Canada gave hope to the Rohingya, then failed them by not acting to stop genocide. But there’s a chance for redemption

By Fareed Khan

One of the gravest human rights issues of the past two years has been the genocide of the Rohingya at the hands of the Myanmar government.  As Canada marked Victims of Genocide Day on December 9th and Human Rights Day on December 10th, Canadians need to examine how the Canada first gave hope to the Rohingya, then cruelly failed them, and how it can now redeem itself.

 

The world was aghast in the fall of 2017 when the atrocities committed by Myanmar against its Rohingya minority came to light – acts which were labeled "ethnic cleansing", "crimes against humanity," and ultimately "genocide".  Myanmar’s crimes against the Rohingya included the mass murder of thousands of unarmed civilians, the gang rape of tens of thousands of women, and the destruction of more almost 400 villages, which caused an exodus of Rohingya to neighbouring Bangladesh creating the world’s largest refugee camp.

In 2017 and 2018 Canada took international leadership in the Rohingya crisis through some key initiatives.  Canada was among the first nations to condemn Myanmar's atrocities.  In November 2017 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Bob Rae as a Special Envoy to Myanmar to look into the crisis, report back, and recommend a course of action.  Following the release of Rae's final report in April 2018, Canada committed $300 million over three years for humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees (but ignored the majority of the remaining 17 recommendations).

As host of the G7 summit in 2018 Canada put the Rohingya issue on the agenda, and raised it in other international forums.  In addition, Canada used Magnitsky Act sanctions against a number of Myanmar's military officials, and supported the work of Canadian human rights jurists and organizations who filed legal briefs at the International Criminal Court in The Hague regarding the crime of forced deportation of Rohingya.

In the fall of 2018 Canada's Parliament passed two unanimously supported motions which officially acknowledged the atrocities committed by Myanmar against the Rohingya as "genocide" (the first nation in the world to do so).  Subsequently, Parliament also revoked the honourary Canadian citizenship conferred on Myanmar's de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi in 2008, and expressed its opposition to the repatriation of any Rohingya back to Myanmar without guarantees of safety and security.

But that is where Canada's leadership on the Rohingya crisis ended.

Despite repeated calls by the Rohingya Human Rights Network and other human rights organizations, Canada took no action at the United Nations to protect the more than 500,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar still being subjected to genocide.  Most importantly, since the beginning of 2018, Canada has been deaf to the many Canadian human rights voices, calling on the government to live up to its international treaty obligations by filing a complaint against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, despite the support shown for this action in a petition signed by more than 75,000 people.

For more than a year and a half the Canadian government has refused to live up to its international legal obligations by filing a genocide case against Myanmar at the ICJ, notwithstanding that this proposed action has the support of a third of the Senate, MPs from all parties, and human rights and civil society organizations.

The small West African country of Gambia has taken the lead in seeking justice for the Rohingya by filing a case for genocide against Myanmar at the ICJ.  The opening statements were made by the legal team from Gambia on December 11th.  The same day, disgraced Nobel Peace Prize laureate made an opening statement on behalf of Myanmar by trying to refute allegations that her nation committed genocide against the Rohingya, despite the overwhelming evidence available to prove otherwise.

Rohingya from around the world travelled to The Hague to be present on this historic occasion, to say thank you to Gambia, to stand in solidarity with that nation for taking on the genocide case against Myanmar, and to stand in defiance of Aung San Suu Kyi who has transformed from a human rights defender into someone complicit in genocide.  Rohingya were in The Hague to show her and the world that they will not be silenced, they will not be intimidated, or forgotten, despite the horrors and atrocities that have been inflicted on them by the Myanmar government, recently and over the past four decades.

There are also Rohingya Canadians who traveled to The Hague to stand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters.  They did this to send a signal to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that if Canada wants to be a “rule of law” nation and defender of human rights, as he and former Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland have so often stated, then they should take lessons from Gambia, which is living up to its legal responsibilities under the genocide convention, and defending the human rights of the Rohingya.  Where Canada has offered platitudes and slogans with no actions behind the words, Gambia is offering a real hope for justice.

However, Canada does have a path to redemption.  If the prime minister wants to show that Canada is truly a defender of the rules-based international order and human rights, then he needs to instruct Canadian officials to take actions which will allow Canada to become a party to Gambia’s genocide case.  All those who have been lobbying the government to stop the genocide in Myanmar, which continues to this day, still want Canada to participate in the genocide case, and put its legal expertise and international weight behind this prosecution in a substantive way. 

