The Taliban Dilemma, the US and Pakistan | Asia Sentinel
,19 NOVEMBER 2013
Did the US botch a Pakistan peace overture with the killing of the head of the local Taliban?
The Nov. 1 drone attack by the US
that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, appears to
have paralyzed whatever prospects there were for a ‘peaceful solution’
to Pakistan’s continuing terrorism and violence and has to be regarded
as a major blunder stemming from lack of communication and distrust
between the two countries.
Worse, the killing of Mehsud, who had
expressed at least some inclination to start a dialogue with the
Pakistan government for normalization -- although many believe he had no
intention of seriously negotiating -- has allowed for his replacement
by Mullah Fazllulah, who has vowed never to negotiate with Pakistan.
Faizlullah is the hardliner who ordered the attempt to kill the
schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, turning her into a world figure after she
survived being shot in the head.
To the utter dismay of the government
in Islamabad, the US once again has played its part in bringing the
whole process of dialogue, however fragile it was, to a dead end. Not
only does it reflect lack of cooperation and coordination between
Pakistan and the US authorities, but also the markedly different visions
and priorities they have of the region’s future.
The timing of the attack has further
added to the already brewing lava of intense suspicions in Pakistan over
US intentions although the killing was and is still being followed by
serious attempts on the part of Pakistani authorities to prevent the
breakdown of the dialogue, even in the face of doubts over the Taliban's
desultory offers of negotiation as ploys to gain time.
The killing has led many to the
conclusion that the US is not interested in helping to establish peace
in Pakistan, at least until Pakistan helps the US to achieve its war
objectives in Afghanistan.
The question of the Pakistani Taliban
has thus become a very serious dilemma for the Pakistani authorities,
one which demands serious political and strategic maneuvering both at
the national and international levels.
One thing is becoming increasingly
clear in Pakistan with every passing day – that the incumbent government
is serious in a reaching a compromise with the Pakistani Taliban,
perhaps because the ruling business-oriented party, the Pakistan Muslim
League, has rightly realized the crucial importance of establishing
peace as a prerequisite for making Pakistan an attractive place for
foreign direct investment. The first thing the government had to do was
to dissociate itself from this particular attack in order to maintain
its credibility vis-à-vis the Pakistani Taliban, leading the interior
minister to declare the attack an “ambush of peace talks.”
On the other hand, the provincial
government of Khyber Pakhutnkwa Province, the most troubled and
terrorist-hit province of Pakistan, also declared its intention to stop
the flow of NATO/ISAF supplies through areas under its jurisdiction.
The disagreement between the troubled
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial government, formerly known as the of
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or the Pakistan Movement for Justice, and the
central government of the Pakistan Muslim League over the issue of NATO
supplies against the backdrop of US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014
has further exacerbated the political environment in Pakistan,
reinforcing the fact that terrorism in Pakistan is inevitably linked
with the Afghan conflict.
While the wrapping up of the Afghan
conflict is on fast track, a number of bilateral and multilateral events
are in process with a single objective: to provide a face saving exit
to the US forces. Most recent one was a trilateral meeting hosted by
David Cameron, the UK prime minister, and participated by Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif and President Karzai. After this meeting, Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif announced in London that the dialogue process with the
Pakistani Taliban had begun.
Significantly, Sharif’s statement
came in response to Mehsud’s interview with the BBC in October, in which
he declared his intentions to start serious negotiations with the
Pakistani government. It is also significant to note that Islamabad,
prior to Oct. 9, the date of the BBC interview, had not formally
announced the initiation of talks or establishment of contact with the
Pakistani Taliban. Not only did he invite the government to engage in
dialogue, but also made it clear that for the ceasefire to be credible,
“it is important that drone attacks are stopped.”
The Pakistani Taliban had placed some
hope on the negotiation process, especially in light of the prime
minister’s assurances to terminate air strikes on FATA territory after
his October visit to the US. However, why did the US kill Mehsud right
after the PM’s announcement of the initiation of talks? Nisar Ali Khan,
the interior minister of Pakistan said in a press conference after the
attack that the strike came just hours before a delegation was supposed
to travel and initiate talks with the Pakistani Taliban.
The minister added that during
bilateral interactions with the US, including with Secretary of State
John Kerry, Pakistan had urged that drone strikes to be halted
completely, especially during the peace talks. Thus it is difficult to
believe the often repeated rhetoric that both the US and Pakistan are
“closely cooperating” in curbing the menace of terrorism in the region.
Mehsud was one of the US’s most
wanted terrorists, with a reward on his head of US$5 million. The
Pentagon suspected him of arranging the attack on a NATO base in
Afghanistan, of a botched car bombing in New York’s Times Square, and of
terrorist attacks against Americans in Pakistan. Nonetheless, critics
say the US is seeking to keep Pakistan in line with the policy
objectives of the US, which is to ensure the orderly departure from
Afghanistan, and a peace with the Pakistani Taliban would have got in
the way of that.
Such views are not unfounded. For
example, the killing of Wali-ur Rehman, the second in command to the
Pakistani Taliban also came against the backdrop of a possible
initiation of negotiations between the government and the Taliban. He
too was killed in a drone attack by the US, on May 29, when the
governments at the center and in provinces had just been formed after
elections on May 11, 2013.
During elections, all parties in
general emphasized the need for engaging with the Taliban in dialogue
and find a peaceful solution. Rehman’s killing within weeks after
elections had the effect of postponing the talks until Sharif’s
statement of Oct. 31 in the UK.
The killing of Rehman and now Mehsud
is most likely to have a similar effect, or even worse since the new
Taliban leader, Mullah Fazllulah, happens to be a staunch enemy of the
State of Pakistan. He is the man who established his control in the Swat
Valley, among other things banning the attendance of girls in school.
Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head and neck on Oct. 9, 2012 on his
orders. She survived and has become a symbol of resistance to
fundamentalism.
Mullah Fazllulah and his troops were
eventually pushed out and forced to leave military operations in the
region in 2009. Announcement of his appointment was immediately followed
by an official statement by the Pakistani Taliban declaring that there
would be no negotiations with the government of Pakistan since Mullah
Fazllulah “is already against negotiations with Pakistan.”
The mess created after the attack has
pushed the government of Pakistan to its limits. Its consequences can
be very grave. One thing must be clear that one cannot hope to find
solutions to such complicated problems as terrorism and insurgency
merely by removing heads of such organizations and networks. And,
considering the loose structure, vague ideology and motivation of the
Pakistani Taliban, this strategy may not work. Such organizations are
never short on leadership. Hence the killing of Hakeem may not affect
the Taliban’s continuity in carrying out attacks. Therefore, the need is
to take pragmatic steps to review counter-terrorism strategy in the
light of Pakistan’s socio-political realities and review aspects of its
relations with the US.
