Turistikuvia Burmasta

Hyvä ystäväni valokuvaaja Kimmo Haimi kävi sukeltelemassa Burman vesillä ja oli kuulemma ollut tosi hauskaa. Hyvä niin, että edes joku pääsee pois tämän lumen ja jään keskeltä hetkeksi.

Sukeltelun ohessa Kimmo näppäili muutamia potretteja paikallisista ja varsin kelpo potretteja näppäilikin. Hienoja vailla turhaa kikkailua. Minä pidän tällaisesta. Muutama esimerkki alla.

Tekniikasta kiinnostuneille kerrottakoon, että Kimmo käytti Nikon D700 kameraa ja Nikkor 24 - 70 mm f/2.8 objektiivia. Kuvissa näyttää olevan exiffit mukana, elleivät ne ole kadonneet matkalla blogiin.

A bad September for suits against corporations under the Alien Tort Statute

First there was Citizens United (2010), in which the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations more ability to influence our politics. Now, one of the few avenues for holding bad corporate actors responsible for overseas violations of basic human rights has been seriously undermined. In a pair of cases from two highly influential federal courts, plaintiffs have lost appeals in cases involving corporate defendants under the Alien Tort Statute (prior posts).
Issuing the 1st decision was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
In a mid-September decision, the 9th Circuit denied plaintiffs’ appeal from an adverse jury verdict in Bowoto v. Chevron (prior posts here and here). A jury in December 2008 had found Chevron not liable for the death of one protester and injuries to others when security forces, at Chevron’s request, attacked a group of protesters on an oil rig in the Niger Delta. Plaintiffs appealed on a number of grounds, including faulty jury instructions and the judge’s failure to allow a number of claims. (credit for photo above right)
The appeals court decision in Bowoto, from a panel consisting of 9th Circuit Judges Mary M. Schroeder, Jay Bybee (yes, that Bybee, the one who signed off on the torture memos) and District Court Judge Owen Panner, threw out all of plaintiffs’ claims. The opinion for the panel, written by Judge Schroeder (right):
► Held that the summary execution claim is not allowable under the ATS because it is preempted by the Death on the High Seas Act – a somewhat ironic result given that piracy on the high seas was one of the first, and most enduring, types of ATS claims. The court recognized the possibility of piracy claims but nonetheless held that all plaintiffs’ claims for wrongful death and survival had been preempted.
► Also dismissed all the allegations of improper jury instructions.
These rulings are disappointing, but case-specific enough to have limited application elsewhere.
► Not so the court’s ruling that corporations cannot be sued under the Torture Victims Protection Act. The TVPA applies to cases of torture or summary execution committed under color of foreign law. In Bowoto the 9th Circuit undertook to construe the statute's extension of liability to “an individual who…subjects an individual to torture.” The court held that use of the word “individual” rather than “person” to characterize both potential plaintiffs and defendants made clear that Congress meant to exempt corporations from the ambit of the law. Future TVPA cases therefore may sue individual defendants only.
(This ruling is now definitive for cases in the 9th Circuit (comprising Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawai'i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Marianas Island, Oregon, and Washington); it is in conflict with the only other appeals court to consider the issue, the 11th Circuit.)
Issuing the 2d decision was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit.
The 2d Circuit's late-September decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (prior post) compounded the blow dealt by the 9th Circuit in Bowoto.
Kiobel is a companion case to Wiwa v. Shell, both brought by family of Nigerian activists killed for their protest activities against oil drilling in the Niger Delta, allegedly with the complicity and connivance of Shell officials. (photo credit) Wiwa settled in 2009 for $15.5 million, but the panel in Kiobel, led by Judge José Cabranes, decided to request supplemental briefing on the issue of whether corporations could be sued at all under the ATS. In the Kiobel decision, the panel decided that they cannot.
Thus, in the 2d Circuit, which includes New York, corporations have a liability-free zone for depredations abroad.
How could this happen, after a decade of litigation against corporations under the ATS and a number of settlements and jury trials, without the issue ever arising before?
Here’s one chronology:
Back in 2002, there was the Unocal case, involving allegations of forced labor, slavery and other rights violations as part of a pipeline project in Burma. (photo credit) As part of the years of legal skirmishing in that case, a 9th Circuit panel split on the question of whether it was international law or domestic legal doctrines that governed ancillary issues arising under the ATS. (Prior posts here and here.) That is, everyone agreed that the core definition of the “violation of the law of nations” came from international law.
But what about the innumerable other issues, like who can be sued and under what definitions of liability?
► Judge Harry Pregerson held that those questions were governed by international law, and looked to the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to answer the question of how to define “aiding and abetting” for purposes of ATS liability.
► Judge Stephen Reinhardt thought that domestic doctrines of agency, unjust enrichment and tort were more than sufficient and should be used to fill in all the necessary gaps in international law.
At the time, it was not clear to litigators what the implications of this choice could be, since both international and domestic law pointed in the same direction.
Because the panel decision was eventually withdrawn for unrelated reasons, the Unocal case created no precedent. It was up to the 2d Circuit to define the issue.
At first, the 2nd Circuit had as much trouble as the 9th. In Khulumani v. Barclay Int'l Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2007), involving allegations of corporate complicity in shoring up the apartheid regime in South Africa, the judges split again. (prior post) (image credit) Judge Robert Katzmann, on the question of aiding and abetting, found that ancillary issues were governed by international law. Rather than look to the ICTY, however, he looked at the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and concluded that aiding and abetting had a “purpose” requirement in international law, one not found in domestic law. Thus, turning to international law had the effect of raising the bar for what plaintiffs needed to prove.
A 2d Circuit panel that included Judge Cabranes agreed with this analysis in a subsequent decision in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. (October 2009). It dismissed the case on grounds that the plaintiffs could not show that Talisman Energy had the purpose of aiding and abetting the crimes of the Sudanese security forces, even though the oil company knew about the violations and acted despite that knowledge. Plaintiffs’ certiorari petition was set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of September, but the Court seems not yet to have decided whether to weigh in.
Judge Cabranes’ decision in Kiobel took the reasoning in these earlier cases one step further: if we look for the definition of “aiding and abetting” in international law, then logically we should look for the answer to whether corporations are entities capable of committing actionable violations in international law as well.
Judge Cabranes, predictably, could find few cases in which corporations as such (as opposed to their officers and owners) were held criminally liable for international crimes. He too used the ICC Statute against plaintiffs, using the decision of the Rome Statute drafters not to allow prosecutions of legal persons as evidence of a customary norm excluding corporate liability. (This even though the Rome Statute makes clear that it does not necessarily follow customary law.)
Unfortunately, because of the very nature of international law, it is unlikely to provide answers to lots of questions – including this one – which have always been considered to be issues of domestic law.
As Judge Pierre Leval, concurring in the judgment in Kiobel, put it:

