Burkina Faso Military Uses Gunfire to Clear Protesters from Streets after Takeover

By Kathryn Maureen Ryan
Impunity Watch, managing Editor

OUAGADOUGOU, Burkina Faso – The Burkina Faso army cleared thousands of protesters from the streets of Ouagadougou on Sunday and reportedly opened fire at the headquarters of State television, where protesters had overrun the television station, killing at least one person. The use of military force is reportedly an effort by the military to restore order after the resignation of President Blaise Compaoré two days ago in what some are calling a military coup d’état.

A soldier stands guard outside the national television headquarters in Ouagadougou. the station went off air for hours as protesters stormed the building.(photo courtesy of The Guardian)

President Blaise Compaoré came to power shortly after the murder of President Thomas Sankara, one of Africa’s youngest leaders, in October 1987. Thomas Sankara was sometimes called Africa’s Che Guevara, Sankara was killed along with 12 other officials my members of the armed forces during a coup led by his top associate, Blaise Compaoré. Blaise Compaoré has held fast to power in Burkina Faso for 27 years, a period many say has been marked by fear and reparation, until protests took to the streets to demand an end to his rule last week.

Compaoré’s long rule ended abruptly last Friday after two days of mass protests held in response to his reported bid to change the constitution to extend his rule. The army then selected Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Zida as transitional leader, overriding an earlier claim by the army chief of staff. After seizing power on Saturday, Zida “I call on the international community, in particular countries that are friends and allies of Burkina Faso, notably in the African Union and ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), to demonstrate their understanding and support our people in this difficult time.”

During an emergency meeting with diplomats in the Burkina Faso capital Ouagadougou earlier on Monday Lieutenant Colonel Isaac Zida vowed that the military would yield power to a transition government. However, the interim leader failed to provide a timeframe for a handover of power.

The African Union has called on Burkina Faso’s military leadership to return power to civilians in the country. The African Union has issued an ultimatum, giving the military two weeks to return the state to civilian rule or face sanctions if they fail to comply.”We ask the armed forces to transfer power to the civil authorities, and the council has determined a period of two weeks for the transfer,” Simeon Oyono Esono, head of the African Union’s Peace and Security Council, said on Monday following a meeting in Ethiopia.”The African Union is convinced that the change has been against democracy. However, we know that popular pressure led to the resignation of the president. Those circumstances were taken by the armed forces to get into power, but it originated from the people,” Esono said.

The United Nations has also expressed concern over the apparent military takeover in Burkina Faso. Mohamed Ibn Chambas, the United Nations envoy for West Africa, issued a warning that if the military refuses to transfer power “the consequences are pretty clear.”

For more information please see:

Al Jazeera – African Union issues Burkina Faso ultimatum – 3 November 2014
The Guardian – Burkina Faso army uses gunfire to clear thousands from streets of capital – 2 November 2014
Al Jazeera – Burkina Faso: Uprising or military coup? – 1 November 2014
Al Jazeera America – Spirit of ‘Africa’s Che Guevara’ found in Burkina Faso uprising – 31 October 2014

 

Apartheid in Israel? New public transportation ban on Palestinian travelers

By Ashley Repp

News Desk Reporter- Middle East

Bethlehem, Israel/Palestine-

Israel transportation authority announced that beginning this month, Palestinians with work permits will be banned from using the public transportation that settlers use from the West Bank to Israel proper. This announcement received mixed reviews, with many claiming that this move to segregated buses is racist and demonstrative of apartheid.

Segregated busses
Palestinians wait in line for buses at a security check point in the West Bank (photo courtesy of RT)

Israeli authorities reported that the new bus scheme was implemented in order to allay the fears of Israeli settlers, many of whom reported that they do not want to share buses with Palestinians for security reasons.  Many rights groups argue that the bus ban is simply an excuse to segregate non-Jews from Jews, and that Israel has been moving in the direction of segregated buses since March 2013, when it introduced a Palestinianonly bus for those traveling on work permits.

