words to ponder

On October 25th, a leading opposition activist from the Russian territory of Ingushetia was shot dead by unknown gunmen while driving in a neighboring province. His name, Maksharip Aushev, will be added to a growing list of names of journalists, lawyers, human rights and humanitarian activists who have been murdered in the atmosphere of impunity in the North Caucasus region. Like many others who have been gunned down, or killed in mysterious circumstances, Aushev was a vocal critic of a corrupt government and spoke out against the brutality of state security forces.

In August, Zarema Sadulayeva, a humanitarian activist who worked to rehabilitate children in war-torn Chechnya, and her husband were kidnapped and killed. In July, journalist and human rights activist Natalia Estemirova, who worked for the now-closed organization Memorial, was murdered.

The North Caucasus region is part of European Russia, squeezed between the Black Sea and the Caspian sea. Provinces in the area include Ingushetia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Adgygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardin-Balkaria, and North Ossetia-Alania. A cluster of semi-autonomous, mostly Islamic republics, with over forty distinct ethnic groups - and a culture of impunity, violence and corruption punctuated by blood feuds and clan wars.

Since 1992, there have been at least 182 journalists and activists murdered. Very few cases are properly investigated.

Another one bites the dust. And another one falls. And another one falls. Another one bites the dust.

If the eyes of the journalist close, who will bear witness to the atrocities?

For a few years now I've been watching the news for any information regarding China's interesting relationship with Africa. The WEST supports governments that promote western values, although that mostly translates into AID that is often abused rather than dispersed in the way the aid was intended. After the era of imperialism, the west lost interest in the continent of vast resources. Countries were left to fend for themselves, resulting in a deterioration. China has been paying attention. To foster allies in a western-dominated world, and to reap the benefits of rich resources, China has invested greatly in Africa. Private companies create roads and other needed infrastructure. With China's investment, Africa has begun to rebuild. Yes, millions of Africans in many countries remain poor, malnourished, mistreated, etc. But there is progress. China's strategy focuses on business relationships and investing in the future, regardless of the type of government, how the government treats its own people, and whether or not the government squanders money and other resources.

According to the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, "The Chinese bring what Africa needs: investment and money for governments and companies. China is investing in infrastructure and building roads... I would prefer the Western world to invest in Africa rather than handing out development aid."

The West's approach to Africa stunts its growth by assuming the Africans need aid. The proverb "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; show a man how to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life" should be implemented. The current strategy involves hand-outs of food aid to the people and money to the government. Why not help the people by investing in new methods of agriculture or providing loans to small businesses so people can escape poverty?

I am a human rights activist that believes in democracy. I am amazed at the small, local non-profits that are born out of the misery and spread hope and much needed education, health care, etc. to deprived populations. These non-profits can help counter the indifference of the Chinese government.

An example that I've brought up in previous blog posts is China's accomplice during the Darfur genocide. China built up Sudan's capital, Kartoum, with dreams of accessing the country's oil reserves. China provided the Sudanese government with weapons and money, which the government then turned against its own people.

Sure, the United Nations keeps the peace (hardly), and provides aid to the many refugees that crowd refugee camps. But this involvement is not enough. The west needs to invest in African countries and help support local non-profits. When the quality of life improves, people will demand democracy.

* "China Praised for African Links" BBC News. 11 Oct 2009.
* "China in Africa: Friend or Foe?" BBC News. 26 Nov 2007.

Since 2007, the number of political prisoners in Burma has doubled. The freedom of expression, assembly, and association remain nonexistent despite the military dictatorship promising a free country. There are 2,100 political prisoners, incarcerated from "crimes" such as criticizing the government, being a political activist, providing assistance to cyclone victims and peacefully protesting against forced labor.

More than 20 prominent activists and journalists, including Burma's most famous comedian, Zargana, were arrested for having spoken out about obstacles to humanitarian relief following Cyclone Nargis, which struck Burma in May 2008.

There are currently 43 prisons holding political activists and over 50 labor camps. Those imprisoned include Buddhist monks and nuns, politicians, artists, musicians, journalists and bloggers, and student activists.

The Burmese Government has released a total of 38,618 prisoners in five separate amnesties since November 2004, although only 461 political prisoners, or 1.2 percent.

* "2100 by 2010: Free Burma's Political Prisoners" Human Rights Watch.

In 2001, the United States led an invasion of Afghanistan, a war-torn nation that had fallen under the control of strict Islamic extremists. In the city of Kunduz, thousands of Taliban surrendered – they were herded into metal shipping containers without food or water for a period of three days on the journey to a prison; most had suffocated to death, others had been shot, allegedly under orders from the Afghan warlord, Gen. Adbul Rashid Dostum. The bodies were then piled into mass graves in Dasht-e-Leili, Afghanistan, near Shibarghan.

The killings occurred in late November, just days after the American-led invasion forced the ouster of the Taliban government in Kabul

One detainee depicted the scene in detail: “the truck drove for a while and then backed up to a shipping container and 100 men were forced inside. He described hearing screaming and banging on the sides of the container, blacking out from lack of air, and waking up next to a dead man with green foam on his mouth. People rubbed clothes against the ceiling to capture condensation. Around 24 hours later, he and roughly 20 other survivors were let out. The rest died. The detainee heard later that the dead and very weak were "put into a big hole and buried."

Those who survived were sent to Guantanamo Bay. There are personal accounts from ten prisoners who survived the massacre. These detainees allege that Americans witnessed the mass killing, claiming that U.S. personnel were present during the massacre. Several witnesses to the original incident have been killed, tortured, or gone “missing”.

A year later, Physicians for Human Rights discovered the mass graves. The Boston-based organization asked Defense Department officials to open an investigation and provide security for its forensics team to conduct a more thorough examination of the gravesite.