So long as they incorporate (or act in the form of a trust), businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot's political opponents, or engage in piracy – all without civil liability to victims.

Let’s hope this new month of October brings better news on the ATS litigation front.

Inquiring minds want ... Burma

Heard murmurs a while back about the possibility of an international inquiry commission into abuses in Burma, the country also known as Myanmar about which IntLawGrrls frequently have posted.
A statement that Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe (below right), the U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council, made in Geneva Friday (hat tip) confirms that such a possibility is on the table.
Speaking during a "general debate on situations requiring the Council's attention," Donahoe 1st put the issue in context:

In Burma, the human rights situation remains grim. Under the repressive election laws that stifle meaningful competition and with the continued detention of more than 2,100 political prisoners, including Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the November 7 elections cannot be inclusive or credible.

(credit for above left photo 1991 Peace Prizewinner Suu Kyi (prior posts)) Donahoe then articulated the aims of the United States regarding the Asian country that's been ruled by a military junta since the late 1980s:

Our overriding objective is to promote a peaceful democratic transition, encourage national reconciliation, and achieve respect for human rights. We urge an end to systematic violations of religious freedom, notably the large-scale repression against the Muslim Rohingya, including refusal to grant citizenship, severe government restrictions on travel, and discrimination in employment and educational opportunities.

Donahoe's comment concluded by referring to a March 2010 report that had recommended "a commission of inquiry with a specific fact finding mandate to address the question of international crimes." Issuing that report was Tomás Ojea Quintana, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. The Council discussed the report at the time it was issued, but took no action. Friday, Donahoe said on behalf of the United States:

Finally, six months ago Special Rapporteur Ojea Quintana invited consideration of a commission of inquiry. The United States believes a properly structured international commission of inquiry that would examine allegations of serious violations of international law would be warranted and appropriate. My government is examining how best to proceed on this initiative.

