The Trump Administration Can’t Give Turkey a Hall Pass on Rule of Law

Turkey wants to play “hostage diplomacy” with the United States. But the risks of transactional politics have far-reaching consequences.

BY AMANDA SLOAT-NOVEMBER 7, 2017, 8:00 AM

Amid a low point in U.S.-Turkey relations, Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildrim will visit Washington this week for a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence. Visas, terrorists, and court cases will be on the agenda. Less clear is whether rule of law will make the cut.

This long-planned meeting, which follows their first encounter last February in Munich, usefully broadens engagement beyond both countries’ brash leaders. The May visit of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to see President Donald Trump was marred by scenes of Turkish bodyguards beating up protestors. Yildrim, an ally of Erdogan for over two decades and fellow founder of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), took office in May 2016; after a referendum this spring endorsed constitutional changes, he resigned as AKP leader and Erdogan was elected as his successor. Yildrim and Pence, low-key personalities who have their bosses’ ears, should have a substantive policy discussion.

The highest-profile agenda item is the mutual suspension of visas for each other’s citizens. American action followed arrests of two Turkish employees of U.S. consulates: one in Adana accused of links to Kurdish terrorists and one in Istanbul accused of ties to Fetullah Gulen, the U.S.-based cleric accused of directing the coup attempt in July 2016. The Turkish government took reciprocal measures in response. It views this situation as a visa dispute, while Washington has characterized it as a question of “the commitment of the Government of Turkey to the security of U.S. Mission facilities and personnel.” While both governments are keen to return to a normal state of travel affairs, the United States is seeking evidence for the detentions and assurances about mission safety. (After two calls last weekend between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, the United States announced on Monday the re-opening of limited visa services. The U.S. embassy’s statement said this decision came after receiving initial assurances no additional staff are under investigation; however, it expressed continued concern about existing cases against local employees and American citizens.)

The purported justification for these arrests stems from threats to Turkish national security: namely, Gulen and the Kurds. On the former, Turkey imposed a state of emergency after the failed July 2016 putsch and began arresting suspected coup plotters and affiliated Gulenists. Ankara has called for Gulen’s extradition from the United States, though it has failed to provide sufficient evidence of his culpability to persuade a federal judge of probable cause. On the latter, the Turkish government has fought for decades against a domestic Kurdish terrorist organization (PKK). The Kurdish question has grown more complicated in recent years, with the United States providing military support in the fight against the Islamic State to a faction of Syrian Kurds (YPG) affiliated with the PKK. Turkey has some legitimate concerns on both issues that should continue to be discussed at senior levels.

However, these arrests stem from a broader problem: rule of law. Efforts to bring coup plotters to justice have morphed into an apparent witch-hunt against all political opponents. The Turkish government has aggressively pursued an ever-expanding number of people accused of engaging in ill-defined acts of terrorism. At least 150,000 people have been sacked from government and academia; more than 50,000 are jailed for alleged collusion; and over 150 journalists are behind bars. Now foreigners are getting caught in the net. In addition to these U.S. consulate employees, 12 Americans are in Turkish prisons on spurious terrorism charges. The highest profile case is Andrew Brunson, a pastor who was jailed a year ago on accusations of supporting Gulen. Pence, who shares Brunson’s Christian faith, has already engaged the Turkish government on his behalf.
Erdogan appears to be engaging in “hostage diplomacy.”

He likely sees American prisoners as useful bargaining chips, as both countries question the independence and flexibility of the other’s legal system. After Trump requested Brunson’s release in a September phone call, the Turkish president stated publicly that he had informed his American counterpart he would hand over one cleric if he got the other cleric in return. In other words, Turkey would release Brunson if the United States provided Gulen.

Arguably of even greater interest to Erdogan is Reza Zerrab, a Turkish-Iranian gold trader arrested in March 2016 on charges of violating American sanctions by using gold to purchase Iranian gas. Erdogan, who seemingly fears he or his family could be implicated in the scheme, has raised Zerrab’s case with Trump.

Addressing all of these cases requires a conversation about rule of law, as the American-related arrests did not occur in a vacuum. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has given the impression it is does not care about the quality of Turkish democracy. Concerns that President Trump neglected to raise human rights issues during his May meeting with Erdogan were compounded by the bodyguards’ violent behavior — just hours after the Turkish president’s motorcade left the White House. Although the State Department has made strong statements in recent months about the troubling arrests of human-rights activists, the silence from the White House has been deafening.

