Implicit consent

“Dubai: Alleged victim of gang rape sentenced to one year in prison”, reads the newspaper headline. We’ve read it so many times. In most Arab and muslim countries, women who are sexually assaulted are nearly always victims of two consecutive crimes, and not just one: first, the men who rape them; then, the courts which condemn them to jail and/or to lashes for “enticing men to have sex with them”, “being in the pressence of men who are not family members”, engaging in “consensual sex”, or having an “extramarital relation”. Of course, none of the crimes commited on them ever deserve any justice or reparation worth of that name.

I won’t engage myself now in an easy condemnation of Islam as a whole, or even of certain extreme understandings of Islam. I am just thinking now, why these barbaric and widespread practices are not denounced by the muslim masses in the countries where they take place? I could hear the usual answer: we’re talking about very traditional and conservative societies, they never knew anything different, they don’t know any better. What about the more illustrated groups or the emerging middle class there ? Again, free speech, individual liberty and rule of law don’t exist in any of these countries, and criticizing well entrenched practices may be quite dangerous. Then, what do you say about muslim communities in the Western world? Why are they not denouncing these and other practices we all rightly associate with Islam? Information is not censored here, and is easily accesible; critique is valued and encouraged; freedom and different lifestyles can be compared to a life of oppression and tyrannical social hierarchies. Why we never, ever hear of significant campaigns in the Western democracies, lead by muslim organizations themselves? Why are there no ambitious, comprehensive and combative muslim strategies here to change this state of affairs? I’ve got an answer that, sadly, I don’t think I’ll reconsider in the short term: tacit and widespread approval.

It doesn’t matter most muslim people in a free society would somehow be lukewarm or non-supportive if asked about the well established violence in islamic sacred books, ruling elites and social structures alike against women and children, against dissenters male or female. The truth is they, as a collectivity living in a free society, as theoretically free citizens themselves, are not willing to stand up for freedom, thus voluntarily locking themselves up in the jail of tyranny, violence, indignity and hopelessness.

Photo: State Sanctioned Abuse, 2007 © Dude Crush

It´s Afghanistan, stupid!

Following what President Obama stated during his campaign, the new American administration has started shifting its foreign policy efforts away from Irak to focus on Afghanistan. Along with a deployment of additional troops, however, comes the news that the administration is seriously considering displacing Afghan President Karzai from government, in favor of some new and apparently more reliable and potentially effective candidates.

Despite the corruption cases in Karzai´s government, and the presence of warlords both in the national and local administration, the US should not involve itself in the daily political management of the country. On the one hand, it comes as no surprise corruption is thriving in one of the poorer countries on earth; on the other hand President Karzai had to co-opt certain warlords as the only way to mantain peace and keep some provinces (more or less) under Kabul´s rule. Politics in Afghanistan is a chaotic and undemocratic business but, what were we in the Western world expecting after a 30 years war in a country that always remained stuck in a sort of economic and social Middle Ages? What do we expect after failing to live up to our promises to assist them with substantial economic and financial help and the deployment of enough troops to guarantee peace in the country? We are helping them, somehow, though this is far from enough, and also far from what we committed ourselves to do, but nevertheless our patience is running out with countries such as Afghanistan, which do not democratize at the pace we want them to become Jeffersonian democracies.

After the tragic failure of the ill-conceived experiment in Irak, it should be clear for everyone that Afghanistan is the primary token if the West is to be trusted in its claims to be working to bring democracy and prosperity to countries that still enjoy no political freedom. If we are to succeed here, both in our terms -international security and democratic principles- and in theirs -Afghans are asking for our help to build a peaceful, viable State-, we should devote our efforts not to the realm of micro-politics but to building capacities, that is, infraestructure, roads, hospitals, schools, telecommunications, police, internal safety, law enforcement, market development, criminal justice, women´s health, education and protection… All this implies devoting money and personnel, and lots of it, but also trusting locals and working with them in identifiying their own needs, as opposed to imposing our goals. Only as a consecuence of a long term economic and social transformation could this place start its journey towards a viable, sustainable and fair democracy. We cannot change overnight what has remained like this for ages. We cannot allow ourselves to be inpatient. We should be ready to commit ourselves for a long time. It is worth it, and not only for Afghanistan itself and their inhabitants, but also as an example of what we are willing to do to help other countries and even as a proof of the coherence between our beliefs and our democracy promotion efforts.

