text:
Censorship and online threats against the press spell trouble for the future of Pakistani journalism · Global Voices
R Umaima Ahmed

Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi talks with CPJ about how journalists are being silenced in Pakistan. Screenshot from Video.
Deaths, threats, layoffs, late salaries, censorship and bans on TV channels have become the norm for media professionals in Pakistan.
On June 16, 2019, Pakistani blogger and independent journalist Billal Khan, who ran a YouTube channel where he interviewed political figures and talked about religion and politics, was stabbed to death by unknown individuals. Reports speculate that his criticism of the Pakistan army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's leading intelligence agency, led to his killing.
In mid-September 2019, Zaffar Abbas, a journalist with the privately-owned Channel 7-News, was found dead in a dry well in Vehari, Pakistan. According to police sources, Abbas was returning home late at night from the Kot Malik area on September 7 when he went missing. On the family’s behest, a kidnapping case was registered against unidentified people, and the reason for the incident is yet to be determined.
Another attack on freedom journalism
I strongly condemn the killing of journalist Zafar Abbas in Mailsi@OFFICIALDPRPP #آزاد_صحافت pic.twitter.com/oUjrYTQmtc
— Pir Toqeer (@PirToqeer) September 12, 2019
A number of journalists have recently been reported dead and in most cases, the perpetrators could not be identified. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), as many as 61 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 1992.
In an interview with CPJ, Najam Sethi, a seasoned journalist and former Caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab, said that journalists in Pakistan are going through the worst time in the history of the country. In August, the TV Channel 24 HD cancelled the Najam Sethi Show, a news and political commentary program, after Sethi reported about Prime Minister Imran Khan's alleged marital issues:
Journalist & publisher @NajamSethi, whose "Najam Sethi Show" was taken off-air amid defamation suits from authorities, spoke to CPJ about the unprecedented challenges facing the press in #Pakistan today.
Sethi received CPJ's International #PressFreedom Award in 1999. #IPFA pic.twitter.com/VXlO8Qtsw3
— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom) September 12, 2019
Sethi also spoke about how journalists are being silenced: every time they raise their voice, criticize the government or do shows, they are labelled as traitors or have their credentials questioned.
Censorship has increased in Pakistan. Anything critical of the government, as well as various interviews with politicians, have been taken off-air on the orders of various government departments. Journalists have also started receiving emails from social media platforms warning them about their posts against the Pakistan government. Reporters without Borders wrote an open letter to Pakistan's prime minister and voiced its concerns regarding the treatment of journalists in the country.
Sethi rightly points out the critical situation faced by journalists. The social media factor is one that can't be ignored: it has become an arena where online bullying and threats against journalists have taken place, with female journalists taking the brunt of the attacks.
Recently, the ruling Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf party’s Twitter handle warned journalist Gharidah Farooqi against making too many anti-state comments:
Gharidah if we count the “slip of tongues” that have actually been anti state by u over the years,u would be out of job. PM IK had once told u that “aap bohat low intellect ki baatein kar rahi hain”. We can totally understand why he said that; causing damage to an important cause https://t.co/fc3F0RD1dB
— Tehreek-e-Insaf (@InsafPK) September 10, 2019
Gharidah if we had really counted your “slip of tongues” over the years that were actually anti-state, you would be out of your job. Prime Minister Imran Khan had once told you that “you are talking like a person with very low intellect”. We can totally understand why he said that; (you are) causing damage to an important cause — Tehreek-e-Insaf (@InsafPK)
For the past few years, columnist Cyril Almeda, a recipient of the International Press Institute's (IPI) 71 World Press Freedom Hero Award, has come under fire from the state for publishing an exclusive story in the Dawn newspaper regarding a top-level meeting of civil-military leaders in 2016. In 2018, Almeida was slapped with a treason charge for an interview he did with the former prime minister, Nawaj Sharif.
In January 2019, Almeda was suspended from writing for the newspaper:
Some work news: suspending writing the Sunday column for Dawn. Thank you for the readership and affection over the years. ???
— cyril almeida (@cyalm) January 19, 2019
By September, Almeida announced that he would resume writing and that his latest column would be equally hard-hitting:
Some work news: have resumed the Sunday column for Dawn… grateful to the many friends and readers who have messaged… ??https://t.co/YEoqBa4Mpw
— cyril almeida (@cyalm) September 15, 2019
The climate is not an easy one to work in. As Dawn editor Zafar Abbas said in an interview, “They are no longer trying to kill journalists. They are trying to kill journalism.”
While these are some of the more egregious cases, journalists face constant challenges in the form of late payments and increased layoffs. Many media houses claim they are not getting government advertisements and are forced to downsize as a result. Reports suggest that ad volumes are being reduced for certain media houses “as a tool of punishment”.
Advertisements placed by Pakistan's government institutions account for 25 percent of total ad spend in the country. However, many note that the first ones to bear the brunt of layoffs are the journalists critical of the powers that be. Given these circumstances, the future of journalism in Pakistan appears to be fairly bleak.

author: R Umaima Ahmed


text:
Press freedom watchdog dismisses China’s ’70 Years of Progress on Human Rights’ as ‘smokescreen’ · Global Voices
Oiwan Lam

Photoshop image from the Stand News.
Ahead of the 70th anniversary of the People Republic of China, the Chinese State Council Information Office issued a white paper on China's human rights conditions on September 22, 2019. Titled “Seeking Happiness for People: 70 Years of Progress on Human Rights in China”, the paper defines human rights as people’s rights to happiness and development.
While China claimed that it has become a true democracy and a champion of human rights, international press freedom watchdog Reporters without Borders slammed the report as a “smokescreen” intended to mask China’s “horrendous record” when it comes to human rights and freedom of the press.
The Chinese government supported its achievement in human rights with a large number of statistics on economic and social development, such as poverty reduction figures:
Between 1978 and 2018 the number of rural poor fell from 770 mln to 16.6 mln calculated against China's #poverty line set in 2010.
Here is the full text of the white paper: Seeking Happiness for People: 70 Years of Progress on #HumanRights in China.https://t.co/WYEB7hyAlG pic.twitter.com/1zBH30w2D9
— China SCIO (@chinascio) September 23, 2019
Despite severe international criticism over human rights conditions in Tibet and Xinjiang, the paper claimed that the rights of ethnic minorities are well protected, again citing GDP growth in five autonomous regions of Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Tibet, Ningxia and Xinjiang.
Cédric Alviani, head of Reporters Without Borders’ East Asia office, urged the international community to not be fooled by “a text that purposely confuses development with human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which China is a signatory but violates daily”.
In its press release, Reporters Without Borders stressed:
China is the biggest prison in the world for journalists, with at least 115 detainees, who may suffer the same fate as late Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo and blogger Yang Tongyan, who both died in 2017 due to untreated cancers in detention. The 850 million Chinese internet users are also kept out of the global community by a system of censorship and technological surveillance which limits their ability to inform themselves freely.
Twitter users outside of China observed that the Chinese report omitted any mention of the country's humanitarian disasters:
"The tragedies and miseries that the Chinese people and other minority nationals suffered under the Great Leap Forward movement and the famine, atrocities of Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacres are all missing"
China’s white paper… #HRhttps://t.co/3ZTfrxY73R pic.twitter.com/VZR2akyGAm
— clara (@clara111) September 25, 2019
Many mocked the Chinese propaganda with memes like Chinese president Xi Jinping’s online lookalike, Winnie the Pooh:
#929globalmarch #929GlobalantitotalitarianismMarch https://t.co/O9jf9zfW98 pic.twitter.com/7TomRPR9L7
— なれはて ☔ 未来を指す羅針盤を手に (@NarehaT) September 23, 2019
As anticipated, the official stance has been echoed on Chinese social media platforms, all of which are under strict censorship control. Below are some responses on one of the news threads on Weibo:
亲身感受:安居乐业，繁荣安定就是世界上最大的民主!
Personal experience and feeling: Wellbeing, prosperity and stability are the greatest democracy in this world.
中华文明和西方普世价值是两个完全不同的概念，人权定义完全不同，也是从最近的香港暴乱事件中领悟到的，祝愿国家长治久安，越来越先进。
Chinese civilization and western universal values are two different sets of concepts. The definitions of human rights are different as well. The riot in Hong Kong has taught us a lesson. Wish this country will always be stable and advancing.
中国的人权情况中国人才有资格发言！
Only Chinese people are qualified to talk about human rights in China.
Such an echo chamber on Chinese social media has generated a belief that China's political and economic systems are more advanced than the rest of the world, as reflected in the widespread discourse of China being a “strong country” (強國）. Political cartoonist Rebel Pepper is troubled by this “rosy reality” constructed by the Chinese Community Party, and compared the political propaganda to feeding drugs to the people:
我和少數人被大部分中國人認為是不可理喻一味“為黑而黑”的人，因我們看到更多真相，而大部分人僅僅看到眼前的繁華大道，中共已自信到發佈70年人權白皮書，幾年前你能想像嗎？越發顯得反共反華的人不倫不類，恐怕不是“吃飽了撐的”，多半是因為沒吃飽才這麼恨中國。這樣的輿論困局如何化解需要好好研究 pic.twitter.com/OgRLy60io6
— 变态辣椒RebelPepper (@remonwangxt) September 25, 2019
The majority of Chinese people see me and other minority dissidents as unreasonable critics just eager to discredit China. We see more than the majority of Chinese people. What they can see is economic development and now the CCP has the confidence to issue a White Paper on 70 years of progress in human rights. We can’t even imagine that just a couple of years ago. In the past, China said only those who were well-fed would point their finger at China. Now the mainstream public opinion (in China) is that only losers who can’t make a good living are resentful of China. How should we address such a popular belief?
The question raised by Rebel Pepper is shared among the Chinese overseas dissents – as all media platforms in China is under strict censorship and the great firewall has blocked overseas information from majority of the Chinese people, it is almost impossible to have open debate on the “reality” as depicted by official propaganda that orchestrated by a massive number of online patriots.

