The Screaming Pen

Providing Global Insight, Context, and Perspective

The New Amsterdam?

Minorities Crime & Drugs in China

The meanest bowl of la mian – steaming sweet noodles and meat that renew life on a frosty winter evening – you’ll ever find will be in a Uighur restaurant. Fortunately for survival, the dish can be found for 40 cents in noodle stalls located in neighborhoods throughout China. Less auspiciously for Chinese authorities, the widespread presence of ethnic minorities is, combined with the drug trade, making domestic control increasingly harder to maintain.

People from the Xinjiang (the place) Uighur (the people) Autonomous Region, China’s most western province, are noticeably different-looking than the ethnic Han that make up around 95% of the nation’s population. On average, the Uighurs are taller, with sharper features and lighter eyes. They appear more like Central Asians as they are indeed from that corner of the world. Unlike the officially atheistic Chinese, they are Muslim and wear a doppa, or Uighur hat.


Visine: Gets the Red Out

Uighurs are overwhelmingly a friendly, hospitable, and decent people. As is inherent in human nature, however, a small minority exists with less savory motives and the will to resist. They also have legitimate grievances: Xinjiang was only really pulled into Beijing’s orbit in the 1950’s when the People’s Army arrived. In a successful effort to prevent independence – similar to that witnessed in former Soviet states with similar histories in Central Asia – China has been moving its citizens to the province by the millions in an effort to pacify the Uighurs through demography and breeding; the Han now make up 50% of Xinjiang’s population. Furthermore, widespread human rights abuses and the absence of choice in the political arena lead to increasing frustration and unrest among Uighurs. Beijing’s solidarity with America’s war on terror is frequently thought to stem from domestic desires in Xinjiang. Remember the screeching woman on the White House lawn during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s speech in April? She was Uighur, and never would’ve been heard in China.

Yet as long as the central government possesses a monopoly on force restive groups find it virtually impossible to challenge its rule directly. Instead, dissent will undermine the state through other outlets. With little stake in a system that discriminates against them, some minorities seek profit through street crime and drug smuggling. Noodle stalls and niu rou (meat stick) vendors often sell hasheesh alongside their edibles. During 2005 they became even bolder, approaching shaggy-looking foreigners on Shanghai’s main tourish promenade. They also sustain a healthy trade in stolen goods, lifting cell phones and wallets, and push imitation Marlboros.

An Unhappy Bunch

The Uighurs are not the only groups in China with varying loyalties: Tibet has long been a high-profile cause celebre, and the people in Southern China – Guangdong and Hong Kong – don’t consider themselves Chinese because they aren’t Han and don’t speak Mandarin, but Cantonese. Economic dynamism has led to relative calm from Hong Kongers who were more than a little uneasy when the People’s Army arrived as the British pulled out in 1997. And while they have very different aspirations and live under widely divergent conditions than the Uighurs, they are increasingly pushy about their freedoms. Mongolian, Laotian, and Burmese groups also call the PRC home.

Definitely Worth the Trip

Nationalities from far beyond Asia are developing a presence in the country as well. In May, in conjunction with the United States, China seized 300 pounds of cocaine from a Colombian narco-gang with local partners in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Even more disturbingly, less than a mile from Zhongnanhai – the Chinese leadership’s central headquarters in Beijing- lies Sanlitun Rd and its shady cousin, Sanlitun South. The former is a dull stretch of karaoke bars with awful beer that guidebooks tout as having the best nightlife around. Just a few blocks away, hidden on all sides by apartment blocks, emerges an expatriate college student’s dream: a dusty dirt road where animals roam freely, lined by tiny alleys with wild-west bars that stay open all night serving Coronas for 50 cents. Indeed, the latter looks more like Mexico than what you’d expect to find in the heart of the Chinese capital. Less benignly are the Nigerian lookouts that man each end of the street offering everything from marijuana to crack to the passerby.

