Table of Contents
From the Editor’s Desk – Kyrstie Lane, Managing Editor
Pedagogy of Conflict: Neutrality – Pushpa Iyer, Director
The Future of the Nepali Peace Process – Jitman Basnet
Reflections on the Importance of Unarmed Civilian Protection – Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh
Empire’s Prisoners – Anita Seth
Cover Photo: Portrait of Dago – Adele Negro
India Column: Peoples’ Power Versus Nuclear Power – Francis Gonsalves
by Kyrstie Lane, Managing Editor
Human rights is something everyone likes to talk about, yet few actually pursue with dedication and resolve. It is easy to proclaim support for human rights, but do we really know what they mean? How can we define these rights, and how can we tell when they have been violated? How can we create better protections for them, and how can we punish the violators? Are we willing to stand for them even in difficult and dangerous situations? These difficult questions often remain unasked, because it seems almost blasphemous to engage in discussion on something that everyone claims to support, something that would be monstrous to deny. Ironically, and unfortunately, this blind faith prevents us from furthering human rights by limiting our definition and conception of them.
With such difficult questions in mind, this issue of Reflections seeks to open a discussion on a number of important human rights issues. Our authors offer their ideas on a range of issues and cases, based largely out of their incredible personal experiences. Adele Negro’s photo of Dago, a young El Salvadorian boy, and her comments on the possibilities for his future and that of other children like him provides us with a powerful, emotional link to the issue of human rights. Jitman Basnet comments on the condition of human rights in Nepal’s ongoing peace process; a situation he knows all too well, having been imprisoned at different times by both major conflict parties. Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh reflects on the vital work that organizations such as Peace Brigades International have done in protecting those who stand up for justice and rights in conflict situations, and why we must continue to improve and strengthen this type of work. Anita Seth of IF discusses the controversial issue of the prison system in the United States: is our system of punishment just, and further, is it effective? In Pedagogy of Conflict, Dr. Pushpa Iyer explains the paradox of neutrality, and how conflict resolvers and human rights activists alike should approach this difficult concept. Finally, in this issue’s India Column, Francis Gonsalves presents a worrying case of disregard for human rights and the voice of the people through the pertinent example of nuclear power in India.
Human rights is a difficult and complicated concept, but we must continue to discuss what it means and how we can work to further it. We hope this quarter’s reflections will contribute to your ideas about human rights, and spark continuing discussions.
by Pushpa Iyer, Director
Neutrality in conflict situations is a hotly debated topic in the field. Should conflict resolvers, peacemakers, and peacebuilders stand right in the middle of warring parties in order to ensure every side has equal access to them? For how else can one expect conflict parties to trust the “resolver”?
In some of the earliest approaches in the field, neutrality was a key characteristic much desired by conflict resolvers. Initial scholarship in the field strongly linked neutrality to trust; the more neutral the conflict resolvers, the more the parties would trust them not to work in favor or to the detriment of any one side.
However, over time scholars have questioned this linkage and many studies have subsequently argued that having conflict resolvers be biased (or more trusted by one side than the other) can actually have positive effects on the outcome of the conflict. This, combined with more “activist” scholars in the field such as Johan Galtung and John Paul Ledrach, has led to new questions in the field: is neutrality possible? And is neutrality even desired in resolving conflicts? Some scholars such as Janet Rifkin and Sara Cobb and Miller argue that neutrality is impossible; a paradox because a true resolver must be impartial over issues but maintain equidistance with all conflict parties. Neutrality implies that conflict resolvers should not be judgmental, but should encourage parties to express their “side” of the story. The approach is a dichotomy.
So, pedagogically, how does one communicate the concept of neutrality?
While everyone at some point in their life has experienced intense, polarizing conflict, for most, neutrality is something that conflict parties lack and conflict resolvers must have. The reason that many newcomers to the field desire neutrality with fervor is because they see neutrality as making them separate or distinct from the positional objectives of the conflict parties. At the same time there are others, including potential or active human rights activists, who view neutrality with disdain. For them neutrality is not desirable; they argue that taking a stand on an issue which invariably involves taking sides is “the” approach. They see it as the only way to securing rights for all.
One way of dealing with these very different groups is to stress that neutrality is neither good nor bad. It is not something that should be pursued in every case, yet neither should it be rejected outright. Neutrality is to be understood contextually and can be practiced in various degrees depending on the conflict context. Neutrality is not something that can be taught, nor is it a skill that can be learnt over time. A degree of neutrality is something that conflict resolvers have to make a decision about and articulate for themselves.
