Showing posts with label Human Rights Watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights Watch. Show all posts

Friday, August 10, 2012

Is Angola ready for the elections?

On August 31, Angola will organize parliamentary elections, for the first time since the end of the civil war. For 27 years after Angola became independent from Portugal, the country was revaged by a civil war that made over 300,000 victims. 

The current president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos is in power for 33 years and the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) - which is expected to win again - is in power since 1975. During the Cold War, MPLA benefited from the support of Cuba and the Soviet Union. The main opposition is represented by the Union for the Total Liberation of Angola (UNITA) which includes former Army rebels and which is very active in the oil-rich enclave of Cabinda. Cabinda is an important source of oil for the US and China. Angola is rich in other natural resources, as gold, uranium, diamonds and gas.

In 2001, a young movement was created following the model of the 'Arab spring', but the organizers are usually harassed by the police and the representatives of the security forces - and the so-called 'caenches', muscle men. A new Constitution was adopted in 2010, but the level of application depends at a great extent by the good will of the Santos regime. 

According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, there are a couple of problems that the authorities in Luanda should consider seriously in order to guarantee a free and fair choice. 

The main observations of HRW are:
- the need to limit the political and security forces involvement in harassing media and the political oppositions;
- the need to clarify the situation of organizers of anti-governmental protests that disappeared since March;
- the National Election Commission should guarantee the impartiality of the electoral process.

Even though the results of the elections are predictable, the content of change depends at a great extent of the change taking place till the next elections is hard to predict. 


Monday, April 20, 2009

Speech Prompts Walkout at Racism Conference


A stream of delegates from France and other European nations walked out of a United Nations conference here on Monday in protest during a speech by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who criticized the formation of a “racist government” in the Middle East in a clear reference to Israel.

Sharpening the dispute over the Iranian presence, Israel also temporarily recalled its ambassador to Switzerland for “consultations” on Monday to protest the conference and a meeting held Sunday between the Swiss president, Hans-Rudolf Merz, and Mr. Ahmadinejad.

As Mr. Ahmadinejad took the podium here, two protesters, wearing colored wigs and shouting “Racist!” attempted to disrupt the beginning of his speech but were quickly hauled out by security officers, and he continued speaking.

Mr. Ahmadinejad began his remarks by saying the formation of the state of Israel left “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order to “establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

By creating the state of Israel in the wake of the Second World War, he continued, Europe and the United States “helped bring to power the most cruel, repressive and racist regime in Palestine.”

Amid a wave of applause from the galleries, delegates from the 23 European Union nations present stood up and filed out of the hall.

The conference, the first United Nations conference in eight years to address the issue of racism, was already being boycotted by Israel, the United States and several important allies.

The delegates reentered the meeting hall after Mr. Ahmadinejad finished his 30-minute address to continue working on the conference’s stated goal: a statement that condemns racism worldwide and identifies it as something that all governments should address.

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, strongly condemned Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks, calling them the “opposite of what this conference seeks to achieve.”

“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite,” Mr. Ban said in a statement. “We must all turn away from such a message in both form and subtance.”

Mr. Ban added that he regretted that Mr. Ahmadinejad had ignored his request, made at an earlier meeting, to use the conference to help galvanize the international community to fight racism.

Earlier, Israeli leaders reacted with deep dismay to news that Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a myth and advocated the destruction of the Jewish state, would speak at the conference.

In remarks at a cabinet meeting on Monday, on the eve of Yom Hashoah, the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Six million of our brethren were massacred during the Holocaust. Sadly, not everyone learned the lesson.”

“While we gather to honor their memory, in Switzerland there will assemble a conference allegedly aimed against racism,” he said. “Its guest of honor is a racist Holocaust-denier who does not hide his intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”

Referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s role at the conference, Mr. Peres said Monday: “There must be a limit, even to the neutrality of Switzerland. Today is the day? This is the man to speak? This is the outlook for the future?”

The walkout was a flashback to the initial world summit meeting against racism in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, which critics said served as a platform to bash Israel. The United States and Israel pulled out of that conference, and this year, objected to a paragraph in the draft declaration that reaffirmed the findings of the Durbin meeting. That section, along with a reference to incitement that Washington said might infringe on free speech, prompted the United States to announce its boycott with “regret” over the weekend.

Canada and Israel had already said they would not attend, and others who joined the boycott included the Netherlands, Italy and Australia.

The boycott decision was greeted with elation by American organizations supporting Israel, which had been protesting for months, but dismayed some rights organizations and African-American groups who accused the administration of skipping a historic opportunity to right past wrongs.

Mr. Obama said Sunday that he “would love” to participate in a conference that addressed racism and discrimination, but not one with the baggage of the previous gathering.

“Unfortunately, even though I think other countries made great efforts to accommodate some of our concerns and assured us that this conference would be more constructive, our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something that we just don’t believe,” Mr. Obama said.

While other governments who pulled out echoed Mr. Obama’s remarks, saying that the conference was being misused by some countries to single out Israel, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, said the boycotting countries had allowed Middle East politics to intrude into a conference on discrimination.

“I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States’ decision not to attend,” Ms. Pillay said in a statement. “A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance.”

Human rights groups said countries that boycott the conference were losing the chance to set the record straight on racism. “These governments are ceding the floor to more radical voices,” said Juliette de Rivero, the Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.

Nick Cumming-Bruce reported from Geneva, and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem. Neil MacFarquhar and Sharon Otterman contributed reporting from New York.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Chavez’s nightmare

Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez found a way to use openly the enormous amount of information gathered secretly against his political opponents (practically all those who are not with him , according to very pre-modern conceptions of state and society). September 2008 Human Rights Watch released a detailed report on the permanent deterioration of the Venezuelan democracy and subsequently of the bad human rights record, ten years after Chavez seized power. The various left movements in US or Europe could see in Chavez a “hero”, mainly because his flamboyant “anti-gringos” speeches. He could consider himself the new Bolivar; he’s quite far away and is not perceived too much as a treat at the level of South America, where he even found “political friends”. The “patriotic” rhetoric has always been helpful, everywhere in the world, mainly in countries facing serious socio-economic problems and with a precarious – if any – democratic record. Ideologies and political dreams are useful for a hand of people, deeply in love with power, their power. The rest are simply victims.