There is arguably no other way of
dealing with terrorism than through dialogue. Pakistani authorities seem
to have realized this, and their intention to go ahead with the
dialogue process was reinforced in a statement by the foreign office
which said that, “the government, however, is determined to continue
with efforts to engage with the Pakistani to bring an end to the ongoing
violence and make them a part of mainstream politics within the
parameters of our constitution.”
The statement is very meaningful, not
because of its content, but because of the agency through which it has
been given i.e., the foreign office., giving the impression of having
been specifically directed against the US’ calling the dialogue process a
matter “internal” to Pakistan, and celebrating Hakeem’s death a victory
of the US in the war against terrorism.
The dilemma for Pakistan is wide and
open. Where it has to deal with the Pakistani Taliban, it has to handle
the US as well. Lack of coordination between the US and Pakistan is
becoming a major issue and a problem to be seriously reckoned with.
However, how and the extent to which it would affect the approaching
end-game in Afghanistan and Pakistan-US bilateral relations in that
context is another question. But it is more than apparent that the
damage to the Pakistan government’s efforts to establish peace with the
Taliban has been done.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Uncle Sam Returns to the Philippines | Asia Sentinel
Uncle Sam Returns to the Philippines | Asia Sentinel
Major contrast with China’s regional profile
With US President Barack Obama having failed to show up at last month's APEC summit in Bali, the US Marines have landed again on the Philippine island of Leyte in a display of quick response to Typhoon Haiyan that seems certain to be welcomed by the storm-ravaged country and is symbolic of the continued US presence in the region.
The public relations value of the straight-talking, telegenic Brig. Gen. Paul Kennedy, commander of the Okinawa-based 3rd Marine Expedition Brigade, and his troops, unarmed, helping out in the devastated city of Tacloban soon after the storm hit could hardly be lost on Washington – or the region.
China’s response was slower but by Tuesday a flight with relief goods on board a large Chinese cargo plane arrived. Initially, though, the US was quicker and far more thorough.
The Marine operation encompasses up to nine C-130s plus four MV-22 Ospreys—tilt-rotor planes that can operate without runways—and two P3 Orion aircraft for search and rescue. It is the first of a massive response by the US to the tragedy, which is believed to have killed at least 10,000 people and probably many more.
That the Marines are in Leyte, almost 70 years after Gen. Douglas MacAthur's famous landing, displays, without much need to draw it out, the long relationship that Washington maintains with its former colony and serves as the most dramatic display possible of the region’s need for a US presence.
The Marines landed shortly after the disaster with Kennedy leading an advance contingent that will quickly grow.
"Everything's destroyed," Kennedy said Monday in comments replayed on CNN and elsewhere. "Roads are impassable, trees are all down, posts are down, power is down…We are gonna move stuff as they direct, as the Philippine government and the armed forces [ask]."
The US’s immediate response on top of the Marines’ arrival includes emergency shelter and hygiene materials from the US Agency for International Development, 55 tons of emergency food to feed 20,000 children and 15,000 adults for five days, and US$100,000 for water and sanitation support from the US Embassy in Manila. On Monday, the US announced that the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and its support fleet, numbering 7,000 sailors, has been dispatched from a port call in Hong Kong to support relief efforts.
That stands in stark contrast to the offer by Beijing of a relatively minuscule US$200,000 in cash. If Beijing were seeking to project its soft power in the South China Sea, that didn’t do it and indeed it is shown up by aid flowing in from across the world.
China, of course, has coast guard vessels not far away projecting its claim to reefs and shoals that are also claimed by the Philippines. It is unlikely those Chinese vessels will be steaming to Leyte.
To be sure, many Filipinos are still wary of Washington's intentions. But at least when it comes to disaster response, the US military's presence in the region can be greatly helpful. The US military response to the 2004 tsunami in Aceh, for example, helped to warm relations with Indonesia after years of tensions over human rights violations.
The US legacy in the region can be mixed – and lately tarnished by a massive bribery scandal going all the way up to admirals over berthing logistics fees but its ability to project force and lift into disasters is almost always a welcome sight.
Other countries have also quickly responded. According to Reuters, Australia announced a US$10 million package, including medical personnel and non-food items such as tarpaulins, sleeping mats, mosquito nets, water containers and hygiene kits; the UK announced a £6 million (US$9.6 million) package including aid for up to 500,000 people including temporary shelter, water, plastic sheeting and household items. New Zealand has offered NZ$2.15 million in aid, Japan is sending a 25-strong emergency medical relief team and Indonesia is dispatching aircraft and logistical aid including personnel, drinking water, food, generators, antibiotics and other medication.
Domestically the Philippines disaster response has almost never been adequate even in the normal disasters that occur on a regular basis. It lacks the kind of heavy-lift aircraft needed in a disaster and its outdated air force is hardly a match for the typhoon's devastating aftermath. The Marines, for example, brought in the mobile radar and lighting equipment needed to get the Tacloban airport working.
Asked by CNN what is most needed, Richard Gordon, the head of the Philippine Red Cross, said "Heavy lifting, the movement of relief goods... to deliver goods to the areas that need them."
Major contrast with China’s regional profile
With US President Barack Obama having failed to show up at last month's APEC summit in Bali, the US Marines have landed again on the Philippine island of Leyte in a display of quick response to Typhoon Haiyan that seems certain to be welcomed by the storm-ravaged country and is symbolic of the continued US presence in the region.
The public relations value of the straight-talking, telegenic Brig. Gen. Paul Kennedy, commander of the Okinawa-based 3rd Marine Expedition Brigade, and his troops, unarmed, helping out in the devastated city of Tacloban soon after the storm hit could hardly be lost on Washington – or the region.
China’s response was slower but by Tuesday a flight with relief goods on board a large Chinese cargo plane arrived. Initially, though, the US was quicker and far more thorough.
The Marine operation encompasses up to nine C-130s plus four MV-22 Ospreys—tilt-rotor planes that can operate without runways—and two P3 Orion aircraft for search and rescue. It is the first of a massive response by the US to the tragedy, which is believed to have killed at least 10,000 people and probably many more.
That the Marines are in Leyte, almost 70 years after Gen. Douglas MacAthur's famous landing, displays, without much need to draw it out, the long relationship that Washington maintains with its former colony and serves as the most dramatic display possible of the region’s need for a US presence.
The Marines landed shortly after the disaster with Kennedy leading an advance contingent that will quickly grow.