In a country that places a premium on prying into both its own citizens’ and foreigners’ lives, combined with the blatant visibility of the practice, one wonders how it can exist without the authorities’ complicity. This is doubly so given that the Nigerians are legally in China on student visas. How they got the visas is not so difficult to discern: Nigeria is a significant source of Chinese oil imports, and thus the necessary immigration papers get filed rather quickly. Yet the opacity of the government means that its role in the drug trade – whether through tacit approval and taxation or active facilitation – cannot be ruled out. Do high-ups have knowledge of it? Could it be that the Colombian drug bust accomplished two tasks at the same time: cracking down on a rival gang without connections while showing America’s Drug Enforcement Agency that it’s a good-faith partner in the War on Drugs?

If so, not only is it grossly illegal and disingenuous but illogical. Both petty and violent crime are on the rise in China, and figures will continue to climb in the future. China’s leaders should be careful about the short-term profits they seek from the trade, as the networks it creates will undermine their authority and prove impossible to stamp out. Politically, the communist party exerts a firm hold on power, but increasing revolts – numbering 87,000 last year according to party reports – will lead to a day, unlikely to be soon, when this changes. When it does the Uighurs, Tibetans, Cantonese and others will hardly help slow its fall.

June 17, 2006 Posted by | Asia, Author: DML, China, Corruption, Country Profiles, Crime, Human Rights, Nigeria, War on Drugs | 2 Comments

Still the Shining City on a Hill?

Human Rights in the Pursuit of Terrorists

For twenty years after 1979, the U.S. Congress annually passed “Most Favored Nation status” with China. The legislation gave China access to the American market – and vice versa – under the same preferential tariff regime as many other counties. Chinese and U.S. business groups lobbied hard for its approval, and during the summer of 2000 they secured an even greater goal: passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), which locks in MFN status for good and precludes the need for yearly review of U.S.-trade relations with China.

Because the PNTR debate was fought largely between two groups, its codification crystallized an important development in U.S.-China relations. Groups critical of China, many of which railed about human rights, used the MFN debate each year to shed light on China’s treatment of political prisoners, ethnic minorities, and Falun Gong members. PNTR’s passage, however, was a clear victory for business. Witness Chinese President Hu Jintao’s April visit to America that focused almost entirely on trade and security problems like Iran and North Korea. Business and war may disturb ties, but bickering over rights between the two powers will not: tellingly, mention of human rights is found reluctantly only after phrases like “also on the agenda.”


Doing America Few Favors

Indeed, advocates for human rights must be a grim lot these days. From a United Nations report calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Ghraib scandal, rumors of secret detention facilities, handing terror suspects to other countries for torture, and extrajudicial renditions, the United States has seen its image as the international standard-bearer of human rights and justice slip away.

The “war on terror,” say America’s leaders, will last for many years, even decades. This is because an individual’s ability to attack the country will remain no matter what political developments occur. As such, it is worth asking whether – with no end in sight – the persistence of the conflict should cause the United States to turn its back on the ideals that won the support of people everywhere for decades, and therefore helped achieve foreign policy objectives that may have otherwise been unattainable.

True, the nature of terrorism poses new challenges that will require novel solutions. The catastrophic potential of terrorist attacks will sometimes require harsh preventative measures and there are certainly terrorists (among an unknown number of innocents, as evidenced by the fact that the Pentagon has released some of the detainees) in Gitmo. The way out of these challenges is not easy or obvious; yet it is vital that America’s leaders make a vigorous effort to stop terrorist attacks in a manner that is more consistent with the country’s professed values. A solid first step would be legal proceedings against those being held at Guantanamo and closure of the prison camp there. Fortunately, President Bush himself announced such sentiments in early May.

