Polish Parliament Passes Resolution Condemning Soviet Invasion in WWII

By David Sophrin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

WARSAW, Poland – On Wednesday, the Polish parliament passed a resolution that condemned the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union in 1939 at the beginning of World War II, labeling it a ‘war crime’ and ‘genocide’.  In response the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, indicated that it felt “deep disappointment at the Polish attempt to compare Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union.”

Recent documents given to the Institute of National Remembrance of Warsaw by the Ukrainian government offer new evidence indicating that Soviet police forces (NVKD) were directly responsible for the killing of 350 Poles the Roviensky oblast from 1939 to 1940.  Those were just a fraction of the approximately 20,000 Poles that would be killed in the Katyn forests.  Those killings, known as the Katyn Massacre, and the subsequent deportations of Polish citizens to Soviet internment camps, were the reasons behind the passage of the Polish resolution.

According to the documents from the Ukrainian government, the NVKD’s purpose in committing the killings was in part to eliminate leading members of Polish society, including landowners, military officers, and intellectuals.  At the center of the NVKD’s actions was a coordinated effort to remove the leading citizens of, thereby undermine, Polish society.

The Soviet Union argued that their invasion of Poland in September 1939, following Germany’s invasion of western Poland, was necessary to protect the Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian citizens from the oncoming German forces that were left unprotected by the collapse of the Polish government.  The Russian government has never admitted that the invasion was the result of aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.

For more information, please see:

POLSKIE RADIO – Ukraine exposes Katyn executioners – 25 September 2009

RIA NOVOSTI – Moscow Says Resolution on Soviet ‘aggression’ harms ties – 24 September 2009

EPOCH TIMES – Polish Resolution Names Soviet Invasion as Tyrannical – 23 September 2009

UPI – Poles Accuse Russia of WWII Genocide – 23 September 2009

Turkey’s Refugee Rights Come Under Pressure after Court Ruling

By Brandon Kaufman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

STRASBOURG, France– The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced in a statement on Tuesday that it had ruled against Turkey on charges of trying to deport two Iranian nationals who were recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Iranian nationals, Mohsen Abdolkhani and Hamid Karimnia, left Iran and entered a refugee camp in Iraq.  After the camp was closed in Iraq, the two went to Turkey where they were arrested and deported back to Iraq.  Despite the deportation, Abdolkhani and Karimnia immediately returned to Turkey.

Subsequently, they were arrested and convicted of illegal entry into Turkey.  Turkish efforts to have them deported to Iran in June of 2008 were unsuccessful as Iranian authorities refused their admission to the country.  After the Iranian denial of admission, the two refugees requested temporary asylum status but have yet to receive an answer as to their petition.

As part of their domestic law, Turkey imposes limitations on accepting asylum seekers based on their country of origin.  More specifically, Turkish law forbids asylum status to people of non-European origin as refugees.  Despite their domestic law, Turkey is a popular destination for refugee and asylum seekers.

In a publication by the Human Rights Research Association (IHAD), it was reported that over twenty-six hundred refugees were detained last month for violating border regulations and, of that number, 378 were deported.  Many experts believe that these deportations constitute violations of universal human rights principles.  The cases of Abdolkhani and Karimnia are a prime example of these possible violations.  In the statement released Tuesday, the ECHR decided that Turkey would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights if they made another attempt at deportation of the two individuals.

The ECHR “was struck by the fact that both administrative and judicial authorities had remained totally passive regarding the applicants’ serious allegations of a risk of ill treatment if returned to Iraq or Iran.”  Furthermore, the Court was troubled by Turkey’s failure to consider the applicant’s requests for temporary asylum, to notify them of the reasons for not taking their asylum requests into consideration and for not authorizing them to have legal assistance.

Even prior to Tuesday’s decision, Turkey has been in the process of drafting new legislation to address the issue of refugees and asylum seekers.