This has been exacerbated by perceptions the White House is willing to explore extra-judicial means of resolving Ankara’s problems. For example, Michael Flynn — who served as Trump’s first national security advisor — reportedly talked to Turkish officials during the campaign about transferring Gulen from the United States to Turkey, outside the legal process. Developments in the Zerrab case have also raised eyebrows. Trump fired Preet Bharara, the U.S. district attorney who indicted Zerrab. Then Zerrab hired Rudy Guiliani, an informal Trump advisor, as part of his defense team. And Zerrab’s lawyers said they were seeking a “diplomatic solution” to his case, with Guiliani holding meetings with Erdogan and senior U.S. administration officials to discuss options. (Reports that Zerrab may be seeking a plea deal suggest this effort failed.)

An increasing number of analysts in the United States and Europe are calling for a transactional relationship with Turkey.

 Recent events highlight the limits of this approach. That game is hard to play cleanly, not least because of legal constraints. Instead, there should be a broad-based dialogue that covers a range of issues, including rule of law as a core component. During his meeting with Prime Minister Yildrim, Vice President Pence must place this issue firmly on the bilateral agenda.

The Turkish government pays careful attention to messaging from Washington and has undoubtedly noted the disparity in commentary within the Trump administration. Turkish political leaders should understand their undemocratic behavior is problematic for a NATO ally, and Turkish civil society needs to know the U.S. supports their efforts to keep the country on a democratic trajectory. Unless and until the White House raises governance concerns, Turkey’s leadership will assume the United States is giving them a pass.

Hong Kong should respect human rights of democracy activists during appeal – UN experts

GENEVA (6 November 2017) – A group of UN experts has urged Hong Kong to honour its human rights commitments towards three leading democracy activists when they appeal against their criminal convictions on 7 November.

Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow were jailed in August for between six and eight months for their leadership roles during the pro-democracy Occupy Central protests in 2015. Wong and Law have since been freed on bail pending their appeal.

“We urge the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal to consider the cases of Wong, Law and Chow in accordance with Hong Kong’s obligations under international human rights law,” the experts said in a joint statement.

“We fear that if their sentences are upheld, this will have the effect of stifling the expression of dissenting opinions, the right to protest and the overall work of human rights defenders.”

They added: “The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protects people, especially those sharing dissenting opinions.”

The experts also raised concerns that the Hong Kong Secretary of Justice had previously intervened in the case, to apply for a change and review of the men’s original lighter sentences.

“We call on the Hong Kong authorities to respect the independence of judicial powers and the rule of law,” the experts said.

The UN specialists reminded the Hong Kong authorities of their obligations to protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Hong Kong is a party and is due to report in March 2018.

“The international obligations that were recognized by the Hong Kong authorities require positive actions from the local Government to ensure a safe environment for members of civil society to express their opinions, to conduct peaceful demonstrations and to participate in public affairs,” the experts highlighted.

The experts also expressed concern that the prosecutions of Wong, Law and Chow reflect a broader assault on fundamental rights in Hong Kong and a tightening of control over the region by mainland authorities.

“The case against these three activists highlights the deterioration of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in China, particularly Hong Kong,” the experts said.

More than 1,000 people were arrested during and after the Occupy Central protests, which took place in the summer and autumn of 2015. Many were released, but a large number were notified by the police that criminal investigations were continuing and they could face re-arrest and charges if there was sufficient evidence against them.

The UN experts have been in contact with the authorities and will continue to monitor closely the situation as it evolves.

ENDS

*The UN experts:  Mr David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and Mr Michel Forst, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

For inquiries and media requests, please contact: 

Ms. Azin Tadjdini (atadjdini@ohchr.org / +41 22 917 9400) or write to freedex@ohchr.org.

For media inquiries related to other UN independent experts please contact:

Bryan Wilson – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9826 / mediaconsultant2@ohchr.org) 

Concerned about the world we live in? Then STAND UP for someone’s rights today. #Standup4humanrights and visit the web page at http://www.standup4humanrights.org

Which is more fundamental: processes or things?

Neither half-full nor half-empty. Courtesy Wikipedia

Celso Vieira-06 November, 2017
Metaphysics is the attempt to understand how existence works by examining the building blocks of reality, the distinctions between mental and physical entities, and the fundamental questions of being and reality. But metaphysics is not only an arcane branch of philosophy: human beings use metaphysical assumptions to navigate the world. Assumptions about what exists and what is fundamental exert a powerful influence on our lives. Indeed, the less aware we are of our metaphysical assumptions, the more we are subject to them.

