View previous stories
	Philippines: ‘huge amount’ needs to be done to curb extrajudicial killings by Philip Alston UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions   22 February 2007   With a significant number of extrajudicial killings “convincingly attributed” to its armed forces, a culture of virtual impunity and “the rampant problem of witness vulnerability,” the Philippines’ Government faces the “enduring and large challenge” of restoring accountability, an independent United Nations human rights expert warned today.   “There is a huge amount that remains to be done,” UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston said in a statement at the end of a 10-day visit to the South-East Asian country, during which he said he enjoyed the Government’s “unqualified cooperation.”   He noted that he had met with virtually all relevant senior officials, including President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. “The Government’s invitation to visit reflects a clear recognition of the gravity of the problem, a willingness to permit outside scrutiny, and a very welcome preparedness to engage” on the issue of extrajudicial killings, he added.   Mr. Alston, who also met with civil society groups, victims and witnesses of killings, declined to join in the country’s heated debate over how many people had been killed. “The numbers game is especially unproductive but I am certain that the number is high enough to be distressing,” he said.   “Even more importantly, numbers are not what count. The impact of even a limited number of killings of the type alleged is corrosive in many ways. It intimidates vast numbers of civil society actors, it sends a message of vulnerability to all but the most well connected, and it severely undermines the political discourse which is central to a resolution of the problems confronting this country.”   He dismissed the army’s claim that the recent rise in killings lies in internal purges by the communist insurgency as “especially unconvincing,” saying it “remains in a state of almost total denial … of its need to respond effectively and authentically” to allegations that military personnel are involved in unlawful killings.   “The President needs to persuade the military that its reputation and effectiveness will be considerably enhanced, rather than undermined, by acknowledging the facts and taking genuine steps to investigate,” Mr. Alston added, stating that he did “not in any way underestimate the challenges of waging counter-insurgency operations on a range of fronts.”   Mr. Alston stressed that the independent commission created by the president to investigate the killings was losing its “political capital” due to the refusal to publish its report while the judicial system was undermined by “the virtual impunity” prevailing and the risks faced by witnesses.   “The present message is that if you want to preserve your life expectancy, don’t act as a witness in a criminal prosecution for killing. Witnesses are systematically intimidated and harassed,” he said, noting that the Witness Protection Program is impressive on paper but deeply flawed in practice.   Turning to the larger political context, Mr. Alston noted that the strategy of reconciliation with the leftist groups had been abandoned and the increase in extrajudicial executions in recent years was attributable at least in part to a shift in counterinsurgency strategy. The attempt to vilify left-leaning organizations and to intimidate their leaders had in some instances escalated into extrajudicial execution, he said.   “The Philippines remain an example to all of us in terms of the peaceful ending of martial law by the People’s Revolution [in 1986] and the adoption of a Constitution reflecting a powerful commitment to ensure respect for human rights,” he concluded in remarks that were broadcast live on Philippines television. The various measures ordered by the President in response to the independent commission report “constitute important first steps, but there is a huge amount that remains to be done,” he declared.
	Stop the debt vultures by Jubilee Debt Campaign Zambia   Feb. 2007   Right now, a private company is trying to scavenge a huge profit from Zambia, one of the world"s poorest countries.   In 1999, a "vulture fund" called Donegal International bought a debt owed by Zambia, originally worth $15 million and then valued at about $30 million, for a knock-down price of $3.3 million. Now it has sued Zambia for the full amount, plus interest and costs – a staggering total of over $55 million! On 15th February 2007, a judge in London rejected the size of Donegal"s claim, after Zambia fought back in the courts. But he nevertheless ruled that under law Donegal is entitled to something from Zambia.   The exact total is to be determined, but may be around $20 million. This would be half of the amount that Zambia is due to save from debt relief this year: but it desperately needs all its money to invest in teachers, doctors and infrastructure. Donegal must not take this money, and you can help.   Jubilee Debt Campaign, together with Oxfam, is calling on Donegal International not to claim this money.   What is a vulture fund?   "Vulture fund" is a name given to a company that seeks to make profit by buying up "bad" debt at a cheap price, then trying to recover the full amount, often by suing through the courts.   What is Donegal?   Donegal International Limited is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. It is part of a group of companies, including one called Debt Advisory International which is based in Washington DC, USA. These companies try to profit from poor country debts by buying and selling these debts, trying to get repayment - including through the courts - or trying to exchange the debts for shares in private companies.   Hasn"t Zambia had debt cancellation?   Zambia completed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) scheme in 2005. As a result of this, Zambia has secured cancellation of most debts to the World Bank, IMF, African Development Fund and the richest country governments. This has been of huge benefit to Zambia. It has, for instance, introduced free primary rural healthcare, and announced plans to recruit 4,500 new teachers as well as building new schools. These interventions are desperately needed.   But completing HIPC does not bring any guarantee that debt cancellation will come through. Even after debtor countries spend years meeting the harsh and undemocratic conditions set by the rich world in order to get HIPC debt relief, many creditors simply don"t comply. That"s why we need a better and fairer system.   Have other companies done the same thing?   Yes! There have been at least 40 lawsuits by commercial creditors against Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, many still outstanding. But some companies have been deterred from lawsuits by campaigners. For instance, in 2003, the Big Food Group, owner of Iceland supermarkets and other companies, was suing Guyana for over £12 million. After an outcry by Jubilee Debt Campaign and partners, they dropped the case, saying “… the interests of both our Company and those of the people of Guyana, are best served by not proceeding." And in December 2002, Nestlé dropped a claim of $6 million against Ethiopia, after a campaign by Oxfam and others. But other companies have kept up claims and won. Visit the related web page
	View more stories