Photo: ‘Kabul, Afghanistan’, 2009 © Lyndsey Addario, The New York Times

Unaffected crackdown

Are Chinese authorities worried because the eyes of the world are on them now Olympics are approaching? Do they recently initiated conversations with the Tibetan leaders in exile really acknowledging the status quo in the region must change? Apparently, the answer to both questions is ‘No’. Though they claim to have realeased hundreds of prisoners in the last weeks, actually they keep more than one thousand Tibetan protesters in prison. According to Amnesty International, many of those detainees are kept in dire conditions, without enough food and frequently beaten, and some of them have been judged and ’sentenced after questionable trials”. Meanwhile, Chinese journalists continue working amidst the extreme censorship stablished around their job when the riots began, and foreign ones are simply blocked from entering Tibet.

Isn´t it high time we ceased to reward the Chinese dictatorship with international events -such as the Olympics- for free? Shouldn´t the international community be exerting a stronger pressure on the Chinese government on behalf of human rights and the rule of law?

Read Amnesty´s report here.

Photo: Police, Lhasa, Tibet, 2007 © culturalvisions

A double-edged Olympic sword

As a part of a diplomatic offensive this week, the Chinese government has criticized American human rights record, poverty and racial divides, after the American Department of State only mildly critiziced Chinese human rights abuses, and even erased the country from the list of the serious human rights abuses, to the outrage of international human rights NGO´s. China´s protest constitutes a shameful and hypocritical move, since China´s performance in these fields is among the worst in the planet. The offensive tries to counteract Western condemnation of Chinese human rights abuses just before the Olympic Games in Beijing. China has staked enormously in the gigantic public relations operation the Games amount to, whose aim is to show the world how far has China reached in its quest for development. However, the idea Chinese officials have in mind when thinking about development may have nothing to do with the image it conjures up for the Westerner, since the latter includes not only living conditions but also freedom and respect for individuals, whereas the former just points to a kind of competition to attain material and technological goals. In other words, it is all about national pride, a very Asian concept, by the way.

The Olympic Games should have never been granted to China, probably the most serious human rights violator in the world. Once the appropriate international bodies took the decision, the only action left for democratic governments and peoples is to actively boycott them. And for the boycott to be really effective, it should be a widespread Western decision, regardless the Chinese reaction to it. During the Cold War, the Moscow 1980 Olympic Games Western boycott did not lead us to the Third World War; if anything, it contributed to the Soviet regime´s collapse. Moreover, China needs Western markets desperatedly, so here we have a powerful tool to exert influence on the country. And to those claiming we should not mix sports with politics, let us note an event such as the Olympic Games is one of the best examples of global politics nowadays. Besides, the political nature of the Games is officially recorgnized by the Chinese government, which rightly weighted the huge opportunities to improve its international image the gathering offered. However, when betting on the Games, Chinese officials seemed oblivious to the fact that in our globalized world, they are a double-edged sword. Therefore, a big-scale fiasco would project a multiplied image of incompetence, corruption and, ultimately, backwardness. That would imply losing face, again, a very important concept in Asian cultures.

It is this multiplier effect we need to take advantage of to expose China´s abusive public policies towards its own citizens, raise awareness about its immoral international behaviour -i.e.: its role in the Darfur crisis-, and show our solidarity with Chinese dissidents and human rights activists. No one is denying China its right to economic and social development, but the Free World -a Cold War expression which is nevertheless relevant today, unfortunately- should send a clear message: if the Chinese government wants its country to be accepted as a major actor in the international community, it should respect life, freedom, and human rights.

Read on:

Human Rights Watch last report on China´s abuses on Beijing´s migrant construction workers.