Neutrality is the position that conflict resolvers assume when assisting parties to find solutions to their conflicts. Various factors determine the position of conflict resolvers: their personal bias, prejudices, and agendas. Acknowledging these is what makes conflict resolvers true members of this field. Self-reflection is key and a conscious effort has to be made to make it an integral part of every action taken.
Neutrality becomes especially tricky when social justice is an integral part of conflicts. The field of conflict studies accepts and even advocates certain universal rights and argues that there are basic human needs which, when unmet, could lead to violence. How does one reconcile human rights and basic needs when they clash with cultural rights? Is neutrality the answer? Maybe.
Neutrality is something that conflict resolvers learn to manage by taking into consideration contextual factors and personal values, biases, prejudices, personalities, and agendas. The skill to manage neutrality can only come with practice, but the process emphasizes good analysis of conflicts and strong self-reflection.
Neutrality can be very useful, but at other times it may negatively impact the conflict resolution process. Neutrality should not be evaluated as a concept but evaluated as a process that is managed by conflict resolvers. It is when conflict resolvers put themselves on a pedestal as being incapable of having biases, prejudices, agendas, and positions that they begin to view conflict parties as “irrational.” Once that happens, conflict parties begin mistrusting conflict resolvers, who then become irrelevant in the conflict resolution process.
by Jitman Basnet
On Nov. 22, 2006, after ten years of violent conflict in Nepal, the Nepal Government and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) signed a peace agreement. A new constitution based on federalism, justice for conflict victims, and transformations in the old state mechanisms in the judicial, economic, social, cultural, and political sectors are major parts of the peace process, and were all included in the 2006 peace agreement to be implemented within an initial two-year time frame. During the five-year period since the peace process began, none of these tasks have been accomplished.
In accordance with the peace deal, 19,600 Maoist fighters were confined in 28 cantonments in different parts of Nepal, awaiting possible integration into a newly formed National Army. Over the years, Nepal has been facing great challenges in its peace process, especially in terms of army integration, which is one of the major aspects of the process. This has created divisions within the Maoist Party. On Nov. 1, 2011, the present government (headed by a Prime Minister from the Maoist Party, Baburam Bhattarai) and the other major political parties signed a peace deal known as the four-point agreement. After the four-point deal, the Madheshi parties agreed to join in the Maoist-led government, but the deal has led to factionalization among the Maoists. One faction of the Maoists is currently in power as part of a coalition government, thus further exacerbating the rift in the Party.
Since the formation of Dr. Bhattarai’s government, the hardliner faction of the Unified Communist Party Maoist “Baidhya Group” has been expressing its dissatisfaction over the four-point agreement carried out with the Madheshi Morcha. The Madheshi parties continue to pressure the government to include more of the Madheshi community in the armed forces, while the government continues to insist on a few openings at a time.
In the last week of December 2011, a group of commanders in the Maoist Army tabled a memorandum to the Prime Minister showing their dissatisfaction over the four-point agreement carried out on November 1. As part of this agreement, major political parties including the Nepali Congress agreed to accept 6,500 Maoist fighters into the Nepal Army. However, more than 10,000 fighters have already been listed as wanting to join the Nepal Army during the “regrouping process,” whereby combatants choose integration, rehabilitation, or voluntary retirement. This process began Nov. 18, 2011. Following this agreement, which decided the number of fighters as well as criteria for recruitment and a financial package for voluntarily discharged fighters, dissatisfaction mounted in the Maoist Army.
On Dec. 27, 2011, “disqualified” former combatants of the Maoist army who were discharged from the cantonments after the verification of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) protested against the government and the Maoist leaders in Itahari, in southeastern Nepal. 4,008 of these were combatants discharged from the cantonments in 2010 after the UNMIN’s verification process. On Dec. 25, 2011, former Maoist combatants staged a demonstration against the UCPN (Maoist) leadership in Nepalgunj, a southwestern city in the Terai region (the southern part of Nepal near the Indian border). Hundreds of former combatants joined the rally and chanted slogans against the Maoist leadership and the United Nations for categorizing them as “disqualified” and depriving them of any benefits. They also warned of a return to armed struggle if their demands were not met. From time to time, these militarily trained fighters have been demonstrating their dissatisfaction, but the government and political parties are ignoring them. These “disqualified” fighters could join groups advocating violence and their military skills and history could contribute to renewed conflict in the future if their demands are not met.
