Wendy D's blog

Looking at recent events in Myanmar...

Wendy D — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:25:01 -0500

For the past month, Buddhists monks have been marching and practicing civil disobedience in Myanmar (formerly Burma).This past weekend (September 23) the marches gained more participants, and attention. The Associated Press reports that upwards of 100,000 people led by hundreds of Buddhist monks marched through the streets of Myanmar’s largest city, Yangon. Some protestors marched for over 12 miles, and 1,400 people walked right up to riot police blocking their path. The protestors chanted prayers and calls for peace in front of police, and near the home of Aung San Suu Kyi, the democracy leader long detained under house arrest.

Monks are well regarded and respected in Buddhist Myanmar, and their voices act as a moral authority. Since the monks are leading the protests, other sympathizers feel safer and more compelled to participate. The marching by the monks is civil disobedience at its best. The repressive military government is hesitant to crack down on marchers because of the public scorn it will garner both nationally and internationally.

The last large demonstration in Myanmar was in 1988 when hundreds, if not thousands, of people were injured or killed by military government forces suppressing the protest. With history like that and a culture of iron-fisted military rule many people in Myanmar are hesitant to speak or act against the government for fear of swift retribution. However, with the monks leading the protests, people are noticing a change in the tides. Also, the monks act as a visible safe guard for other protestors, who can feel confident that the government will try to avoid confrontation with beloved public figures.

Interestingly, Myanmar’s ally China is believed to be playing a role in the Myanmar government’s reaction to the protests. With so much international scrutiny on China for the upcoming 2008 Olympics, Chinese officials are believed to be urging Myanmar to withhold any sort of violent reactions. In doing so, China would avoid association with further human rights abuses. However, Myanmar military officials are issuing more heavy-handed denouncements of the marches and monks as the protests continue.

As far as new tactics are concerned, using the Olympics as a leverage point has proven to be widely utilized in the case of China and 2008 Olympics. Various activist groups have pressured China to revisit their positions on many issues, most notably their relationship with Sudan, and its impact on Darfur. China receives a large percentage of their oil from the Sudanese government.

In Myanmar, tensions have been running high for the last month, since the government raised fuel prices to outrageous rates. This acted as a catalyst for the long simmering public discontent to be manifested.

The marches put international pressure and scrutiny on Myanmar, and reinforce the idea that citizens of that country are not happy with the situation and want change. The monks’ participation and leadership in the marches symbolizes a breaking point for the country and its people. While marching in protest isn’t necessarily a New Tactic in human rights, it is powerful and yet simple grassroots tool.

Let me know what you think about these developments in Myanmar. Does anyone know of any other cases where religious figures were particularly instrumental in starting and leading political protests? I’m sure there are many examples, but I’m curious about some of the most successful.

Follow these links for the news stories in major U.S. and international outlets:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/24/myanmar.protest.ap/index.html

Msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20935091/

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7010839.stm

New Tactics Community Members

Sanctions or Microlending?

Wendy D — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:06:05 -0500

In light of some recent news, I’ve found myself intrigued by
the idea and effectiveness of sanctions on a nation. In his speech today
(September 25) to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush called for tighter sanctions
on Myanmar (also known as Burma). Bush
denounced the human rights abuses perpetrated by the repressive government of Myanmar, and
called for economic sanctions to be tightened. France’s
President Nicolas Sarkozy will visit the U.N. General Assembly next week, and
has said that he will ask for tighter sanctions on Iran. France
has been outspoken about wanting to halt Iran’s
uranium enrichment program, which they fear could lead to a nuclear weapon for Iran.

Despite these urges for economic sanctions from world
leaders, it seems as though they haven’t produced their intended results. Myanmar, while
it is hopefully entering a phase of political change right now, has been under
an extremely oppressive government for decades now. Iran
is a constant source of concern in the international political field, and Iran’s
President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been stubbornly pursuing his uranium
enrichment program in the face of international scorn and sanctions. Perhaps
the increased weight of reinvigorated sanctions might provide a turning point
in either one of these countries, but it seems to be a long and uncertain
process. Long standing sanctions on Cuba
have failed to really isolate Castro, and sanctions on Saddam Hussein didn’t
help in staving off the U.S.
invasion (which is another matter entirely).