"Everything's destroyed," Kennedy said Monday in comments replayed on CNN and elsewhere. "Roads are impassable, trees are all down, posts are down, power is down…We are gonna move stuff as they direct, as the Philippine government and the armed forces [ask]."
The US’s immediate response on top of the Marines’ arrival includes emergency shelter and hygiene materials from the US Agency for International Development, 55 tons of emergency food to feed 20,000 children and 15,000 adults for five days, and US$100,000 for water and sanitation support from the US Embassy in Manila. On Monday, the US announced that the USS George Washington aircraft carrier and its support fleet, numbering 7,000 sailors, has been dispatched from a port call in Hong Kong to support relief efforts.
That stands in stark contrast to the offer by Beijing of a relatively minuscule US$200,000 in cash. If Beijing were seeking to project its soft power in the South China Sea, that didn’t do it and indeed it is shown up by aid flowing in from across the world.
China, of course, has coast guard vessels not far away projecting its claim to reefs and shoals that are also claimed by the Philippines. It is unlikely those Chinese vessels will be steaming to Leyte.
To be sure, many Filipinos are still wary of Washington's intentions. But at least when it comes to disaster response, the US military's presence in the region can be greatly helpful. The US military response to the 2004 tsunami in Aceh, for example, helped to warm relations with Indonesia after years of tensions over human rights violations.
The US legacy in the region can be mixed – and lately tarnished by a massive bribery scandal going all the way up to admirals over berthing logistics fees but its ability to project force and lift into disasters is almost always a welcome sight.
Other countries have also quickly responded. According to Reuters, Australia announced a US$10 million package, including medical personnel and non-food items such as tarpaulins, sleeping mats, mosquito nets, water containers and hygiene kits; the UK announced a £6 million (US$9.6 million) package including aid for up to 500,000 people including temporary shelter, water, plastic sheeting and household items. New Zealand has offered NZ$2.15 million in aid, Japan is sending a 25-strong emergency medical relief team and Indonesia is dispatching aircraft and logistical aid including personnel, drinking water, food, generators, antibiotics and other medication.
Domestically the Philippines disaster response has almost never been adequate even in the normal disasters that occur on a regular basis. It lacks the kind of heavy-lift aircraft needed in a disaster and its outdated air force is hardly a match for the typhoon's devastating aftermath. The Marines, for example, brought in the mobile radar and lighting equipment needed to get the Tacloban airport working.
Asked by CNN what is most needed, Richard Gordon, the head of the Philippine Red Cross, said "Heavy lifting, the movement of relief goods... to deliver goods to the areas that need them."
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Australia dumps carbon tax, snubs Warsaw climate summit | Asian Correspondent
Australia dumps carbon tax, snubs Warsaw climate summit | Asian Correspondent
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Nov 08, 2013
It is official: Australia’s new government denies global warming. The Coalition Government will not send its environment minister to the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which will kick off in Warsaw, Poland from 11-22 November 2013.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt will stay at home to expedite the processes involved in repealing the carbon tax, a top election promise made by his boss, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
However, a representative on his behalf has been dispatched to take part in the annual event. Hunt will be busy repealing the carbon tax while the conference is underway. The carbon tax was passed by the Australian legislature in 2011 under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Since Abbott won the federal election in September this year, scrapping the carbon tax has topped his priority agenda.
Australia will be represented by Australia’s Climate Change Ambassador Justin Lee from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will also not attend.
Climate observers said this will send the wrong signal that Australia is walking away from its commitment on climate action and it may set a precedent for other countries to backslide.
Climate skeptics and right-wingers are already cheering on Australia’s unprecedented example. Recently, former PM John Howard also scoffed at ”alarmists” in a climate skeptics’ gathering held in London and admitted he is “unconvinced” of an impending ”global warming catastrophe.”
The COP19 expects to bring together around 40,000 attendees from government, academia, business and advocacy groups to advance international agreements that aim to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.
In the past, a government minister represented Australia to the UNFCCC. Ian Campbell headed the delegation under John Howard’s first government in 1997. Labor Climate Change Ministers Penny Wong and Greg Combet, respectively, attended the conference from 2007, although in 2012, the Gillard government’s parliamentary secretary on climate change Mark Dreyfus attended the conference on behalf of Combet.
Oppositions and environmental groups are wary of the bad signal Australia will be sending to the summit. Opposition climate spokesman Mark Butler told The Australian, “Other countries are going to read into it at best with confusion and at worst that the Abbott government is walking away from global action on climate change. ”
Greens MP Adam Bandt also said it was “understandable” that Minister Hunt was “embarrassed” by his government’s decision to scrap the carbon tax, but it was no excuse to skip the global summit. While no major decisions will be made at Warsaw, the meeting will build momentum in the lead-up to major negotiations for a global agreement on cutting greenhouse gases in Paris in 2015.
Businesses support repeal of carbon tax
PHP Billiton, among other businesses under the Australian Business Council, supports the dumping of carbon tax. While backing the Federal Government’s plan, the mining giant, however, urged scrapping the price of carbon should be done as soon as possible. It warned of a possible complications if it is not done by mid-2014. The mining firm said it still believes in having a price on carbon, but any policy should be trade friendly and revenue neutral.
BHP Billiton noted that repealing the carbon tax will get rid of the current problem of Australian firms paying a higher cost on pollution than their international competitors. The company shares concerns already expressed by others businesses about the uncertainty that will be created should the legislation not pass by mid-next year.
Climate action nationwide rally
Amid plans to scrap the carbon tax, a climate action is brewing nationwide. Various environmental groups are set to mobilise rallies in every major city nationwide on November 17. It is a collaboration of GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Victoria, Fire Brigade Employees Union, Greenpeace, 350.org, Oxfam Australia and many other groups. ACF said they intend to make this event as big as they can.
The ACF wants to keep Australia’s carbon tax. It said that while the tide of history is flowing towards pricing pollution, Australia is turning back the clock. Along with the climate action rally, the Foundation also supports an online petition to the prime minister, environment minister, and environment decision makers from all parties.
GetUp who is spearheading the climate action rally said 2011 was a turning point for Australia. Climate scientists warned it was the beginning of the critical decade for climate change and thus required stronger action to avoid the catastrophic effects of rising emissions. Australians responded to this warming by enacting the carbon tax.
However, Australia faces another turning point this year which is poised to “go backwards on climate action at a time when the government’s own independent climate policy advisory body has warned the nation’s current emissions reductions targets are “inadequate” and what it needs is stronger and more ambitious targets.”