The constitution drafting process, another major aspect of the peace process, has been stalled for a couple of months since the sub-committee formed by the Constitutional Assembly to sort out the major differences between the political parties has failed to produce an agreement. As per the recent verdict of the Nepali Supreme Court, the final deadline and terms of the Constitutional Assembly has been set for May 28, 2012. It is unclear what will happen to the Constitutional Assembly after this date. Questions about the future of the Constitutional Assembly are a major matter of conversation in the streets of Kathmandu these days. Within five months, the Constitutional Assembly will have to finalize the final draft of the constitution, finding a consensus on twenty-one major differences among political parties.
In the ten years of conflict, more than 16,000 Nepali people were killed. Of these, around 65 percent were killed extrajudicially. Ninety percent of the killings were committed by the government and ten percent by the rebels. According to the International Red Cross, 1,300 civilians disappeared and their whereabouts remain unknown. Several thousand people were internally displaced and hundreds were illegally arrested, tortured, and detained in secret military barracks or police custody. The victims of conflict have not received justice and none of the perpetrators have been prosecuted. The 2006 Peace Agreement speaks strongly about justice for these victims. According to the Peace Agreement, the Disappearance Commission and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission should have been set up within sixty days from the agreement’s signing date on Nov. 22, 2006, but as of yet neither of the Commissions has been formed. Instead of punishment, many of the perpetrators have been awarded and promoted by the government. In May 2007, the Supreme Court of Nepal gave a detailed verdict and recommended the promulgation of an appropriate law to address conflict related cases. Hundreds of victims have been awaiting justice, but no such law has yet been endorsed and no action has been taken against the human rights violators. Most of the perpetrators are still in powerful, decision-making positions.
Instead of finalizing the peace settlement, leaders of major political parties have been speaking against the peace process and creating more obstacles. After the successful People’s Uprising Movement and the signing of the Peace Agreement, most of the major political parties formed their own fighter groups (youth organizations), which have been involved in kidnapping, extortion, killings, and social crimes. According to the Home Ministry of Nepal, 109 criminal gangs are functioning in the Terai in the name of and with the support of political parties. They are also involved in criminal activities and human rights abuses. In the hill region, some ethnic groups have been involved in violent activities in the name of federalism, claiming their own ethnic states. In some parts of Nepal, there is still no government presence. The Rule of Law is weakening and most criminal gangs are affiliated with political parties and receive amnesty. Because the entire system is in transition, security is deteriorating. If this situation continues in Nepal, it will further affect the Peace Process.
Due to growing differences among the political parties and internal divisions in the Maoist Party, the peace process is at risk. After analyzing these circumstances and the political situation, we can conclude that there are dark clouds looming in Nepal. Everyone is curious about the future of Nepal and what will happen after the May 2012 deadline. The new Constitution and changes in the state mechanisms are equally important to keep the peace process on track. If one of these major aspects cannot be fulfilled, it will threaten peace in the country. The progress of the peace process or lack thereof defines the future of Nepal. India, China, and the U.S. are key international powers influencing Nepal’s internal politics. The international community has a duty and an interest in guiding Nepal’s peace process in a positive direction.
Jitman Basnet is a human rights lawyer and journalist who has been working in human rights and transitional justice in Nepal for 12 years. Because of his stand against violence, which involved him filing many cases against army officials who had committed human rights violations, he was kidnapped and tortured by Maoist rebels in 2002 for one day. In 2004 he was illegally arrested by the Royal Nepal Army and kept in secret custody for 258 days, subjected to extreme torture because of his voice for human rights and justice. Mr. Basnet is a founder and Secretary General of the Lawyers’ Forum For Human Rights (LAFHUR), a pro-bono lawyers’ network working in transitional justice and human rights in Nepal. LAFHUR provides free legal services to victims of human rights violations, especially women, children, and the poor who do not have access to justice. He is the author of 258 Dark Days, an account of his experiences in military custody.
by Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh
This year Peace Brigades International is celebrating its 30th anniversary – 30 years of highly creative and effective non-violent struggle supporting peace with justice. Like Mahatma Gandhi (Narayan Desai, one of Gandhi’s freedom fighters, was a founding member of PBI), the founders of PBI believed that non-violent struggle was taking the moral high ground and that it was the most effective way to transform conflict and relationships, rather than just exchanging positions of power and domination. In actuality, non-violent resistance may come with high costs, but these are costs struggling in a peace army, rather than those waging war. As Cesar Chavez stated, “Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak. Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win.”