In looking the tactic database on this website, I came
across “Creating Human Rights Awareness through Economic Assistance” tactic organized
by the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). The tactic can be found
through a keyword search on the new tactics site, or by going under “resources
and tools” and looking under the “Tactics Database” listings.

Here’s a summary of the tactic: “The Bangladesh Rural
Advancement Committee (BRAC) offers The Micro Enterprise Lending and Assistance
(MELA) program, which helps those who have progressed from poverty to relative
prosperity but are unable to receive loans from formal lending institutions.
Its uniqueness stems from their policy requiring lenders to adhere to child
labor standards, thereby encouraging human rights through lending.”

While the intended audiences are different in nature; it
seems as though this type of positive, reward oriented micro-lending for
smaller communities and individuals has been very successful, while sanctions
against larger countries has yielded patchy results at best. While a foreign
aid versus sanctions debate is a whole different animal than micro-lending
programs, it begs the question of approach. Is there something to be said for a
theory of pre-emptive aid instead of
pre-emptive strike?

Also, who, in a given country, is really affected by the
implementation of sanctions? I’m sure this is a question that will always
depend on a specific country and be a matter of opinion, but in many cases it
seems as though the everyday citizen and member of the public feels the weight
of international sanctions more heavily than their oppressive government.
Programs on a par with BRAC’s micro lending allow direct contact with
individual citizens, improve their quality of life, and as the tactic shows,
encourages adherence to specific human rights norms.

So, is there a possibility for more individual or reward
based approaches in countries where the government is at odds with
international communities? Could micro-lending programs encourage the growing
emphasis on economic and social rights? Is there a way for a program like
BRAC’s to be implemented in a way that affects the decisions of a country’s
government?

Any insight people would like to share is appreciated. Maybe
these things have been around historically but in different forms; or maybe
sanctions are more effective than I realize? I don’t know, so share your
thoughts!

New Tactics Community Members

Technology marches with Freedom in Myanmar/Burma

Wendy D — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:14:36 -0500

The situation in Myanmar
(formerly Burma)
has continued to escalate, and as more time passes the body count is rising.
The violence and harsh, repressive tactics of the military junta regime is
widely known; however, the past month’s events have put a new perspective on
the role and importance of technology and access to information. Our current
tactical discussion has eloquently highlighted the importance of information
access for human rights.

In Myanmar,
the access to information has been hindered by the junta government looking to
isolate the country and retain control. In today’s atmosphere of globalization,
technology, and individual handheld cameras and communication devices, the task
of isolation is more and more difficult for the junta regime to carry out.
Average citizens have more power to be able to get information, photos and even
videos out to the wider world and create public support for the peace and
pro-democracy activists in Myanmar.
Stunning videos and photos have been taken by individuals putting their lives
at risk in Myanmar
in the name of freedom and personal dignity.

Click these links to see various video clips from inside Myanmar (FYI:
videos from youtube.com are posted by individual users who may or may not be
news outlets, but take a look for yourself):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/myanmar.irpt/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SxZc1mXHos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_ZqfTOrxk

On Friday (9-28), the government cut off all internet access
in Myanmar
without warning. Blogs coming out of Myanmar, which are sometimes more
effective sources of information than reporters who are blocked and put at risk
in the country, went down. UCLA professor and journalist Tom Plate wrote, in a
recent CNN commentary piece, that the Junta was “trying their best to wire up
an electronic iron curtain around the country.”

But it’s not going to work. Cell phone videos can still be
shot and digitally sent abroad to be uploaded on internet outside the country;
stories can still get out through the limited, but functioning phone service.
Satellite photos taken by international organizations can provide photographic
evidence of large-scale abuses taking place. Contrary to what the present
situation shows us, I believe that the Military Junta is the side facing a
losing battle. I believe that the people putting their lives at risk, moving
with the times, and being resourceful in their campaign for peace and freedom
are the ones who will come out on top.

The violence in Myanmar is likely far more brutal
and horrific than we can know. But all of the news reports and shaky cell phone
videos that we do get to see show us
a harsh and upsetting picture. But it also shows us something else: an
oppressive force struggling to hold onto their crumbling government in the face
of people wanting freedom and democracy. I firmly believe that mixing New Tactics (blogging) with
old, time-tested tactics (peaceful marching) will eventually bring about a
peaceful, fair, and democratically-led Burma.

