Police action in response to indigenous protests is increasingly under scrutiny in South Africa. Credit: Thapelo Lekgowa/IPS.

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Apr 30 2014 (IPS)

The global spectre of state violence against political dissent, with paramilitary law enforcement units advancing against citizens they are employed to protect in cities such as Cairo, Bangkok and Kiev is daily news. But in some developing countries, the police are being used to put down indigenous opposition to the alliance of state and corporate power over resource extraction.

Indigenous peoples around the world confront dispossession for the extractive industry. When formal avenues to resolve grievances with authorities fail, activism is often met with disproportionate force, unlawful detention and the criminalisation of protest leaders. And perpetrators of state violence invariably enjoy impunity.Protest is frequently the last resort of those with the least socio-political influence.

Mandeep Tiwana of the CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation based in Johannesburg, tells IPS that the ultimate casualty is peoples’ faith in representative government.

“Failure by the state to hold security forces and other powerful state and non-state entities to account for infringement of democratic freedoms and the right to express legitimate dissent undermines democracy severely,” he says.

The police shooting of 34 striking miners at the Britain-headquartered Lonmin’s platinum mine in Marikana in South Africa in 2012 is seen by many as a watershed moment in contemporary state and corporate brutality.

The same year government forces in Panama deployed rubber bullets and tear gas against Ngabe-Bugle people demonstrating against copper mining on their land, resulting in three deaths.

The police confronted communities rallying in May 2012 against environmental damage and lack of benefits from the Tintaya copper mine in Espinar Province, Peru, owned by Swiss company Xstrata, with two fatalities. Workers Day on May 1 is a reminder of the oppression indigenous people and workers still face around the world.

In the Pacific region, mineral and gas extraction dominated by multinationals has long been protected by mobile police squads. Such action has come often in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where 28 percent of people live below the poverty line.

In recent years, police have been responsible for violent community evictions near the Porgera gold mine in Enga Province, majority owned by Canadian company Barrick Gold, and the fatal killing of a worker who expressed opposition to the PNG LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) project in the highlands.

Protest is frequently the last resort of those with the least socio-political influence.

South Africa, says David van Wyk of the Bench Marks Foundation, “has seen increasing strikes and service delivery protests, many in mine impacted communities.” When authorities fail to address grievances, the issues are left to the police, “which has led to increased police brutality,” he tells IPS.

State violence reflects the critical role of natural resources in national, geopolitical and military power. Many nations including PNG, Guatemala and Nigeria claim state right to subsoil minerals, which can undermine customary land and indigenous peoples’ rights.

But in suppressing local opposition, developing nations also act in the neo-liberal interests of multinationals and foreign stakeholders. At Marikana, state violence in the name of security allowed Lonmin to remain removed from direct responsibility for human rights abuses.

In Nigeria 50 years of oil exploitation in the Niger Delta by companies, including Shell and Chevron Texaco, in alliance with the state has enriched foreign and local elites. Government oil revenues are in excess of 350 billion dollars – while 69 percent of the local Ogoni and Ijaw people live in poverty.

Massive resource rents to the Nigerian state have ensured resourcing of the Joint Military Task Force committed to guarding oil installations and quashing communities angered at marginalisation.

In PNG, mobile police squads have received funding for decades from the Australian government, which has stakes in extractive projects such as the Exxon Mobil joint venture, PNG LNG.

Dr Kristian Lasslett of the International State Crime Initiative, based at King’s College London, says unified local opposition poses a threat to the state-corporate alliance in PNG.

“It would dry up the opportunity structure exploited by a swathe of foreign investors who ignore national laws and local custom, and come as a shock to national businessmen who have proven effective in illegal land grabs and corrupt resource transactions.”

Barrick Gold and Esso Highlands have agreements to provide support to police units in the form of vehicles, accommodation, food and fuel. Clauses indicating that support is conditional on state agencies complying with international standards of conduct are rarely enforced.

Companies “adopt a ‘hear no evil and see no evil’ policy when it comes to state violence,” says Lasslett.

The post-9/11 era has also seen increased use of anti-terrorism measures to deal with grievances. The Guatemalan government used the threat of terrorism to declare a ‘state of siege’ in May last year following demonstrations against the Escobal silver mine in the nation’s southeast. This paved the way for suspending civil liberties and introducing martial law.

Justice for the marginalised is a massive challenge in an era of rising illegitimate power, as described in this year’s State of Power report from the Transnational Institute (TNI). It claims that pervasive corporate influence over governments is a factor in the demise of accountability to the governed, even in democratic nations.

“Corporations, through trade and investment agreements, lobbying and corporate capture of political institutions have also weaved a web of impunity that protects their profits and accountability for human rights and environmental abuses,” TNI researcher Lyda Fernanda tells IPS.

Many states, where oppression occurs, fail to observe international codes of police conduct or their duty to protect citizens’ human rights. Tiwana says international law needs to be supported by national legislation, aided by autonomous human rights and police accountability commissions.

“The law favours those with large reserves of money and those who have the capacity and connections to buttress their claims with forms of evidence that courts accept,” says Lasslett. “This is not to say communities can’t win in the courts, but it is not a terrain on which they hold the advantage.”

He believes that when impunity is supported by corruption and inadequate police complaints procedures, powerful social movements may be the most effective way to defend rights.

“The greatest weapon they [indigenous peoples] have is their own history, culture and customary bonds.”

Members of Taiwan’s Judicial Reform Foundation at a protest in Taipei against surveillance of citizens. Credit: Dennis Engbarth/IPS.

By Dennis Engbarth
TAIPEI, Mar 3 2014 (IPS)

Taiwan’s national legislature has taken a small but important step to curb rampant government surveillance of citizens and politicians through revisions of the Communication Security and Surveillance Act and the criminal code.

The changes were sparked by a political furore last September involving wiretaps against the speaker of the national legislature and other leading lawmakers by a secretive Special Investigation Unit (SIU) under Supreme Public Prosecutor Huang Shih-ming.“These figures show that either Taiwan is a paradise for criminals or that there is gross abuse of wiretapping."

At a high profile news conference Sep. 6, Huang had waved transcripts of wiretaps said to show that legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng had pressured justice ministry officials not to appeal a court judgement on opposition Democratic Progressive Party legislative caucus convenor Ker Chien-ming.

The supreme public prosecutor declared that the wiretaps had discovered “the greatest influence peddling scandal in history,” even though prosecutors failed to indict any lawmaker.

President Ma Ying-jeou, who is also chairman of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT), attempted to use the flap to force Wang out of the ruling party and out of office.

However, courts granted Wang an injunction against his expulsion from the KMT and he still retains his office.

In the meantime, revelations that the SIU had tapped the legislature’s mobile phone switchboard triggered a parliamentary furore. Opposition DPP lawmakers charged that Ma was restoring the four-decade long “secret police rule” from 1949 through to the early 1990s. KMT legislator Lu Hsueh-chi said the taps were “tantamount to political spying.”

An investigative report released Jan. 15 by the Control Yuan, the ombudsman branch of Taiwan’s government, confirmed that the supreme public prosecutor had abused his powers in ordering the SIU to carry out “multiple investigations in one case”, or “fishing”, and unauthorised surveillance on lawmakers.

“The September storm triggered a backlash over the virtually uncontrolled criminal surveillance by the prosecutors, investigators and police,” Judicial Reform Foundation board member Kao Yung-cheng told IPS.

Citing Ministry of Justice figures, Kao said that prosecutors had applied for an annual average of 15,312 wiretaps between 2008-2012, 74 percent of which were approved by courts. Comparatively, wiretapping requests over the period averaged 2,720 cases annually in the United States, which has a population 11 times that of Taiwan.

“These figures show that either Taiwan is a paradise for criminals or that there is gross abuse of wiretapping and disproportionate invasions of privacy by judicial and law enforcement agencies,” said Kao.

Opposition attempts to force Huang’s resignation and disband the SIU ultimately failed, but cooperation between opposition lawmakers and KMT legislators associated with Wang, and intense pressure from legal reform and human rights organisations led to passage Jan. 15 of revisions to the Communication Security and Surveillance Act (CSSA) to restrict the use of wiretaps.

President Ma, whose disapproval rating soared to over 75 percent in the wake of the scandal, promulgated the revisions Jan. 29.

“The most important change is the requirement that prosecutors must submit separate applications for warrants for approval by courts for each person to be wiretapped instead of giving prosecutors a virtual blank cheque,” DPP legislator Yu Mei-nu, a long-time human rights and feminist lawyer told IPS.

“This change should curb unrestricted use of wiretaps to ‘fish’ for offences unrelated to the initial warrant, and help prevent the use of wiretaps for political surveillance.”

The revisions also require judges to reject applications by prosecutors for wiretaps that are not in keeping with legal procedures, lack sufficient reason and are unclear or insufficient in their explanation.

Moreover, prosecutors will not be permitted to review communication records of persons suspected of offences that carry minimum sentences of less than three years.

Approval by a judge will be required for all such applications except for some serious felonies with minimum sentences of at least 10 years, such as kidnapping, human trafficking, fraud or intimidation.

Moreover, courts will now be required to officially notify the person who is wiretapped within 14 days after the conclusion of the surveillance.

A revamped act also establishes a legal channel for appeal by victims of illegal wiretapping.

The Ministry of Justice will also be required to publicly issue an annual report of wiretapping, and report relevant data to the legislature.

Judges or prosecutors who violate the rules could face legal review or discipline, while civil service officials or employees who misuse material from wiretaps could face sentences of up to three years.

However, the reform push failed to achieve two major objectives set by human rights groups.

“The best way to prevent excessive tapping and interference with privacy is to have officers listen on site in real time and not just record and store everything for prosecutors to listen to at their leisure, but this proposal did not pass,” Kao said.

Also rejected were proposals to disband two centralised surveillance centres operated by the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau and the National Police Administration.

“These amendments do constitute a small positive step, but even bigger steps are needed to really curb wiretapping abuse,” the DPP’s Yu Mei-nu told IPS.

A protestor at an LGBT rights rally in St Petersburg is led away by police. Credit: Alliance of Heterosexuals for LGBT Equality.

By Pavol Stracansky
MOSCOW, Mar 1 2014 (IPS)

Fears are growing in Russia that the Kremlin is preparing a crackdown on rights activists following the end of the Sochi Winter Olympics.