Words of support for the Rohingya are cheap, and Rohingya activists and their allies have heard far too many words from the Canadian government followed by too little action.  It is actions that matter.  Especially when it comes to helping those Rohingya who have survived genocide, and those who continue to be subjected to it. 

Sitting on the sidelines is not an option.  Canada needs to show leadership and join Gambia in prosecuting the Rohingya genocide at the ICJ.  Because to be a leader on the international stage requires action, and now is the moment to act and demonstrate Canadian leadership in a case where justice for survivors of genocide is the goal.  Words are important, but actions always matter more.

© 2019 The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

Rape Culture: It exists and we as a society have to do something about it

March 19, 2013 -- A girl was raped in the town of Steubenville, Ohio in the US in August 2012 and the media is treating the recent conviction of the teenaged perpetrators of this vicious act with sympaty.  She was victimized again following the rape when pictures circulated online showing the unconscious teenage girl being dragged around to different parties by her rapists who laughed and were encouraged by onlookers who captured a personal memento of the occasion on their cell phones.

The rape lasted for hours with the perpetrators driving the young girl from party to party, raping her, assaulting her, and filming themselves doing so.  

The girl was victimized for a third time when CNN gave sympathetic coverage to the convictions of the rapists.

Related:

Women Under Seige

CNN's Steubenville Rape Coverage Draws Petition Demanding Apology

CNN under fire for sympathetic reporting on ruined 'promising lives' of rape students

And now the girl is being victimized again as she and her family receive death threats via Twitter and Facebook following the conviction of the perpetrators.

This is neither the first time nor will it be the last time (sadly) that a woman is raped and then photos of the incident posted on the internet as some sort of sick memento of the occasion.  Rapes happen everyday in our so called civilized society and many of them go unreported.

Related: 

Rape statistics by country

What this incident (and the many others that go unreported) says is that western society is not evolving when it comes to misogynist and degrading attitudes towards women, especially as it relates to teenagers and young men (and it doesn't matter how young they were, in the eyes of the law they were old enough to know better). At best society is stagnant and at worst it is devolving, and the pervasiveness of modern technology has a part to play in this ([1] [2]). It shows that the veneer of social civility that is trumpeted by western society (i.e. the sort of things that happen in PUT NAME OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY HERE would never happen in PUT NAME OF WESTERN DEVELOPED COUNTRY HERE) is thin as paper and it takes very little for the social contract that permits civilized society to exist to break down. The fact that so called civilized people stood by and let it happen is also an indication of the existence of evil in society that goes willfully ignored or unnoticed.

Our society is sick and it is getting sicker because of the neanderthal attitudes about the place of women in society that continue to be pervasive despite decades of efforts to change these attitudes by the thoughtful, progressive and feminist minded. This sort of mindset can be directly linked to actions by right wing governments who cut programs that help and support women, and the conservative minded within society who support and advocate these sorts of government cutbacks. Those cuts are attacks on women and they are indicative of an attitude within a significant segment of society that women should just shut up and deal with this sort of thing privately.

It's an attitude that is wrong!  Rape culture exists and we as a society have to do something to eliminate it.

To do or think otherwise should sicken and anger everyone!

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

Shedding Light On American Society's Myths About U.S. History

In "Society Must Be Defended", Michel Foucault wrote that the winners of a social struggle or armed conflict use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favour of their own propaganda.  It is likely the basis of the expression “history is written by the victor” (which has frequently been attributed to Winston Churchill).  This history is then perpetuated through what is taught in schools and, in the modern era, through portrayals of historical events on TV, in film and the mass media.

One of the countries that has done a remarkable job at writing history from the victor’s perspective is the United States, especially as it concerns the events encompassing the period between World War II and the present -- the period which has seen the creation of the "American Empire".  Some of the popularly held beliefs of history from a U.S. perspective are that: the Americans have been the “good guys” in any international conflict; atom bombs had to be dropped on Japan to save American lives; and the U.S. is an example to the world of a free and democratic society that values civil liberties and human rights.

Lifting the veil from many of these and other popularly held beliefs about U.S. actions in the historical events of the past 70 years seems to be the intent of a new documentary by Academy Award-winning film-maker Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick.  The 10-part series called Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States is being broadcast by the U.S. cable channel Showtime.  The series challenges the basic narrative about the place of the U.S. in the world that have come to be accepted by most Americans.