On China´s disastrous environmental record.

On China´s international public relations setbacks as a consecuence of the Olympic Games exposure.

On Chinese officials defending China´s stand in Darfur and criticizing the Olympics tie-in.

Photo: Woman holding a dog, Beijing, 2007 © Nataliebehring

Tell it like it is. Loud

In particular, I am writing this post for people who may read it from abroad, so you may know what is the reality of terror in Spain.

Some time ago, I noted in this blog how for the international media two plus two not always equals four (“Not separatists but terrorists”). Today, killers from the Basque terrorist group ETA gunned to death a man in the Spanish village of Mondragon. They did it as cowardly as usual, five bullets shot from behind, and in front of his wife and one of his daughters. Isaias Carrasco´s crime was to be a former councilor with the Socialist Party in a Basque village, that is, he was guilty of believing in democracy and pluralism; moreover, he did so in a region -the Basque Country- where believing in freedom and individual rights and publicly stating this position may be deadley dangerous. There is no democracy in the Basque Country, thanks to the ETA mob and its nationalist political allies, who threaten to kill anyone not sharing their insane political views. Often, the so-called moderate nationalists -who benefit from a virtual monopoly of political power thanks to the lack of freedom in the region- have made a subtle but invaluable contribution to this state of affairs.

Having abandoned politics because of radical nationalist pressures, Isaias was now just a lay worker. It did not matter. The totalitarian terrorists singled him out as member of the ‘oppresor class’ preventing the glorious Basque nation to set free, according to their extreme nationalistic nightmarish dream.

Nine months after my post, is sad to realize the non-Spanish media still consider this horrendous mafia as a bunch of romantic liberation activists. Shamefully enough, today the headlines are almost the same as they were nine months ago. Some extracts from leading international newspapers´ online editions today echoing the terrorist killing: “A gunman suspected of belonging to the Basque militant group ETA…” (The New York Times); “l’organisation séparatiste basque ETA…” (Le Monde); “…blamed the killing on the Basque separatist group ETA” (The Globe and Mail); “Officials blame the attack on Basque separatists.” (Los Angeles Times). It just goes on and on…

An organized group threatening and killing other people just because they do not agree with them is not a separatist group. It is a totalitarian terrorist group. Should we say it again? They are just TOTALITARIAN and TERRORISTS. Is it not obvious enough?

In Memoriam, Isaias Carrasco, 2008

Identity and immigration priorities

1

The Spanish opposition conservative Popular Party (PP) made public last week its proposed measures on immigration policy as part of its program towards next month´s general election. As it is usually the case in Spain, these propositions were welcomed not with the ensuing debates and discussion such an important issue deserves, but with a cacophony of accusations and contempt from the leftist parties, which in turn triggered new accusations and contempt from the PP. Nothing new under the sun…

The new measures proposed by the PP are twofold. First, a legally binding ‘Integration contract’, whose signature will be mandatory for all new immigrants. Among other prescriptions, this integration contract stipulates immigrants will have to respect the law, pay taxes, and find a job -all of this being already in effect-, but also to learn Spanish and abide by the Spanish customs, without further specification on the latter, though party officials hinted at the prohibition of genital mutilation and the equality between sexes, both of which are already enforced. Failure to comply may result in the immigrant being expelled from the country. The party justified the measure on the need to ameliorate the integration of immigrants by way of them adhering to core Spanish values -”which must be clearly stablished by society as a whole”-, thus improving social cohesion. The need for society to decide in which cases should we all be morally and legally bound and when differences and diversity should be respected was also mentioned.

The second measure consists in the introduction of a new scheme to give out temporary visas and working permits based on a ‘points system’, aiming at facilitating the arrival of high skilled and experienced workers. Along with prioritizing immigrants possesing certain skills or having the high capabilities the Spanish labour market is in need of, those individuals coming from countries “with which we may have special or historical links” would also be favored. According to one leading Spanish newspaper the PP would actually like to toughen immigration policy giving preference to foreigners arriving from Latin America -catholic and Spanish speakers- over those coming from the Maghrib -muslim and Arab speakers-. Also, temporary and working visas would be awarded according to the following criteria: (a) Knowledge of Spanish; (b) Professional skills; (c) Knowledge of the Spanish legal system; and (d) Knowledge of the Spanish culture.