source: news-globalvoices

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Oiwan Lam


text:
Undercover journalist exposes harsh working conditions at Amazon warehouse in Japan · Global Voices
Nevin Thompson

A worker at an Amazon fulfillment center in Japan. Screencap from Amazon Japan promotional video.
A new book by a Japanese investigative reporter reveals deadly working conditions at a large Amazon distribution facility just outside of Tokyo. Based on undercover reporting and numerous interviews with workers, the book describes a large segment of the Japanese labor market dominated by temp companies and precarious working conditions.
In Yokota Masuo's “An Undercover Report on the Amazon Empire” (潜入ルポ amazon帝国), the investigative journalist alleges that workers at an Amazon “fulfillment center” (a warehouse and logististics hub) — located in the small regional city of Odawara 80 km west of Tokyo — work physically punishing shifts that have resulted in at least five deaths over the past five years.
In an excerpt published on news site News Post Seven (NEWS ポストセブン), Yokota explains how he “infiltrated” the Odawara fulfillment center in 2017 in order to report on working conditions. The business journalist had also worked undercover in 2004 to investigate Amazon both for an earlier book as well for an award-winning exposé  on clothing giant Uniqlo, and frequently reports on how workers in Japan are being affected by a rapidly changing labour environment.
Working as a part-time “picker” assembling customer orders, Yokota interviewed other employees at the fulfillment center, including salaried Amazon staff, temporary dispatch workers and employees of subcontracted shipping and logistics companies.
Amazon, which accounts for 20 percent of e-commerce sales in a Japanese marketplace of 86 million online shoppers, opened its Odawara fulfillment center in 2014. The expansive multi-storey, warehouse-like building covers 650,000 square feet of space — “about the size of four Tokyo Domes,” according to one news report — and employs about a thousand people. The facility was built in order to provide same- or next-day shipping service in the nearby Tokyo region of more than 30 million people, where Amazon wants to continue to grow its business.
In the book, Yokota says that just before he started to work there, he learned of the death of “Uchida Rika” (a pseudonym to protect the privacy of her surviving family), a 59-year-old woman who collapsed and died from an aneurysm while working for Amazon as a picker.
During Yokota's own time as a picker, a second Amazon worker, “Kitajima Masato”, who is survived by his wife “Kyoko” (both names are pseudonyms), also died. A married couple in their late thirties who worked at Amazon's Odawara fulfillment center as part-time pickers, the couple had entered the workforce after graduating from middle school, working at a series of low-skilled jobs. According to Yokota, the 2008 Lehman Shock triggered an economic recession in Japan that left them both out of work and living on welfare in Odawara.
After marrying, they found work at the fulfillment center, but rather than being employed by Amazon itself, the pair were dispatched by labor subcontractor World Intec as temporary workers (非正規労働者). It is estimated that about 37 percent of the Japanese labor force currently works on temporary contracts, a legacy of sluggish economic growth in the 1990s and the financial crisis of 2008.
“Masato” and “Kyoko” worked on their feet from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week, earning a combined income of 300,000 yen (US $3,000) a month.
While undercover at the Odawara warehouse, Yokota estimated that he would walk about 20 km over the course of a 6.5 hour shift, and that a picker could easily cover 30 km in ten hours — not an uncommon shift length if a picker works overtime during busy periods.
Pickers must travel all over the fulfillment center to gather and build orders — and because these tasks are timed and tracked to the second, many forego breaks in order to keep up. Yokota says that workers had no time to rest or even eat: “Kyoko” reportedly lost 10 kg (22 pounds) over the course of a month.
One day, “Masato” collapsed. The centre eventually called an ambulance and he was taken to hospital, where he died. The attending physician stated the cause of death as an aortic dissection, an uncommon heart condition typically experienced by men in their 60s and 70s.
The claims Yokota makes in his book have been corroborated by reports in the Japanese Communist Party publication Akahata (Red Flag).
In a 2018 article (English), Akahata had already tracked at least three deaths in “sweatshop-like working conditions” at the Odawara facility, based on interviews with former employees, as well as on comments gleaned from social media.
One worker told Akahata he was “nearly driven to commit suicide” by the working conditions at Odawara. Another Amazon worker, identified as “Okawa”, said:
My co-workers, one after another, resigned after they suffered from heat stroke, fatigue fractures, back pain, and other injuries and illnesses […]
“Okawa” also told Akahata that scheduled breaks were shortened throughout the day, leaving no time to travel to the on-site cafeteria, eat lunch and return to work. Wages were typically 950 yen (US $9.50) per hour — minimum wage in Japan — although some temporary workers received 2,000 yen (US $20) per hour during busy periods.
In another article, Akahata reported (in English) on comments made on the Japanese forum site 2chan (now rebranded as 5channel) about the center's working conditions:
‘I heard that a worker died at the warehouse.’
‘Recently, workloads have become heavier due to shorter rest periods. Take care, everyone!’
‘The company’s “do nothing unless something happens” attitude has led to this tragedy. Anti-heatstroke measure[s] [are] a case in point. Only after many workers suffered from heatstroke, the company finally implemented countermeasures.’
Yokota suggested that a lack of oversight and accountability on the part of Amazon has led to such deadly working conditions:
アマゾンは、アルバイトの管理をワールドインテックやその下請けの派遣会社に丸投げしており、自らアルバイトとは直接かかわらない。こうした環境では、アルバイトの労働環境にだれが責任を取るのか、という問題の所在が曖昧になってしまう
Amazon has offloaded management of these temp jobs to World Intec and other subcontracting agencies, and is not directly involved at all in overseeing the part-time workers. In such an environment, the location of the question of who will take responsibility for the working conditions of temporary and on-call workers becomes ambiguous.
According to “Masato”‘s widow and other workers at the center, Amazon made little or no effort to communicate about his death. In an interview, a supervisor told Yokota:
アマゾンの同僚からは、その日のうちに、警察が来て現場検証をしたと聞いています。けれど、北島さんが亡くなったことは、ワーカーさんに朝礼や昼礼で伝えることはありませんでした。ボクは、北島さんが亡くなった数日後に、上司との面談があったんですが、そのときに、北島さんが亡くなった話を持ち出しても、救急車で運ばれたのは聞いていたけれど、亡くなったとは知らなかった、と言っていました。センター内で起こった死亡事故を知らないなんて、信じられない気持ちでした。
“A coworker mentioned to me that police had come onsite that day. However, nobody formally notified any employees. When I brought up his death at a meeting with a supervisor several days later, […] all they knew was that he had been taken away by an ambulance, and that they didn't know he had died. I find it hard to believe that nobody [in management] knew.”
At the time of her husband's death, “Kyoko” had left the Odawara fulfillment center for another part-time job; she had just 40,000 yen (US $400) in the bank. She eventually received a lump-sum payment of 30,000 yen (US $300) from World Intec. With her lack of savings, the meager payout from her husband's death and the loss of his income, “Kyoko” had no way to pay for hospital and funeral expenses, or even her monthly rent.
While some Amazon warehouse workers have attempted to unionize, so far there have been no major changes to the working environment in Odawara. In an era where more than 36 percent of all workers are employed as temporary, on-call workers and in an era of stagnant wage growth, low-skilled workers still face precarious situations no matter where they live in Japan.
“Kyoko” is a case in point. Having a few other prospects after she recently lost her job as a supermarket cashier, she went back to work at the fulfillment center:
「小田原付近では仕事が少ないので、困った時のアマゾン頼みって言われているんです。給与は日払いでもらえますし。夫が亡くなったことへのわだかまりが全然ないと言ったらうそになりますけれど、生活のためだと割り切ることにしました。年末もお正月の三が日も働くつもりです」
“Since there are so few jobs in Odawara, Amazon told me to let them know if I ever needed help [with work]. And I can get paid on a daily basis. While it would be a lie to say I bear no ill feelings [towards Amazon] about the death of my husband, I'm taking the job because I need to earn a living.

author: Nevin Thompson


text:
While El Salvador’s security improves, the country loses ground in press freedom · Global Voices
Melissa Vida