Worth noting that Ojea Quintana's report made specific reference to the International Criminal Court. Past such commissions have been deployed in places like the former Yugoslavia and Darfur. The resulting Yugoslavia report, issued by a commission chaired by M. Cherif Bassiouni, and the Darfur report, issued by a commission chaired by Antonio Cassese, both led to international criminal cases. No less an authority than Philip G. Alston, the NYU Law Professor who recently concluded a term as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has recommended such commissions as "an appropriate filtering mechanism" in order to "evaluate whether or not a situation warrants referral to the ICC."

Worth watching what happens with this proposal.

Aung San Suu Kyi Rebelotte*

*Here we go again.
We've posted several times about Aung San Suu Kyi, the 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of the Burmese democratic opposition who has been under house arrest (photo credit) for 13 of the last 19 years. Last week she was treated for low blood pressure and dehydration, and this week she's been dragged off to prison because an American, John Yettaw, stayed in her house for 2 days - after swimming across Lake Inya to get there. Indicted Thursday for having violated the rules of her house arrest, Suu Kyi is scheduled for trial tomorrow, just 9 days before her house arrest is scheduled to end.
Yettaw's motives are unknown, but one hopes he's not in cahoots with the junta, who may be grabbing at straws to renew Suu Kyi's house arrest and keep her off the national scene until the elections scheduled for 2010 have been held. In Burma, lodging a foreigner (who's not a family member) in your house without notifiying the authorities in advance is an offense. Yettaw apparently tried to speak with Suu Kyi once before, but left when she asked him to. This time, he did not. As a result, he, Suu Kyi, the 2 women who live with her and even her doctor, who's had her put on an IV twice recently due to her weakened state, are all in prison.

When Is Prosecution Persecution?

This, of course, is a central question in refugee and asylum law -- when does prosecution by a state cross the line from legitimate investigation into persecution, thus rendering the accused eligible for refugee status? We've recently seen an abundance of examples of this phenomenon, which illustrates the complex relationship between refugee law and global politics.

In some cases, the prosecuting state's motives are obviously illegitimate, seeking to punish dissidents for engaging in activities protected by international law.

So, we saw yesterday, in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested and charged with "violating the rules of her house arrest" after an American man entered her home; under Burmese law, she could face five years in prison for this infraction. Not only is the underlying house arrest an attempt to silence a political critic, but the charges seek to punish Suu Kyi for exercising her right to freedom of association.

The same day, in Zimbabwe, human rights lawyer Alec Muchadehama was arrested outside Harare's Magistrates Court for "obstruction of justice"; his "crime" was speaking to the court clerk in an attempt to free three political prisoners.

These examples illustrate one end of the prosecution/ persecution spectrum, with obviously politically motivated charges in countries that lack any pretense of the rule of law, and make for relatively straightforward refugee claims.

Determining the existence of persecutory prosecution can be significantly more complicated, however, as illustrated by Monday's spat between Bolivia and Peru. Bolivian President Evo Morales, who seeks extradition of three former government officials accused of genocide, was angered by Peru's grant of asylum to one of these officials (and review of asylum claims by the other two). Morales has charged these and other officials, as well as the former Bolivian president, with genocide for their role in soldiers' killing of 63 anti-government demonstrators in 2003. The officials argue that the charges are a "political witch hunt" and that they can't get a fair hearing. Presumably on similar grounds, the former president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, was granted asylum in the United States in 2007. So are these criminal charges persecution? The other side would argue that the former government's security forces violently gunned down indigenous protesters demanding political representation, and should be held accountable for their crimes.

A similarly complex story unfolded in England last month, when the High Court held that four accused génocidaires from Rwandans could not be extradited because they would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. The decision relies on extensive evidence, including expert testimony from Filip Reyntjens and Philippe Sands on behalf of the accused and William Schabas on behalf of the Rwandan government, to analyze whether the accused would face an independent and impartial tribunal and whether there would be adequate protection for their witnesses in Rwanda. Is the lack of procedural safeguards in Rwandan courts so dire that trials before them would constitute persecution? This was not, of course the precise question before the court, which was, rather, deciding whether or not to extradite. But its opinion amply illustrates the heavily politically contested nature of this point. In such situations, where assertions of fact are diametrically opposed and an offer of asylum can itself be viewed as a politically aggressive act, is there any hope that refugee determination processes can remain apolitical, impartial, and fair?