Activists warn that even under the glare of the world’s media, Russian authorities have shown they are happy to go on committing human rights abuses and muzzle any form of protest and, with the Games over, things could get much worse.The harassment of ecological activists – which had garnered international attention during the Games – has shown no signs of letting up.

“The Kremlin is likely to tighten the screws and intensify repression against independent thinkers even further if, after the Games, Russia’s international partners turn their eyes away from the country,” Tanya Lokshina, Russia programme director at Human Rights Watch told IPS.

Moscow had been criticised by international organisations for its human rights record in the run up to the Games.

The adoption of controversial legislation on gay propaganda, a crackdown on third sector organisations, repression of political opponents and systematic harassment of activists, among others, were all cited as examples of Russian authorities’ disregard for rights.

Amid the growing criticism, amnesties and pardons were granted for prominent rights campaigners just months before the Games started in what was seen by many as a Kremlin PR exercise. And it was expected that during the Olympics, with Moscow looking to improve its world image, there would be little, if any, of the flagrant rights abuses perpetrated before the Games began.

But arrests of activists during the Olympics as well as the detention and public beating of recently amnestied members of the Pussy Riot punk group by Olympic security guards has sent a worrying signal, say activists.

“The authorities have shown no restraint in their clampdown on the freedoms of expression and assembly while the world’s eyes are on Russia. Given this, we can hardly expect improvement after, and we are concerned there will be more repressions against activists and general dissent after Sochi,” Denis Krivosheev, deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme at Amnesty International told IPS.

“Unless legislation introduced in the past two years to limit the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association is repealed, the message from the authorities is clear: they have armed themselves with tools to prevent people from exercising their rights. And it is not in their plans to do otherwise,” he added.

According to reports in local media, some NGOs have already contacted foreign diplomats in Russia expressing their concerns over a potential crackdown once the Games had finished.

These fears are being further fuelled by the mass anti-government protests and subsequent revolution in neighbouring Ukraine. Some analysts say Putin may look to stamp his authority by dealing harshly with anyone he sees as a threat and send out a strong signal that dissent will not be tolerated.

“Developments in Ukraine could well be used by ideologists in Russia promoting a crackdown to reassert themselves,” Lokshina told IPS.

The authorities’ hardline stance was already in evidence just a day after the Games ended. More than 200 peaceful protesters were arrested outside a Moscow court building where a group of protesters were handed jail sentences, some of up to four years, for their involvement in a 2012 protest on Bolotnaya Square in the capital.

The high-profile prosecution of the protestors was itself condemned by critics as unjust and politically motivated.

At the same time as the arrests it emerged that the harassment of ecological activists – which had garnered international attention during the Games – has shown no signs of letting up.

Two members of the Environmental Watch on North Caucasus (ENWC) NGO were detained as the Games came to a close.

Both say they were walking down the street in Sochi when officers stopped them and ordered them to go to a police station where they were charged with refusing to adhere to a police order.

One of them, David Khakim, was this week given a four-day jail sentence.

Members of the NGO, which was at the forefront of campaigning against environmental damage caused by the Games to the region around Sochi – part of a UNESCO World Heritage Area – have faced years of harassment for their work.

The group highlighted not just activities which have made life unbearable for some people in villages near the Games sites such as illegal dumping and water pollution, but also the destruction of thousands of hectares of rare forests, spawning sites for endangered fish, hibernation sites and migration routes for animals.

It also drew attention to how legislation had been passed and amended to allow for the construction of Olympics venues and related infrastructure in the Sochi national park – legislation which just last week the Russian branch of the WWF said would allow for the legal exploitation and degradation of the environment for years to come.

But the group’s work came at a price. Members of the group have repeatedly faced arrests, detentions, personal searches and police questioning.

Another ENWC activist, Evgeny Viteshko, was repeatedly arrested in the months before the Olympics, and during the Games was jailed for three years for violating a curfew imposed as part of a 2012 suspended sentence in connection with an environmental protest.

His arrest, trial and sentencing have caused outrage among rights groups and for some his case has become symbolic of the repression rights activists face in Russia.

The group was unavailable for comment but members had previously told IPS that they were not expecting any let up in harassment while they continued their activities.

With the post-Sochi outlook for rights groups in Russia looking grim, some campaigners say these Olympics will be remembered as much for what happened outside as inside the sporting venues.

“People will recall the Games as much for the host nation’s disregard for human rights as for the sporting action that took place during them,” Lokshina told IPS.

Protesters at Tripoli’s Algeria square. Credit: Karlos Zurutuza/IPS.

By Karlos Zurutuza
TRIPOLI, Nov 18 2013 (IPS)

Car accident in Omar Mokhtar Avenue in downtown Tripoli. Nobody was injured but there’s a bumper hanging off the back of a car. In just a few seconds, a group gathers around.

“Forget about insurance companies in Libya,” says Mansur, a 30-year-old satellite dish installer. “The main problem is that you can easily run into somebody who produces a gun; everyone carries one in their glove box. In such a case there are two options:

“You can get back to your car smoothly and leave, but you could also call a brother or a cousin of yours in one of those militias so he backs you up with heavy artillery.”

In Libya, the police and the army are names on paper to entities that do not exist on the ground. Security, or the lack of it, comes from the myriad insurgent groups who rose up against former dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but who only pay allegiance to local, or even individual, interests.“So far we have avoided a new war thanks to a fragile balance of forces, but we are all aware that this cannot last much longer."

Government officials put their number at around 250,000. Nobody knows the exact figure.

But Libyans are increasingly angry since last Friday, when Tripoli witnessed the biggest spike in violence since the end of the war in 2011. A peaceful march meant to protest the impunity with which militias operate in the country’s capital ended up with 48 killed and almost 500 injured.

Local residents have been gathering in renewed protests such as the one in Algiers Square in central Tripoli last Sunday. Abdul Hamid Najah, a local lawyer, was there.

“Gaddafi would have reacted in the very same way, but we all knew he was ready to kill in cold blood. How could we possibly receive the same treatment from the very same people who helped us oust him? One of my neighbours was killed and another had to be taken urgently to Italy after he was badly injured.”

He says the “passivity” of the government is the main source of instability in post-war Libya.

“As long as militias remain in Tripoli, violence can only increase,” Mosarek Hobrara, another among the protesters and a human rights activist working for mediation from the Switzerland-based Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, told IPS. The sooner they leave, the better for us Libyans.”

Just behind him stood high school student Maha Hamid carrying a hand-made banner: ‘Tripoli is calling for help’.

The 48-hour emergency declared by the Libyan government after Friday’s killings shut most of the otherwise busy centre of the Libyan capital. Local schools and the university also closed.

“In Tripoli I only feel completely safe in Gorji  (southwest of the capital) because the local militia is Amazigh,” Shokri, a member of Libya’s biggest minority group, told IPS.

“I usually go home on the weekends but always use bypass roads to avoid the main route across Aziziyah (south of the capital). That’s the territory controlled by the Warshafana tribe, who were loyal to Gaddafi.”

Text messages are a popular warning device: ‘Militias are clashing in eastern Tripoli, better take the ring road’, says one typical message.

Some like Kemal Hassan make things simpler. He is one of the thousands of Tunisians currently working in Tripoli due to a dent in tourism back home. He says he never goes out after six. He hasn’t left the hotel at all since last Friday.

“There’s random shooting in the streets every now and then. Most here got used to it but I’m afraid I can’t.”

In fact, “random” describes much of Tripoli’s daily life. A group of four can suddenly pop out of a rickety car and start asking for “papers” to all those stuck in a rush-hour traffic jam. This IPS reporter was requested to hand his passport to a group of teenagers dressed in plain clothes but armed with assault rifles. But such harassment is a relatively minor problem.

Abu Muntalib was killed last Saturday by militiamen who broke into the Fallah refugee camp south of Tripoli. Muftar, who was displaced from what is now the ghost town Tawargha, shared the details with IPS:

“A group of men came on Friday night in a car with a Misrata sticker on the windshield and asked us whether we were from Tawargha. Four other men came back the following day; they aimed their rifles at our people, killing one and wounding two.”

Once a vibrant city of 30,000, Tawargha was turned in Gaddafi’s last days into his headquarters during a two-month siege of the rebel enclave of nearby Misrata, 187 km southeast of capital Tripoli. Displaced families handed IPS a list of relatives who had been allegedly kidnapped at gunpoint by Misrata militias over the last few weeks, the majority of them at the very entrance of the camp.

“We don’t dare to go outside but, as you see, even inside we can be assaulted,” Yousef Mohamed, a 20-year-old displaced person told IPS from inside the barracks where he was recovering from a gunshot in his left leg.

People from all walks of life complain about the dire security situation in their country. Wail Brahimi is one of those Libyans who returned from exile in the heat of the revolution “to help rebuild the country.” Two years after Gaddafi was brutally killed by rebels, this lawyer from the University of London is considering going back to the UK.

“So far we have avoided a new war thanks to a fragile balance of forces, but we are all aware that this cannot last much longer. Actually, we might well be on the brink of civil war after last Friday incidents.”

Eugen David, former miner turned farmer and inhabitant of Rosia Montana, speaking to protesters in Piata Universitatii in Bucharest. Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS.

By Claudia Ciobanu
BUCHAREST, Sep 17 2013 (IPS)

Street protests are snowballing in Romania against a Canadian-led gold mining project in the Rosia Montana area in the Apuseni Mountains. More than 20,000 people joined a protest march in Bucharest on Sunday, and thousands in other Romanian cities took to the streets.

The Sunday marches represent the third major countrywide weekend mobilisation to oppose the project since Sep. 1. They drew the biggest numbers of participants so far. Smaller numbers of people have been protesting daily in Bucharest, in the western city of Cluj, and in others cities.

The protests erupted after the Romanian government proposed a draft law Aug. 27 that gives extraordinary powers to the project promoter, Rosia Montana Gold Corporation (in which Canadian group Gabriel Resources is the majority stakeholder). “It is also about the right of people to keep their properties, about our duty to safeguard a patrimony that belongs not only to us, but also to the world and to future generations." -- Claudiu Craciun, an active participant in the protests

According to the text, the company can relocate people whose homes are on the perimeter of the mine. Additionally, the law asks state authorities to grant the company all necessary permits within set deadlines regardless of national legislation, court rulings or public participation requirements.

