Buffalo Expatriate

Part of the three-fold approach to combating human trafficking, and one which I have taken particular interest in here in Ukraine, is the prosecution of traffickers. It has, thus far, been the weakest link in the response to trafficking. Which apparently, isn’t a problem unique to Ukraine.

A man jailed for eight years for trafficking two Brazilian women into the UK to make them work in a brothel has had his sentence cut by half. Hui Feng Zhu, 24, of Alderglen Road, Manchester, promised them restaurant work in the UK but then sold the pair to a brothel in Portsmouth, Hampshire.

The Chinese national was found guilty of four charges of human trafficking. On Thursday, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to four years and quashed the deportation order.

The women - aged 19 and 21 at the time - had met Zhu in Brazil, Portsmouth Crown Court was told during the trial in May. The jury heard how Zhu told them he had a restaurant in the UK and offered them work, saying they would earn six times more than they could in Brazil.

In May 2005, both women flew from Sao Paulo to London. Zhu met them and took away their passports and return air tickets. He told them there was no restaurant work available.

The court heard that the women were taken to the brothel in Malthouse Road, Portsmouth, where they were pressured to work as prostitutes. In fear of what might happen if she said no, the 21-year-old woman agreed to work there.

Her friend refused and was sent to live with Zhu.

About two weeks later, Hampshire police officers raided the brothel and found the woman. Zhu was given eight years for each offence, with the terms to run concurrently.

Now if this were in Ukraine, I would probably assume the trafficker got off so easily for various reasons: 1) the Judge didn’t take the case seriously 2) the Prosecutor didn’t take the case seriously 3) they actually charged it under a different law instead of Article 149, which could be of the consequence of either of the first two reasons or just a lack of knowledge on the said article. But the UK? Come on, mates. I haven’t been able to find the details yet on what happened, whether the evidence wasn’t properly handled or maybe he offered information valuable to the police. But that’s the optimistic side of me. The other side says, “Traffickers 1, International Response to Trafficking 0.”

Yesterday was the funeral for South African reggae star Lucky Dube. A friend of mine from Sudan turned me on to him last year. In memory of Lucky, here is some information on his life’s work and artistry:

From Gallo Record Company:

Lucky was slain in an attempted hijacking in Rosettenville in Johannesburg last night, at approximately 8pm, whilst dropping off his children at a family members house.

Although Lucky attempted to escape the scene, he had been fatally wounded from the hijacker’s attempt to steal his motor vehicle, and he died almost instantly.
Senseless and random, the death of Lucky Dube leaves a great void in the music industry, as 25 years of music suddenly ends in tragedy.

South African born but globally revered, Lucky Dube was one of the country’s most toured and beloved artists ever. His music touched millions around the world, primarily through his 22 recorded albums - in Zulu, English and even Afrikaans - many of which have been record breakers with phenomenal sales from around the globe.

As a frontline artist in the reggae genre, Lucky’s creativity and inventiveness kept growing. Compelling in his musicianship and intriguing in his lyrical content, Lucky’s sonic daring to take his genre to new heights never failed to amaze even the most ardent fans, whilst reigning in new devotees to his magic every day.

From the BBC:

During his lifetime South African reggae star Lucky Dube was a man on a mission to make the world a better place.

“Hey you Rasta man. Hey European, Indian man. We’ve got to come together as one,” go the lyrics to his anti-apartheid hit Together as One.

Unity, peace, freedom and respect were Lucky Dube’s mantras…

Shy, gentle, friendly and dedicated are words that have been used to describe the 43-year-old singer who despite his Rasta image did not smoke marijuana, cigarettes or drink alcohol.

He is survived by his new wife and seven children, including a three-month-old baby.

“Lucky would have wanted the world to remember him as someone who made a difference through his art, which I believe he did, his social messages people took to heart,” Makurube says.

As most of you have probably heard, the U.S. has decided to increase pressure on Iran by putting into place tougher sanctions against 25 Iranian companies, banks, and individuals and the Defense Ministry, including the Revolutionary Guard. This is the first time the U.S. has applied sanctions to another country’s armed forces, however the Guard is said to control quite a bit of the Iranian economy thus the reason for sanctions against them.

In addition to freezing any assets they may have in U.S. jurisdictions, something officials acknowledged would be of minimal effect, the sanctions also bar Americans from doing business with them.

