The purpose of this blog is to discuss current affairs, politics and history. The emphasis will be on situations that impact present and future generations. Please comment with further insight into the issues.
A few days ago the news came out that nearly 300 hundred Indonesian ballot workers had died form fatigue during the vote-count in the recent elections. The situation was particularly strenuous because the Presidential election was combined with Parliamentary ones in order to cut costs. When one thinks of dangerous jobs, ballot counting certainly doesn't spontaneously spring to mind. In fact, one could almost get away with thinking that it is a cushy office job. And yet, so many lives were lost in just a matter of days.
May Day does not celebrate a victory, but an ongoing battle...
I expect that there are many lessons to be learned here. An important one is this: whatever the job, without adequate safeguards, lives may be lost. Fatigue is just one of the many risks. There are many others, such as stress, inadequate safety regulations and bullying. We owe a great deal to the Unions that fought for workers' rights throughout our recent history. Today we celebrate all workers and those who struggled for their rights.
These Indonesian workers died in the line of duty, but they did not have too. The were not firefighters tackling a deadly blaze, or police officers confronting dangerous criminals. They were people who died because of lack of concern form those who had a duty of care while managing them. The battle for workers' rights is not over. Until there are people in this world who are willing to exploit those in a more vulnerable position, and a legal system that lets them, there will always be a place for the Unions. I prefer a good piece of legislation to a militant union worker, but until we have the former, let us not take the latter for granted!
Abdel Fattah el Sisi: from the frying pan into the fire...
Why does President Abdel Fattah el Sisi always look so smug? The answer is simple: because he is screwing his nation well and good! You can see why the Sudanese are so careful not to blink, despite having deposed President Omar al Bashir. I can still hear the cries of the jubilation in Cairo when President Mubarak was ousted. Well, that revolution was hijacked by el Sisi and he makes Mubarak look like mild by comparison.
Things started to look shaky when Morsi won the 2012 election. His years as a fundamentalist MP between 2000 and 2005 did not bode well for the future of Egypt. Morsi had won with 51.7% of the vote against Ahmed Shafiq’s 48.3. Shafiq was the last prime minister under Hosni Mubarak and the turnout of the run-off elections was a mere 51%: this was hardly a ringing endorsement of the Brotherhood. Morsi appointed el Sisi Minister of defence and it was downhill form then on.
Sisi's dismal human rights record
Sisi led a coup against Morsi in July 2013 and appointed Adly Mansour as interim president. A crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as liberal elements ensued. A couple of months later, police carried out the Rabaa Massacre, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. The murder did not stop with Egyptians. In 2016, Giulio Regeni, an Italian PhD student from Cambridge University was abducted by Egyptian security forces and tortured to death. Since 2014, el Sisi has been winning dubious elections; and the human rights abuses continue to this day.
From one power grab to another
The culmination of el Sisi's oppression came last week with a so called referendum, which he claimed to have won. The referendum was a sham by any standard, but it gives him sweeping new powers. Despite this, the first thing he did was call a state of emergency. Egypt is well and truly stuffed, while the west turns a blind eye in the naive belief that he is keeping extremism at bay. They don't seem to notice his form of extremism. Is it any wonder that el Sisi keeps on smiling?
UN-aligned will call leaders to account
Despots need to be shown up for what they are. UN-aligned, an organisation that will be launched next month, will not stop naming and shaming these abusers of power. See what else UN-aligned is up to: UN-aligned.org We need members so that our voice can get louder and louder. Help us make the world a better place...
So, while some of us are expending so much energy in order to bring about as much as a butterfly's effect of a change for peace...
On Friday, US President Trump tore up the United Nations sponsored treaty signed by his predecessor Barack Obama to regulate the sale of conventional weapons. The Arms Trade Treaty was a landmark agreement that came into force on the 24 December, 2014. The treaty has been ratified by 96 of the 130 signatories and Stephane Dujarric, the UN spokesperson, celebrated it as:
a landmark achievement in the efforts to ensure responsibility in international arms transfers.
Money before people
The aim of the treaty is to prevent arms from being sold to human rights abusers. It is a bit like not wanting to sell Viagra to serial rapists, or petrol to arsonists. The least a responsible government can do to protect the innocent, you would think. But no, not for Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). They don't want the $70 billion business to be regulated. Money comes before people.
At an NRA gathering in Indianapolis Trump boasted that he would never allow "foreign bureaucrats to trample on" the freedom of the Second Amendment. Of course, the treaty, which deals with the international arms trade, has little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment. But then again, President Trump has never been one to care about truth. The NRA, currently plagued with infighting, was delighted.
Blood on your hands?