Satellite images and forensic evidence suggest that the site of the mass graves were tampered with in 2006 and excavated in 2008 -- bulldozers returned to the scene, reportedly exhumed the bones of many of the dead men and removed evidence of the atrocity to sites unknown. In the area where the mass graves once were, there now are gaping pits in the sands of the Dasht-e-Leili desert. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has also produced a report based on high resolution satellite imagery that shows evidence of when and how the mass grave site was subsequently dug up. The satellite imagery showed two sizeable pits, plus earth-moving equipment and two new pits in the same location. The resting place of the remains of over 2,000 men is now a mystery.

Eight years have passed. Why have there not been any investigations? Three federal investigations that were impeded by the Bush Administration. Will the Obama Administration fully investigate the 2001 killings in Afghanistan?

Although aware of the situation, NATO, the US and the UN have all been silent about the destruction of the evidence of mass murders

American officials resist a war crimes investigation because the warlord who allegedly orchestrated the mass killing, Dostum, was a paid CIA asset who had worked closely with U.S. Special Forces (the Army's 5th Special Forces Group). The United States also worried about undermining the American-supported government of President Hamid Karzai, in which General Dostum had served as a defense official.

How much did the United States government know about the treatment of the prisoners of war? Did the massacre have approval from the Americans?

The warlord suspected of committing the crimes, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, was on the C.I.A.'s payroll.


* Graeber, Daniel. "U.N. and Afghanistan Investigate Mass Grave Sites" 27 Jul 2007. War Crimes: The World Affrairs Blog Network. (http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/07/27/un-and-afghanistan-investigate-mass-grave-sites/)

* - "War Crimes and the White House: The Bush Administration's Cover-Up of the Dasht-e-Leili Massacre." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdZlIEVtzN8

* Benjamin, Mark. "Did U.S. Forces Watch Afghan Massacre?" Salon. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/22/mass_graves/index.html)

* Risen, James. "U.S. Inaction Seen After Taliban P.O.W.'s Died" New York Times. 10 Jul 2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=2)

* Lasseter, Tom. "As Possible Afghan War-Crimes Evidence Removed, U.S. Silent" McClatchy. 11 Dec 2008. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/57649.html)

* Chance, Matthew. "Mass Graves Raise Questions in Afghanistan" CNN. 29 Aug 2002. (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/08/29/afghanistan.mass.graves/)

* Vogt, Heidi. "UN Confirms Afghan Mass Grave Site Disturbed" TruthOut. 12 Dec 2008. (http://www.truthout.org/121308Y)

* “Afgan Massacre, Convoy of Death” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8763367484184611493

* Koettl, Christoph. "War Crimes in Afghanistan, Or: What You Don't Learn in Science Class" Huffington Post. 17 Jul 2009. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amnesty-international/war-crimes-in-afghanistan_b_238008.html)

* Physicians for Human Rights: Afghanistan Blog (http://afghanistan.phrblog.org/)

* "High-Resolution Satellite Imagery and Possible Mass Graves in Sheberghan, Afghanistan" AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 14 Jul 2009. (http://shr.aaas.org/geotech/afghanistan/afghanistan.shtml)

Last Tuesday, I attended a health care "town hall-style" forum at the UMass Medical School in Worcester, Massachusetts. It was standing room only - the fairly small auditorium packed with medical students and their professors, media representatives, small businessmen, angry housewives, and the curious elderly. Scattered across the room, police officers stood, observing the unruly crowd.

Before the meeting began, there was an announcement warning that there were rabble-rousers present, intent on causing chaos. University officials pledged to remove anyone who created a disturbance. An empty promise. During the forum, no one was removed, despite the disrespectful shouting and constant harassment.

As Representatives Jim McGovern and Richard Neal were introduced, the audience came alive with boos and cries of disapproval. Just like many other Democratic Congressmen in the past two weeks, McGovern and Neal were heckled while trying to rally support for a comprehensive national health care program that President Obama is attempting to push through Congress.

Public dissent is what makes civil society vibrant and our political system democratic. I am an advocate of peaceful protests and political conversation. However, these "protests" are rude and ridiculous, resorting to disrupting forums with fighting and blame games and comparing the Obama administration and its supporters to the Nazis.

The current health care legislation has many components and several versions passed by different committees. One bill has over 1,000 pages. How can the average citizen understand these proposals if elected officials don't have a chance to explain what they are supporting? Yes, constituents have the right to ask questions that deserve answers, but this hostility has resulted in no real discussion, only more confusion.

The health care situation is a big mess. According to Jim McGovern, "the status quo is broken." A majority of Americans believe that insurance needs to be more affordable and accessible to everyone, despite "pre-existing conditions". Doctors and other medical professionals who treat individuals with Medicare receive unfair compensation. Small businesses can't afford to insure their employees. A fear of lawsuits from malpractice has resulted in higher premiums, compounded by the expenses of the uninsured that the public ends up paying for.

There are many concerns and disagreements with the recent legislation. People are worried about skyrocketing costs and how to pay for it, employer mandates, and a fear of a government-run "single-payer" plan. Do YOU know the details of each bill? I sure don't, and I don't pretend to.

Our representatives promise that health care reform will cost less, improve care, and preserve the ability to choose. There is no reason to attack relentlessly unless these promises are unmet.




* Kush, Bronislaus. "McGovern, Neal Booed at Rally over Health Reform" Worcester Telegram & Gazette 4 Aug 2009.
* Kush, Bronislaus. "Health Care Square-Off" Worcester Telegram & Gazette 5 Aug 2009.

With all the recent unrest across the world, governments have claimed to be victimized by "foreign agitators". There has been a silent rise of nationalism, the undercurrent of globalization. When violence erupts, the rest of the world is at fault - especially journalists and activists, whether they belong to the human rights, democracy, or environmentalist camp. Anyone who advocates for a better world or for the truth is to blame. Are governments really that afraid of their own people demanding change? Governments need to adapt to changing circumstances.