PBI has developed a unique non-violent tactic termed unarmed protective accompaniment. This tactic is tailored to protect human rights activists, organizations, and communities who are at high risk for their work for economic or social justice in their local context. PBI has a principle of non-partisanship working on behalf of human rights, rather than for one side against another. It is based on a principle of non-interference whereby international volunteers create a safe space for human rights defenders to carry on with their work, but do not directly interfere with nor seek to influence the decisions and work of the human rights activists. PBI utilizes a multi-pronged strategy, which includes direct physical protection to targeted activists, bridging and convening to relevant resources and initiatives, participatory peace education, and active encouragement and moral support for human rights activists. PBI has run field projects in countries of conflict throughout the world including Indonesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Timor L’este, Haiti, Congo, and Bosnia, and is currently in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, and Nepal with ongoing project explorations in Kenya and Honduras.
Peace Brigades International and other protective accompaniment organizations have faced a number of diverse challenges over the years. Some of the current challenges include: 1) issues around white privilege and dependency; 2) deterrence methods that work in non-traditional spaces such as in non-functioning states or with non-state actors such as drug cartels or multi-nationals; 3) the ability to develop flexible, rapid deployment teams to respond to requests for protection in unexpected emergencies or for short time periods; and 4) the use by larger agencies such as the United Nations of unarmed protective accompaniment models leading to more effective and culturally appropriate methods of civilian protection.
Regarding concerns about international volunteers utilizing and possibly reinforcing their “white privilege” to provide protection in countries of conflict in the global south, one possible solution is stressing an international “trademark” for protection organizations allowing volunteers from all regions to play an effective role in unarmed protection strategies. Another advancement in the field is the training and development of in-country teams deployed in other regions leading to less dependence on internationals and more internal capacity building. Regarding the second challenge, ongoing work is being done to develop new deterrence models for non-state actors such as multi-nationals and drug cartels – actors that have enormous and growing power in today’s world, but do not fit into the traditional state structure or cost/benefit analysis used by organizations such as PBI to determine key points of pressure and influence over state policies and actions related to protection of human rights activists or citizens in general. Non-state actors are very conscious of their national and international image, which should lead to effective dissuasion strategies including the possibility of new international mechanisms such as the UN Working Group on Corporate Accountability or “shaming” of business or cartel leaders in their communities or other settings.
PBI and other protective accompaniment organizations are in the process of developing rapid deployment teams that would utilize large pools of previously trained volunteers and experts ready to deploy in a situation where large scale violence was utilized against civilian dissent such as is currently happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria. Regarding the final challenge discussed, many organizations working in the field of protective accompaniment have begun a dialogue with the UN about the possibility of unarmed civilian protection in their work. This dialogue and development of a model could greatly expand the breadth and impact of such tools.
We are living in a dynamic period of world history when non-violent, grassroots, people’s revolutions for democracy and change are erupting all around the world. Strategies developed and honed over the years by organizations such as PBI, Nonviolence Peace Force, Christian Peacemaker Teams, and Fellowship of Reconciliation, as well as nonviolent strategists such as Gene Sharp, are much in demand. Such organizations have a major role to play in supporting these movements based on their principles and long-term knowledge, research, and experience built up over years of work in the field of conflict resolution and non-violent resistance. This information and experience needs to be discussed and shared widely with ongoing citizen movements around the world in states where traditional legal and international mechanisms are failing to protect unarmed activists being targeted with violence for asserting their political, civil, social, and economic rights.
As Charles Reich predicted in his book The Greening of America: “There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture and it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence.” We are witnessing the beginning of this revolution, one that will be lead and successfully realized with non-violent strategies.
Katherine Hughes-Fraitekh is the Executive Director of Peace Brigades International. She has worked on human rights and peace and justice issues for over 20 years. Previously, she was an activist for the Middle East Peace and Justice Alliance and the Executive Director of the New Mexico Human Needs Coordinating Council. She also created and directed a program in New Mexico for women dealing with domestic violence and poverty.
by Anita Seth
Most of us do not often consider the plight of incarcerated people in America. We are often concerned only with due process, particularly in those terrible situations where an innocent person is imprisoned for a crime that he or she did not commit. But that concern alone does not make us champions for human rights – certainly not in a country where just 3 percent of the world’s population lives, but where one quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated. We must question the entire system of punishment, and protect the rights even of those who are guilty.