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon, Nov 08, 2013
It is official: Australia’s new government denies global warming. The Coalition Government will not send its environment minister to the 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which will kick off in Warsaw, Poland from 11-22 November 2013.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt will stay at home to expedite the processes involved in repealing the carbon tax, a top election promise made by his boss, Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
However, a representative on his behalf has been dispatched to take part in the annual event. Hunt will be busy repealing the carbon tax while the conference is underway. The carbon tax was passed by the Australian legislature in 2011 under former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Since Abbott won the federal election in September this year, scrapping the carbon tax has topped his priority agenda.
Australia will be represented by Australia’s Climate Change Ambassador Justin Lee from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will also not attend.
Climate observers said this will send the wrong signal that Australia is walking away from its commitment on climate action and it may set a precedent for other countries to backslide.
Climate skeptics and right-wingers are already cheering on Australia’s unprecedented example. Recently, former PM John Howard also scoffed at ”alarmists” in a climate skeptics’ gathering held in London and admitted he is “unconvinced” of an impending ”global warming catastrophe.”
The COP19 expects to bring together around 40,000 attendees from government, academia, business and advocacy groups to advance international agreements that aim to mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects.
In the past, a government minister represented Australia to the UNFCCC. Ian Campbell headed the delegation under John Howard’s first government in 1997. Labor Climate Change Ministers Penny Wong and Greg Combet, respectively, attended the conference from 2007, although in 2012, the Gillard government’s parliamentary secretary on climate change Mark Dreyfus attended the conference on behalf of Combet.
Oppositions and environmental groups are wary of the bad signal Australia will be sending to the summit. Opposition climate spokesman Mark Butler told The Australian, “Other countries are going to read into it at best with confusion and at worst that the Abbott government is walking away from global action on climate change. ”
Greens MP Adam Bandt also said it was “understandable” that Minister Hunt was “embarrassed” by his government’s decision to scrap the carbon tax, but it was no excuse to skip the global summit. While no major decisions will be made at Warsaw, the meeting will build momentum in the lead-up to major negotiations for a global agreement on cutting greenhouse gases in Paris in 2015.
Businesses support repeal of carbon tax
PHP Billiton, among other businesses under the Australian Business Council, supports the dumping of carbon tax. While backing the Federal Government’s plan, the mining giant, however, urged scrapping the price of carbon should be done as soon as possible. It warned of a possible complications if it is not done by mid-2014. The mining firm said it still believes in having a price on carbon, but any policy should be trade friendly and revenue neutral.
BHP Billiton noted that repealing the carbon tax will get rid of the current problem of Australian firms paying a higher cost on pollution than their international competitors. The company shares concerns already expressed by others businesses about the uncertainty that will be created should the legislation not pass by mid-next year.
Climate action nationwide rally
Amid plans to scrap the carbon tax, a climate action is brewing nationwide. Various environmental groups are set to mobilise rallies in every major city nationwide on November 17. It is a collaboration of GetUp, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Environment Victoria, Fire Brigade Employees Union, Greenpeace, 350.org, Oxfam Australia and many other groups. ACF said they intend to make this event as big as they can.
The ACF wants to keep Australia’s carbon tax. It said that while the tide of history is flowing towards pricing pollution, Australia is turning back the clock. Along with the climate action rally, the Foundation also supports an online petition to the prime minister, environment minister, and environment decision makers from all parties.
GetUp who is spearheading the climate action rally said 2011 was a turning point for Australia. Climate scientists warned it was the beginning of the critical decade for climate change and thus required stronger action to avoid the catastrophic effects of rising emissions. Australians responded to this warming by enacting the carbon tax.
However, Australia faces another turning point this year which is poised to “go backwards on climate action at a time when the government’s own independent climate policy advisory body has warned the nation’s current emissions reductions targets are “inadequate” and what it needs is stronger and more ambitious targets.”
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Anonymous Cambodia marks Million Mask March with ‘small’ online campaign | Asian Correspondent
Anonymous Cambodia marks Million Mask March with ‘small’ online campaign | Asian Correspondent
Clothilde Le Coz, Nov 06, 2013
The Cambodian government was warned by Anonymous Cambodia that “fairness, justice and freedom are more than words“, as stated by V in the movie “V for Vendetta”. On November 5, Anonymous Cambodia aimed to lead a major rally in “cyberspace” for fear that supporters marching in reality would be arrested. “I would say Hun Sen is… a dictator because if Anonymous march to the street on Nov 5 like people did in the US, I am sure they all will get arrested“, stated an Anon on November 4.
On November 5, to help LuLzSec to celebrate “Guy Fawkes Day”, Anonymous Cambodia participated in a “fun” hacking session on NASA. It also hacked the Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia to leak data as well as the KHMAC investment website.
Too small?
When reached on November 6 to assess the impact of the November 5 operation in Cambodia, one Anon stated it was small because “less than 10 people helped“, coming from different parts of the world. For example, the group aimed to target the SL garment company but was “too busy” working on other attacks. “We [did] not have enough people to help DDoS the site,” stated the Anon.
”A Bunch of Chopsticks Can’t Be Broken”
Khmer Rouge Tribunal targeted
On November 2 it was reported that hackers of the group had taken down the website of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. “ECCC has tried to silence victims of crimes against humanity. So we acted,” states the Anon, basing this action on a report from Radio France International published in Khmer language. In it, the Paris-based media states that “some civil party lawyers complained about restrictions within the tribunal”.
Targeting a website is the decision of one Anon or the result of a collective consultation.In the case of the ECCC website, an Anon from Cambodia decided and that was followed by others globally.
Moreover, according to the Anon, the Cambodian government computer systems are easy to reach. Information has already been taken from the Anti-corruption Unit, as well as a lengthy document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 2012.
The Cambodian government called Anonymous’ actions “terrorists acts” on September 17 after they “declared war” on the ruling CPP in a video exposing their Operation Cambodia, responding to clashes with protesters that left one person dead.
For Mike Vitale of the Chanology project, the Anonymous group “calls itself the final boss of the Internet and sometimes it proves to really be [...] true”. But to him, “hacking doesn’t accomplish anything [...] it doesn’t send a message; it just gets more people arrested in the name of Anonymous” in a 2011 interview.
On November 15, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York will sentence Jeremy Hammond, an Anon who leaked information from the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (StratFor) through the WikiLeaks website, revealing the organization had been spying on human rights activists in the US.
Clothilde Le Coz, Nov 06, 2013
The Cambodian government was warned by Anonymous Cambodia that “fairness, justice and freedom are more than words“, as stated by V in the movie “V for Vendetta”. On November 5, Anonymous Cambodia aimed to lead a major rally in “cyberspace” for fear that supporters marching in reality would be arrested. “I would say Hun Sen is… a dictator because if Anonymous march to the street on Nov 5 like people did in the US, I am sure they all will get arrested“, stated an Anon on November 4.