Yesterday's ethnic unrest in China's Xinjiang province has been blamed on "foreign agitators". According to a government statement, "The unrest is a pre-empted, organized violent crime. It is instigated and directed from abroad, and carried out by outlaws in the country." In particular, US-based Uighur human rights activist Rebiya Kadeer has been named by government officials, though she denies inciting violence.

In Iran, the talking heads have insisted that the "reformist revolution" has been instigated by British and American agents. Iranian intelligence officers believe that "the British embassy played a crucial role in the recent unrest both through its local staff and via media."

With the coup in Honduras, Crazy Chavez and his followers have cried "Western Imperialism". However, it is the people and the state institutions that have, of their own will, decided to protect the country from the growing influence of Chavez's policies.

The situation in Sudan's Darfur region is similar. The government in Khartoum, and many of its African allies, refuse to arrest President al-Bashir over charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, blaming "the West" for interfering in African affairs.

In the past week and a half, the Islamic Republic of Iran has suffered a series of life-threatening convulsions. Demonstrations, supposedly led by presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, have erupted over a fraudulent election. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has insisted that the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was reelected. "Reformist" protesters have gathered in huge rallies along the streets of Tehran and other cities, despite an increasingly harsh crackdown by the police and the government-backed militia. The people are publicly mourning the death of Neda, a young woman clad in a traditional headscarf and jeans that was shot in the chest during a rally. A media black-out has covered the country in a hard to penetrate veil - journalists have been urged to stay in their offices, text messaging, cell phone, and internet service are intermittent.

Although mass movements usually lead to change, revolution often starts from the top. Governments are not brought down by protests, but by those individuals who, once intricately involved in the regime, break away. When politically important people want the country to go in separate directions, the crumbling of the regime has begun. Suppression and brutal dictatorship only enhances the divide, and the chasm allows change.

Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the Assembly of Experts - the body with the power to choose and dismiss the Supreme Leader - is rallying support to remove the current Supreme Leader from power. Many senior members of the parliament refuse to accept the election results.

Rumors suggest that a compromise may be in the works to save Iran from an inevitable collapse into chaos.

The people marching in the street, wearing green wrist bands, and shouting "God is Great" from rooftops are not advocating for regime change - they are begging for more freedom. However, the refusal to have a recount or another run-off election has placed the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime in a crisis of legitimacy. When people are disillusioned, the government no longer holds sway.

Nearly fifteen years after writer-activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others were executed, Royal Dutch Shell has agreed to pay a $15.5 million settlement for alleged human rights abuses and environmental contamination in Nigeria. The families of the nine anti-oil activists who were executed by the Nigerian military government in 1995 filed a lawsuit against the oil giant, claiming the company was complicit in the fatal decision.

Shell is accused of committing atrocities against the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta in the 1990s, including hiring government troops to shoot at protesting villagers, supplying Nigerian police with weapons, and helping the government silence human rights and environmental rights activists, including Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues. There is currently another lawsuit pending that alleges Shell's human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Although Shell denies complicity in the executions, as well as other human rights abuses and environmental damage, the company claims that the settlement is part of a "process of reconciliation."

The case against Shell is brought under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute, which allows anyone to bring a case of rights abuse to U.S. courts, even if the crimes took place outside of the United States. Because "the settlement is one of the largest payouts agreed by a multinational corporation charged with human rights violations," many activists view it as a step towards corporate accountability and social action.

The settlement money will not only compensate the families and pay for years of legal fees, but will also "create a trust that will invest in social programs in the country". Kiisi was established "to support educational, community and other initiatives in the Niger delta."

In 1990, Ken Saro-Wiwa helped form the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), an organization that held non-violent protests to bring attention to the environmental damage caused by the oil industry. Nigeria's military ruler Sani Abacha charged the "Ogoni Nine" with the murder of four local leaders from a rival faction. After a controversial trial, Saro-Wiwa and the others were found guilty and hanged.

* "Shell Settles Nigeria Deaths Case" BBC News. 8 Jun 2009.
* Pilkington, Ed. "Shell Pays Out $15.5m Over Saro-Wiwa Killing" The Guardian (UK). 8 Jun 2009.
* Amunwa, Ben. "Royal Dutch Shell Forced To Settle Human Rights Case Out Of Court" Remember Saro-Wiwa. Press Release. 8 Jun 2009.

Two days after being sworn into office, President Barak Obama issued an Executive Order that declared his intention to close the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, his goal is to close the facility within a year, by January 22nd, 2010. However, the process of shutting down the controversial detention center is fraught with challenges.

Why close Gitmo? The practices of torture and abuse at the facility have cast doubt on the credibility and legitimacy of the United States. Prisoners at Gitmo are held indefinitely, without trial, at the discretion of the Executive Office. Guantanamo Bay is a secure detention facility far from the front lines of battle that the U.S. can secure easily and control. The purpose of Gitmo is to detain terrorist suspects beyond the reach of U.S. law and restricting the ability of inmates to challenge their detention. Because the Gitmo Naval Base is technically outside U.S. territory, there are few legal and judicial constraints.

Critics of closing Gitmo Former Vice President Cheney claims that Gitmo is a "necessary facility" that would put Americans in danger if it was to be shut down. Senator Mitch McConnell(R) insists that shutting down Guantanamo is a bad idea that would release terrorists into the United States. Others state that since the "War on Terror" is ongoing, the detainees can be held as "enemy combatants" until the hostilities end - which may be indefinitely. The Pentagon warned about releasing inmates too soon - 61 former Gitmo detainees returned to fighting against the U.S.

Funding Congress has not approved Obama's request for $80 million to close down Gitmo, demanding a plan before considering a budget proposal. Obama was denied funding because he has "no clear plan" to wind down operations and relocate detainees.