Western metaphysics tends to rely on the paradigm of substances. We often see the world as a world of things, composed of atomic molecules, natural kinds, galaxies. Objects are the paradigmatic mode of existence, the basic building blocks of the Universe. What exists exists as an object. That is to say, things are of a certain kind, they have some specific qualities and well-defined spatial and temporal limits. For instance: Fido is my dog, he is grey, and was born one year ago. (It’s worth noting that such a simple statement will give rise to a litany of metaphysical disputes within substance metaphysics: realists believe that universals, such as the natural kind ‘dogs’, exist while nominalists believe them to be only intellectual abstractions.)

Though substance metaphysics seems to undergird Western ‘common sense’, I think it is wrong. To see this, consider the cliché about the glass of water: is it half-empty or half-full? The question assumes a static arrangement of things serving as a basis for either an optimistic or a pessimistic interpretation. One can engage in interminable disputes about the correct description of the physical set-up, or about the legitimacy of the psychological evaluations. But what if the isolated frame ‘a glass of water’ fails to give the relevant information? Anyone would prefer an emptier glass that is getting full to a fuller one getting empty. Any analysis lacking information about change misses the point, which is just what substance metaphysics is missing. Process philosophers, meanwhile, think we should go beyond looking at the world as a set of static unrelated items, and instead examine the processes that make up the world. Processes, not objects, are fundamental.

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus provides the most famous image of process metaphysics. ‘It is not possible,’ he says, ‘to step twice into the same river’ – because existence depends on change; the river you step into a second time is changed from the river you stepped into originally (and you have changed in the interval, too). And while substance philosophers will tend to search for the smallest constituent objects in order to locate reality’s most fundamental building blocks, process philosophers think this is insufficient. So do modern physicists. Electrons are now understood as bundles of energy in a field, and quantum vacuum fluctuations prove that there are fields without bundles but no bundles without fields. Things seem to be reducible to processes – and not the reverse. (As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead put it, we should think about ‘occurrences’ instead of ‘things’.)

Change poses a recurring problem for substance metaphysics. Universals have traditionally been a popular way to circumvent it. These static entities are difficult to define precisely, but can be thought of as ‘hyper-things’ that are instantiated in many different particular things. A universal is the thing that particulars have in common, such as types, kinds and relations. Universals are essentially different from particulars: Aristotle, for instance, argued that particulars – such as Fido my dog – are subject to generation and corruption, while species – the universal – are eternal. This particular example provides another instance in which science seems to favour process metaphysics. Thanks to the theory of evolution, the Aristotelian view that species are unchanging and eternal was proven wrong. Species evolve. They change. Dogs, after all, evolved from wolves to constitute a whole different kind. Once again, we’re better off using the paradigm of change rather than substance.

Process metaphysics leads to a re-evaluation of other important philosophical notions. Consider identity. To explain why things change without losing their identity, substance philosophers need to posit some underlying core – an essence –that remains the same throughout change. It is not easy to pin down what this core might be, as the paradox of Theseus’ ship illustrates. A ship goes on a long voyage and requires significant repairs: new planks to replace the old, fresh oars to replace the decayed, and so on, until, by the time the ship returns to port, there is not one single piece that belonged to the ship when it departed. Is this the same ship, even though materially it is completely different? For substance philosophers, this is something of a paradox; for process philosophers, this is a necessary part of identity. Of course it is the same ship. Identity ceases to be a static equivalence of a thing with itself. After all, without the repairs, the ship would have lost its functionality. Instead, as the German philosopher Nicholas Rescher argues in Ideas in Process (2009), identity just is a programmatic development. That is, the identity of a process is the structural identity of its programme. Other things being equal, every puppy will turn out to be a dog. (This programme need not be thought of as deterministic. The interactions between processes, Rescher argues, open room for variations.)

Processes are not the mere intervals between two different states of affairs or two objects, as the paradox of the heap exemplifies: take a heap of sand and remove one grain. It remains a heap; one grain doesn’t make a difference. But if you repeat the subtraction enough times, eventually there will be just one grain. Clearly, this isn’t a heap. Where did it become a non-heap? By looking at the process, and not the end-states of affairs, you’ll realise the impossibility of pinpointing the boundary between heap and non-heap. (Similarly, no individual was the exact turning point between wolves and dogs.) At the very least, this gives us a warning about the unnoticed abstraction operating on our division of natural kinds. Process philosophers such as Henri Bergson stop at this negative conclusion, believing that processes cannot be known but only experienced. Regardless, as the Danish philosopher Johanna Seibt notes, it might just be the case that focusing on the process requires a whole new perspective.

