Why your signature matters to the people on the street in Bahrain

On Friday morning the online team at Amnesty International was in for a pleasant surprise.


At work we have our Amnesty website open on our computers throughout the day and are very familiar with trends on the number of people who sign our web petitions.

That’s why when we posted a petition addressed to the King of Bahrain on Thursday afternoon we were amazed to see that in less than 24 hours nearly 13,000 people had signed on. Wow.


But how did that happen?


Read the rest of my piece on the Amnesty International blog - Livewire.

Book Review: Egypt's Road to Jerusalem.

At the height of the February uprising in Egypt I happened to come upon former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s book ‘Egypt’s road to Jerusalem’. I thought this was a good time to read his story and found a cautiously written tale about the inner workings of the negotiating teams of Egypt and Israel that led to the signing of the historic peace treaty between the two countries in March 1979.



The book starts with the rather sudden and unexpected appointment of Boutros-Ghali as a Minister of State in President Anwar al-Sadat’s cabinet before Sadat’s ground-breaking trip to Jerusalem in 1977. It details the various conferences and characters that populated the peace process after that visit till the time the peace treaty was eventually signed two years later.


The book’s strength is not so much the overall insider’s history as much as it is the countless anecdotes Boutros-Ghali provides about world leaders. It is surprisingly limited however in its portraiture of the main actors such as Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, Jimmy Carter, and most importantly Anwar al-Sadat. Of the personalities of these men, there are only glimpses.


The impression of Sadat I was left with through the vignettes was not a visionary of peace but more a secretive, unpredictable military man bent on winning back territory (Sinai Peninsula) through peace since he hadn’t been able to achieve it through war. That’s why the Israeli lack of sincerity in engaging on the question of Palestinian autonomy (something the Egyptians wanted to club with the return of the Sinai) didn’t eventually derail the peace treaty. Of course I could be horribly wrong.


Sadat was also strangely impervious to Arab, African and non-aligned countries’ criticism. Boutros-Ghali observes, “Sadat seemed ready to do with Egypt what Kemal Ataturk had done with Turkey – cut it loose from its most important historical, religious and cultural roots and become an integral part of the West.”


The Israeli side comes across as hard and unyielding. The Camp David Accords which led to the peace treaty were signed even as Israel launched its first invasion into Lebanon. A year later, Israel reversed a 1967 decision and started allowing Israelis to buy land in the West Bank and Gaza. Negotiations on Palestinian self-rule didn’t go anywhere and Begin successfully put pressure on Sadat to stop Boutros-Ghali from constantly raising the Palestinian question.


The best bits of the book however are Boutros-Ghali’s descriptions of his swing through Africa drumming up support for Egypt and Latin America requesting troops for a multinational peace-keeping force in the Sinai.


There is a great anecdote of his bizarre meeting with Ugandan leader Idi Amin. Amin took him on a boat to a place called Paradise Island, where he insisted on having the meeting in his bedroom without any aides.

Boutros-Ghali noticed that there were three doors designed to give Amin several escape routes in case of an assassination. Idi Amin saw everyone as a potential assassin. As if all that wasn’t weird enough, Amin suggested that Boutros-Ghali lie down on the bed to rest next to him. Hardly what you expect to happen when diplomats and world leaders meet!


The book’s final chapter is gripping in its description of the events of sixth October. The annual military parade is held on this day to commemorate the breaking of Israel’s Bar-Lev Line on the Sinai front during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. As a Minister, Boutros-Ghali was expected to attend and would probably have been seated close to Anwar al-Sadat except he and his wife broke with protocol and decided to visit friends in Alexandria instead.


What is utterly fascinating is how Boutros-Ghali got to know of the attempt on Sadat’s life, especially because it is inconceivable in today’s well-connected world. As he relaxed on the beach, an old lady, recognising him, walked up to Boutros-Ghali and told him that she had heard reports on a foreign radio station about some trouble at the parade in Cairo. Boutros-Ghali gently told her not to believe the foreign press which he said was always fomenting trouble.


But she returned shortly afterwards for a second and a third time to say she had heard it on the BBC so he must investigate. Sure enough, when Boutros-Ghali went back home, he already had officials waiting to take him back to Cairo by train in a specially reserved coach.

Boutros-Ghali broke down and cried for Anwar al-Sadat had not survived his assassin’s bullets after a brief battle in hospital. Sinai had not yet officially been returned to Egypt and the architect of the peace treaty would not live to see the completion of his dream.

Birthday wishes to a blogger in prison

 

On her 26th birthday, Shiva Nazar Ahari, is in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison. Her birthday celebration happened thousands of miles away in London, outside the Amnesty International headquarters. At 1 pm on June 10th, Amnesty staff came together with cakes and candles to sing her a birthday song. At the end of it they yelled into the camera, with a message meant for the Iranian regime, “Release Shiva, NOW!”

 

Shiva is a journalist and blogger and a member of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters (CHRR). She was first arrested in June last year for three months before being released on bail.

But she was re-arrested in December 2009 and has been in jail ever since. When her family spoke to her on the phone in February 2010 she told them that she had been transferred to a “cage-like” solitary confinement cell where she ‘couldn’t move her arms and legs.’

The charges against her are in keeping with the worst traditions of lunacy and insecurity that this Iranian regime displays. They include, “causing unease in the public mind through writing on the CHRR’s website and other sites” and the more predictable “acting against national security by participating in anti-government demonstrations” on 4th November and 7th December last year. Shiva says she was at work on both those days.

So today, from one female blogger to another – Happy Birthday! And more power to you in this fight.

"For weeks my kids did not talk, they were so scared."

 (Photo Courtesy: AP)

Amnesty International interviewed a survivor of the conflict in Sri Lanka between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government’s armed forces. Vasuki (name changed) gives us a brief snapshot of what it was like living in the war zone trying to stay alive with 2 small children.

“In December 2008 I was living in Kilinochchi when my home came under aerial attack. We were displaced to Viswamadhu in Mullaitivu. The early days of displacement were not too difficult as Viswamadhu is an agricultural area. It was when we moved to PTK that we started to feel the pinch. We lived in a tent over a bunker. When there was no attack or shelling we could cook outside but when shelling was heavy we had to stay in the bunker for hours cooking and living there. For weeks my kids did not talk, they were so scared. They had to witness people dying from shell attacks and the memory of dead bodies lying all around will probably never vanish.