Although Israeli authorities initially asserted that they cannot, and would not, prohibit Palestinians with Israeli work permits from riding public buses with Israelis, they did submit that Palestinians would be strongly encouraged to ride the buses designated for their use. Israeli rights groups pushed back against this, and pointed to reports logged by an Israeli group that records checkpoint incidents. In one, soldiers ordered Palestinians off of a bus and told them to walk 2.5 kilometers to the nest checkpoint. When and older man spoke up, a soldier told him that he should take a “private van,” and that the Palestinians are not allowed on that highway and on public transportation.

Many are concerned that the segregated buses will be an opportunity to further reduce contact between Palestinians and Israelis, and is a step towards apartheid. Israel had long avoided serious accusations of apartheid because of the lack of “petty” apartheid, which would include separate cafes, streets, highways, and buses. Those within Israel (not those in the occupied territories), are technically, under Israeli law, allowed to use any and all facilities. Though there are many reports of Arab-Israelis being excluded from particular places, under the letter of the law, such actions are discriminatory. Those in the occupied territories face much heavier restrictions. The establishment of a Palestinian ban on buses in response to security concerns of settlers, is concerning, and suggests that the claim of security concerns, is being used as a catch-all reason to discriminate.

Pursuant to the apartheid argument, in March 2013, Zahava Gal-On, leader of the Meretz party, demanded that the segregated bus line be discontinued immediately, contending that the bus did nothing but demonstrate the incompatibility of democracy and occupation. Now, Israeli Justice Minister, Tzipi Livni, is calling the segregated buses racist and representative of apartheid, and she simply will not stand for it. With tensions already running high in Israel and the occupied territories, the new ban could easily exacerbate the situation.

 

For more information, please visit:

International Business Times- Palestinians banned from Israeli public transport system in the West Bank– 26 Oct., 2014

RT- ‘This is apartheid!’ Israeli minister blasts bus segregation for Palestinians– 1 Nov., 2014

Voice of America- In Israel, Palestinian bus ban slammed as racist– 30 Oct., 2014

Al Jazeera- Israel launches segregated bus service– 4 Mar., 2013

Blackwater Employees Convicted of 2007 Nisour Square Massacre

By Lyndsey Kelly
Impunity Watch, North America

 WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America – On September 16, 2007, three dozen unarmed civilians were gunned down on the streets of Baghdad by Blackwater Worldwide Security firm, a now notorious private contractor, hired to guard U.S. diplomats. The event now known as the Nisour Square massacre became one of the most controversial moments in a very controversial war. The company was subsequently ejected from Iraq and had to pay compensation to the 17 victim’s families who were killed and 20 who were wounded by machine guns and grenades.

An Iraqui police officer investigates the aftermath of a car bomb in Nisour Square in 2007 (Photo courtesy of the Guardian).

While America’s record for prosecuting war crimes is nominal, on Wednesday, 22 October, four Blackwater employees were successfully convicted of 32 counts of manslaughter, murder, attempted manslaughter and weapons charges. A jury consisting of four men and eight women deliberated for 28 days before convicting Nicholas A. Slatten, Paul a. Slough, Evan S. Liberty and Dustin L. Heard. Three of the men face a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years imprisonment, whereas Slatten faces a mandatory life sentence. Reports indicate that the defendants displayed little emotion while sitting in court to hear the verdicts.

The founder and former CEO of Blackwater, Erik Prince, stated that the convictions of his former employees for their role in the 2007 shootings was unexpected, and raised questions as to whether they received a fair trial. Prince states, “Well, there was certainly a lot of politics surrounding this and the fact that the federal government spent tens of millions of dollars on this, now trying it seven years after the event, and 7,000 miles from where it happened.” Defense attorneys stated that they plan to appeal the convictions, maintaining that their clients acted reasonably at a time when they were providing necessary security for U.S. diplomats and Baghdad was plagued by acts of terrorism. The prosecutions strategy prevailed over the defendant’s claims of self-defense, stating that the men showed “a grave indifference” to the carnage of their actions.