Looking at the world as a manifold of interconnected processes has scientific and philosophical advantages, but there are more prosaic benefits too. Process philosophy invites us to look at longer stretches of time, blurred boundaries and connected relations. Identity as a programmatic – but not deterministic – process welcomes innovation through small, recurring changes. Under these metaphysical assumptions, a meaningful life is less about finding your ‘real’ self than expanding its boundaries. 

New Delhi pollution hits dangerous level, putting runners at risk

A man covers his face as he walks to work in Delhi, India, November 7, 2017. REUTERS/Saumya Khandelwal

Sanjeev Miglani-NOVEMBER 7, 2017

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Pollution in the Indian capital hit a dangerous level on Tuesday, putting residents at risk, forcing the closure of schools, and bringing calls from doctors for the city’s half marathon to be canceled.

Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said the city had once become a “gas chamber”. Schools for younger children were ordered shut on Wednesday and all outdoor activity at high schools suspended.

A thick fog that hung over the sprawling city worsened conditions. Residents complained of smarting eyes and irritation in the throat.

The air quality index, which measures the concentration of poisonous particulate matter in the air, hit the “severe” level of 451 on a scale where the maximum reading is 500 and where anything above 100 is considered unhealthy by the Central Pollution Control Board.

 

At the severe level, even healthy people will be affected while those who have existing diseases will be severely impacted, it said.

In some parts of Delhi, the air quality was so poor that it was beyond the maximum level, according to the U.S. Embassy’s real-time air quality index. It stood at 999 for RK Puram area beyond which no readings are available.

That level is equal to smoking 50 cigarettes a day, Dr. Arvind Kumar, chairman for chest surgery at Sir Ganga Ram hospital, said.

“We are in a state of medical emergency, schools should be shut, we need to bring these levels down. We are all shortening our lives.”

The Indian Medical Association urged Delhi’s biggest running race, due on Nov. 19, to be called off to protect runners and volunteers from exposure to high levels of deadly particulate matter that lodge deep in the lungs.

It said the air quality is particularly poor early in the day when the race will be run.

People cross the road in Delhi, India, November 7, 2017. REUTERS/Saumya Khandelwal

The air quality index measures concentrations of PM 2.5, PM 10, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide among other indicators.

EMERGENCY MEASURES

The air quality is likely to worsen in the next few days as a northwesterly wind is expected to bring toxic smoke from the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana where farmers burn crop stubble before the new planting season.

Delhi’s deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia said emergency measures such as banning the entry of trucks into the capital and suspension of construction activity will kick in, if the pollution level rose further.

Last November, about a million children were forced to stay home from school, thousands of workers reported sick and queues formed outside shops selling face masks as New Delhi struggled with its worst pollution for nearly 20 years.

Vehicle emissions and dust from construction sites were the factors blamed for that spike, besides firecrackers and farm burnings.

Bharti Airtel, the country’s top telecoms operator that sponsors the Delhi race, said it had been assured by the organizers that steps were being taken to reduce the impact of air pollution on the runners.

Salt mixed with water will be sprinkled on the entire track to ensure that dust pollution is minimal, it said. No vehicles will be allowed on the route.

But going forward, the administration would have to take steps to improve air quality, the company said in a statement.

“Air pollution poses serious health risks and it is important that these concerns are addressed urgently and appropriately by the authorities for Airtel to continue associating with the event next year and beyond,” it said in a statement.

Begging the world to help the Rohingya

Rohingya children in Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. Source: Zan Azlee

By Zan Azlee | 6th November 2017

THEIR ages probably range from four to seven years old and their only entertainment is to roam around the camp, which in the scorching afternoon can see temperatures rising to as high as 38 degrees celcius.

I have been seeing them every day for the past five days and I still can’t get used to it. Their eyes pierce you as they stare right into yours. They don’t have anything to do except wait for the days to go by.

The camp is the Kutupalong Rohingya Refugee camp in Ukhiya, Bangladesh, just kilometres from the border with Burma (Myanmar). The current population of the camp is around 800,000. More than 600,000 people have arrived in less than 3 months.