On the left camp, the governmental Socialist Party (PSOE) deemed the announced proposals xenophobic, reactionary and discriminating; the socialist Vicepresident considered they favor rejection and racism, and showed contempt for immigrants, for equality and for diversity; and the post-communist United Left (IU) added they were racist, classist and islamophobic, and that the PP abhors diversity and religious pluralism.

Do measures like those proposed improve immigrants integration and social cohesion, as the PP claims, or else they embody racism and contempt for other cultures, as the left asserts? At this point it would be interesting to look at how other countries are coping with immigration and diversity, and one such interesting comparation, if not the most appropriate, is the Canadian case.

Canada has, right after Australia, the highest proportion of foreign-born population in the world (19,8%). In the five years preceding 2006, the year for which we have the latest available figures, Canada’s foreign-born population increased by 13.6% (the equivalent rate for the Canadian-born population was 3.3% for the same period. Immigrants born in Asia and the Middle East made up the largest proportion (58.3%) of newcomers, followed by those born in Europe (16,1%), Central and South America (10,8%) and in Africa (10,6%). In 2006, just three metropolitan areas -Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver- were home to nearly 70% of all recent immigrants. 70.2% of the foreign-born population is allophone, that is, has as mother tongue neither English nor French. If aboriginal languages are included, one out of five Canadians does not have any of the official languages as mother tongue. Regarding religion, in 2001 Catholics and Protestants made up nearly 70% of the population; another 15% has no religious affiliation, the rest was Othodox, other types of Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and other, in varying percentages.

Commensurately with this astonishing level of diversity, Canada faces enormous integration challenges, and the country has engaged itself in a ceaseless debate on the core values of its social and political system, trying to stablish what being Canadian really means and what this notion of citizenship, if any, implies for the Canadian legal system. Both liberal institutions granting rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and multiculturalism play a relevant role in this debate, the most important one Canada faces nowadays as a nation.

The current Canadian immigration policy is based on the idea that immigration prompts the country’s growth, its prosperity and its cultural diversity. The system also aims at families´reunion and the protection of refugees. Permanent residence is usually granted according to a point system based on several selection factors, such as educational level, abilities in English or French, working experience, age, arranged employment in the country, or potential adaptability (having studied in Canada, having relatives or having previous work there). Immigrants are also subjected to a proof of funds, that is, they must show they are not going to be dependent on the state after their arrival. Residents and citizens may sponsor relatives to immigrate in the country, and it is worth noting that -on a very progressive note and besides dependent children, grandparents, siblings and other relatives- not only spouses but also common-law or conjugal partners are eligible. Finally, let us mention language proficiency and knowledge about Canadian culture plays an important role, but only when applying for citizenship. Broadly speaking, the system aims both at matching the needs of Canadian labour market with both the skills and flows of newcomers, and at facilitating integration by means of a non-restrictive, non-ideological and objective set of selection criteria, and also helping families reunite.

The Canadian immigration system has worked reasonably well, is the result of successive approaches to immigration and integration policies throughout decades, and commands a high degree of approval among the Canadian population and the agreement of all political parties. Sure, there are challenges and integration issues in Canada, as mentioned before, such as social tensions regarding some cultural practices or the consecuences of a certain degree of permanent low income among recent immigrants, but, overall, the system has worked efficiently and allowed for the great numbers of newcomers mentioned above to settle successfully in the country -access to citizenship is easy, in international terms, as permanent residents may apply for it after three years, and about 85% of those eligible get naturalized- and share the wealth its arrival has contributed so much to trigger.

Going back to Spain, what does the Canadian experience tell us?