At a recent social gathering, I listened to a circle of friends talk about their volunteer service at nearby prisons. Peter and Betty Michelozzi, both in their 80s, teach yoga and meditation at a men’s prison. Bruce Abt, a psychotherapist and convenor of a Buddhist Sangha, makes regular trips with his group to provide spiritual services to prisoners. A particularly notable example was Doris DeVilliers, who described her experiences organizing retreats for incarcerated women, explaining how the women inside hoped dearly for a place in the retreat, which was set up for only a few of the many prisoners. Although the list of participants was set months in advance, a long line of prisoners would form outside the retreat venue in case there was a cancellation, so great was the need they felt for anything meaningful outside of the tedium of daily life in prison. Doris has been involved in this work for fifteen years. What pushes her to continue visiting prisoners? Placing her hand on her heart, Doris said she realized that she had to be there for the women inside, who have little to look forward to, and there was no way she would let them down.
Doris’s firm commitment to the incarcerated women who wait all year for a retreat does make her a champion for human rights.
However, these volunteer visitors are on the front line of our growing acceptance of punishment as a first response. We praise their work and dedication, but do not take the final step and question the larger system in which they are working. These volunteers get to know the prisoners, and they admit that some are inside because they are a danger to society. But they know that many others simply took a wrong turn, most often in connection to addiction or the drug trade. From simple possession to drug-related crimes against property, theft, and violence, inmates live for years at the mercy of prison guards who are not trained to deal with the high stress conditions inside and who are prone to senseless bullying. More aggressive, hardened criminals with access to underworld money and power victimize many of these inmates. This raises the question: is the punishment we so easily hand out proportional to the crime?
We put far too many people away in this dangerous, harrowing world that changes their lives forever. There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal, and private prisons throughout the U.S. According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The jail population has grown from fewer than 300,000 in 1972 to over 2 million today.
We do not bother to think about the full effects and consequences of our system of punishment. How long of a stay inside hell is enough to repay a “debt to society”? How much punishment is really appropriate? In reality, the people we “throw away” in prison are often thrown away for good. Whether they are serving a three, five, or twenty-year sentence, many inmates change for the worse. They have little or no contact with family and friends, and almost no chance of finding a job when they do get out. In essence, any length of imprisonment becomes a lifelong punishment.
So who benefits when we give in to the impulse to punish first, and when we neglect to question whether the punishment fits the crime? Prisons are quickly becoming big business. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. “The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners’ work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself,” says a study by the Progressive Labor Party.
How do we define ourselves as champions for human rights? Most often, we stand by those who are unjustly punished, those courageous individuals willing to sacrifice themselves, endure torture, or face death for speaking the truth when injustice prevails. They speak for the most vulnerable among us who bear the greatest pain of unjust systems that deny people the very basic human hopes for survival, a future for their children, and an equal voice in their civic lives. They shed light on inhumane punishments for crimes, and on legal systems that can be arbitrary at best, and that at worst are a part of a strategy for total domination by a powerful few.
Thus, our obligations go far beyond standing up for those who have been unjustly punished. We in the U.S. have an urgent responsibility to contend with our human rights failures. As citizens of the most powerful country in history, we have allowed too much wrong to be done under the guise of protecting our security. We have a responsibility to question our system of punishment, our conception of justice, and to protect the most vulnerable among us. Human rights push us to protect the rights of all in our prison population, even those who perhaps do “deserve” to be punished.
Anita Seth is Executive Director of IF (www.integrities.org), a Santa Cruz, CA non-profit educational and social change organization whose mission is to foster hopeful alternatives for the local and global community. Anita has approached social transformation from a spiritual perspective for 30 years, and is a Reiki Master Teacher.
by Adele Negro
Bright-eyed and engaging, if slightly bashful, 11-year-old Dagoberto Gómez – or Dago, as he is known – wants to be a computer scientist when he grows up. After a bit of playful prodding, he enjoys showing off his knowledge of English, and loves to chat up the students in our team. He will become buddies with anyone with a laptop and even has his own Facebook page, though he rarely uses it since wireless service is scarce and spotty at best. He particularly likes to romance the girls with gifts of bracelets he weaves of weeds and wildflowers, and with a little encouragement will break into song.