Presidency blocks access to El Faro and Revista Factum during a press conference. Credit: El Faro/Victor Peña. Used with permission.
In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele is popular. The Twitter-savvy entrepreneur arrived at the presidency on June 1, 2019, without a clear ideological line at the heels of decades of disappointment in governments from the left and the right. Years of high-level corruption, gang violence, lack of jobs and forced migration made the population believe that Nayib Bukele could be the captain to steer El Salvador in the right direction.
Between January and May 2019, the homicide rate decreased from 8.9 per day to 5.6 between June and August, according to national data, which Bukele credits to his militarized security plan. A little more than 50 percent of the population see the fight against crime as Bukele’s best achievement, while 90 percent have noticed some positive change since he took office.
The day he announced the launch of an international anti-corruption scheme, another popular initiative, he refused to let investigative journalists into the press conference. A public spat then ensued between Bukele and the censored journalists.
Bukele tweeted that journalists from El Faro and Revista Factum were “crybabies” (he used the word “vístimas” an ironic alternative for víctima, in Spanish) and explained they were not allowed to enter because they behaved badly in a previous press conference. El Faro journalist responded that on a previous occasion he had his microphone turned off and so had to shout his question.
El Faro and Revista Factum have helped uncover massive corruption and impunity schemes in the past and are investigating the current president’s past financial links and the government's transparency. They also investigate criminal structures within the country, helping readers understand the highs and lows of gang violence in El Salvador.
For many of Bukele's followers, these digital media are accused of being biased against the president. One of the founders of Revista Factum is affiliated to a nascent right-wing party, for example. In general, the media in El Salvador is seen as sold out to private and political interests.
International organizations like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the ban, however. Bukele has since allowed the journalists to press conferences, but has called one of Revista Factum’s journalists’ questions on transparency “stupid,” as shown in this video. The video went viral with people supporting the president's behavior.
Carlos Dada, the founder of El Faro, explained his worries on Salvadoran radio show Pencho y Aída.
“100 días son muy pocos para juzgar a un gobierno, de lo que podemos hablar es de los primeros síntomas de los parece un problema, un problema de culto a la personalidad, un problema de narcisismo, intolerancia a las voces críticas; ojalá esto cambie”: @CarlosDada @_ElFaro_
— Pencho y Aída (@PenchoyAida) September 23, 2019
“100 days are a very short period of time to judge a government. We can talk about the first symptoms of what looks like a problem of a cult of personality, a narcissism problem, and an intolerance to critical voices. Hopefully this will change.”
@CarlosDada @_ElFaro_
— Pencho y Aída (@PenchoyAida) September 23, 2019
El Salvador has been considered one of the relatively better countries in Central America to be a journalist, but it is losing its position—it regressed by 15 spots in the 2019 World Press Freedom Index since 2018.
Although Bukele’s conflictual relationship with the press is not new—he was involved in coordinating a “troll center” from his cellphone against La Prensa Gráfica and El Diario de Hoy in 2015—it escalated in recent weeks.
Bukele’s supporters are following his lead and discrediting, or, in the worst cases, insulting journalists and anyone giving a hint of skepticism of Bukele’s governance. The president uses a narrative that divides those who are in favor of him—the “90 percent who support him in polls”, and the 4 percent who “do not.” Bukele claimed that the “4 percent are disgusting” because they criticize armed forces.
Public shaming may dissuade others to speak their mind in the country. Karla Castillo, a Salvadoran human rights activist, had questioned Bukele’s penchant for the growing militarization of El Salvador on Facebook and the post went viral. Thousands of people criticized her opinion and her person by insulting and threatening her.
La Secretaría de Prensa de la Presidencia de la República de El Salvador acaba de compartir una serie de imágenes en Twitter, como parte de la celebración de independencia. Un show de represión de la Fuerza Armada, frente a la tarima presidencial. Yo no sé ustedes, pero a mí me da tristeza y miedo al ver estas imágenes. El presidente Nayib Bukele podría marcar la diferencia al celebrar la independencia con tantos actos culturales y artísticos, educativos, incluso. Pero él prefiere hacer una demostración de terror. Más incomprensible es verlos disfrutar del show. No, esto no es independencia, esto es instaurar miedo en la población.
Y para los que defienden estas práctica, les recuerdo del informe que la misma Procuraduría General de la República lanzó hace unas semanas, donde se demostró que las mismas autoridades abusaron de su poder para cometer asesinatos violentos. El informe cuenta al menos 116 víctimas.
Una cosa es utilizar a la fuerza pública, en el marco de su deber, otra muy diferente es hacer un show de entretenimiento con eso. Esto es institucionalizar el terror como una práctica y legitimar el uso, incluso el disfrute, de la represión.
The President's Office of the Secretary of the Press has just shared a series of images on Twitter as part of it's Independence Day celebration. A show of repression by the Armed Forces, in front of the president's dais. I don't know about you, but I feel sad and afraid when seeing these images. President Nayib Bukele could have chosen to make a difference by celebrating independence with so many cultural, artistic and even educational activities. But he prefers to make a demonstration of terror. Even more incomprehensible is to see them enjoying the show. No, this is not independence, this is to create fear among the population.
And for those who defend this practice, I remind you of the report that was made public by the Attorney General's Office a few weeks ago, which demonstrated that the authorities themselves abused their own power to commit violent acts. The report counted at least 116 victims.
It is one thing to use the government's forces within the framework of their duties, it is quite another to use them to put on a show for entertainment purposes. This institutionalizes terror as a practice and to legitimize the use, and even the enjoyment, of repression.
Image alluded to in Karla Castillo's Facebook post. Taken from her Facebook account and used with permission.
“People get offended because Bukele is their only hope,” Karla Castillo told Global Voices by phone. “So any criticism against the president is criticism towards them and their hope.” What worries her is that the president is “prompting others to follow his lead.”
Although she believes that the president has good intentions to fix the country, she says that he may “have strategies on how to manipulate public opinion.” She believes that one of these strategies is to make the press the enemy and avoid uncomfortable questions. Another strategy, according to her, would be to create the vision of a country that does not exist yet and discredit contrary opinions.
“Of course I want the country to improve, my friends have lived through horrible stories of murder,” she said. “But I want things to be done in the right and truthful way.” She believes that attacks on freedom of speech are a form of violence in itself.
“People have written to me in private to thank me for being that voice, because they don’t dare criticize the president openly because of online attacks,” she said.

author: Melissa Vida


text:
As real bullets fly and hit in Hong Kong, the police start a new cycle of unprecedented violence · Global Voices
Oiwan Lam

Screen shot from Hong Kong Free Press Youtube video
As the People's Republic of China celebrates the 70th anniversary of its founding, police violence in Hong Kong is escalating to new levels: an 18-year-old schoolboy was shot at close range and barely survived his injuries. This incident took place as people in Hong Kong continue to protest to demand guarantees for their freedom. While the controversial extradition law to China has been scrapped, others demands remain unanswered.
The incident occurred on October 1, when a riot police officer holding a long shield appeared near a bus stop in Tsuen Wan district, a location where triad members, violent protesters and riot police had been chasing each other. Spotted by protestors, the police officer was rapidly surrounded and used his shield to protect himself against the rods and hammers pointed at him. In no time, an estimated 10 riot police officers charged in with guns and shot one of the protesters at close range. The victim had to undergo a 4-hour operation, but managed to survive. Reportedly, the bullet hit his left lung and a piece of bullet shell was lodged just 3 centimeters from his heart.
It is important to note that all police officers, including the one who opened fire, were carrying less lethal weapons. Yet the Hong Kong police force justified the shooting as an act of self-defense. Here is a full video of the events:
On that day, confrontations between the police and protesters took place in at least 13 locations, as news about the shooting spread. This led to a massive response from the riot police which fired more than 1,400 tear gas canisters, 900 rubber bullets, 230 sponge bullets, 190 bean bags and six live rounds of gun. A total of 269 protesters were arrested.
Two other shooting incidents were captured on video footage posted on YouTube. One video shows five police officers surrounded by protesters pelting objects at them. A police vehicle comes to their rescue, but instead of leaving the scene afterwards, six police officers jump out of the vehicle and pick a fight with the protesters. A gunshot is then fired. The other video shows protesters throwing objects and Molotov cocktails at riot police.
In the past few months, Hong Kong's police have avoided lethal weapons. But exasperation at the lack of government response to demands, combined with the alleged abusive use of force and, in certain cases, of torture by the police, has radicalized some protesters.
At the same time, pro-establishment hawks have been openly advocating for the use of lethal weapons. For example, the Junior Police Officers’ Association, Hong Kong’s biggest frontline association, issued a statement around mid-September, urging its members to use appropriate weapons in situations where they believe their lives are at risk. Back in July, the Association, known for its pro-Beijing stance, referred to the protesters as “cockroaches” in an official statement. It also criticized Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung for an apology he made over the absence of police force during the Yuen Long mob attack on July 21. The Association has been one of the strongest voices against an independent investigation, a demand which garnered the support of 79 percent of respondents in a public survey conducted by the Public Opinion Institute in August.
On September 30, police authorities organized a press conference in response to a Telegram message in which some radical protesters allegedly discussed plans to kill officers, set fires and bomb shopping malls. Protesters challenged the veracity of the alleged intelligence by pointing out several inconsistencies including the fact that the user account, group and channel accounts were all registered in mainland Chinese pinyin rather than the traditional Cantonese romanization used in Hong Kong. Moreover, the majority of the location marks in the attack map were wrong. This piece of police “intelligence” was nevertheless widely reported on major TV channels, unlike the protesters’ version of the story.
A huge banner on National Day rally that reads: Freedom from fear. Causeway Bay. Photo by Viola Kam/United Social Press, via Hong Kong Free Press, used with permission.
In order to support the Hong Kong police and justify their actions, Beijing has reached into its propaganda box for its favorite tool: online narratives glorifying new heroes defending the Motherland.
People in Hong Kong had been warned that no permit had been issued for a protest on October 1. To underline the message, Beijing also picked 10 Hong Kong police officers to represent their city at National Day celebrations in the Chinese capital. One of them was Lau Zaak Kei, who became famous after pointing his projectile gun at protesters during a clash on July 30.
As demonstrated in two separate videos, the incident took place when three police officers were caught in a confrontation with protesters wielding batons and umbrellas. Lau fell down, then picked up his long gun and pointed it at protesters.
The gun-pointing image was later packaged into a viral post entitled “The bald-headed police officer who raised his gun could never imagine that he has touched the heart of China” (举起枪的光头警长，没想过会感动中国). The post, to which illustrations and alleged quotes by Lau were later added, was curated by the Chinese Communist Party-affiliated Global Times news outlet.
Lau became an icon for “Support Hong Kong police campaign” overnight. As explained by the Chinese social media observatory What’s on Weibo, the idea of supporting the Hong Kong police goes hand-in-hand with the idea that Hong Kong is, and “always will be,” a “part of China”.
China Daily poster via What's on Weibo.
The campaign has also made an appearance in the non-virtual world. On several occasions since August 2019, pro-Beijing mobs wearing blue T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “I love Hong Kong police”, and often originating in the border province of Guangdong in mainland China, have attacked Hong Kong protesters and civilians.
Just now at #FortressHill—
Group of blue-clad gov supporters attacking innocent citizens who were just passing by. Attackers are kicking and even use their China National Flag to hit pedestrians.
The attackers was dismantling #LennonWall at the area earlier#AntiELAB #HongKong pic.twitter.com/6nLYCk8TIu
— #AntiELAB Fight for Hong Kong (@Fight4HongKong) September 14, 2019
While officially restricted by a pledge of political neutrality, police officer Lau has opened a Weibo account where he actively comments on the Hong Kong protests, including praising pro-Beijing lawmaker Junius Ho for mobilizing “support Hong Kong police mobs.” Ho was spotted shaking hands with members of triads during the Yuen Long mob attack, and some believe he may have played a role in staging the attacks.
The 10 police officers who arrived in Beijing on September 30 were part of a much larger Hong Kong delegation, yet were prominently portrayed in news coverage. Below is a Twitter version of the glorification of the ‘heroes':
9月30日上午，受邀來京參加國慶典禮的10名香港警察前往延慶八達嶺，「光頭劉Sir」劉澤基也首次登上了心心念念的長城，圓了「國慶好漢夢」。
在長城上，港警們揮舞著手中的五星紅旗，集體對著鏡頭說：「香港警察向內地同胞問好！」#香港警察 #光頭劉Sir #八達嶺長城 pic.twitter.com/GCnFTAdRCo
— BeijingEye (@BeijingEye) September 30, 2019
On the morning of September 30, ten Hong Kong police officers who were invited to join the celebration of the National Day in Beijing visited the Great Wall. It is the first visit made by the bald-headed SIr Lau, also known as Lau Zaak Kei. He thus fulfilled his “National Day dream”. On the Great Wall, the Hong Kong police officers were waving the five-star national flag and shouting out to the camera: “Hong Kong police says hello to mainland China compatriots!” #Hong Kong Police #Bald-headed Lau Sir #the Great Wall of Badaling
If the shooting at close range of protesters becomes a “heroic act of the nation”, who will be able to stop the cycle of violence in Hong Kong?