It is strongly advisable for a country subjected to high immigration rates to open a public debate on identity issues, as comprehensive as possible and including immigrant groups. Our society, as those of many other countries, is becoming increasingly multicultural, and cannot do without trying to stablish which is our minimum set of core values, those our legislation must embody and protect, and citizens and residents comply with. However, this is not an easy task, and different parties in the debate may feel the temptation to try to impose their views, resorting either to an elusive concept of ‘ancestral national culture’ -empty and dysfunctional in the face of accelerated social change- or to a multiculturalist notion of citizenship, which relativizes values and may lead to a ghettoization of certain groups and entrenched discriminating practices inside ethno-cultural communities and among them.

When making public their immigration policy proposals, the Popular Party spokesmen mentioned the need to address this debate on core values, and rightly so, but perhaps an electoral campaign is not the best moment to raise the subject, which calls for a quiet, comprehensive and long-term reflection, nor political parties should be its (only) stirring agents, as many other social forces, institutions and individuals ought to have a say in the disscusion.

By choosing to bring up immigration and integration issues just before a general election, the Popular Party looks like he is not so much interested in opening a debate on these extremely important questions but on gaining some political advantage by means of playing with the emotions of voters. Also, the criteria it advanced for stablishing priorities among residency claimants seem to be very subjective and hastily assembled, though consistent with a certain conservative notion of Spanish culture, as if its definition enjoyed an overwhelming consent and needed no further discussion, which is just the contrary of the non-biased reflection mentioned above. Whereas having certain professional skills and at least a working command of Spanish may increase immigrants´chances of finding a job and integrating, it is difficult to grasp how favoring certain countries of origin over other countries or regions -out of culture, religion or historical links- will benefit the Spanish economy. This arbitrariness also reveals an static idea of Spanish culture, insusceptible to change and frozen in time, and it sends the message as well that Spain is an open country not for those wanting to come here to live, respect the laws, progress and contribute to its wealth, but only for the ones who will not challenge the supposedly immutable essence of Spanish ‘culture’.

On the other hand, the socialist government and the rest of the leftist parties are wrong in criticizing the stablishment of priorities in the immigration policies and of certain rules newcomers must observe, since it is perfectly legitimate governments choose which people are entitled to form part of their societies, and doing so in a non-discriminating, open-to-all and reasonable manner is a proper way of conducting public policy.

The reaction of the left lays bare the fact it does not really know how to address the identity and multicultural issues we are facing. Or else, worst still, as in the case of post-communist or post-marxist parties and movements, they know perfectly well, following their desire of detonating the pivotal institutions of our open societies. Regarding integration and identity, it is worth recalling cultures are dynamic and are subjected to constant change; they are not ‘stock’ but ‘flow’, to borrow the language of the economic science. However, we must give sound arguments and reasons to defend or criticize the elements making up a culture and, if we care at all for human rights, rule out any relativist temptations, which prevent us from exercising a rightful critique of cultural practices. Let us not fool ourselves: criminalizing genital mutilation and arranged marriage but leaving intact many other forms of abuse in the name of diversity -something post-marxist movements and even a part the socialdemocratic left support- only shows our selfishness and our disdain for the fate of the individuals we supposedly care for. Avoiding a debate on what constitutes the foundations of our freedom -those deserving uttermost respect on the part of citizens, residents and visitors alike- and, moreover, doing so out of a supposed ‘respect’ for the customs dear to minoritarian ethno-cultural groups also being a part of our society, only demeans our legitimacy to speak for the oppressed and the abused in those groups, and exposes the degree towards which we yield to a sort of post-colonial remorse -conveniently transmited through generations-, and also the fact that we are paradoxically shameful about the accomplishments of our civilization.

Far from being an exercise on ‘neo-colonialist’ imposition and ‘contempt’ for diversity and pluralism, to judge by the left´s initial reaction to the Popular Party immigration measures -the point not being how good or ill-conceived they are-, vindicating the very values and institutions that make us all equal before the law and grant us, among many other things, the freedom to engage in the cultural practices of our election or the abandonment of them, is the only way of organizing a multiethnic, multicultural and diverse society for the good of its members. For all of them, current and prospective.

