Time for change is NOW

Got an emailed attachment in my inbox this morning - a signed petition/statement from a number of members of parliament in relation to the pending vote of no confidence against Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare.

It's worth a read.

Download the report here (right click, save target as):

Papua New Guinea Opposition Media Campaign 2009

Perfectly Frank

"We are not going to have an election just to please Australia and New Zealand. That's not going to happen".
- Frank Bainimarama

He's been called a dictator, a disgrace and a blot on democracy in the Pacific, but Fiji's interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, says he just wants to make his country a better place.

In a rare interview with Mark Davis he comes out fighting against his critics...on SBS's Dateline (on Sunday, August 1, 2009).

Al Jazeera's Inside Story: What do Iran's reformists want?

"...Anger and deadly violence in Iran escalate, despite tough warnings from the country's supreme leader. As the protests continue, what do reforminsts want exactly? What will become of their movement? And can they shake the foundations of the Islamic Revolution?"

Documentary: The battle between Moderate and Radical Islam

Since yesterday, I've been busy working on a briefing analysis that I need to present to a group of highly opinionated I.R. students. I need to present an analysis on the bi-lateral cooperation between Australia and Indonesia as a result of the Bali attacks on October 12, 2002.

Whilst researching for this topic, I came across the following documentary, by Al Jazeera, in all its entirety conveniently available on YouTube.

Note that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Contrary to the beliefs and actions that are often referred to as "Islam radicalism", Islam is actually a a religion of tolerance and peace. Members of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) interpret the teachings of radical Islamist ideology as reaffirmed in such radical "boarding schools" (such as the one that Abu Bakar Bashir is the principal of) and are consequently encouraged to idolise posters of prominent jihad leaders such as Osama bin Laden (its true, watch the doc below). Such schools of teaching are actually breeding grounds for "terrorism" (a Western concept) however, the students of such schools are really "soldiers of war". I think that Indonesia needs to really take a firmer stand against such institutions as the curriculum that they have encourage these kids to see the world in a "us vs them" paradigm. Even though Indonesia is a developing democracy (after the fall of Suharto), all its citizens have the freedom to worship what ever religion they choose. However, like the anti-Semitic movement that dominated Germany's Nazi Party which eventually lead to WWII, this 'jihad' against non-Muslims (The West predominantly) is escalating as we speak.

Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 1)



Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 2)



Indonesia: Hearts and Minds (Part 3)

Educate me

In an earlier post, "Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive" I concluded that a large segment of the protestors in the current Iranian crisis has resulted in international pressure mounting especially from the United States.

However, at the commencement of the G8 Summit this week in L'Aquila it has been argued by Russia that the violence in Xinjiana and in Iran are 'internal matters' and therefore should not be considered as a matter of discussion at the G8 summit. However, this has been opposed by US President Barack Obama, as well as the leaders of both France and Britain who want to increase international pressure against Tehran.

In a statement on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared "We would ask the world to join us in imposing even stricter sanctions on Iran to try to change the behaviour of the regime".

Clinton's statement reiterates similar sentiments made by President Barack Obama during his visit to Russia earlier this week in which he stated that the issue of Iran's capabilities need to be resolved through 'diplomatic means'. However, he also stressed something else important:

"the United States reserve(s) the right, and I as commander-in-chief reserve the right, to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the United States."

The perception of Iran as a perceived threat to the United States as a result of their nuclear weapons build-up is a highly complex issue. But I'm sure wondering whether the United States has really vital interests in Iran that are at stake? I mean, the perceived threats of North Korea's missile tests and now Iran? Are the current tensions on the streets of Tehran exercabating public perception of a possible intervention in Iran if other diplomatic channels fail?
Educate me.
Spowf.

Related news articles:

Obama urges Iran to 'stop all violent and unjust actions'

Another day at the office for Ban Ki-Moon

There has been much debate (especially in my IR tutorial) regarding Ban Ki-Moon's performance so far into his five year tenure at Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Some have argued that he is trying to accomplish too much.



I think we can argue that he is trying to achieve too many things but we must also remember that this man is the Secretary of the United Nations. In his role, he doesn't have the 'privelege' to choose which issues he should choose to address and issues he can't put on the agenda and present it into a small, neat portfolio to the world. Unlike self-interested governments who focus predominantly on domestic national issues, the United Nations has a larger amount of transnational issues to raise public awareness about and help resolve. I think as the dominant international organisation, he is doing a great job by educating the global international community and reminding them of the plight of others around the world. If he failed to raise such issues through the media especially, as individuals, we may not be as educated and be as inquisitive into these issues if he completely failed to acknowledge them. Failing to acknowledge these issues, would undermine the strife and violations that are occuring and eventually we would even further marginalise the importance of these issues.