The Stakes are High

Like it or not, if America cannot better handle the balance other peoples will continue to find America morally indistinguishable from less savory characters like Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Putin. Therefore, leading by example – while immensely difficult – is thoroughly essential because U.S. behavior has implications not only for potential terrorists but everyone living under brutal regimes that benefit from a lax international human rights environment. Demonstrating proper behavior is in fact the only way to advance the cause, as aggressive promotion of rights in other countries can help justify misguided movements (see “neocon”) and cannot be allowed to engender conflict among major powers (i.e. U.S.-China relations). It’s time for the country to overcome the conservative-liberal divide and recognize that upholding human rights at home is in the U.S. interest; if it doesn’t, anti-Americanism will become endemic, American soft-power weakened, and U.S. influence in the world debilitated.

– DML

 2006. All rights reserved.

May 30, 2006 Posted by | Author: DML, China, Human Rights, International Relations, Politics, The War on Terror, United States | 5 Comments

Sin Padre, Thy Wither

How Venezuela, Iran, China, and Russia are Undermining Human Rights Everywhere

If you’re ever feeling overly happy and want to come down a bit, take a survey of the human condition around the world. Among a sea of rights violators in Africa, you’ll find the worst cases in Darfur, the D.R. Congo, Somalia, Eritrea, and Cote d’Ivoire. Robert Mugabe is systematically destroying Zimbabwe. The Middle East has long seen gross injustice and political repression in Syria, Iran, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey has its Kurdish problem, which flares up from time to time when it feels Europe slipping away. To the north, Russia fights endlessly in the Caucuses and forces compulsory military service on its poor, dehumanizing a generation of young men with beatings and forced labor. Political opponents are jailed and attacked. Andijan and the “Stans” of Central Asia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma, and North Korea. Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, the favelas of Brazil and the poverty of Bolivia and Peru. The folks at Human Rights Watch are depressingly busy.

Depends on How You Look at It

Yet in spite of this dispiriting image and the gruesome confrontations between riot police and protesters caught on tape for everyone see, the news is not all disheartening. To be sure, most of these places were never free, open, or safe. It is only because of modern communication and the existence of vociferous groups like Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders that one can list the egregious examples above. And there are also examples of places where life has improved: autocratic dictators are out in Indonesia, the Philippines, Chile, South Korea, Spain, parts of eastern Europe, and the states of the former Yugoslavia. Something may finally be done about Darfur. And perhaps most importantly, great power war has been avoided for sixty years.


Sportily Taking in a Soccer Match

So between the good news and the bad, what the world needs is a state or organization exerting pressure on countries to uphold human rights. Near-inherent anti-Americanism means that most of the world no longer views the United States as this model, with consequences for both equality and U.S. objectives of every stripe. The United Nations is a misunderstood body that is limited here because it is merely a collection of self-interested states. Europe espouses many of the right ideals but is mostly focused on itself, often has an uncomplicated view of the world, and has its own internal conflicts to settle.

What the world does not need is a provider of money and material through which outcast regimes can sustain themselves in the face of international pressure. During the Cold War the Soviet Union was this source and when it broke apart Syria, Cuba, and other former dependents found it far harder to resist outside pressure. Desiccation of patronage led to the signing of the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians, largely because of a trickle down effect: without Soviet support Syria couldn’t continue to fund Palestinian resistance on par with American aid to Israel. Syria is weak now for this reason; without oil so too would be Iran and other former Soviet clients.

With Friends Like These

But today there is oil, and there are several antagonists capitalizing on anti-Americanism and spreading their largesse with debilitating effects for human rights. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is using oil profits to destroy institutions within his own country, promote populist movements (see the election of Evo Morales), and reportedly to fund resistance in Colombia. Fidel Castro has found renewed sustenance through friendship with Chavez. Iran – crucially demonstrating that the Iranian issue encompasses more than just the nuclear dispute – is channeling aid to Hamas in Palestine and trying to build ties from Indonesia to Venezuela. In an effort to isolate Taiwan, China is active in Africa (Zimbabwe, Sudan), Asia (North Korea, Burma), and to a lesser degree Latin America. In unison with Russia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), China helps prop up Central Asian dictators.