Drawing on archival findings, old movie clips and recently declassified documents, the film-makers critically examine U.S. history, from the atomic bombing of Japan to the Cold War, to the fall of communism, and continuing all the way through to the Obama administration.  Much of what is challenged is regularly taught in American schools and has become part of the national mythology of the United States.  During the making of the series the film-makers discovered that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were militarily unnecessary and morally indefensible.  They also propose that the Soviet Union, not the U.S., was ultimately responsible for defeating the Germans in World War II.  And, they assert that the United States, not the Soviet Union, bore the lion’s share of responsibility for perpetuating the Cold War.  In addition, the documentary found that U.S. presidents have frequently trampled on the Constitution and international law, especially in wartime, and they note the United States has brought the world dangerously close to nuclear war repeatedly by brandishing nuclear threats.

In addition, Stone and Kuznick produced a 750-page book, The Untold History of the United States as a companion to the documentary.  Together, the two works are meant to "challenge the basic and commonly held narratives about U.S. history . . . of American altruism, benevolence, devotion to liberty and justice."  All myths which, Stone says, are comforting to most Americans but are actually "harmful, noxious and polluted", and leave Americans in the dark about the truth of their nation’s history and its place in the world. 

Reaction to the documentary has been mixed.  Glen Greenwald, a journalist with The Guardian highly recommended the series and book describing it as "riveting", "provocative" and "worthwhile".  Former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev wrote approvingly of the book stating that, “Such a perspective is indispensable at a time when decisions are being taken that will shape America's role in the global world of the twenty-first century. At stake is whether the United States will choose to be the policeman of a "Pax Americana", which is a recipe for disaster, or partner with other nations on the way to a safer, more just and sustainable future." 

In November 2012 Ronald Radosh, an adjunct fellow historian with the conservative Hudson Institute, lambasted the documentary as "mendacious" Cold War revisionism and "mindless recycling of Stalin's propaganda.”  And journalist Michael C. Moynihan criticized the book for "moral equivalence between the policies of the psychotically brutal Soviet Union and the frequently flawed policy of the United States."

The first three episodes of the documentary series premiered at the New York Film Festival on October 6, 2012.   The series premiered on the Showtime cable channel on November 12, 2012.

For anyone who does not accept the sanitized, censored and rosy version of America's role in the key historical events of the last 70+ years, a version that has been constantly presented to the U.S. population through the American school system, by the corporate media, Hollywood, and the U.S. government, then this is a documentary that comes highly recommended.

To watch an interview about the series with the Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, click here.

Related Articles & References:
*  Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space (Video)
* Oliver Stone: America is an “outlaw nation”
* The End of Pax Americana: How Western Decline Became Inevitable
* A People's History of the United States
* The sun never sets on the American Empire
* Goodbye, Pax Americana
* Preserving Pax Americana: Defence Reform for the Unipolar Moment
* The Story of American Revisionism (Excerpted from Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism)
* The American Empire Project
* Could Oliver Stone's Exposé of the American Empire Help Press the UN to End Haiti Cholera?
* How America Became an Empire
* 7 Chomsky quotes that expose the American empire
* 8 striking parallels between the U.S. and the Roman Empire

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

Global Political Chaos and War Possible from Massive Climate Change

By Fareed Khan

  

February 19, 2013 -- What if the effects of global warming resulted in the unthinkable happening? What if massive climate change caused by global warming resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people due to mega-droughts, global famine, water and energy shortages, and nations used nuclear weapons to protect their dwindling resources?

It is a scenario that is more plausible than not.  It is so plausible that the Office of Net Assessment – the Pentagon’s highly respected internal think-tank – commissioned a report to explore the national security impacts of rapid climate change and how the United States should prepare militarily for this scenario.  In addition to the military option, the report’s authors call for ways to offset abrupt cooling.

The report – An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security – was completed in October 2003 but was not publicly acknowledged by Pentagon officials until its key findings were leaked and published in some European newspapers in February 2004.  One of the key conclusions of the report was that within as little as five years, the world-wide security threat from climate change would be greater than that of terrorism.  Therefore, the United States needs to plan for a time when a fortress mentality will be the only answer to protecting its territory and its resources..

Related:
*  US intelligence community warns of rising climate security threat

*  A Blueprint for the Department of Defense’s Strategic Assessment of Climate Change

The predictions contained in the report were based on research examining pre-historic weather patterns and studies of the ocean’s thermohaline conveyor which is responsible for controlling the world’s weather patterns.  Furthermore, this system of oceanic currents keeps the world’s warm and cold currents circulating and regulates the ocean’s salinity.

