Myanmar Disaster Relief

I think everyone is aware of the disaster in Myanmar and the difficulty in getting aid to the people who need it most. As I indicated in my last post, things like food and medical assistance are human rights and governments need to do what they can to assist, rather than hinder, people's abilities to obtain these basic necessities. Unfortunately, Myanmar's government has intentionally made it difficult for relief workers to reach the millions of people who need help.

Amnesty has launched a campaign to encourage ASEAN (Association of South Eastern Asian Nations) to put pressure on the Myanmar government to allow humanitarian aid into their country. Doctors without Borders has called for an "unobstructed escalation of Myanmar relief operations." I'd also like to take an opportunity to point out that you can make donations to Myanmar relief through UMCOR, the United Methodist Committee on Relief. What makes them different is that 100% of your gift goes to relief because the United Methodist Churches around the country pay for its operating costs. They coordinate with all the major relief organizations, so your money can be put to the best use and is not put toward religious efforts. Their Myanmar Emergency page has a link for donations (disclosure: I am a member of a United Methodist Church but am otherwise not affiliated with the organization).

Soaring Food Prices Threaten Human Rights

In her address to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Louise Arbor argued that the rice in various food commodities is a threat to basic human rights. She listed three main factors that have led to this threat:

The current food crisis stems from a perverse convergence of several factors, including distortions in supply and demand, unfair trade practices, as well as skewed policies involving incentives or subsidies.

The distortions in supply and demand and the other issues result from several factors, but mostly because hunger is an international problem that is treated like a national problem. There are countries with enormous food surpluses, but those surpluses don't make it to the market for a variety of reasons: reserves for their own citizens, desires to keep prices high, subsidies and other policies, etc. Whatever the reason, though, the result is that countries without adequate food don't have the means to procure it for their citizens. As Arbor says, "This crisis boils down to a lack of access to adequate food. Such access is a right protected by international law."

Arbor goes on to point out that the food crisis could lead to further human rights abuses:

A failure to act in a comprehensive manner may also trigger a domino effect by putting at risk other fundamental rights, including the right to health or to education, when people are forced to forego competing basic necessities or services in order to feed themselves and their families.

Hunger is a core issue for many human rights problems, and the U.N. needs to lead the way in finding a solution. Arbor argues for an increased focus on sustainability for families and local communities. Whether that is a long-term solution or not I leave to better-informed experts. It is clear, though, that we must solve the issue of hunger if we have any hope of tackling other human rights abuses.

LRA Expands Abductions in Central Africa

If you don't know much about the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda and its leader Joseph Kony, now is the time to learn. Human Rights Watch reported yesterday that the LRA has abducted at least 100 children, and probably many more, and in the Central African Republic , the Democratic Republic of the Congo , and in the Southern part of Sudan. The boys they kidnap are either made to be porters or trained in the army. The girls are forced into sexual slavery. HRW is calling for international action to stop the abductions and to enforce the arrest warrants against Joseph Kony that have been issued by the International Criminal Court.

Kony has led a 21-year uprising against the Ugandan government. This war has taken many thousands of lives and has displaced over 2 million people. According to HRW, "The LRA has been responsible for willful killings, beatings, large-scale abductions, forced recruitment of adults and children, rape against girls whom it assigns as 'wives' or sex slaves to commanders, and large-scale looting and destruction of civilian property." It is time that western governments--led by the European Union and the United States--take action against this dangerous group and bring its leaders to justice.

Blog for Human Rights Day

Today is "Blog for Human Rights" day, as you can see from the image on the left. As such, I'd like to call your attention to a little-known illegal detention that has gone on for almost a year in India. Dr. Binayak Sen is a health activist and human rights advocate in Chhattisgarh province in India. He was detained almost a year ago, on May 24, 2007. The charges against him have been investigated and shown to be false, and yet he is still unlawfully held. We like to think of India as a country with a solid human rights record, but cases like this show that things are not quite so rosy as we'd like them to be.

4th Circuit to consider Virginia's use of lethal injection

Virginia and its death-row inmates are back in the news today. Christopher Scott Emmett and his attorneys will argue in front of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that Virginia's use of lethal injection poses a "substantial risk" of harm and is thus banned under the constitution. This is the first challenge to lethal injection since the Baze v. Rees decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled lethal injection was not cruel and unusual punishment when administered under certain guidelines. Emmett's attorneys think Virginia's methods differ enough from what the Supreme Court allowed that they challenged this ruling.

Emmett and his attorneys are also arguing that the Virginia officials who administer the injections “have performed incompetently,” and they further argue that Virginia administers too little of the first drug and thus inmates may not be truly unconscious. They further propose that a single-drug alternative be considered for executions. They are asking that the Circuit Court send these issues back to a lower court to rule on them.

It seems unlikely that the 4th Circuit will have much sympathy with these arguments, and as long as the Supreme Court says that lethal injection is not cruel or unusual, these executions will continue.

Update

The State Attorney General's office is indicating that they would be open to considering the single-drug, single-injection method indicated above.

Supreme Court Stays Execution in Virginia

Today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to stay the execution of Edward Nathaniel Bell while they review the claim that his lawyers did a poor job of representing him during the sentencing stage of his trial. In Virginia, there are two stages to a trial. The first determines guilt or innocence and the second determines the sentence in a guilty verdict is returned. During the second phase, prosecutors can introduce evidence that would tend toward a stiffer sentence--in this case, death--while the defense can introduce mitigating evidence.

Lawyers for Bell did not submit any evidence on his behalf, even though they had a psychologist review him. His new lawyers are claiming that this failure to offer mitigating evidence about his childhood and environment was prejudicial to the jury determining his sentence. As one jury member said, "[The jury was] looking for something mitigating, some reason not to sentence him to death, but . . . [we] were given nothing by his lawyers." The supreme court is reviewing whether or not the 4th Circuit Court was correct in rejecting this claim (Bell's petition to the Supreme Court is here).

Virginia has executed 98 people since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976. They have executed more people than every other state except Texas. We should urge Governor Tim Kaine to commute Bell's sentence to life in prison since there is every reason to believe that the jury would have done so had the evidence been presented.

Arrests not enough for China

While the Olympic torch works its way up Mount Everest, the Nepalese government arrested 500 people who were protesting China's human rights record, particularly as it pertains to Tibet. Most of the protesters were not held on charges but were released a few hours later. Apparently, this was not enough for China. The Chinese Ambassador publicly informed the government of Nepal that they should be more "severe" on protesters against China: "It is not enough to close down the Dalai Lama’s liaison office in Kathmandu but the government should adopt severe measure [sic] against those handful of Tibetans carrying out anti-China activities." In other words, detaining peaceful protesters doesn't please the Chinese government; only further and more desperate human rights violations will placate them.

This is an outrageous demand by the Chinese government, made all the more egregious by the public and unapologetic way in which it was delivered. China could hardly have been more clear: Arrest them and keep them behind bars; beat them or use anti-riot means to break up the peaceful protesters; do anything necessary to prevent anti-China protests; squelch their rights at all costs.

Amnesty International has long detailed human rights abuses in Nepal,and China (note China's abuses in Tibet in particular). Check their pages for more information.