Kites are made to fly and weapons are made to kill, maim and destroy. Dealing in them is bad enough, but deliberately selling them to those who you know will abuse them is equivalent to mass murder; genocide, even: who knows? I will never understand how these people manage to sleep at night. However, all those who knowingly continue to support them, are also guilty. So be careful whom you are giving your vote to. That sort of blood on your hands does not wash off easily,
My article yesterday was about the post of UN Secretary-General and its decline in significance since the early days of Dag Hammarskjold. The Secretary-Generals are not to blame for this erosion. They are at the mercy of the five permanent members of the Security Council, who wield a privileged position in the UN structure. The US in particularly powerful, in as much as it is also the main funder by a very substantial margin, forking out up to $10 billion a year. In fact, the US pays more than the next three nations combined, which are the UK, Japan and Germany. As the saying goes, "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
UN credibility beyond repair
Is it surprising then that the Secretary-General has to kowtow to the powerful nations and not rock the boat too much? This month, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres came under fire for failing to broach the subject of human rights during a meeting with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping. Human rights activists were livid. Sophie Richardson, the China Director of Human Rights Watch published an article listing human rights violations by Guterres' host, including many relating to the United Nations itself. She concluded with an echo of previous warnings to the UN by Human Rights Watch:
The credibility of the United Nations depends in part on its willingness to vigorously and publicly challenge human rights violations committed by its most powerful members.
Sadly, this credibility is in already tatters. We cannot blame the Guterreses of this world for that. And while we can blame the nations that have been consistently undermining the position he holds, the root cause is the structure of the United Nations itself.
UN-aligned: the alternative United Nations
That is why UN-aligned is working towards a virtual United Nations that does not need to be beholden to anyone or anything, other than its founding principles which are non-negotiable (though they will evolve with time). Trump, Xi or Putin would not even be able to pass the virtual threshold of this organisation. Citizens of their countries, however, would be. It will be the citizens that will construct this United Nations; a United Nations that will be able to live up to its federal mandate.
Dag Hammarskjold, the second Secretary-General of the United Nations was a leader. It was not surprising that he should have become a seasoned academic and politician, since he was born to a family with roots in politics that spanned centuries. His own father, Hjalmar Hammarskjold, was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1914 to 1917. What is impressive is the vision and integrity that accompanied him throughout his career, particularly while Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Hammarskjold succeeded Trygve Lie as UN Secretary-General in 1953, and he is widely considered responsible for having given the post a dynamic and unique quality. He died in a plane crash in September 1961, while on a delicate diplomatic mission and for his efforts was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Hammarskjold was on a peace mission to the Congo, shortly after its independence from Belgium, when his plane came down in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). It was a journey into a hornets nest. The former colonial power, backed by the US and Britain, were supporting the separatists from the Katanga Province and were determined that he should fail in order to protect their interests, especially mining, in that area. It is alleged that they eliminated him to stop him from succeeding.
An unlikely accident
Inquiries into Hammarskjold's death were vague and there were many contradictions in the official versions of events. Evidence to suggest foul play, however, has been springing up from very different sources ever since the unexplained "accident" happened, much of it from reliable sources. These include:
witnesses to the actual disaster
Hammarskjold's own nephew
Desmond Tutu (when chairman of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission)
a friend of Van Risseghem, who claimed that the pilot confessed to shooting down the UN plane
The controversy continues, but one thing is certain, the crash did not only put an end to Hammarskjold's life. The wings were clipped of the nascent post of Secretary-General before it could even take flight.
About a month ago, I wrote an article on ecocide. I mentioned the remarkable work of Polly Higgins who campaigned tirelessly for laws to be changed in order to protect the planet from wanton destruction by its so-called guardians. Polly died on Easter Sunday after a battle with cancer. The organisation she founded, Earth Protectors, announced that she passed away "with a mischievous smile on her face". As Polly lay dying, London was paralysed by protesting environmentalists. Greta Thunberg was adding her voice and that of a new generation to the battle cry. This was a battle that Polly had won: the world was waking up again!
The war on ecocide goes on...
A few victories, however, will not guarantee a safer world. It is crumbling before our eyes. Yesterday, news came out of the alarming plight of the emperor penguins. They nest on ice in the Antarctic. Last year it became too thin to last long enough for the chicks to develop sufficiently for the challenges that faced them. As the ice melted away, so did the chicks, whose feathers were not yet water resistant enough to save them from drowning. The second largest colony may have been lost because of this.
By Ian Duffy from UK - Animal Portraits
We need laws...
Polly Higgins was a lawyer. She understood that without laws safeguarding the global ecosystem, nothing would stop greedy corporations and governments from exploiting it as much as they could. They would do so without any regard for present or future generations; or the destruction of the planet.
The same applies to issues concerning human rights and justice. Not only are these sometimes at the mercy of oppressive governments, often they are left to the whims of flawed democratic systems that consider the ballot box above decency and justice.
And the laws need teeth... UN-aligned is opposed to this pseudo-democracy. It will be fighting for international laws that transcend the ballot box when it is the planet, its ecosystems and all its lifeforms that are at stake. However, for these laws to have teeth, we also need an international order like the United Nations, but one that is not a plaything of the superpowers and their corporate buddies. This too, UN-aligned is fighting for. UN-aligned will be launched next month, but is already open for membership... Why not join?
Russia started issuing passports to east Ukraine in a move to consolidate its power there and continue its aggression on the sovereign state of Ukraine. Putin is paving the way for Russia to annex more of Ukraine's territory.
China has just sentenced Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrators to jail terms of up to 16 months. President Xi's premiership has been marked with a swing towards greater authoritarianism.
Trump is strutting around threatening Iran, Cuba and Mexico, while encouraging Israel and Libyan war lord, Haftar, to defy the United Nations.
Theresa May is dangling her country's stability on the edge of a cliff. Yesterday she snubbed Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist who was met by other UK party leaders.