In March we had to move to Matalan in Mullivaikkal – this was crammed with tens of thousands of people. By now people had finished their supplies and eaten all they had, even their cattle. I had to fast so that I could feed my children and just drank the water I cooked the rice in. Elderly people collapsed around us or slipped into comas. I have to admit I tried to kill myself because I was so depressed but my daughters begged me not to give up. What kept us going was a belief that the UN would intervene to stop the terrible human suffering.

Shelling got steadily worse. Then on 15 May a huge explosion forced us to move towards Vella Mullivaikkal. I can’t describe the horror around us - we had to fight our way across a carpet of dead bodies. We finally made our way to Vatavahal bridge. Along the way the Army fired at us. 

I find it hard to talk about this time.... people were also not happy with the LTTE as they forcibly recruited from families. What I know is that people want to live in peace but we cannot forget all those we left behind. You can’t give us back what we lost but you can give us justice”.

If Vasuki’s story moves you please take action by signing a petition to call on the UN to open an independent investigation into war crimes committed by both sides.

Top 10 Things To Know About Post-conflict Situation in Sri Lanka

May 18^th, marks the first anniversary of the end of the war in Sri Lanka when the government concluded its campaign against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The LTTE’s dreaded leader V. Prabhakaran is dead, as are all his senior colleagues and for now the banned terrorist group has been destroyed.

But there needs to be a serious and independent investigation into the war crimes said to be committed by both sides during the final months of the war between January and May 2009. The SL government estimates that about 3,000 to 5,000 civilians were killed but unofficial estimates by UN personnel present in SL during that time say that the real figure could be closer to 20,000 if not more.

I know some people argue that war is dirty business; that you can’t have a war where everyone comes out smelling of roses. True. But there are rules even for the conduct of war and if the Sri Lankan government has observed those rules, it should not be afraid of an independent investigation. But it won’t allow one. And countries like China, Russia and India are helping it cover up its crimes.

Even the manner in which the Sri Lankan government has handled the post-conflict situation and the terrible, terrible punishment that the Tamils are being made to pay for this collectively is shameful.

Amnesty International put together this list of ‘Top 10 Things to Know’ about the post-conflict situation in Sri Lanka. The next time you hear the argument, “But war is dirty business…..” remember to quote one of these 10 points.

1. Despite reports of torture, rape and killings in detention and IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camps since spring 2009, the SL government has not allowed impartial observers to investigate the validity of the claims and monitor the situation.  
2. Despite the government’s promise that all would be released from the post-war camps for the displaced in Menik Farm and elsewhere by the end of January 2010, 70,000 people are still in camps.
3. Atleast 10,000 ppl (incl. appx. 500 children) have been detained because of alleged ties to the Tamil Tigers. We don’t know exactly who, how many or even where they are being held.
4. Red Cross has been denied access to detention camps for child ex-combatants since July 2009. Even UNICEF has had very limited access.
5. Despite government promises, a vast majority of the returnees from IDP camps do not have adequate housing, potable water and sewerage.
6. The UNHCR has had to stop its shelter grant of US$220 to all future returnees from IDP camps due to a lack of funds. The shelter grant is crucial assistance to help people rebuild their homes.
7. SL has become one of the most dangerous places in the world to freely express an opinion. Attacks against journalists and civil society activists have risen in the last 4 yrs and dozens of journalists have fled.
8. Sri Lanka has the second largest number of enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings after Iraq according to the UN.
9. After the war against the Tamil Tigers ended in May 2009, SL President Rajapakse promised UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-Moon that his govt. would look into claims of human rights abuse and possible war crimes committed during the war. There are claims that anywhere from 10,000 to 40,000 people were killed in the final weeks alone. But the govt. has taken no serious action so far.
10. Despite the tens of thousands of crimes committed over the last 30 yrs only a handful of perpetrators have ever been convicted. There is little hope for victims’ families to find justice inside SL.

Interview With Director of 'Afghanistan: On the Dollar Trail'

 Paul Moreira in Monte Carlo in 2007 receiving an award for his documentary on Iraq - "Agony of a Nation".

  

 Introduction:

680. That was the number that set investigative journalist Paul Moreira on the road to Kabul. At the 2008 Donors Conference in Paris, USAID made the claim that they had built 680 schools in Afghanistan. But it didn’t sound like the truth to Paul Moreira and he decided to check it out himself.

Moreira’s documentary, ‘Afghanistan: On the Dollar Trail’ is the result of his investigation into whether these schools were ever built. The film also contrasts the misery of ordinary Afghans, with the corrupt political class when Moreira stumbles upon the Walt Disney end of Kabul where people are building Cinderella-castle style homes.

Paul Moreira has built a career out of his investigative skills. In 1999 he launched an investigative show on Canal Plus TV and in 2006 he set up his own TV company - Premières Lignes based in Paris. His first investigative documentary about Iraq, ‘Agony of a Nation’, was awarded ‘Best Documentary’ at Festival International de Télévision de Monte-Carlo’ and ‘Best Investigative Documentary’ at Festival International du Grand Reportage d’Actualité.’ 

I interviewed him via email.

Q1. Why did you choose as the starting point of your film, the Donors Conference held in Paris in 2008 where nearly 21 billion USD was pledged to rebuild Afghanistan’s infrastructure and institutions? Did the claims made at the conference strike you as hollow?

I did not know exactly if I would use anything from the Donors conference in Paris. But I still went with a camera, just in case... I knew I wanted to go to the root of why the insurgency was gaining such momentum and support among the population. I knew money was definitely an issue. I suspected there would be a lot of spin going on too. I was right. Beyond what I could imagine. 

There were 300 journalists, all separated from the conference by a security apparatus and a wall. We were all following the conference on an internal TV network. Every one was there, agencies, TVs, papers... frustrated! No access. Then Hamid Karzai (Afghan President) and Bernard Kouchner (Foreign Minister of France) came out to announce a new injection of funds in the Aga Khan Hospital in Kabul (by the way, one of the only donor created institutions that works fine...). After the announcement, all the journalists were literally rushing towards Karzai, asking the question every one wanted to ask -Corruption, where is the money going? I remember Karzai was elbowing his way back to the other side of the wall. Due to the crowd of reporters around him he couldn’t and had to answer some of these questions before security guys reset a safety zone between him and the press.