On November 5, to help LuLzSec to celebrate “Guy Fawkes Day”, Anonymous Cambodia participated in a “fun” hacking session on NASA. It also hacked the Telecommunication Regulator of Cambodia to leak data as well as the KHMAC investment website.
Anonymous
When reached on November 6 to assess the impact of the November 5 operation in Cambodia, one Anon stated it was small because “less than 10 people helped“, coming from different parts of the world. For example, the group aimed to target the SL garment company but was “too busy” working on other attacks. “We [did] not have enough people to help DDoS the site,” stated the Anon.
”A Bunch of Chopsticks Can’t Be Broken”
To Anonymous Cambodia, there is no good existing example of
government and knowledge and information have become the prerogatives of
the rich. “Freedom to us is vital to humanity. Without freedom one
cannot live as a human being. Whoever is preventing human from being a
human is not welcome by us,” the Anon states. To them, cyber
surveillance and censorship are preventing people to be free in
Cambodia. Moreover, the Cambodian elections system is something
Anonymous Cambodia does not trust and, at any rate, they are “not interested” in the political situation.
Anonymous Cambodia believes the strength for change lies in the
number of people involved. As such, their so called “western” vision of
freedom and change fits into the Cambodian state of mind and could be
compared to the Khmer proverb: ” a bunch of chopsticks cannot be
broken”, showing strength in unity.
On November 2 it was reported that hackers of the group had taken down the website of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. “ECCC has tried to silence victims of crimes against humanity. So we acted,” states the Anon, basing this action on a report from Radio France International published in Khmer language. In it, the Paris-based media states that “some civil party lawyers complained about restrictions within the tribunal”.
Targeting a website is the decision of one Anon or the result of a collective consultation.In the case of the ECCC website, an Anon from Cambodia decided and that was followed by others globally.
Moreover, according to the Anon, the Cambodian government computer systems are easy to reach. Information has already been taken from the Anti-corruption Unit, as well as a lengthy document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in September 2012.
The Cambodian government called Anonymous’ actions “terrorists acts” on September 17 after they “declared war” on the ruling CPP in a video exposing their Operation Cambodia, responding to clashes with protesters that left one person dead.
For Mike Vitale of the Chanology project, the Anonymous group “calls itself the final boss of the Internet and sometimes it proves to really be [...] true”. But to him, “hacking doesn’t accomplish anything [...] it doesn’t send a message; it just gets more people arrested in the name of Anonymous” in a 2011 interview.
On November 15, the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York will sentence Jeremy Hammond, an Anon who leaked information from the private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (StratFor) through the WikiLeaks website, revealing the organization had been spying on human rights activists in the US.
Monday, November 4, 2013
The Mekong Under Threat
The Mekong Under Threat
ASIA SENTINE, Monday, November 4, 2013
Nineteen local, regional and international environmental groups under an umbrella called Save the Mekong are calling for an urgent moratorium on plans by the Laotian government to build a new hydroelectric dam that they fear will do irreparable damage to the giant river’s ecosystem.
The Laos government says it expects to start construction of the Don Sahong dam this month near the picturesque Khone Falls, with commercial operation of its 260 MW of power to begin in 2018.
One of the world’s most impoverished countries, Laos has a wealth of natural resources that it is anxious to exploit in a drive to build a more sophisticated economy. With annual per capita gross domestic product a minuscule US$3,100 per year by purchasing power parity, it ranks 176th in the world. The government in Vientiane nonetheless hopes energy sales, mostly to Thailand and China, can put it on the way to lower middle income status and provide jobs outside of agriculture, which currently accounts for 75 percent of employment.
However, the dam, the environmentalists said, “will irreversibly alter the Khone Falls and Mekong River basin. It will create a non-passable barrier across the Hou Sahong channel, recognized by fishery experts as one of the worst possible sites to build a dam, as it is the passage of maximum fish migration on the Mekong, which supports the world’s largest inland fisheries.”
The Laotian government appears ready to ignore a 1995 agreement that mainstream Mekong projects can only proceed if a consensus is reached between MRC’s four member countries—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The riparian countries are growing increasingly alarmed at Laos’s plans, which could threaten to restrict the flow of sediment to Vietnam’s rice fields and block the pathway of migrating fish, which feed millions in the Lower Mekong. Vietnam, Cambodia and seven Thai provincial governments have already objected to the construction of another dam, the Xayaburi deep inside the mountains of northern Laos on the lower Mekong, to no avail. While the Laotian government has repeatedly paid lip service to calls for moratoriums, it has continued construction work.
Environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have also warned for the possible impact on Mekong’s unique biodiversity, second in scope only to the Amazon’s. Additionally, according to Save the Mekong, more than two million cubic meters of riverbed will be excavated from the Mekong River to increase flows into the Hou Sahong channel.
The Don Sahong, the group said, will have “serious negative repercussions on fisheries and local livelihoods, as well as the food security of millions of people within the Lao PDR and in the neighboring countries of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. The project will also threaten such rare and internationally recognized giant migratory fishes as Pangasius krempfi, Pangasianodon gigas, Probarbus jullieni, and Probarbus labeamajor.”
The group said it has little faith in the Mekong River Commission or the ability of the 1995 Mekong Agreement to adequately address the threat. One clear indication, it said, is the MRC’s failure to resolve disagreement among the four member governments over whether the “prior consultation” process for the Xayaburi Dam remains open or closed.
While the Laotian government has claimed that the Don Sahong Dam is “not on the Mekong mainstream,” the group said, “we totally reject this claim, for there is absolutely no question that the Don Sahong Dam is a mainstream project that will deeply impact flows and fish migration, and have immense transboundary implications. For these reasons, we believe that the MRC will once again fail, should resolution of the Don Sahong Dam controversy remain solely in the hands of the Lao government.”
The Vietnam minister of natural resources and environment, the former Cambodian minister of environment, and members of the Thailand National Mekong River Committee have all objected to further damming of the Mekong.
“In light of the many ambiguities around the Don Sahong Dam, as well as other projects on the Mekong mainstream, deliberations over all these projects must be halted,” Save the Mekong said. “A new joint platform is urgently needed to review, clarify, and resolve outstanding issues through regional-level decision-making based on the principles of transparency and full participation of all stakeholders. Necessary studies, including transboundary impact assessments for all projects, must also be carried out in order to allow for informed decision-making.”
ASIA SENTINE, Monday, November 4, 2013
Nineteen local, regional and international environmental groups under an umbrella called Save the Mekong are calling for an urgent moratorium on plans by the Laotian government to build a new hydroelectric dam that they fear will do irreparable damage to the giant river’s ecosystem.