President Macron of France is trying; some may say "very trying". He too is supporting Haftar against the UN-backed government in Libya.
These are the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations.
A disgrace to the modern world
Is it fair that the world should be beholden to these five nations who can block any United Nations security decision with their power of veto? Of course not! In fact, it is more than unfair: it is downright obscene. And yet we plod along like zombies accepting this abuse. Many of us not even aware of it. Come on! Wake up! Do something about it! What? you may ask. Well, you can start by joining UN-aligned, or at least reading about it! UN-aligned will be launched on May 24 and will work for a better united nations: in every sense!
The United Nations (UN) is a remarkable organisation. It has achieved some outstanding results for humanity and it continues to do so. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals offer an example, amongst many, of its tireless work for the planet and its people. Despite its achievements, however, the UN is flawed. Its many failings relate to its structure, its principles and its functions. Here are some examples:
1. The language and structure of the UN Charter are ingrained in the post war world of 1945
1.1 Those countries who had fought against the Allies are referred to as “enemy” states in the UN Charter and treated differently.
1.2 The five permanent members of the Security Council were the main victors of the Second World War. Their selection had nothing to do with fair representation or moral authority.
1.3 One of the six organs of the UN, the Trusteeship Council is redundant. It was established to oversee the independence process of territories still occupied by colonial powers. Of course, it could have diversified and worked for oppressed people within nations, but it chose not do this.
2. The privilege of the five permanent members to wield the veto (Article 27) allows for gross misjustice and abuse. IN 2015 France even tried to limit its use in cases that could lead to genocide, but their proposal was dismissed by Russia as “populist”.
3. The UN principles that are supposed to inform the decision-making process, are so vague and limited (Articles 1 & 2) that member states ignore them as a matter of course. When talking about discrimination, only race, sex (gender), language and religion are mentioned.
4. Many human rights violations receive minimal attention (if at all) because a large proportion of the member states are guilty of them. LGBT rights is a case in point. Homosexuality remains illegal if over a third of UN member states.
5. Despite all the atrocities committed by countless nations since 1945 and the fact that the UN reserved the right to expel nations that do not abide by its principles (Article 6), none have ever been ejected for this reason. The only state to have been expelled was the Republic of China (Taiwan), who suddenly found itself kicked out in favour of Mao’s People’s Republic of China.
6. The UN’s resolutions are periodically ignored by member states, with impunity.
7. The UN is frequently undermined by its most powerful members, such as Russia and the US.
8. Calls for the UN to be reformed constitute a recurring theme of the yearly General Debates, but the UN is fettered by permanent members of the Security Council and unable to make any significant progress.
The UN-aligned alternative
The starting point of UN-aligned is very different to that of the UN. Whereas the UN began with member states, UN-aligned is starting off with members who are already committed to the clear principles it advocates. The UN prides itself with its 193 member states. Many governments of these states flout all norms of decency. For UN-aligned, however, the emphasis is on quality, not quantity; and on people, not nations.
Its “United Nations” will therefore be virtual to start: a vision people can work towards, one person at a time. As the numbers increase, and political parties spring up around the world (as per its long-term plans), actual nations may join in. At that point, UN-aligned principles will start to acquire legal status. The final stage in this evolution will be an international law that respects all human rights and works for the health of the planet and its multiple lifeforms. Nevertheless, even before then, with enough members, UN-aligned can start influencing and changing the current international legal system to one that puts people and the planet first.
If an angel came and told me that all the world problems would be solved if I just put a few bombs around killing innocent people in mosques, synagogues, churches, market places or hotels... would I do it? Of course not. Firstly, because I do not even have the right to insult an innocent person, let alone take their life. Secondly, because it would be like asking me to believe that good is founded on evil, or harmony on hatred. Rather obvious, you would say... Then why, oh why, does it keep happening again and again!
The answer is obvious. These people care little about harmony and justice. Their motives are greed, power and contempt for all that is sacred in this world. I am not talking about the gullible fools that let themselves be brainwashed. People too stupid to know that they are being manipulated by forces way beyond their comprehension. I am referring to the scheming scoundrels who pull the strings. Often, we haven't got a clue who these people are, since the strings they are pulling may be long indeed. We could be dealing with the arms trade, geo-politics or single megalomaniacs, bent on power or profit. Often they exploit native bigotry for their aims.
Silence is not an option
The way to improve the situation is also obvious. Religious and ideological leaders must stress the unacceptability of violence and injustice as a means to an end. This has to be proclaimed clearly and loudly. It has to be done as clarification of specific doctrines, but also in unity. These moral leaders must emphasise the fact that what unites us is greater than what divides us and that nothing justifies aggression against any innocent party. Religions can be beautiful, just as differing political perspectives can be, but when these do not decry violence, they too are tarnished. It is high time the predominant ideologies of the world start focussing on what is truly important, rather than on petty differences in doctrine or ideology.
Yesterday, I spoke about statelessness. I mentioned how countries often used it as weapon against people. Lately, women in Lebanon have been taking to the streets to protest the country's obscene laws that deprive their children of citizenship, if born of foreign fathers. The same does not apply to children born to Lebanese fathers and foreign mothers. The consequences for children born of these mothers are dire as a recent Al Jazeera report highlighted.
