View previous stories
	Why is there severe malnutrition in this Garden of Eden? by Nina Brenjo Reuters - Alertnet Myanmar   Nov 2006   "Why is there severe malnutrition in this Garden of Eden?" asks Medecins Sans Frontieres physician Frank Smithuis of Myanmar, a country with worsening poverty, a collapsed education system and rampant AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria rates, according to the New York Times.   The country is ruled by an oppressive military junta, but Myanmar"s neighbours aren"t rushing to condemn it. According to the newspaper, the reason for this lies in the country"s reserves of a precious natural resource: gas. China and India are already signing deals with the Myanmar regime (and we"re talking billions here) to build new ports and pipelines. Meanwhile, citizens use paraffin and wood for their lighting and heating once they"ve used up the two hours of electricity a day they get from the government.   U.S. President George Bush met Asian leaders at last week"s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting in Vietnam and urged them to keep up the pressure on Myanmar. But that may well go unheeded. China is still thirsty for oil and gas, which pushes it to overlook issues such as autocratic leadership - as we"ve seen from its charm offensive in Africa, including Sudan.   Its support for Myanmar"s regime is regarded as the main reason the junta"s grip has survived for so long and still shows no signs of weakening, according to people inside and outside the country, the New York Times says.   And China isn"t the only culprit. India changed its tune towards Myanmar nearly a decade ago, because it wanted to contain China"s spread in the country. Thailand hands over $1.2 billion a year to Myanmar"s government for natural gas. The list goes on.   This kind of trade might be easier to defend if the revenues benefited Myanmar"s people. But the paltry sum the government budgeted for AIDS in 2004 - a mere $22,000 - according to a recent health survey by John Hopkins University Medical School, quoted in the newspaper, suggests they are not a priority.   The New York Times also reports that health workers are coming across children in urban areas with severe malnutrition for the first time. Meanwhile, the wedding of junta leader Than Shwe"s daughter cost estimated $50 million, according to Australia"s Age.   The paper gives an overview of different ethnic minorities, as well as dissident groups and their struggle against the country"s oppressive regime.   The Myanmar government is benefiting from soaring foreign investment, which has jumped to $6 billion this year from just $158 million in 2005.   And in case anyone thought the West should go down China and India"s route and engage with the regime, instead of pursuing failing sanctions, Britain"s Independent is adamant: "Absolutely not."   "The moral duty of the West," the paper continues, "is to attempt to persuade China and others that ignoring the brutalisation of the Burmese people for the sake of a few energy contracts will ultimately prove a very bad investment."   The trouble is, it"s not just a few energy contracts China has in mind. China"s National Offshore Oil Corporation has indicated it would focus its investment, at least in the medium term, on two countries: Myanmar and Nigeria. If this is the case, the Independent"s plea will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.   (Nina Brenjo joined Reuters AlertNet in 2001. She worked with Medecins Sans Frontieres and Premiere Urgence in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war).   26 Oct 2006   Release of "Internal displacement in eastern Burma: 2006 survey". (Thailand Burma Border Consortium - TBBC)   During the past year, this report estimates that 82,000 people were forced to leave their homes as a result of human rights abuses and humanitarian atrocities. The area most severely affected was in northern Karen State and eastern Pegu Division, where counter-insurgency operations have displaced over 27,000 people during the past year.   232 entire villages were destroyed, forcibly relocated or otherwise abandoned in Eastern Burma during the past 12 months. When combined with the findings of previous field surveys, 3,077 separate incidents of village destruction, relocation or abandonment have been documented in eastern Burma since 1996. Over a million people are understood to have been displaced from their homes in eastern Burma during this time.   The survey estimates at least 500,000 people are currently internally displaced in eastern Burma. These are conservative estimates as it has not been possible to survey urban areas nor mixed administration areas. The findings represent a decrease of approximately 40,000 internally displaced persons since October 2005, due primarily to movements out of ceasefire areas in Shan and Karenni States.   The findings of the survey illustrate that the SPDC are the primary perpetrators of systematic human rights abuses and humanitarian atrocities. Through the deliberate targeting of civilians in military operations, the national authorities are violating their obligations under international humanitarian law. The challenge for the international community is to accept responsibility to protect existing and potential victims of abuses and atrocities.   The Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC) has been collaborating with ethnic community-based organisations to document the scale, distribution and characteristics of internal displacement since 2002. This year"s survey updates population estimates and assesses current trends, including the confiscation of lands, imposition of procurement quotas and forced labour associated with national "development" initiatives. The reach of ethnic community based organisations across 38 townships has enabled these trend assessments, while detailed narrative descriptions and maps portray the dilemmas of everyday life for the internally displaced.