We met Dago four years ago in the village of Ciudad Romero of the Lower Lempa River region in southeastern El Salvador, an area still rehabilitating itself after the ravages of a brutal civil war, which ended in 1992 with the signing of the Peace Accords. Its communities have been endeavoring ever since to implement strategies to break with deeply entrenched inequalities and mitigate the devastating effects of recurring – and worsening – natural disasters.
Dago’s mother, Columbia, has been the sole support of the family with odd jobs at the community center. Dago’s father, long absent, is serving a 10-year federal prison sentence in the United States where he went in search of work and options, which sadly continued to elude him. This is the story of millions of Salvadorans who have migrated for decades, displaced by war, poverty, little hope of employment, environmental calamity and degradation, fear, and insecurity.
Little Dago has the verve and daring to make good on his dream, but like so many children of the Bajo Lempa, he will come up against the constraints of circumstance and history. These include an educational system that is still more of a privilege than a right; the need to help at home with the smaller kids and the chores on the family plot; the absence of a parent; the high incidence of kidney, respiratory, and intestinal disease; and the pull of gangs. Ironically, Dago still faces these problems even though he lives in the only functioning Local Zone of Peace in existence since 1998.
The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 underscores “the fundamental right… to adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.” For Dago’s father, those conditions may have disappeared forever. For Dago and his dreams, that fundamental right vitally depends on the quality of vision, commitment, political will, and public policies that can be developed and sustained at this critical time in El Salvador and throughout the Americas.
Adele Negro is Faculty Director of Team El Salvador, a sustainable development practicum of the Monterey Institute of International Studies founded in 2006 to work with the grassroots organization La Coordinadora, its NGO the Mangrove Association, and the communities they represent, to further their strategic development goals by helping to strengthen organizational capacity and skills for empowerment. It is a student-led initiative with faculty oversight and on-site participation. Adele is also a professional interpreter and translator, with a Masters from the Monterey Institute.
by Francis Gonsalves
Koodankulam is a tiny town in the Tirunelveli District of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Like most of the villages in India, this hamlet has its own laidback lifestyle that reflects the ebb and flow of the carefree sea. Little from the outer world affects the peaceful pace of Koodankulam’s residents who are content with, and grateful for, the little they earn from fishing and other rural activities. Today, things are different.
The serenity and peace that the residents of Koodankulam have enjoyed for centuries is now being shattered by the government of India’s Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) that threatens to affect the lives of nearly a million people in the area. The people of Koodankulam are up in arms against these plans and are locked in conflict against the government and other agencies that are insistent on setting up the plant.
The KKNPP was conceived with the signing of an inter-governmental agreement on Nov. 20, 1988 by the then-prime minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev for the construction of two reactors. The project remained in limbo for a decade. Initially, the people of Koodankulam were misled by false propaganda and promises that the proposed nuclear project would create at least 10,000 new jobs, would fetch them fresh water from the Pechiparai dam, and would result in unprecedented progress and development for the region. Hoping that these promises would ensure a glorious future, protests against the Government’s plans were initially weak.
Things have changed over the past two decades. Dr. S.P. Udayakumar, Convenor of the Anti-Koodankulam Nuclear Movement, says, “The people of Koodankulam now know and understand that this is not just a fisher folk’s problem. They realize that many villagers may be displaced. Moreover, they will all have to deal with the problem of radioactive poisoning.” The anti-nuclear movement gained momentum in 2007. Now, almost all the residents within a thirty-kilometre radius of the KKNPP oppose the project.
In 1988, when work began on the KKNPP, the authorities said that the cost estimate of the Koodankulam 1 and 2 projects was rupees 6,000 crores. A decade later, in November 1998, the project was estimated to cost rupees 15,500. In 2001, the ministerial group for economic affairs announced that the project cost would be rupees 13,171 crores. Of this, the Indian government would invest rupees 6,775 crores and the remainder would come in as a Russian loan. No one seems to know the 2011 figures for these expenses, and no one seems interested in informing the Indian public either.
Aware of the skewed economics and manipulated figures that are frequently peddled in order to legitimize anti-people projects, enlightened citizens in the so-called “developing countries” are increasingly wary of development projects undertaken by, or with aid from, the so-called “developed countries.” These projects inevitably come with a heavy price tag, which almost always has to be borne by the poorest of the poor. Thus, people now ask: Who develops? What is the cost to be paid in terms of human welfare? Who pays the price?