Then there was the communication of USAID. The man responsible for Afghanistan was there, Mr Yates -  soft spoken, good manners, very friendly. I did an interview with him and the only figures he gave me were on the number of schools USAID had help build anew or refurbish: 680 schools. I just told him I would do a reality check on that. "Vous êtes le bienvenu" (“You’re welcome”), he answered in a perfect French. But I never saw him again and I couldn’t get him in front of a camera once on the field - Especially after I discovered the schools were not easy to find.

You can read the entire interview on the International Affairs Review website where it was published on 28th March 2010.

 

When Its Israel-Palestine – Everything is Political

A few days ago I attended a panel discussion at the London School of Economics on the Goldstone Report – a fact-finding mission established by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate the Gaza War.

I got to the Sheikh Zayed Theatre early and was squeezed behind a long table with people on all sides. The event was obviously so keenly awaited that LSE wasn’t giving anyone the luxury of spreading out wherever they liked. It was a packed house.

Interestingly, this meant that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum were sitting uncomfortably close to each other. And engaging though the panelists’ speeches were the responses from different corners of the audience were equally interesting.

The speakers included Professor Christine Chinkin who was part of the mission headed by Judge Richard Goldstone and Colonel Desmond Travers, retired from the Irish Armed Forces and also part of the mission. The Israeli side was represented by Ami Ayalon – former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s Secret Service, former commander-in-chief of the Navy and former member of the Knesset. Ayalon incidentally, faced the threat of arrest under universal jurisdiction if pro-Palestinian groups had sought an arrest warrant. Representing the Palestinian view-point was Karma Nabulsi – a lecturer at Oxford University and Director of Civitas– a project that establishes civic structures for Palestinian refugees and exile communities. It was moderated by Lakhdar Brahimi, veteran UN envoy and advisor.

My aim is not to give you a full account of who said what but to tell you something about the attitudes in the room and how this conflict from thousands of miles away can enter a room anywhere and poison the air.

However, to explain this, I have to tell you about the fabulously hypocritical assertions made by Ami Ayalon. He began with the solemn assertion that ‘War is horrible. If we don’t understand it, we understand nothing. There is no ideal war.’ He made it clear that he had been against Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

With that opening he switched to the subject of the Goldstone report. Rather, having accepted the invitation to a panel called specifically to discuss this report, he arrogantly asserted that in fact, he didn’t want to talk about it. He said, “We have to take a decision in this room – discuss Goldstone or discuss peace. We can’t do both.” Huh?? Why not?

Mocking the work of people who use civil rights and international law in their arguments (all the other panellists), he dismissed them saying they used the language of “blame and guilt.” So, he said there was no need to talk about the report because he wanted to introduce a new dictionary, by using the language of “responsibility”. That’s what the Goldstone report does by the way. Places responsibility and on both sides.

But more insensitivity followed. He declared, “We should not look for justice. We have to look for fairness and honesty.” Difference please? Then he said that we can’t look at the past but “jump far ahead into the future and imagine peace.” What??? Wasn’t Israel created because it was in the very distant past a homeland of the Jews???

He then began his favourite chapter when he said he knew nothing about international law but he knew Hamas and Muslim fundamentalism and proceeded to tell the room how the Palestinian idea of victory was now reduced to seeing Jewish blood spilt on the streets.

It is no ones argument that Hamas is peace-loving. It has proved to be as ruthless in its use of Palestinians as human shields and suicide bombers. But. BUT, what is really depressing listening to men like Ayalon and seeing his supporters clap vigorously after his dumb speech is that they have taken the position of being blind to the ruthlessness, brutality, hypocrisy and racism of their own side. Question it and you’ll be accused of everything from naivety to anti-semitism and terrorism. None dare question the right of Israel to kill, maim, bomb, burn, destroy, block, steal, grab and annex.

But I digress. Returning to the politics of the room…. So while Ami Ayalon was banging on about all this, Karma Nabulsi initially responded with smirks, then allowed herself to laugh and occasionally shook her head in a way that suggested she was thinking, “Oh…. you cruel, cruel fool.”

Nabulsi came on and made an elegant speech about why we need international law and that Israel was clearly not achieving peace by force so it should try achieving it by obeying the law for a change. That international law is not international politics is a very hard argument to make anyway, and in front of that crowd, it was obviously met with much scoffing and skepticism.

Then during the Q and A, Ayalon rudely looked at his watch when Brahimi asked a long question. Nabulsi at one point bodily turned away from the whole panel because she found (I presume) Ayalon’s comments ludicrous. Then the moderator who was reading out written questions from the audience couldn’t pronounce one writer’s name correctly. She stumbled saying, “umm…I think it a kaidi…al-kader..” And someone in the audience laughed and said, “Al-Qaeda.” Would such an inappropriate “joke” about a Jewish name be accepted? Certainly not. But it was boldly and shamefully made by someone in the crowd. Also most of the written questions were pro-Israeli. Was it a smart strategy to crowd out negative discussion of Israel, I wondered?

At the end of the discussion a white woman with frizzy hair wearing a badge which said, “Free Palestine” stood up and started shouting at the top of her voice that Ami Ayalon had blood on his hands. I couldn’t catch what she said because she was outshouted by others in the room. One staunch Israeli supporter yelled, “Go get your head tonsured.”

I walked out with the skin on my face feeling hot. I reckon both sides left feeling more entrenched in their positions which unfortunately defeats the purpose of discussions. But such is the intractability of the Israel-Palestine conflict. You can’t even discuss it neutrally in a nice comfortable theatre thousands of miles away.

THE SITUATION IN SRI LANKA

The tiny island of Sri Lanka has been ravaged by an on-again, off-again civil war since 1983. The militant, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has been battling the Sri Lankan government, for a separate Tamil homeland, Eelam, in the north and east of the island but without much success. In the process, nearly 70,000 civilians have died. The present government under President Mahinda Rajapakse has re-launched a military offensive to finish off the LTTE militarily. To make sense of the latest conflict, I interviewed Associate Editor of Indian newspaper, Deccan Herald, Sundararajan Murari.