Put yourself in his shoes. What gives anyone the right to say that the genocide in Sudan is less important//more important than the economic global crisis for example. To argue one case against another, would create a lot of negative responses from all sides. As the lives of millions of people have been affected by both issues - the pool of poor and vulnerable people is just too large to not address.

It's just another day at the office for Ban Ki-Moon.

and to reiterate Ban Ki-Moon it can be either a "make it or break it year full of issues that aren't solved into a make it work year full of solutions."

:)

Revolution and Civil Rights - Are they mutually exclusive?

In an interview on CNN's American Morning (June 22, 2009), John Roberts interviewed Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies based at Colombia University. Dabashi stated that Iranian protestors want civil rights not a revolution.

Read the transcript of the full interview here.

RGarcia posted the following comment:

Don’t listen to the “so-called” expert who says that this is not revolution being demanded. Listen instead to the voices on the ground in Tehran…the voices of those young brave men and women, the voices of those interviewed over the phone by cnn, like the young man pleading with the international community for support by vehemently pointing out that Ahmadenijad’s rule is now illegal and that a new “structure” of government is needed and that the structure of government with Ayatollahs has got to go; When we hear chants of “death to Khamenei ” [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei], and when we hear others like the son of the former late Shah of Iran who says that he sees now the biggest threat to the current regime since 1979….when we listen to all of these people, the result is quite clear – the people of Iran want nothing less than a revolution, which ovbviously INCLUDES civil rights for its people. Yes, the current Iran constitution provides for civil rights for its citizens, but the current system of government in which there is a ’supreme leader’ is very loudly being opposed. So, please pay little attention to this ‘expert’ (Hamid Dabashi). The people of Iran very obviously are showing that they want nothing less than a revolution which includes a system of government by the people and for the people (and this includes civil rights)…..Revolution and Civil Rights are not mutually exclusive….Rene from Dallas.

Personally, I think that had President Ahmadenijad’s initially been smart enough to have predicted the possibility of riots on a large-scale such as this, and thus opted to have a re-election...the situation would never have exercabated. It would have been more 'democratic' to acknowledge the civil liberties of its citizens as opposed to suppressing their rights to freedom of speech by placing thousands of soldiers on the streets.

President Ahmadenijad seemingly undemocratic response therefore lives little faith in the majority of the Iranian population who now will opt for an overthrow of the current system of governance. What was initially an exercise of civil liberty through peaceful protests and gatherings (although highly emotive) has resulted now in a highly escalating situation that will inevitably either require a peaceful solution or international humanitarian intervention through the use of military force. Only God knows what'll happen then.

NOTE:

Despite his title, President Ahmadenijah does not hold the highest constitutional office in Iran. The highest constitutional office belogns to the Supreme Leader of Iran who is Ali Khamenei, also the commander in chief of the armed forces of Iran (as stipulated in Article 113 of the Constitution of Iran).

Watch President's Obama's Speech, Cairo 2009

Last week Tuesday, I attended a seminar presented by the U.S. Consul General , Judith Fergin titled "The U.S. - Australia relationship: Confronting global challenges together." During the speech, she noted that President Obama was delivering a historical keynote address in Cairo that same afternoon.

I didn't get a chance to watch it live and if you didn't get a chance to either, here it is.

Spowf

Note: subtitles are available, click the CC option on the selection above.

Ex-Guantanamo Bay detainee is released

After seven years without trial, Guantanamo Bay Prison detainee Binyam Mohamed has been released from the controversial prison.

I'm aware the when David Hicks was released, there was an enforced media ban on him which prevented him from speaking publicly about his ordeal.

Since, his release - Mohamed's lawyers have requested that President Obama release documented evidence (including photographs) which detail abuse and torture inflicted upon Mr. Mohamed during his incarceration.

My question is: Can Binyam Mohamed sue the United States government? If so, on what grounds?

Through their eyes: The Darfur Genocide

I've recently signed up to be a member of The Hub which is the world's first participatory site where individuals, groups, networks and organisations can bring their stories of human rights abuses and draw the attention of citizens worldwide. Members can upload videos, photos or make comment on posts. It's a great site - volunteers all over the world with acclaimed human rights advocacy organisations such as Amnesty International make frequent postings as well.

Well, so we all know that George Clooney didn't rock up to this year's 81st Annual Academy Awards...instead he was briefing U.S. President, Barack Obama and Vice President, Joe Biden on the ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan. This genocide has been going on for a few years now and the fact that someone of George Clooney's celebrity and association with the United Nation's (he is a U.N. Messenger of Peace) brings great publicity before this modern day genocide went off the radar. You would have thought that world would have taken a more firm stance in the aftermath of Rwanda.