But of far greater impact, officials said, they will subject foreign firms to U.S. sanctions if they engage with the designated entities. -NPR

On the other side, Iran has dismissed the sanctions as “doomed to fail”

“These sanctions are nothing new. Sanctions have been imposed on us for 28 years. The new sanctions, like all those before, will have no effect on Iran’s policies,” Mr Jalili said on his return from talks in Rome with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

“The sanctions will only isolate the United States on the international stage,” he said of the measures against Tehran, unveiled on Thursday.

Which isn’t necessarily true as some European countries as well as Australia are actually debating the issue. Britain and France have come out in support of them, while Germany, and Italy are looking to continue current negotiations and sanctions. But, according to an article in the IHT,

Analysts say at least two variables could alter the mix: Iran’s new nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili could toe such a hard-line that Germany and Italy might lean more toward sanctions, or the tough stance of France and Britain could overcome the hesitancy of Rome and Berlin and any other holdouts.

China and Russia have also issued responses, which basically state the sanctions will only complicate negotiations. In fact, President Putin anagolized the situation as such: “It’s not the best way to resolve the situation by running around like a madman with a razor blade in his hand.” Well, I don’t quite get the analogy, but it’s obvious he objects.

Sanctions are, of course, a controversial diplomatic tool. It’s difficult to say whether these sanctions against Iran will have big enough effect to get Iran to come back to negotiations with the intention of scaling back their nuclear activities. Making Saeed Jalili the top nuclear negotiator in Iran probably was a signal that’s not their intention.

Diplomats who met Jalili when he was a deputy foreign minister say he tended to express strongly held views and stick firmly to his position. One diplomat said he “specializes in monologue” rather than debate.

This, of course, happened before the sanctions and is not why they’re controversial. Sanctions can have several negative or unintended impacts. Examples

1) A humanitarian impact that causes more people at the bottom to suffer than the leaders the sanctions are intended to pressure. The refining of targeted sanctions has improved this a bit, but when leaders don’t care if their people suffer, they’ll get the money from somewhere. It also depends on how much people are willing to put up with before becoming disatisified with the regime to the point of doing something about it.

2) It leaves the sanctioning country with less influence to wield at the negotiating table. This is what some have feared has happened with Sudan and Burma as the US has applied sanctions there without effectively halting brutality. This could especially be the case if other countries are still holding regimes afloat. In the case of Sudan, Burma, and Iran, it is mostly China and Russia who carry more influence over the actions of the government partly do to the fact that they have investment in the country.

On the other hand, it is probably one of the strongest tools the U.S. has aside from actual use of the military. Part of the reason these new sanctions against Iran are so huge is because they also impact foreign companies who do business with the targets of the sanctions. As far as I know, this is not the case in Sudan. That was the big controversy this year over Warren Buffet’s investments in PetroChina, which is seen as one of the key foreign investment schemes propping up the genocidal regime of Sudan. By the way, he just sold his last stakes in PetroChina a week or so ago although he claimed it had nothing to do with pressure to divest. Anyway, these sanctions force foreign firms to rethink their business in Iran if they have serious American money flowing through their companies. Although, I’m not sure if that represents a huge percentage of foreign firms doing business with the targeted groups and individuals in Iran.

NPR produced a short article on some of the U.S. sanction list with brief histories on each country other than Iran. Perhaps part of the reason I doubt the impact of these new sanctions is because of their long term use and relative ineffectiveness over long periods, particularly in the case of Cuba and Iran. As long as Russia and China continue to become closer to the regime, the sanctions may prove useless. According to a RFE/RL article on the recent meeting between Putin and Ahmadinejad, Russia does not historically have a good relationship with Iran, economic pressure has forced Iran to move closer to Moscow which the Kremlin has welcomed, but Russia still does not want to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. Perhaps this is a card the US could use later if it turns out Iran is developing a weapon, although it is probably not of much consequence at this moment.

This is all too appropriate as one of my recent posts elicited some comments about my naïveté regarding the United Nations. Today is the official United Nations Day, an international holiday meant to be an occassion for “Governments and peoples to reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter.” Now in its 62nd year as an organization, the UN System includes a vast network of it’s own and affiliated organizations. From this network, the UN is able to conduct humanitarian relief, peacekeeping operations, truth commissions, development programs, and other activities that help generally make life better for millions around the world. The UN is not without flaws and some criticism of the UN is justified, but this should be a rally for its reform not for its dissolution. Blanket statements like “the UN is useless” are tired and unjustified.