New Tactics Community Members

Using the internet to foster healing

Wendy D — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:26:18 -0500

To comment on Wendy's Blog

I think this is a very valuable tool that can be used to foster healing among Kenyan children victims of post electoral violence especially in urban slums where most of the violence occurred.For children this was something they have never witnessed, the destruction , the confusion , some even had to watch killings , which is very traumatic

However, the hurdle could be accessibility to internet as many families do not own computers unless centres are put in place in neighborhoods , fitted with internet access that is sustainable where affected children can share and heal

Thank you
Leonida odongo
Ebony Youth and Orphans Support Initiative Kenya
Nairobi

New Tactics Community Members

Can the language of Otpor! be universal?

Wendy D — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:00:55 -0500

In the late 1990s, the organization Otpor! developed in
Milosevic-ruled Serbia.
Considered by many as a rag-tag group of student protestors, the group soon
became the leading citizen-based force for resistance to the Milosevic regime.
Otpor! used non-violent tactics to create a broad base of citizen support and
delegitimize the Milosevic regime domestically and even internationally.

In our New Tactics database, you can find the details of
some of Otpor!’s work and methods, one in particular is entitled “Organizing
demonstrations outside of police stations after arrests of activists.” At first
glance, it might seem that demonstrations by young people after an arrest
wouldn’t serve to rattle a regime as brutal and infamous as Milosevic’s.
However, looking more closely at the work of Otpor! it’s clear that they can
serve as a model for young people’s movements all around the world, even living
under very repressive regimes.

Otpor! stood in the face of adversity and not only had an
international impact, but managed to keep up morale, consistently add new
members to their group, gain international respect (it eventually got funding
from the U.S. State Department), and reach its ultimate goal of helping to
bring down Milosevic.

Otpor!, like many other protestors in non-democratic
societies, faced scrutiny, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests from the government.
Instead of letting these things slow their movement, Otpor! used arbitrary
arrests by the government (whose intent was to intimidate and silence protestors)
as a means of gaining media coverage, motivating other activists, and exposing
and mocking the government’s illegitimacy.

Looking at this tactic makes me wonder how it can be applied
to other situations in other countries. In the news right now (for a multitude
of reasons) is Iran.
Recently, over 100 students protested at a speech by President Ahmadinejad at Tehran University.
According to CNN, the students got into the speech despite tight security and
started yelling things like “death to the dictator.” News of anti-Ahmadinejad
protests is becoming rarer as of recent because of increasingly tough
crackdowns on anti-government activity. According to CNN students were once the
main force behind the reformist movement in Iran, but with all the governmental
crackdowns the student voice has been stifled considerably.

So is it possible for Iranian students to develop something
like Serbia’s
Otpor! to combat the violations on their human right of expression and
assembly? Are there things that make Serbia’s
political situation in the late 90s vastly different than Iran today?
What are the first couple of steps to organize something as successful as
Otpor! in a climate of repression like Iran?

Human Rights Education Exchange

Remembrance for Prevention and Healing

Wendy D — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:53:24 -0500

“Armenian Genocide"

It’s amazing that these two words can incite so many varying
emotions around the globe, and affect international diplomatic relations so
profoundly. Of course, it’s not the words that really upset people, it’s the implications behind them, the
emotions attached to them and the consequences or healing that might result
from using those two words in official context.

It seems as though, especially for its size, the Armenian
genocide is the forgotten genocide of the 20th century. Indeed, when
Hitler called a meeting of Nazi leaders prior to World War II, he asked them:
how many people remembered the Armenian genocide that happened less than two
decades before? What consequences had the perpetrators of those acts faced?
Both of those questions can be answered with silence.

Now, a committee of the U.S. House congressional body has approved
a resolution declaring what happened to the Armenians in 1915 a genocide. Turkey,
of course, has long denied that it was genocide, saying that the killings were
due to the climate of unrest and war at the time, and that each side suffered
wide-scale killings. However, historical literature, documents, correspondence,
and other evidence clearly shows that indeed the killings were targeted,
systematic, largely one-sided, and planned in detail. It was a campaign of
ethnic cleansing against Armenians by Turks.