Legal Rights of Detainees The legal rights of detainees are largely undefined. Labeled as unlawful "enemy combatants" by Obama's predecessor, the Bush Administration claimed that the detainees were not protected by international prisoner treatment standards. In 2006, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees had the right to minimum treatment standards, as detailed in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Fate of Detainees Over the past seven years, 779 detainees from over 30 countries have passed through Guantanamo. A majority of the inmates were sent back to their home countries without facing trial. As of May 2009, there are currently 241 prisoners who remain. Only 80 prisoners are expected to be prosecuted. Other groups of detainees include inmates who are believed to be too dangerous to be released but lack enough evidence for a trial and those whom the military has cleared for release but cannot return to their home countries that have poor human rights records.

Process of Prosecution

Purpose and Policy What legal basis will the United States continue to capture, hold, and interrogate suspects of terrorism? What will the rules and procedures to detain "dangerous" individuals be in the future? How will these policies affect other detention centers? There are roughly 600 prisoners held at the U.S. Air Base in Bagram, Afghanistan.


The first wave of inmates arrived at Gitmo in January 2002 under the auspices of former President Bush's "War on Terror" - a group of 20 men detained in Afghanistan on suspicion of their collaboration with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.


* Bruno, Greg. "Closing Guantanamo" Council on Foreign Relations. 12 Feb 2009.
* Pfiefer, William. "The Evolution of Guantanamo Bay" The Politicus 2 Feb 2009.
* Lister, Richard. "What Next For Guantanamo Inmates?" BBC News. 23 Jan 2009.

Jerusalem, the Holy City of the three monotheistic religions, has been divided by the Green Line since the Six Day War of 1967. However, Israel has begun a campaign of uniting East Jerusalem with the rest of the Jewish State, bringing the status of Jerusalem into the international spotlight.

In a report dated 15 Dec 2008, the European Union accused the Israeli government of using settlement expansion, house demolitions, discriminatory housing policies, and the West Bank barrier as a way of “actively pursuing the illegal annexation” of East Jerusalem. These actions undermine the peace process. Israel is increasing its Jewish presence in the city, weakening the Palestinian community and impeding on Palestinian urban development.

The goal of the Israeli government is to strengthen Israeli sovereignty over the city by creating a Jewish majority. Uniting the two Jeursalems is an unfair process that discriminates against the Palestinian population. Israel is physically isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank with the separation barrier. There is also blatant discrimination in land expropriation, planning, building, and demolition of houses. The separation barrier prevents the inclusion of heavily-populated areas within Jerusalem and redraws the municipal boundary, running right through neighborhoods. 60% of Jerusalem’s population is in the eastern part of the city, of which 42% is Jewish. Palestinians claim that East Jerusalem is the capitol of their future state.

Without warning, Israeli bulldozers destroy the homes of Palestinians in areas such as Jabal Mukabar in East Jerusalem. Some families have the privilege of being granted five minuets to collect their valuables, others are not so lucky. Both Palestinian and Israeli structures have been demolished. Many Palestinians buildings are demolished because they are constructed illegally – without permits. Palestinians complain that it is difficult for them to obtain the building permits and that it is rare for construction to be permitted in Palestinian areas. Israelis, on the other hand, seem to be able to build and live in East Jerusalem without being disturbed. Since many Palestinians chose to build without permits, there is a judicial pretext to demolishing their homes. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem as something of “deep concern.” Since 2004, nearly 400 Palestinian buildings have been demolished. Another 1,000 are slated for demolition.

Although Palestinians are 1/3 of Jerusalem’s population, less than 8% of the city’s lad is designated for their building projects. Between 2000 and 2007, Israel granted only 91 construction permits out of 1,624 Palestinian requests, whereas 18,472 permits were granted to Jewish settlers. B’Tselem notes that there are currently 4,993 cases of illegal Palestinian construction.

The international community considers East Jerusalem “occupied territory,” thus does not fall under Israeli jurisdiction. The Fourth Geneva Convention prevents an occupying power from extending its jurisdiction to the occupied territory. Not only has Israel annexed East Jerusalem, but Jewish Israelis are moving into the area, creating illegal settlements. Organizations such as Ateret Cohanim are aggressively campaigning to boost Jewish residency in the eastern part of the city. There are 190,000 Jewish Israelis in12 illegal settlements in East Jerusalem, none with the explicit approval of the Israeli government. However, UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, including settlements.

* McCarthy, Rory. “Israel Annexing East Jerusalem, Says EU”. The Times (UK). 7 Mar 2009.

* Fact Sheet: East Jeursalem. Palestine Monitor. 16 Dec 2008.

* Adler, Katya. “Demolitions Build Jerusalem Tension”. BBC News. 25 Apr 2009.

* B'Tselem

Since last December, the Marange Diamond Fields of Chiadzwa in eastern Zimbabwe have been under the control of the army. In October, helicopters, soldiers, and police attacked the illegal miners, killing at least 140 people. Now the roads around the diamond fields are barricaded by police road-blocks.

Before the government crackdown, labeled "Operation No Return," hundreds of illegal local and foreign diggers sold diamonds found with their bare hands to dealers in the nearby town of Mutare. The diamonds were often sold directly to foreign buyers who then smuggle the illegal diamonds out of the country, often ending up in the Middle East and India. Beginning in 2006, there was a "diamond rush" to the Chiadzwa fields because of the large quantities of diamonds close to the surface. Illegal digging, which is filthy and back-breaking work, is tempting in a country with a paralyzed economy that offers few opportunities.

The purpose of "Operation No Return" was not to take over the diamond fields as a scheme to provide revenue for the government while benefiting the community. In fact, senior ZANU-PF officials and supporters of President Mugabe are profiting from the sale of the illegal diamonds at the expense of the rest of the country. Government leaders have their own syndicates that dig and trade diamonds on the black market. There are currently over 500 syndicates operating in the diamond fields. The government is looting a valuable resource without benefiting the local community.

Mugabe has plans to forcibly move nearly 5,000 families from the Chiadzwa area and dumping them at the Arda farm in Odzi. Will these families be fairly compensated?