Photo: School friends, 2007 © Woodleywonderworks

Reciprocal atrocities

On Dec. 31st, the number of casualties reaches 450 on both sides. On March 31st, it reaches 2,000 casualties and 4,000 injured. Both parts anounce ceasefires that are almost inmediately breached. Savage retaliation acts against civilians on both sides follow each other. The UN endorses a two states solution in Palestine as the only quick and effective way of stopping the bloodbath. The divided Arab ruling class has been unable of defending efficiently its people´s interests and couldn´t prepare the Palestines for the armed conflict either. On April 9th, Irgun and Lehi troops kill 100 Palestinian civilians in Deir Yassim, west of Jerusalem. In revenge, the Arabs attack a Hebrew group of trucks travelling with medical equipment; as a result, 77 people die. The number of Palestinian refugees reaches 750,000 by November. They and their descendants will remain in exile in camps in Egipt, Lebanon,west of the Jordan river and Syria, festering their anger and resentment and unable to integrate in the new foster societies, thanks to the official Arab policy towards them. Expelled, robbed of their properties, hundreds of Hebrews suffer retaliation all over the Middle East.*

Is this a description of recent attacks on Israeli population by Palestinian terrorists and on Palestinian population by the Israeli army? No, these events happened in 1947-1948, right after the Israeli declaration of independence, but they could be yesterday´s headlines; they have never ceased to take place, as both peoples wage war on each other since then. Soon it will be the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, 60 years of bloody attacks on soldiers and civilians on both parts, a mutual disregard for the rights of each other, and countless actions and policies aimed at impeding a peaceful and prosperous co-existence of two political communities. All this murderous nonsense is bound to go on until both peoples are weary of fighting each other. Then, they will be ready to elect responsible and corageous leaders who are willing to compromise and let the inhabitants of this war-torn region have a future.

(*) Data from Joan B. Culla, Israel, el somni i la tragèdia. Del sionisme al conflicte de Palestina [Israel, the dream and the tragedy. From Zionism to the Palestinian conflict], Barcelona, Edicions La Campana, 2005.

Photo: Balata Refugee Camp, September 2005 © Shabtai Gold

Post-colonial hypocrisy

In the EU-Africa summit that took place in Lisbon this past weekend, the Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi declared Europeans ought to compensate Africans for their past colonialism. He said a billion euros would be a suitable figure to start with. Notwithstanding how ill-managed most foreign financial help has been in the hands of corrupt and incompetent African governments, and the fact that such a sum would never reach ordinary Africans, Qadhafi shows an endless capacity for hypocrisy. Like many others, he is merely banging the drum for the idea that African backwardness is the direct consecuence of colonialism. Of course, this kind of language suits well the Western illiberal, antiglobalization ideologues and their supporters, but historical facts point otherwise. That evidence should not lead us to deny, for instance, the pernicious colonial policies of the British Empire in late ninetieth and early twentieth-centuries in Southern Africa, which destroyed a whole functioning social order and replaced it with a great deal of disarray and suffering. However, this is not equivalent to stating that without Western intervention in the continent, it would now be composed of peaceful and developed nations. Most probably it would have not, since African problems are rooted both in the past and in modern times.

In any case, being a former colony does not necessarily amount to dealing with a corrupt government and a backward and caothic economy. Many former colonies are now success stories, challenging the partial and biased claims of dogmatic populists and nostalgic collectivists. Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea are good examples of ex-colonies which made policy choices that, in turn, eventually prompted a ‘virtuous circle’ in terms of development and modernization.

Singapore was a British crown colony from 1867 until 1957, when it became a self-governing nation, though it was only in 1971 when the British withdrew their military presence. After the first and second Opium Wars (1839–42 and 1856-60), China was forced to put Hong Kong in British hands. Then, the Convention of 1898 stated that Hong Kong would be leased to Britain for 99 years (it returned to Chinese hands in 1997, though keeping a special status). Korea was a Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945, and then suffered a war from 1950 to 1953 -between its Northern and Southern parts- that cost four million lives. Nowadays -data are for 2006- Singapore enjoys a per capita income of US$29,473, the equivalent figures for Hong Kong and South Korea being, respectively, US$27,342 and US$18,220.

