By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BEIJING, China– Two days before the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square Massacre where thousands died fighting for democracy, the Chinese government has authorized an extensive censorship of the Internet.

Starting Tuesday, social networking sites, such as Twitter, as well as YouTube, Flickr, Hotmail, and Bing have been blocked.

Microsoft’s Public Affairs Director Kevin Kutz said, “We are reaching out to the [Chinese] government to understand this decision and find a way to move forward.”

Tiananmen Square (Source: AP)

While it is not uncommon for the Chinese government to block websites considered to be controversial before major events, the massive block today is the first extensive censorship of social media.  Some believe that this mass Internet censorship was prompted because calls for re-evaluation of Tiananmen have been published on the Internet this year.

Reporters Without Borders, outraged by this censorship, released a statement, “The Chinese government stops at nothing to silence what happened 20 years ago in Tiananmen Square.  By blocking access to a dozen websites used daily by millions of Chinese citizens, the authorities have opted for censorship at any price rather than accept a debate about this event.”

Internet users in China (Source: AFP)

In addition to Internet censorship, TV viewers in foreign compounds and hotels in Beijing and Shanghai experienced blackouts for minutes at a time as censors blocked out reports regarding the Tiananmen anniversary.

For more information, please see:

AFP – China blocks websites ahead of Tiananmen anniversary – 2 June 2009

BBC – Chinese curbs before anniversary – 2 June 2009

The Huffington Post – China Blocks Twitter Ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary – 2 June 2009

NYT – China Blocks Twitter Service Ahead of Anniversary – 2 June 2009

By Alishba I. Kassim
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

RANGOON, Burma-The trial of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi has once again brought attention to the military junta controlling Burma. Human rights activists call the trial a sham and cite it as a chance to bring attention to the rights violations occurring under the current government.

Suu Kyi is facing an additional five years in detention for violating the terms of her house arrest. Suu Kyi was arrested for the violations when she allowed a trespasser to remain in her home overnight when he was too weak to leave. Many in the international community have called the trial a sham, including United States President Barack Obama who called the charges “spurious.”

International observers claim that the charges are meant to keep Suu Kyi out of the upcoming elections. Suu Kyi is the Secretary General of Burma’s National League for Democracy and is one of the most vocal critics of Burma’s ruling military junta. If Suu Kyi is in detention at the time of the elections she will not be allowed to play any role in process. Critics say this is the real reason behind the trial.

Many countries and human rights groups have asked the military junta to stop the trial and release Suu Kyi along with the estimated 2,000 other political prisoners being held by the Burmese government. Observers say that the military junta could gain political legitimacy if they allowed her to play a role in the upcoming elections. Human rights activist claim the trial and persecution of the Nobel Peace Prize winner is another example of the long line of human rights violations committed under the watch of the ruling military junta. The junta’s spokesman Major-General Aye Myint stated that the trial “is not political…it’s not a human rights issue, so we don’t accept pressure from abroad.”

For more information, please see:

Voice of America – Injustice In Burma – 29 May 2009

Washington Post – What the U.N. Can’t Ignore in Burma – 1 June 2009

Guardian – The EU must start squeezing Burma – 1 June 2009

By Alishba I. Kassim
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – The Sri Lankan government continues to reject calls to probe for human rights violations amidst allegations that an unprecedented number of civilians perished in the battle against Tamil separatists.

Media Minister Lakshman Yapa Abeywardena said “those who give various civilian casualty figures and call for these probes must have ulterior motives.” He further went onto say that the government was conducting its own analysis but declined to give any figures. “Our officials knew how many people were in the (war zone) area and we are taking a tally on the number of people now in the IDP (internally displaced persons) camps.”

Several groups such as Amnesty International have been calling for independent probes but are being met with resistance. Amnesty also urged the United Nations to reveal its own estimates of civilian casualties. Sam Zarifi, the group’s Asia Pacific director accused both sides of human rights violations and war crimes and repeated a request for an independent and international probe.

Last week Sri Lankan officials managed to garner enough South Asian support at the Geneva council session to pass a resolution describing the conflict as “a domestic matter that doesn’t warrant outside interference.” In a following controversial development, the council supported the Sri Lankan government’s decision to provide international NGOs and human rights agencies with limited access “as may be appropriate” to refugee camps.