text:
Bearing witness to Putin’s rise to power · Global Voices
Maxim Edwards

Detail from the poster of Vitaly Mansky's 2018 documentary film “Putin's Witnesses.” Image courtesy of Kharkiv MeetDocs and Vitaly Mansky. Used with permission.
It is March 2000, and acting president Vladimir Putin and his colleagues are watching the results of the presidential elections. The Russian public still knows little about Putin, the acting president, other than that he is the anointed successor of the frail Boris Yeltsin. As the final results are called, Yeltsin drinks champagne with his family. The cameraman asks him why he has not called Putin to congratulate the new president. When Yeltsin does so, Putin does not pick up — and never calls his predecessor back.
These striking scenes open Vitaly Mansky's 2018 film “Putin's Witnesses.” The archival documentary, which won the award for best documentary at last year's Karlovy Vary film festival, retells how the Russian president rose to power nearly 20 years ago when Boris Yeltsin resigned live on television on New Year's Eve 1999. Mansky, now an award-winning director and documentary filmmaker, is ideally placed to tell this story: he was the cameraman on that consequential evening. For several years, he enjoyed unprecedented access to Russia's political elite due to his work producing films for state television.
It is a role he now appears to regret; Putin's Witnesses is his reckoning with that burden.
These never seen before clips from Mansky's archive offer a crucial insight into a man who has gone on to dominate Russian politics for two decades. In one informal chat, Putin berates Mansky for not understanding his decision to revert Russia's national anthem to the old Soviet melody. The new anthem will rebuild trust for the state in a society still nostalgic for the stability of the late Soviet period, argues Putin, thus it is the best move for the state, regardless of what citizens feel. Late one evening in the presidential motorcade, the president later muses about the limits of electoral democracy, though assures Mansky's camera that he has no “monarchial ambitions.”
As those ambitions manifested themselves, Mansky chose to leave Russia and has resided in the Latvian capital of Riga since 2014. His films, which are as numerous as they are critical, are not welcomed by the Russian authorities. For example, several cinemas in Moscow were barred from screening “Under the Sun”, Mansky's 2015 film about propaganda in North Korea.
I spoke with Mansky after the screening of his film at MeetDocs’ Third Eastern Ukrainian Film Festival in Kharkiv. The acclaimed director shared his thoughts about what it means to be a witness to Putin's rise, and whether he expects to be a witness to his fall.
Maxim Edwards: How did you decide to make a film on this subject? Was there any particular moment which inspired you to do so?
Виталий Манский: Для меня толчком к моему собственному возвращению в прошлое было возвращение Путина в президентское кресло после короткого периода властвования Медведева. И меня, как и многих моих соотечественников, очень оскорбила форма, в которой это было объявлено. По сути дела, власть сказала, что её вообще не интересует наше мнение. Что у них есть свои проекты, а мы выполняем роль таких статистов, пусть даже формально соблюдая выборную процедуру. Это было сделано настолько нагло и так бессовестно, как и всё. И я стал вспоминать: откуда он взялся, каким он был, как его посадили в это кресло, где была та ошибка, которая сейчас материализируется в такой форме. Тогда я почувствовал что в принципе материалы, которые у меня есть, могут меня позволить рассказать эту историю. Она не уникальная, мы знали что это так происходило, но одно дело знать, а другое дело — видеть.
Vitaly Mansky: The point at which I chose to return to the past was Putin's return to the president's seat after [Dmitry] Medvedev's short rule. I, like many of my compatriots, was deeply offended by the manner in which this was declared. In essence, the authorities said that our opinion was of no interest whatsoever. That they had their own projects in which we played walk-on roles, even while they formally observed electoral procedures. It was done so brazenly and with such a lack of shame. And I started to remember where [Putin] came from, what he was like, how he had been put in that seat in the first place. I remembered where the mistake had been made which had now materialised in this way, and felt that the materials I already had would allow me to tell that story. It is not a unique story, we know how this all happened, but knowing is one thing, and seeing is another.
ME: And how did you end up having such an incredible level of access to Putin in the first place?
Нужно учитывать, что это была принципиально другая страна, с другими законами и правилами. И в той стране это было более вероятно, чем, допустим, в современной России. И потом, мне кажется, что всегда доступ зависит от профессионального обстоятельства, кто и как делает. Может быть, он не сталкивался раньше с авторами документарного кино, работал только с журналистами, у которых принципинально другая задача, цель, и степень независимости. Когда он добирается до первого лица, журналист всё-таки более зависим от какого-то издания и руководства, и это на него давит. В тот момент я был достаточно самостоятельным и малозависящим от государства режиссером, и он для меня был одним из героев, а не каким-то недосягаемым лидером нации.
It must be appreciated that it was a fundamentally different country back then, with different laws and rules. And in that country [my access to Putin] was much more likely than in Russia today. It seems to me that, as always, access depends on professional circumstances, who is doing what and how. Probably he hadn't encountered authors of documentary films, but had encountered journalists with quite different tasks, goals, and levels of independence. Even when a journalist gets to approach the leader, they are still dependent on some publication and its bosses, and that exerts pressure on him. At that time I was an independent director who was not dependent on the state, and he was simply one of the characters in my film, not some inaccessible national leader.
ME: Right, and if I'm not mistaken, at the time you also worked closely with Putin's team. Do you regret that now?
Конечно я жалею, что, может быть, тогда еще не оценил всю опасность происходящего. Это не значит, что я могу сказать сегодня, как нужно было поступать тогда. Но то, что я все равно находился так или иначе в этой команде, это — моя отвественность, которая никуда не денится. Даже если никто мне не предъявит претензию, я сам себя считаю отвественным. Это достаточно серьезное обстоятельство.
Of course I regret that perhaps I didn't entirely appreciate the danger of what was happening. That doesn't mean that I can say today how I should have acted back then. But the fact that I nevertheless was part of that team in some sense is my responsibility, and that responsibility isn't going anywhere. Even if nobody accuses me of anything, I remain responsible. It's a very serious state of affairs.
ME: So why did you choose the title “Putin's Witnesses”? The word “witness” can imply having seen a crime, a violation of the law, not simply a historical event. Are “Putin's witnesses” for you people who saw his rise to power up close, or every citizen who witnessed it from afar but did nothing to resist it?
Да, свидитель на суде, может быть. Свидитель на стороне обвинения, на стороне защиты. Я полагаю, что у Путина есть разные круги свидителей. Есть ближний круг, есть средный круг. Но я позволю себе такое утвержение, что «свидетели» означает и «соучастники». Это все люди, которые на момент появления Путина [у власти] достигли совершеннолетия и имели, условно говоря, право голоса. Даже когда в советском тоталитарном обществе была осуществлена агрессия по отношению к Чехословакии в 1968-ом году, восемь человек вышли на Красную Площадь и тем самым проявили свое несогласие с политикой Кремля. Когда Ельцин, по сути, отменил выборы и назначил президента, никто не выступил против, ни один человек. Поэтому мы все были и свдетелями и соучастниками. Когда появился в России род Романовых (это произошло при Борисе Годунове) Пушкин написал классичекое произведение [«Борис Годунов»], где описывается этот процесс смены династий, смены власти. Финальная фраза у Пушкина в «Борисе Годунове» звучит так: «Народ безмолвствует». Вот он как безмолвствовал, так и безмолвствует. И пока народ молчит, в России можно совершать любые «чудеса».