It is alarming that the KKNPP reactors are being set up without sharing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Site Evaluation Study, and Safety Analysis Report either with the people, the people’s representatives, or the press. No public hearing was conducted for the first two reactors and there is absolutely no democratic decision-making in or public approval for this project. Can such a project then claim to have the people’s interests at heart?
In terms of the area affected, the Tamil Nadu Government Order number 828 (of the Public Works Department dated April 29, 1991) states that “an area between 2 to 5 kilometres radius around the plant site, [would be] called the sterilization zone.” This means that people in this area could be displaced at anytime. However, the KKNPP authorities orally promise that nobody from the neighboring villages will be displaced. This kind of ad hoc assurance and doublespeak makes people suspicious and fearful of lurking dangers of displacement.
It is estimated that more than a million people live within the 30 kilometer radius of the KKNPP, which far exceeds the stipulations of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). It would be impossible to evacuate such a large population quickly and efficiently should a nuclear disaster occur at Koodankulam. Who can forget the devastation of the March 2011 disaster in Fukushima? Further, Japan is a highly developed country with a population much lower than that of India. Any catastrophe at the level of Fukushima in India would result in death and destruction of an unimaginable magnitude.
A cursory glance at nuclear policies worldwide indicates that countries are taking effective steps to diminish the possibility of nuclear disasters. Germany has decided to phase out its nuclear power plants by 2022. Switzerland has opted to shun nuclear power technology. In a recent referendum, some 90 percent of Italians voted against nuclear power in their country. Many Japanese prefectures and their governors are closing nuclear power plants in their regions. Neither the U.S. nor Russia has built new reactors on home soil for over two decades since major accidents occurred at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Unlike these other states, the government of India seems to have forgotten the disastrous consequences of the December 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy that saw Union Carbide India Limited go scot-free after causing the deaths of thousands of Indian citizens, not counting the maimed and those who remain genetically scarred for life. Given this reprehensible past, the protesters are questioning the Indian Government on what steps it is taking to ensure the well-being of its people.
Dr. Udayakumar points out that even if the KKNPP functioned normally without any accidents, it would emit Iodine 131, 132, 133, Cesium 134, 136, 137 isotopes, strontium, tritium, tellurium, and other radioactive particles into the air, land, crops, cattle, sea, and ground water. He adds, “Already the southern coastal belt is sinking with very high incidence of cancer, mental retardation, Down’s syndrome, defective births due to private and government sea-sand mining for rare minerals including thorium. The KKNPP will add many more woes to our already suffering people.”
Fearing a backlash from the protesters, the Indian government has been vainly trying to convince them of the safety of the KKNPP. It appointed a 15-member Expert Committee to allay the fears of the people. When the Expert Committee did not make any headway, the prime minister’s office issued a statement accusing the protest movement of being funded by “foreign agencies.” This infuriated the protesters and many NGOs who support the anti-nuclear movement. They demanded proof of any foreign funding of the movement. To the Indian government’s argument that a nuclear reactor can never be safely shut down once work is started on it, the NGOs pointed out that there have been precedents, like Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in the U.S., where nuclear reactors have been shut down due to public disapproval.
A respected voice that supports the completion of the construction of KKNPP is that of the former president of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who described the Koodankulam nuclear plant as “clean and safe.” The former president, who is a reputed missile scientist, stated that the 2,000 megawatt KKNPP was essential for “power hungry” India. Rebutting this assurance is the leader of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, Mr. Pushparayan, who recollected that the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India (AEC), Dr. Homi Sethna, had long ago advised Abdul Kalam to refrain from commenting on nuclear engineering since he was a missile engineer.
It is yet to be seen whether India is that “power hungry” nation that A.P.J. Abdul Kalam makes it out to be. Meanwhile, there is little doubt that the power of the protesters is on the rise with many NGOs and citizens expressing serious doubts about the safety of the KKNPP. Since October 2011, thousands of protesters and villagers living in and around Koodankulam have been blocking highways and staging hunger strikes to prevent further construction work and demand the closure of the KKNPP. In the high decibel din of debates, decisions, and dharnas (organized protests) of people, politicians, and other parties, no one is sure which power will prevail.