Religion is not helping the situation...
The government holds that the law is necessary to maintain the fragile balance of power in Lebanon, where certain factions are guaranteed parliamentary seats: Maronite, Orthodox, Sunni, Druze, Shi'ite... Small-minded politics is bound to have small-minded consequences. Religion can corrupt, as can politics, but put them together and they are sure to do so. Besides, what has lawmaking got to do with petty religious differences? With all its pantheon of religions, Lebanon's Parliament cannot pass a simple point of justice.
When I think of the different lifeforms that grace the earth, trees and plants (most of them, anyway) always come up on top. They give so much and yet they only take a little of what flows freely from nature: the air, the rays of the sun, the rain and the earth. Though exposed, trees give shelter; though maltreated, they are at peace; though still, they seem to contemplate the furthest horizons. They predate us by millions of years and yet not a drop of blood has ever stained their dignity. Their nature is their wisdom and their virtue. But I wonder, do they think? If they did, I would dread to know what they would think of us.
Reporters without Borders has just published the yearly World Press Freedom Index. Turkmenistan has overtaken North Korea as the worst country in a list of a 180. Norway is at the top, followed by Finland, Sweden, respectively. The United States dropped three places to 48th. President Trump's hatred of the media, which he refers to as "fake news" and the "enemy of the people" certainly has not helped the situation, there. The US also joined the top five "deadliest countries" for journalists.
I expect that the freedom ranking of the US would have been even lower had Reporters without Borders seen the press conference today concerning the Mueller Report. Apart from the fact that Attorney General William Barr only released a redacted version (a euphemism for a censored version), he was only willing to do so after he preempted public reaction. He even used language that was biased in favour of Trump, and incompatible with his position, which should be one of impartiality.
Press freedom is the litmus test of a healthy society
The importance of press freedom cannot be overstated. Journalism sheds a light that exposes the workings of politicians and people with power. It holds them to account. But journalism also keeps us informed of the development of out world: its strengths and weaknesses, its opportunities and threats. Journalism unites us in common causes. Only countries that have something to hide, oppose it.; what other reason could there be? I remember seeing a vignette once, it read:
First they came for the journalists... We don't know what happened next.
If you cheered with optimism when Aung San Suu Kyi assumed office in 2016, you had every reason to do so. The Burmese politician had spent years in detention and had become an icon of the human rights movement. It felt like the blooming of a new era for Myanmar... Alas! The blossoms withered on the boughs and the political situation there seems no better than before. It is worse, perhaps, as the regime carries on regardless, buffered by this figure of respectability who is fast morphing from a symbol of hope to one of betrayal.
In September 2017, fellow Nobel laureate, retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu, wrote her a touching and prodding letter. "If the political price of your ascension to the highest office in Myanmar is your silence," he said, "the price is surely too steep." Other rebukes, such as the revoking of some of her honours, were equally ineffective.
Myanmar holding on to its political prisoners
As part of the Burmese New Year celebrations, 9,535 prisoners were set free today. Freeing prisoners is a routine way of easing the problem of overcrowded jails. Many of those released were convicted of drug offences. Only two were political prisoners and they had already been behind bars for almost two decades! Hundreds of political prisoners are still locked up, including the two Reuters journalists who have been in custody since December 2017.
"Give us Barabbas!"
Some people found it ironic that Notre Dame de Paris should burn down in Easter week, with the alleged crown of thorns having to be saved from the flames. This, I believe is even more so. The "notorious criminal" Barabbas was freed instead of Jesus. And now it seems Myanmar would be happy to free anyone, as long as it does not include seekers of justice.
Yesterday, a carpenter came along to give a quote on some work for the new UN-aligned office. Though a simple man, who lived all his life in a tiny village in the mountains, he was interested in the project and wanted to know more about it. I told him that it was an organisation that would be working for and united, healthy and just world. I gave a few examples from the UN-aligned Manifesto, such as making war illegal and enhancing respect for animal rights. He thought about it a while and then concluded that its chances were minimal.
They won't allow it!
His first objection was that "they" won't allow it. The "they" referred to greedy politicians and corporate business. I pointed out that UN-aligned was virtual to start with and that therefore they could not stop it. Only when UN-aligned would have enough members, would it register political parties. In the meantime, the organisation and its members would promote the ideal and campaign for the issues it believes in.
The Arena at Alba Fucens, Abruzzo
Bread & Circuses
His next criticism was that noble causes are doomed to failure anyway, because most people are only interested in their pleasure. "Pane e arene", he said, wisely: bread and circuses. Well, that's the point, I explained. 'Most' is not 'all'. If people who are concerned about human rights and the environment pool together, they will see how effective they can really be. I confessed that it could take time for UN-aligned to catch on. Still, I stressed, it never would, if it never started.
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
I told him as much in my own words and he half agreed; only half. His scepticism is understandable. In fact, it is the norm: idealism is for dreamers. So it was refreshing reading a tweet today by Donald Tusk:
At the summit one Prime Minister warned us not to be dreamers, not to think #Brexit could be reversed. But in this difficult moment, we need dreamer and dreams. We cannot give in to fatalism. At least I will not stop dreaming about a united Europe.
Well said, Mr Tusk! UN-aligned dreams of a united world!