Murari has toured Sri Lanka extensively and has covered the conflict for the last 25 years and has met several LTTE leaders, including Prabhakaran twice. He responded to questions over email from his hometown in Chennai, India.

Murari is both a friend and former colleague when I was working in Chennai. He is an excellent source for all things Dravidian and Lankan. You can read his interview on the website of the International Affairs Review.

PRESIDENT OBAMA MEETS WITH 9/11 AND COLE FAMILIES

John Clodfeller, father of Kenneth Clodfeller who died in the attack against the USS Cole in 2000.

The White House press waiting for the 9/11 and Cole families.

For all the Republican talk about supporting the troops, it was with some surprise that I learnt that George Bush hadn’t once met the victims of the bombing of the USS Cole in which 17 American servicemen died.

On February 6th, President Obama met the Cole families along with families of the victims of 9/11.The meeting was meant to allay some of their fears about the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the 120 day suspension in legal proceedings against terror suspects detained there.

The press staked out outside the West wing of the White House for a few hours waiting for the families after the meeting. The 9/11 families left without speaking to the media but the parents of Kenneth Clodfeller, who passed away in the Cole attack stayed to speak to the press. Accompanying them was the retired Cmdr. of the USS Cole, Kirk Lippold.

Cmdr. Lippold had criticized President Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay and while he emerged from the meeting “pleased with what the President said”, he still had strong reservations about the decision. He said, “It (Guantanamo Bay) served as a symbol of the war on terror that was affecting our national interests worldwide and overall the only issue that I still have with it was that he closed it on a one year date and still has to articulate procedures and policies for what hes going to do. So until those procedures and policies are actually laid out I think there is still a lot of concern as to what effect it’s going to have on our nation’s security.”

I asked him if that meant that he agreed in principle now with the closure decision to which he said, “I think that in principle the reasons that he gave may be good. Its well intentioned. But the problem I have remains that we still don’t have any procedures. There’s no process. He hasn’t articulated the specifics as to what hes going to do which means that they haven’t thought through the second and third order of impacts of that decision and we cannot afford to be arbitrarily setting deadlines without having to explain what the impact is going to be. We must have that.”

The families have been somewhat taken aback by the pace at which policy reversals have happened and Cmdr. Lippold strongly felt that President Obama should have met the families before making the decision to close Guantanamo and not after. That said, Cmdr. Lippold was also pleased that the White House had attempted to start a dialogue with military families. He said, “When it was all said and done he offered somethings that previously has never been done and for the first time, military families and families of 9/11 are going to have a seat at the table to be able to help this administration and have an open door as we articulate the policies that are going to keep our nation safe. I’m looking forward to working and seeing how they do.”

FAMILIES HAVE WAITED 8 YEARS

Most of the families came to the meeting with the impression that President Obama was going to release all the detainees of Guantanamo Bay – a fear that was allayed atleast for one USS Cole victim’s family – the Clodfellers from Mechanicsville, VA.

John Clodfeller’s son Kenneth’s body was the last to be found after the Cole bombing in Yemen. The former Air Force Officer became extremely emotional while talking to the media. It was clear that being remembered by the highest authority in the land meant a lot to him and in fact, the new young, President seemed to have had a remarkable influence on him.

Describing the meeting he said, “He (President Obama) really wants our help in trying to resolve this detainee issue. I did not vote for the man but the way he conducts himself, the way he talks to you, you can’t help but believe him. This President has a good possibility of being one of our best Presidents just because of the way he is as a human being.”

Abd-al-Rahim al-Nashiri has been accused of masterminding the USS Cole attack in which Kenneth Clodfeller died. But al-Nashiri has said that he was tortured to extract such a confession. The CIA has admitted that it “waterboarded” him but the interrogation tapes have since been destroyed.

Referring to the status of al-Nashiri Clodfeller said, “I can’t imagine an American that’s in one of our prisons for eight years without anything being done for him. It is just unconscionable that it’s taken eight years. They had him locked up and incommunicado. I asked CIA once, “Where is he?” and they refused to tell me," he said.

Clodfeller had tried to meet with President Bush through his representative in Congress but in vain. He said Bush’s refusal to meet with the Cole families led him to believe that “there’s something that they don’t want us to know about.”

His wife Gloria Clodfeller who was also at the meeting with Obama said that she agreed with President Obama’s policy of closing Guantanamo because it was “putting a black eye on America.” She said, “Hes trying to build up the way people feel about America again. To get our respect back which we have lost. I agree with that. Hes not closing it to let the prisoners be released. Hes just establishing a whole new mission so that way they can make the process move like its supposed to be so that by the end of the year everybody should know whats going on and they should be able to get the place cleared. And that the legal process should be exactly what it should be.”

“I just don’t believe in torturing or hurting people or anything like that. That’s my faith. Prisons should be able to rehabilitate people and no they’re not doing that. They’re just leaving them there to sit and stew and think and come up with more ideas about what they can do once they get off.”

Of the meeting with the President she said, “I feel like at least we’re getting an answer. At least somebody is talking to us. Somebody is letting us know after 8 years, no you’re not forgotten…”

I’m not entirely sure how other victims’ families felt after the meeting with President Obama. The Clodfellers are just one of the nearly 40 who attended.

CRIMINALISING HUMANITARIAN AID IN ETHIOPIA

David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy who visited Ethiopia.

“I didn’t go there wagging my finger intending to lecture. I went because we want to see Ethiopia succeed.” David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies last month. The comment followed Kramer’s meeting with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He was there to discuss the controversial law that would severely threaten civil society organizations (CSOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and US government aid projects in Ethiopia..

If passed, the CSO law will severely limit organizations like Yoseph Mulugeta’s Ethiopia Human Rights Council. NGOs will have to get the state’s permission before spending money on public relations. Their judicial freedoms will be restricted. They will have to surrender confidential testimonies of abused victims. And even Ethiopians living outside the country will not be able to donate to NGOs.