Yes, a witness in a courtroom, a witness for the defence, for the plaintiff. I believe that Putin has various circles of witnesses. There is the closest circle, a middling circle; I would go as far as to say that witnesses are both accomplices and all those who were adults at the time of Putin's rise and, relatively speaking, had the right to speak out. Even in the totalitarian society of the Soviet period, [people spoke out.] When force was used against Czechoslovakia in 1968, eight people came to [Moscow's] Red Square and expressed their disagreement with the Kremlin's policies. But when [Boris] Yeltsin essentially cancelled elections and appointed a president, nobody came out against him, not a single person. So we were all witnesses and accomplices. The Romanov dynasty came to prominence under Boris Godunov. Pushkin's classic work about Godunov describes the process by which dynasties and rulers change. Pushkin's final sentence in Boris Godunov reads: “the people are silent.” Just as the people were silent, they are silent now. And while the people are silent, Russia can do whatever it wants.
ME: One of the most remarkable moments for me in your film was your brief conversation with Putin about the new national anthem of Russia. What did his words tell you about his worldview and his perception of the relationship between the state and citizens?
Он является ключевым для понимания психологии Путина как великодержавника. Он четко в этом разговоре формулирует свое политическое кредо. Оно заключается в следующем. Первое: нужно задабривать консервативное большинство, дабы укреплять свою политическую власть. Второе: в укреплении своей политической власти можно откатывать историю назад. То есть, не идти по принципу той политики, которая опредилилась после окончания второй мировой войны, когда подходящий политик ставил своей целью движение вперед. Здесь Путин четко сформулировал, что для обеспечения персональной власти можно двигаться назад. И до этого разговора и до этого путинского жеста это не позволял себе ни один политик крупных государств мира. Потому что это было за рамками политической этики. И, кстати, после этого путинского разворота и введения в политику такого прикладного популизма, пошла волна популистов во всем мире. Мне кажется, что в конечном счете отчасти благодаря Путину появился Трамп. Потому что вряд ли бы американский политик решился на такой радикальный жест, если это не было апробировано в политической практике в других странах.
It provided a key understanding of Putin's psychology, as a statesman driven by great power ambitions. With that conversation, he succinctly stated his political credo. Firstly: it is necessary to coax a conservative majority into existence in order to consolidate your political power. Secondly: in the process of consolidating political power, it is possible to roll back history. That is, to divert from the politics defined after the Second World War, when every credible politician strived to move forward. Here Putin stated that he is prepared to move backwards in order to guarantee his personal power. Until that moment, and until Putin's harsh rule, no ruler of any of prominent state contemplated this. It was simply beyond the boundaries of political ethics. And after Putin's u-turn, and the introduction of applied populism to politics, a wave of populism has swept across the world. It seems to me that Trump partly emerged thanks to Putin. Because no American politician would have decided on such a radical gesture unless it had first been tested in the politics of other countries.
ME: It seems to me that, over the past two decades, Putin has almost ceased to be an ordinary person, a politician, and become a kind of simulacrum of the state in Russian public consciousness. And as the saying goes, power changes and corrupts those who hold it. How do you think Putin, the man and the politician, has changed over the past 20 years?
В государственной идеологии формулируется, что Путин — это Россия, и Россия — это Путин. Теперь что касается самого Путина. Не случайно в демократических госсударствах закладываются ограничения срока пребывания у власти. Потому что общество защищает себя от своего правителя и общество защищает правителя от начала необратимых процессов разрушения личности. Власть конечно же разрушает человека, любая власть. Тем более византийская система власти в России, которая изначально человека выводит в принципально иной формат его существования. И удержаться в этом формате мало кому удавалось. История России так говорит, что мало кому удавалось. Может быть только Горбачёву, и то не до конца, и то потому что он очень короткое время правил.
Yes, the state's philosophy holds that Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin. As concerns Putin himself, it is not an accident that democratic states institute limitations on how long a ruler can remain in power. Society can thereby defend itself against its rulers and defend the ruler from irreversible personal destruction. Power, any power, clearly destroys the person who wields it. Especially the Byzantine system of governance in Russia, which from the very start inducts the ruler into a fundamentally different form of existence. Few people have been able to hold themselves together under these circumstances. Russia's history attests to that; perhaps the only exception is [Mikhail] Gorbachev, who didn't manage to hold on until the very end, and in any case ruled for only a short period.
Прежде всего будет процесс стагнации. Когда идет эта стангация, там уже не важно как она [власть] формально распределяется. Через переформатизации конституции, власти, даже самого государства (потому что есть еще вариант объединения с Беларусью.) Это уже вторично. Первично — отсутствие цивилизованного избирательного процесса, способного регулировать общественную жизнь. Конечно будет какая-то форма формального соответствия законодательству, но мы эти формальные решения наблюдаем уже на протижении двадцати лет.
There will be a process of stagnation. When that stagnation is underway, it is less important how [power] is formally distributed. By restructuring the constitution, the authorities, even the state itself. There is also the option that Russia will unite with Belarus. But this is secondary. The most important issue is the absence of any civilised electoral process able to regulate [power in] public life. Of course, whatever happens it will be given some form of legal legitimacy, but we've observed formal decisions like this for the past 20 years.
ME: What do you think Putin would personally prefer? To stay in the president's office or occupy a new position?
Здесь очень мало зависит от его желания. Он построил такую систему, в которой у него нет другого выбора кроме как сохранять свою персональную власть. Потому что это единственный залог его личной бесопасности.
Very little depends on his wishes. He has constructed a system which affords him no other choice than to preserve his personal hold on power. It is the only way he can guarantee his personal security.
ME: An entire generation in Russia today has grown up without knowing any other president than Putin, and I include Medvedev's brief rule in that assessment. How is that fact reflected in the political atmosphere in Russia today? We've seen in recent weeks that young Russians are still willing to take a stand on the streets in defence of formal electoral rights. But is there not also a risk that the prolongation of this system will lead to apathy and indifference?
Эта система, как бы сдерживания, будет создавать определенные напряжения, которые будут прорывать. Но они будут фрагментарны, потому что система подавления столь сильна, что при Путине вряд ли будет создана какая-то действенная структура. Это как лесные пожары — то тут, то там. И поэтому ожидать какого-то результата снова не приходится. Но то, что будут отдельные прорывы, какие-то всплески общественной активности — это безусловно. Но они так жестоко подавляются, не случайно за практически брошеный бумажный стаканчик человека сажают в тьюрму, потому что власть хочет дать четкий сигнал — никто не смеет сопротивляться, никто не смеет проявлять свой голос. Мы здесь власть, и мы — вечны.
This system, even if it shows restraint, will create highly charged tensions [in society] which will explode. But they will be fragmented, as the system of repression is so strong that under Putin's rule it is unlikely that any functional structure [for opposition] will emerge. It will be like forest fires: one moment here, the other moment there. That's why it is not worth waiting for any slackening in the system. But without a doubt there will be a few explosions, a few flashes of civic activism. Nevertheless, they are repressed with such ruthlessness; it's not an accident that somebody can end up in jail for throwing a paper cup. The authorities want to give a clear signal: nobody should dare resist us, nobody should dare make their voice heard. We are the bosses here, and we are eternal.

author: Maxim Edwards


text:
No land, no fish: Mekong community in northeast Thailand struggles against a double-threat · Global Voices
The Isaan Record