It is doubtful that the United States can rehabilitate its reputation for overseas accountability, especially when allegations of CIA torture have surfaced. However, the convictions of the Blackwater employees were a step in the right direction, appropriately addressing what some are calling the worst atrocities of the war and comparing it to the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

 

For more information, please see the following:

 CNN – 4 Ex-Blackwater Guards Guilty in Nusoor Square Shooting – 23 Oct. 2014.

HUFFINGTON POST – Jury Issues Guilty Verdicts For Blackwater Guards – 22 Oct. 2014.

THE GUARDIAN – Blackwater Verdicts Seen as Watershed For Accountability in War Zones – 22 Oct. 2014

THE WASHINGTON POST – Erik Prince on Blackwater Verdicts: ‘A lot of Politics Surrounding This’- 23 Oct. 2014.

Christian Pakistani Woman Sentenced to Death Appeals the Case to the Highest Court

By Hojin Choi

Impunity Watch Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman, is taking her blasphemy case to the highest court of Pakistan. She was sentenced to death in 2010 for allegedly making derogatory expressions about the name of the Prophet Mohammed while having an argument with her Muslim co-workers. An intermediate level court rejected her appeal and upheld the decision.

Bibi is a mother of five and a resident of Punjab province in Pakistan. In 2009, she had an argument with her fellow workers. According to her, the workers refused to drink water in a bucket because she was not Muslim and because she had touched the bucket of water. She was arrested and accused under the blasphemy law which can impose death or life imprisonment according to Pakistan’s penal code. She had been jailed more than a year and sentenced to hang. In 2010, the Lahore High Court upheld the decision.

Bibi’s attorney, Naeem Shakir, told CNN that “there is no concrete evidence against Asia Bibi, and the courts are only relying on the statement of those two women, [the fellow workers.]” The attorney expected the Supreme Court’s relief for Bibi.

Daughters of Asia Bibi standing in front of their house with a photo of the mother (Reuters)

The blasphemy law has been the center of a huge controversy domestically and internationally in the wake of Bibi’s case. In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI officially requested Bibi’s release. A group of human rights activists filed a petition to the U.N. Human Rights Council for her. Human Rights Watch pointed out that the law largely targets religious minorities in Pakistan and it is often manipulated to interfere with personal disputes. In fact, Bibi has been insisting that her fellow workers falsely incriminated her based on lies because they simply did not like her.

Amnesty International described her case as “a grave injustice.” The spokesperson said that she “should never have been convicted in the first place.” Amnesty International’s Deputy Asia Pacific Director, David Griffiths, added “those who speak out against the laws face terrible reprisals. However, the blasphemy laws violate international law and must be repealed or reformed immediately . . .”

There have been additional victims related to Bibi’s case. Shabaz Bhatti, who was Pakistan’s Minister of Minority Affairs, had investigated Bibi’s case and concluded that her charges were based on personal and religious enmity followed by a recommendation to release her. Bhatti also held a position against the blasphemy law. In 2011, she was assassinated by the Taliban as “a message to all of those who are against Pakistan’s blasphemy law.” Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab province where Bibi is from, was killed by gun-shots from one of his own security guards. Accordingly, Taseer had opposed the blasphemy law and supported Bibi’s release.

Shakir, Bibi’s attorney, also expressed concerns about his own safety. During her trial, there were dozens of people who were against Bibi, and he did “feel threatened” even in the court.

Protesters demanding release of Asia Bibi (Reuters)

Spokesperson of Pakistan’s Presidential Office, Farahnaz Ispahani, delivered an opinion that Pakistan remains committed to protecting religious minorities. “Pakistan is a nation of many faiths and religions, and all Pakistanis, no matter what their religion, are equal under the law,” he said. He added that the president will issue a pardon “if necessary” after carefully examining the Bibi’s case. However, two prominent Muslim leaders of Pakistan threatened to call nationwide protests if the president pardons Bibi, “if the president pardons [her], we will raise our voices across the country until he is forced to take his decision back.”