Gold Corporation plans to build Europe’s largest gold mine at Rosia Montana to extract 300 tonnes of gold and 1,600 tonnes of silver over 17 years. The operation would involve the destruction of three villages and four mountains.

In all, 12,000 tonnes of cyanide would be used yearly and 13 million tons of mining waste produced each year, according to a project presentation submitted by the company to the Ministry of Environment.

The proposed law is meant to give the project a definitive green light after over 14 years in which Gold Corporation has not been able to secure all necessary permits.

In 2004, the Romanian Academy of Science – the most authoritative scientific body in the country – called for the project to be scrapped because environmental and social costs far outweigh benefits. Apart from environmental risks and displacements, the large-scale mining proposed by Gold Corporation would threaten the cultural heritage in Rosia Montana, a mining area since Roman times.

Hundreds of people in the 3,000-strong village have been opposing the project for years, setting up the NGO Alburnus Maior and successfully battling the corporation and state authorities in courts.

Contributing to the growth in public sympathy for the movement has been the seemingly close alliance between Gold Corporation, politicians across the political spectrum and mainstream media.

Political arch-rivals, such as centre-right President Traian Basescu and Socialist Prime Minister Victor Ponta, have at various points declared themselves in favour of the project.

Most major media outlets in the country have run Gold Corporation advertisements while failing to cover arguments against the exploitation. In a country where corruption is a big feature of public life, this consensus in favour of gold mining at Rosia reeked of backroom deals.

The predominant discourse about Rosia Montana in the public sphere has been that gold mining would create employment and enrich state coffers. According to the most recent agreement between the Romanian government and the company (annexed to the Aug. 27 draft law), Gold Corporation would employ 2,300 people during the two-year construction phase and 900 during the 17 years of exploitation. Over the duration of the operation, the Romanian budget is set to win 2.3 billion dollars while other benefits for the Romanian economy are estimated at 2.9 billion dollars.

The popular mobilisation now targets the Parliament, whose vote will effectively decide the fate of Rosia Montana. If the law is approved, even if it is challenged as unconstitutional in the Constitutional Court (the premises for such a procedure exist since a judicial committee in the Senate issued a negative opinion on the draft law), construction could begin immediately, pending the supreme court ruling.

“We cannot tell what will happen with this project, but all that we can say is that we keep fighting, that united we will save Rosia Montana,” Eugen David, leader of Alburnus Maior told IPS. “We are under siege right now in Rosia Montana, but in the end we will manage to lift it.”

The protests that began on Sep. 1 are remarkably strong for Romania. Since their start, misinformation in the public space has been abundant: the main television channels originally failed to cover the protests despite their size; on Sep. 10, media wrongly announced that the draft law had been rejected by the Senate; and Ponta declared that the project could not go ahead against popular will, only to later express again support for the project.

In spite of this, protesters – who function according to a non-hierarchical structure and have no official leaders – have skillfully kept the public informed and engaged via Facebook. The weekly hours-long marches go through neighbourhoods with the goal of spreading the word about opposition to the project and showing that protesters are not hooligans as depicted on TV.

Their strategy seems to have worked since numbers this Sunday were bigger than ever. The first days of mobilisation brought mostly youth to the streets, but older participants and youth-parent couples are increasingly visible. After two weeks of well-mannered street actions, police presence on Sunday can be considered symbolic.

“It is very interesting that such a revolt began with a case of protecting the environment, but this is not only about the environment,” Claudiu Craciun, an active participant in the protests, told IPS. “It is also about the right of people to keep their properties, about our duty to safeguard a patrimony that belongs not only to us, but also to the world and to future generations.

“The Rosia Montana case – in which you see legislation custom made to serve the interests of a corporation – highlights some failures of both democratic institutions and of the economic system, capitalism in a broader sense,” Craciun added.

“Rosia Montana is the battle of the present and of the next decades,” the activist said. “It illustrates the end of post-1989 cleavages [communist vs anti-communist, European vs. non-European] and the emergence of new ones. People today confront a corrupted political class backed up by a corporation and a sold out media; and they ask for an improved democratic process, for adding a participatory democracy dimension to traditional democratic mechanisms.”

On Aug. 14, the 42^nd anniversary of Bahrain’s independence from Britain, an online group called Tarmarod (“rebellion” in Arabic) officially joined Bahrain’s democracy movement that began in February 2011.

A montage of the Bahraini Uprising created from images available on the Wikimedia Commons.

Tamarod’s name and inspiration came from the Egyptian movement that led to the ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In its first statement, issued on Jul. 4, Tamarod said it wants “a homeland that embraces all its citizens, an Arab and independent Bahrain where the people can have greater decision-making power within their country.

“This movement is a ‘rebellion’ against the injustice and illegitimacy of a regime that has exerted its power through the exploitation of the country’s natural resources and draconian legislation that limits human rights and judges its citizens based on their ethnicities,” the statement said.

Countering the rebellion

Ahead of Aug. 14, which Bahrain’s government anticipated as a day of protest, high-level official statements describing Tamarod as a sham version of the Egyptian movement were released.

The Ministry of Interior warned against responding to Tamarod’s calls of protest and civil disobedience, and King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifah issued a decree ordering the National Assembly to convene and, for the first time in Bahrain’s history, toughen anti-terrorism laws.

Bahrain’s broad definition of terrorism can be applied to the act of burning tires, blocking streets, the use of Molotov cocktails and protesting in the capital, Manama, which the government argues can damage the country’s economy.

Bahrain’s National Assembly came up with 22 recommendations on Jul. 28, including the banning of all demonstrations and gatherings in Manama and the withdrawal of citizenship from “perpetrators of terrorist acts” and “instigators”, all of which were issued as law by the king on Aug. 1.

In the run-up to Aug. 14, at least five online activists, bloggers, photographers and other members of citizen media were arrested, according to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR).

More than 70 websites and online forums that the government alleges promote terrorism were also blocked.

Tamarod called for peaceful but escalating civil disobedience by closing stores and refraining from shopping or fueling vehicles. The movement also called on people to temporarily halt financial transactions, including the paying of bills, and to switch off all lights at sunset.

Protest spots were also declared in nine different locations, for people to march to on foot – not as groups but individually – without any slogans, banners, flags or other such manifestations, and by avoiding all confrontation with security forces.

Bahrain’s security forces were meanwhile implementing their response plan.

Since Aug. 12, an intensive security presence was felt throughout the capital, villages and other areas. This included checkpoints and the arresting of activists.

Bahrain’s pro-government media also campaigned against Tamarod by calling for the withdrawal of citizenship of oppositional political and religious leaders.

Bahrain’s unique struggle

In comparison to the uprisings that began in other Arab or African countries in 2011, Bahrain’s protest movement was not a direct response to economic disadvantages faced by its people. The protests have been aimed at achieving freedom and self-determination.

Bahrain’s Shiite majority has long said that it is not given the same chances as the Sunni minority, such as jobs assigned by the Sunni royal family to top tier positions in commerce and governance. Shiite Muslims are also not allowed to join the island-nation’s security forces or army.

Bahrain’s authorities claim the opposition movement is aided by Iran and aims to remove the monarchy through terrorism.

The monarchy has responded by cracking down on demonstrators through hundreds of arrests recorded by international rights-monitoring organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as systematic torture, the killing of demonstrators and the removal of alleged protestors from their jobs.

Bahrain’s citizen media

Bahrain’s government has gone to lengths to prevent foreign media from visiting the country since April 2011. International media were also largely barred from entering the country close to Aug. 14, all of which has resulted in citizens working to disseminate information.

Bahrainis were mostly impeded from protesting on Aug. 14 or on the days after because of the heavy police presence on the streets. Local and international media were meanwhile focused on the bloody events in Egypt following the killing of hundreds of pro-Muslim Brotherhood protestors that also took place on that day.

Two-and-a-half years after Bahrain’s uprising began, international media attention also remains scarce and the support provided to the monarchy by neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia has not contributed to positive change for either side.

Not even the results of a Bahraini independent inquiry, which expose substantial human rights violations, have spurred meaningful reform.

But Bahrainis are still showing their resolve to achieve their rights and live in a country where the rule of law is implemented through democracy and not by a tribe.

This is one reason why the Tamarod movement has established itself in Manama – despite the authorities’ attempts to quell protests there – and promised to continue its peaceful “rebellion”.

Nazeeha Saeed is the Bahrain correspondent for Radio Monte Carlo and France 24. Her coverage of Bahrain’s 2011 uprising led to her detention by Bahraini police. She now works closely with international organisations to defend freedom of the media in Bahrain and for the rights of both Bahraini and non-Bahraini journalists.

Villagers from Zurawlow protesting in Warsaw. The banner says "Shale gas = the death of farming". Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS.

By Claudia Ciobanu
WARSAW, Jul 24 2013 (IPS)

Since Jun. 3, inhabitants of the village Zurawlow in Grabowiec district in southeastern Poland have been occupying a field in their locality where the U.S. company Chevron plans to drill for shale gas. The farmers’ resistance is just the latest blow to shale gas proponents in the country.

Chevron, one of the world’s top five publicly owned oil and gas companies (the so-called “Big Oil”), owns four out of the 108 concessions for exploration for unconventional gas currently awarded by Poland (data from Jul. 1, 2013).

Over the past years, Poland has been perceived as one of Europe’s most promising locations for shale exploration. The U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration estimated two years ago that the country holds 187 trillion cubic feet shale gas resources, 44 trillion of which are in the Lubin Basin where Zurawlow lies. This year, the body revised those estimates downwards, to 148 trillion cubic feet for the country and nine trillion for the Lubin region, after applying tighter methodology.“If they go ahead with drilling thousands of metres underground, our water will be affected and there will be no more life in our fields." -- villager Stefan Jablonski

Given Poland’s annual gas consumption (currently over 600 billion cubic feet annually), the original EIA estimate has been translated to mean that shale gas resources would be enough to meet the country’s needs for 300 years, a figure often quoted by media and politicians.

The Polish centre-right government headed by Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been depicting shale gas as a way to both reduce Poland’s dependency on Russian gas imports (two-thirds of Polish gas demand is covered from Russian imports) and to make a transition away from dirty coal, which at the moment covers 60 percent of energy demand in the country.

Past the political rhetoric, facts on the ground are less rosy. Despite around 40 wells being drilled in the country since 2010 (including by Halliburton contracted by Polish state company PGNiG S.A.), no company has to date announced that it can extract gas for commercial purposes.