The Laos government says it expects to start construction of the Don Sahong dam this month near the picturesque Khone Falls, with commercial operation of its 260 MW of power to begin in 2018.
One of the world’s most impoverished countries, Laos has a wealth of natural resources that it is anxious to exploit in a drive to build a more sophisticated economy. With annual per capita gross domestic product a minuscule US$3,100 per year by purchasing power parity, it ranks 176th in the world. The government in Vientiane nonetheless hopes energy sales, mostly to Thailand and China, can put it on the way to lower middle income status and provide jobs outside of agriculture, which currently accounts for 75 percent of employment.
However, the dam, the environmentalists said, “will irreversibly alter the Khone Falls and Mekong River basin. It will create a non-passable barrier across the Hou Sahong channel, recognized by fishery experts as one of the worst possible sites to build a dam, as it is the passage of maximum fish migration on the Mekong, which supports the world’s largest inland fisheries.”
The Laotian government appears ready to ignore a 1995 agreement that mainstream Mekong projects can only proceed if a consensus is reached between MRC’s four member countries—Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. The riparian countries are growing increasingly alarmed at Laos’s plans, which could threaten to restrict the flow of sediment to Vietnam’s rice fields and block the pathway of migrating fish, which feed millions in the Lower Mekong. Vietnam, Cambodia and seven Thai provincial governments have already objected to the construction of another dam, the Xayaburi deep inside the mountains of northern Laos on the lower Mekong, to no avail. While the Laotian government has repeatedly paid lip service to calls for moratoriums, it has continued construction work.
Environmental groups including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have also warned for the possible impact on Mekong’s unique biodiversity, second in scope only to the Amazon’s. Additionally, according to Save the Mekong, more than two million cubic meters of riverbed will be excavated from the Mekong River to increase flows into the Hou Sahong channel.
The Don Sahong, the group said, will have “serious negative repercussions on fisheries and local livelihoods, as well as the food security of millions of people within the Lao PDR and in the neighboring countries of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. The project will also threaten such rare and internationally recognized giant migratory fishes as Pangasius krempfi, Pangasianodon gigas, Probarbus jullieni, and Probarbus labeamajor.”
The group said it has little faith in the Mekong River Commission or the ability of the 1995 Mekong Agreement to adequately address the threat. One clear indication, it said, is the MRC’s failure to resolve disagreement among the four member governments over whether the “prior consultation” process for the Xayaburi Dam remains open or closed.
While the Laotian government has claimed that the Don Sahong Dam is “not on the Mekong mainstream,” the group said, “we totally reject this claim, for there is absolutely no question that the Don Sahong Dam is a mainstream project that will deeply impact flows and fish migration, and have immense transboundary implications. For these reasons, we believe that the MRC will once again fail, should resolution of the Don Sahong Dam controversy remain solely in the hands of the Lao government.”
The Vietnam minister of natural resources and environment, the former Cambodian minister of environment, and members of the Thailand National Mekong River Committee have all objected to further damming of the Mekong.
“In light of the many ambiguities around the Don Sahong Dam, as well as other projects on the Mekong mainstream, deliberations over all these projects must be halted,” Save the Mekong said. “A new joint platform is urgently needed to review, clarify, and resolve outstanding issues through regional-level decision-making based on the principles of transparency and full participation of all stakeholders. Necessary studies, including transboundary impact assessments for all projects, must also be carried out in order to allow for informed decision-making.”
Friday, October 18, 2013
Analysis: Burma’s natural resources curse
Analysis: Burma’s natural resources curse
Zin Linn, Oct 18, 2013
Wealth of oil, gas and mineral resources lies at the heart of continuing civil and economic strife in Burma
Burma (Myanmar) is one of Southeast Asia’s most natural resource-rich countries. It earns billions of dollars yearly exporting natural resources such as oil and gas, teak, gems, and minerals. Sending natural gas overseas is the country’s particular prime source of foreign revenue.
Burma has been exporting gas to Thailand from the Yetagun and Yadana offshore blocks located in Mottama Gulf since 1998 and 2000 respectively. In 2008 BP ranked Burma as the largest gas exporter via pipelines in the Asia-Pacific with gas exports totaling 9.7 bcm in 2007. This made it the 11th largest gas exporter in the world that year, according to the report Burma’s Resource Curse: The case for revenue transparency in the oil and gas sector, issued by Arakan Oil Watch, an independent, community-based, non-governmental organization operating in Burma.
The bulk of profitable resources in Burma, including oil and gas, are unearthed from ethnic states and sold to neighboring countries. Local populations have never been enjoyed the benefits of these deals as the profits wend directly to the military.
Additionally, these states – such as Kachin, Shan, Kayah, Karen and Mon states – have never been repaid for the social and environmental damage that goes with the extraction and export of resources. This remains the main reason behind hostilities between the government and ethnic rebel forces today.
Nobody knows exactly how revenues from the sale of gas resources are spent. However, it is easy to figure out that government spending for social improvement is stingy, while the military continues to enjoy the lion’s share of state revenues.
Unfair sharing of resource benefits is also contributing to ethnic conflicts. Although a so-called civilian government is now running day-to-day affairs, the military remains unwaveringly above the law under the 2008 constitution. Many analysts believe that the role of military conglomerates in Burma’s economy and in managing country’s huge oil and gas revenues remains unfettered.
According to the Arakan Oil Watch (AOW), Foreign Oil Companies engaging in Myanma’s oil and gas sector also refuse to publish how much and how they pay the military regime.
The most crucial question surrounding political reform that many foreign governments overlook is the economic monopoly of Burma’s military elite. They have been exploiting the country’s natural resources under the names of the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (UMEHL) and the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) while the country’s average population has suffered various social miseries.
President Thein Sein’s reforms hav reached few at grassroots level as farmers and workers struggle to make ends meet and their land and properties are unlawfully confiscated by the military, local authorities and government cronies. As a result, the people are suffering severe unemployment in a country where 5 million unemployed citizens have already migrated to neighboring countries in search of work. Most of these are in Thailand and Malaysia.
(READ MORE: Burma farmers find little relief from land grabs)
Burma remains one of the world’s least developed countries, and was ranked 149 out of 187 countries in the 2011 UN’s Human Development Index concerning health, education and income. Burma was ranked 172 out of 176 of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index in 2012 – fifth from bottom above Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia.
If the President is truly reform-minded, he needs to make sure transparency and first-rate management of the country’s largest source of foreign income – revenues from the export of oil and gas – and cope with military monopoly in the market-based economy. With military involvement in the country’s economy, regardless of good management and sustainable development, the natural resources sector in Burma will draw out the resource curse situation even longer.