Bringing Law to Refugee Camps

Though I focus much of my scholarly energy on due process failures in the U.S. immigration system, the "Wild West" policies and procedures of American immigration courts pale in comparison to the legal vacuum found in refugee camps throughout the world. More than 7 million of today's refugees have lived in camps for at least ten years (sometimes for generations), yet there exists no formal legal infrastructure to protect even the most basic human security needs in these camps. Given the dire economic and physical conditions of the camps and the societal violence from which these refugees are fleeing, it's no surprise to learn that violent crimes, particularly against women and children, are common. In a camp for Burundian refugees in Tanzania, for example, over 25% of women had suffered violence, often sexual in nature; in nine Thai camps for Burmese refugees, 350 serious crimes were reported between 2003 and 2006, with rape and domestic violence the most common and children often the victims.

In 2006, in three of these Thai camps, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee opened legal assistance centers -- the first ever of their kind in any refugee camp anywhere the world. While 63% of camp residents at that time had concerns about their security, they were also skeptical of the Thai justice system, preferring the informal governing structures created within the camp communities. Since then, over 700 camp residents have consulted the centers with claims including murder, rape, and even contract disputes. Solutions offered by the legal assistance centers range from referrals to the Thai justice system (for the most serious cases) to working with the camp's sexual and gender-based violence committee on awareness training programs in schools and community-based organizations.

While it's hard to dispute that increased legal accountability is a positive step in situations of such violence and insecurity, it's a fine line that these organizations must walk between respecting local traditions of justice and imposing "universal" standards of justice from the top down. Particularly in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault, victims may be reluctant to come forward if reporting such crimes risks ostracization and other forms of social sanction by their community. It's important that the legal assistance centers are working alongside refugee women's groups to promote gender equality, reforming justice norms from within the community. Referrals of criminal cases to the Thai authorities offer an important stick, but one that must be exercised cautiously -- the laws might discriminate against foreigners on their face or in their implementation, and criminal laws in particular may lack adequate procedural safeguards for defendants. In this and many other situations, camps are located in societies geographically and culturally proximate to the refugees' home state, which may lead to some greater level of comfort with the host state's justice system and norms. If they are able to pull off the balancing act of protecting of local justice traditions alongside basic equality norms, these centers may offer a model for improving the physical security and fundamental rights of refugees in camps throughout the world.

On September 18

On this day in ...
... 1988 (20 years ago today), about 6 weeks after hundreds of thousands had demonstrated in cities across the country, and just over 3 weeks after then-43-year-old Aung San Suu Kyi, "daughter of Burma's independence leader stood outside Shwedagon Pagoda" (left) in Rangoon, "and addressed a huge crowd on the need for democracy," military leaders crushed the Burmese democracy movement. Troops fired into crowds, killing many and arresting others. To this day, "[t]he military remains firmly in control" in the country it calls Myanmar.
... 1961, the bodies of 12 persons were found in the wreckage of a plane outside Ndola, a town in Northern Rhodesia (today, Zambia). Among those killed in the crash was U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, who'd been on his way to take part in "peace talks following clashes between United Nations peacekeeping troops and forces striving for independence in the breakaway Congolese province of Katanga." The 1961 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded posthumously to Hammarskjöld (right), born 56 years earlier in Sweden; in the words of the BBC, "he did much to raise the profile of the UN and the post of secretary general."

Obama: It's About Us...

(Warning: This post has very little to do with international law. Instead, it’s about all those people with tears in their eyes in living rooms, bars, classrooms, conference centers, and a big sports arena in Denver, Colorado, on Thursday night. It’s about the smile on my mom’s face (she doesn’t get to smile often enough) when she got a glimpse of Senator Barack Obama at a campaign event last winter... Or maybe it is about human rights after all.)