The UN serves a capacity that no one country could ever fulfill on its own, including the United States. It is the UN’s legitimacy that it has gained through the universality of membership that gives it this ability to provide an open forum for states to discuss, negotiate, debate, and settle common, bilateral, or even internal problems. Although this seems like a commonplace argument in support of the UN’s work, Shashi Tharoor’s article in Foreign Affairs points out concrete examples of why this is important, especially for the U.S.

In fact, part of the value of the UN (including for Washington) is the respect in which its members hold the body. Such respect has permitted the United States, on numerous occasions, to advance its specific interests under the cover of international law. For example, UN sanctions on Libya helped the United States achieve a settlement over the Lockerbie bombing. And after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Security Council’s two subsequent resolutions provided an international framework for the global battle against terrorism. Resolution 1373 required nations to interdict arms flows and financial transfers to suspected terrorist groups, report on terrorists’ movements, and update national legislation to fight them. Without the legal authority of a binding Security Council resolution, Washington would have been hard-pressed to obtain such cooperation “retail” from 191 individual states, and it would have taken decades to negotiate and ratify separate treaties and conventions imposing the same standards on all countries.

As such examples demonstrate, it is clearly not in the U.S. interest to discredit the UN or the Security Council. For every rare occasion when the council thwarts Washington, there are a dozen more when it acts in accordance with U.S. wishes and compels other countries to do the same. To marginalize the council, then, would be to blunt a vital arrow in the U.S. diplomatic quiver.

We can look at even more recent examples to U.S. interest, for example, in post-war Iraq. The UN is helping to shoulder the burden rebuilding the country, including humanitarian assistance to the 2.3 million Iraqis displaced within the country and the more than 2 million who have fled. Last month, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1770 extending and expanding the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq.

I’m not trying to defend the idea that the U.N. should only serve to one of its members’ interests, but rather to debate the notion that the U.N. is useless to the U.S. and that the U.S. is getting the short end of the stick by working within the framework of the organization. Another quote from the FA article that makes the relationship far more clear than I ever could:

Hammarskjцld once described the UN as an adventure — a Santa Maria battling its way through storms and uncharted oceans to a new world, only to find that the people on shore blamed the storms on the ship itself. Five decades later, Hammarskjцld’s metaphor still holds true: the UN continues to sail in turbulent waters and is still blamed for the squalls that assail it.

This brings to mind another metaphor: if international institutions serve principally as ropes that tie Gulliver down, then Gulliver will have every interest in snapping the ropes and breaking free of the constraints imposed on him. If, however, these institutions constitute a vessel sturdy enough for Gulliver to sail, and the Lilliputians cheerfully help him man the bridge and hoist the mainsail because they want to travel to the same destination, then Gulliver is unlikely to jump ship and try to swim on alone. So the world should similarly hold fast to its determination to live by shared values and common rules and to steer together the multilateral institutions that the enlightened leaders of the last century bequeathed to us. Only by doing so will our ship best the storm — with Gulliver still on board.

Even the UN itself recognizes the need for reform. It continues to grow as demand for its services has also grown, and with that growth comes pains. For all the work the UN is doing around the world, I’d like to wish you a happy United Nations Day.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Hassan’s face on the home page of the Buffalo News this afternoon as well as a lengthy article about (mostly) African refugees in Buffalo. I wrote a review of the Somali Star back in August. As the article says, it will be closing down soon for the season, but will reopen in the Spring. The article took me back to my conversation with Safia as I waited for Hassan to prepare the food I had ordered. It took me back to working with Journey’s End and all of the refugees I had met who had been sent to Buffalo. I remember Safia mentioning that she wanted to study culinary so that her father’s dreams of expanding the restaurant could be realized.

I think the article also brings up some interesting thoughts and ideas about the potential for these refugees to even further contribute to a better Buffalo if given the opportunity:

But like any other group in Buffalo, Somalis are looking for economic opportunity, and they’ll move to other parts of the country to find it, said Mohamed.

He sees such departures as lost opportunities for the larger Buffalo community.