According to this research the rapid melting of the polar regions due to global warming would release massive amounts of fresh water into the oceans thus affecting ocean currents, ocean salinity, and raising sea levels.  This would cause the thermohaline conveyor to slow down thereby changing weather patterns world-wide.

An early climatic outcome would be massive and violent ocean storms ravaging sea coasts around the world, and making many coastal cities uninhabitable.  A projected 4°C drop in world-wide average annual temperatures would result in Siberia-like winters in Europe and North America, along with droughts and severely shortened growing seasons in the world’s food growing regions.  In the “have not” regions of the world tens of millions would die due to wars and famine in nations where resources are already scarce.  And as millions of migrants from Africa, Asia and South America try to find refuge in Europe, Japan, Australia and North America (regions better able to cope with these calamities) these regions would become virtual fortresses to keep them out.  These weather changes would also lead to nuclear proliferation as have not countries with the technical capability develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves from their neighbours, and to blackmail the “have” countries for assistance.

So how can we as individuals and nations plan for this global chaos?  To start with we need to increase pressure on our governments to implement the Kyoto Accords as a first step.  The next step is to work with the international community to convince the United States government (the world’s biggest consumer of energy) that it is in their political, economic and military interests to take the scientific evidence seriously, and also implement policies to mitigate climate change. 

Related:

*  What is Climate Change?

*  Looming Crisis of Climate Chaos

*  Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force 

*  Global Warming Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg 

*  Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

*  Scientists Discover Evidence of Impending Tipping Point for Earth

*  In Hot Water: Global Warming Takes Toll on Coral Reefs

*  Get Use to Extreme Weather, It's the "New Normal"

*  Climate War: The United States and China

  
© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

Long Ago Dreams of a "New World Order"

February 13, 2013 -- I recently came across this map of the world that was created to illustrate what the "new world order" would look like after the end of World War II.  The map was actually completed before the Japanese attack onPearl Harbor and published on February 25, 1942.

It shows a proposed political division of the world after World War II in the event of an Allied victory in which the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union would rule. The map includes a manifesto describing a "New World Moral Order", along with quotes from U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech.

While there are many points from the policies of the New World Moral Order that are fodder for endless debate, the following three points should be of particular note: 

• To reduce the burden and criminal waste of armaments expenditures everywhere in the world, the U.S.A., with the cooperation of Latin-America, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the U.S.S.R. shall undertake to guarantee peace to the nations which will be permanently disarmed and demilitarized after the conclusion of the present war.
•  A World Court with punitive powers of absolute boycott, quarantine, blockade and occupation by international police, against lawbreakers of international morality shall be organized.
• In the New World Moral Order which we seek to establish, besides the essential political freedoms, the following fundamental economic changes are imperative:

 (a)   Nationalization of all natural resources and equitable distribution of same to all nations…everywhere in the world;

 (b)   Nationalization of international banking, foreign investments, railroads and power plants….everywhere in the world;

 (c)   Nationalization of all armaments producing establishments by all military powers;

 (d)   Federal control of foreign commerce and shipping;

 (e)   The establishment of a world common monetary system;

 (f)    World wide limitations of interest rates to a maximum of two percent.

This vision of a new world would have seen political domination by three major powers which would have been problematic to say the least.  However, in hindsight the goals of demilitarization, equitable sharing of the world's natural resources among all nations, regulation of international banking and commerce, and nationalization of the arms industry would have been welcomed (whoever was in control) considering what occurred geo-politically and economically in the decades following WW II, and the political and economic state of the world today.

Instead of the political, economic and social benefits that would have been enjoyed had this manifesto been implemented we have today a world which is more militarized, more economically selfish and politically inequitable then any time since World War II.  Today we have a world where 5% of the world's companies control 80% of the planet's economy and resources, and where the profits of corporations are placed ahead of the needs of people.  We have a world where international banking and commerce has become increasingly unregulated over the past several decades resulting in the world-wide economic crisis of 2008.  We have a world where the sale of armaments and military hardware is looked at in terms of its potential for job creation for the countries doing the selling rather then in terms of its potential for inflicting deathand destruction, encouraging militarism and causing political instability in various regions of the world.

Related: Who really contols the world? 

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "When evil men plot, good men must plan . . .When evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice."  Looking at the state of society and the world today one has to wonder if "evil men" are the ones who have taken control of the world.

