Sea Shepherd seizes African gillnet with 200 dead toothfish | Asian Correspondent

Sea Shepherd seizes African gillnet with 200 dead toothfish | Asian Correspondent
 Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Dec 30, 2014

After an aggressive 5-day chase in the Southern Ocean, the Sea Shepherd finally retrieved what it calls illegal gillnet abandoned by the African illegal toothfish vessel, Thunder. Along with the 25-km-long net are 200 dead toothfish and other marine species.

Sea Shepherd’s aerial shot of gillnet retrieval operation on the aft-deck of the Sam Simon. (Photo: Giacomo Giorigi)

The ship, Sam Simon, chased Thunder for five days and confiscated gillnet reportedly abandoned by the poaching vessel. Sea Shepherd claims that Thunder is illegally fishing inside the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) area of management located in the Southern Ocean.

The 30-member crew from 15 nations retrieved the gillnet with over 200 targeted Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish found dead with it. Scientists on board the ship confirmed that a number of the dead toothfish were females of a reproductive age, and were carrying eggs.

Non-target species are also hauled including rays, jellyfish, crabs and a “staggering number” of grenadiers- all dead. A majority of the crabs caught in the net , however, were still alive and were released back into the water.

Over 200 dead toothfish are caught in the Thunder’s gillnet. (Photo: Jeff Wirth)

Captain of the Sam Simon, Sid Chakravarty, said with the retrieval of the illegally laid gillnet set, combined with the pursuit of the Thunder, Operation Icefish has achieved what it had set out to do in less than a month since it kicked-off.

He added, “…The Sam Simon crew has given the world a chance to observe first-hand the destruction caused by this fishing method. Never has any conservation movement seen the recovery, confiscation and documentation of such length of gear. The onus is now on the relevant international authorities to use this evidence to prosecute the Thunder.”

Before the New Year, the Sam Simon will continue to scout the region around Banzare Bank on the lookout for more gillnet sets laid out by the Thunder.

Captain Chakravarty has reported the salvage operation to the relevant authorities, including Interpol, CCAMLR, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and Australian Federal Police. The confiscated equipment will be kept as evidence of the Thunder’s illegal activity, and handed-over to the relevant port authorities to aid in the prosecution of the vessel.

Captain Sid Chakravarty identifies the 91st toothfish hauled from the gillnet. (Photo: Jeff Wirth)

She Shepherd said  the Nigerian-flagged Thunder was issued with an Interpol Purple Notice following a joint effort by Norwegian, New Zealand and Australian authorities, and is currently included on CCAMLR’s black-list of IUU fishing operators.

The use of gillnets has been outlawed by CCAMLR since 2004, and the Commission has specifically expressed concerns regarding the impact of this fishing method on the marine ecosystems of Antarctica.

The Bob Barker ship has been in pursuit of the Thunder since the vessel first fled on December 17. Operation Icefish is Sea Shepherd’s 11th Southern Ocean Defence Campaign, and the first to target IUU toothfish fishing operators in the waters of Antarctica.

The campaign has been unstoppable despite criticism from academic figures in Tasmaniaearlier this month. Read related article here.

Conservationist blasts ‘academic hogwash’ on Sea Shepherd | Asian Correspondent

Conservationist blasts ‘academic hogwash’ on Sea Shepherd | Asian Correspondent
 Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Dec 30, 2014

Environmentalist and former Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown has blasted the University of Tasmania for its reported condemnation of Sea Shepherd’s campaign to confiscate illegal fishnets from the Southern Ocean.

Environmentalist Bob Brown. (Photo: Bob Brown Foundation)

The university also released an article earlier this month on Sea Shepherd’s Icefish Operation which targets illegal fishing of Patagonian and Antarctic Toothfish in the Southern Ocean “to fill a law enforcement void” The academic writers cautioned “that when it comes to the law and toothfish, Sea Shepherd may have to be careful it doesn’t end up on the wrong side. ”

Brown said the university’s stance is “counter-productive academic hogwash”.

Brown, through The Sea Shepherd’s press release clarified,”With most of the world’s wild fisheries collapsing, this carping criticism of the only people taking high-seas action against the Patagonian toothfish poachers will damage the University of Tasmania’s remnant international reputation as a centre of environmental wisdom”,

He added, “Compounding the university’s learned negativity is the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources executive secretary’s reported opinion that hauling the pirate toothfishers’ abandoned nets or lines out of the Southern Ocean is fishing and therefore unauthorised.”

“This fails the primary school common sense test. Citizens are left to assume CCAMLR wants the deadly nets left drifting through the ocean”, Brown said.

“Instead of backing Sea Shepherd Australia’s ocean-saving ships Bob Barker and Sam Simon in their life-saving work these negative nerds are head-banging their desks while the villains flee back to Africa. Taxpayers have every right to expect the experts would be earning their pay better than this, even in the Silly Season”, he said. “All the more so when the fishing industry’s Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators has praised Sea  Shepherd’s work.”

Brown heads the Bob Brown Foundation.

Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism? | New Mandala

Multi-culturalism: the flipside of fundamentalism? | New Mandala

ALWYN LAU, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

25 DECEMBER 2014

It is common to hear multi-culturalism being endorsed as a basis for national identity. Given this era of increasing fundamentalism, what could be more welcoming than a philosophy which embraces the particularities of all ethnicities? What could be more helpful than a mode of thinking which asserts the uniqueness of all cultures (hence,multi-culturalism)?

In a country like Malaysia, where extremists groups like Perkasa and Isma sprout their racist and bigoted views with impunity, multi-culturalism is de facto accepted as the norm. That Malaysia’s varied communities (differing in ethnicity, cultural, regional, religious and social background) have lived peacefully (and tolerated racists and bigots), attests to this fact. Is this not the true form of 1-Malaysia (as opposed to the corrupted formula peddled by Barisan Nasional)? Can there be anything wrong with multiculturalism at all?

I want to, in fact, point out some problems with multi-culturalism. Indeed, fundamentalism and multi-culturalism may ironically be one and the same phenomenon and reflect what Hegel called a speculative identity of opposites. This is to say that often when two phenomena appear to directly contradict each other, there could in fact be hidden a subtle commonality which nurtures them both. For example, multi-culturalists logically can (and should) easily accept the extremity of fundamentalists as something to be embraced and understood as an expression of the Other, whilst fundamentalists can likewise adopt a multi-culturalists stance by affirming the uniqueness of their identities and claims.

If multi-culturalism itself demands that all cultures merit interest and respect, should this not include respecting that particular culture which asserts that other cultures merit less interest and respect than its own? From within a multi-culturalists perspective, should it not respect the fact that a fundamentalist Muslim insists that hisunique Islamic identity should be the basis for Malaysia’s national identity?

Unfortunately, many multi-culturalist thinkers would only embrace an-Other subject if he speaks and acts in a manner suggestive of a liberal, democracy-loving and ‘reasonable’ individual. This creates the awkward situation of, say, a Christian and Muslim being extremely friendly with each other as long as they do not publicly assert the superiority of their religion over against that of other faiths, as this would too deeply offend the sensibilities of the multi-culturalist mind-set.

In other words, the more the multi-culturalist insists (inconsistently) that the fundamentalist has to meet a liberal-democratic criterion of thinking and behaviour, the more the fundamentalist would want to emphasise the unique nature of his own specific identity and desires. The speculative identity of opposites appears to be strongly in force.

A short digression into celebrity culture may help to further illustrate my problems with a multi-cultural construction of ethnicity. Consider, for example, how the act of exposing the ‘human weaknesses’ of celebrities or VIPs’, far from bringing them down to the level of the common citizen, instead elevates their position in the eyes of everyone. The aura of mysticism or ‘larger-than-life’ factor of such people bothsustains and is nurtured by the desire to read the latest gossips and lurid details about their very human failures.

The more details of their private life we get to know, the stronger the background they provide for the royal charisma, as with a great artist or scientist about whom we are delighted to learn that he also has some human weakness -far from reducing him to our scale, such details render all the more tangible the gap that divides him from us, common mortals.” (Žižek, For They Know Not What They Do, xxxvi, emphasis added).

Likewise, the philosophy of multi-culturalism, far from helping to diminish fundamentalism, may in fact be feeding it. The more we demonise fundamentalist whilst at the same time extolling the tolerance of any and all forms of culture, the more ‘fundamentalist’ we become regarding our capacity for tolerance, creating intolerance for anything other than what we believe and so on. This is not unlike how ingesting ‘everyday’ details of celebrities does not reduce, but in fact accentuates, their superstar status in our eyes, which in turn spurs us to find out more gossip on themad infinitum.

The relevance of this debate to the reformulation of ethnicities in Malaysia lies precisely in how multi-cultural thinkers have pre-adopted qualifying criteria modelled along liberal-democratic axioms. We have a tendency to promote ethnic hybridity, but only as long as the eventual outcome fits a framework defined or accepted by liberal democracy. In other words, it is not genuinely multi-cultural and universal/neutral but subtly fundamentalist and biased.

What, then, is a possible solution? If ethnic solidarity cannot be found in a ‘universal’ religion (with all its connotations of timelessness and essentialisms, two absolute principles for fundamentalism) and if we reject an approach that privileges communal particularities (multi-culturalism), what other basis for reconciliation and harmony is there?

What about the idea of a trauma? A collectively experienced trauma is what grants subjects in community an identity; a shared antagonism is what holds an ethnic community together. A common identity is founded on authentic communion which in turn is present only when members of a community recognise and affirm the core of uncertainty and anxiety within each other.

When I, as a Chinese, recognise a mutual uncertainty and angst in a fellow subject, I simultaneously embrace him as another Chinese in the very act of establishing or consolidating my own Chinese-ness. To be a Malay is to be someone who is bounded to another by an agony experienced by both and felt to be directed to them as a community. Likewise, an Indian is presumably less of an Indian if he disavows the struggles his people has undergone. Every ethnic group by extension finds definition and unity in a common ordeal or a shared experience of rupture.