For more information, please see:

Bianet- ECHR Convicted Turkey for Deportation of Iranian Refugees– 24 September 2009

Today’s Zaman- Court Ruling Puts Pressure on Turkey over Refugee Rights– 24 September 2009

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights- Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey– 22 September 2009

Australia Plans to Deport Two Kenyan Women Facing Genital Mutilation in Kenya

By Cindy Trinh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

SYDNEY, Australia – Two Kenyan women in Australia are facing deportation after their asylum applications were rejected. The two women, Grace Gichuhi, and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, face possible genital mutilation if they are deported back to Kenya. Many Australians have expressed outrage, and urge the Immigration Minister to intervene and allow the two Kenyans to stay in Australia.

A refugee’s fear of persecution must be based on “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” Because fear of genital mutilation does not fit into one of these categories, the women could be sent home to Kenya.

In parts of Africa, female circumcision is still practiced, and is mainly done for cultural purposes as an initiation into womanhood. In some cases, older women perform the circumcision with a broken glass or a tin lid. In other cases, the female is held down by 10 men, and her clitoris is cut off with a knife.

Both women left Kenya because they feared for the safety of their lives. Grace Gichuhi’s mother was killed for refusing to be circumcised. Grace Gichuhi is 22 years old. Teresia Muturi, only 21 years old, fled from an arranged marriage with a 70-year-old man and angered her family when she refused to be circumcised.

The two women applied for refugee status, but were denied by the immigration department. A spokesman from the immigration department stated that “[u]nder the refugee convention, they weren’t found to engage with Australia’s international obligations.”
An appeal was filed to the Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, but he rejected the appeal. A second appeal was filed, but nothing has yet been determined. Currently, the women have been told by the immigration department to prepare for deportation.

Senator Nick Xenophon urged Chris Evans to grant the women visas to stay in Australia. The Senator expressed opposition to the laws of Australia, stating that “[i]f the laws are changed, these women have a clear case for asylum,” and urged the minister “to exercise discretion to give these two women asylum.”

Senator Nick Xenophon is joined by many political adversaries, lawyers, and refugee groups who also want Chris Evans to intervene.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young believes the women are “prime candidates” for proposing “complementary protection” laws targeted at expanding on existing refugee criteria.

Spokeswoman for Opposition, Sharman Stone, took a different perspective than Sarah Hanson-Young, stating that the existing intervention powers were sufficient to give the two Kenyan women asylum. Sharman Stone contends that the minister is not obligated to adhere strictly to any convention, and can exercise his “own sense of what is right and just and humane.”

Mary Crock, a professor of public law at the University of Sydney, opposed Sharman’s Stone’s view, stating that proposing new “complementary protection” laws that would more certainly give protection to women, such as Grace Gichuhi and Teresia Muturi, is the better choice.

News of the Kenyan women has also raised debate and controversy amongst citizens of the local community. After an article about the two women was published in The Age, an Australian newspaper, concerned readers contacted the newspaper to express their outrage at the situation.

In the online spectrum, Penny Eager, a blogger, wrote to Chris Evans expressing her belief that the “torturous practi[c]e of genital mutilation is abhorrent, and that to deny these women refugee visas is to take a weak stance on this issue.” She further urged Chris Evans to intervene, to not only help the women, but to also “send a clear message to Kenya that Australia does not condone these practi[c]es.”

A Facebook “Causes” page titled “Help save these Women from Genital Mutilation” was created to support the two Kenyans. The Facebook page was launched by Vanessa Muradian, a citizen of Swinburne, to show support for the women’s efforts to remain in Australia.

For more information, please see:

Facebook – Help save these Women from Genital Mutilation

The Age – Huge support for Kenyan fugitives – 23 September, 2009

Global Voices – Australia: Kenyan women refused refugee status – 23 September, 2009

Pocket Carnival – Grace Gichuhi and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi – 22 September, 2009

Embrace Australia – Refugee Girls Face Deportation and Mutilation – 21 September, 2009

Taiwanese Civil Servants Asked to Guard Human Rights

By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

TAIPEI, Taiwan – In efforts to push forward “a second round of democratic reforms” and further strengthen the country’s democracy, Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou urged civil servants to be mindful of protecting human rights in the course of their duties.