Over the past year, ExxonMobil and two other companies, Marathon Oil and Talisman, announced they would withdraw from Poland, doubting the gains they could make. The government appears to be in damage control mode, telling international media that Exxon still holds on to one out of six concessions and that Marathon has not yet submitted official requests to pull out.

Tusk’s team is also working on legislative changes to make the companies’ lives easier: in addition to tax breaks until 2020, firms would have the possibility to turn exploration licences into production licences automatically as well as to increase the depth of drilling without extra permits.

Yet the shale gas lobby thinks changes do not go far enough. According to the Polish Exploration and Production Industry Organisation (OPPPW), clearer wording is needed to ensure those who explore can automatically exploit (without the fields being put up for tender if gas is discovered), longer exploration permits are necessary, and too big a role is envisaged for a state company which is planned by Poland to have a stake in all exploitations.

“OPPPW members all wish to progress their projects in Poland,” Marcin Zieba, the industry group’s executive director told IPS. “But, as demonstrated by ExxonMobil, Talisman and Marathon stopping their operations. they can change their minds. We have yet to see a project in Poland that has demonstrated commercial flow rates – so this activity remains high risk, with no guarantee of success.”

Meanwhile, local opposition to fracking (pumping water and chemicals into the underground to release gas from rocks) is posing unexpectedly strong obstacles.

In 2012 already, Chevron had to stop operations in Zurawlow because locals successfully argued in courts that the company’s operations at the time were breaching the EU Birds Directive.

The occupation this year started when the company renewed attempts to begin work, beginning with trying to fence off one area. Protesters say that Chevron is treating the concession like private property while according to them “the concession was awarded for public purposes – searching for hydrocarbons – and activities in the area must be conducted with the knowledge and acceptance of society.”

In a controversy that might be telling of the murkiness of the Polish legislative framework, villagers argue that while Chevron has the concession, it has not received supplementary approvals from local authorities to do anything more than seismic testing in the region. Chevron retorts that they do have all necessary approvals.

In a response to protesters, the ministry of environment says the right to build (including wells) on the concession land must be further regulated by state authorities and does not derive automatically from the concession.

The legalistic battle, however, is just a facet of the fundamental conflict between villagers and Chevron: in the predominantly farming area of Zurawlow, people fear fracking will forever destroy their water and lands, endangering their livelihoods.

“If they go ahead with drilling thousands of metres underground, our water will be affected and there will be no more life in our fields,” villager Stefan Jablonski told IPS during a protest in Warsaw last week. “Not to mention that we might end up with no gas and no water too.”

Villagers complain that an assessment of environmental impacts for shale exploration has not been conducted for Zurawlow. According to Polish legislation, state authorities can decide on a case by case basis if such an assessment is required.

Asked to respond to the claims of the protesters by IPS during a press conference Jul. 15, Polish Minister of Environment Marcin Korolec said: “Shale gas constitutes an enormous opportunity for Poland. The majority of environmental issues are extremely emotional, as we see with the people of Zurawlow, but we have to keep our route and realise our policy.”

“Unfortunately, our ministry of environment is behaving like a representative of companies,” Agnieszka Grzybek from the Polish Green Party told IPS. “In the legislative pack discussed at the moment, there is a proposal that says that new NGOs cannot send comments and engage in the debate unless they have existed for more than a year. This would effectively exclude groups like the farmers from Zurawlow from having a say on shale gas.”

By Robert Stefanicki
WARSAW, May 21 2013 (IPS)

For more than 100 days, detainees at American detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been on hunger strike, drawing international attention back to the prison that U.S. President Barack Obama vowed during his first presidential campaign to close down.

Ramzi Kassem, a lawyer who defends prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Photo courtesy of Ramzi Kassem.

Ramzi Kassem, associate professor of law at the City University of New York, is one of the lawyers who voluntarily defend prisoners of the “war on terror” being held at Guantanamo Bay. He currently represents seven detainees of various nationalities at Guantanamo and one at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.

The facility was established in January 2002 by the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush to hold alleged enemies in the so-called global war on terror.

As pressure from the strike grew, Obama said on Apr. 30 that he would try again to close Guantanamo, despite persistent congressional opposition. “I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” the president said. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us in terms of our international standing.”

In an interview with IPS correspondent Robert Stefanicki, Kassem described the brutal manner in which detainees are force-fed, the legal situation of the prisoners, and how the experience has been unique for him.

Q: What is the current scope of the hunger strike?

A: I was at Guantanamo on Feb. 6 this year, and on that day my client told me that the hunger strike had begun. Now even the U.S. government admits that more than 100 prisoners out of 166 are protesting.

But based on information from my clients, in reality, all of them are on strike, with the exception of those who are sick, old and “high value” detainees kept in complete isolation. The discrepancy comes from the fact that the U.S. government has a narrow definition of a hunger strike, just like it has a narrow definition of torture.

Q: Why are they protesting?

A: My client Moaz al-Alawi told me he is refusing food and drink to protest his indefinite imprisonment without charge and without fair process. This is the only way for prisoners to exercise their autonomy and dignity.

Those people were taken from their families over a decade ago. Very few have been tried or charged. Over half of Guantanamo’s current population has been approved for release by various U.S. security agencies: the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Defence."The U.S. government has a narrow definition of a hunger strike, just like it has a narrow definition of torture."
-- Ramzi Kassem

Yet they are still in prison. One of my clients, Shaker Aamer, was cleared for release by the Bush and Obama administrations, and the UK government has been demanding his freedom for years, but he is still there, now on hunger strike.

Q: Do the prisoners have concrete demands?

A: The prisoners want Barack Obama to deliver on his promise to close the prison and send them home. Until the government takes some concrete steps in that direction, I think the hunger strike will continue. It may stop when some people are released, beginning with those cleared for release long ago.

Q: What are U.S. authorities doing to stop the protest?

A: Several prisoners are being force-fed. Force-feeding someone against his or her will is a violation of medical ethics and international law. Other prisoners in Guantanamo refuse food from their captors but accept feeding; they protest by making the U.S. military feed them by tube.

Although it is legal to feed those men, it is still illegal to do it in such a brutal way – sending five guards to take the prisoner violently, beat him up, restrain him in a chair, and tie down his arms, legs and head, so he cannot move. Then they put the tube through his nose down to the stomach. No anesthetic or lubricant.

Q: Do your clients claim innocence?

A: The fundamental concept in any legal system is that one is innocent until proven guilty. In this case you have people who have not even been charged.

At its peak, Guantanamo had 800 inmates. Now it has 166. The majority was released unilaterally by the U.S. government, not by court order.

I’ve seen several cases where the evidence did not support the accusation. When those cases were moved forward to trial level, federal judges ruled in favour of the prisoners in over 75 percent of the cases.

I am not saying that there aren’t any criminals at Guantanamo. If they are suspected criminals, they should be charged in a court of law that recognises the basic principles of fair process: presumption of innocence, no secret evidence, reliable evidence not extracted under torture.

Some families of my clients told me, “If my son or my husband did anything wrong, charge him. If he is convicted by a fair court, we would not have any objections. If you are not going to charge him, then release him.”

Q: Why is the U.S. government reluctant to bring Guantanamo detainees to court?

A: The U.S. government is reluctant because if you have torture, the case does not fly in court. All the prisoners of Guantanamo have been tortured one way or another.

Q: Are the concerns that released prisoners could return to terrorist activities justified?

A: When we say “return”, we assume that they were there. There is no proof of that. Also, there is no empirical evidence for the concern that they may engage in something wrong after release.

Even if you believe in U.S. government numbers – and I don’t – 77 percent of prisoners from Guantanamo have gone back to normal peaceful life.

Q: How is working at Guantanamo unique for a lawyer?

A: First, we have to fight for access to our clients. Then we stumble over numerous other restrictions: requirements of being a U.S. citizen, security clearance by the FBI, traveling to Cuba to meet the client.

In a normal criminal case, when given a report that the government wants to use against my client, first I would review this report with him. In Guantanamo such a report is classified, not to be shared with the client, so I have to develop the defence on my own—a big handicap.

Q: Were you surprised by recent revelations that authorities in Guantanamo listen to the conversations between prisoners and their lawyers?

A: For us it was confirmation, not a revelation. In 2005, when I first met with my clients in Guantanamo, I did not believe them when they said conversations were being recorded. But now I know my clients have always been right.

The prosecution at the military commission admitted that smoke detectors are in fact cameras and microphones. The government may not use these recordings in court against my clients, but the intelligence services are using them for whatever purposes they want.

Q: Do the lawyers at Guantanamo feel helpless?

A: We try to change the situation as much as we can. Our role is not necessarily to win in court. We have to amplify the voices of our clients to ensure they are heard by the media, NGOs and the public.

News from Guantanamo pressured the U.S. government to release prisoners. I hope this time pressure from the hunger strike will bring real change: closing Guantanamo, a place that has no right to exist.

Excerpt:

Bab Al-Shams, the first tent encampment erected by Palestinian activists. Credit: Andreas Hackl/IPS.

By Jillian Kestler-D'Amours
JERUSALEM, Apr 13 2013 (IPS)

Tent cities are being set up by Palestinians all over the West Bank to protest against Israeli settlements, building on a protest during the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama last month.

Holding signs reading ‘Obama: you are on the wrong side of history’ and ‘Obama: you promised hope and change – you gave us colonies and apartheid’, dozens of Palestinian activists set up tents on a hillside just outside of Jerusalem during Obama’s first official visit to Israel last month.

The tent village aimed to draw international attention to continued Israeli settlement building, and to unwavering U.S. support for Israeli policies. It was established in an area of the West Bank known as E-1, where Israel plans to expand the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim settlement.

Activists said in a statement that the village was a step “to claim our right as Palestinians to return to our lands and villages” and “to claim our sovereignty over our lands without permission from anyone.”

Hundreds of Palestinian activists built the first tent encampment called Bab Al-Shams, literally ‘Gate of the Sun’, on privately owned Palestinian land in the E-1 corridor in January. Despite being violently dispersed by Israeli police and soldiers a few days after it was established, Bab Al-Shams inspired the building of even more tent villages throughout the West Bank.

In February, tents were erected in the West Bank village Burin, the site of frequent Israeli settler attacks against Palestinian residents, and then near the southern West Bank town Yatta.