Whenever people die, I rarely weep. Or if I do, it is for those caught up in the grief, or for the tragedy at large. A strong belief that the dead are heading for a better place, or at least an onward stage of their journey, has always kept me positive. I just shed all those unspent tears in one go at the sight of Notre Dame de Paris! In a world that is crumbling around us owing to our indifference to environmental and social issues, monuments like Notre Dame are symbols of hope. Alas! Notre Dame itself, after almost a thousand years of history, is no more.
In a way, artworks do go to heaven
Notre Dame is one of a series of great historical losses in the first decades of the 21st century. Notable examples are the Buddhas of Bamyan, blown up by the Taliban in 2001, the destruction of Palmyra by ISIS in 2015 and the fire that devastated the National Museum of Brazil a year ago.
Of course, in a way, art works do go to heaven. They are in our hearts and we take them with us. But for the moment it is many of us who are going with it, in burning grief. As for me, I feel my tears alone could have put this fire out!
The Zhuangzi, a Daoist text from the Warring States Period, complains at the bigotry of the day. It bemoans how every school of thought considers that it holds the monopoly of truth. Different senses perceive different aspects of reality, it explains, and we must pay heed to all of them in order to obtain a fuller picture of reality. Over two thousand years later and it appears as though things have not changed that much.
Scientists, of course, do use a range of methods to scratch deeper into the realities they are studying and they could certainly teach politicians a thing or two. Nevertheless, scientists sometimes also atrophy around a few precepts, equations and preconceptions. They may miss the magic of what it is they are studying. A scientist will often confuse poetry with meter, religion with dogma and beauty with utility. Feeling the magic of the universe is as important as describing it and its laws. In fact, it is more important.
Ignorance is not inevitable
So here, it is the politicians who can teach the scientists a useful lesson. The world does not always make sense. I guess quantum mechanics says as much. The folly of people is a case in point. Ignorance can be explained, but the fact that it is there in the first place, defies the supremacy of logic. Devious politicians find ways of tapping into this ignorance and they even encourage it. Hence the Trumps, Putins and Bolsonaros of this world.
Ignorance, however is not inevitable. It is the result of inherited bigotry, biased education or uninformed assumptions. Whilst truth requires a open-minded approach, as mentioned in the first paragraph, truth is not relative. Oppressing the underprivileged, destroying the planet and fanning hatred, as Trump loves to do, will always be evil and destructive.
The US must tighten up its hate speech laws
Trump's recent comments on Ilhan Omar is just one of his many vitriolic and hateful Tweets that aims to sow lies, hatred and discord. He is a disgrace to the nation he leads and blemish on all those who support him. If American hate laws allow this sort of behaviour, then certainly it is high time that they are changed.
Imagine if borders were drawn around ideals. One nation will have people who are racist, bigoted, enamoured with weapons and quite contemptuous of the environment and other lifeforms. Another will have people of the opposite mould. A third can be made up of those who are neither here or there; the indifferent multitudes who just want to plod along. This is possible in the virtual world. Let us call them country A, B and C, respectively. What country would you find yourself in?
The alpha bigots
If you happened to be in country A, you would have a lot of friends. You would certainly have many enemies too. Your country would probably have to be divided into countless different parts to cater for all your pockets of fanaticism. Your country will become many countries, each despising the other. The stronger will destroy the weaker, until a balance of power is achieved with a precarious peace. At this point there may even be a certain respect as the survivors will struggle to cope in a depleted world.
The good seed
B nationals would try to make the A's see reason. They would fail, but they may perhaps be able to preserve a corner of the world that can develop, despite the destructive tsunamis coming their way from country A and its spores. The tsunamis will be made up of climate change, mass extinctions ... even nuclear fallout, perhaps.
The wishy-washy complacent multitudes
Many citizens of country C will possibly be aroused enough to take sides as the world starts going to pot. Most will just carry on salvaging what they can for themselves, perhaps blaming everybody else in the process.
So there is something in the parable of the weeds amongst the wheat. The fact we are all jumbled up keeps the fools in check, somewhat. But for how long, when so many people are of the C mould? People of goodwill must pool together to ensure the planet and everything in it is not swept away once and for all. This is where UN-aligned can help. It is a force for good that will mobilise like-minded people and give them more of a say. The complacency of the C crowd is no longer and option.
After having been cooped up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years, Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is finally back in UK custody. There is an Italian saying that states that guests are like fish: after three days they start to stink. Assange certainly did not show gratitude to his long-suffering hosts. The statements by the Ecuadoran President below highlight the exasperation. He even threatened to sue them! The government of Ecuador has been remarkable patient while granting Assange asylum in their Embassy, after he had jumped bale relating to rape charges in Sweden. Seven years is a long time. There are, nevertheless, examples that are even more spectacular than his with regards to duration.
Extended asylum
The Hungarian Cardinal József Mindszenty is a case in point. After having been liberated from his imprisonment by the Nazi regime in 1945, he was soon behind bars again in 1948. This time under the Communists. He was freed during the short lived Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and this gave him a brief window of opportunity to seek refuge in the US Embassy in Budapest. He stayed there until 1971: a period of 15 years! His release was the outcome of a compromise Pope Paul VI reached with the Hungarian regime.