In order to control extractive industries’ revenues properly, the government must provide a yardstick for checking the use of those revenues. It’s also necessary to set up a responsible revenue management system. Such a check-and balance system should take the form of a constitutional mandate followed by more specific nationwide legislation that extensively controls the use of the benefits that come out of natural resources.
Although the extractive industries’ foreign earnings are biggest in the country, there has been no revenue transparency under both the previous military regime and the current U Thein Sein government. The government’s credit-and-debit accounts concerning the extractive industries’ foreign earnings are not publicly revealed. The same is true of defense budget spending.
According to the report by the Arakan Oil Watch, billions of dollars in revenues from the sale of natural gas have gone unrecorded in the country’s public accounts and been siphoned off by corrupt military rulers, leaving the nation with some of the worst social indicators in the world and ongoing armed conflicts in ethnic regions.
Zin Linn, Oct 18, 2013
Wealth of oil, gas and mineral resources lies at the heart of continuing civil and economic strife in Burma
Burma (Myanmar) is one of Southeast Asia’s most natural resource-rich countries. It earns billions of dollars yearly exporting natural resources such as oil and gas, teak, gems, and minerals. Sending natural gas overseas is the country’s particular prime source of foreign revenue.
Burma has been exporting gas to Thailand from the Yetagun and Yadana offshore blocks located in Mottama Gulf since 1998 and 2000 respectively. In 2008 BP ranked Burma as the largest gas exporter via pipelines in the Asia-Pacific with gas exports totaling 9.7 bcm in 2007. This made it the 11th largest gas exporter in the world that year, according to the report Burma’s Resource Curse: The case for revenue transparency in the oil and gas sector, issued by Arakan Oil Watch, an independent, community-based, non-governmental organization operating in Burma.
The bulk of profitable resources in Burma, including oil and gas, are unearthed from ethnic states and sold to neighboring countries. Local populations have never been enjoyed the benefits of these deals as the profits wend directly to the military.
Additionally, these states – such as Kachin, Shan, Kayah, Karen and Mon states – have never been repaid for the social and environmental damage that goes with the extraction and export of resources. This remains the main reason behind hostilities between the government and ethnic rebel forces today.
Nobody knows exactly how revenues from the sale of gas resources are spent. However, it is easy to figure out that government spending for social improvement is stingy, while the military continues to enjoy the lion’s share of state revenues.
Unfair sharing of resource benefits is also contributing to ethnic conflicts. Although a so-called civilian government is now running day-to-day affairs, the military remains unwaveringly above the law under the 2008 constitution. Many analysts believe that the role of military conglomerates in Burma’s economy and in managing country’s huge oil and gas revenues remains unfettered.
According to the Arakan Oil Watch (AOW), Foreign Oil Companies engaging in Myanma’s oil and gas sector also refuse to publish how much and how they pay the military regime.
The most crucial question surrounding political reform that many foreign governments overlook is the economic monopoly of Burma’s military elite. They have been exploiting the country’s natural resources under the names of the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (UMEHL) and the Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC) while the country’s average population has suffered various social miseries.
President Thein Sein’s reforms hav reached few at grassroots level as farmers and workers struggle to make ends meet and their land and properties are unlawfully confiscated by the military, local authorities and government cronies. As a result, the people are suffering severe unemployment in a country where 5 million unemployed citizens have already migrated to neighboring countries in search of work. Most of these are in Thailand and Malaysia.
(READ MORE: Burma farmers find little relief from land grabs)
Burma remains one of the world’s least developed countries, and was ranked 149 out of 187 countries in the 2011 UN’s Human Development Index concerning health, education and income. Burma was ranked 172 out of 176 of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index in 2012 – fifth from bottom above Sudan, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia.
If the President is truly reform-minded, he needs to make sure transparency and first-rate management of the country’s largest source of foreign income – revenues from the export of oil and gas – and cope with military monopoly in the market-based economy. With military involvement in the country’s economy, regardless of good management and sustainable development, the natural resources sector in Burma will draw out the resource curse situation even longer.
In order to control extractive industries’ revenues properly, the government must provide a yardstick for checking the use of those revenues. It’s also necessary to set up a responsible revenue management system. Such a check-and balance system should take the form of a constitutional mandate followed by more specific nationwide legislation that extensively controls the use of the benefits that come out of natural resources.
Although the extractive industries’ foreign earnings are biggest in the country, there has been no revenue transparency under both the previous military regime and the current U Thein Sein government. The government’s credit-and-debit accounts concerning the extractive industries’ foreign earnings are not publicly revealed. The same is true of defense budget spending.
According to the report by the Arakan Oil Watch, billions of dollars in revenues from the sale of natural gas have gone unrecorded in the country’s public accounts and been siphoned off by corrupt military rulers, leaving the nation with some of the worst social indicators in the world and ongoing armed conflicts in ethnic regions.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
384,000 People in Burma Are Modern Day Slaves: Report
384,000 People in Burma Are Modern Day Slaves: Report
TIMOTHY LARGE / THOMSON REUTERS FOUNDATION, October 17, 2013
LONDON — Some 30 million people are enslaved worldwide, trafficked into brothels, forced into manual labor, victims of debt bondage or even born into servitude, a global index on modern slavery showed on Thursday. The report estimates that 384,000 people are enslaved in Burma.
Almost half are in India, where slavery ranges from bonded labor in quarries and kilns to commercial sex exploitation, although the scourge exists in all 162 countries surveyed by Walk Free, an Australian-based rights group.
Its estimate of 29.8 million slaves worldwide is higher than other attempts to quantify modern slavery. The International Labor Organization estimates that almost 21 million people are victims of forced labor.
“Today some people are still being born into hereditary slavery, a staggering but harsh reality, particularly in parts of West Africa and South Asia,” the report said.
“Other victims are captured or kidnapped before being sold or kept for exploitation, whether through ‘marriage’, unpaid labor on fishing boats, or as domestic workers. Others are tricked and lured into situations they cannot escape, with false promises of a good job or an education.”
The Global Slavery Index 2013 defines slavery as the possession or control of people to deny freedom and exploit them for profit or sex, usually through violence, coercion or deception. The definition includes indentured servitude, forced marriage and the abduction of children to serve in wars.
According to the index, 10 countries alone account for three quarters of the world’s slaves.
After India, China has the most with 2.9 million, followed by Pakistan (2.1 million), Nigeria (701,000), Ethiopia (651,000), Russia (516,000), Thailand (473,000), Democratic Republic of Congo (462,000), Burma (384,000) and Bangladesh (343,000).