Then and Now
As a child of the 60s and 70s, I was constantly instilled with the belief that individuals or groups could change the world. The problems of the day were clear even to children — war, racism and apartheid, sexism, violence in streets and homes, political corruption, abuses against immigrants, and grinding poverty in urban centers and rural valleys.
But the sense that we could participate in broad social movements and thereby could DO something about these things was palpable. We had the optimistic expectation that grassroots action and organized political pressure on governments could result in real change.
This sense of commitment to social justice was both substantive and enmeshed in popular culture. People flashed peace signs and Black power salutes to strangers on the street. We called each other “sister” or “brother.”
Women marched for “liberation” and passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. Music and art called for cross-cultural and cross-gender respect and dialogue.
Young people joined the Peace Corps.
Civil rights laws were passed, a massive anti-war movement took place, and anti-poverty, early childhood education, and healthcare programs were organized. Mrs. Fannie Lou Hamer, Vice-Chair of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (see photo left: courtesy of UBM.com), testified about state-sanctioned racism and violence at the Credentials Committee before the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey. (Prior IntLawGrrls post here; click here for audio and text of speech). Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm spoke out in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment and ran for President (lower right). (Prior IntLawGrrls post here.)
Such efforts had their successes and failures, as have the movements that came before them. Since then, however, we’ve seen the Gulf War, the September 11 crimes against humanity, the Iraq War, the Rwanda genocide, “ethnic cleansing” in the violent disintegration of the former Yugoslavia, systematic rape and sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Darfur genocide, and other violent conflicts throughout the world.
We’ve seen governments fail to protect the economic and social rights of the poor, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other marginalized groups among us on a daily basis, as well as during massive crises such as Hurricane Katrina and Cyclone Nargis in Burma. We’ve seen too many young men in prisons or hospital emergency rooms who should have been in high school classrooms.
Fundamental human rights are under attack. Over the last 8 years, the absolute legal prohibition on torture under international law and the international and domestic laws protecting privacy and due process have been put up for grabs.
So, instead of the urge toward social change, a sense of cynicism, helplessness, and despair began to pervade the atmosphere and our popular culture. That included those of us in the academy.

“Rock Star” or Leadership?
What many pundits missed from the beginning about Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is that Americans need to believe that THEY can do something that matters again. All the remarks about “rock star” status and “Obamania” aside, it is that desire that primarily motivates the crowds to show up in Iowa and New York, Wisconsin, and Illinois, South Carolina, Oregon, and now, Colorado.
Charges of “elitism” ring hollow. If anything, Obama’s life story fits the classic American Dream narrative instead. African-American son of a white working-class single-mother and a Kenyan immigrant rises to attend Ivy League schools on scholarship and loans. He ends up vying for the presidency of the United States. Elitism involves looking down on, or mistreating, others because of class bias, not whether one did well at a high-profile university.
Of course, many are engaged by the senator’s individual charisma, intelligence, oratory, and political savvy. We tend to be an image-driven society after all.
But when I talk with young and older people who are committed to the campaign, it is apparent that they have a sense of relief and renewed energy. Even the young felt beaten down and silenced by immoral and illegal official policies, unreliable or superficial news coverage, fears about relatives and friends sent off for third deployments in an ill-conceived war, anger that Americans had become hated targets for some, and frustration that the promises of the American Dream are still largely unattainable for most poor, working-class people, and people of color.

“Yes We Can”
That is why, like some other crusty skeptics of my generation, I found myself in tears in front of my computer when I first saw the “Yes We Can” music video making the rounds on the internet (and about which IntLawGrrls posted here). Nice song, yes. Stylish images, yes. Famous young entertainers, yes (although I was sufficiently out of touch not to know who most of them are). And evocative of Martin Luther King Jr.’s great oratory. (IntLawGrrls posted video examples of Dr. King's speeches here and here.)
What was most moving, however, was the evidence that young people had been inspired to believe that THEY, in diverse coalitions, could help create social change. Everything was possible.

The End of Racism? Or A Step in the Right Direction?
The Iowa primary was another such moment. No matter what followed, the buzz on the phonelines and e-mails was that change is possible. Possible, despite pundits that said racism would always prevail in presidential elections. Possible, despite the ingrained belief that voters would never think outside traditional race, class, and gender demographic expectations.
Yet, neither Obama himself, nor the rest of us can believe that a single primary, nomination, or election victory signals the end of racism in the United States. There are some who prefer to believe this, I know. But every long-time activist is aware that the ascendancy of “firsts” are an important beginning, not the end. Real change is broad, deep, and complex.

History
Still, it is those historic and symbolic moments—Rev. Dr. King proclaiming his dream for America in Washington, DC, and his vision for an end to the war in Vietnam and an end to poverty at home (click here for audio of his “Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence” speech) and the Obamas’ potential to be the First Family of the United States — that inspire us all to keep working for change.

On July 19

On this day in ...
... 1947, paramilitaries burst into a meeting in Rangoon of the Executive Council that was working toward Burmese independence and assassinated Aung San (right), a premier architect of that strategy, and 6 others. He is the father of Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman now leading opposition to the military junta controlling Burma/Myanmar.
... 1900, the 1st line of the Paris Métro began operations. Today it's among the world's busiest subways. Details:

The system boasts 211 km (131 miles) of track and 14 lines, shuttling 3500 cars on a precise schedule between 380 stations (not including RER stations), 87 of these offering connections between lines. It is said that every building in Paris is within 500 meters (3/10 mile) of a métro station. Roughly 6 million people per day patronize the métro, which employs over 15,000.