Smuggling him out was never an option
Assange has been confined to his quarters in the embassy since June 19, 2012. If you are wondering why they did not try to smuggle him out, the answer is that the chances of success would have been very slim.
Crowds waiting to hear Julian Assange speak from a window of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London in September 2012
In November 1964, Mordechai Louk, an Israeli citizen spying for Arab interests was drugged and bundled into a crate in the Embassy of the United Arab Republic (UAR) in Rome. The trunk he was in, which was labelled: UAR Embassy - Diplomatic Bag - Do not open, was intercepted in Rome when custom officers heard his moans within. However, it was whisked away by awaiting agents before the Italian authorities could open it. Eventually, the police managed to retrieve it after a blockbuster car chase. The details of the case are sketchy. The spectacular chase was apparently setup so that the UAR would not realise that their every move was being scrutinised by Mossad,the Israeli secret service.
The extradition nightmare
Anyway, the man is out now. In a manner of speaking, that is. Still, may find he is better off in a UK prison. At least he should be able to get some exercise and fresh air. What his long term prospects are, however, is another matter. If he is extradited to the US, which seem most likely, he will find himself in a country where the death penalty and by the looks of it, even torture is not out of the question.
Ah, but Trump praised WikiLeaks over a 100 times, you may be thinking. Well, to go back to another Italian (Sicilian) saying: nulla saccio; nulla vidi... I know nothing; I saw nothing... It is what mafia witnesses were accustomed to say. Brazenly, Trump stated today that he knows nothing about WikiLeaks. Welcome to Trump's America, Julian... And good luck!
For much of our history as religious beings, it was a taboo to abandon or change one's religion. Unless it was the ruler who decided. When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity after his battle on the Milvian Bridge, for instance, the people of the Roman Empire were soon pressured to follow suit. The conquering armies of Islam did the same. Once these religions became entrenched, individuals risked their lives by converting to another religion or simply abandoning the one they were born with. In fact, in many cases, the present tense would also apply. Nevertheless, most educated people would nowadays agree that this is wrong and that people have a right to chose their religion, or none at all.
Nationhood and compulsion...
When it comes to nationhood, however, the situation has changed little. It is generally accepted that you are stuck with your nationality. Nationality, like religion, is a synthetic denomination that is freely accepted or imposed on people. It is different from ethnicity or culture, although often related to these. On the one hand, there are nations that respect and support the cultures and ethnicities within their borders. On the other, nations may view these cultures and ethnicities as a threat.
Occasionally, a nation may be selective with regards to the what it will tolerate or support and what it will not. China for instance has 56 registered ethnic groups, including predominant Han, which constitute over 90% off the population. The categorisation is somewhat haphazard and different groups may be pooled in together for convenience. Most are respected and even celebrated. Some, like the Tibetans and Uyghurs are viewed with suspicion. The reason is obvious: separatism.
Separatism's many faces
There are many reasons why a people may wish to separate form the country they are lumped with. These reasons need not always be noble, such as a different tradition, history or belief system that suffers under the ruling majority (or minority). Sometimes, a people may wish to break away because they are sitting on the cash cows: oil, water, minerals... Of course, situations are rarely clear cut. There are so many factors involved in separatist claims, that adjudicating from an ethical point of view is far from straight forward.
UN-aligned
The problem is always exacerbated by that one word mentioned above: synthetic. Nationality is fluid. It changes with time. We confine it in borders. We subjugate it to constitutions. It becomes a kind of religion. We want to exploit it; just as we have abused religion.
Until individuals are put before nationality, it will always be an anomaly. The Unites Nations comes close to putting people first, but it has many flaws. The solution? A federal world order that respects individuals before national citizens. UN-aligned is an organisation working for such a world vision and it will be launched next month. Idealistic? Yes! Impossible! No! Follow the link and check it out!
Almost seven years ago now, I had written an article regarding Lake Malawi. I was not alone in my alarm at the news that government of Malawi had signed contracts with oil companies who were keen to start drilling for oil in the lake. This could have proved a disaster to the unique and privileged position the lake holds as an environmental paradise. A border dispute with Tanzania slammed the breaks on the project and thankfully, it has not been resolved too this day.
Lu Gu Hu in China; despite its size nothing motorised is allowed on the lake
The background to the dispute
It would only seem fair that the demarcation line of Lake Nyasa, or lake Malawi as it is also called, should lie in the median lines of the three nations surrounding it. They are Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi, and the 1884 Berlin Conference confirmed that that should be the case. Current international legislation would also lean towards the same conclusion.
The Heligoland Treaty between Germany and Britain in 1890, however, left the British in Nyasaland (now Malawi) in control of what was Tanganyika's part of the lake. When, in 1914, the British took Tanganyika over from Germany, they still placed most of the the lake under the jurisdiction of Nyasaland. This did not cause too much of a problem then, as Tanzania's fishing rights were more less respected.
The ecological importance of Lake Malawi
Mozambique's portion of the lake has been a protected nature reserve since 2011, while a section of it in Malawi forms part of the Lake Malawi National Park. This has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984. UNESCO describes it as:
Located at the southern end of the great expanse of Lake Malawi, with its deep, clear waters and mountain backdrop, the national park is home to many hundreds of fish species, nearly all endemic. Its importance for the study of evolution is comparable to that of the finches of the Galapagos Islands.