The complex array of reasons behind present African developmental and political difficulties lays not in its colonial past but somewhere else, and it deals more with the lack of respect for human rights, the non-existence of the rule of law and the aversion towards free markets and their necessary institutional frames (independent judiciary, democratic checks and balances, a stable economic-legal system). Some African leaders should stop looking so often for those reasons abroad and take a closer look at themselves and the policies they are pursuing.

Photo: Seme Beach, Southwest Province, Cameroon, 2005 © phil h

Against land mines, against government falseness

Ten years ago, representatives of 122 countries gathered in Ottawa, Canada, to sign the treaty banning the use, production, trade and stockpiling of antipersonnel mines. Though the treaty was hailed as a milestone in the fight towards the indiscriminate use of weapons in wars, still much has to be done to acomplish the goals set by the delegates in Ottawa. To begin with, the number of signatories has risen to 156, but key actors remain outside the treaty, such as -oh, surprise!- China, India, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. Also, though in the current year only Burma and Russia have used this kind of mines, trade is almost non-existent, and the number of producing countries has dropped dramatically, signatory countries have only devoted one tenth of the money they commited to start removing mines from the ground and supporting survivors. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) network is doing an invaluable job to achieve a worldwide ban on antipersonnel mines, campaigning for the universal membership of the 1997 treaty, and helping the survivors. On the other hand, the Spanish government behaviour offers a perfect example of this bittersweet moment in the fight against land mines. Whereas the current socialdemocrat government -claiming to embody a progressive spirit in international aid policy- has tenfolded its contribution towards the goals set in the Ottawa treaty -as compared to the insignificant amount of money the previous conservative government devoted to the cause-, it has also multiplied by two the volume of Spanish arm exports.

Moreover, if we want the protection of civilians in armed conflicts to stop being a fallacy, the 1997 treaty has to be completed with another universal ban on cluster bombs. Currently, international summits and conferences are taking place -the last one just ended in Vienna- to draft a treaty which should be signed in 2008, but all this is occurring amidst the weakening manoeuvres of the same countries -sadly, some of them democratic and some others purporting to be- that have opposed the antipersonnel mines ban throughout this period.

These days, “Vidas minadas” (”Mined lives“), an exceptional exhibition on land mines and the experiences of the survivors by the much-awarded war photographer Gervasio Sánchez, is traveling to several Spanish cities. If you happen to be in one of them, do not miss it. Seriously.

Read more:

International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)

Vidas minadas, by Gervasio Sánchez

Photo: Sofia Elface Fumo (1997), ‘Vidas Minadas’ series, by Gervasio Sánchez © Fundación Chandra

Gay rights concern us all

Madrid has become a vibrant city this weekend, as it celebrates its annual Gay Pride. Millions of varied sexual orientation mix in the streets and party together in an atmosphere of hedonism and mutual respect. It is nice living in such a civilized society. However, it is worth noting many countries consider homosexuality an ignominious act which try to tackle by way of repression. As usual, the vast majority of Western liberal democracies are free of this barbaric approach, and death penalty as a punishment for engaging in homosexual acts is restricted to just eight countries -Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen and Northen Nigeria-. What do these countries have in common? Well, it comes as no surprise they all are islamic States, which is significative enough. Another aspect worth mentioning in this regard is the readiness to consider gay rights a ‘problem’ of the gay community. As I see things, so called ‘gay rights’ deal with the essential freedom of individuals to live their live as they see fit, and everyone -gay or straight- should be interested in defending the basic freedoms of fellow human beings. Therefore, ‘gay rights’ -which we should not deem group rights but individual ones-, inasmuch as they deal with core human liberties, concern every single one of us.

Read more: ’Homosexuality is still a crime in more than 70 countries and may result in death penalty in eight of them’, in the Spanish section of Amnesty International.

Photo: Rainbow fairy, 2007 © Ricof3

Next Page »