“Our hope is to encourage more and more of this and to build a national movement that brings Palestinians from different parts of Palestine, not only the West Bank, but also the Galilee and other places, to help each other stay on their land,” said Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Palestinian activist who participated in setting up many of the tent villages.

The author of ‘Popular Resistance in Palestine’, Qumsiyeh told IPS that the idea behind the tent villages builds on decades of Palestinian steadfastness in resisting Israeli efforts to displace them from their lands. “It’s not a new phenomenon,” Qumsiyeh said.

“There are six million Palestinians still living (here) after 90 years of ethnic cleansing, 90 years the Zionist movement tried to basically remove Palestinians from their land. The fact that they stayed is a form of resistance.”

According to a recent survey conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research of 1,270 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 71 percent of respondents believed that “creating facts on the ground, such as the placement of tent encampments in area C, would be an effective means of confronting settlement expansion and protecting land threatened by settlers.”

According to Abdallah Abu Rahmah, a leader in the West Bank village Bil’in, which has held weekly demonstrations against the Israeli wall and settlements for eight years, the tent encampments represent a new strategy in Palestinian non-violent resistance.

“We try to use creative ideas and new ideas. We try to build our tents, using this type of non-violent resistance, to stop the plans of the Israelis of building settlements,” Abu Rahmah, who helped build several of the tent villages, told IPS.

“We know about the danger of the plan in E1, in the area of Bab Al-Shams; if the Israelis continue this plan, it will destroy the dream of Palestinians for independence and their country.”"The fact that they stayed is a form of resistance."

Dena Qaddumi is an architect, and co-founder of arenaofspeculation.org, a website dedicated to exploring spatial resistance in Israel-Palestine. She told IPS that the tent encampments signal a less reactionary form of Palestinian resistance, especially since they sparked critical discussions both locally and internationally.

“Every day, Palestinians are spatially resisting in their particular localities but thus far it has been difficult to bring this together en masse so that they not only make international headlines, but expand the imagination – and this is critical – of Palestinians in Palestine and outside. On this latter point we can say (the tent villages were) a success.”

She said that uniting Palestinians across physical space – Israel bars Palestinians from the West Bank from going to the Gaza Strip, and vice-versa, for example – is something Palestinians must address.

“We need to find ways to overcome these spatial constraints. Finding a way to bridge these spatial realities together and narrate the injustice of this situation is paramount.”

Local activists have begun protests in Slovakia after a government ministry appeared to give its backing to a controversial uranium mining project despite reassurances to people living near the proposed site that no mining would be allowed to take place.

Studies carried out by the Canadian firm European Uranium Resources have shown massive uranium ore deposits in the Kuriskova-Jahodna area, near Kosice, Slovakia’s second largest city.

But fierce local opposition to the plans for a mine had previously led to regional authorities saying they would not let any mining go ahead.

Now, though, it has emerged that just before Christmas, the Slovak Economy Ministry signed a memorandum of understanding with European Uranium Resources – unknown to local authorities in Kosice, the public or the Slovak Environment Ministry.

Environmental groups fear the Economy Ministry is now acting as an unofficial PR agent for the company in a bid to paint the project in the best light possible.

Juraj Rizman, head of Greenpeace Slovakia, told IPS: “The whole memorandum is just part of a process to create positive PR for this exceptionally controversial project and the firm behind it.”

Opposition to the mining project has been strong since it was first announced in 2005 that preliminary surveys of the area were being undertaken.

Local activists and regional authorities across the country organised a petition calling for a ban on all future uranium mining in Slovakia. The petition was signed by more than 100,000 people and became the largest of its kind in Slovak history.

They claim that the mining would destroy the popular Jahodna tourist area just 15km from Kosice, which itself has a population of more than 250,000, as well as posing serious environmental risks to a much larger area.

Among these, they say, is the potential release of radioactive gases and dust, toxic waste and the pollution of important nearby groundwater sources.

The area where the mining would take place straddles three significant sources of water, including one which serves the city of Kosice itself.

The environmental impact of uranium mines, including groundwater pollution, in other parts of the world has been well documented. One of the world’s largest mines, the Ranger mine in Australia’s Kakadu National Park, has had repeated problems with environmental damage and groundwater pollution is reported to be spreading through the UNESCO heritage site.

Uranium mining’s toxic health legacy can also be seen in the neighbouring Czech Republic.

According to studies and official data on work-related illnesses, between 1991 and 2006, just under 76 percent of all malignant cancers recognised as being work-related were from work in the mining and processing of uranium ore.

In the same period, as uranium mines across the country were closed down following the fall of the communist regime, there was an 81 percent drop in the incidence of lung cancer caused by radioactive substances.

Representatives of Ludovika Energy, the Slovak daughter company of European Uranium Resources, refute environmental groups’ claims about the mine.

Maros Havran, spokesman for the company, told IPS that certain environmentalists in Kosice had waged a campaign based on “manipulated facts and open lies” about the mine project to sway public opinion against it.

He said that the company had no plans for industrial activity in the Jahodna area, adding that as it will be underground any changes above ground to the local area would be “minimal”.

He also said the mine would not pose any environmental or health risks, specifically with regard to local water sources. “If the project is prepared and run under Slovak and European legislation and regulations on environmental and health standards for uranium mining and processing, there is no risk. Excellent hydro-geological conditions will also keep water streams and resources in the area safe from any possible harm.”

Ludovika Energy has also been keen to point out the significant benefits of the mine, arguing that the deposits could secure “a safe source of energy for Slovakia for decades” and that the project will create more than 800 jobs and bring in 120 million euros to state coffers via taxes and other payments.

But the former claim is disputed by energy security experts as Slovakia has no facilities to process mined uranium for use in its nuclear power stations and would continue to have to rely on imports of processed uranium from Russia.

The Economy Ministry has defended its signing of the referendum. Ministry spokesman Stanislav Jurikovic told Slovak media that geological surveys had shown that the uranium deposits near Kosice were among some of the most significant in the world and that “it is therefore the responsibility of the ministry to exert the maximum possible effort to gain control over these strategic deposits of uranium ore.”

He added that current legislation did not give the state sufficient power to ensure that it gained the full benefits of any potential mining.

Legal experts have also cast doubt on this claim, saying that under existing legislation the government has more than enough means to check the project at every single stage of its progress.

Environmental groups in Kosice which have formed the “STOP Uranium-Kosice” protest movement say they will continue with protests and have called on local authorities in Kosice to stick to their previously declared intention to reject the project.

Under current legislation, local authorities have the right to veto any mining in the area if and when an application for a licence to mine – which would include a comprehensive and legally binding declaration of its mining methods and what technology it would use – is officially made.

But with this not expected to occur for at least another three years as further feasibility studies and an environmental impact assessment still need to be carried out, Greenpeace says European Uranium Resources has enough time to promote its project among politicians and the public.

Rizman told IPS: “At this stage the firm can say whatever it wants about its plans because they are not legally binding.

“Their statements about their project and their criticism of local environmental activists are part of a long-term, wide-ranging PR campaign designed to improve both the public’s and politicians’ view of their project with the possible aim of influencing, as much as they can, public opinion before the project is subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment.”

Crackdown on women protesters against the Kudankulam nuclear plant in India. Credit: K. S. Harikrishnan/IPS.

By K. S. Harikrishnan
KUDANKULAM, India, Feb 3 2013 (IPS)

An indefinite struggle continues against the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in the southern Indian state Tamil Nadu despite a government crackdown on protests.

Idinthakarai, a village in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu, has become the hub of a mass agitation which started on Aug. 16 in 2011. Hundreds of men, women and children from a group of 12 villages are leading a campaign to stall operation of the nuclear plant. The public agitation intensified after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

The villagers say they have been facing false propaganda through the media, foreign money, threats from goons, prohibitory orders against meeting in public places, harassment from officials, abuse from policemen, cases of sedition in courts, and arrest warrants.

The movement has become a major headache for the government, S. P. Udayakumar, leader of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Power (PMANP) told IPS. The sit-in-protest at Idinthakarai has now continued more than 500 days.

“The goons of the establishment threatened my family members and destroyed my school near Nagercoil in Kanyakumari district. The government wants to arrest me to shatter the mental strength of the Kudankulam villagers. The central government has portrayed me as an American agent to isolate me from the rest of the supporters.”

Fearing constant snooping by the national intelligence agencies and arrest by the Tamil Nadu police, the front leaders of the PMANP are staying at undisclosed areas.

Rajalakshmi, a woman living at Kudnakulam, said that senior leaders of the movement did not attend weddings and funeral prayers for fear of arrest. “It is a risk for leaders to be present at functions.”

The backbone of the Kudankulam agitation are the fishers, who believe that the plant is a threat to their livelihood.

“The fishermen have had to borrow millions of dollars from banks to stay alive and feed their families as they have stopped going to sea,” Tamil writer Joe D’cruz from Uvari village told IPS. “The allegation of foreign funds sustaining the agitation is false propaganda meant to malign the people’s movement.”

Women have been particularly active in the protests. “Even though police are continuing their threats, women protesters are going to every house to canvas people,” said Balammal from Chettikulam village.

On Aug. 13 last year, children marched to the district collector’s office and complained that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India has not followed disaster management norms in the construction of the plant.

“We strongly oppose the plant which will destroy our coming generation,” Arun, a ten-year-old boy told IPS.

Teachers say anxiety has crept into schools. “They have strong views against the plant. The stress has affected a few students’ performance in the examination,” said a teacher at the St.Annes Higher Secondary School at Kudankulam.

Gopal, a young protester from Kuttappilli village, said that some who are protesting today were the children who participated in the agitation in 1988 when India signed a pact with erstwhile Soviet Union to construct a nuclear plant at Kudankulam.

Protesters recognise their limits. “We are ordinary people and hold strong peaceful protests, but we cannot do much to oppose the establishment,” said Udayakumar.

International researchers into the health effects of radiation say the protest is justified because of geographical factors. V.T. Padmanabhan, well-known scientist and member of the European Commission on Radiation Risk, points out that the power plant is situated on a volcano site.

“Geological studies show that there are many possibilities of a tsunami in the Gulf of Mannar region which is very close to Kudankulam,” he told IPS. “Another important threat is the using of sea water instead of fresh water as a coolant element in the nuclear reaction processes.”

The agitation has won wide support from environmentalists and independent groups from the neighbouring states Kerala and Karnataka.