This perspective is relevant not only in characterising or demarcating one ethnicity from another, it also helpful in resolving inter-ethnic relations. The ethical injunction here to admonish different communities to see the abyss of limitations and vulnerability in both their own communities and that of others. Ethnic harmony can only grow, paradoxically, when different groups recognise the historical disharmony and discord each other have experienced and are guilty of.

Such a perspective offers a creative balance between the usual negative models in discussion on ethnicity. To see only what the ‘other’ ethnic group lacks is the first step towards racism and bigotry. To see only what my people lack in contrast to others likewise justifies racial policies and discrimination to secure resources perceived to be usurped by other, more powerful, groups. To see what both of us lack is to discover a new kind of solidarity, the kind that derives from shared struggle and pain.

True equality is a traumatic equality which recognises that everybody falls short, hence the need for mutual cooperation and sharing. Ethnicities are together bound by the universality of struggle and lack.

Alwyn Lau is presently pursuing a PhD at Monash University (Malaysia). His research interests include critical theory, misunderstood people and the occasional bad movie. His paper, A Primordial Anxiety: Ontological Trauma and Ethnic Solidarity in Malaysia was recently published by Brill in the Asian Journal of Social Science.

The making of pseudo-democracy | New Mandala

The making of pseudo-democracy | New Mandala

 

KHEMTHONG TONSAKULRUNGRUANG, 

16 DECEMBER 2014

The further the constitution drafting goes, the uglier the expected outcome becomes. Under the guidance of the military government, the drafting is far from being democratic or fair. The Interim Charter allows General Prayuth Chan-Ocha, the Chief of the National Council of Peace and Order (NCPO), something like total control over the appointment of the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC). The pro-military CDC then designs the constitution that does not respect the majority’s will and discourages the public from participating in the drafting process. This only confirms the public’s fear that the NCPO, who seized power in May, lacks either understanding or sincerity in restoring peace and democracy to the country as claimed.

Can those who once sabotaged democracy restore it? The Interim Charter designates the Constitution Drafting Committee to prepare the draft constitution under the supervision of and recommendation from the NCPO, the National Reform Council (NRC), and the general public. The CDC has 36 members. The NRC nominated a chairman and twenty other members. Five each were nominated from the National Legislative Assembly (NLA), the NCPO, and the cabinet. Since many were veteran legal and political science scholars, no one doubts the CDC’s expertise. But their political motivation remains questionable. Because the NCPO is serving as the cabinet and Prayuth appointed the NLA and the NRC, only coup d’état supporters were chosen to the committee. Most CDC members appear ultra-conservative and moralistic. The CDC Chairman, Professor Borwornsak Uwanno, for example, despite his fame from drafting the 1997 Constitution, one of the most democratic constitutions in Thailand, has been criticized lately for his emphasis on rule by ethical persons and his distrust of majority rule. He had served in the National Legislative Assembly after the 2006 coup d’état and might even have helped draft the 2006 Interim Charter for the junta. Other CDC members are known for close associations with the elite faction, notably the military and the People’s Democratic Reform Council who  staged the anarchic demonstration last year to pave way for military intervention. From the composition of the CDC, one could foresee the anti-democratic vibe will flow into the upcoming constitution.

According to the Interim Charter, the basic framework of the upcoming constitution is that, first and foremost, the constitution must design a democracy “compatible with the Thai context.” This mandate puzzles and alarms the public at the same time. What and who defines this Thai context? This clause will probably give leeway for the CDC not to adhere to the universal standard of democracy. Prayuth, the NCPO leader and the Prime Minister, has already reflected  that Thais, in their orientation towards democracy, learn too much about liberties and too little about duty. He wished Thais stopped asking for individual’s rights and sacrifices and worked more for the “greater interest of the nation.” His conclusion undermines the significance of rights and liberties, essential elements of democracy.

Other frameworks provided in the Interim Charter include creating effective anti-corruption mechanisms, strengthening the rule of law and ethics, building a fair and sustainable economy, avoiding populist policies, and upholding fundamental principles of the new constitution. These vague objectives share a common goal to entrench the elite minority’s control and prevent elected politicians, particularly the Shinawatra network, from regaining power.

Hypocrisy has never been more obvious. In the past six months, Prayuth has spent almost 300,000 million Baht to “stimulate the retracting economy and relieve the poor’s problems.” This spending was identical to Yingluck’s, but economists kept silent. It seems that populism is in the eyes of the beholder. Only Thaksin’s initiatives are evil and shall be avoided.

The fight against corruption is also similar. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has been hunting Yingluck and her peers relentlessly. But cases indicting the Democrat party, the elitist party, sit idle for years. Not only did the NACC refuse to investigate any claims related to the NCPO, but it also defended the junta despite several corruption scandals. Thus, together with the call from the anti-Thaksin faction to permanently ban politicians convicted of corruption, the anti-corruption mandate is only a pretext to prohibit the elite’s enemy from re-entering politics. The NACC’s favoritism will neither eradicate corruption nor strengthen the rule of law.