MERCY Malaysia‏ @MERCYMalaysia

"Eat, child, eat. We'll never know if the next meal comes." #rohingyarelieffund

7:41 pm - 29 Oct 2017 From Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur

I’ve been volunteering with Mercy Malaysia, a medical NGO, for a long time and my last mission with them was in 2006 after the earthquake in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. They are currently in the camp with volunteer doctors giving medical aid to the Rohingya.

Many are familiar with the Rohingya crisis. They are the world’s most unwanted people and globally, there are about 2 million of them. Originating from Rakhine in Myanmar, they are not recognised as citizens by the government and they have been violently persecuted for decades.

SEE ALSO: Rights experts ‘deeply disturbed’ after Burma fact-finding mission

Over the years, exodus has seen Rohingya refugees land in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Nepal and even Canada and the United States. But of course, the largest group remains in Bangladesh and Kutupalong is the biggest refugee camp in the world.

I am not a doctor but a mere journalist. So when Mercy asks me to go along on one of their missions, the only thing that I can offer is to document the stories and get it out to the world so that people are aware and realise that something needs to be done to help.

That is as much as I can do and even though I do it to the best of my abilities, there is a little bit of distress in me. My mission lasts for two weeks, and right after that, I return to my home to my two daughters and continue with normal life.

Mohammed Taher, 50, a Rohingya refugee man cries next to his son Mohammed Shoaib, 7, who was shot on his chest before crossing the border from Myanmar in August, as they sit outside a medical centre at Kutupalong refugee camp near Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, on Nov 5, 2017. Source: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

I have a comfortable house with air-conditioning, fast Internet, all the food my family needs. Each of my kids have a room of their own and a playroom filled with toys. I have a study filled with my gadgets, cameras and books.

Life is good and I have managed to make a decent living and provide for my family. I was able to gain an education and to pursue the career of my choice. I have enough every year to give myself and my family little luxuries that we enjoy.

SEE ALSO: No simple solution to the Rohingya crisis

Now back to the children who stare at me at the Kutupalong camp in Ukhiya. After my two-week stay, I leave, but they will still be there. They will still have nothing more to do everyday except wait for the day to end by roaming around the camp.

The camp has been there for decades and there is now a full adult generation that was born and raised there. They aren’t allowed to leave the camp, let alone work. They rely on hand-outs and nothing more.

The camp’s facilities are rudimentary. There is no electricity aside from solar powered lamp posts that come on at night. They get their water from wells and it is not treated. There is no sewerage or waste management system.

Shelters of Rohingya refugees are seen at Kutupalang refugee camp near Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, on Nov 5, 2017. Source: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

SEE ALSO: Mediterranean refugee agency arrives to assist Rohingya in Bangladesh

Housing is extremely basic. Those who have been living there for many years have built houses out of clay and mud. Newer arrivals live under bamboo structures and tarpaulin sheets. They roast in the daytime heat and shiver in the nighttime chill.

There are 800,000 of them all cramped in an area that is only 2,000 acres (809.37ha). Malnutrition and diseases like cholera and conjunctivitis are rampant. These are not conditions that a human being should be living in.

The world needs to do more. We can’t continue our lives like nothing is going on. I urge everyone in this world to pay attention – the Rohingya are counting on us.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Why Glitter Must Be Banned

 By Daniel Ross -November 3, 2017, 11:30 PM GMT

All that glitters ain’t gold, or so the old adage goes. And when it comes to the glitter used in everyday cosmetics, specialty make-up, hair products and party paraphernalia, the negative effects on human health and the environment are indeed far from golden.

“They really do get into everything, and despite their tiny size, they can have a devastating impact on humans and non-human animals,” wrote Trisia Farrelly, a social anthropologist at Massey University in New Zealand and an expert in waste plastics [3], in an email to AlterNet.

Glitter is one member of a large family of microplastics—tiny little bits of plastic less than five millimeters in size. Think microbeads, microfibers and fingernail-sized fragments of much larger plastic wastes that have broken down over time. When washed or flushed away, microplastics make their way into our oceans and great lakes, slowly accumulating over time, creating all sorts of health and environmental hazards, the full breadth of which is still being grasped.

For one, there’s the issue of how microplastics like cosmetic glitter—made by bonding aluminum with polyethylene terephthalate (PET)—impact sensitive ecosystems. That’s because PETs leach out endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which, when eaten by marine life, can cause adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects, said Farrelly. In this recent study [4], microplastics are shown to significantly impact the reproduction rates of oysters.