Rit Chansuk, 50, is one of several farmers who are rejecting accusations that they are encroaching land in Pha Taem National Park in Ubon Ratchathani. Photo and caption by The Isaan Record
This edited article by Panumas Sanguanwong is from The Isaan Record, an independent news site in Thailand, and is republished on Global Voices as part of a content-sharing agreement.
Ubon Ratchathani locals in northeast Thailand are wondering why they are being prosecuted for farming on land passed on to them by their parents.
“If I lost my land, I would want to die. I wouldn’t want to live,” said 50-year-old Rit Chansuk, his voice quivering with emotion as he looks over the two-rai plot of land (0.32 hectare) he is about to lose.
Rit is one of several villagers accused of encroaching land in Pha Taem National Park in Ubon Ratchathani. He was born in the mountainous area known for its ancient rock art and cliffs above the Mekong before it was declared a national park in 1991.
We have farmed on this land since our parents’ generation, even before Pha Taem was turned into a national park.
In 2014, the military junta under the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) ordered that forest areas be reclaimed from encroachers in a push to increase the country’s forest cover by 40 percent or more than 27.2 million rai (4.35 million hectares). From that point until September last year, people in more than 28,000 cases have been prosecuted for forest encroachment, covering a total area of almost 820,000 rai (131,200 hectares).
Across the northeast, several forest communities are resisting eviction from land that they claim has been theirs for generations.
Rit was born in Ta Mui village in Huai Phai sub-district in Ubon Ratchathani’s Khong Chiam district. He claims to have inherited the land in question, along with his two elder brothers, from his parents.
This area used to be creeks, full of rocks. Since there wasn’t much land, we simply farmed rice. Later on we started moving the rocks, creating a ridge with the rocks to collect soil, and since then we’ve turned into the farmland that we see now.
In 2015, Pha Taem National Park officials, following the government’s forest reclamation policy, conducted a land ownership survey. They found that Rit’s land encroached on the park and asked him to sign a document which would hand the land over to the authorities, but he refused.
I am not encroaching on park land. There were clear boundaries between the land that we farmed and the national park. But now they’ve extended those boundaries toward the roads. How can they expect us to swallow that [to return the land]? Where will I farm? My land is here.
By late 2018, Rit found himself accused of encroaching on Pha Taem National Park land and was reported to the police three times. The police are still deciding whether or not to arrest him and press charges.
He is in a different situation than other villagers who willingly signed documents because they feared prosecution. He is still farming on the land despite the uncertainty about when the officials will make him give it up.
If the government has any sympathy at all for the poor who earn an honest living, they should solve the problem so that villagers are able to farm on their own land. They should set up clear boundaries so villagers are able to coexist with forests.
The history of Ta Mui village can be traced back to 1858 before it expanded into a larger community and was officially recognized, in 1927, as a village by law as part of the Huay Yang sub-district. Later, it fell under Huay Phai sub-district in Ubon Ratchathani’s Khong Chiam district. The village currently consists of over 120 households.
Dong Phu Lon forest was declared a reserved forest in 1973 before being declared Pha Taem National Park in 1991.
Sot Chansuk, a 66-year-old Ta Mui villager, remembers the time around 40 years ago when war raged in neighboring Laos. Fearing that the fighting would reach across the Mekong, his family moved from Ta Mui village near the river to the safety of the mountains.
He added that after Pha Taem was declared a national park, the park chief at the time conducted a land ownership survey and assured villagers that their farmland would be separated from the park land. But this agreement was never put into writing.
Pha Taem National Park officials conducted another survey in 2016 using satellite imaging and asked villagers with forest land to leave the area.
With little knowledge of the law, Sot and several other villagers signed a document without fulling understanding the ramifications.
Sot’s land is still fenced off to prevent cows and buffalos from destroying his crops which include mango, tamarind, and cashew nut trees that his parents had planted, and they are still the family’s main source of income.
While the land yields produce, it does not generate much income for the family. After the seasonal harvest, Sot switched to catching fish from the Mekong River, but he says the river is not the same as before.
Chula Chansuk, or “Ko”, looks for fish in the Mekong River in Ubon Ratchathani’s Khong Chiam district. But more often than not, his nets remain empty. Photo and caption by The Isaan Record
Sot’s brother, Chula, also works as a fisherman in Ta Mui village. Every morning, he starts the engine of a small boat and heads off to check whether his fishing nets have yielded any fish. But most of the time, he nets only sticks and garbage.
Chula said that some ten years ago, the water level in the Mekong river was different. The construction of Chinese dams upriver wreaked havoc with the water levels and disrupted the natural feeding and breeding cycles of the fish.
In the past, he was able to earn several thousand to around 10,000 baht [327 US Dollars] from catching fish during the high water season. But now hardly anyone in the village bothers to go fishing.
In the past you would catch fish to sell, but these days we can barely feed ourselves with the catch.
A 2017 UNESCO study found that the disruption of sediment flows in the Lower Mekong Basin, especially during the construction of 11 dams on the Mekong River, profoundly affected downstream areas, particularly in terms of food security from farming and fishing.
Without fish in the river, Chula switched to farming. Like his brother Rit, officials told him that his land belongs to Pha Taem National Park, but Chula insists that he owned the land before the national park was even declared.
Less than one kilometer away from Ta Mui village is Tha Long village, also in Khong Chiam district, where officials say six residents have been charged with land encroachment.
Among them is the family of Kongpat Wonglakorn and her husband Lai Sirimat. During a land survey, park officials told them that everything was in order but later said they had to demolish half of their house.
Kongpat Wonglakorn, 54, was told by park officials to demolish half of her house because it encroached on national park land. Photo and caption by The Isaan Record
Kongpat said:
They told us to demolish it ourselves. If we didn’t, they said they would demolish it and we might be arrested. They said we might have to pay fines and be sent to prison.
Officials brought satellite images for the villagers to see and told Kongpat that half of her house overlapped Pha Taem National Park.
“They said according to the map, it curves right here,” she says, running her finger over the map.
I don’t understand but I’m very stressed. How can they demolish it? I don’t have anywhere to live. We aren’t rich investors. We’re poor people.
According to a police report from Khong Chiam police station in Ubon Ratchathani, Lai is accused of land encroachment under the 1941 Forestry Act, the 1961 National Park Act and the 1964 National Reserved Forest Act because part of the land in Pha Taem National Park overlaps Dong Phu Lon Forest Reserve to the north.
Meanwhile, Nakarin Sutatto from Ubon Ratchathani’s Pha Taem National Park says that since the forest reclamation policy in 2015 was implemented, a total of 41 plots of land were found to be encroaching on national park land. Officials provided satellite images as evidence that villagers had encroached on the land after 2015, resulting in some locals having to return their land.
We don’t want to prosecute the villagers, but we have to arrest encroachers who refuse to return the land. We are waiting for the prosecutor to decide whether or not to prosecute them.
In November 2017, some villagers filed complaints to Ubon Ratchathani’s Damrongdham Centre to seek justice. Ubon Ratchathani’s governor at the time set up a fact-finding committee to survey the boundaries between three affected villages, including Tha Mui and Tha Long.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment spokesperson Sophon Thongdee said in an interview that the government had focused on reclaiming land from business people, people who exploited the land purely for commercial gain, rather than ordinary villagers. After the reclamation, the land would be restored and trees planted.
We need to find ways to help those who have lived on the land before the areas were declared as forests. We are currently waiting for policy guidelines to solve the problem in a sustainable manner, but villagers aren’t the main focus of this policy.
He added that the minister had received orders from the prime minister to adapt the policy to become more “people-friendly.” He asked the media to refrain from calling the policy “forest reclamation” because it had a psychological effect and sounded not so “people-friendly.”

author: The Isaan Record


text:
The Caribbean speaks out on the climate crisis · Global Voices
Janine Mendes-Franco

Participants in the Heart for Amazon event form the shape of a heart in front of White Hall in Port of Spain, Trinidad, on September 28, 2019. Photo courtesy Jonathan Barcant, used with permission.
With stories about the travesty of Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas, the Amazon forest fires, and the hope of young climate crisis activists like Greta Thunberg and children from Small Island Developing States trying to force action from world leaders, it is no surprise that Caribbean youth are also making their voices heard, piggybacking on the global awareness raised by the September 2019 climate strikes and hosting their own events in solidarity.
LEED-certified architect Mandilee Newton and her husband Tim at the #ClimateStrikeTT demonstration in Port of Spain, Trinidad, September 25, 2019. Photo by Rapso Imaging, used with permission.
One 15-year-old student, Tristan Morgan, was so inspired that he registered and organised #ClimateStrikeTT, which took place on September 25, 2019, in Trinidad's capital, Port of Spain. Morgan actually didn't expect the response to be as enthusiastic as it was; when he realised that 200+ people had registered, he contacted Jonathan Barcant, managing director of IAMovement, a nongovernmental organisation that advocates for environmental causes and has had experience hosting climate marches in the past. IAMovement was happy to lend its support, offer advice, take the lead on communications and help Morgan sort out logistics like legal permissions and police clearance.
Caribbean climate crisis activists outside White Hall, the Office of the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, on September 25, 2019, in the capital, Port of Spain. Photo courtesy Jonathan Barcant, used with permission.
For its part, IAMovement has been promoting the #AmazonChallenge, an initiative undertaken in conjunction with like-minded global organisations such as Young Water Solutions, a nonprofit that empowers youth to contribute to universal water sanitation, hygiene and resources management.
The concept is that with seven billion people on the planet, if we all just planted one tree it would make a huge difference in offsetting the adverse effects of global heating. The #AmazonChallenge entails planting a tree that you can nurture (or paying to have one planted on your behalf), posting a photo or video of it and nominating three friends to do the same. The Indiegogo donation page notes:
We are not only helping to undo some of the damages in the Amazon and to capture carbon through our most efficient carbon capture machines right now (trees:), but we are also sending a collective message to those in power that […] our planet, forests, and animals do mean a lot to us, and we believe their PROTECTION and REGENERATION should be a global priority.
According to Barcant, the project has thus far had plantings in Trinidad and Tobago, Ireland, Belgium, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Sri Lanka. “What's really cool about the #AmazonChallenge”, he says, “is that for every one tree you plant, you can have the impact of four trees being planted because it's you plus the three other people you nominate.”
Screenshot of a promotional video for the #AmazonChallenge, in which Caribbean climate activists have been taking part. Video courtesy IAMovement.
The whole thrust is being supported by Global Shapers, the youth arm of the World Economic Forum — one of the many partners for the Heart For Amazon event, which took place on September 28, 2019, in The Hollows of the Queen's Park Savannah, the city of Port of Spain's main green space.
A range of environmentally conscious local organisations came together and pooled their efforts to stage the event, including IAMovement, Hello Green, One Yoga, New Fire Festival and Grundlos Kollektiv. Participants received trees to plant in the #AmazonChallenge and nominated friends to do the same; all Global Shapers representatives also each chose three “Shapers” in other Caribbean hubs to follow suit, sparking the involvement of other islands and scaling up the tree planting initiative.
But for Caribbean climate change activists, it doesn't stop there. Small Island Developing States are among the most vulnerable when it comes to the disastrous effects of climate change, from rising sea levels and coral bleaching to increasingly intense storms.
Prime Minister of Barbados, the Honourable Mia Amor Mottley, with the Foreign Minister of Togo, His Excellency Robert Dussey, at the United Nations, September 23, 2019. Photo by PMO Barbados, Public Domain Mark 1.0.
In fact, Barbados’ prime minister, Mia Mottley, in addressing the United Nations Climate Event Summit in New York on September 23, 2019, told world leaders to expect a mass migration of refugees if the climate crisis is not solved:
In other words, two degrees needs to be taken off the table once and for all. The global community must accept that it is within our power to halt and reverse climate change. […]
We refuse to be relegated to the footnotes of history and to be collateral damage for the greed of others, for we have contributed less than one percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Other regional leaders joined the clarion call.
Young people lead the march around the Queen's Park Savannah in Port of Spain, Trinidad, on September 28, 2019. Photo by Dylan Quesnel, used with permission.
Via WhatsApp, Kathryn Christopher, curator of the Global Shapers Port of Spain hub, explained to Global Voices:
All activism must be intersectional […] I echo the sentiments expressed by PM Mottley at the UN Climate Action Summit this past September, that the Caribbean is at the forefront of the effects of climate change.  The climate crisis is even more immediate and urgent for us and other SIDS.
Initiatives like the Amazon Challenge and Saturday’s Heart for Amazon event both educate and find a way to address this urgency, as well as empower individuals to act.
The next major step forward comes in December 2019 with an event called 6D, pegged as “the largest-ever global chain of climate actions in history”. IAMovement and Young Water Solutions are currently in discussions with 6D organisers and hopes to pair its #AmazonChallenge with the 6D movement to have greater impact and confront the climate emergency head-on. December 6 is when world leaders will meet to discuss the planet's environmental future during the COP 25, the 25th session of the Conference of the Parties, which takes place in Santiago, Chile, from December 2-13, 2019.
The idea around 6D is to communicate that the power is in all of our hands and everyone can make a difference: Individuals can plant trees, practice composting or do beach clean-ups; companies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by investing in sustainable technologies; NGOs and communities can undertake reforestation projects, install renewable energies, and recycle; and governments can set and achieve the goals needed to ensure that the temperature will not pass the 1.5°C in relation to preindustrial levels.
According to Kathryn Christopher:
One of the greatest hindrances to change is the thought that your one act is insignificant, and because of this, to decide to take no action at all.