News you can use ... about Burma/Myanmar

Ever asked:

Who is in the Burmese military junta, anyway?

An excellent question, regarding the regime on which IntLawGrrls have posted here and here.

Slate's got the answer for you here.

(map credit)

The Dark Side of Sovereignty

Poor Burma.
If ever a country deserved better, it is Burma. A peaceful, predominantly Buddhist country, rich in natural resources and fertile land, Burma should be the economic engine of South East Asia. Instead, the country has suffered in the grips of a repressive military junta, the State Law and Order Restoration Concil (SLORC) for years. SLORC has held the elected leader of the country, Nobel Peace Prizewinner Aung San Suu Kyi (left), has been held under house arrest for more than a decade.
Last fall, the junta smashed monk-led street protests. Those protests were sparked by the soaring price of rice, but were popularly perceived as a challenge to the regime itself. An unknown number of monks and other civilians were killed, and many remain in detention.
Then came Cyclone Nargis with its 120 mile an hour winds.
On May 3, the cyclone swept through the Irrawaddy delta, a densely populated rice growing region, leaving death and destruction in its wake. Tens of thousands are dead. Survivors face poor sanitation, no shelter and a lack of drinking water. Outbreaks of malaria and dengue fever, as well as cholera and dysentery, are likely.
To top it off, the entire nation’s food security is now in jeopardy. The cyclone devastated area produces most of Burma’s rice and fish. Save the Children's Burma Representative Andrew Kirkwood has compared the scale of the disaster to the 2004 tsunami. The Food and Agriculture Organization today called for $10 million dollars of emergency assistance to farming and fishing communities. With climate change apparently well underway, we can expect more of these severe storms, and as always, it is the poorest who are most vulnerable.
Will help Reach Those in Need?
Astonishingly, in Burma, that vulnerability is being compounded by an irresponsible and unresponsive government. The SLORC government is preventing foreign aid workers from reaching those in jeopardy. Today, the United Nations announced that it is suspending relief efforts after SLORC seized U.N. rice stores and equipment. According to the World Food Program, the junta seized all of the food aid that the agency had managed to get into Burma.
Watching this humanitarian disaster unfold, I can’t help thinking that we are seeing the dark side of sovereignty. Is the international community really powerless to prevent the junta from refusing to admit foreign aid workers, and thwarting international relief efforts? The survivors of this disaster deserve better. France apparently agrees. According to the Daily Mail, France proposed invoking Security Council Resolution 1674, which articulates an international "responsibility to protect," to bypass the junta and deliver aid directly to those in need.

P.S.: By the way, I deliberately choose to call the country Burma, not Myanmar, because the name-change was a SLORC project, and has not been recognized by the opposition (the legally-elected government.) The UN may use Myanmar, but it will be Burma to me until the democratic opposition says otherwise.

On May 6

On this day in ...
... 1882, the U.S. Congress passed An Act to Execute Certain Treaty Stipulations Relating to Chinese, better known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. The United States' 1st major immigration restriction, the Act provided that Chinese "skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining" who tried to enter in the next 10 years would face imprisonment and deportation, and further barred Chinese immigrants from U.S. citizenship. (photo credit)
... 2002, opposition leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi left her lakeside villa for the 1st time in 19 months when Myanmar's military government released her from "house arrest and said it would allow her to pursue her political activities as leader of the country's democratic opposition." In fact, however, Suu Kyi (left) later would be returned to house arrest, and to this day, as we've posted, the junta in the country once known as Burma (site this weekend of a devastating cyclone) blocks her from seeking elective office.

Suu Kyi’s ineligibility for office confirmed

“Too late, the Constitution’s already been written”. So replied General Kyaw Hsan, Burmese Minister of Information to UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari when the latter asked that the military junta amend the draft Constitution it intends to have approved by referendum in May. As I’ve posted, the draft Constitution was written entirely by the junta and assures that the military continues to play a major role in the constitutional government. Last month I wrote that the junta had added a criteria for electoral eligibility aimed directly at excluding democratic opposition leader and Nobel peace prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi from holding any role in the new government: no one who is or has been married to a foreigner may run for office. Gambari is in Burma/Myanmar to mediate the constitutional referendum’s organization. In telling Gambari that it was too late to amend the Constitution—and boost its credibility with Western nations—General Hsan accused him of partiality and exceeding his role as mediator: during his November 2007 visit to the country, Gambari apparently had published Suu Kyi’s statement that she was ready and willing to work with the military regime to foster national dialogue. Hsan went so far as to intimate that Gambari himself wrote the statement.
Ah, the paranoia that comes with stolen power.