In 2006, the Zimbabwean government kicked out African Consolidate Resources (ACR), a British mining company that was the legal owner of the fields. Although ACR purchased the mine from De Beers, the government handed the valuable 170-acre property over to the state-owned Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation. Villagers are forced to dig for diamonds for the military. Top army officials are involved in this forced labor. Soldiers also take advantage of any opportunity to loot because they are not paid well. The illicit diamonds are used as a bribe by Mugabe to pay the troops who keep him in power.

Not technically "blood diamonds," the diamonds that are from Zimbabwe's Chiadzwa fields are funding human rights violations. The World Federation of Diamond Bourses has called for a total ban of the trade of Zimbabwe diamonds.

Blood diamonds, also known as conflict diamonds, are diamonds mined in a war zone and sold to finance conflict. According to the UN, blood diamonds are "diamonds that originate from areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimate and internationally recognized governments and are used to fund military action." Blood diamonds, the subject of a 2006 movie with Leonardo DiCaprio, fueled the conflicts in the Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, and the Ivory Coast. Diamonds are the ideal currency because of the closed-nature of the diamond trade and the difficulty in tracking and monitoring transactions.

The UN-mandated Kimberley Process is investigating if the proceeds from Zimbabwe's diamonds are used to fuel violence. If they are, Zimbabwe will be blacklisted from the diamond industry. The Kimberley Process is an international certification scheme to prevent diamonds mined in conflict areas from entering the multibillion-dollar market. Since implementation of the Kimberley Process in 2003, conflict diamonds have been reduced from 4% of the market to less than 1%.


* "Zimbabwe: Soldiers are the New Illegal Miners" IRIN Africa 21 Apr 2009.
* "Profiting From Zimbabwe's 'Blood Diamonds'" BBC. 20 Apr 2009.
* Swain, Jon. "Battle for Zimbabwe's Blood Diamonds" The Times (UK) 7 Dec 2008.
* Dixon, Robyn. "Zimbabwe's Deadly Diamond Fever" LA Times 4 Dec 2008.

According to an "advisory" report issued by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, "right-wing extremism" is on the rise. Right-wing radicals not only include racist and hate groups, but now also envelope groups that "reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority." Individuals and groups who are proponents of the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which establishes states' rights, are now viewed as "extremists" who are "anti-government."

The report, titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," was published on April 7th and distributed to law enforcement officials. It warned that those who are exploiting fears about the economy (and the 1st "black" President elected to office) are driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity," especially with rumors of more gun control and other attacks on conservative beliefs that are "antagonistic" toward the new presidential administration. Even more astonishing: the report suggests that recent veterans may be vulnerable to this "right-wing extremism."

However, the DHS report lacks specifics. It did not identify any group by name and provided no specific information about threats or pending violence. A similar DHS assessment on "left-wing radicals" issued in January was much less publicized and listed specific organizations that were deemed a threat. The purpose of these assessments is supposedly "to deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States."

The timing of the report's release - a week before Tax Day and the thousands of "tea party" protests planned - as well as the widespread publicity and public access makes me suspicious. Has the DHS, which formed in response to 9/11, become more focused on political stability rather than on national security?

- Is Texas Governor Rick Perry considered a "right-wing extremist" for signing a resolution that reasserts state authority and the limitations of the federal government as stated in the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution?
- Are the Tea Party protesters viewed as criminals for having "anti-government" beliefs and exercising their freedom of speech?
- Will liberty-minded individuals such as Alex Jones and Ron Paul be labeled as "terrorists" by a skeptical American public?

* "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 7 Apr 2009.
* Sutton, Jane. "Recession Fueling Right-Wing Extremism, U.S. Says" Reuters UK 14 Apr 2009.
* "Homeland Security Warns of Rise in Right-Wing Extremism" FOX News 14 Apr 2009.
* Fairchok, Lance. "DHS, 'Rightwing Extremism' and Information Warfare" American Thinker 15 Apr 2009.
* Malkin, Michelle. "Confirmed: The Obama DHS Hit Job on Conservatives is Real" 14 Apr 2009.

Just a note about me: I am a registered voter, though I do not belong to any political party and do not subscribe to any particular set of issues or platform. I like to think of myself as a liberty-minded liberal with faith in democracy and an advocate of human rights and freedom. Although I believe in government services, I also believe in a small, non-interventionist government that protects liberty and choice. I am against war, though believe that veterans should be treated with respect.

The conflict in Darfur is multifaceted and complex, further complicated by propaganda from both the Sudanese government in Khartoum and the Western-oriented human rights organizations. As a human rights activist, I am an advocate of political and social rights for all peoples, and am against violence, especially aimed towards civilians. However, "Save Darfur" and similar campaigns insist on calling the crisis in Darfur a "genocide," creating a black-and-white scenario that pits good versus evil without exploring the issues beneath the surface. Last year, I claimed that there was a genocide occurring in Darfur, and that the international community was obligated to do something. Over the past few months, however, I have reconsidered the situation in Darfur.

There are three components of the Darfur situation: 1)land and access to water; 2)political factors, including an insurgency and counter-insurgency; 3)ethnic clashes. Human rights organizations emphasize the ethnic factor. The Khartoum government insists on the land/water issue, yet responded to the crisis with military measures in a counter-insurgency campaign. The rebel factions of Darfur have political demands, calling Khartoum their enemy.

al-Bashir is accused of orchestrating the campaign of violence against Darfur's "non-Arab" Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa peoples. Since 2003, it is estimated that 300,000 people have been killed and over 3 million have been displaced.

When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir last month, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity, al-Bashir denied involvement in Darfur and claimed that the arrest warrant was a "neo-colonialist" move to destabilize the country. African Union and Arab League states continue to support al-Bashir, stating that the situation is an "internal affair in a sovereign country with its own judicial system" and implying that Western-dominated international institutions should not interfere with the domestic affairs of African countries. President Bashir even went as far as expelling ten humanitarian aid organizations, believed to be "spying" for the ICC.

The conflict in Darfur gained international media attention in early 2003, when rebel factions attacked a government target. Khartoum responded by mobilizing "self-defense militias" (the Janjaweed, among others) and government air raids on farming communities and villages in a counter-insurgency campaign.