At this moment, the highlight of the drafting process is the design of the new political system. Election is compulsory, but the CDC, the NRC, and the NCPO  are trying their best to ensure that civilian politicians shall not stray from their wishes. Ideas spring up daily. Many will be rejected but some might be adopted.

Wisanu Krue-ngarm, the Deputy Prime Minister, recommended establishing a body of constitution experts to help the government interpret the constitution before a conflict arises. On the electoral system, the NRC asked the CDC to eliminate the party list system and reduce the number of members of parliament. Moreover, Thais should separately elect MPs, the prime minister, and the cabinet. The CDC itself suggested that the constitution creates the Ethics Council to recruit “ethical persons” into public posts and establishes a new court to review public spending.

These proposals would leave post-coup Thailand with a smaller legislative and a chaotic executive. Infighting within the cabinet would prevent the prime minister from creating the solidarity required to run the country. The government may collapse at any time under the constant threat from several independent auditing bodies. These bodies, the so-called fourth branch of power, will weaken the majority while empowering the minority because they act as a haven for the anti-democracy faction to control the country under the disguise of expertise and ethical conduct. Meanwhile, the heart of Thailand’s crisis is still being ignored. The CDC is oblivious to the fact that elected politicians are subject to a disproportionate amount of scrutiny from unelected officials who are subject to no accountability at all.

Public participation also sparks contentious debate. The Interim Charter requires the CDC to engage the public in the drafting process. The CDC realizes that public participation could boost the much-needed legitimacy of the upcoming constitution. Thus, it plans to hold several small forums to solicit public opinions, but on an invitation-only basis. It cannot promise a referendum over the constitution, claiming that voting would cost more money and delay the general election.

The junta might just try to avoid public embarrassment if the vote is against its favor. In the aftermath of the 2006 coup, approximately 42 per cent voted no to the military-backed 2007 Constitution. Ironically, although the 2007 Constitution had never required a referendum for its amendment, the Constitution Court once struck down Yingluck’s attempt to amend the constitution partly because the government failed to hold a referendum.

But the greatest obstacle to public participation is on-going suppression by the government. As  martial law is still in effect, participation appears limited and coercive. Those who refuse to join the reforms were summoned and forced to publicly pledge that they would cooperate in whatever activities the government requested. But when one activist spoke at the public forum held by the Election Commission, the observing army officers arrested him immediately. He was later charged with lèse majesté. The rule seems to be that citizens must speak when they are asked to and at the designated forum. Moreover, to maintain peaceful atmosphere, criticism or disagreement is not welcomed. This military-style participation renders the whole process a meaningless ritual.

So far, the behavior of the CDC and the government has raised more questions about the new constitution than they have answered. Why is the drafting process so slow? Five months have passed before the CDC held its first convention. The actual drafting commences after the New Year. Prayuth predicted that the election would not be held earlier than February of 2016. This statement disappointed many Thais. For comparison, Burkina Faso army seized power in October 2014 but agreed to reinstate democracy by 2015. The CDC also contemplates passing an amnesty to those who had involved in protests and riots. What will amnesty look like in the constitution? Will it prohibit the revolving door practice so that the NCPO, the NRC, the CDC could not run in the next election or take offices in those independent agencies they help create?

The constitution drafting process has suffered from several setbacks and will suffer more. The CDC is neither impartial nor sufficiently inclusive to create trust. The framework is vague and ambiguous. Proposals are radical. The most important law of the country will be drafted without input from its citizens. At best, this new constitution can only create a pseudo-democracy where elected representatives of the people find themselves paralyzed under the oppressive scrutiny of the network of experts, councils, and courts. The future cabinet will not be able to function unless they abide by the prepared guidance.

Since the Shinawatra party is likely to win an election as soon as democracy resumes, this sets the stage for a standoff, and later a political deadlock, and hence more anarchic demonstrations and military interventions. The vicious circle will not end. If the CDC is not willing to take into consideration the interests of all stakeholders, this new political order will never reconcile the nation and restore peace, let alone support democracy.

Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang is a constitutional law scholar in Thailand and a regular contributor to New Mandala.

From poet to despot: the changing face of Xanana Gusmao | New Mandala

From poet to despot: the changing face of Xanana Gusmao | New Mandala

ANGIE BEXLEY & MAJ NYGAARD-CHRISTENSEN, 

12 DECEMBER 2014

As foreign media recasts Timor-Leste’s Xanana Gusmao from darling of democracy to potential despot, it’s time to re-examine the myth surrounding the ‘poet’ politician, write Angie Bexley and Maj Nygaard-Christensen.

Xanana Gusmao was once labelled Southeast Asia’s Nelson Mandela; here was a guerrilla warrior and people’s hero turned politician who would usher in a new democratic dawn.

The words ‘charismatic’ and ‘poet’ were de rigueur in any foreign news coverage of the former leader of Timor-Leste’s armed resistance against Indonesia.  When Timor-Leste separated from Indonesia in 1999 and began the transition to independence, Gusmao became the darling of the United Nations, influential donor countries, and international foreign journalists in his role as president and later prime minister.