The Sudanese government has time and again denied supporting the mass killings and atrocities that have been instigated by the Jajaweed Militia, however, witnesses continue to raise claims about Government helicopters being used in the assault against innocent civilians. To difuse the Government's rejection of any involvement, video below is a shocking testimony from four alleged perpetrators who have been involved in the Sudan crisis - one was a senior officer in the Sudan Army Force, one a high-ranking Janjaweed commander, another a Janjaweed footsoldier, and the last a Sudanese soldier. In this video you see the genocide through the eyes of these four men. They give very key details about who were financiers behind some of the attacks through to detailed accounts of some of the attacks. The stories of these four men make a direct link between the accounts of witnesses claims and their own experiences in the lies that the Sudanese government has been telling the world over and over again. Phil Cox, an independent film-maker who assisted in the production of this film states the importance of this footage as being "the first time that the people can see a Sudanese, Arabic-speaking, high-ranking commander saying that 'We did this.' It never happened before." In a nutshell, the testimonies of these four alleged perpetrators could be used against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and others if this case was to go the the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Watch the video here.

Related articles:

Group releases film allegging Darfur war crimes - International Herald Tribune
Shocking video testimony from Darfur perpetrators (Aegis Trust) - By Samir Padania, The Hub online

David Hicks: an analysis of one man's rights

Human Rights and Ethics Issues: David Hicks' trial Current mood: distressed Category: News and Politics





For some of you who may not know, I am studying Arts/Law at the moment at QUT. I am particularly trying to major in Human Rights and Ethics for my Arts degree.

Since I mentioned David Hicks' in the previous post, I decided to post this. It a couple of months old and I originally posted it on a discussion board on a uni related site. Anyways, you are all probably aware that the hype surrounding his case has sort of subdued, but here it goes:

*****

The David Hicks' trial has been pondered upon, in particular the human rights abuses that he has claimed to have suffered while incarcerated at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Here's just a brief discussion of claims of human rights abuses and how these claims (if they eventuated) breach international human rights laws and guidelines.

In an affidavit David Hicks claimed that his human rights were violated through the following (here is a summary of some of his claims):

• Ten-hour torture sessions, which involved him being shackled and blindfolded, marked by kicking, beatings with rifle butts, punching about the head and torso,



• Death threats at gunpoint and anal penetration with objects



• While in custody of American officers he was placed in a self-contained cell designed to deny all stimuli (this is a CIA sensory-deprivation torture technique) which continued for 8 months.



• Hicks experienced extreme mood swings and became suicidal.

An American attorney "found Hicks at the brink of despair...unable to comprehend
the reality of his trial..." claim of suicide supported by Moazaam Begg, a
British man formerly held at Guantanamo Bay who recounted in his book after
release Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim's Journey to Guantanamo and Back of
Hicks talking about suicidal impulses during his periods in
isolation
"He often talked about wanting to smash his
head...against the metal of his cage and just end it all"

• His head had been rammed into asphalt several times



• He was forced medication of which the identity was unknown to him including the influence of sedatives which were forced upon him.
• He was forced to run in leg shackles that regularly ripped the skin off his ankles (physical
  torture)
  
• As a matter of policy, he was deprived of sleep.

It is notable that if these statements were indeed true, the U.S. government has breached Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which states that all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment.

On 6 December 2006, Hick's legal team lodged documents with the Federal Court of Australia, arguing that the Australian government had breached its protective duty to Hicks as an Australian citizen in custody overseas, and failed to request that Hicks's incarceration by the U.S. comply with the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of HUman Rights. So has the Australian government done enough to protect the human rights of David Hicks? Well earlier this year, in an interview with Southern Cross Broadcasting, Mr. Howard said the following: "....let me simply say that it has gone on for so long now that we will be pressing the Americans almost on a daily basis". Former PM, Malcolm Fraser speaking at the Human Rights Education Conference of 2007, accused the Aus government of betraying Hick's rights and said that the military commission (where Hicks' trial is to commence on Mar 26) had been structured to produce a guilty verdict.
To support Malcolm Fraser's questioning of the legality of the Military Commission in which Hick's trial will be heard, it can be argued that such military commissions breach Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as it does not amount to a "regularly constituted court aaffording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilized peoples". Also, the Int'l Committee of the Red Cross' Customary International Humanitarian Law 355 (2005) explains that courts are 'regularly constituted' under Common Article 3 if they are "established and organised in accordance with the laws and procedures already in force in a country". It must be noted that the military commission which david hicks' trial is to be heard, only came into effect with the passing of the Military Commissions Act 2006 and therefore does not amount to a "regularly constituted" court.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that "everyone shall be entitled to a fiar and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law". Similarly, Article 75 (4) of Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions 1949 also reiterates this right to a trial before an "impartial" court. Notably, under the Military Commmissions Act 2006, the military commission will be composed of officers appointed from the U.S. armed forces who will act as the jury on questions of fact and will detrmine the sentence if an accused is found guilty by them. Undoubtedly, the system lacks the necessary degree of independent to be impartial and independent. The Military Commission system, therefore, does not safeguard David Hicks' fundamental right as stated in the Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So will David Hick's receive a fair trial? The Military Commission rules do not exclude evidence obtained by the use of moral or physical coercion exerted on a prisoner in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the fact of which he is accused. This breaches the requirement of a fair hearing stated by Article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the fundamental guarantees provided by Article 75(4)(f)of Protocol 1.