Then there’s the domino-like effect of microplastics through the food-chain [5], for the sheer volume of microplastics consumed by seafood-loving humans is staggering. This study [6] from the University of Ghent found that Europeans who eat shellfish can consume as much as 11,000 microplastics per year. But what are some of the long-term implications from glitter passing through the food-chain? 

PETs attract and absorb persistent organic pollutants and pathogens, adding an extra layer of contamination. When those at the bottom of the ladder—like molluscs, sea snails, marine worms, and plankton—eat pathogen or pollutant-carrying particles of glitter, these minuscule poison pills can concentrate in toxicity as they move up the food chain, all the way to our dinner plates, said Farrelly.

“When we eat Kai moana [Maori term for seafood], we are taking on these toxins,” she wrote. “When they enter the gut, the toxins and pathogens are very easily taken up.” 

A growing body of research is shining a light on the resulting effects of these toxins and pathogens on humans. Studies [7] connect endocrine disrupting chemicals with marine and freshwater fish population collapses, as well as declines in sex ratios [8] in human populations that live adjacent to plastic factories. 

All of which is prompting many marine experts and environmentalists to advocate for the same ban on glitter as there has been on microbeads—the tiny little balls of plastic used in things like exfoliating beauty products.

“At the rate we are going, there could be one pound of plastic for every three pounds of finfish in the ocean in the next ten years,” wrote Nick Mallos, director of Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Program, in an email. “And unless action is taken, the problem is only going to get bigger.” 

At the end of 2015 after a sustained campaign at the state level [9], the Obama administration signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act [10], banning plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products. Other countries have subsequently followed suit. The U.K. [11] and New Zealand [12] announced their own prohibitions on microbeads earlier this year.

Importantly, these bans aren’t necessarily a reflection of the singular impact from microbeads. Rather, they’re a nod to a much wider understanding of the pervasiveness in the environment of microplastics in general, for the amount of microplastics entering the ocean alone is staggering. According to estimates made in 2014 [13], there are between 15 and 51 trillion microplastic particles, weighing between 93 and 236 thousand metric tons, sitting in the world’s seas.

What’s more, their impacts are myriad.

A number [14] of studies [14] have shown that tiny plastic particles have been detected in sea salts sold commercially. In an interview with the Guardian [15], Sherri Mason, a professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia who led one of these studies, described plastics as being “ubiquitous in the air, water, the seafood we eat, the beer we drink, the salt we use—plastics are just everywhere.” Microfibers have even been found in honey [16]. 

Microplastic had also made their way into 83 percent of tap water samples from more than a dozen countries around the world including India, Lebanon, France and Germany, according to an investigation by Orb Media [17]. The U.S. languished at the bottom of the pile, with plastic fibers appearing in 94 percent of samples.

But microplastics comprise only a fraction of the global plastic pollution problem. The world’s oceans are pockmarked, for example, with massive clusters of marine debris and plastics—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch [18] found in the North Pacific Ocean proving to be the largest such gyre. 

According to the U.N. [19], more than 8 million tons of plastic makes its way into the ocean each year—equal to a garbage truck of plastic dumped every minute.

Data shows that rapidly developing economies, where population growth and consumption are outpacing waste collection and recycling capacity, are responsible for the largest amounts of plastic wastes entering the oceans, said Nick Mallos. And he warned that, without intervention, growing economies would likely exacerbate these “unintended consequences of development spread.” Still, he remains optimistic.

“By raising awareness of the issue of ocean plastic,” Mallos wrote, “we can curb the flow through reduced consumption, improved waste management and innovative product and material solutions.”

Daniel Ross is a Los Angeles-based journalist whose work has appeared in AlterNet, The Guardian, FairWarning, Newsweek, and a number of other publications.

Non-constitutional requirements forsuccessful implementation of federalism

*Will Sri Lanka Follow The Example Of Nepal?

S*The Long Term olution To Sri Lanka’s Ethnic Problem

November 6, 2017, 8:49 pm 

By Prof. Shantha K. Hennayake
Department of Geography
University of Peradeniya

This indeed is the paradox of multinational federalism: while it provides national minorities with a workable alternative of secession, it also helps to make secession a more realistic alternative to federalism".

Second, federalism has not led to the disappearance of ethnonationalism in any state; ethnonationalism is only contained and may be passing a dormant state only to erupt at a later date as in the case of Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. Third, without a qualitative change in political culture federalism cannot resolve ethnonationalist problems. Thus, an imposed federalism without the necessary political culture is bound to fail.