This is not the beginning of the story, nor is it the end of it.

Janjaweed continue to patrol refugee camps, the government still bombs villages, and millions are suffering from lack of humanitarian aid. Although most of the refugees are considered internally-displaced peoples residing in camps inside Darfur, over 200,000 refugees have spilled into neighboring Chad. Cross-border violence has provoked Chad and Sudan to accuse each other of supporting rebel groups.

Even before the events of 2003, Darfur has suffered from high-intensity armed conflict and tension over land for grazing and access to water. Environmental factors have evolved into an ecological crisis including desertification (expanding desert) and lack of water that have pushed the primarily nomadic Arab tribes of northern Darfur further south, into the settled villages of the non-Arab farming communities with settled villages.

Sudan is the largest Arab country practicing Islam. The people of Sudan consist of nearly 600 tribes, but Arabic is the commonly spoken language of all tribes. In Sudan, "Arab" is more a political identity with ties to the state and its central government rather than ethnic consciousness. In Darfur, the Arabs are a minority (about 1/3 of the population), thus are marginalized. However, Darfur itself has been marginalized by Khartoum, ignored by the government and the Islamic community. The rebels want the government of Sudan to recognize them, demanding political representation and economic development. Khartoum tried to solve the political land issue with military measures.

The UN Commission on Darfur labels the conflict as a "counter-insurgency," with killings a consequence of the effort to militarily defeat an insurgency. When viewed from this perspective, the solution seems to be negotiation. The ICC, on the other hand, insists that there is evidence of a larger intention to kill the non-Arab Fur, Masaleet, and Zaghawah peoples, just stopping short of the "genocide" label. From this angle, the only way to stop the killing is to arrest the political leadership. Only by labeling Darfur as a "genocide"
can the international community justify intervention. When recognizing Darfur as a mere "counter-insurgency," external "intervention" is viewed as an "invasion" on sovereign territory.

When trying to find a solution to the crisis in Darfur, all three components of the conflict need to be addressed: land/water access, political demands, and ethnic factors. The government-sponsored "scorched-earth" campaign of burning villages, poisoning wells, raping women, systematic killing, and obstructing humanitarian aid is unacceptable.


* Kushkush, Isma'il. "Analyzing Darfur's Conflict of Definitions" IslamOnline 25 Feb 2009.
* Elsergany, Ragheb. "Darfur Story" Islam Story 16 Mar 2008.
* Eyes on Darfur - Amnesty International
* Failing Darfur - Human Rights Watch

In the past month, there has been a string of bombings and sectarian violence in Iraq. Despite this recent flare-up, the Sunni-Shi'ite divide is mending. However, peace will continue to be fragile. Territorial disputes involving the provinces of Nineveh, Diyala, and oil-rich Kirkuk are enhancing tensions between the Arabs and the Kurds.

Kurdistan is the semi-autonomous three-province Kurdish region in northern Iraq, officially demarcated by George H. W. Bush's "no-fly zone" in 1991. Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Kurds have associated themselves with adjacent provinces populated by Iraq's Arab majority, claiming that the land once belonged to them. The size of Kurdistan has in fact expanded by nearly 20% since 2003.

The peshmerga, Kurdish paramilitary forces, continue to push beyond the UN-delineated border. They answer to Kurdistan's regional government, but many Iraqis believe the pershmerga are not a "legitimate" government force because they do not follow the same command as the Iraqi Security Forces, even though they often work side-by-side.

The "democratic" government of Baghdad has been at a standstill regarding the Kurdish question. Kurds favor some form of federalism, but Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants to centralize the government and strengthen Baghdad. Legislation to regulate the country's oil resources (such as Kirkuk) and distribute wealth has stalled in Parliament for two years.

* Abouzeid, Rania. "Arab-Kurd Tensions Could Threaten Iraq's Peace" TIME 24 Mar 2009.
* Druzin, Heath. "Bloodied by History, Kurds Fret Over Uncertain Future" Stars and Stripes 22 Mar 2009.
* Hauslohner, Abigail. "Iraq's Election Fuels Tension on Kurdish Fault Line" TIME 28 Jan 2009.
* Butters, Andrew. "Kurdistan: Iraq's Next Battleground? TIME 12 Apr 2007.
* Butters, Andrew. "Trouble in Kurdistan" TIME 17 Mar 2006.
* O'Leary, Carole. "The Kurds of Iraq: Recent History, Future Prospects" Middle East Review of International Affairs Vol 6, No 4. Dec 2002.

U.S. President Barak Obama is considering expanding the covert war, authorized by his predecessor, from the tribal areas along the Afghan border in Pakistan to the southern region of Baluchistan. The controversial missile strikes have forced insurgents from the tribal areas to flee to the city of Quetta, a terrorist safe haven and capital of the province of Baluchistan. Proponents of increasing the U.S.'s role in Pakistan claim that Mullah Muhammad Omar, leader of the Taliban government that the U.S. overthrew in 2001, operates in Quetta with impunity.

Predator and Reaper drone attacks have killed 9 of al Qaeda's top 20 leaders. Both the former and the current president expanded targets of missile strikes from mainly hunting down al Qaeda leaders to also including insurgents seeking to topple Pakistan's fragile government, such as the Taliban.

The U.S. military has increasingly relied on unmanned aerial drones to conduct surveillance and to hunt down and kill terrorists. Since August 2008, CIA-operated Predator drones have killed 340+ people in at least 35 strikes. In the two months that Obama has been in office, there has been six strikes. Only 10 recorded air strikes were conducted in Pakistan in 2006 and 2007 combined.

The military considers the drones effective because they can fly great distances over a long period time, are controlled from remote locations, and are quiet yet lethal. However, the surge in aerial drones has failed to prevent the spread of jihadist sympathies and to slow the stream of insurgents into Afghanistan.

