi and the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

JT: India and Pakistan almost went to war last year. How close to another major conflict are we? What can you and the rest of the world do to prevent it?

IK: Were not close to conflict right now, but its important that the United Nations act, that the U.S. act. The Indian election campaign, which Modi won hands down, was built on jingoism and hatred for Pakistan. So my worry is that things will get worse in India. There are protests in India against these two new citizenship laws [an amendment that fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslims from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and a registry of citizens in Assam that requires people to prove their citizenship with paperwork]. To distract attention, they are bombing along the Line of Control. If things get worse, they might increase the bombing.

Thats why the U.S. and the United Nations must take steps. Why not send observers along the Line of Control?

JT: Trump has a very close relationship now with Prime Minister Modi. Were you worried by Howdy, Modi?

IK: Not by Howdy, Modi. Their relationship is understandable, because India is a huge market, and of course every country would like the benefits of this huge market. And thats fine. My concern is not about the U.S.-India relationship. My concern is the direction in which India is going.

The sequence of events bears striking resemblance to what happened in Nazi Germany. Between 1930 and 1934, Germany went from a liberal democracy to a fascist, totalitarian, racist state. If you look at what is happening in India under the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] in the last five years, look where its heading, youll see the danger. And youre talking about a huge country of 1.3 billion people that is nuclear-armed.

JT: So since were at the World Economic Forum, let me ask about the economy. Pakistans economy has crashed 13 times over the last 60 years and required an IMF bailout each time. Fitch, the credit rating agency, recently gave Pakistan a B rating, saying its economy is, constrained by structural weaknesses, reflected in weak development and governance indicators. The WEFs brand new social mobility index ranks Pakistan 79th, below Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and India. Pakistan is among the lowest investment rates in the world, and last year it imported twice as much as it exported. You came into office promising a new Pakistan. What kind of reforms are you making to break this cycle and fix the economy? And why should investors have any more confidence this time than in the past?

IK: Pakistan in the 1960s was one of the fastest-growing countries in Asia, industrializing faster than anyone else. It was a model which was copied by a lot of countries. My contention is that its not a lack of resources that make a country poor. My contention is that it is corruption. First, corruption destroys state institutions. The justice system, the accountability bureau, the tax collection system have to be destroyed for officials to make money.

Second, because you have to take ill-gotten money out of the country or else it will be spotted. So money laundering starts putting pressure on the currency. And when the currency devalues, it leads to inflation, more poverty, and then the money that should be spent on human development invariablyand I can tell you from our experiencegoes into mega projects that feature mega kickbacks.

What we are trying to do now is, No. 1, to strengthen state institutions. We have conducted a big accountability drive, which has never happened in Pakistan before. Second, we have tightened up the laws on money laundering.

Even more important, we have changed the direction of the country. We used to have these boom and bust cycles because we had a growth rate which was artificial, because it was led by imports. And we inherited the biggest current account deficit. Weve cut it down by 70 percent. Weve brought down our imports. We had to adjust our currency to make our exports more competitive with the other countries. And for the first time, exports, which were stagnant for five years, are showing signs of improvement. And our currency is stable. Our stock market is the highest in a year. And our investment in just two years has gone up 200 percent. Obviously, theres a lot of hard work remaining. But I think we are headed in the right direction.

JT: And how much can you do to reform when the military remains so powerful and retains such vast business interests?

IK: I can say that this is probably the first government that is totally supported by our military. Theres no issue between the civilian government and the military, and the reason is that I think there is a broader trust there. The reason why the previous clashes used to take place was that when the civilian government started making money, the military had these intelligence agencies which knew what was going on. So therefore, there was always a clashnot because the military was interfering in the government, but because the civilian leadership were vulnerable because the military knew the extent of their corruption, so they wanted to control the military. Now we have their complete support.

JT: Youve been very vocal about criticizing Indias treatment of its Muslims and the oppression of Muslims around the world, with one notable exception: China. Why have you been so quiet about the persecution of Chinas Muslims in Xinjiang and elsewhere?

IK: Well, two reasons. One main reason is that the scale of what is going on in Chinaand frankly, I dont know much about it, I just occasionally read about itis nothing compared to what is happening in Kashmir.

JT: With all due respect, were talking about some 1 million to 2 million people being detained in Xinjiang. Thats not nothing.

IK: But what is happening in Kashmir is 8 million people under siege for five months. Over the last 30 years, about 100,000 people have been killed in Kashmir. And all the top [Kashmiri] leadership is in jail. So its the scale of what is happening.

As far as the Uighurs, lookChina has helped us. China came to help our government when we were at the rock bottom. So we are really grateful to the Chinese government, and we decided that whatever issues we will have with China, we will deal with them privately. We will not go public.

JT: The U.S. and others have warned that China is setting up Pakistan for a debt trap, as Sri Lanka and others have fallen into. What are you doing to prevent that?

IK: My finance minister is sitting here. Can you please tell them exactly what is the component of Chinese debt?

Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh: Well, first of all, we have to recognize what China is doing in Pakistan. Economic projects. And the key component of that is building a port. And the idea is to promote exports to Africa

JT: But China has ended up owning the port it built in Sri Lanka.

AHS: No, thats not true. The port belongs to the people and government of Pakistan. Obviously, you need a port to operate, and the international experience shows that its better than government bureaucrats to have well-run private companies. So that is the spirit.

The other point I want to make is that this network of roads to the port will benefit Pakistani society. We are inviting foreign investment from every country, including the U.S. We are building this network of roads, ports, and electricity plants not meant exclusively for the Chinese.

JT: Are terrorist groups like the Haqqani network currently operating in Pakistan?

IK: Absolutely not. When I first became the prime minister, India told us that these groups are operating from within Pakistan. When I spoke to the prime minister, I said, You point out, where are these groups. When the Americans asked us about these groups, we said, You come and tell us where these safe havens are. I can proudly say that they are a legacy of the past.

JT: Freedom House this year ranked Pakistan as partly free, in part because of the treatment of journalists there, who report an increase of harassment and intimidation by the security forces in the last year. What are you going to do about it?

IK: I invite you to come to Pakistan. The criticism the prime minister has faced, the government has faced from the press has also included serious libel. Look at what the media has printed. I can honestly say that no democracy would allow this sort of thing. I spent a lot of time in England. I was in university there. Their libel laws are such that no one can get away with something like that. Imagine someone going on television there saying that, Ive just heard that the prime ministers wife has left him. You say that in England, and there are consequences. If anything, we need regulations on the media. Theres nothing better than criticism. Criticism is the difference between a democracy and dictatorship. But what my government has faced is propaganda. And we find ourselves defenseless, because we cant protect ourselves. They accused me of something illegal. For one year, I have been trying to get justice from the watchdog body. And the prime minister hasnt got justice. So this is all wrong. In the past, there might have been issues, but I honestly feel that the Pakistani media is more vibrant and free than any other media in the world.

Originally posted here:

Imran Khan on Trump, Modi, and Why He Won't Criticize China - Foreign Policy