Dr. Francis Gonsalves, a Jesuit, received his Licentiate in Dogmatic Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome and his Ph.D. from the University of Madras, India. He has taught at the Vidyajyoti College of Theology since 1997, and has been the Principal since 2009. He has taught at a number of other institutions, including the University of Madras. His areas of interest in teaching and study include interdisciplinary approaches to theology, interfaith dialogue and initiatives, socio-religious and subaltern movements, and developing the arts as alternative sources of theology. He has published extensively both in India and abroad on issues of religion and theology, political affairs, and social justice. He currently serves on the board of editors for four publications. He has also lectured widely and conducted numerous seminars on his areas of interest.
The conflicts that gain the most attention and media coverage tend to be those that are most sensational and violent. But there are many other conflicts we do not hear about, and those living through them must struggle to make their voices heard. This column seeks to bring attention to serious events, issues, and conflicts that receive little coverage but deserve our attention, our acknowledgement, and our best efforts in resolving them.
Uzbekistan has gained attention in the media in recent years as the state’s relationship with the United States and the European Union has improved. The country’s location is key for the strategic interests of the United States and its allies in NATO, as it is near Afghanistan. In October, Hilary Clinton visited Uzbekistan to thank the country for allowing the presence of NATO troops on its soil. However, it is clear that the U.S. and its allies are ignoring a glaring fact about Uzbekistan. Human Rights Watch recently released a report detailing various rights violations occurring within the country. The government continues to allow the use of torture in its criminal justice system, including electric shock and simulated asphyxiation. Uzbekistan has received limited criticism from certain countries and international organizations for its human rights record. Unfortunately, issues like human rights are sometimes conveniently “overlooked” in international relations when a country becomes strategic to the interests of another. This appears to be the case for Uzbekistan, which is currently enjoying the benefits it receives from the United States’ silence on its human rights record. The United States, as a powerful country that supposedly advocates the protection of human rights (as it does in its conflict with Afghanistan) is complicit now in the human rights abuses towards the citizens of Uzbekistan. If a country champions human rights, it must defend the rights of all humans, not only those that are convenient to protect or that are useful in the pursuit of its own agenda.
The Kimberly Process, instituted in 2003, was led by Global Witness and other watchdog groups to prevent the trade of blood diamonds, or diamonds that fund conflict. The process certifies rough diamonds as conflict free, which means that purchasers can be sure their money is not used to finance war or human rights abuses. The issue of blood diamonds has gained international attention through a series of documentaries and films released around the same theme. However, the international community’s concern with blood diamonds seems to have waned in recent years, although it is clear that more work needs to be done on the regulations and protections surrounding the sourcing of diamonds. Even more concerning is the recent withdrawal of Global Witness from the Kimberly Process in protest against violations of the certification process in Venezuela, the Ivory Coast, and Zimbabwe. In a particular incident gaining international attention, the Kimberly Process allowed Zimbabwe to trade $2 billion worth of diamonds that came from fields where miners were tortured, abused, and killed. It appears that this process designed to protect the rights of those involved in the diamond industry is failing. The departure of Global Witness has other advocacy groups reconsidering their support for the Kimberly Process. Despite its failures is it not important that these groups remain a part of the process, calling attention to its failures, so that they can affect change and work towards greater protection of the rights of those in the diamond industry?
The National Defense Authorization Act, which is currently being reviewed by Congress, has not provoked as much discussion and debate domestically or internationally as it should. The bill authorizes increased funding for the Defense Department, which in itself is cause for concern. However, what is even more troublesome is a provision within the bill that would allow the president to detain American citizens indefinitely if they are suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations that have committed offenses against the United States. Power to do so would lie with the president. The bill would deny citizens the right to a trial, with the possibility of citizens being detained for life without charges. The shocking authority this bill would grant to the president should be covered more in the media and greeted with greater concern by American citizens. For a country that forcefully advocates for human rights in many forums, how is it acceptable for such a dangerous provision to be enacted into law? Many believe this bill is related to the case of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, a prominent member of al-Qaida who was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen in late September. While al-Awlaki’s targeted killing sparked some furor, Americans should be very concerned by their government’s decision to kill one of its own citizens without trial, denying the basic right of due process. This bill would give the government power to take away the protections and rights of its own citizens if they are believed to be connected to terrorism. Any work done by the U.S. to defend human rights in the future would be dangerously discredited, as the country proposes to pass this bill into law.