Instead of spending millions of dollars demolishing dilapidated homes, the city and county could be helping immigrants establish credit, obtain mortgages and become owners of those houses, he said.

“If you bring those people, they become taxpayers,” he said. “There’s no system in Erie County government or the City of Buffalo that will say, ‘How do we promote new immigrants to come to the city?’ There’s no planning, or if there is, immigrants are not part of it.”

As I recall, there was a Sudanese gentleman that was undergoing the purchase and renovation of a home on the West Side with the money he and hais family had saved right as I was leaving over the summer so I could see how this untapped idea could be realized given the right conditions.

After my Russian lesson today, I read an extremely depressing article in the Times about what’s happening in Burma now, more importantly what’s happening among the Burmese people. I know I’ve been posting about this a lot, but this is the most blatant example of an anti-democratic government that is getting away with the repression of it’s own people without the U.S. being able to extend any influence over what happens. These cases are the reason why I don’t actually believe the U.S. is the most powerful defender of freedom and democracy around the world. It’s more like the U.S. gets that title by default. Burma and Sudan are the two most obvious current examples of failure on the part of U.S. international leadership as the “benevolent hegemon.” We obviously bow, especially in the case of Burma, to the influence of the world’s rising power China. It’s the same in Sudan, where China’s influence has done nothing but prevented peace and protected a genocidal regime.

I believe whole-heartedly in the United Nations. I think without the organization and it’s work, the international system would be unmanageable and would lack a legitimate and disinterested negotiator in times of crisis, as no one country could take its place. But too often the Security Council reflects the interests of its members, or rather the lack of interest from its members in seriously committing to freedom and security around the world.

Here’s why this is all especially pertinent to the Bush Administration- Iraq. The Bush administration tried to prove something by invading Iraq (after we didn’t find the WMD’s of course)- if democracy and human rights are threatened by a murderous regime, we will militarily assist the people who want to be free from such terror even if the UNSC is unable to rally together and do something concrete about it. I’m not naive enough to believe that was the true intention of invading Iraq, but that’s what we purported to the rest of the world. Here’s the problem- while we are and have been fighting in Iraq under the auspices of freeing people who want democracy and peace for their country, Sudan and Burma have respectively been facing brutal government (sponsored) violence and repression. And we have done so little, that we hear the kind of resignation like in the Time article.

By perpetrating what most Burmese felt was unthinkable — the beating and killing of monks — the ruling generals proved that they would stop at nothing to keep their grip on power. People were again cowed into subjugation. Now dissidents worry that the world, after its initial uproar, will again leave the Burmese people to cope with the junta on their own.

“We want to explode our feelings, but if we do, who will help us?” said a 58-year-old businessman who, like many, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “The U.N.? The U.S.? China? They all said they would help us. But all they did was blah, blah, blah.”

It’s a vicious circle. The U.S. complains the SC isn’t doing enough, then demotes the power of the UN by arrogantly “going at it alone,” which then further voids the authority of the SC, which then terranical regimes ignore and the U.S. can do nothing about because China’s protecting these governments and the U.S. does not have the resources or public support to do anything concrete. So where does that leave us? Just saying we’re the most powerful country in the world, defending democracy and freedom for all, blah blah blah.

If you couldn’t tell, I’m hoping to spark some debate on this so please open up- a debate on U.S. leadership and what all of these events mean in defining image versus reality. I’m even opening up a new category for my posts just for things like this

After an early morning commute in which I discovered that the roads of Kyiv are quiet at hours I would never dare venture on the 33 heading downtown in Buffalo, and after an extremely interesting breakfast with Melanne Verveer, Hillary Clinton’s former Chief of Staff when she was First Lady, I came to the office to continue working on my research for the Fulbright. During some online searching, I found this blog, The Human Trafficking Project, which once again calls into question my legitimacy as a Fulbrighter and researcher on human trafficking as the author is another Fulbrighter in the Philippines conducting research on the NGO response to human trafficking there. And he’s dedicated his whole blog to awareness raising on human trafficking. I’m such a chump.

However! I have to write about the last post this blogger made. The last post was about a WP article by Jerry Markon that I was also forwarded last week, and got a little stumped by. Basically, the article cites figures that purport that the problem of human trafficking, at least in the U.S., is blown way out of proportion and based more on emotion than on actual need. The way he structures the article leads the reader to conclude the money spent on counter-trafficking measures is wasted and that the reason numbers are so hard to come by is just an excuse to cover up the lack of a problem.