For more information please see:

CNN – Pakistan president urged not to pardon Christian woman – 24 November 2010

CNN – Condemned Christian woman to take blasphemy case to top Pakistani court – 20 October 2014

Amnesty International – Pakistan: Upholding blasphemy death sentence against Christian woman ‘a grave injustice’ – 16 October 2014

Newsweek – Christian Pakistani Women Sentenced to Death Will Take Case to Highest Court – 23 October 2014

Philippines: The Last Country without Legal Divorce

By Hojin Choi

Impunity Watch Reporter

MANILA, Philippines – If people have a legal right to be together, they should be allowed to be legally separated. However, there is one country left in the world that has not yet granted a lawful right of divorce. In Philippines, legalization of divorce is still a controversial issue, and a recently filed bill ignited the nation’s dispute once more.

Divorce is not a new concept in Philippines, but the procedure for obtaining one is too restrictive for average individuals to proceed with. Filipino Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan is the representative of the Gabriella Women’s Party and a co-author of the divorce bill. The proposed bill “would be the empowerment of women, particularly the poor,” she said. The purpose of the bill is to promote efficiency within the divorce process by making it quicker and cheaper. It is expected to reduce 30-40% of the current costs of legal separation or annulment.

Congresswoman Luzviminda Ilagan, the co-author of the divorce bill, says the bill will improve rights of low-income women in Philippines (AKP Images)

In Philippines, 28% of its total population is classified as “extremely poor.” These people live off less than $1.25 a day. About 40% of the population survives on a meager $2 each day. Therefore, as people need at least $4,000 to end their marriage legally, most people of low-income have no means to get divorced.

Paolo Yap, a graphic designer in Manila, told the Washington Post that he needed $6,700 to hire a lawyer for counseling in his divorce issues, and he eventually dismissed the lawyer because there would be additional costs, at least twice as much. “You know, it’s only about [$2,000 – $3,000] to hire a hit man to kill your spouse” in Philippines, he added as a joke.

Another barrier to the divorce process is the nation’s religious background. Divorce had been legal in Philippines until the enactment of the 1949 Civil Code. Professor Solita Monsod, from the University of the Philippines, explained that the legal prohibition was based on religious grounds. “It is because of a very powerful and conservative church hierarchy, and the dominance of very conservative segments of the Catholic laity,” he said.

The Catholic Church in Philippines officially denounced the bill. “We are opposed to legislation which would enable the state to break the marriage bond so that the couple can each remarry,” said Bishop Teodoro C. Bacani Jr. He also expressed a unique view toward domestic abuse cases. When there is a violent husband who abuses his wife and when divorce is legally allowed, then the man “is free to marry another woman and continue the abuse.” He argued that people could choose to be separated instead of getting a legal divorce.

The law of Philippines is more generous to people who observe other religions in terms of divorce. For example, the law allows legal divorce to Muslims, who constitute 11% of the population.

A number of news media outlets pointed out problems relating to Filipino workers abroad. The Philippines government encourages people to work overseas and forces them to live apart from their family. 70% of those workers are female. Therefore, the women in Philippines, especially who have low or no income, are more vulnerable in the current legal system.

Even though the bill has support in the Congress, it also faces strong opposition. Congressman Elpidio Barzaga Jr. insisted that a strong family makes a strong society, and the strong society will lead to a strong nation.

“We can have this only if there are laws that solidify and strengthen it,” Barzaga announced in opposition to the bill. He also added that “marriage is not merely a personal contract between husband and wife, it is a social institution which public policy cherishes and protects.”

For more information please see:

The Washington Post – World’s last legal ban on divorce doesn’t keep Philippines couples together – 10 October 2014

CNN – The fight to make divorce legal in the Philippines – 6 October 2014