	US Government should close the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities without further delay by OneWorld US / Amnesty International   January 2007   Close Guantanamo Prison Camp. (OneWorld US)   January 11 is the 5-year anniversary of the first prisoners being sent to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.   "From the beginning this was a prison that was set up without any kind of due process," Medea Benjamin of the women-for-peace group Code Pink told OneWorld from Havana. "People in prison have no access to see their family members. It took a long time for them to even have lawyers and those lawyers don"t even have access to their clients."   "Most of them have no charges against them, and none of them have had a fair trial," Benjamin added.   The London-based rights group Amnesty International will also be rallying activists around the world, while New York-based Human Rights Watch is asking its supporters to contact their congressional representatives and local newspapers.   Jen Daskal, the Washington lobbyist for Human Rights Watch, told OneWorld that activists are pushing the newly formed Democratic-led Congress to restore the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. President Bush stripped so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" of that right last year when he signed the Military Commissions Act. "Habeas is one of the oldest and most important checks on arbitrary executive power," she said. "It dates back to the days of the early English kings. At that time it assured that the king couldn"t just throw somebody in the dungeon without having an independent review of their detention."   "By passing a law saying that these detainees could not access the courts," Daskal said, "Congress essentially cut off one of the most important checks for keeping the government accountable."   Daskal is optimistic the new Congress will pass a bill restoring habeas corpus rights this year. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already introduced a bill to reinstate the right. Last year a similar measure failed by only two votes.   "It"s a high priority for the Democrats and for many Republicans," she said. "There"s a growing awareness that stripping detainees of the right to challenge their detention is bad policy."   Five years after the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo, not a single inmate has been convicted of any criminal charge. Hundreds have been released without charge or any form of compensation for the many years they were detained at the prison camp.   Guantánamo Bay - a Human Rights scandal. (Amnesty International)   In January 2002, the US authorities transferred the first "war on terror" detainees – hooded and shackled – to the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Despite a major international outcry and expert condemnation, hundreds of people of around 30 nationalities remain there.   Denied their rights under international law and held in conditions which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the detainees face severe psychological distress. Three have died at the camp, after apparently committing suicide. Others have gone on prolonged hunger strikes, being kept alive only through painful force feeding measures.   As more evidence surfaces that the abuse of Guantánamo detainees has been widespread, condemnation at home and abroad increases. Amnesty International was one of the first voices to call for the camp to be closed, and many other organizations, institutions and individuals have since expressed their outrage at its existence. Even US President George W. Bush has said that he would like to close Guantánamo. He should do it as a matter of urgency.   Secret detention and enforced disappearance   Many of those held in Guantánamo were captured during the international conflict in Afghanistan. Others were picked up outside any zones of armed conflict in countries as diverse as Gambia, Bosnia, Egypt, Indonesia and Thailand.   In early September 2006, US authorities transferred to Guantánamo 14 men who had been held in secret CIA custody. President George W. Bush finally admitted that, in the "war on terror", the USA has been resorting to secret detentions and enforced disappearance, which is a crime under international law.   Inhuman and illegal detention   Released detainees and others still in the camp have alleged that they have been subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment while detained by US authorities at Guantánamo or elsewhere.   Some of the detainees are still held in maximum security blocks, sometimes for up to 24 hours a day and with very little out-of-cell exercise time. The detainees have also been subjected to repeated interrogations sometimes for hours at a time and without the presence of a lawyer, raising fears that statements may have been extracted under coercion. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is still the only non-governmental organization allowed access to the detainees.   With the prospect of indefinite detention without a fair trial in such conditions, the potential psychological impact upon those held and their loved ones is a major concern. The camp is condemning thousands of people across the world to a life of suffering, torment and stigmatisation.   None of the Guantánamo detainees have been convicted of any criminal charge. Hundreds of them have been released from the base without charge or any form of compensation for the many years they were illegally detained at Guantánamo.   Yet the US authorities still label those held as "enemy combatants", "terrorists", or "the worst of the worst", flouting their right to be presumed innocent and illegally justifying the denial of many of their most basic human rights.   None of the Guantánamo detainees have been granted prisoner of war status or brought before a "competent tribunal" to determine his status, as required by international law. The US government refuses to clarify their legal status.   Military commissions   In November 2001, President Bush signed a Military Order establishing trials by military commission which had the power to hand down death sentences and against whose decision there was no right of appeal to any court.   On 29 June 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that US President George W. Bush had overstepped his authority in ordering Military Commissions trials, and maintained that the proposed commissions violated US law and the Geneva conventions.   The decision was based on the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 36-year-old Yemeni national who has spent four years in the US detention centre.   The ruling was a victory for the rule of law and human rights and Amnesty International called on the US government to use it a a springboard for bringing all its "war on terror" detention policies into full compliance of US and international law.   Instead, on 29 September 2006 the US Congress gave its stamp of approval to human rights violations committed by the USA by passing the Military Commissions Act, a new legislation to try foreign nationals held in Guantánamo. President Bush signed the Act on 17 October 2006. The Military Commissions Act leaves the USA squarely on the wrong side of international law.   The Act is discriminatory because it provides for trials of the "enemy" in front of military commissions using lower standards of evidence than apply to US personnel. It also grants the US President the power to hand down death sentences. Whether charged for trial or not, those detained by the USA as "enemy combatants" will not be able to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of their detention in habeas corpus appeals. Amnesty International is campaigning for repeal of this act.   Releases with protection   Amnesty International calls for and welcomes releases of detainees from the base, if they are not to be charged and brought to fair trial. But they must not be returned to any country where they would be at risk of torture, execution or other serious human rights abuses. All transfers should be with the informed consent of the individuals concerned.   In the cases of serious concerns about the fate of released detainees, the US authorities should intensify efforts to find a country where released detainees can live without risk of further human rights violations, in cooperation with the UN refugee agency (UNCHR). Third countries should consider accepting detainees who voluntarily seek resettlement, especially countries of former habitual residence or where detainees had close family or other ties. Visit the related web page
	View more stories