The other link in the HTP post is to an article by Donna M. Hughes that reviews, criticizes, and offers solutions to Markon’s article.

Before I address the specific questions raised, let me point out that the debate is about sex trafficking, not forced labor. Secondly, almost everything said or written about sex trafficking has to be filtered through the debate over legalization of prostitution. The word “legalization” seldom appears anymore; it’s too unpopular, so its supporters find other ways to advance their position or undermine the efforts of those who oppose legalization of prostitution….

We would be on the road to having a baseline for understanding sex trafficking in the U.S. if the Department of Justice (DOJ) had initiated the study authorized in 2005 by Congress on the illegal commercial sex industry in the U.S. To date, I’ve not been able to get an answer from DOJ on why that study was not done. Unlike illegal gambling or drug trafficking, there has never been a study on the illegal sex industry in the U.S. Why?

Instead of conducting the congressionally approved study on the illegal sex industry, the DOJ funded a study on estimating the number of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the U.S., study that in my opinion, as a researcher, cannot be done successfully. Such a study requires the identification of victims coerced into the sex industry. As the Washington Post correctly points out, there have been relatively few victims of trafficking identified. Victims who cannot yet be identified cannot be counted.

Researchers can employ fancy sampling methods, but they still have to rely on people who know a victim of trafficking when they see one.

Let’s look at another important point brought up in the WP article that I could address personally:

But Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, said that the issue is “not about the numbers. It’s really about the crime and how horrific it is.” Fratto also said the domestic response to trafficking “cannot be ripped out of the context” of the U.S. government’s effort to fight it abroad. “We have an obligation to set an example for the rest of the world, so if we have this global initiative to stop human trafficking and slavery, how can we tolerate even a minimal number within our own borders?”

The reason I think this point is important is, first of all, the U.S.’s international role and reputation is obviously a big campaign issue this year for presidential candidates in regards to foreign policy. As long as human trafficking is the third most profitable international crime after drug and arms trafficking, I’d say it’s pretty important for the U.S. to show their commitment to combating the problem. Can we do it without putting money into our own programs? Not if we want to be an international leader on the issue we can’t. Part of my approach and attitude comes from my own experience.

One of the reasons I decided to apply for a Fulbright on human trafficking was because of an internship I completed with the International Visitors Department at the International Institute of Buffalo, which brought a large international visitors group of officials and civil society leaders from multiple countries (including Ukraine) to see the kind of practices and efforts the U.S. was putting into countertrafficking. They were exposed to the numerous aspects of the U.S. domestic response to trafficking including law enforcement, rehabilitation efforts, identification efforts, etc. The kind of serious attitude that the U.S. takes toward the problem and the serious action that is taken to stop the problem is part of what these visitors brought back to their individual countries where they were already in a position of authority to do something about it. My family actually hosted this group for dinner as well so I was able to speak with these visitors in a more intimate setting.

Modern day slavery in the form of trafficking is a serious international problem. The IOM in Ukraine has worked with over 4,000 victims in the last five years alone. The numbers don’t necessarily indicate a rise in the problem, but rather an increased ability of the government and organizations here to identify victims. The response in the U.S. not only provides relief to victims domestically, but contributes to the overall global strategy. That’s why it’s so important.

And not for poisoning a national leader.

Funny, we were just talking at lunch the other day about the scantness of articles in Western media on Ukraine and voila! Today the Times covered the reunion of the Orange parties and Ms. Tymoshenko’s re-assumption of her duties as Prime Minister. It wasn’t as long as the article the other day on cats in Baghdad, but hey, it’s something. It even made 10th on the top ten most viewed world news stories according to the website. The article brushes on the major issues and questions surrounding the reunion- Will it last? Will they make the same mistakes? Is it possible some party members may defect thus destroying the coalition. I’m sure the Regions Party is just chomping at the bit to cause defection and the ensuing chaos. But since Mr. Yanukovych

issued a statement in which he did not mention Ms. Tymoshenko by name but attacked how the campaign had been conducted and criticized politicians “who put their ambitions and interests over the national interests.”