Torture techniques: a question of human rights

Okay, fixed myself a bowl of salad (herb and garlic tuna, tomatoes, avocado, balsamic dressing..same old, same old) and decided to sit down and catch up on some current affairs by skim reading some newspapers. Exams are finally over so I guess reading newspapers and enjoying a salad you prepared yourself can be therapeutic at times.

The first article that grabbed my attention was Sally Neighbour's 'Asking the painful questions' in The Australian Inquirer (p.22).

The article gives an account of torture mechanisms and techniques that have developed over the past fifty years or so. Neighbour's article goes on to question why these torture mechanisms are still being used by the U.S. government despite being labelled as 'unreliabile' and thus, ineffective in the war against terror.

Have a look at this picture:

Most of you will probably associate it with the prisoner abuse claims that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that caused much international controversy about two years ago. Most people who have heard only little or not much about torture techniques may at first see this picture only as a man or woman simply standing, arms stretched on what looks like a cardboard box - or even as a gimmick, something that kept the U.S. army personnel entertained in the middle of nowhere.

Upon closer examination, this photograph reveals a can full of worms, unearthing some of the most gruesome and inexcusable human rights violations that have occurred to date. Alfred McCoy, a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (click here for more McCoy's' deconstruction of these images and CIA torture techniques) adds more to this picture by citing that this photo represents two CIA foundational techniques. Firstly, the hood on the detainee acts as a sensory disorientation and deprivation technique. Secondly, his arms stretched out are intended to inflict pain upon him/herself (ie self inflicted pain).

What truly shocks me is the possible legalisation of torture techniques that could allow people such as John Howard and George W. Bush to sign a warrant issued by a judge to authorise torture. Have a look at the picture of the prisoner in Abu Ghraib again. If this person was your father, mother, sister, brother, nephew or friend, would you let this happen to them?

In Neighbour's article, the argument of well-known Harvard academic and criminal lawyer, Alan Dershowitz is used to justify 'painless' torture mechanisms that could be used by governments such as the U.S. and Australia. Dershowitz who claims to not be a supporter of torture contravenes his personal belief and states that governments should be able to use torture as long as they are done so in an "accountable, transparent way." Notably, the U.S. does not have a clean slate in relation to matters dealing with accountability and transparency. For example, no one knew that the U.S. were using torture techniques on the detainees at Guantanamo Bay until one of its own, former chief lawyer for the US Navy, Alberto J. Mora blew the whistle on the use of such torture techniques. Think of the human rights abuse claims made by David Hicks against the U.S. government and the U.S government's failure to bear the onus of such claims.

After reading this, who would you believe...a man imprisoned for over five years without a formal charge or a government which claims itself to be democratic and a signatory to numerous United Nations' human rights conventions, yet exercises a form of modern tyranny.

Onto more pressing global issues...

I was just reading the United Nation's Development Program Report entitled 'Beyond Scarcity Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis?

The Report primarily focuses on the issue of the water crisis, the causes and the problems experienced by the poor. The main arguments being that water is not a scarce resource, however, the poor have been sysytametically disadvantaged due to political choices.

However, what really drew my attention and something that I think would start a great discussion relates to the following excerpt (see page 3):

In the world of the early 21st century national
security concerns loom large
on the international
agenda. Violent conflict, concerns
over terrorist
threats, the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and the growth of illicit
trade
in arms and drugs all pose acute challenges.
Against this backdrop
it is easy to lose sight
of some basic human security imperatives, including
those linked to water.

The 1.8 million
child deaths each year related to
unclean water
and poor sanitation dwarf the casualties associated
with
violent conflict. No act of terrorism
generates economic devastation on the
scale of
the crisis in water and sanitation. Yet the issue
barely
registers on the international agenda.

It would be interesting if people could get involved and share some ideas or thoughts.