Undoubtedly these developments have frustrated international organizations that are now unable to accurately assess the human rights violation in Sri Lanka and therefore are unable to respond appropriately.

It makes one wonder, when civilian victims are at issue, shouldn’t one accept all the aid and support available?

For more information, please see:

The Nation – Sri Lanka Rejects Probe after Crushing Tigers – June 01, 2009

Guardian – UN Rejects Call for Human Rights Inquiry – May 28, 2009

Straits Time – Sri Lanka Rejects Rights Probe – May 31, 2009

Press Trust of India – Sri Lanka Rejects Demands for Probe – May 31, 2009

By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan – When Central Asian countries did not answer questions from Amnesty International over the past year, experts concluded that governments in those countries have set aside human rights over economic issues.

However, Amnesty’s Europe and Central Asia Director Nicola Duckworth said, “You cannot separate human rights out from other…problems that exist, because human rights…rests at the base of the solution for problems, whether it is political, or whether it is economic.”

Consequently, in its annual report, Amnesty International found that the largest number of human rights issues are unresolved in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.   All dissent is suppressed in both countries, and while human rights activists are able to work in other Central Asian countries like Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, such is impossible in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Further, although death penalty was abolished in Uzbekistan in January 2009, no one knows how many people were actually executed or are serving life imprisonment, leaving surviving family members wondering whether or not their loved ones are alive.  Moreover, Uzbek refugees are often forced to return to their homeland where they risk human rights violations, and human rights activists working in Uzbekistan are harassed and persecuted.

Protesters in Uzbekistan (Source: Front Line)

Impunity by the Turkmenistani government is prevalent as well.  In both countries, justice fails because there is no system to ensure rule of law in that there are obstacles, such as difficulty in obtaining a lawyer, failure of prosecutors to pursue investigations, low penalty for convicted officials, and fear of reprisals by the victims.

Some attribute the reason for repression to the fact that countries like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are still strongly depended on Russia, and Central Asian countries have adopted the worst from its neighbors.

Ann Bayevsky of Hudson Institute has criticized the United Nations for its failure to address the problem saying, “They [UN Human Rights Council] just eradicated human rights investigations in [Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan] because human rights abusers hold the balance of power.”

For more information, please see:

ABC News – Amnesty: Recession Leading to Repression – 28 May 2009

Amnesty International – Amnesty International Report 2009 Europe and Central Asia – 28 May 2009

Human Rights Watch – Uzbekistan: Stop Detention, Harassment of Activists – 29 May 2009

Trend News – Amnesty International: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan leading black list of Central Asia countries – 29 May 2009

Voice of America – Amnesty International Scores Russian Human Rights Record – 28 May 2009

Voice of America – UN Body Criticized for Not Fighting for Human Rights – 22 May 2009

By Alishba I. Kassim
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

KATHMANDU, Nepal – In the primary Nepali dictionary, there is no word for impunity. This is particularly relevant today as Nepal is the process of formulating a new constitution. Previous constitutions have not dealt with human rights extensively, nor addressed specific areas of impunity. Local human rights groups have been urging the government to promote accountability and acknowledge and address the widespread human rights violations in the country’s new constitution by guaranteeing important rights.

Nepal has been home to rampant human rights violations against men, women, and children throughout its history. Although Nepal is party to several international treatises on human rights, the country is slow to act upon them.

Newly elected Prime Minister Madhav Kumar opined that the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal is insignificant. He further accused the OHCHR of “paying attention to political events and neglecting major human rights violations.” He also only extended its tenure for three months even though three years were requested.

The Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Kedernath Upadhaya, in response commented that the rights body alone cannot guarantee human rights without the help of the government and political parties. The Chairman’s comment is particularly relevant on the eve of writing a new Nepali constitution. The situation in Nepal, as of now, looks bleak since there is a marked communication barrier between human rights agencies, the government, and local political parties.

Perhaps they can start with introducing the word impunity into their dictionaries and their constitution.

For more information, please see:

KantipurOnline – OHCHR Insignificant in Nepal – May 27, 2009

Gulf News –  Amnesty International Report on Asia – May 28, 2009

Republica – OHCHR in Nepal Extended by Three Months – May 29, 2009

Asia Foundation – Impunity in Nepal – September 1999