I’m sure he would never do anything sneaky like coaxing Our Ukraine or Tymoshenko Block members to change their loyalties in the name of his own ambitions as opposed to what the country actually chose. Not that Ukraine has ever had a problem with party-switching. Sarcasm aside, party-switching has led to quite a few Ukrainian political crises. It could be the reason 53% of Ukrainians disapproved of the practice before the 2007 elections according to a USAID funded poll. Three seats is a really tiny margin to hang your hat on (Between Nasha Ukraina and Byut, they have 228 of 450 seats), especially in a climate of party-switching. The article mentions the coalition might be able to coax another party, but I get the feeling Lytvyn or the Communists aren’t going to join the ranks unless there’s something big in it for them. And seeing as how Yushchenko and Tymoshenko have already divided up the ministry posts between their two parties, that strikes me as a big nyet on offering something to Lytvyn to encourage his participation in the coalition.

Mr. Yushchenko, the hero of the Orange Revolution who has suffered a stark decline in popularity because of political instability, issued a statement calling on all the major political parties to work together.

“This will give the country an opportunity to get out of the bewitched circle of crises and conflicts in the power structures, and open a path for progress,” he said.

Bingo. Like Ambassador Taylor said on Monday, if the new government is able to move forward, in an effective and assertive manner, they’ll regain the confidence of Ukrainians and the international community. No more of this squabbling-over-this-appointment-and-that-appointment crap.

A similar article from RFE/RL was, of course, even more cautious about the new coalition. I loooooove this quote. I’m not sure if it’s meant to be as sarcastic as I’m taking it, but still…

The coalition’s majority is so thin that even the bouts of flu that regularly disable Ukrainian lawmakers could disrupt the balance of power in the legislature.

I think it was the word “regularly” that made me snicker. Also interesting is a quote from Ukrainian political analyst Ivan Lozovy, that was something I probably should have thought of before, but didn’t:

“Yushchenko’s and Tymoshenko’s interests are very divergent, and these divergent interests center on the upcoming presidential elections,” Lozovy said. “Within a year’s time, serious election campaigning will begin. The only scenario in which Yushchenko has a chance of winning the presidential election is if he enters the second round against Yanukovych again. He won’t enter the second round if Yulia Tymoshenko runs, that’s clear. And this is the main reason why any coalition just between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko is not a viable one on the long term.”

Of course, what else is there to do? If Yulia and Yushchenko didn’t form the coalition, who would have and how? Some of their members would have had to defect to the other parties as neither Lutsenko or Tymoshenko would have involved themselves in a coalition with Yanukovych. I guess saving a post for a member of Lytvyn’s party among the ministries would have added a safety net of an extra 20 seats, but I’m sure it would have had to have been an important post for him to give in to that. And there’s already rumblings from former Prime Minister Yekhanurov, who opposes the Byut/Nasha Ukraina coalition. Did he seriously expect a coalition with the Party of Regions? Supposedly he did, and Lutsenko has already issued a tough statement on the matter.

“If Yuriy Ivanovych (Yekhanurov) or whoever does not like such a format of parliamentary majority, resulting from the agreement on the formation of election bloc that made an MP of him, and if he believes it to be a mistake, he is free to vacate his seat and then start criticizing us as much as he chooses. This is the only right way,” Mr. Lutsenko states

Oye. Not so sure if that was the right move to make, publicly. I understand Lutsenko wants to show strong leadership but the number 228 should be flashing in big red numbers when he makes statements like that. I’m skeptically awaiting news of how this will turn out.

Yesterday in Yangon, there was a rally by pro-government demonstrators who came “in support” of the junta regime. According to an article in the IHT, many in the crowd had been offered cash to attend. Local officials were told to round up as many as they could being offered about $.80 a head for supporters. Officials estimate that 120,000 people turned out. Peopling being paid for turn-out at a rally strikes me as a panic button. People were shouting things like, “Down with BBC! Down with VOA! Down with Radio Free America.” and “”Oppose internal and external destructive elements!” Protestors from the opposing side were, of course, blocked from coming into the rally area by military trucks and forces.

Last week, the junta offered to have a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi, on the condition that she abandon her “exerted efforts for confrontation, utter devastation, and imposing all kinds of sanctions”. To which, Ms. Suu Kyi stated she was willing to meet with them, but that preconditions were unacceptable. I’m not sure what they were expecting after keeping her under house arrest for 12 of the past 18 years. As of Friday, 216 members of the National League for Democracy have been arrested. Earlier this week, one those members and activists died in the custody of interrogators. Win Shwe died during questioning while under arrest by government forces.