A silver lining
Tanzania is not stalling the drilling for ecological reasons. It wants its fair share of the booty. Nevertheless, drilling could prove catastrophic to the wildlife. It could also jeopardise the livelihoods of locals living and working around the lake. The Niger Delta and the Ogoni people can provide a perfect example of the nightmare scenarios that can ensure. So, for once, perhaps, a bureaucratic quagmire can preserve the limpid purity on a body of water on which so many lifeforms depend. Foe a time at least...
One of the first things that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro did after his inauguration on January 1, was to attack the environment. He did this via an executive order that transferred the supervision of swathes of the Amazon to the business orientated Ministry of Agriculture. It's a bit like entrusting the welfare of elephants to ivory traders. Indigenous reserves that fell under a special Ministry that worked for their protection are now at the mercy of business.
So, the Amazon forests, often referred to as "the lungs of the earth", are once again in danger and with them the health of the planet. As well as that, many species could be at risk owing to the destruction of their habitats. If all that were not enough, the livelihoods and very existence of indigenous tribes are also at risk.
Patronising the Macuxi
The Macuxi, who live around Raposa Serra do Sol, are such a people. They had fought for their rights and had won. For the last ten years they have been enjoying life without threats of exploitation. At the end of last year Bolsonaro put them back in the firing line:
“It is the richest area in the world. There are ways to exploit it rationally. And for the Indians, to give them royalties and integrate them into society,” he said in December.
Right-wing consistency
The consistent contempt right wing administrations have for the planet and for environmental issues is not coincidental. It is integral to right-wing philosophy, just as racism is. And for exactly the same reason: rapacious greed. This greed does not care if it steals from poor. It does not care if it slams the door on the rest of humanity. And most certainly, it does not care if it depletes the resources that belong to other lifeforms and future generations. No, It does not care, as long as the rich get richer.
Today is the 25th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. I wanted to write about it, but I cannot bring myself to give an account of those horrendous events. Up to one million people may have been brutally murdered. President Macron of France has just set up a committee to explore France's failings with respect to the slaughter; it's never too late, I guess. Other countries, however, are also criticised for having been complicit in one way or another, like the UK, the US and Belgium.
The healing process is not over
President Paul Kagame said that the Rwandans are "a family again" and he does deserve much of the credit for that. There are, however, still so many open wounds relating to loss, rape and disability, for instance. The healing process will therefore have to continue for many years to come. Rich countries who had turned a blind eye to the atrocities, or actually inflamed them, must do more to help with the reconstruction of shattered lives and infrastructure.
This documentary film on the genocide shows explicit scenes of violence. I could not watch it, but for anyone who can cope with the gruelling scenes, here it is:
Trump's administration seems determined to go ahead and label Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. In doing so, the US would be joining Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, two equally dubious administrations. The Revolutionary Guard is certainly "terrorist" in a sense, as it is responsible for terrorising Iran's own citizens, as well as those of other nations.
The defenders of the Islamic Republic
The IRGC is like a duplicate Iranian army, in as much as it structured that way, but that is where the comparison ends. The two forces have very different roles. The regular army (Artesh) has responsibilities similar to those of other armies around the world, relating primarily to defence and security.
The IRGC's role, on the other hand, is specific to the Islamic Revolution. It was founded by Ayatollah Khomeini immediately after he seized power in 1979. Its mission is to defend the Islamic nature of the regime, both from perceived threats within its borders and from assumed ones abroad. The former role has led it to oppress Iranian citizens, particularly more open minded ones. In the latter role it finds the pretext to intervene in the affairs of other countries, such as Syria and Yemen.
Trump has a point
Conscription is voluntary, therefore recruits are generally zealous about their position. So, perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where Trump has a point. BUT... His decision could make matters worse in a number of ways. So much so, that advice to the contrary has even come from the Pentagon and the CIA.
Labelling will only make matters worse
Their prime concern is that the move will add to the tension in the Middle East and open US troops to scrutiny and retaliation. As well as this, it would be the first time that the US government branded an army of a sovereign state as a terror group. This would open up a can of worms, since by the same criteria dozens of state armies would qualify, including, some would argue, the US and many of its allies. Making its hypocrisy public will not help the US in the long run. Thanks to Trump, the US is already experiencing a credibility problem. Why make it worse?
Diluting the word "terrorist" is also unhelpful
Another serious concern, however, is that by over using the word "terrorist" one can end up diluting its impact. It is a bit like "sexual abuse". When grown up people start moping about sexual abuse because someone may have tried to touch their knee or stroke their hair, they are actually making a mockery of what abuse really is. They are enemies to the cause that claim to espouse, often for their selfish interests.
The suffering inflicted by the IRGC, is undoubtedly a serious matter. They are worthy of the title, as they are responsible for "terror". Still, it is not what we generally mean when we speak of "terrorist", which always has the qualification "unlawful" associated with it. To use Trumps own words, there are probably some "very fine people" working for the IRGC. Branding them all terrorists is unhelpful.
When I wrote about the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), on March 16, I said that I would cover some of its members. I have already written about Taiwan and today I would like to say something about the Ogoni People. They consist of about 2,000,000 people who live in a 1,000 km2 area of the Niger Delta in Nigeria. In October 1990 they presented The Ogoni Bill of Rights to the Nigerian government in the hope of limited autonomy. This was because they were victims of serious exploitation from the government, in collaboration with Royal Dutch /Shell.