How quickly times have changed. In recent international media reports, Prime Minister Gusmao has been labelled a ‘despot’, implicated in corruption and nepotism allegations, and been told it is ‘time to go’.

Whatever truth there is to these claims, they point to one remarkably undiscussed issue; the degree to which the Xanana myth was built by the international community itself. Recent coverage of Gusmao also overlooks the fact that local opinion about Timorese leaders was always more nuanced and conflicted than international portrayals made them out to be.

Timor-Leste’s independence, achieved in 2002, coincided with the growing need for a UN success story after a series of failed missions in the 1990s. Immense optimism and big expectations surrounded the transition years, which occurred after more than two decades of Indonesian occupation and centuries of Portuguese colonialism.

International hopes for a democratic success story in Southeast Asia hinged on select political leaders, chief among them Xanana Gusmao and José Ramos-Horta.

For international onlookers, Gusmao and Ramos-Horta embodied the democratic potential of the new nation. Samantha Power’s biography of the late head of the UN transition administration in East Timor, Sergio Vieira de Mello, tells how de Mello and other UN officials believed that the UN’s success depended on building a strong relationship with Gusmao – a bond that continued though much of the UN’s presence in the country.

The optimistic view of the new nation’s possibilities continued up until 2006 when Paul Wolfowitz, then head of the World Bank, named the country a “remarkable” success story, ignoring the looming unrest that would soon culminate in a serious political crisis.

“In a short amount of time,” he said, “the people of [East Timor] have built a functioning economy and a vibrant democracy from the ashes and destruction of 1999.”

Gusmao’s international popularity continued even when high hopes collapsed with the onset of the 2006-2007 political crisis. Originally an army dispute over what was perceived as the unequal distribution of privileges to soldiers from the nation’s western and eastern districts, it soon spread to the civilian population.

Both externally and domestically, the crisis was viewed as a failure of local leadership. Internationally however, this understanding served to escalate external debates about good and bad leaders in Timor-Leste.

In this context, then prime minister Mari Alkatiri was the ‘bad’ leader. Opposing Gusmao’s charisma, Alkatiri was routinely described as arrogant and aloof. According to media articles, he was uncommunicative, ruled his ministry with an iron fist,, he was accused  of corruption and an unwillingness to share power. International media reported widely on local critiques of Alkatiri during the crisis, and blamed him for not calling for the aid of Gusmao to solve disputes.

Certainly, Alkatiri’s leadership was alsochallenged at the domestic political level. Yet his FRETILIN party managed to retain a large support base both during and after the crisis. The strongest calls for his overthrow appeared to come from overseas. At the same time, questions circulated locally about Gusmao’s role in the crisis that undermined the powerbase he had held in the eastern part of the country.

In the early independence years Xanana Gusmao commanded full respect from young and old. By the time of the 2006-2007 crisis, this mood had changed significantly. Many felt he had actively contributed to divisions between the country’s western and eastern citizens, and failed to protect the latter from attacks by western gangs that ensued in the wake of the army disputes.

In the last few years, generations of young Timorese have also begun openly questioning the strict, top-down leadership style cultivated by Gusmao as head of the resistance, which undermined the individual decision-making powers of Timorese youth during their involvement in the clandestine independence movement. In addition, there has long been widespread disappointment with the leadership’s failure to pursue justice with Indonesia.

While Alkatiri was scapegoated in international press, hardly any foreign reports relayed growing local critiques of Gusmao.  Instead, Gusmao and Ramos-Horta were portrayed as the people most capable of leading the country out of crisis in reports that increasingly pitted the country’s senior leaders against each other.

In 2007, the Foreign Fund for Peace placed Timor-Leste on its failed state index for the first time. Still the FFP remained optimistic as to Timor-Leste’s ability to get through the crisis, citing the election of Gusmao and Horta to the nation’s top jobs. That same year, when Gusmao campaigned for prime minister and Ramos-Horta for the presidency, a UN official described their election as the “only democratic choice” for Timor-Leste.

Ironically, Gusmao’s calls for forgiveness and reconciliation with Indonesia which formed the basis of local critique, only served to strengthen his international glorification.  Portrayals such as the documentary A Hero’s Journey and various media portraits cemented his international reputation as a statesman on par with South African leader Nelson Mandela.

When foreign commentators now seek to tear down the myth of Xanana, they overlook the part international journalists, donor countries and UN officials played in its making. International assessments of Timor-Leste and its potential have always changed rapidly; from miracle nation in the making, to failed state, to success story again.

At the centre of these descriptions is a shifting cast of domestic political figures to be scapegoated or credited with democratic success. The new tone in international reporting on the country’s current prime minister mirrors this cycle of reporting.

International media has often simplified East Timor politics into bad/good scenarios. In so doing, it has lagged behind Timorese nuanced and varied understandings of their own country and their leaders.

Maj Nygaard-Christensen recently completed a post-doc project at the Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University. She is currently an independent researcher and research consultant. Angie Bexley is a Research Associate in Anthropology, School of Culture, History and Language, ANU College of Asia Pacific.