“The overall effect of all these restrictions is in many ways the extinction of NGOs, particularly those that are engaged in advocacy and the promotion of peace and democracy,” Mulugeta said. He ruled out surviving on domestic funds saying, “Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world and individual contributions are not much. So we will have to abandon our activities and close down.”

But the CSO law is only the latest in a series of measures taken by the Ethiopian government that shrink political space and freedom. This was the consensus amongst a panel of experts brought together to discuss “Human Rights and Governance in Ethiopia.” The speakers included, Yoseph Mulugeta Badwaza, from the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHCRO), Chris Albin-Lackey, Special Initiatives Researcher in the Africa Division at Human Rights Watch and Terrence Lyons, Associate Professor of Conflict, Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at the George Mason University. Lasting well over two hours, the discussion was moderated by Jennifer Cooke, Director of the Africa Program at CSIS.

The US has raised many concerns over the proposed CSO legislation because of its restrictions on foreign funding and the debilitating effect it could have on most NGOs in Ethiopia. Many are unable to raise money without access to foreign funding. David Kramer said, “We raised concerns with things like the 10% threshold of foreign financing that would raise lots of questions about organizations given the dearth of funding domestically for many operations.”

The draft law also proposes a cap on administrative overheads for NGOs. Kramer said, “I quite simply don’t understand why the government is legislating how much an NGO can spend on overhead.”

Kramer raised these issues the Ethiopian government as a “friend” and “ally”. The US wants to maintain a close relationship with Ethiopia and ensure the country prospers. The US wants to see in Ethiopia a “democratic, prosperous member of the international community, fully integrated so it represents a real stable anchor in the region,” Kramer said.

Ethiopia is a key US ally in an extremely unstable region and the relationship between the two countries hinges largely on cooperation in counter-terrorism. But the US government also provides significant humanitarian assistance to the country. Then why does Washington have such little leverage with the government in Addis Ababa to make it reconsider this legislation?

Kramer replied, “We don’t want to politicize humanitarian assistance; we don’t want to politicize HIV/AIDS assistance. Those are programs we need to continue and support because life and death is at stake…[but],” he continued, “I think what we can do and need to do more of is co-ordination with the donors. Speaking collectively, we do perhaps add onto more leverage than might otherwise be the case if it’s simply the United States voicing concerns.”
Not everyone participating in the discussion agreed with Kramer.

The US foreign assistance package offers limited room for leverage, according to Lyons. Citing statistics from last year, he said, “In 2007, US assistance to Ethiopia was – 50% for HIV/AIDS, 30% for emergency food aid, 7% for child survival and malaria prevention, 1.5% for agriculture, 1.5% for economic growth, 1.5% for education and 1% for democracy and governance, said Terrance Lyons.

“You don’t get leverage that way! You can’t say “Just pass the CSO law and I’m going to throw the AIDS victims onto the street!”

Chris-Albin Lackey from Human Rights Watch, also warned that the CSO law was “a bellwether and an alarming signal about the overall direction that Ethiopia is moving in.”
He connected the trend towards a shrinking political space with some of the undemocratic, ruthless counter-terrorism measures employed by the Ethiopian government. He said the government had escaped all accountability for the major abuses and crimes committed against ordinary civilians and the trade blockade imposed in the name of counter-terrorism efforts against the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). He said, “Many believe this is just an extension of the old Ethiopian counter-insurgency strategy of draining the sea to kill the fish, as the same strategy was called during the 1980s.”

There is little or no credible information coming out of the Ogaden. The Ethiopian government denies access to most human rights groups. Lackey said the absence of information “will only be aggravated by the CSO law.” He added, “There is also an increasing tendency particularly at the local level of the state to view any and all critics as enemies and traitors.”

Listing out a pattern of abuses committed by the Ethiopian military against civilians, Lackey said the official response has been that “every single allegation is a lie. There has been no investigation and no attempt at meaningful accountability.”

He ended by rebuking the US government for not doing anything about allegations of torture, detention and murder. He said, “The very clear signal coming out of Washington has been that none of these abuses matter. Until that changes there will not be any meaningful international leverage possible around these issues.”

This article is also available on the website of the International Affairs Review, a publication of the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University.

SOME THOUGHTS ON ORISSA

Houses and churches were vandalised even in the first round of violence that hit Kandhamal district over Christmas 2007. Nearly 11 people were killed. Photo credit: Dr. Angana P. Chatterji

The Indian media devoted significant chunks of time and space to the Indo-US nuclear deal. But in the US, its coverage was conspicuous by its absence. The 700 billion dollar bail-out package and the shenanigans of the legislators on the Hill overtook everything else. Bush’s rare foreign policy ‘success’ went largely unnoticed.

So, given that a huge story involving India, of tremendous national and international importance got the royal ignore, how did the communal conflagration in Orissa make it to the front page? In the New York Times this morning was a colour photograph with a story headlined – ‘Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee.’

I am surprised not because it made the front page. I am surprised because there is enough and more happening on the campaign and in the American economy to dominate the front page. This is not to say that I am disappointed. I think such awareness forces India to be more accountable for its actions and that is a very, very, good thing.

What intrigues me is why this particular story received such prominent status.

The obvious answer is of course that several western Christian nations, the Vatican included, have questioned India on what it is doing to protect its co-religionists.

But a somewhat deeper and more convoluted answer is that the concern of the west is itself part of a long tradition of Christendom. For instance, before the 20th century, humanitarian intervention in military form, to protect people other than the intervening nation’s own nationals was largely done to protect only Christians from the Ottomans. In fact, “human” in the word 'humanitarian' two centuries ago usually meant being Christian. Persecuted Jews and Turks were ruthlessly massacred with nary a word of concern from anyone.

And interestingly, the discussion in India over the Orissa story has involved the damage to India’s image because it is the powerful west for the first time seeing one of its interests threatened inside India and raising questions on its conduct. Contrast this concern over the dent to the Indian image with the outrage over the US denying Modi a visa over Muslim killings in Gujarat. There was plenty of nationalistic anger over Indian sovereignty being undermined. With the Orissa story it is almost entirely about ‘image’.

Isn’t the contrast interesting?

OBAMA GETS IT

Father: You need to learn how to drive because I can't afford to have you wreck my car again.