Speaking at a Ministry of Justice’s training program implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, conventions both of which were ratified by the legislature back in March, President Ma asked the government employees how they would feel if their rights were violated. 

President ma

President Ma Ying-jeou.  Courtesy of AP. 

He said, “When your rights are being protected, you may not notice it, but if your rights are being infringed upon, you would definitely feel it.” 

President Ma also added, “Not only should civil servants familiarize themselves with the two conventions, they should always keep in mind that current rules and orders do not violate the two conventions.  To put it bluntly, most civil servants have no idea about what human rights are.”

At this workshop, President Ma told the civil servants that he has high expectations that public servants “contribute to enhancing the quality of Taiwan’s democracy.”

Since taking office in May 2008, President Ma has forbidden illegal wiretapping and government interference with media coverage, but he said these measures are not enough to safeguard people’s rights and reduce human rights violations.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush once praised Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy” in Asia, but President Ma remarked that while Taiwan has made progress, sufficiency of Taiwan’s democratization is questionable.

He asked, “[D]o we have a good enough understanding of democracy?  Is our judicial system independent enough?  Do we offer complete human rights protection?  Is our system of law enforcement mature enough?  There is room for improvement…to enrich our knowledge of democracy.”

The Ministry of Justice is planning to review the current laws of Taiwan ahead of World Human Rights Day in December.

For more information, please see:

China Post – President calls civil servants’ attention to human rights protection – 17 September 2009

Radio Taiwan International – Ma to push for “second round of democratic reforms” – 17 September 2009

Taipei Times – Ma calls on civil servants to be mindful of human rights – 18 September 2009

Doubts Abound After Mideast Summit at U.N.

By Meredith Lee-Clark

Impunity Water Reporter, Middle East

 

NEW YORK, United States – A day after the leaders of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories, many on all sides have expressed doubts that the meeting will result in productive peace negotiations.

 

On September 23, U.S. President Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Despite efforts by U.S. Mideast Envoy George Mitchell, the Obama Administration was unable to secure an agreement by Prime Minister Netanyahu to freeze all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinian negotiators have demanded a settlement freeze as a pre-condition to any peace talks.

 

President Obama has begun to change tack in his efforts to restart peace negotiations, now focusing on the status of Jerusalem, the so-called “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, and the borders of a future Palestinian state. One international observer characterized President Obama’s efforts at the U.N. as completely unproductive.

 

“We’re in a corner,” said Zakaria al Qak, the foreign affairs director at Al-Quds University. “Obama is running out of steam. He was expected to set the direction in the first six months. But now it’s the politics of no choice, of deadlock.”

 

The Israeli Prime Minister appeared to be more optimistic about the possibility of progress.

 

“The president said let’s come and resume the peace process without preconditions. As you know I have been saying that for nearly six months,” said Prime Minister Netanyahu to Israeli television.

 

Other Israelis seemed more downbeat.

 

“This is a mood of resignation, of quiet despair that there is really [no] way out of the conflict,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of Israeli pro-peace group J Street.

 

Many Palestinians have considered President Obama’s insistence on moving forward with peace talks as backing off from the President’s call for a settlement freeze. Hamas, the ruling Palestinian party in the Gaza Strip, condemned President Obama’s call to resume the peace talks without an agreement on a settlement freeze.

 

One Palestinian put a positive gloss on the situation:

 

“It is clear that Obama will not accept failure of his political investment in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict,” wrote columnist Talal Okal in the newspaper al-Ayyam.

 

For more information, please see:

 

Ha’aretz – Netanyahu: No Peace Until Palestinians Accept Israel as Jewish State – 24 September 2009

 

Jerusalem Post – Hamas Slams Obama for Backing Down on Demand for Settlement Freeze – 24 September 2009

 

Reuters – All-round Pessimism After Dud Middle East “Summit” – 24 September 2009

 

Ha’aretz – Obama Tells UN: We Do Not Accept Israeli Settlements – 23 September 2009

 

New York Times – White House Pivots on Mideast Peace Bid – 23 September 2009