There is no guarantee that the New World Moral Order would have resulted in a world free of political, economic and social injustices.  The world doesn't work that way given the general falibility and self-serving character of humans.  However, the fact that it was an idea that was discussed at the highest levels, and its details recorded, shows that at one time there were leaders in the world who had a grand vision of a humanity and a world that was less selfish, less greedy and more altruistic then the world which we live in today.

One can only wonder what sort of world it might have been had those plans become reality.

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.

Alternative / Independent Media: The Answer to Democratic Decay Or Just Some More Voices In The Crowd?

Last updated August 30, 2013 5:38 PM
 

February 12, 2013 -- I don't know why I've hesitated about blogging in the past since I find myself often commenting on various issues on Facebook which, in some cases, are accessible to the public.  But, for the most part, those comments are only visible to the people on my friends list, and I would like some of the thoughts I have put down to be heard beyond that limited circle.

I published my first blog last week as a result of a course I'm taking on alternative media and politics.  The blog was part of the assignment for that course.

So I will repost that blog here and l look forward to any thoughts or comments that I might receive.

*****************************

Alternative / Independent Media: The Answer To Democratic Decay Or Just Some More Voices In The Crowd?

In a world filled with media alternatives the choice of alternative / independent media (AIM) is so wide-ranging as to be overwhelming.  From magazines to newsletters to websites to TV and radio, one could spend weeks glued to a computer screen reading, watching and listening to all the alternative voices speaking about all the issues and viewpoints which are not covered adequately by the mainstream corporate media, or not at all.  To demonstrate how pervasive AIM has become plug the phrase "alternative media" or “independent media” into Google search and it returns over 9.2 million results combined.

Among the multitude of AIM voices on the internet is the website Truthout.

Truthout is a non-profit journalism organization dedicated to providing independent news and commentary on a daily basis. It is affiliated with the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an American organization whose goal is to “help promote and fund aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption, and law-breaking in government.”

According to their website, Truthout’s investigative reporting “has focused on issues such as government secrecy surrounding the Guantanamo Bay prison, the militarization of law enforcement on the U.S. border, and the growth of the U.S. national security budget in the past decade.”  They work to spark action by "revealing systemic injustice" and "providing a platform for transformative ideas", through in-depth investigative reporting and critical analysis.

However, unlike many other AIM media sites Truthout claims not to advocate a political agenda.  They state that their aim is to “remain free of bias and adhere to high editorial standards.”  Notwithstanding this claim, if you examine the articles listed on their main page they cover many issues that would be at home on other progressive leaning alternative media sites, and they cover the issues in a manner that is consistent with a counter-hegemonic, anti-corporate narrative.

With the exception of their claim to being free of bias, Truthout has adopted an operational / administrative model similar to many other alternative media outlets.  They accept no advertising or corporate backing but instead depend entirely on readers to support their work.

So why the need for AIM sites like Truthout?  Although the issue has been discussed at length in academia, the short answer would be that mainstream corporate media is no longer the independent voice it once was, it no longer adequately plays the role of guarding democracy, and thus no longer truly represents the interests of the majority.  Whether it is in Canada, the United States or elsewhere in the democratic world, the historical role of a free and independent media has been a key factor in the establishment and growth of democratic societies and institutions.  In fact it is the only profession that is specifically mentioned in constitutions of various democratic nations, including Canada, the United States, the European Union and its member states.

However, for at least the past two decades barriers have been placed in the path of the democratic evolution of nations due to the increasing concentration of media ownership among small numbers of corporately owned and controlled media empires.  For example, in both Canada and the U.S. the mainstream media is controlled by an oligopoly of corporate media empires who cater to the power and corporate elites and help to maintain the status quo in support of their interests (Atton).  Europe also faces a similar situation despite the fact that their media markets are fragmented by the various languages spoken on that continent.

The goal of these corporate media conglomerates is to create passive and uninformed consumers / voters who will make irrational choices that are counter to their personal / democratic interests.  And to accomplish this goal these corporations are willing to spend huge amounts of money and resources.

While the concentration of mainstream media has been the catalyst for the birth (rebirth?) of independent media in the modern era, the multiplicity of voices, despite their best efforts, continue to be eclipsed by the reach of mainstream media.  Or, to put it another way, despite the efforts and successes of AIM sites and organizations like Truthout, which intend to offer an alternative or oppositional perspective, they are still unable to challenge the macro impact of mainstream media sources.  Which begs the question, is the shift to a democratic and participatory process of production the best option in response to preventing the further decay of democracy if distribution of the information is limited, and if you become just another faint voice in a crowd?

© The View From Here.  All Rights Reserved.