Son: But if I hadn't, your car wouldn't be shining with this new coat of red paint. Why can't you appreciate the makeover?

Father: Because it cost me money and if you don't learn how to drive you'll wreck my car again!

Now replace the frustrated father with Barack Obama and the cocky son with John McCain. If the logic of the two candidates on Iraq can be reduced to a simple analogy then this serves the purpose.

John McCain doesn't get it. He glorifies a tactic – the 'surge' in Iraq – but stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the failure of the strategy – the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, this is just one of several things that reveal the 72-year old McCain to be a relic from the last century. America needs some fresh, 21st century ideas - Obama has them and he is the man for the job.

The ideas are simple. Obama advocates diplomacy and dialogue over dire declarations and threats. His message echoes what many scholars and practitioners have been saying for some time now, among them, five influential former secretaries of state – Henry Kissinger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, James Baker and Colin Powell.

Obama promises this fundamental shift in approach because it is pretty obvious by now that refusing to talk to 'enemies' doesn't make them improve their behavior.

However, Obama was heavily criticized by McCain for publicly saying that he would sit down without pre-conditions with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba. But that is a more responsible statement than John McCain's silly and muscular song, "Bomb…bomb … bomb… Bomb… bomb … Iran." (A modification of the Beach Boys' lyrics "Ba..ba..ba..ba..Barbara Ann".)

McCain's bullish strategy is also out of sync with American voters. In a recent poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (CCGA), a nonpartisan organization founded in 1922 to influence global issues, 65% of Americans voted in favour of talks with Iran. 68% favoured talks with North Korea and 70% with Cuba. Bombing is not on people's minds. Talking is.

On the question of the Iraq invasion, Obama has been against it from the start. He points out that this is a problem America created for itself. Every 'victory' since then has been too fragile and only attempted to cope with a strategic blunder while massively draining resources. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq and Iran kept each other in check and 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq' didn't exist. McCain chooses to be blind to all of the above. He insists you look at the new coat of red paint. He also wrongly paints Obama's withdrawal strategy as "defeat" when Obama's approach is simple – the US has to be careful getting out as it was careless getting in. 67% of Americans according to the CCGA poll support a time-table for withdrawal from Iraq. Again McCain is out of touch.

Obama also makes the argument that the central front on terror has been and still is Afghanistan. He wants a troop surge there. Here too he shows better judgment because today it is pretty clear that the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) in the north-western corner of Pakistan is a safe sanctuary for every bandit and aspiring terrorist in the world.

During the first Presidential debate debate Obama rightfully also criticized Bush's one-man Musharraf policy in Pakistan saying, "Musharraf was a dictator but he was our (America's) dictator." McCain shot back in defense of Musharraf, that Pakistan was a failed state when the general took over. Frankly, it looks much worse today. Lastly, to be effective in Afghanistan, America first needs to improve its relationship with NATO allies and the rest of the world.

By invading Iraq and ignoring Afghanistan things there have gone from bad to worse. Now countries like Norway and Germany don't want to shoulder the burden of a botched war. They refuse to send troops to the south where the insurgency rages.

George Bush's ramrod style has alienated allies and few people today share the sympathy epitomized in the French newspaper Le Monde's headline after 9/11 stating "We are all Americans."

83% in the CCGA poll, voted overwhelmingly to have America's standing restored. John McCain with his bluster and tough talk about 'victory' and 'defeat' in war has really not endeared himself to anyone abroad. Obama on the other hand has almost rock-star status in Europe. His race, youth and idealistic message of 'Change' have been electrifying.

But the substantive reasons that Obama trumps McCain on foreign policy are his intelligence, foresight and conciliatory tone. This will better serve America and the world where war-mongering and dire threats have failed.

Published on NDTV.com on October 4th 2008.

US IS RIGHT ON MODI

The US has eroded its credibility on human rights but on Narendra Modi the State Department has got it right. The credit for it goes to a few strident advocacy groups.

It is now highly unlikely that Modi bhai will visit Uncle Sam this year, simply because he won't get a visa.

Modi was invited for the World Gujarati Conference in New Jersey in August. But even before he could apply for a visa advocacy groups in the US and Canada uniting under the banner of 'Coalition Against Genocide' (CAG) wrote to the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice saying, "We urge the State Department not to allow Mr.Modi to enter the country under any conditions, as the circumstances under which he was denied a visa in 2005 remain largely unchanged, and the minority communities in his state continue to face systematic human rights violations."

In 2005 the State Department denied him a diplomatic visa because the purpose of his visit was not deemed to be so. They also revoked his tourist and business visa and Modi had to end up addressing an NRI gathering via video link. CAG had also been busy on other fronts. They lobbied Chris Matthews, TV anchor for MSNBC's 'Hardball', to decline from speaking at a convention where Modi was the chief guest. Sponsor 'American Express' also pulled out.

The CAG's plea has been backed by a US government agency, the Commission on International Religious Freedom which also urged the State Department to "reaffirm its past decision." Commission chair Felice D. Gaer said, "As official bodies of the government of India have found, Narendra Modi is culpable for the egregious and systematic human rights abuses wrought against thousands of India's Muslims. Mr. Modi must demonstrate to the State Department and to the American people why he – as a person found to have aided and abetted gross violations of human rights, including religious freedom – should now be eligible for a tourist visa."

This is the right question to ask a man who has been entirely unrepentant and who has unfortunately gone unpunished in India. Modi may yet scoff defiantly at these words but they should also tell him that Newton's third law of motion, which he so infamously quoted after the riots, is back to bite him.

Meanwhile, Modi's popularity with certain NRI groups reflects poorly on them. Economic development and administrative efficiency are often invoked as a justification for their support. But this argument makes serious mockery of the word "development" when people can be lynched and raped on the streets of Gujarat and no justice is done to them six years later. These admirers of Modi should in fact use their proximity to pressure him to apologise for what happened.

In the US some people conflate criticism of Israel with being anti-Semitic. Similarly conflating criticism of Modi with being anti-Gujarati or anti-Hindu has become a popular way to abuse those who seek accountability for 2002. But any rational person will tell you the difference.