author: Janine Mendes-Franco


text:
The fault lines in Cameroon’s national peace talks · Global Voices
Ekonde Daniel

Cameroon's then-communication minister and leader of the National Salvation Front party, Issa Tchiroma (L), campaign in support of incumbent President Paul Biya in Garoua, Cameroon, September 22, 2018. Photo by M.E. Kindzeka/Voice of America in the public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
The week-long discussions to end fighting between government forces and militias in Cameroon’s English-speaking regions started on Monday, September 30, 2019, in the country’s centralized capital Yaoundé. However, citizens have lingering fears that the peace dialogues won’t put the crisis to rest.
Cameroon leader, Paul Biya, who has ruled the country since 1982, summoned the dialogue on September 10, to resolve a three-year-old insurgency. The conflict has led to the deaths of about 2,000 people and displaced more than 500,000 in Anglophone northwest and southwest regions, according to the United Nations.
Minority English-speaking Cameroonians feel marginalized by the Francophone majority, who say the French-speaking government promotes oppressive policies and laws. The protest movement, led mostly by teachers and lawyers, evolved into a militant separatist movement calling for the secession of English-speaking Cameroon.
Netizen Batata Boris Karloff said on Twitter that the talks would “make or break the fractured country:”
The much talked about Major #NationalDialogue begins in #Yaounde today.
The outcome of the five days talks would either make or break the break the fractured country pic.twitter.com/S0DNDdaMND
— Batata Boris Karloff (@KarloffBatata) September 30, 2019
Nonetheless, the government-led talks have ignored separatist leader, Julius Ayuk Tabe, who, alongside other members, received a life sentence in jail in August this year.
Tabe heads a movement that is trying to form a breakaway state from mainland Cameroon, called Ambazonia, and movement leaders have openly shown disdain for the conference.
“No Ambazonian will take part in Biya’s charade,” Ayaba Cho, a leading separatist abroad, told Reuters.
Also, the leader of the Cameroon Renaissance Movement party, Maurice Kamto, who was arrested in January this year for orchestrating post-election protests, isn’t at the discussion table. His party has denied attendance until the government releases Kamto.
Vy on Twitter also shared doubts over the dialogues:
This is why #SouthernCameroons must be Free! #NationalDialogue of stupidity! “Wishes” NOT “Whishes”. We've had effort of the foolishness! @UN Divide this damn Country & #LetMyPeopleGo #ReleaseAbdulKarimAli #FreeAllArrested @UNHumanRights @hrw @CohenOnAfrica pic.twitter.com/D6POZ2uK39
— Vy (@Vy_mbanwie) September 29, 2019
Many moderate Anglophones want constitutional changes, with a return to the federal system being key, but the Biya regime doesn’t have that on the agenda:
Agbor NKongho in a press release maintained his stand on a return to the federal system of government as a means to solving the Anglophone crisis in Cameroon, 30th September 2019 https://t.co/0nX31qdIOW via @chrda_africa
— Agbor Nkongho (@AgborNkonghoF) September 30, 2019
Instead, the Biya government created eight commissions as part of the peace dialogues that only focus on decentralization, a system put into place by Biya in 1996.
Former presidential hopeful, Akere Muna, who is attending the national dialogues, told Reuters on September 30: “It is farcical to not have a commission to discuss federalism, which is at the core of all of this.”
“It is farcical to not have a commission to discuss federalism, which is at the core of all of this.” — Akere Muna, politician, Cameroon
He further expressed his frustration at the government’s dictatorship of the event on Twitter:
“Sultan Mbombo Njoya (one of Cameroon’s ethnic rulers) calls for limitation on the Presidential term of office to 2x5years and two round Presidential election. The PM (Joseph Dion Ngute who is chairing the discussions) reminds us to stick to the agenda and not to go out of topic.”
For context, French and English Cameroon became one nation in 1961 under a federal system, where the latter had their own autonomy with their own police, government and judicial system. But federalism was abolished by President Biya’s predecessor, Ahmadou Ahidjo in 1972 – creating a united republic which the 86-year-old Biya has strengthened and centralized over the years.
Now, many want that era back, including a man named Martin, who works as a carpenter in Mutengene, a city along Cameroon’s western coast. He declined to give his last name fearing reprisal by government or separatists.
“I don’t see anything coming out of that meeting in Yaoundé. We talked about federalism but it’s not mentioned by [the] government. To me, it is a meeting of [Cameroon People's Democratic Movement] CPDM supporters,” he told Global Voices on Sunday, September 29 in Buea, while attending a church service.
“I don’t see anything coming out of that meeting in Yaoundé. We talked about federalism but it’s not mentioned by [the] government. To me, it is a meeting of [Cameroon People's Democratic Movement] CPDM supporters.” — Martin, Mutengene, Cameroon
For Relly Ebini, who works as a cameraman in Buea, a central Anglophone city, he strongly holds federalism will be the best thing out of the discussion.
“I want to believe the discussion will lean on federalism. That is what we Anglophones want and I believe it will put a stop to the crisis,” he told Global Voices on Sunday, September 29.
With so many people displaced, Martin hopes he will one day visit his village in the northwest region again:
“When the crisis started in 2016, I had not gone to my village. It’s been four years now, I haven’t been there because of the conflict,” he said.

author: Ekonde Daniel


text:
Youth gather in China to halt biodiversity loss and promote harmony with nature · Global Voices
Prisca Daka