Their co-edited book, Ethnography and Development Fieldwork in Timor-Leste, will be published next year by NIAS press.

In light of Lima: China and Latin America’s climate conundrum | Asian Correspondent

In light of Lima: China and Latin America’s climate conundrum | Asian Correspondent
 Graham Land Dec 12, 2014 

As China asserts itself as an increasingly dominant global power, its government, businesses and individuals are forging stronger relationships throughout the world. As pointed out in a new book by U.S. scholar Evan Ellis, this increasing international interdependence signals a new direction for China, which has traditionally tended towards economic independence and political non-intervention. This change is generally driven by economic growth, particularly the thirst for resources. Chinese presence has been increasing significantly in Latin America, especially in terms of oil, farming and mineral extraction.

While Ellis offers plenty of insight into the developing relationship, an article in China Dialogue points out his book’s lack of focus on human rights and environmental issues. There is often the risk in developing countries of domestic national and local governments ignoring indigenous rights — including the ecological health of their lands — for the purpose foreign investment. Whereas Ellis does not believe that China will involve itself politically to the extent of supporting coups in Latin America as the US did with Operation Condor, China Dialogue points out that not taking advantage of illegal behavior vis-à-vis indigenous rights presents one of the most important challenges in Sino-Latin American relations.

Pic: UNclimatechange (Flickr CC)

An article by Responding to Climate Change focuses on the largely fossil fuel- and mineral-based relationship as central to the current UN climate talks in Lima. Since this relationship is based on the least climate friendly of industries, it’s easy to take a cynical view of the Lima conference. This is especially so in light of upcoming meetings like China-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Forum will probably ramp up the current agro-oil-mineral trend.

With slower economic growth forecasts worrying finance and trade ministries in China and Latin America, the Forum’s discussions will probably focus on boosting growth which puts climate change at risk of falling off of the agenda completely.

— Responding to Climate Change

On the other hand, increased development in renewable energy in Latin America, with investment from China, has huge growth potential, according to the Inter-American Development Bank. Whether the players step up is another matter altogether.

It is important to measure the climate-based alliances at the talks as well. The largest player, Brazil, is part of the BASIC group of negotiators, which along with South Africa and India, also includes China. Peru, the host country, while in favor of expanding oil and gas operations in the Amazon, is contrastingly part of the Association of Independent Latin American and Caribbean states negotiating group.

From the Guardian:

Peru is a member of the AILAC bloc of six Latin American nations who are pushing for aggressive emission cuts not only by rich countries, but by big emerging economies such as China and Brazil. The member states – also including Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama – are neither very rich, nor very poor and most sit close to the equator, hence their claim to represent the “beautiful middle” in the talks, between the extremes of north and south.

At times China’s behavior goes both ways at once. It leads in the development and sheer scale of renewable energy technology, but also on carbon intensive energy production. Furthermore, China’s recent emissions-limiting agreement with the US is heartening, but some experts doubt that it’s even achievable. One thing is for sure, the country that Napoleon once called a “sleeping giant” is still in the process of awakening from its long slumber.

Mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Pic: Geoff Gallice (Flickr CC)

Australia pledges to $200m to climate fund in Lima | Asian Correspondent

Australia pledges to $200m to climate fund in Lima  | Asian Correspondent
 Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon Dec 10, 2014

Once again, Australia could not elude international pressure at the COP20 climate summit in Lima, Peru.  It finally pledged to contribute to the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

The government’s representative to the summit, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop,announced on Wednesday the country has committed it will give $200 million to the fund designed to help poorer nations to tackle climate change.

With Australia’s commitment, the GCF has already reached a threshold pledge of approximately $10.14 billion equivalent contributed by 24 countries. The UN’s CGF is raising $10 billion.

A dramatic turn around, Abbott has been notorious in his anti-climate change stance. A self-confessed climate skeptic, Australia became the first country in the world to have scrapped the carbon tax under his leadership. He did not show up in the UN climate summit in September and he we was also adamant not to include climate change in the G20 agenda which Brisbane hosted last month.

The meeting between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jingping ahead of the Brisbane summit sealed a historic deal on carbon emissions cuts within the next decade by the two countries. Political observers said the deal is a game changer ushering in a new leadership to step up action on climate change. Abbott battled to ignore the subject throughout the G20 summit, but a communique to culminate the event pressed Abbott to back down. Majority prevailed.

President of COP20, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, speaks at the opening ceremony of the Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, Monday, Dec. 1, 2014.

In Lima, participants from around 190 countries did it again. Developing countries and conservation groups said it is time for the Abbott camp to admit the urgency of the issue..

Canada,  Australia’s partner in climate denial, also recently pledged about $US250 million.

The money which Australia pledged, will be paid over four years. It will be sourced out from Australia’s aid program budget.

Australian Greens leader Christine Milne said the backflip was evidence of the intense international pressure Australia had been under to commit to the fund. She added there is no way Australia could have continued with its stand against global finance and be viewed as negotiating in good faith in Lima.