Also, jaded arguments about Modi being "democratically elected" do not concede that he has not been made to answer for his culpability in the riots.

So till his friends in the US and elsewhere confront him on his complicity in 2002 their support will be morally suspect.

Meanwhile the US administration is right in taking a tough line. And for those fighting against his hateful, communal brand of politics this is a shot in the arm. These symbolic snubs will have to suffice for now till real action can someday be taken.

Published on the NDTV.com website on July 14th, 2008.

LOOK CLOSER HOME BEFORE INVOKING AMERICA

America has been invoked in recent times after every terror attack on Indian soil.

Experts and ordinary Indians react in anger, naturally, to the violence, and urge the Indian government to look at the American example of counter terror.

After all, as we’ve been reminded many times before, there has not been a single attack on American soil since 9/11. In India on the other hand, there have been at least 15 major terror strikes after the Parliament attack on 13th December 2001.

But this analysis is over simplistic because during this time when American citizens have been safe in their malls and subways, their country’s “war on terror” has actually destabilized large parts of the world - the Middle East and India’s own neighbourhood of South Asia.

So, if we just for a moment apply more stringent conditions in examining the US record in protecting its citizens it becomes clear that it has come at the cost of someone else’s safety. US policies have hurt the security of the region and in fact India as well. The result of the American effort in protecting Americans – no further attacks – is good; but the approach is heavily hypocritical and morally unjustifiable. It sends out the wrong message that the means in this “war” don’t matter. So those who invoke the US should be reminded that there is little to emulate and for various reasons.

Some simple numbers first. The 9/11 attacks killed a little less than 3000 people. Within a month of launching strikes in Afghanistan the US surpassed that number in Afghan civilian casualties. You can imagine what the figure must be like seven years on. The US military, however, does not document civilian deaths or “collateral damage” so the exact number is unknown but according to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, in the last
two years alone nearly 8000 people have been killed.

In Iraq the numbers are much higher. According to the Iraq Body Count Project more than 85,000 people have died.

So, collateral damage is a euphemism which means that some people are killable under some circumstances (like Afghans and Iraqis) while American citizens are not under any circumstance.

There are more double standards. For instance, democracy is good in some places but not good in others. It is not good in Pakistan because it slows everything down. Oh bother! So as long as Musharraf - the Undemocrat can get things done then he gets Washington DC’s support.

Admittedly, Pakistan has been a very difficult question for the Bush administration but it beggars belief that they continue to studiously support Pervez Musharraf even after voters rejected his party. On the other hand, Pakistani lawyers who have surprised the world with their tenacious movement to have the judiciary restored have not received any support from Bush and Co.

So even while propagating the virtues of democracy as the antidote to terrorism and war the US stoutly supported a military autocrat. While Indian admirers were looking at America’s secure shores they didn’t notice the damage being done just across the border even if Pakistan’s own leaders should get a fair share of the blame.

Beyond the double standards the major problem with the war on terror in South Asia has been that it was relegated to second place. Iraq’s witless war had to be won and so Afghanistan was ignored. The best troops and equipment were pulled out and diverted to Iraq. During that time the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Pakistan and today they are launching vicious attacks inside Afghanistan. NATO says they need at least 10,000 more troops to be effective in the country.

These policies negatively impact India as well albeit in a less direct fashion. Today Indian reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are running up against a nasty old foe in the Taliban. Pakistan’s reckless military has allowed these fundamentalists to regroup even as the US was too busy in the battle in Iraq. In the past the mujahideen have turned their attention to Kashmir so this Talibanisation of Pakistan is just bad news for everyone.

America’s actions abroad belie the lofty language it has used in the war on terror. I smile ruefully when the US is invoked after terror strikes because the world is possibly more unsafe because of America. South Asia doesn’t look rosier for sure.

So, for those who still think the “tough” measures of the US are admirable, here is a beautiful question from the late Catalonian cellist Pablo Casals. He asks, “The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”

It does and that is the problem.

Published in the Indian Express on July 3rd 2008.

INDIA: NO BRAGGING RIGHTS YET

India is so excited by the idea of becoming a major power that our new found confidence is changing into arrogance long before it happens. If it does…

‘If you’ve done it, it ain’t braggin,’ is an old Texan saying.

But if you attend a business conference abroad on India, like I did recently, you’d think it’s an old one out of New Delhi.

For almost 6 hours, it was a non-stop gush of staggering numbers and the possibilities for profit in India – a view we’re hearing a lot of nowadays in the media, at seminars and from the government of course. And thanks to an expanding economy Indians are fast shedding their diffidence about themselves and their country. My fear though is that confidence is changing too quickly into arrogance in some quarters - arrogance, that neither has any basis in reality nor advances the interests of ‘Brand India’ in any way. Our image of ourselves is somewhat distorted by this chorus of hallelujahs for India, producing a brash, new nationalism that comes from growing wealth. Fareed Zakaria writes in his new book, ‘The Post-American World’ about this phenomenon in India and China and says that it can morph into something uglier.

It’s already happening in two ways – an intolerance towards anyone who strikes a more skeptical note about rising India and a propaganda-style message about India that is disconnected from reality. Both need to change because we are creating a brand that is bigger than the product.

For instance, if you challenge the idea of a rising India with the dogged optimists by pointing out the Gujarat genocide, you are immediately reminded that Gujarat is also one of the most industrially advanced and administratively efficient states in India. If you point to the fact that most of our engineering graduates are not employable you are immediately reminded that India still produces the highest number of engineering graduates in the world. If you suggest that Indian democracy is so criminalized that it has killed good governance you are told that no other country sends a billion people to the ballot box. This is the new half-full approach to life but it tends to gloss over anything that points in the other direction and brands anyone who says so as a skeptic and a kill-joy. We are in love with the idea of rising India so much that we can immediately marshal the relevant facts to prove it. Remember the ‘India Shining’ campaign? No one knew it would be the lead zeppelin of 2004.