Denial is a powerful thing, though. Because of the Turkish
government’s consistent and insistent denial that the genocide ever took place,
the events have fallen into a grey area. Many people in the international
community know the genocide occurred, and even people from Turkey have
written (and have subsequently been jailed or faced violence) about the
genocide. Despite all of this, the international community still tiptoes around
the issue because of one country’s denial. Earlier this year, the United
Nations was putting together an exhibit on genocides in the past 100 years, and
initially included the Armenian genocide in it. Turkey protested so strongly, that
the UN had to amend their exhibit. Not because of doubt that the events
actually occurred, but because the leaders of Turkey were “offended.”

The headline of today’s news article on this topic also uses
the term “offended.” Since when is this an acceptable reason to re-write
history? If atrocious acts are being denied by people in power, it seems all
the more reason for the international community to step up and recognize and
discuss these acts for what they are. Logic would tell you that people rarely
own up to having committed terrible crimes against humanity, and denial runs
rampant in situations like these. But when historical evidence from independent
sources (look at Samantha Power’s book A Problem from Hell), memory, and
extensive documentation all point to genocide, then it needs to be labeled as
such, despite protestations.

What type of power does that give someone when you don’t
talk about what they’ve denied? From a practical standpoint, it gives the
denier all the power, and builds an unequal exchange of ideas. It may seemingly
be a short term investment in U.S.-Turkish relations to refrain from using the
word “genocide,” but it doesn’t set a very strong precedent for our diplomatic
relations with Turkey
by handing them the power to re-write international history. It’s a slippery
slope once you allow that type of power play to occur. We’d never allow Germany to deny
the Holocaust on an international stage without our strong protestations, so
why should the Armenian genocide be any different? Looking at Germany, an
open discussion, acknowledgement, and healing process of the Holocaust has led
to less contentious international relations on the subject.

This begs a discussion of why it is so important to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide.
Recognition of genocide categorizes it as a pre-meditated offense, and holds
certain historical figures more accountable for their role in the execution of
the genocide, rather than allowing people to hide behind a defense of chaotic
times. Times of war and unrest are known to be predispositions for massive
human rights violations, and an organized genocide can still occur in wartime.

Moreover, labeling the events for what they are allows the
victims to have justification of what there ancestors endured. Living through
something so traumatic or hearing memories about it from parents or
grandparents can be isolating, and make someone feel like they are the only
ones going through such mental anguish. Recognition helps to take away this feeling
of ostracization. It fosters a healing process across cultures, and lends an
open discussion of a collective history for the Armenian people. It also delegitimizes
feelings and rhetoric towards the Armenians that they shouldn’t think about
their past, or honor their dead by speaking the truth.

The establishment of memorial sites (something that is
needless to say, not occurring largely in Turkey) can aid in fostering an
open discussion and constant reminder of the events and the need to prevent
future ones from occurring. New Tactics will be discussing memorial sites more
in depth later this month with a tactical discussion “The Power of Place: Sites
of Conscience” featuring experts and contributors from around the globe.

Silence and lack of discussion in society allows for these
things to happen again because it’s believed that they can occur and then be
forgotten. Hitler thought that since no one remembered the Armenian genocide
that no one would think twice about the genocide that he was planning. In the
case of Armenia,
as well as all other genocides and crimes against humanity, remembrance is key
to a comprehensive healing process, and a useful tool for prevention. With
recognition and remembrance, then maybe someday we can stop adding to the list
of genocides to be remembered.

New Tactics Community Members

New Tactics for Pakistan

Wendy D — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:17:09 -0600

What is going on in Pakistan?

Admittedly, I don’t know much about the politics of Pakistan, but I thought I had a fairly basic idea of it. I’d read about Bhutto in the news lately, and admired her bravery and the positive example she’s setting for women in the country. I also thought I knew the basics about Musharraf: democratic, more stable, and an ally of the U.S.

Now I’ve had to throw some of those ideas out the window. On Saturday, Musharraf brazenly declared a state of emergency, putting Pakistan under martial law, suspending the constitution, and detaining hundreds of people who are speaking out against these recent actions. I know my knowledge of Pakistan is limited, but this seems very unexpected.

More than that, I wonder how much power Musharraf must have (perhaps bolstered by the U.S.’s seemingly unwavering support) to be audacious enough to declare a state of emergency because he’s afraid the Supreme Court might dissolve his third term of Presidency. Even with this timing, Musharraf still maintains that he has suspended the constitution as a step towards democracy. So, the way to democracy is by taking away the basic rights of your own countrymen?