Non-constitutional requirements forsuccessful implementation of federalism.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Beyond Box-Ticking: Unpacking Pablo de Greiff’s Statement on Sri Lanka

Featured image courtesy Dinuka Liyanawatta/Reuters

RAISA WICKREMATUNGE-on 11/06/2017

November 6 marks the deadline for candidate applications for the Office of Missing Persons (OMP). The signing of the Office of Missing Persons gazette drew praise from the UN, with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres terming it a ‘significant milestone’. Yet, locally, concerns were raised on the process of the OMP’s operationalisation. This highlighted the need for Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process to move beyond the mere promise or achievement of milestones, and for critical, informed discourse around these processes.

Echoing these sentiments, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein on September 11 urged Sri Lanka not to view its obligations under the Resolution as a mere ‘box-ticking exercise’ in his opening statement to the UN Human Rights Council.

It was in the aftermath of this that the UN Special Rapporteur for the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, visited Sri Lanka in October 2017. He issued a statement at the conclusion of his visit, which included travel to the North of the country, saying that Sri Lanka ‘continued to deprive itself of the full benefits of transitional justice.’

This statement was duly given coverage on mainstream and social media. However, most of the reporting focused solely on de Greiff’s comments, not on their implications.

At first glance, it might appear that there were no major gaps – de Greiff flagged the slow progress on transitional justice overall, and called for the State to make use of the Consultation Task Force for Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF) report, before addressing questions of truth, justice, reparations and non-recurrence in turn.

However, to Attorney-At-Law and Co-Founder of the South Asian Centre for Legal Studies, Niran Anketell, the statement has some chilling implications. These become particularly apparent when comparing his recommendations for the Truth Commission to those on accountability.

De Greiff said the Truth Commission needed to have a broad temporal scope and called for legislation to be implemented ‘promptly’ with adequate victim representation. However, there was a “bizarre” lack of tangible process put forward in the section for Justice, Anketell said, apart from recommendations to seek out cooperation agreements in the Global South, and the need for progress in ‘emblematic cases’ (such as the “Trinco 5” killings in 2006 and the murder of 17 aid workers from Action Contre le Faim in Muttur).

“Even when it comes to the nationality of judges, he has commented on politicisation but not outlined on what the solution should be. There is not a word about features such as the Special Court, international participation and the need for a Special Prosecutor. These were the most heavily negotiated, and the most controversial part of the UN Human Rights Council resolution,” Anketell said.

This was particularly jarring given that de Greiff had called for the State to use the content from the CTF report, which had recommended the set-up of a special judicial mechanism “forthwith.”
“Accountability has long been on the negotiating table, and transitional justice grew around it. Now accountability has been put on the back-burner. This is something activists have risked their lives for.”

Having said that, de Greiff did flag the need to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act with legislation adhering to international best practices, continued militarisation, surveillance and land issues, Anketell said.

Meanwhile, the North East Coordinating Committee (NECC) said that de Greiff had addressed all the major issues that fell within his mandate, including several important areas. They further added that they would comment more fully following his full report, due in 2018. However, the NECC also flagged the sensationalism prevalent in the media in Tamil, with many allowing their personal political views to colour their interpretation of de Greiff’s statements.

Although this was only a statement leading up to a fuller report, Senior Researcher, Centre for Policy Alternatives Bhavani Fonseka said she felt there were missed opportunities. “De Greiff alludes to challenges, but his statement doesn’t capture ground realities – even though he met victims and affected communities during his two-week visit. How will this strategy make a difference to victims – some of who may be under surveillance?” she asked. In addition, de Greiff appeared to have deliberately skirted around contentious issues such as accountability. He also failed to flag the fundamental flaw in the process to establish the OMP, which could lead problems of its legality later on.

“Sections of civil society continue to keep the pressure on the Government for commitments made in 2015. It’s critical independent experts do the same. In the past, representatives such as the Special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and Human Rights Ben Emmerson and Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez had issued hard-hitting statements, which in turn put pressure on the State to comply with its own commitments. In this respect, de Greiff’s statement fell short, Fonseka said.
Human rights activist Ruki Fernando raised concerns around concrete action in the wake of visits such as de Greiff’s.

“Pablo de Greiff is the 6th UN expert to visit Sri Lanka in the last 2 years, with the 7^th group of UN experts (from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention) due in December. This is de Greiff’s 5^th visit to the country since 2015. Many other UN officials have also visited including, the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This list of visitors looks impressive, but the implementation of their recommendations is far from impressive and actually negligible. It is the latter, and not the former, that should be used as measure to determine the government’s commitment to international human rights framework,” he said.

