burma

Filing a civil tort action against a multi-national organization for human rights abuses that occurred as a result of a business

Lrubenstein — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:21:43 -0500

In September and October of 1996, Burmese refugees who had been forced to work on the Myanmar Pipeline Project filed two separate cases against Unocal on grounds of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a federal statute that allows foreign nationals to bring civil actions against U.S. citizens for violations of international law, and violation of California State law. The ATCA is important because many foreign nationals do not have the option to bring a case in their own country. For example, if the Burmese refugees had complained in Burma, they would probably have faced imprisonment, torture or death, since it is against the law to provide information to foreigners about the government. Before these two cases were consolidated, the judge held that the cases could go forward on the basis of this statute. In addition, the judge declared that transnational corporations and their executive officers could be held legally responsible for violations of international human rights law in foreign countries

The cases were consolidated in August 2000 in a California Federal District Court ruling that held that Unocal “knew or should have known that the Burmese military did commit, was committing and would continue to commit” human rights abuses but that Unocal could not be held liable because it did not control the actions of the Burmese military. In the same month Plaintiffs also filed in California State court with the help of several NGOs, including Earthrights International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Labor Rights Fund.

On March 5, 2001, a Federal District Judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and agreed that their claims should be heard in a California State court. Thus, while certain claims were on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the California State court would be able to adjudicate claims based on California’s constitution and unfair business practice law.

On September 18, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a landmark decision against Unocal reversing in part the decision of the California District Court that Unocal was not responsible for claims of rape and murder resulting from work on the pipeline. The court found that Unocal knowingly assisted the Myanmar military in the perpetration of human rights abuses and that forced labor is the “modern equivalent of slavery.” Counsel for Plaintiffs is confident that a jury will hold Unocal accountable for the human rights abuses and will award substantive damages.

This case is significant because it holds a transnational corporation accountable for human rights abuses from which it has profited. In addition, it sends a message to other transnational corporations that they will be responsible for human rights violations connected to their business ventures in countries with repressive governments.

A call for creative solutions to aid the survivors in Burma

kantin — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:26:21 -0500

With the latest official figures at 38,500 dead and 27,838 more missing, and Burma's junta tightening access to areas hit by Cyclone Nargis - it is vital that we collaborate on ways in which we can aid the survivors in Burma.

Only a few international relief organizations are now on the ground in Burma, and are under-staffed and under-resourced and are therefore unable to adequately deal with the overwhelming need there now. The BBC writes "Residents have told the BBC's Burmese service how private citizens have been trying to distribute water and supplies from their own cars - but soldiers have been confiscating the goods."

As it seems unlikely that relief organizations will be able to reach those in need, what resources do we have to aid these survivors in Burma? Are there creatives ways in which we can use technology to support those on the ground? For example, could we use Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, the Hub (for video advocacy), blogs?

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?

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?

When stuck, shift tactics

Philippe Duhamel — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 09:10:14 -0500

As I watch the display of gutsy, soulful dissidence in the streets of Rangoon, I hold my breath. I pray this new wave of protest can loosen the deathly embrace of the military regime that has been smothering the people of Burma/Myanmar for so, so long.

I am hopeful as I see monks in crimson robes take the lead in the streets, civilians form human chains to protect them, key footage escape the country through cell phone cameras, religious services withdrawn from the military.

The power of creative actions! Tactical innovation lies at the heart of the new momentum. Audacity gives new impetus, helps a movement come unstuck.

From deadlock to renewal

Burma had not seen protests on this scale since 1988, when a promising movement was crushed in a deadly crackdown. For nearly two decades, the Birman junta and the pro-democracy movement have appeared in a deadlock.

On one side, the paranoid generals. Imagine that: they went as far as to design a new national capital architected to preempt any popular disturbances, and built hours away from any potentially volatile urban centres, like demoted first city Rangoon.

On the other side, a weakened but resilient opposition movement, exemplified by the continuing detention of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has remained imprisoned for the better part of the last 17 years. For at least that long, calls for sanctions, boycotts and isolation against the Myanmar regime have been the mantra of prominent Burmese opposition leaders and support organizations.

Shifting tactics

The Free Burma Coalition waged a multi-year campaign to force Pepsi Co. and other multinationals to leave Burma. According to Zar Ni, one of the founders of the Free Burma Coalition: “We officially ended the boycott in 2003 because we realized that we needed to use a new set of tactics to start to reframe the issue and bring our campaign to another level. We realized that unless we changed the way people tell the Burma story, we would not win.”

“Boycotts have a lot of potential to do good", said Zar Ni. "They can be like the heavy artillery in a military campaign: They wear down the enemy, but the real job is done by the people on the ground, in the country itself.”

And that may be where inspiring tactics first needed to be reborn — on the blood-soaked but fertile soil of oppressed Burma/Myanmar — in order to spur a new wave of international activity. Knowing when it’s time to switch tactics can be just as important as knowing how to choose which tactic to use in the first place.

Tactical innovation brings hope

Founder of the Center for Torture Victims and initiator of the New Tactics Project, Doug Johnson has summarized the dangers of relying on a few pet tactics and the benefits of tactical savviness:

An over-reliance on any single tactic leads to its application in the wrong circumstances, and to missed opportunities to expand strategic targets; flexible tactical thinking creates the opportunity for refined strategic targeting.
An overused tactic encourages the adversary to systematize a response and makes it easier for adversaries to defend their position; tactical flexibility creates surprise and learning.

While we may fail to change our tactics, the other side will surely change theirs. In the real world of oppression under murderous regimes, when the opponent changes and adapts their tactics faster than us, the price to be paid can be deadly.

And thus it is that waging struggle involves a race for tactical innovation. The good news is, by virtue of our diversity, sheer resilience and, dare we say, love of life, our democracy and social justice movements stand a good chance of being more resourceful and imaginative than rigid bureaucracies and stiff military hierarchies.

And that, my friend, is my hope.

The right tactics at the right moment will inspire hundreds to take breathtaking risks. This in turn will encourage thousands to take action. And then millions will be drawn to express support. And in the end indeed, the whole world will stand watching and working, bringing us all closer together.

From stalemate to victory, riding the wave of history, that's the power of new tactics.

When stuck, consider ditching old tactics. What have you got to lose? Dare the new. Try a shift in tactics.

— Philippe Duhamel

Tell us about some of the tactical shifts you have had to make over the years. What were the some of the challenges? What were some of the benefits?
Post your comment below.

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