The commissioning of the 2000 MW nuclear power plant at Kudankulam has been delayed due to undisclosed technical problems.

Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission R.K. Sinha has said there is no major issue behind the delay. But he declined to give any specific date for commissioning.

A protest in Peshawar against the killing of civilians by the army. Credit: Ashfaq Yusufzai/IPS.

By Ashfaq Yusufzai
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Feb 2 2013 (IPS)

–“We demand an immediate end to the military operation in Khyber Agency because it has not brought any results during the past three years,” says Iqbal Afridi from the Pakistan Tehreek Insaf party. “The military operations are killing the local population while the militants remained unharmed.”

Afridi from the Khyber Agency unit of the party led by former cricketer Imran Khan spoke with IPS near the Governor’s House in Peshawar, the northern Pakistani city adjacent to the Khyber Agency region in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Party members had brought bodies of 18 local people reported killed by Pakistani security forces in nearby Alamgudar village.

Thousands of local tribal people, including students, civil society members and leaders of political parties joined the bereaved families in the protest against the army.

“The military operations have brought lives of the eight million population in FATA to a standstill,” Afridi said. “The seven tribal agencies have remained under curfew and the population has become completely idle.”

Juma Khan Afridi from the family of some of those killed told IPS what happened. “We were asleep when security forces scaled the walls of our home. They asked the women to get aside,” Khan Afridi, a student of the same family told IPS. He said he survived because he put on a veil and stood with women.

This is not the first time the army has killed innocent people in Khyber Agency, he said. “It is because of the growing anger that bereaved families brought the coffins of their dead relatives to protest.”

Wazir Muhammad, political analyst at the University of Peshawar, said people of FATA had been bearing the brunt of the U.S.-led war on terror for the past four years, but had remained silent due to fear of reprisals by the army.

The protest by Hazara communities in Quetta in Balochistan over their dead had given strength to local tribal people in FATA, he said. More than 100 people, including 83 Shias were killed in two bomb explosions in Quetta Jan. 11. The relatives there had refuse to bury their dead immediately in protest.

Only after braving three nights in Quetta’s freezing temperatures next to their slain loved ones did the families of the bombing victims end their protest and bury the bodies amid strict security measures in a Hazara graveyard. They did so after the government imposed governor’s rule in Balochistan.

“Anger is growing over the acts of terrorism everywhere in the country. The people are rightly protesting over the army’s killing of the innocent,” Muhammad said.

The Khyber Agency incident has opened a new chapter of protests against the army. “It is for the first time that people have chanted slogans against law enforcement agencies for their failure to provide protection. It will continue in the future if the army doesn’t mend its ways,” Umar Farooq, whose younger brother was among the dead, told IPS.

“It was not just the brutal killing – the army took away the slain bodies from the site of the protests and buried them on their own. Being Muslims, we wanted to give bath and have funerals before lowering them to the graves.”

The killings come after a dubious army record. In 2009 the Pakistan army, he said, was shown in a video to be shooting from close range at seven boys in Swat. The army had argued that they were Taliban but they looked innocent and juvenile, he said.

“The incident caused international outrage and the U.S. – the main sponsor of the Swat Operation – briefly withheld aid,” Farooq said.

In October 2010 the U.S. sanctioned six units of the Pakistani military operating in the Swat valley under the Leahy Law – which requires the U.S. State Department to certify that no military unit receiving U.S. aid is involved in gross human rights abuses. The law requires that when such abuses are found, they must be thoroughly investigated.

Despite pledges, Pakistan did not take any action to hold the perpetrators accountable as required under the law.

In several instances in Swat, Balochistan and the tribal areas, U.S. aid to Pakistan has continued in apparent contravention of the Leahy Law.

Human Right Watch said in its 2012 report that conditions had deteriorated markedly in the mineral-rich Balochistan, with disappearances of civilians, and an upsurge in killings of suspected Baloch militants and opposition activists by the military, intelligence agencies and the paramilitary Frontier Corps.

“The government appeared powerless to rein in the military’s abuses,” it said. Human Rights Watch recorded the killing of at least 200 Baloch nationalist activists in 2012.

In April 2010, the Pakistan army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, apologised for the deaths of dozens of civilians during air raids near the Afghan border. The civilians were members of a pro-government tribe which had resisted Taliban influence.

On Jan. 17, shortly after the last killings, the army was severely criticised in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assembly. Lawmaker Saqibullah Khan said such incidents were bound to create anger against the army among the people, and should immediately be stopped.

“The federal government should immediately stop military operations against militants as these have failed to establish peace. They have become the main source of creating problems for the civilians.”

Member of the National Assembly from the Awami National Party Bushra Gohar told IPS that the military campaigns have displaced 1.2 million people in FATA and had adversely affected the lives of tribal people. “Since 2005, we have started military operations in most of the seven tribal agencies of FATA, but militants are gaining strength while the poor people are suffering.

“We demand an end to the military operation in FATA,” she said. (End)

Local people protest over the Koodankulam nuclear plant in India. Credit: K.S.Harikrishnan.

By Ranjit Devraj
NEW DELHI, Jan 25 2013 (IPS)

When India was admitted to the world’s nuclear power industry nearly five years ago, many believed that this country had found a way to quickly wean itself away from dependence on coal and other fossil fuels that power its economic growth.

After all, India already had a home-grown nuclear power industry that was producing about 4,000 megawatts of power from 19 nuclear reactors, defying a United States-led embargo on nuclear equipment imposed after it carried out a nuclear test in 1974.

India’s refusal to sign the 189-nation Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was also a cause for its isolation. It took a special waiver in September 2008 by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of 47 member countries to allow India to engage in nuclear commerce.

With the embargos lifted, India’s planners envisaged a string of ‘nuclear parks’ built along the long peninsular coastline by foreign investors adding 40 gigawatts (Gw) of additional power by 2020.

What the planners overlooked was stiff opposition from farmers and fishers, fearful for their traditional way of life and livelihoods, the possibility of adverse seismic events, and a challenge to the nuclear energy plans in the Supreme Court by leading intellectuals.

“There was little doubt that the plan to build numerous nuclear plants all along the coast would run into problems,” says M.V. Ramana, a scientist currently appointed with the Nuclear Futures Laboratory and with the Programme on Science and Global Security, both at the Princeton University in the U.S.

“Because of intensifying conflicts over natural resources, opposition to new nuclear sites will only get intensified in the future. Water scarcity, for example, is becoming more severe by the year,” Ramana told IPS in an email interview.

“Fisherfolk are already seeing their livelihoods threatened by a number of developments – industrial and power plant effluents being discharged into the sea is an important one,” Ramana said.

Currently there are intense protests at Jaitapur in western Maharashtra state where a 9,900 MW nuclear park is being built by the French power developer Areva SA, and also at Koodankulam in southern Tamil Nadu state where a Russian nuclear power facility is nearing completion.

Ramana said displacement is a major issue. “The treatment meted out to those dispossessed by nuclear facilities already commissioned has been less than satisfactory.”

What should nuclear planners do to address the growing domestic opposition to nuclear energy?

“To start with, the planners should realise that the country has a choice between their ambitious plans and democracy,” says Ramana. “The fact that we have seen intense and prolonged protests at Koodankulam and Jaitapur is a sign that all other options for registering their voice have been closed to the people.”

A bigger issue looming up is the possibility of a Fukushima-style disaster, especially at Jaitapur, a site eminent geologists say is vulnerable to seismic activity.

Vinod Kumar Gaur, one of India’s leading seismologists and a distinguished professor at the prestigious Indian Institute of Astrophysics in Bangalore, says site investigations around Jaitapur were seriously flawed.

According to Gaur, it is hugely significant that the Jaitapur site is only about 110 km from the Koyna dam which developed serious cracks after it was hit in 1967 by a quake that measured 6.4 on the Richter scale.

It is also significant, Gaur said, that in the year 1524 a major tsunami had hit the western coast 100 km north of Jaitapur. The possibility of a tsunami caused by offshore faulting or a distant earthquake was not discussed in existing studies.

Gaur told IPS that “confirmation or refutation through scientific investigations is critical to determining the seismic safety factor for the Jaitapur plant, and the recent earthquake in Japan has demonstrated that it is relevant to plan for all possibilities when it comes to designing nuclear power plants.

“Equally important,” Gaur said, was for “the results of scientific investigations to be made public so as to allay the fears that people have.”

Ramana said it was time that India’s secretive Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) engaged in an honest and open debate over its nuclear plans with the country at large, in particular the people who live in the vicinity of proposed sites.

“DAE has to let go of scientifically indefensible positions like its claims that its reactors are ‘100 percent’ safe and that the probability of a nuclear accident is one in infinity, i.e., zero. There is always a non-zero, albeit small, possibility of a nuclear accident occurring at any reactor,” Ramana said.

“Setting up a reactor will affect the environment because of the expulsion of radioactive contaminants and hot water. How significant is the impact can be the subject of debate, not its existence.”

He added that “if the locals absolutely refuse to have a nuclear plant in their midst, then the DAE should cancel construction plans.”

The DAE has avoided holding public consultation called by the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) that is leading the resistance in Koodankulam.

“Holding public debates has become even more important after Fukushima,” S.P. Udayakumar, leader of PMANE since 1988, told IPS. “Fukushima has greatly helped our agitation and people understand the dangers better.”

“Given that civil society has repeatedly called for public debate, the prime minister should step in and hold consultations across the country on the relevance and role of a dangerous and expensive energy option,” said Karuna Raina, campaigner against nuclear energy for Greenpeace in India.

The biggest challenge yet to India’s ambitious nuclear plans is a writ petition filed in India’s Supreme Court in October 2011 by eminent citizens asking for the court’s intervention to stay all nuclear construction until safety reviews and cost-benefit analyses are carried out.

In its appeal to the court the group said the nuclear programme goes against the “fundamental right to life” guaranteed by India’s constitution.

The destroyed headquarters of Uzenmunaigas, the company at the heart of the protracted labour dispute in the oil town of Zhanaozen in December 2011. Credit: Joanna Lillis/IPS.

By Paul Bartlett
ALMATY, Kazakhstan, Nov 29 2012 (IPS)

This December will see the first anniversary of unrest which left at least 15 dead in the oil town of Zhanaozen in western Kazakhstan. As Catherine Ashton, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy visits the Kazakhstan capital Astana on Nov. 30, concerns are being raised that the last year has seen a serious erosion of rights in this Central Asian country, with political, civil and media liberties being curbed, as the authorities in Astana construct their narrative about what went wrong in Zhanaozen.