On this day

On March 2, ...
... 1903 (105 years ago today), the Martha Washington Hotel (right), the 1st U.S. hotel solely for women, opened in New York City. With entrances at 29 East 29th and 30 East 30th streets, the lodging had 416 rooms and a restaurant open to men as well as women.
... 1962, via radio, General Ne Win announced that a military junta had seized power in Burma. Calling itself the "Revolutionary Council," the junta comprised 17 Army, Navy, and Air Force officers. The takeover, and the arrest of Premier U Nu, were said to have been designed to prevent imposition of a federal government in which members of the Shan minority would have some governmental power. The junta continues to rule the country it's renamed Myanmar (flag below). At the time of Ne Win's death in 2002, the BBC wrote: that he "was a ruthless and corrupt figure whose 26 year-rule helped cause the country's economic decline"; that "his brutal regime curtailed human and political rights and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people"; and that his "hand-picked successors placed Aung San Suu Kyi, the dissident politician and daughter of a former colleague, under house arrest following pro-democracy protests in 1988."

On February 11, ...

... 1991, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization was formed at The Hague. UNPO's membership includes "indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments, and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them." Today, on its 2d International Action Day, UNPO's launching a yearlong focus on a theme á propos of yesterday's post by Naomi Norberg: "Freedom for Burma Now!"
... 1962, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) was born in Madison, Wisconsin.
... 1916, Russia-born American anarchist Emma Goldman was arrested by New York police for giving a public lecture on birth control. Goldman (right) "was charged with violating the Comstock Law," an 1873 federal "statute banning transportation of 'obscene' matter through the mails."

Socially responsible shopping

As we finish our stint as socially responsible chefs this holiday, it's time now to become, to quote the Los Angeles Times, "[e]thical holiday shoppers."
Recalling the campaign that's used op-eds, mailings, and even a movie, "Blood Diamond," to raise public awareness of the link between those glittering gems and the gore of civil war, the Times' editorial joins a call to boycott jewels exported by the military regime in the country it names as Myanmar but that others still call Burma. (IntLawGrrls posts here, here, and here.) The Times writes of these "repression rubies":

Myanmar's leaders are unlikely to make real reforms unless they feel a real financial sting. More than 90% of the world's rubies originate in Myanmar, where the junta controls most mines. Most of the gems are bought by Asian merchants, but they are then cut, polished and sold to merchants around the world. Though the United States forbids direct gem imports from Myanmar, they can be sold here if they're processed in a third country. There are three bills in Congress to close that loophole, and leaders in the House and Senate should expedite them. The European Union is also considering its own crackdown on gems from Myanmar.

Credit the Times' call to this release from Human Rights Watch, which, like the Times, notes that high-end retailers like Tiffany & Co., Bulgari, and Cartier already have joined the boycott.

Bhutto and Suu Kyi briefly swap places

With the road leading to her home blocked by barbed wire, metal barricades and dozens of police officers, Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister and major opponent of Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf, was kept yesterday from attending a rally. Bhutto had intended to lead demonstrators in protest against the week-old state of emergency (see our discussion of states of emergency in posts below by Diane, Michelle, Fiona, myself and again Fiona), but found herself confined for the day. She was, however, able to meet with her party’s leaders Saturday midday. Bhutto has only recently returned to Pakistan, following a deal with Musharraf. Her brief confinement has probably increased her credibility without damaging her chances of making a deal with Musharraf; indeed, it is reported that talks between the two are continuing. (Bhutto's by no means the only woman to have endured house arrest this last week; see Diane's post below.)

Meanwhile in Burma/Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi (see here and here) has been under house arrest for 12 of the past 18 years, and hasn’t met with members of her party, the National League for Democracy, since 2004. Yesterday, she was allowed to do so to discuss the preconditions the military junta has set for meeting with her. Though Suu Kyi is not seeking confrontation or regime change, the proposed talks follow on massive demonstrations led by monks ending in a crackdown by the junta in the last days of September. Ibrahim Gambari, the UN representative who has visited Burma/Myanmar twice since then, was apparently “instrumental” in arranging the proposed talks between the junta and Suu Kyi. Talks may lead to a constitutional referendum and election: after 14 years of on-again off-again sessions, in early September a constitutional convention produced guidelines for a constitution. Unfortunately, the guidelines ensure a strong role for the military.