Ken Sara-Wiwa their hero
Their champion was one of their own, Ken Sara-Wiwa, an environmental activist. He was also a talented author and well-known television producer. He dedicated much of his life to the Ogoni cause. This was linked to the depletion of arable lands and livelihoods that resulted from the oil industry. Moves to extract oil began in under British rule in 1956 and continued after Nigeria became an independent federation in 1960. Drilling resulted in thousands of oil-spills that devastated much of the Niger Delta region, including the Ogoni homeland. Despite the wealth that the industry produced, the locals were actually left worse off.
Sara-Wiwa and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) were equally committed to their cause as they were to non-violence. This, however, just made it easier for the military dictatorship of Sani Abacha to try to silence them through brutal repression. Sara-Wiwa knew what he was up against from the beginning. After his final arrest, he wrote in a letter to his Irish friend and ally, Sister Majella McCarron:
I'm not worried for myself. When I undertook to confront Shell & the Nigerian establishment, I signed my death warrant, so to speak. At 52, I think I've lived a charmed life. A few more books, maybe, & the opportunity to assist others would would have been welcome. But it's okay.
Suppression will not silence them
What he was worried about was his people; although he always believed that justice would triumph in the end. He was arrested in May 1994 on trumped-up charges and sentenced in a rigged trial with eight other activists (Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine) They were hanged in November 1995 and became renowned as the Ogoni Nine. After the execution, in a rare display of principle, the Commonwealth of Nations stripped Nigeria of its membership. The struggle continues and as Sara-Wiwa pointed out, when he realised that he would not be allowed to attend a ceremony in his honour:
There or not, my words will ring through all the places...
I will share some of Sara-Wiwa's poems in the Scrapbook section of the site at a later date. Now I would like to conclude with a most touching one by his friend Sister Majella:
Yesterday, the UK parliament passed a Bill that would ensure that the Prime Minister would seek an extension to Brexit negotiations rather than crash out of the EU without a deal. The Bill passed by just one vote, but it still has to get the go-ahead form the House of Lords. Owing to the little time left, filibustering by the Lords could easily make the Bill redundant, without anyone even having to reject it. It could even be undermined by delaying tactics after it returned to the House of Commons. Besides, without a concrete plan, asking for an extension from the EU would not be sufficient to secure one. So, the uncertainty lingers...
Here is a wonderful assessment of the Brexit situation in an article by Martin Fletcher in the New Statesman: The Humbling of Britain.
When the Scottish people were asked to vote on independence form the United Kingdom in 2014, they were well informed. The Government published a 670 page document detailing all the implications: Scotland's Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland. This document begins with clear bullet points outlining the general benefits and additional ones relating to the governing party's plans to maximise the opportunities.
When voters in the UK were presented with the referendum on whether to leave the European Union (EU) or not, they were given a pack... of lies. If the Scots had opted to leave, the situation, of course, would not have been comparable to the chaotic Brexit scenario. Apart form the planning and the availability of information, there was another important ingredient: the EU. Scotland's intention was to remain in the EU, or reapply if that were not possible. So, there were no headaches of "hard" or "soft" borders between the remaining parts of the UK and an independent Scotland, or other nightmare scenarios.
The situation in 2014
The EU, however, was cagey about Scotland's position, if it were to choose to leave the UK. The last thing that countries with breakaway problems of their own, like Spain, wanted, was to encourage separatism. This uncertainty may have tipped the balance in favour of Scotland remaining within the UK. Then, the remain side won by 55%.
The situation now
It is surprising how much can change in five years. Scotland is now faced with leaving the EU, even though it voted by a majority of 62% to remain, or staying in the UK. Ian Blackford MP, the Scottish National Party (SNP) representative has stressed in no uncertain terms that his party's priority lies with Europe. The Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has also made this very clear. Whilst the result of another Scottish referendum is by no means certain, the fact that another is coming is evident. The Scottish government, unlike the one in Westminster, is not ignorant to the fact that situations change. The fact that Prime Minister Theresa May refuses to take the Brexit vote back to the people beggars belief, although she may still be forces to do that.
What will an independent Scotland look like?
It would be difficult to predict, at this point in time, what an independent Scotland could look like. On the one hand, if a hard or "no deal" Brexit prevails, Scottish independence would be more likely. But it would also be more complicated. On the other, a soft Brexit, or the revoking of Article 50 (i.e. no Brexit) would make separation a lot easier, but less likely. In the second scenario, the situation would be similar to that described in Scotland's Future. In the first, it would be better still. Scotland would be in a position to scoop up much of the world's, and particularly the EU's, interest in Britain. All sorts of projects (business, educational, cultural...) could flourish flawlessly with the EU.
Needless to say, this will come at a substantial cost, unless some sort of mutually beneficial trading agreement is not agreed between Scotland and the UK (minus Scotland). At the moment, Scotland exports £48.9 bn to the rest of the UK and only 14.9 to the EU. The free movement of people could also become a serious problem, without appropriate treaties. Whatever the likely consequences, one thing ia almost certain: the Scottish people will be given an informed choice.