MAB Youth Forum Opening Ceremony. Photo by Ines Hirata, used with permission.
The 2019 Man and Biosphere (MAB) Youth Forum took place in the Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve, China, September 15-18, bringing together 176 young people from 82 countries, to discuss the urgent biodiversity crisis caused by climate change.
At least 15 different African countries were represented and these delegates highlighted a lack of financial resources and access to information as some of the major challenges to address climate change. The forum provided an opportunity for all youth (18-35) to engage concretely in the upcoming 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
The MAB Youth Forum ran under the theme “committed to biodiversity” in line with CoP 15's theme: “Ecological Civilization: Building a Shared Future for All Life on Earth,”  to be held in China in 2020. At CoP 15, the international community is expected to adopt an ambitious new global biodiversity framework that can deliver the 2050 Vision for biodiversity, “Living in harmony with nature”.
The interactive sessions held during the forum also focused on how the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework can be used to halt the loss of biodiversity:
PEOPLE! Day 3 of the MAB Youth Forum. During interactive sessions, the #MABYouth community discussed it's perspective on how we can use the Post 2020 biodiversity framework towards solving the current biodiversity crisis.#UNESCO #Changbaishan #Biosphere… pic.twitter.com/NMv1iRC3Df
— People and Biosphere (@UNESCO_PAB) September 17, 2019
The forum emphasized that humanity needs to wake up to the risks of biodiversity loss.
Scientific evidence has shown that climate change will bring catastrophic consequences to the planet — including animals and plant life —  if humans continue with a “business as usual” approach.
The 2018 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report highlighted the urgency of prioritizing actions needed to deliver on the Paris Agreement. The IPPC report warns of the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and urges people and governments to tackle the climate crisis immediately.
Climate change does not only affect human beings but also animals. Many species are at risk of extinction. To learn more about the impact of climate change on living creatures check out this series narrated by David Attenborough. pic.twitter.com/iShXO90Qxr
— YEPP EUROPE (@YEPPEUROPE) September 23, 2019
MAB Youth Forum delegates hike Changbai Mountain in Changbaishan Biosphere Reserve, China, 2019. Photo by Ines Hirata, used with permission.
Youth at the forum developed a four-part declaration that addresses different issues regarding biodiversity, climate change and human relationships with the biosphere. The declaration also addressed the need to advocate not just for human beings but also for other living organisms. Vulnerable animals, especially wild animals, both terrestrial and aquatic, must adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
The polar bear is a hyper carnivorous bear whose native range lies largely within the Arctic Circle, encompassing the Arctic Ocean, its surrounding seas and surrounding land masses. Because of the expected habitat loss caused by climate change, the polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species, and at least three of the nineteen polar bear subpopulations are currently in decline. Photo credit: Robert Linsdell via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.
Youth drafted the declaration following in-depth discussions on living in harmony with nature, sustainable living, climate change and an analysis of biosphere reserves, looking at strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT).  Other concerns raised in the declaration include the lack of political will, the need for intergenerational equity, gender equality, the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Earlier this year, in May, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a report stating that 1 million species are at risk of extinction mainly due to changes in land and sea use. In the past, species extinction happened naturally. The difference now is that humans directly cause extinction because of global warming and encroachment on animal habitats and overfishing.
When it comes to climate change, Africa is in the eye of the storm. In particular, suitable habitats for some of Africa's wild animals found nowhere else are disappearing and their narrow ranges of motion make them even more vulnerable to climate change. Intense human land use due to the growing population, demand for agricultural produce, extraction of minerals and precious stones and structural development reduce adequate space for wildlife to thrive.
In addition, marine animals also face challenges due to ocean acidification and warming waters. Oceans are heating up and this phenomenon is killing off marine ecosystems.
The @IPCC_CH report is clear ?
Global warming is drastically changing #OurOcean.
Warmer,
more acidic,
less oxygen.
Devastating for marine life.
Also underlined by @IPBES, the call by Science is: #ActNow
We in ?? agree: https://t.co/TJstIj07u6 #Biodiversity2020 #OceanEU pic.twitter.com/AL7yoegrXU
— EU Environment (@EU_ENV) September 25, 2019
In late September, the IPCC released a special report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. The report shows that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, global warming will drastically alter the oceans and cryosphere (also known as frozen areas). People may not inhabit the ocean or cryosphere, but climate change in these areas will affect humans and animals alike. Melting glaciers and rising sea levels puts all life on the planet at risk.
The situation is dire but not hopeless, as youth continue to build momentum and gather scientific knowledge unimaginable just a few decades ago. Available scientific reports have not only shown how humans exacerbate climate change but exactly what kind of disaster to expect. If youth act fast and political will meets their urgency, humans may still be able to avoid catastrophe.

author: Prisca Daka


text:
An Exiled Nation: Saharawi advocates call on the world to support self-determination for Western Sahara · Global Voices
Timothy Ginty

Tecber Ahmed Saleh, a health worker in the Western Sahara Ministry of Health, speaks to an audience of trade unionists at Unions NSW, Sydney, Australia. Photo by Timothy Ginty, used with permission.
For 40 years, the Saharawi people have been exiled from their homeland, cast out into what is known as the “desert of deserts”, where they live in hope of one day experiencing a long-awaited return to their promised land: their homeland of Western Sahara.
Their wait has been so long that entire generations have lived and died hoping for a return. One young Saharawi woman, Tecber Ahmed Saleh, tells me: “My grandmother, she died holding the radio, thinking that tomorrow they would call a referendum.”
The referendum that Tecber’s grandmother was listening for was first promised in 1991, when, after decades of colonisation and conflict, the Moroccan government agreed to a ceasefire that would have led to a vote on independence or autonomy within the Moroccan state.
The referendum has proved a mirage, and the current generation of Saharawi people are growing impatient. Tecber tells me that “the younger generation is thinking: ‘oh, we’ve been waiting for your peace solution for forty years, we´re not going to die in the desert, maybe we will lose, but we will try’.”
The Saharawi people were pushed into this “devil’s garden”— as the desert is known — in 1975, when, following colonial Spain’s withdrawal from Africa, the Moroccan and Mauritanian armies mobilised to occupy the resource-rich Western Sahara, beginning a bloody conflict that would end with Morocco annexing the region in 1976.
Faced with an occupying army, the Saharawi people sought refuge in neighbouring Tindouf Province in Algeria, establishing one of the largest and longest-lasting refugee camps in the , from which the Western Saharan government operates in exile.
Today, with only a threadbare ceasefire agreement between the Moroccan army and the Western Sahara Polisario Front holding things together, the return of war remains an ever-present possibility.
Formed as an armed defence of the Western Saharan territories against the Moroccan and Mauritanian incursions of 1976, the Polisario Front has grown into an ideologically heterogeneous movement whose primary objective is Saharawi independence.
The Polisario Front has pursued peaceful avenues to secure independence since 1991, though it reserves the right to resort to the use of arms should Morocco fail to uphold the ceasefire agreement, including the promised referendum. The peace agreement struck between the Polisario Front and Mauritania in 1979 remains in vigore.
To build peace, goodwill is needed. But with a 2,700 kilometre wall separating the Saharawi people from their rich lands and seas to the west, with an estimated five to ten million land mines buried beneath that wall, there is little wonder why the Saharawi people place little faith in Moroccan goodwill and turn, instead, to the international community. Known to Saharawis as the ‘Wall of Shame,’ this wall was built in stages throughout the 1980s, following renewed hostilities between Morocco and the Polisario Front. Today it marks the boundary between the Moroccan ‘Southern Provinces’ and the Polisario-controlled Free Zone.
The Saharawi people, Tecber says, “really believe in the international community, in international law and justice.” This is the reason Tecber visited Australia this September, to appeal to Australian audiences and the international community to not forget the 170,000 Saharawi refugees marooned in the south-western corner of Algeria, where temperatures can soar to over 50 degrees Celsius in the summer months.
The Saharawi refugees have lived in those camps since 1975, when Algeria officially recognised them as refugees and permitted access to public services. In the 1980s, Algeria appealed to the United Nations for assistance in providing for the refugees’ basic needs, and the camps remain to this day reliant on international aid for their survival. But with humanitarian aid budgets straining during globally convulsive times, the conditions in the refugee camps have been worsening. Tecbar says: “Every time, we are getting less and less and less food. We started with two kilos of sugar or two litres of oil per month per person. Now you get half, and the family has to altogether customise their needs.”
Tecber is a health worker in the Western Sahara Ministry of Health that operates from the refugee camps. Her research has shown that Saharawi refugees’ diets do not provide even the bare minimum of nutritional requirements. This is because, she explains, refugee rations were meant to be temporary — just enough to help them get by until resettlement. The ‘temporary’ situation, however, now amounts to over 40 years.
Tecbar also notes that refugees also cannot access adequate amounts of clean drinking water. The water, she says, “is full of minerals that influence the health directly — for example iodine — so people are drinking water that in the long run is causing more health problems than benefits.”
Though the international community fails to provide adequate funding for the refugees’ humanitarian needs, Kamal Fadel, a representative of the Western Saharan government in Australia and New Zealand, speaks highly of the Saharawi people’s host country. “Freedom and respect of other’s rights is something embedded in the Algerian psyche,” he says. “It is part of the Algerian personality.”
Mohamed Kamal Fadel, Polisario Front representative in Australia and New Zealand, speaks to an audience of trade unionists at Unions NSW, Sydney, Australia. Photo by Timothy Ginty, used with permission.
According to Kamal, solidarity from nations who have already been liberated from colonial oppression — nations like Algeria and Timor-Leste — has been important in maintaining the morale of the independence movement. “To know that people far away care,” Kamal says, “is what keeps us going. This is what gives us strength in spite of all the challenges.”
In their camps of mudbrick homes and canvas tents, the Saharawi people have worked to build the infrastructure and apparatus of state: they have established educational and healthcare services, ministries, and a diplomatic corps. Their efforts at building sovereignty have been recognised at different points in history by 80 countries, and Western Sahara is a founding member state of the African Union. True sovereignty, however, remains elusive owing to French economic interests, Spanish diplomatic impotence, Moroccan might and influence, US inconsistency, and, importantly, international ignorance. “Everybody knows about Palestine, but nobody knows about Western Sahara,” Tecber laments.
A solution to the conflict was nearly secured in 1991 when the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) peace process was agreed upon by both the Moroccan government and the Polisario Front, heralding the long-awaited referendum on self-determination. After nearly 30 years, however, this referendum remains out of reach.
Kamal Fadel argues that not only has the UN peace-keeping mission manifestly failed to deliver a referendum — it has also failed to protect the Saharawi people from human rights violations. “MINURSO is the exception to the rule,” he says. “Every UN mission in the world has a mandate to monitor and report on human rights: MINURSO does not.”
In recent attempts to expand the mandate of the UN mission, Western Saharan allies and nations sympathetic to a referendum have come up against the veto power of France in the UN Security Council, which unequivocally supports Moroccan interests in Western Sahara. “This kind of business as usual has to end,” Kamal says. “We cannot let MINURSO go on forever, because it is spending a lot of money and it is not doing its job.”
In order to move beyond this impasse, Kamal advocates for a stronger stance from world governments that would endorse an expansion of the MINURSO mandate to include human rights monitoring, that would recognise the Polisario Front as the legitimate representative of the Saharawi people, and that would urge the UN to move forward without further delay on the already-mandated referendum.
Questions of geopolitics, commercial interests, and diplomatic processes aside, the question of justice that Tecber Ahmed Saleh poses — her plea to the world — is much simpler: “Why can’t we just have our land?”

author: Timothy Ginty