Oil and crimes against humanity in Burma

Members of the opposition to the military junta in Burma have long called for sanctions on foreign investors, most particularly oil and gas companies such as California’s Unocal and France’s Total, partners in the Yadana pipeline (map at right) and subject of suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act claiming these companies were accomplices to murder, rape and forced labor committed by Myanmar (i.e., junta) military personnel assigned to clear terrain and protect the project from opponents. Total was dismissed from the US action, but was the subject of a criminal suit in France based on the same facts. Both cases were settled following the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, which indicated that private corporations could perhaps be held liable for human rights abuses committed by the foreign regimes with which they do business (see my case comment here). Despite Total's agreeing to provide significant long-term assistance to the population most affected by the pipeline in the form of infrastructure and health and education services as well as money damages (see William Bourdon in the Revue de Science Criminelle, 2005 no. 4), Belgium has just reopened an investigation into crimes against humanity claimed to have been committed by Total. The rather skimpy information in Le Monde seems to indicate that, except for the crime(s) charged, this is the same case, with the same named defendants and perhaps even the same plaintiffs, as the one settled in France (note that in France, just as victims can request that the prosecutor initiate criminal proceedings, they can settle with the defendant and close the case). The Belgian case was brought in 2002 under the universal jurisdiction statute, but the Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) ruled in 2005 that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Further investigation by the Defense ministry (? interesting twist, n'est-pas?) has resulted in a hearing being set for the end of October to determine whether the case should proceed. Stay tuned.

Of mother's milk and monks

Another Sunday and the posting choice is difficult. I've been following the monks on march for democracy in Burma, was going to be a bit lazy and and post about a study that proves that women prefer pink. Actually, the prefer the red side of the color chart, thus everyone's favorite color, blue, becomes pink or lilac for women. The authors of the study think that this might be so because women gathered fruit, which is red when ripe. I can think of a more sanguine reason... In any case, I opened my LA Times e-mail alert and was jolted out of complacency by the Bush administration's utterly irresponsible caving in to pressure from the baby formula industry and weakening public health ad campaigns promoting breast feeding, which has many more life-long health benefits than does baby formula. Once riled, I figured it was time to post about Burma (currently called Myanmar by the military junta; while US news sources state these facts the other way around, i.e., Myanmar, formerly called or also known as…the French continue to call it Burma and the capitol city Rangoon, rather than the junta-redubbed Yangon). Protests have been going on since August over unannounced and unexplained hikes in gas and other prices and, as anyone who’s been following the news these past weeks knows, Buddhist monks have been leading massive demonstrations (10,000 monks, 20,000 total people in the biggest demonstration last week), even managing to stop and pray before the home of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. But the junta finally cracked down violently, even killing a Japanese journalist and cutting cell phone and internet connections to stop information from getting to the outside world. The UN envoy was finally granted a visa and was able to meet with both Suu Kyi and junta leaders, but few have great hopes for the outcome. While things are clearly at a turning point, without the help of China (Burma’s biggest trading partner), the rest of the world seems powerless to get the junta to democratize (or at least end Suu Kyi’s house arrest) and China, while calling for restraint and peaceful settlement of the situation, will not join the international movement for sanctions or boycotts.

Another woman’s struggle

Labeled a "threat to national peace and tranquility," Aung san suu kyi (at right), the democratically elected leader of Myanmar/Burma is still under house arrest. Affectionately called “The Lady” by her people, Aung san suu kyi was elected in 1990 and awarded the Nobel peace prize in 1991. But the ruling military junta refused to hand over the governmental reins and has kept her under house arrest—without telephone, mail or visitors—for 11of the past 17 years. Even a visit from her exiled dying husband was refused. Meanwhile, as the lawyers working with Freedom Now in Washington to represent Aung San Suu Kyi reported in the IHT:

[M]ore than 3,000 villages have been destroyed since 1996 as the military wages a relentless campaign of killing, torture and rape against ethnic minorities. A million refugees have fled the country and 600,000 internally displaced people struggle to subsist in primitive jungle conditions. More than 800,000 people are used as forced labor and the country has over 70,000 child soldiers. Myanmar is currently the world's second largest exporter of heroin and opiates as well as a major producer of methamphetamines. The junta's failure to address its burgeoning HIV/AIDS crisis has led to the spread of the disease along the drug routes into neighboring countries.

29 consecutive UN resolutions and pleas from numerous world leaders have so far failed to secure The Lady’s release. What about sanctions? Divestment?