Last month, information leaked out that U.S. aerial drones were taking off from and landing at two bases in Pakistan, the Shamsi Air Base and Shahbaz Air Field, both located in Baluchistan.


* Peter, Tom. "US Considers Broadening Drone Airstrikes in Pakistan" Christian Science Monitor 18 Mar 2009.
* Sanger, David and Eric Schmitt. "U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike into Pakistan" New York Times 17 Mar 2009.
* DeYoung, Karen and Joby Warrick"Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan Will Continue, CIA Chief Says" Washington Post 26 Feb 2009.
* Khan, Habibullah and Nick Schifrin. "Allegations That CIA Predator Drones Have Bases in Pakistan" ABC News 23 Feb 2009.
* Zenko, Micah. "Reassessing 'Af-Pak' Strategy" Boston Globe 17 Feb 2009.
* Schifrin, Nick. "Pakistan Urges Obama to Halt Drones" ABC News 24 Jan 2009.

Somalia is constantly in the news, most recently for the rising piracy along the Gulf of Aden. While media attention ebbs and flows, U.S. politicians have been keeping an eye on the "failed state" since a coup overthrew the government in 1991.

Today, an estimated 200,000 Somali-born residents and their relatives are the subject of a Senate Homeland Security committee hearing. Over a dozen Somali-American teenagers and young men have disappeared, provoking fear among the U.S. intelligence community of "homegrown terrorism" that has been exported out of the country, but may return to America. A few months ago, the first successful recruitment by al-Shabab of a U.S. citizen resulted in a suicide bombing mission.

Al-Shabab, "the youth" in Arabic, is the military wing of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) which opposes the presence of foreign troops (including African Union peacekeepers) and wants to impose Shari'a - Islamic law - across Somalia. The organization's goal is to get the "infidels" out of the country. Al-Shabab conducted an insurgency against the interim government and its Ethiopian allies. Hit-and-run attacks continue to plague Somalia.

Although a very Islam-influenced country, many Somalis do not share al-Shabab's vision of an Islamic state. Somalia has a tradition of moderate and tolerant Islam and there is no widespread support for fanaticism. However, extremism is growing and Somalis are afraid to talk about it.

The Somali Cabinet voted to incorporate Shari'a, making Islamic law the basis of the country's legal system in an attempt to isolate the more extreme militants by agreeing to a demand that is supported by much of the population. Several armed groups have promised to stop fighting the government if Shari'a is implemented. However, al-Shabab vows to continue its violence because they do not recognize the government as legitimate.

Sharif Ahmed is Somalia's new president, a young Islamic cleric and former leader of the ICU. He is committed to dialogue with various militias and warlords, though he is preparing for war. Al-Shabab insists that the new government is the same as the previous one. President Ahmed wants to return the government to Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, and offer city residents law and order that has been lacking for years.


* Hsu, Spencer and Carrie Johnson "Somali Americans Recruited by Extremists" Washington Post 11 Mar 2009.
* "Somalia To Get Sharia-Based Law" Al-Jazeera 11 Mar 2009.
* Adow, Mohammed. "Somalia at a Crossroads" Al-Jazeera 24 Feb 2009.
* Abdi Elmi, Afyare. "Opinion: UN and US Should Restore Somalia" Al-Jazeera 27 Jan 2009.
* "Meeting Somalia's Islamist Insurgents" BBC 28 Apr 2008.
* "Profile: Somalia's Islamic Lads" BBC 21 Mar 2008.

For the first time, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant against a sitting head of state, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. President Bashir is accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in the western region of Darfur. He is charged with five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape, and two of war crimes, attacks against a civilian population and for pillaging, though he will not face a charge of genocide. Bashir is responsible for "exterminating, raping and forcibly transferring a large numbers of civilians." Three ethnic groups have been specifically targeted by Bashir to be exterminated - the Fur, the Masalit and the Zaghawa.

Despite the wide-spread publicity of atrocities committed in Darfur, Bashir insisted that "any decision by the International Criminal Court has no value for us. It will not be worth the ink it is written on." Khartoum, Sudan's capital, equates the warrant with an attempt at regime change.

Although the ICC does not have the ability to enforce its own warrants, suspects can be arrested on the territory of states that have signed up to the court's founding Rome Statute.

The arrest warrant for President Bashir followed arrest warrants issued by the ICC in 2007 for former Sudanese Minister of State for the Interior Ahmad Harun and Janjawid militia leader Ali Kushayb, neither of whom the Sudanese government has surrendered.

The six-year conflict in Darfur was organized by Bashir and other high-ranking political and military leaders, coordinating attacks by the militia known as janjaweed against the non-Arab population. The UN estimates that since 2003, "when ethnic minority rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated regime for a greater share of resources and power," 300,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced.

There is a question of whether genocide occurred in Darfur. In a vote of 2-to-1, the judges of the ICC claimed that "the prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence of the government's intent, the key issue in determining genocide." Although many humanitarian and human rights organizations, as well as countries such as the United States, insist that genocide did happen, the UN has refused to acknowledge the situation, mostly due to pressure by China. Many fear that the arrest warrant would provoke more violence rather than stop the devastation of Darfur.


* Simons, Marlise. "International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant for Sudanese President" International Herald Tribune 4 Mar 2009.
* "Don't Defer Justice" Amnesty International

When President Obama agreed to send 17,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) responded by questioning the President's plan to increase the American presence in the south Asian country. He advised that the White House needed a strategy before committing more troops. Despite a larger US and NATO presence in the country since 2006, the last few years has seen a deteriorating secuirty situation. Feingold warned that a military escalation could further alienate the population, making the operation's goals more difficult to achieve.

General Petraeus, the mastermind of the Iraq "surge", mentioned that military reinforcement is a short-term solution. He explained that there needs to be more emphasis and more money devoted to good governance, fighting corruption, and building up the Afghan military and police. Obama's military "surge" may produce short-term benefits, but there is no strategy for sustainable improvement.