“His body was not sent to his family and the interrogators indicated that they had cremated it instead.”

Sources close to Win Shwe confirmed to the BBC that officials had come to tell his family of his death and had not returned his body. He had a heart condition, they said.

The US has demanded an investigation into his death, but I’m going to venture a guess those requests are going to get lost in translation.

Very interesting article by Paul Reynolds that is a bit disheartening and pessimistic, but it at least gives a general perspective on what makes for successful pro-democracy movements. Does anyone else pick up on the subtlety of the structure and content of the article? Well maybe not so subtle…

From the BBC
Alright, let’s catch up on some news. I was forwarded an article today by my uncle on the latest actions by President Putin of Russia to prevent any sort of competition to his party, United Russia, especially in regard to the upcoming elections in December, after which he plans (and probably will) become the prime minister. The article discusses the history of Putin’s moves during his terms as president that have steadily disbanded opposition parties and consolidated power in Russia. Examples:

September 2004- After the Beslan School crisis, (which apparently is rarely discussed in Russia anymore) Putin announces regional governors will no longer be directly elected, but will be appointed by the Kremlin.

January 2006- Putin signs controversial law giving authorities extensive new powers to monitor the activities of non-governmental organisations and suspend them if they are found to “pose a threat.”

This law is particularly interesting because within the following year came the deaths of Anna Politkovskaya, the government critic and human rights activist and former Russian security service officer Aleksandr Litvinenko, who died from radio-active poinoning.

Secretary Rice has of course said in the past that she hoped the efforts of rights activists would promote universal values of “the rights of individuals to liberty and freedom, the right to worship as you please, and the right to assembly, the right to not have to deal with the arbitrary power of the state.” After her recent meeting with human rights groups working in Russia, Secretary Rice stated:

“I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma,” said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.

The Human Rights groups were, of course, much more forceful with their language:

Lyudmila Alexeyeva of the Moscow Helsinki Group told the Interfax news agency her organization sees “the purposeful construction of an authoritarian society and an onslaught on the people’s rights, elections are being turned into farce, and human rights and opposition organizations are experiencing pressure.”

Moscow officials, of course, quipped back about human rights abuses in America as well. “No one’s perfect” has been their favorite comeback for any U.S. criticisms of their human rights situation. I believe the U.S. has our work cut out for us as far as being a “leader” of human rights activity at home and abroad, but I don’t remember the last time one of our journalists was killed for trying to monitor Guantanemo Bay or other prickly human rights situations under U.S. watch.

And then in the Times article, someone couldn’t help but make the comparison to Ukrainian politics:

Mr. Putin’s allies said United Russia was winning elections not because the rules were biased, but because the public approved of Mr. Putin and valued the nation’s new strength. They said Russians looked askance at the example of Ukraine, the neighbor to the west, where three leading parties have been closely matched and have regularly feuded over the last three years.

“For Russians, the Ukrainian scenario is terrifying,” said Igor Y. Dyomin, a spokesman for United Russia in Parliament.

Terrifying. Yes, I can imagine why you would make rules that essentially secure a solid victory for your party to prevent a “terrifying” scenario like Ukraine. I was in fact here for the last elections. There are definitely problems with the way things happen here. But as opposed to the malicious onslaught against opposition parties and organizations and disruption of free media like there is in Russia, Ukraine has made it through another free election without anyone dying because they opposed the existing ruling parties. The Orange Revolution, for all the promises that have yet to be fulfilled, put a can on practices like poisoning as Yushchenko’s obviously wasn’t tolerated. I’m sorry to sound defensive, but that is such a typical way for Russia to try to get into the heads of Ukrainians and say “You’re not making progress. Look at your stupid politicians arguing over constitutional interpretations. Russia’s consolidated system is the way to be.” Yes, Ukrainian politicians could use a swift kick-in-the-ass to get to work and make the reforms needed to move forward. But Ukraine is a free and independent country. It’s not Russia’s little bogey anymore even if there still are cultural and historical ties. I mean, for Christ’s sake, they have their own hockey team (inside joke).