The main target of Astana’s ire has been the unregistered Alga! Party. On Nov. 20 the General Prosecutor’s office announced it was seeking a court order prohibiting the activities of Alga! and its ally the People’s Front movement in Kazakhstan. It labelled the unregistered organisations “extremist” and also applied to ban two independent newspapers Respublika and Vyzglad, along with a number of associated websites.

The crackdown comes a week after Kazakhstan was elected as a representative to the UN Human Rights Council for a three-year term and a day after Vladimir Kozlov, the head of Alga!, lost an appeal against his seven-and-a-half year sentence for plotting to overthrow the government and fomenting the unrest in Zhanaozen, which grew out of a protracted oil sector strike.

Mikhail Sizov, deputy chairman of the Alga! coordination committee told IPS by telephone that he was not surprised by the failure of the appeal. “Since the very outset, since Vladimir Kozlov’s very arrest, it was obvious that it was a political order, an order to isolate Vladimir from society. So we did not expect the court of appeal to be able to change anything today.”

International advocacy groups also expressed concern about Kozlov’s jailing and the failed appeal.

“The rejected appeal further consolidates authoritarian trends in Kazakshtan,” said Susan Corke, director for Euraisa programmes at Freedom House. “The government of Kazakhstan tries to promote an image of stability and democratic reform, but until all can be guaranteed the right to a fair trial, including for legitimate political activities, this will not be true in practice.”

The U.S. also expressed concern over Kozlov’s conviction and “the apparent use of the criminal system to silence opposition” in Kazakhstan. Yet Kazakhstan’s government, led by strongman President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been in power for over two decades and brooks little dissent, rejects allegations that the post-Zhanaozen landscape is marred by an erosion of civil liberties. After Kozlov was first sentenced on Oct. 8, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Altay Abibullayev defended the legal process, calling Kozlov’s sentence “the result of an impartial and objective investigation” He pointed to the fact that the trial was open and that media and civil society groups were granted free access.

During the trial Kozlov was accused of working in tandem with disgraced banker Mukhtar Ablyazov, operating his Alga! party – which the government has long refused to register so that it can operate legally – as a “criminal group”. The Kazakh authorities claim that the party is bankrolled by Ablyazov, who has been in hiding since fleeing London in March after he was sentenced to 22 months in prison by a UK court . He was being sued for fraud when he was convicted for concealing his assets in violation of a court order.

A total of 17 protesters and former oil workers from Zhanaozen have been imprisoned in relation to unrest in trials marred by allegations that evidence had been coerced out of suspects by torture. Six members of the security forces are serving sentences over the violent deaths, which occurred when police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators. Three local officials have been jailed on charges of graft that Astana says fuelled disaffection in Zhanaozen.

Astana’s critics say political freedoms have come under threat in Kazakhstan in the last year. An election in January replaced Kazakhstan’s previous one-party parliament with a multi-party legislature – but all three parties in the parliament are loyal to President Nazarbayev. Kazakhstan has never held an election deemed free and fair by international observers.

Parties that are critical of President Nazarbayev do not fare so well. The future of Alga! – one of Kazakhstan’s few genuine opposition voices – is unclear. “It’s quite hard to talk about the future of the organisation (Alga!),” Sizov told IPS. “Of course we could be declared an extremist organisation, we could be declared an organisation that has been part of Mukhtar Ablyazov’s organised criminal group, they could pin something else on us.”

Kazakhstan’s other genuine opposition force, OSDP Azat, was vocal in the aftermath of the January parliamentary vote, holding monthly protests – but these gatherings petered out by June after some of the party leaders had served short prison terms for rallying without official permission, a crime in Kazakhstan despite the right to do so being enshrined in the constitution.

Kazakhstan’s independent media has also been under pressure in the aftermath of Zhanaozen. In January Igor Vinyavsky, editor of the weekly newspaper Vzyglad was detained on charges of seeking to overthrow the state, but was then amnestied in March. The Respublika newspaper, which the authorities allege is funded by Ablyazov, has also felt the squeeze, with its journalists hauled in for interrogation by the security services. The verdict in Kozlov’s trial alleged that he and Ablyazov used Respublika and other media to incite unrest.

State-controlled media, meanwhile, have launched blistering attacks on Kozlov, Ablyazov and Alga!. The Khabar TV channel broadcast a scurrilous documentary on Nov. 15 which linked Ablyazov with the financing of the party and portrayed it as a money-making exercise. Two days earlier human rights activists Galym Ageleuov and Murat Tungishbayev were named in an article in the state-run Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper which accused them of being “paid servants” of Kozlov and Ablyazov.

Sizov said the space for civil liberties had shrunk over the last year. “There is a feeling of fear. Freedoms have become fewer, and fear has become greater,” he told IPS and yet he maintains change will come: “The process of liberation of citizens is all the same inevitable. Sooner or later there will be a change of regime and democracy will come. It is a question of time.” (End)

A popular Serbian proverb quips that when it comes to politics there are as many opinions as there are people in this central European country of seven million.

But the adage was turned on its head last week when the masses sent a strong collective message to the government: no nickel exploitation in the country.

The controversy began when mining minister Milan Bacevic announced earlier this month that Mokra Gora – a 10,813-square-kilometre state-protected national park – and other areas in central Serbia contain more than four million tonnes of nickel deposits.

Bacevic went on to inform the public that several international companies were interested in exploiting the metal, bringing into the country investments totalling 1.44 billion dollars.

Like many nations in the region, Serbia is close to bankruptcy as a result of the global economic crisis. A new national government, elected to power in July, made a slew of promises to boost living standards and curb unemployment, which is currently at 25.5 percent, with 13.2 percent of the population living below the poverty line, according to the government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy for 2011.

Efforts to pull the country back from the brink of depression include plans to attract a diverse range of foreign investments, namely for nickel extraction projects.

The metal is used in thousands of everyday products by hundreds of millions of people. It is found in a range of commodities from batteries to computer hard disks. Stainless steel, which is used in cookware, cutlery, kitchen appliances, hardware, surgical instruments, storage tanks, firearms, car headlights, jewellery and watches, is a nickel-iron metal alloy.

As a result, nickel sells for close to 15,000 dollars per tonne.

But even a population struggling to make ends meet is not ready to accept the harsh environmental and social costs of the project.

“Nickel (extraction) technology is among the dirtiest in the world,” Vidojko Jovic, a professor at Belgrade University’s Mining and Geology Faculty, told IPS.

“It involves extraction (from the) ore, purification with sulphuric acid at adequate facilities, followed by the emission of gasses and water discharge that intoxicates nearby vegetation, as well as ground, underground and surface waters,” he added.

“There is no clean method for this. Pollution (from the extraction sites) spreads from 50 to 100 kilometres.”

The health hazards of nickel exploitation and production, which mostly affect local populations, include problems with the lungs and stomach, nausea and diarrhoea, among others.

A mass movement?

The issue gained wide public attention last week when the popular and internationally-renowned film director, Emir Kusturica, created the ‘Group for Protection of Serbia’ to raise awareness and garner public opposition to nickel extraction.

Kusturica, who is also director of the Mokra Gora national park, quickly elicited the support of mayors from the central Serbian towns of Topola, Arandjelovac and Vrnjacka Banja, the most popular tourist destinations and wine-growing locations in the country.

Kusturica believes that extracting nickel for export will have major health impacts on surrounding populations, without any of the revenue being reinvested in local communities.

Speaking to journalists in Mokra Gora last week, Kusturica lambasted a process that could lead to a “million deaths, just so that a billion dollars can be earned.”

Several top wine producers from the soon to be affected areas have also joined a growing movement to halt nickel mining.

“I won’t allow any digging or research around my vineyards,” Boza Aleksandrovic, owner of one of the biggest wineries in Serbia, told IPS.

“Serbia is exporting agricultural produce worth much more than the investment Bacevic promised; agriculture is our major export tool,” he stressed.

According to Jovic, major nickel producers like Canada have introduced sophisticated methods for nickel extraction, but such facilities “are not (possible) in densely populated areas like the ones in Serbia, which are surrounded by highly developed agricultural lands.”

Projects for nickel exploitation in Serbia were shelved twice in the past, in 1996 and 2006, due to environmental and possible health issues, despite offers by several multinational corporations.

But past expressions of public opposition never came close to harnessing the kind of mass support that Kusturica’s group has generated, with almost all media staunchly behind the movement in a rare instance of unity.

Photos of the Russian town of Norilsk, where almost a century of nickel exploitation has created a wasteland, flooded Serbian papers and news sites this month.

Almost all major media outlets also carried statistics from all over the world on health issues associated with nickel extraction.

Government deaf to opposition

Bacevic decided to counterattack the public on Friday, at a press conference supposedly aimed at “calming the nation”.

In his words, the technology to be used in Serbia would be “of highest sophistication” and completely different from that employed in Norilsk. He accused the media of using a “notorious scam” to “scare the public”.

“Media efforts, as well as attacks by individuals and lobbies amount to an attack on the government of Serbia,” according to the minister, adding that reporters have “deeply disturbed the public.”

As proof of the benefits of nickel production, the minister presented a black-and-white photograph of a nickel production factory in Kavadarci in neighbouring Republic of Macedonia, which allegedly turned the town of 29,000 into a prosperous one by producing 12,000 tonnes of nickel annually.

“It’s a pity there was no colour photo of Feni (the nickel plant in Kavadarci) and its surroundings,” Roberto Parizov, head of the Kavadarci-based environmental organisation ‘Eko Zivot’ (Eco Life) told IPS over the phone. “People here have been poisoned for decades.”

On Sunday the Macedonian paper ‘Utrinski Vesnik’ carried the statement of local engineer Blazo Boev, who said, “Kavadarci and its surroundings have been turned into a wasteland and dumpsite.”

“We wish that it (Feni) was never opened at all, but it is too late now,” Parizov said, in a sombre warning to Serbia.

(END)

Romanian President Traian Basescu is close to being impeached after the Parliament suspended him Friday. The political crisis, however, distracts from citizens’ calls for a more responsive political class and a halt to declining standards of living.