Even with a "surge" in troops, there would not be enough military personnel to hold the ground and secure areas that are now reclaimed by various groups of insurgents that have no common ties other than a common enemy - foreign troops. Using this logic, the military seems to be following a mantra of "when in doubt, escalate!"

The U.S. and its allies effectively control Kabul and the provincial capitals. That is, until a few days ago when insurgents launched coordinated attacks on three government buildings in the capital. Resistance fighters include Islamic fundamentalists (Taliban and al-Qaeda), as well as Pashtun nationalists and local tribal chiefs and mullahs. The Resistance is self-sustaining with opium profits and a population that wants nothing to do with an influx of foreign troops.

When Moscow illegally invaded Afghanistan, it had that modest goal of trying to "prop up" the communist-friendly regime under threat of civil war and U.S.-back mujahideen. The original goals of Operation: Enduring Freedom were to capture al-Qaeda and to topple the Taliban government. What is the new administration's goals?

Since the beginning of the global economic crisis, international media has been covering the popular unrest, often resulting in multiple protests and violent rioting.

Last year, citizens in peripheral countries such as India, Egypt, Mexico, the Philippines, and Yemen, rioted over the skyrocketing prices of energy and food. Discontentment with government led to the protests-turned-riots in Tibet and months-long chaos in Thailand that, when the dust settled, gave birth to a "new" regime.

In the past few months, the wave of social upheaval has spread from the poorer countries on the periphery to the more prosperous core in the heart of Europe:
* Since December, Greece has witnessed consistent rioting over the police shooting of a teenager, which fused with general concerns over the economy. Thousands of farmers recently blockaded main roads, cutting off access to highways that linked Greece to other countries.
* Iceland's debt-burdened economy has greatly suffered. Disappointment over official handling of the crisis led to months of popular demonstrations, resulting in the resignation of Prime Minister Geir Haarde on January 26th.
* In Latvia, a January 13th protest turned violent, becoming the worst riot the country had seen since breaking free from the Soviet Union. Farmers picketed the agricultural ministry, delivering severed cows' heads to the minister who has since resigned. The government has responded to the economic crisis by slashing public spending and raising taxes, creating more social tension.
* France had a crippling nation-wide strike on January 29th that protested against the government's "inadequate response" to the crisis.
* Bulgarians held a rally on February 4th, a follow-up to their January protest-turned-riot.
* Despite threats, thousands of Russians attended rallies in Moscow and Vladivostok, demanding the government to resign over the economic crisis.
* In China, rioting by unemployed factory workers in the city of Guangdong and other areas have been suppressed.

People are beginning to speculate why citizens of the United States are not joining the rest of the world and hitting the streets in anger. To be sure, Americans of all social and economic classes have been struck by the economic crisis, and are furious. There is a difference between the political culture of Europeans and Americans - Europeans tend to protest over minor things in order to enact change, whereas Americans usually wait for big issues that the government refuses to address.

Some claim that Americans sense that it is pointless to rebel, or that the government has been suppressing the protest movement. In my opinion, Americans have faith (that is now shaken) in the political system and capitalism, and that many are blinded by their hope that the new Obama Administration can change things.

Protests and riots usually happen when expectations are not met and there is a gap between rhetoric and reality. If Obama's promises are not fulfilled, that is when Americans will hit the streets in frustration. When the public perceives corruption, the likely result is social unrest.

As an activist who has been involved in protests, I am curiously watching the increasing social unrest and the rise in the number of citizens mobilizing against their governments. I am also keeping an eye on the analysis of these incidents, and the responses of the governments.

According to a Pew poll that was recently published, nearly half of Americans surveyed want to live somewhere else. Although many people residing in rural areas are content where they are, "most city dwellers think the grass would be greener in a suburb, small town or rural area." Americans prefer a pace of life that is slow, which may be why the South and the West are more appealing than New England and the Mid West. Out of the top ten metropolitan areas, seven cities are in the west and the other three are in the south. These cities share a few traits: warm weather, a casual lifestyle, and rapid growth. Cities are less than ideal for middle-income Americans and those "on the lower rungs of the income ladder," many of them preferring to live somewhere else. The survey results also suggest that a majority of Americans want to live in a place where they know each other well, akin to the picturesque small town and rural communities.

More and more people are enticed by "developments with an urban flair," combining housing, stores and offices in a neighborhood setting. There is a growing movement advocating "traditional neighborhood development" that encourage both cities and towns to create livable downtowns rather than separate parks - "office parks," "shopping centers," "housing developments," and "industrial parks," all of which require a car to get from one to the next.

This is some-what true for me. As a restless twenty-something that currently lives with my parents in a rural town that takes at least fifteen minuets by car to get anywhere worth going, I am considering leaving the nest to find myself a place that is more exciting. I thoroughly enjoy a downtown area, with sidewalks that line streets filled with mom-and-pop shops, quaint restaurants, corner stores, and apartments on the floors above, mixed with modern office buildings and parks, monuments, and important buildings like the town/city hall and libraries.

I was raised in towns in southern New Hampshire. Every time my family moved, they were to inch further away from the Massachusetts border. I have temporarily lived in other places - an even smaller NH town where my college was located, a summer spent in an apartment in Portland, Maine with constant visits slightly north to a small, hippie community, the beautiful Vienna, Austria. Now I am seriously considering moving to Worcester, MA.

I will always feel at home in New England, with access to both the mountains and the sea, to lakes and valleys, all within a reasonable drive. Although this winter has been exceptionally harsh, I enjoy all four seasons, particularly the fall and spring.

However, I do not want to stay in the middle of nowhere. I need to be in a small city where there is plenty of culture and other young people, a walkable downtown, and where I do not need to depend on a car to get around.


* El Nasser, Haya. "Pew: Almost Half of Americans Want to Live Somewhere Else" USA Today 29 Jan 2009.
* "For Nearly Half of America, Grass Is Greener Somewhere Else" Pew Research Center. 29 Jan 2009.