The index also ranks nations by prevalence of slavery per head of population. By this measure, Mauritania is worst, with almost 4 percent of its 3.8 million people enslaved. Estimates by other organizations put the level at up to 20 percent.
Chattel slavery is common in Mauritania, meaning that slave status is passed down through generations. “Owners” buy, sell, rent out or give away their slaves as gifts.
After Mauritania, slavery is most prevalent by population in Haiti, where a system of child labor known as “restavek” encourages poor families to send their children to wealthier acquaintances, where many end up exploited and abused.
Pakistan, India, Nepal, Moldova, Benin, Ivory Coast, Gambia and Gabon have the next highest prevalence rates.
At the other end of the scale, Iceland has the lowest estimated prevalence with fewer than 100 slaves.
Next best are Ireland, Britain, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Finland and Denmark, although researchers said slave numbers in such wealthy countries were higher than previously thought.
“They’ve been allocating resources against this crime according to the tiny handful of cases that they’ve been aware of,” said Kevin Bales, lead researcher and a professor at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation at Hull University.
“Our estimates are telling them that the numbers of people in slavery – whether it’s in Great Britain or Finland or wherever – in these richer countries actually tends to be about six to 10 times higher than they think it is.”
Walk Free CEO Nick Grono said the annual index would serve as an important baseline for governments and activists in the anti-slavery fight.
“This kind of data hasn’t been out there before,” he said. “It’s a multi-year effort, and next year we’ll have a much better picture of where slavery is and what changes there are. If you can’t measure it, you can’t devise policy to address it.”
Countries With Highest Absolute Numbers of Slaves
Country Estimated slaves
India 13.9 million
China 2.9 million
Pakistan 2.1 million
Nigeria 701,000
Ethiopia 651,000
Russia 516,000
Thailand 473,000
D.R. Congo 462,000
Burma 384,000
Bangladesh 343,000
Ranking by Prevalence of Modern Slavery per Head of Population
Rank Country Estimated slaves Population
1 Mauritania 151,000 3.8 million
2 Haiti 209,000 10.2 million
3 Pakistan 2.1 million 179.2 million
4 India 13.9 million 1.2 billion
5 Nepal 259,000 27.5 million
6 Moldova 33,000 3.6 million
7 Benin 80,000 10.1 million
8 Ivory Coast 157,000 19.8 million
9 Gambia 14,000 1.8 million
10 Gabon 14,000 1.6 million
(Source: Global Slavery Index 2013, Walk Free)
TIMOTHY LARGE / THOMSON REUTERS FOUNDATION, October 17, 2013
LONDON — Some 30 million people are enslaved worldwide, trafficked into brothels, forced into manual labor, victims of debt bondage or even born into servitude, a global index on modern slavery showed on Thursday. The report estimates that 384,000 people are enslaved in Burma.
Almost half are in India, where slavery ranges from bonded labor in quarries and kilns to commercial sex exploitation, although the scourge exists in all 162 countries surveyed by Walk Free, an Australian-based rights group.
Its estimate of 29.8 million slaves worldwide is higher than other attempts to quantify modern slavery. The International Labor Organization estimates that almost 21 million people are victims of forced labor.
“Today some people are still being born into hereditary slavery, a staggering but harsh reality, particularly in parts of West Africa and South Asia,” the report said.
“Other victims are captured or kidnapped before being sold or kept for exploitation, whether through ‘marriage’, unpaid labor on fishing boats, or as domestic workers. Others are tricked and lured into situations they cannot escape, with false promises of a good job or an education.”
The Global Slavery Index 2013 defines slavery as the possession or control of people to deny freedom and exploit them for profit or sex, usually through violence, coercion or deception. The definition includes indentured servitude, forced marriage and the abduction of children to serve in wars.
According to the index, 10 countries alone account for three quarters of the world’s slaves.
After India, China has the most with 2.9 million, followed by Pakistan (2.1 million), Nigeria (701,000), Ethiopia (651,000), Russia (516,000), Thailand (473,000), Democratic Republic of Congo (462,000), Burma (384,000) and Bangladesh (343,000).
The index also ranks nations by prevalence of slavery per head of population. By this measure, Mauritania is worst, with almost 4 percent of its 3.8 million people enslaved. Estimates by other organizations put the level at up to 20 percent.
Chattel slavery is common in Mauritania, meaning that slave status is passed down through generations. “Owners” buy, sell, rent out or give away their slaves as gifts.
After Mauritania, slavery is most prevalent by population in Haiti, where a system of child labor known as “restavek” encourages poor families to send their children to wealthier acquaintances, where many end up exploited and abused.
Pakistan, India, Nepal, Moldova, Benin, Ivory Coast, Gambia and Gabon have the next highest prevalence rates.
At the other end of the scale, Iceland has the lowest estimated prevalence with fewer than 100 slaves.
Next best are Ireland, Britain, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Finland and Denmark, although researchers said slave numbers in such wealthy countries were higher than previously thought.
“They’ve been allocating resources against this crime according to the tiny handful of cases that they’ve been aware of,” said Kevin Bales, lead researcher and a professor at the Wilberforce Institute for the Study of Slavery and Emancipation at Hull University.
“Our estimates are telling them that the numbers of people in slavery – whether it’s in Great Britain or Finland or wherever – in these richer countries actually tends to be about six to 10 times higher than they think it is.”
Walk Free CEO Nick Grono said the annual index would serve as an important baseline for governments and activists in the anti-slavery fight.
“This kind of data hasn’t been out there before,” he said. “It’s a multi-year effort, and next year we’ll have a much better picture of where slavery is and what changes there are. If you can’t measure it, you can’t devise policy to address it.”
Countries With Highest Absolute Numbers of Slaves
Country Estimated slaves
India 13.9 million
China 2.9 million
Pakistan 2.1 million
Nigeria 701,000
Ethiopia 651,000
Russia 516,000
Thailand 473,000
D.R. Congo 462,000
Burma 384,000
Bangladesh 343,000
Ranking by Prevalence of Modern Slavery per Head of Population
Rank Country Estimated slaves Population
1 Mauritania 151,000 3.8 million
2 Haiti 209,000 10.2 million
3 Pakistan 2.1 million 179.2 million
4 India 13.9 million 1.2 billion
5 Nepal 259,000 27.5 million
6 Moldova 33,000 3.6 million
7 Benin 80,000 10.1 million
8 Ivory Coast 157,000 19.8 million
9 Gambia 14,000 1.8 million
10 Gabon 14,000 1.6 million
(Source: Global Slavery Index 2013, Walk Free)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