Traian Basescu, originating from the centre-right Democratic Liberal Party (PDL), has been president since 2004 and is currently serving his second five-year mandate. He survived an earlier impeachment attempt in 2007: after the parliament suspended him, a referendum that went in his favour helped him keep power. But popular support for Basescu has dramatically decreased since.

Apart from the usual erosion of support for any politician in power, Basescu has lost sympathy on account of being the main proponent of austerity measures during the economic crisis, which in Romania were some of the harshest in Europe. State salaries were cut by 25 percent, most social benefits were slashed, and taxes increased to keep within budget deficit requirements associated with an IMF-EU loan of 20 billion euros contracted in 2009.

In January this year, Bucharest and other major cities saw unprecedented protests attended daily by thousands calling primarily for better political representation for citizens, and protesting declining standards of living. While the entire Romanian political class was a target of the January protesters, Basescu was particularly criticised for his perceived “authoritarianism”: the PDL government he appointed and kept a close grip on sought to pass important measures without parliamentary debate, including the healthcare privatisation law that sparked the January protests.

Basescu’s alleged authoritarianism and overstepping of his constitutional attributions has been invoked by the parliament as the reason for his impeachment both now and five years ago. This year, Romanians are expected to vote in a referendum on the impeachment by the end of the month. Preparing for this vote, the new Romanian anti-Basescu government has modified the referendum law through executive decree to make turnout irrelevant for the validity of the vote.

The current government is formed by an alliance (the Social Liberal Union, USL) made up of the centre-left Social Democratic Party of now Prime Minister Victor Ponta and the centre-right Liberal Party of current Senate President Crin Antonescu. USL took control of the executive two months back after the balance of power in the parliament shifted in their favour when a number of MPs changed their political affiliation from PDL to USL.

Despite using authoritarianism as a main criticism against Basescu, USL has been accused of using similarly heavy-handed tactics over the past two months. It replaced the heads of numerous public institutions, including the two chambers of parliament, the national ombudsman and the national television with USL members or allies.

In view of the impeachment, it not only modified the referendum law, but also changed the law governing the Constitutional Court to prevent the body from blocking the parliament’s impeachment decision. It additionally took control over the publication of the Official Gazette where laws have to be published to become binding.

Many people argue that the USL measures are forcing the limits of the law, rather than illegal. Nevertheless, the European Commission issued a press statement Friday expressing its “concern” about “the current developments in Romania, especially regarding actions that appear to reduce the effective powers of independent institutions like the Constitutional Court.”

In a consultative take on the impeachment, the Constitutional Court concluded that Basescu’s behaviour was stretching the limits of constitutionality, but nevertheless did not give grounds for impeachment. The Parliament voted for suspension nevertheless.

Responding to the impeachment vote, Basescu said: “Your main objective (of USL) is to achieve total control of the justice system (…) to defend criminals in your ranks. Your actions for the past two weeks are meant to deeply shake the rule of law and put it at the disposal of USL, with very negative consequences on the country.”

Both sides pitted against each other in the Romanian political crisis today stand accused of stretching legal limits. This is one of the main criticisms that the January protesters had against the Romanian political class.

“People on the streets in January were asking for Basescu’s resignation because of his authoritarian streak, the protests were targeting abuses of the rule of law,” sociologist Mircea Kivu told IPS.

In the days preceding the impeachment vote, hundreds of Romanians took to the streets of Bucharest and other cities again, with Bucharest clearly divided in three camps each located in a different square: pro-Basescu, anti-Basescu, and for the rule of law.

Kivu says protesters this week seemed more confused and less focused than those from January. “And this confusion will probably accentuate by the day,” he said, “there will be increasing divisions between the pro- and anti- Basescu camps as the referendum approaches even though this should not be the main concern, the main concern of people should be to distance themselves from abuses of power no matter their source.”

“January was for the first time when in Romania we heard protests against privatisations, against large corporations like Chevron (exploring for shale gas in Romania) or Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, against a deal with IMF that is absolutely destructive for the most vulnerable sectors of our society,” comments Costi Rogozanu from leftist platform Critic Atac.

“Now we have forgotten these issues,” Rogozanu told IPS. “While the Social-Democrats were raising some concerns about the IMF austerity requirements when in opposition, now they forgot about it and are rallying behind the predominant rightist discourse.

“The most serious threat to democracy we are seeing today in Romania is not the stretching of constitutional limits but the erosion of all social protection for our citizens,” Rogozanu added.

Protesters came from environmental justice organisations such as Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action, as well as Ecuador, Nigeria and Angola. Credit: Judith Scherr/IPS

By Judith Scherr
SAN RAMON, California, U.S., May 31 2012 (IPS)

More than 100 people gathered Wednesday outside the gates of Chevron’s sprawling headquarters in upscale San Ramon in the San Francisco Bay area of California, where police and security barred those without passes to the shareholder meeting from entering.

The activists’ message was inscribed on a giant puppet and on the many placards they waved at passing shareholders: “Occupy Chevron and Big Oil,” “Chevron Makes Orphans,” Fracking is Environmental Rape,” “Chevron: Clean UP and Get Out of Metro Manila.”

Participants came from traditional environmental justice organisations such as Amazon Watch and Rainforest Action; their numbers were bolstered by the 99 Percent Power group, a several-months-old coalition that links the Occupy Movement with the fight against corporate greed and targets shareholders meetings.

Inside Chevron headquarters, a more sedate crowd applauded Chevron’s CEO/Chairman of the Board John Watson, who touted last year’s record corporate earnings of 26.9 billion dollars, the company’s improving safety record and Chevron’s efforts to enhance communities they work in.

“Abundant affordable energy raises living standards,” Watson said.

While some came to cheer Chevron’s progress, a number of shareholders and their proxies brought questions and criticisms focused particularly on the environmental degradation they say Chevron causes in its exploration for and extraction of gas and oil around the globe.

In particular, concern was expressed over contamination of parts of the Ecuadorean rain forest by Texaco, Chevron’s predecessor, and a subsequent 18-billion-dollar judgment against Chevron. In January, an Ecuadorean appeals court upheld the judgment.

Watson, however, told shareholders that the court decision is “an example of a fraud being perpetrated on our company”. He said, in fact, the environmental damage in question was caused by the government-owned oil company Petroecuador, which is spending 70 million dollars to remediate “the consequences of their actions”. Chevron will not pay the judgment, he said.

One group of shareholders took on the Ecuador question by calling for better board oversight. They made a formal proposal to improve management by separating the functions of chief executive officer and chairman of the board.

“Mr. John Watson is his own boss,” said Simon Billenness, speaking to shareholders in favour of the proposal on behalf of the Universal Universalist Association.

Billenness criticised a board decision to approve a 75 percent raise for Chevron’s General Counsel, which they said was based on an assessment of “outstanding management” of the case in Ecuador.

“What is ‘outstanding’ about the case is that the Ecuadorian courts have upheld an unprecedented 18-billion-dollar judgment against the company,” Billenness said, adding that plaintiffs plan to pursue Chevron’s assets in various countries outside Ecuador.

Separating the functions of the CEO and board chair would promote more independent oversight, Billenness said, noting that while the proposal lost, it did get 38 percent, up from 14 percent when the shareholders voted on the same question in 2008.

Other proposals impacting safety and the environment also failed. One would have reserved one board slot for an environmental expert; another called for better accountability around safety issues; and a third proposed preparation of a report to investors on the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing, a controversial process of extracting oil or gas from shale rock that involves shooting water, sand and chemicals down a well.

The shareholder question period got testy. First to line up at the microphones were two Watson supporters.

Shelton Ehrlich blasted those who brought the pro-environment, pro-safety proposals to the meeting. “They were brought to us by left-wing and corrupt groups,” he said, asking Watson, “Why do you put up with this crap?”

Susan Rutherford followed by thanking the corporation “for fighting the shakedown in Ecuador”.

Most of the speakers who followed travelled to San Ramon from the areas they said were contaminated by Chevron.

Luz Cusangua, who is from the damaged region in Ecuador, called on Chevron to take responsibility. “Our children are deformed, while you are celebrating profits,” she said, speaking through a translator.

Emem Okon of the Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Center in Nigeria told shareholders about a fire at a Chevron oil installation that burned for 46 days, contaminating the area and destroying the people’s livelihoods.

Cristóvão Luemba from Angola said, “Chevron’s policies in Cabinda are endangering our communities, particularly the fisheries.” He charged Chevron with daily unreported oil spills.

“When are you going to start acting right and stop thinking about your profits?” he asked.

Henry Clark of the West County Toxics Coalition described problems stemming from the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California, some 35 miles from San Ramon. He talked about the “block toxic smoke” that lasted a week during a recent flare-up at the refinery, and asked the board not to further burden the already overburdened people of Richmond with increased emissions from a new facility being planned.

The Richmond refinery is the largest single stationary source of greenhouse gases in California, according to Antonia Juhasz, writing in the “True Cost of Chevron“, an alternative annual report on Chevron.

Watson responded to each speaker. In Nigeria, Chevron addresses community needs through job creation and microlending programs, he said, and in Angola, the company takes responsibility for the spills that are Chevron’s.

“We have a policy to report every spill,” he said, arguing however that most of the spills are not Chevron’s. He talked about jobs programmes in Richmond and said that city has “some of the cleanest air in the Bay Area”.

Much to the chagrin expressed loudly by a number of activists in the meeting, João Antonio de Moraes, coordinator with the United Federation of Oil Workers in Brazil, was not admitted to the shareholders’ meeting. (He was told there was a problem with his proxy, though he said it was in order.)

In his place, Antonia Juhasz of the True Cost of Chevron coalition told shareholders about a spill in Brazil for which Chevron will be asked to pay around 22 billion dollars.

Watson took responsibility, to a degree. “We regret the 2,400 barrel spill,” he said, explaining that, working closely with the Brazilian government, they were able to stop the spill within four days.

“There was no damage to the environment,” he said, adding, “We’re not perfect. We have made mistakes and we learn from them.”

Unable to enter the meeting, Moraes addressed the activists on the sidewalk outside Chevron headquarters.

“We, Brazilian oil workers, we agree that Chevron is afraid of the people,” he said, speaking through a translator. “What they did on the coast of my country, on the beach outside Rio De Janeiro, a spill of almost a whole kilometre long, we’re going to demand that they pay for this….The force is with us, with the people, and not with the arrogance of Chevron.”