Again, I don’t know much about Musharraf, but this “logic” sure has me perplexed. And also infuriated. How did the international community not see these moves coming? Or did we have an idea of what might occur, and chose to ignore it for various reasons?

Other people, like Bhutto, seem to be more optimistic about Musharraf’s latest decisions, and have predicted severe and crippling backlash for him. Bhutto’s spokesman declared it “the beginning of the end of Musharraf.”

How can the people of Pakistan move towards fairer representation in this climate of martial law? It seems to be a ploy to repress people at a time when one man’s power is threatened, so what tactics might be effective in using it against Musharraf? What tactics might aid activists in making steps towards breaking free from this declaration of marital law, and bringing back the constitution?

The events in Pakistan are a prime example of a time when New Tactics could be particularly helpful. So share your thoughts!

New Tactics Community Members

But what about Burma?

Wendy D — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:30:21 -0600

This question has been on my mind lately: What about Burma?

Last fall, much of the world and international media was captivated by the courageous monks in Burma who started marching for peace, freedom and a change in government. People seemed stunned at the violence and oppression the Burmese people were enduring. Soon the monks were being called the "Saffron Revolution," and I noticed that friends of mine who weren't normally interested in international relations were all of a suddent asking about Burma.

What has happened to all of that? The news stories about Burma aren't nearly as frequent, I don't know of any other rallies in support of the marching monks, and people have stopped talking about the "Saffron Revolution."

Why?

As far as I can tell, there has been no significant change in course from the Burmese government, and the oppression, unlawful arrests, and violence don't seem to have been drastically reduced. The communication coming from within the country is still sparse at best, and the Military Junta is still in charge. After doing some searching on the web, I found a recent article about the situation in Burma from BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7242346.stm

From what I can gather, the Military Junta is keeping as strong a grip on Burma as ever, but they maybe have switched their tactics slightly, so that they have the appearance of working towards fairness in governement. In reality, the Junta is working against the UN and other international bodies, keeping the country on lockdown, ignoring the plans of the "roadmap," and still keeping democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. Yet, the attention towards Burma has stilled waned.

I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on why the public attention on Burma has not been sustained, and what can be done to keep up attention on pressing human rights issues, even when it doesn't feel like progress is being made, or a solution is imminent. These situations, like Burma, are usually the times when the most international pressure is needed, yet sometimes they don't get it.

Any suggestions about what tactics can be used to sustain attention on situations like this? Don't we have a responsibility to do more?

Olympic Dream?

Wendy D — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:46:22 -0500

The Olympics are one of the most visible, long-standing, global traditions that I can think of. Their roots are in ancient history, and yet somehow the global community has managed to maintain the excitement and goodwill surrounding them into present day.

Personally, I love the Olympics. It's a great way for people to come together on a global scale, and the constant excitement surrounding those 2 weeks of athleticism is infectious. The opening and closing ceremonies are always magnificent, and rooting for my favorite figure skater or gymnast is something I've done since youth. The Olympic torch is another facsinating part of the Olympics. The idea of people from all over the world gathering in their own communities to share a glimpse of a flame which represents this idea of the Olympic dream is a beautiful notion.

But with the summer Olympics coming up in Beijing a lot of people haven't seen the torch flame as a symbol of a dream, instead as a representation of China's spotty human rights record. So WHO's Olympic dream is the torch representing now as it is carried around the world? WHAT is the Olympic dream, really? Is there an Olympic dream right now in China (or Tibet)?

The torch relay has prompted a fair amount of protests from people who are upset with China's human rights track record in Tibet. Newer concerns about China's close ties with the oppressive governments of Burma and Sudan give pause to the idea of the Olympic dream thriving in an atmosphere where governmental human rights abuses seem far too common.

Recent news reports from around the world have shown a mixed image of what type reaction the torch relay has been getting. A recent CNN article said that there were two protestors during the Malaysian leg of the relay surrounded hundreds of pro-China students and supporters. Other reports have shown other parts of the relay with hundreds of pro-Tibet protestors. There have been calls for boycotts and protests during the Olympic ceremonies.

So is the Olympic dream alive in the flame of that torch? Are the Olympics the most effective place to protest human rights abuses? Do protests take away from the message of unity and goodwill of the Olympics? Or are these protests more in line with the spirit of the Olympics than any other ceremonial gesture?