In the middle of de Greiff’s visit, the government had officially highlighted that they were not bound by the recommendations of UN experts. Yet the more pertinent point was that a popular and democratic government should not be waiting for such recommendations to honour commitments made to ensure the rights, dignity and well-being of people in the country, Fernando said.

“It’s the lack of progress on the part of the government that has led to a series of protests highlighting, among other issues, the plight of families of the disappeared, political prisoners, militarisation and land occupation.”

De Greiff’s latest visit took place amidst these protests, some of which have been ongoing for more than 8 months, and a few of which he personally visited. He probably drove past some others, including that of the three political prisoners who were on hunger strike in Anuradhapura. His public lecture in Jaffna was delivered on a day of “hartal” across the Northern Province. But his comments didn’t appear to reflect the desperation, frustration and anger of the people he had met, Fernando said.

Another shortcoming was that de Greiff touched on the need for institutional and legal reform, without noting that there were continued recurrence of rights abuses such as the acquisition of land by the military, restrictions on memorialisation, surveillance, abduction, torture, arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and continued intimidation, threats and attacks on human rights defenders, even if the regularity and intensity of these offences were less frequent than before.

“He highlighted that transitional justice is about the rights of all communities, and that further delays to already delayed processes will have serious costs. However, even after having met communities protesting day and night against military occupation of land for 8 months, it is strange that he had illustrated the cost of delaying land releases in terms of disincentive for foreign investors, rather than highlighting it as a major obstacle to livelihood and access to natural resources for the affected communities, as well as a deprivation of their socio–cultural rights.” Overall, de Greiff’s assessment appeared to lack post-war economic, gender and social justice perspectives, Fernando said.

National Legal Advisor to the International Commission of Jurists Thyagi Ruwanpathirana felt de Greiff had been relatively substantive with his comments, particularly in comparison to his previous statements. “The Special Rapporteur strongly critiqued the pace of progress on the transitional justice process. He said that it was ‘nowhere close to where it should be, more than two years later,’ and went on to tackle the Government rhetoric allowing for constitutional reform to take precedence over transitional justice,” Ruwanpathirana said.

Other positives included de Greiff’s highlighting the CTF report and its potential as a resource. He had also acknowledged Sri Lanka’s particular history of violence and the complex issues that arise out of conflict in general, such as intra-community victimhood. De Greiff took pains to highlight groups often side-lined in discussions around Sri Lanka’s transitional justice process – the victims of terrorist attacks, the family members of the 600 policemen murdered in 1990, and the Muslim communities who were forced out of Jaffna that same year. He also highlighted the polarised and uninformed nature of the debate around transitional justice, and noted that the process had become vulnerable to partisan politics. More specifically, de Greiff raised concerns on a statement widely known to be made by President Sirisena likening the transitional justice process to a ‘witch hunt’. He also called for the Human Rights Commission to be given a stronger role in the transitional justice process, including participation in the drafting of legislation – important given that they often critiqued government policy more stringently than civil society.

However, there were areas of concern too.

Ruwanpathirana said that though de Greiff had flagged the lack of progress on emblematic human rights cases, the implication was that this was predominantly due to challenges in terms of capacity and the administration of justice, rather than tackling a wider issue of impunity.

“There was only little mention of the need to enact domestic legislation incorporating the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearancesurgently.

I felt this could have been a major point to raise, given recent discussions around it and the parliamentary debate on the Bill now being postponed twice. It would have been useful to have the legislation as part of domestic law before the OMP is set up, and he could have stressed on this more,” she added.

“The government makes piecemeal progress each time it is in the international spotlight, and this time it appears that publicly calling for applications for OMP membership is their progress point. That despite numerous calls to adopt a timeline to implement the transitional justice mechanisms, there is still no action on this, raises questions around whether the government is serious about transitional justice at all.”

Sobering thoughts on November 6 – with the State reaction appearing to amount to, once again, tokenistic ‘box ticking’. With the next written update on the transitional justice process only due in March 2018, and a comprehensive report due in March 2019, there does not appear to be any sustained pressure to keep the transitional justice process moving forward. This will only add to the frustration and despair of conflict-affected communities.

Editor’s Note: Also read “The Gloves Are Off: Reactions to Ben Emmerson’s Statement on Torture, Counterterrorism” and “Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy Trends since 2015: Some Critical Thoughts“.