Koh Tao trial another litmus test | New Mandala

Koh Tao trial another litmus test | New Mandala

LUKE CORBIN, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

9 DECEMBER 2014

The trial of Myanmar citizens Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo (also known as Win Zaw Lin) for the murder of United Kingdom citizens David Miller and Hannah Witheridge opened this week in Thailand to keen scrutiny by stakeholders. The prosecution in particular is hoping for a robust trial devoid of the controversy that plagued the investigation leading to the seven charges brought against the defendants, which in addition to murder include rape and theft. The defendants have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

This plea was unsurprising given the disputations surrounding the investigation. A large police response was initially marshalled after the discovery of the victims’ bodies at a Koh Tao beach on 15 September 2014. The Bangkok Post reported that within days over fifty marine police officers arrived on Koh Tao, targeting fishing boats and ferries operating near the island and migrants working in the area. Before Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were formally identified as suspects there were already reports of police brutality against other Burmese workers.

More reports of discriminatory violence led up to the arrest of Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo in October. Thai police claimed strong evidence for the arrests including the discovery of a victim’s mobile phone in one of the accused’s home, direct DNA evidence linking them to the crime scene and even confessions. The suspects subsequently claimed they confessed under torture.

Rights groups became involved, highlighting further police abuse of witnesses. Forensic specialists criticised police process in the case, the United Kingdom sent its own investigators to the island and Amnesty International called for an impartial enquiry. The case attracted more media attention when family of the accused met with lawyers and denounced publically the Thai police’s activities.  Thailand’s Human Rights Commission also initiated an independent probe into the case but continue to struggle to gain the cooperation of Thai police.

Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo were eventually formally indicted on 4 December and their trial commenced 8 December.  If the accused are found guilty then the millions of Burmese workers providing vital, cheap labour for the Thai economy will be further stigmatised in their adopted country. If the accused are found to be not guilty, they will walk away heroic underdogs, bolstering the sense of discrimination and injustice felt by Burmese residents of Thailand. Then the real investigation will need to begin.

Thai Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-ocha weighed in publically early in the case before Thai police had identified their Burmese suspects, stating that migrants were most likely responsible. He also provided an unsettling justification for the rape and murder:

“I ask, can you get away with wearing bikinis in Thailand? Unless you are not beautiful?”

He later apologised.

Whatever the outcome of the trial, it is highly unlikely that National Police Chief Somyot Pumpunmuang or Police Major General Suwat Jaengyodsuk, the two with overall responsibility for the blighted Koh Tao investigation, will follow with their own apologies.

The Koh Tao investigation is yet another example of institutional discrimination against the Burmese underclass in Thailand, who live on half the minimum wage. Such discrimination is practically government policy.  The outcome and integrity of the trial will prove just how far this discrimination reaches in post-coup Thailand, 2015.

Luke Corbin is an independent researcher and graduate of the College of Asia and the Pacific and the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy who blogs at

Thais in exile | New Mandala

Thais in exile | New Mandala

KANNIKAR PETCHKAEW, GUEST CONTRIBUTOR, 

9 DECEMBER 2014

In front of me is the once smart looking Jom Petpradab, aged 51, a journalist and former popular Thai television news host. He looks old and frail. Talking through Skype to someone back in Thailand, he forces himself to laugh out loud.

“Hey I am fine, you guys shouldn’t have any worry”, he says. Just right after ending the call, he sinks into his thoughts again, as the dark circle under his eyes grows wider. Jom hasn’t slept well for months and need pills to end each night. He admits his life is not free from worry and it is not “fine”. “Can’t close eyes without worry. I have a habit of too much worry since working around the clock in the country, it turned worst after what I’ve been through the last 6 months”.

There is lots to worry about, including family in Thailand who experience difficulty both physically and mentality since he left. A veteran journalist with 30 years experience both in Thailand and America, Jom left his family including his 2 nephews aged 11 and 14, and fled to Cambodia right after the Thai coup in May 2014. He then flew to America together with 7 other Thais: politicians and political activists. “I just wanted to take a short break to have time to think after being depressed over freedom of expression and sickened by coup after coup, so I went just to the neighboring country but later on was told to flee. I could be detained because I denied the junta’s summons”. To deny the summons he put the reason simply: “I have never agreed with nor supported the coup, so I just won’t go”.

This group are now waiting for asylum, while Jom is still working as a journalist on his own news website.

He left all assets and financial obligations to one of his friends with whom “I signed over every penny and pray I can trust”. His two nephews are to live under this financial arrangement. He then flew with a few baht which turned out to be useless in America. “I try to spend less cause I can’t be sure what would happen. I try not to take money from my nephews expenses, they need to study and my saving would help them through”.

Jom now lives with limited monthly assistance from those he claims are “democracy supporters”. Asked if it’s Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister, he laughs. “I’ve never met him nor have any contact or support from him, though people from the other side try to portray me as his money slave. If you happen to meet tell him I have many questions I think Thai people would like to ask”. He smiles bitterly.

His tourist visa will expire within a month. He is stressed, waiting, while vowing to fight, not return.