Patronage from all of these states allows rights violators to defy international norms while finding support elsewhere and thus avoiding isolation. Minatory characters everywhere find it easy to become eloquent, usurp valid arguments, and draw more reasonable people to their side (see Ahmadinejad’s letter to George Bush). Without a paragon of virtue the debate becomes muddled, the message unconvincing, and gross human rights violations overshadowed.

– DML

 2006. All rights reserved.

May 30, 2006 Posted by | Africa, Author: DML, China, Darfur, Foreign Aid, Hamas, Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Korea, Middle East, Oil, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United States, Venezuela | 1 Comment

When Words Matter

Darfur Genocide & Intervention

Until Raphael Lemkin invented the term, genocide was “a crime without a name.” A Jewish linguist from Poland who survived the Holocaust, Lemkin was determined to give name to this peerless atrocity in order to distinguish it from all other crimes; without classification its manifestations would be impossible to identify and prevent.

After years of tireless effort, Lemkin succeeded: in 1948 the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention was the first of several developments that appeared to shift the debate from “the right to intervene” to “the responsibility to protect,” and thus transfer the balance of power from murderous regimes shielded by sovereignty to outside powers willing to rescue victims of mass slaughter.

The familiar mantra became “never again.” Never would Hitler’s rampage, which engulfed the entire European continent and led to 100 million deaths, be allowed to repeat itself. Yet hopes were dashed with unspeakable tragedy meted out to entire generations in Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and (some argue) Biafra. For over 50 years the world averted its eyes and refused to use the word genocide, because doing so would under the Convention trigger “such action…as [U.N. members] consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide.” Without significant “national interests” at stake, the entire world was unwilling to take tough measures, spinelessly betraying the intent if not the letter of the convention.


Don’t look Away

This Time Different?

When Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September 2004 that “genocide has been committed in Darfur,” it was clearly no mean statement. Powell’s calculated and deliberate statement intended to exert pressure on Sudan’s government. Many also saw it as progress in the world’s response to genocide. For the first time a government with power to act called the crime for it was, while it was going on, and one could be forgiven for thinking substantial action would follow.

Yet two years on, and more than three since the forced relocation, rape, and extermination of Darfuris – mainly black Africans – by Arab militias known as the janjaweed, much talk has been followed by only a small African Union force incapable of preventing the catastrophe. Somewhat promisingly though, May 5th saw the signing of a peace agreement between the Sudanese government and the largest rebel group, the Sudanese Liberation Army. In this, Sudan agreed to admit a U.N. force, and hopes are that even if the agreement doesn’t hold up – due to obstruction from smaller Darfuri rebel groups or incorrigible janjaweed militias difficult to rein in – peacekeepers can be inserted anyway.

While this is clearly a cheerful development, it is far from a panacea. Past U.N. peacekeeping operations have shown that their presence hardly guarantees an end to the slaughter. U.N. soldiers literally watched and then withdrew after the loss of ten of their own, leaving a million (mostly) Tutsis to be exterminated through Hutu rage in Rwanda in 1994. To be fair, the U.N. force failed to act because of a weak mandate from pusillanimous member countries. U.N. action is nothing more than the sum of its members’ will; the organization cannot independently solve the world’s most intractable problems and thus shouldn’t bear any blame alone.

Nor should any country be expected to respond to humanitarian crises unilaterally, as unseen dangers often arise and such costs must be distributed among nations. Political cover must also be shared to prevent engendering animosity toward the occupying force, which naturally becomes a catchall for complaints. Instead, cooperation is needed from all: America, the European Union, China, Russia, the Arab League, and the African Union. A robust mandate should be given to a U.N. force, and if this proves inadequate a NATO contingent should take the lead. Only then can the world justly proclaim “never again.”

– DML

 2006. All rights reserved.

Note: For a thorough examination of genocide in the 20th century see Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” Information in the first half of this article was drawn from the book.

May 19, 2006 Posted by | Africa, Author: DML, Darfur, Human Rights, Intervention, Politics, Sudan, United States | 1 Comment