So, just as facts and numbers on India can be spun in a positive way, they can also break down just as easily. For example, India’s growing importance in the world is measured by the fact that we have nuclear weapons, a 9.4% GDP growth rate, the second largest army in the world, a massive geographical territory, a billion people, a politically stable climate and the current flavour of the season internationally, a democratic form of government. This is what the world sees and acknowledges as powerful and this is what fuels India’s aspirations. But a great power is fundamentally supposed to be able to positively influence events, something we can’t do even in our own backyard at the moment. Afghanistan is a mess, Pakistan is losing control over itself, Bangladesh can’t decide when to have elections, Nepal is in transition and Sri Lanka in civil war. India has little or no control over events in its own neighbourhood, let alone projecting its power around the world. Besides even when the chance arose India could not take a bold stand. It refused to condemn China on its actions in Tibet and it did business with the Burmese junta at the height of the crackdown on pro-democracy protests.

On the economy, I can’t interpret the numbers because I am not an economist. But I do know this. A vast majority, 700 million Indians are still on two dollars a day or less. Logically that can’t make us a powerful country in the near future even if more and more Indian billionaires are populating lists of the wealthiest people on the planet.

I’m sure I don’t have to expand on the law and order situation. Most of us have had our share of let-downs and shock defeats with the police. And externally, our nukes might deter China and Pakistan but our government can’t guarantee that bombs won’t kill our people in a bazaar.

My point here is not to say that we shouldn’t be optimistic about India or that India isn’t a rising power. Looking at where we came from, of course it is. But we need to see where we have to go before we acquire the bragging rights. Let’s get rid of the arrogance, and listen to the skeptics. The aspirations of a billion people demand it.

This is the first in a series of columns also available on the NDTV website.

A YOUNG AFGHAN 'GLOBAL LEADER'

Violence begets violence and Afghans know that better than anyone else. One whole generation has seen nothing but guns and war where the sight of a Kalashnikov is as common as that of a kite.

In that generation, just four years before the Soviet invasion in 1979, was born Ahmad Nader Nadery. Despite the lawless, “failed state” that Afghanistan has become through his lifetime, he has soldiered on in his mission to protect human rights. And that’s why he was recognized this year as a “Young Global Leader” by the World Economic Forum for his role as commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

Addressing human rights in a war zone sounds like an overwhelming task. And it is. Where does it begin? And is it a tiny clean drop in a surging dirty ocean of violations? What good has the U.S. invasion done - people are still dying and an insurgency rages in the south? But just as the mind starts to boggle at these questions, Nader presents a simple analysis to the outsider. “The fact that we are even talking about human rights today is a huge step forward,” he says. And as beginnings go, that is a good one.

Nadery’s ambition for a peaceful Afghanistan was sparked off during his days at the Kabul University where he studied law. “Students represent every section of society and Afghans trust them. So I thought that students should take over the role of maintaining security as the different militias and warlords fight.” He and a friend presented this idea to the UN’s special envoy in Pakistan. It didn’t work. The UN didn’t want to sponsor another armed group. Having tried and failed Nadery went back to Afghanistan to finish his law degree. But by then he had made a staunch enemy in the Taliban for being a meddlesome troublemaker who had the audacity to challenge them. He says, “I was jailed, beaten and tortured for three months by the Taliban but my family managed to bail me out. It was 1999 and I couldn’t go back to Kabul. My siblings had all left for Europe so I decided to join my parents in Pakistan.”

But Peshawar, far from feeling safe, only felt lonely and depressing. The future looked bleak and Nadery remembers that time as a metaphor. There was booming construction in Peshawar with the arrival of Afghan refugees. But back home in Kabul, there was only destruction. Peshawar was being built while Kabul was being destroyed. He couldn’t bear to sit there and do nothing. So while many Afghans were resigned to their fate, waiting for money from relatives abroad and waiting for peace, Nadery decided to do something crazy.

He decided to journey through dangerous Taliban controlled Afghanistan to ask people what they wanted and record their problems – a first step in deciding the future course of the country. He and a friend traveled from Nimroz in the south near the Iranian border ending their journey two months later in Jalalabad between Kabul and the Khyber Pass. They met two other friends to discuss what they had seen and heard from ordinary Afghans about the conflicts and their problems. “We discovered that there was a major ‘legitimacy of power’ crisis. People didn’t trust the government at all because there had been no democratic process after 1978 to legitimize power.” The Taliban had successfully turned Afghanistan into a dark, barren, lawless corner of the world where learning and freedom were completely wiped out. Nadery recalls, “You couldn’t tell whether you were looking at an old man or a young one.” The thick beards and the depression made everyone look old and sad. “There was not a single woman on the street. The Taliban were hated by ordinary people not just for their violence and barbaric forms of justice but also because they abused elders – a grave violation of Afghan culture. But even through this there was a narrow window of hope and I started working for the International Human Rights Law Group gathering information on human rights abuses.” Despite these efforts, under the Taliban the total state of suppression continued.

“So when 9/11 happened and the U.S bombing in Afghanistan began a month later ordinary Afghans welcomed foreign troops,” he says. He himself felt a new surge of hope. The Taliban would be gone and the aspirations of 32 million Afghans would finally be realized.

Nadery became a prominent voice when President Hamid Karzai appointed him the Human Rights Commissioner in the AIHRC in 2002. But six years on Nadery’s job is as tough as it was when he began. “Reconstruction efforts didn’t create job opportunities and people were frustrated.” The Taliban tapped into these frustrations and made their comeback. Renewed pledges on security, rule of law and human rights in London in 2006 have also largely remained unfulfilled. “The Afghan national Army has the confidence of the people but the police are a source of fear and insecurity,” says Nadery. Meanwhile the Taliban has evolved. “They use the media in a very sophisticated way and try to dominate public opinion. They’ve learnt a lot from Iraq, especially suicide bombing.”

The biggest violation of rights is evident in civilian casualties something for which the international forces are equally culpable. Nadery says, “More than 8000 civilians have been killed in the last two years during operations, air-strikes and Taliban suicide bombings. The international forces shoot indiscriminately and torture and abuse detainees.”

Today in Afghanistan the metaphor of his Peshawar experience is evident. Where reconstruction has failed the Taliban is strong or as Nadery says, “Where the road ends the Taliban begins.” Ahmad Nader Nadery is a “Young Global Leader” because he is steadfast in his commitment to push them back.

Published in The Hindu BusinessLine on May 23rd 2008.