That same stress used to envelope Kritsuda Kunasaen, aged 28, a red-shirt activist who fled Thailand on 24 June 2014, after 29 days detained during which she says she was subjected to blindfolding, sexual harassment, beatings, suffocation till unconsciousness and then being put in a zipped plastic bag. She fled to Europe, has already applied for asylum, and stays in a government  transit centre and waits for the official interview which is likely to come very soon. Kritsuda feels much relieved now. “Arriving 4 months ago I felt so depressed and overwhelmed with fear and anger, I couldn’t speak their language didn’t know what would happen and what life here would be. Now things become easy with lots of support from many people. I feel relieved, well adjusted and optimistic”.

Staying in the transit centre also convinced her that those from Thailand are not the most unfortunate. “I found people fled from their war torn countries in Africa and the Middle East. I felt sad for them, realized how bad is the situation they faced. I am not alone, not the only one who suffers. I have good support while most of them fled alone in desperation”.

Compared with many Thais in exile, Kritsuda is in good hands, helped by many people. Provided with the best lawyer and her application supported by political activists groups, and international organizations like the International Commission of Jurists, and others.

But to call her the fortunate one we have to think twice. “I barely sleep and hate to go to bed, once I close my eyes the torture would come again. I sense every thing so clearly. It’s too clear, never disappears and I don’t think it will. I am still cautious of strangers and walking sound makes me scared”.

Her boyfriend who faced the same torture, has endured what she calls  a mental “collapse” and has difficulty mentioning the incident again. Kritsuda, also, vows to go on with her political activity, voice out what happened to the world and ask them to force a change. She would return to her home country but only once it has democracy. “And I’m sure we can do that very soon”.

But from the perspective of Jarupong Ruangsuwun, former Minister of Interior and leader of the defunct Phua Thai ruling party, that future may take longer to realise. “Many things need to be fixed. Something so huge that it needs time. I can’t say it will be soon.  But it will be for sure. You and I will witness it together.” In his late sixties, together with his family, Jarupong fled weeks after the coup and now lives in America waiting for asylum status. He is on an arrest warrant for 3 charges and his assets have been seized by the junta. But he still can live on his own money supporting the family and some people he helped to come over.

Jarupong stays up till early morning before going to bed. He doesn’t have any problem with sleeping like the others but just wants to spend time chatting online. He has completely turned himself from solemn politician to internet geek. “I enjoy talking through LINE application. I think I owe them a lot and I’m now addicted , talk to many people and surf for tons of information. That’s fun and time flies”.

On 24 June this year Jarupong released a statement of the Organization of Free Thais for Human Rights and Democracy (FTHD) vowing to fight back but later on said the urgent task would be just to expand the membership. His organization didn’t gain much attention from the red-shirt movement. Jarupong cited the fact that political movement and expression is strictly controlled within the country. So the members, which he claims number around 10,000, are mostly Thais living abroad.

He said he constantly talked to many international organizations, asking for support for the democratic campaign. “We will let the world know the truth and force for change. The world won’t tolerate the dictatorship, Thai people also are never willing to tolerate it but just can’t say it because guns were just at their heads. Guns that were bought by their sweat money.”

He was once close to Thaksin Shinawatra and his family but Jaturong says he’s never  had any call from Thaksin and that he understands why. “The movement shouldn’t rely on any people, Thaksin in particular. Without Thaksin or any one once calling themselves the leader, the people can make it. People already had a lesson in this”.

Asked if he’s happy enough, he says with a laugh: “I feel my life is much better than many Thais who have to live under the junta, my former colleagues in the former government, in particular. They can’t speak nor move. I feel pity for them ”

But it will change, he strongly believes but can’t truly describe how. “You can’t suppress millions of people for a long time. Those who believe they can do that are stupid. They are in power now just because they carry guns and are so coward that never dare to put it down”. Jarupong is not the oldest Thai in exile I talked to.

Amara Avattanakul, who is 70 years old, is a Thai woman with US citizenship who has been living in America for over 30 years. She has retired from teaching in a community college and survived cancer twice. She is now living alone while her 2 daughters stay within reach. She’s  already prepared to move back to her birth place where her declining health could be treated, while the military filed an arrest warrant 4 months ago .

“I don’t know how it happened, but I would grin and bear it: never regret in what I’ve done. What only upset me is that I had a plan of doing volunteer work in English teaching over there and I can’t do it now”.

Amara  has been constantly involving in political movements since October 1976,  also a strong supports for democracy movement both in Thailand and the US. She was under a junta arrest warrant after  she went back to Thailand early this year and visited  many  political prisoners,  giving money to many of them for their spending in prison, 1000-2000 baht each.

The military accused her as a financial supporter for red shirt movement. With her age and health Amara can’t let herself be arrested. She can’t go back and so her plan of living and volunteering in Thailand has faded. Gazing through the heavy winter snow she is a frail and quiet lady who is persona non grata back home.

Kannikar Petchkaew is a veteran Thai journalist who is now a Visiting Scholar at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.