Troubled times for Taiwan

These are troubled times for Taiwan’s young democracy, and its president Chen Shui-Bian. Less than two decades ago the country was still under the four decade long one-party regime of the Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalists). Since the 1990s, peaceful transitions of power, reforms, a number of free and fair democratic elections have together transformed this little island into the freest democracy and society in Asia.

That the KMT was (and is) corrupt is a well-known. For far too long the state and party were one and the same, which meant officials were able to use or abuse public funds as they please. Billions and billions were siphoned into the pockets and accounts of high-level officials, mostly through kickbacks in grand public construction works and arms-purchases (think Lafayette scandal). No wonder the late dictator Chiang Kai-Shek was nicknamed ‘Cash my Check’.

Many thought the transition of power to the pro-Taiwan/pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) would change things for the better. After all, since the party’s establishment in 1986 it has been championing for reforms, a break from the authoritarian past, and an end to corruption and nepotism. For many years, this was the party whose members were hounded and jailed by the dictatorship. For many years, this was the party calling for change on the fringes of the KMT-monopolised politics, society and media. But it managed to gain ground, push for reforms, democratic elections, and managed to come to power in 2000.

Members of the current government seem to enjoy the hallmarks and heroics of your typical dissident-turned-government legend. The president, who won the Liberal International Prize for Freedom in 2001, himself spent a spell in jail for being the defence lawyer of democracy activists in the 1980s. At about the same time when Chen was becoming politically active, his wife, Wu Shu-chen, was hit by a truck under ‘mysterious circumstances’ and has since been paralysed from the waist. Vice-President Annette Lu spent 12 years in prison for delivering a 45 minute speech advocating Taiwan’s independence. Undoubtedly, these are admirable people, who should be lauded for what they have achieved. But they are people, and people make mistakes.

After a series of (false) accusations and media frenzy, it turns out that the First Lady, and some of the president’s aides are guilty of corruption:

“The High Court will charge Chen's wife, Wu Shu-chen, with corruption, faking evidence and faking documents in a case involving the misuse of more than T$14.8 million (236,000 pounds).

"In the end it was determined through receipts of purchases by other people, that Wu Shu-chen -- between July 2002 and March 2006 -- embezzled over T$14.8 million of the secret state funds,”

And President Chen may also be guilty as well:

“The charges relate to the handling of a secret presidential fund used for diplomatic work overseas. Officials say around US$500,000 could not be properly accounted for.

During the four-month investigation, officials looked at six separate cases involving the use of the fund. They said the president's explanation for two were verified, but three were questionable and one was described as pure fiction.”

The opposition KMT is of course overjoyed, and are planning their latest offensive to oust the president out of office. Ever since losing power in 2000, they have been sour and using every chance they can get to discredit and undermine President Chen and the new government’s authority. A bill to purchase necessary defensive weapons against China’s military threats has been blocked 62^nd times since 2001. Thousands of protesters took to the streets again demanding the President’s resignation.

I look at this from so far away, and often wonder what is happening… corrupt people should indeed be punished, regardless of who they are and what positions of influences they have. In a way, the fact that the judiciary is able to investigate and charge people in high ranking positions underlines Taiwan’s democractic credentials. In an interview with the Financial Times just before the outbreak of the charges against the First Lady, President Chen put it very poignantly:

“Even if my family members have made some mistakes, we all have to undergo legal scrutiny […] Sometimes I feel ashamed and feel this is a loss of face. But isn’t this also to be cherished as a sign of Taiwan’s democracy and rule of law? Thus personal liabilities become everyone’s assets.”

An editorial wrote:

“If one good thing has come out of this miserable affair, it is that the investigation has proceeded without substantial interference by the Presidential Office or other executive organs. For those who place stock in the separation of powers, there is satisfaction to be had at witnessing a president, his wife and his staff come undone at the hands of a wide-ranging probe by officers whose agencies he ultimately has some power over.”

Thankfully, Taiwan has been able to undergo these protests, scandals without much disruption to peace and society. People are able to protest and shout anti-government slogans to their hearts content, and they need not fear the government cracking down and jailing people arbitrarily. If anything, these tests of endurance and processes involving mass popular movements and demonstrations serve to strengthen Taiwan’s social and political entrenchment in valuing democratic values and freedoms.

But at the same time the recent developments are worrying too. Why is it that the former government, one that is guilty of murders, disappearances, and levels of embezzlement that far trump the recent charges, is able to get away with impunity? Not only are members of the KMT known for their shady pasts, they seem to be the ones who are most adamant in calling for Chen’s downfall. This shows that even after the transition of power, the roots of the system are very much entrenched and in favour of the old regime.

And then there’s the problem of media-fairness. The KMT still very much dominates the media, and is thus often manipulate news to discredit the government. It seems that the tradition of trial-by-media is still a rampant problem:

“Such things cannot be decided by the mass media, by people like you and me. It has to be decided by the legal system. In fact, I'm very sceptical of our mass media. They don't report news but treat each news story as a drama.

We have to wait and see. I don't think the president should step down just because of these charges. I don't want to prejudge whether he is right or wrong.

The people who are against the president are not used to having a system and they are against him, personally. That is not healthy.”

Here’s another view of the problem:

“I think the media in Taiwan are not fair to Chen Shui-bian and to his DPP party. Most of the newspapers seem to hate him. I don't like that. Such newspapers are not supported by the Taiwanese people”

I really hope that at the end of the day Taiwan will be able to deal with this in an orderly manner, according to the rule of law and respecting democratic principles of justice and fairness.

Because that’s what democratic progress is all about.

See here for more coverage by an American professor living in Taiwan.

UPDATE
The maverick prosecutor who knows no political colours, Eric Chen. Ironically, he is a memeber of " the Black Gold Investigation Center under the Taiwan High Court Prosecutors' Office" estalbished by the current government which is supposed to investigate and curb corruption.

Chinese perspectives

I know that I’m not the most objective person on the topic, but when you attend a lecture entitled “Chinese Observations on International Law” by the Chinese Ambassador to the Netherlands, who is also a member of the International Law Commission, you’d expect more than a lecture about the general nature of international law. But a session on the history and development of international law was what it felt like. I guess a one hour lecture doesn’t give you much time or room to expand... perhaps, especially when you’re speaking on behalf of a country that’s often accused of not living up to its international obligations.

China “attaches great importance to international law”. International law is the key to peace, stability and development, she says, and it is built on the respect and defence of every state’s sovereign independence and territorial integrity. And this very concept of sovereignty is one that she emphasised time and again. What is this notion of sovereignty? The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which forms the foundation of China’s foreign policy explains this clearly: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. It is based on equality, non-intervention, and the right to preserve each state’s political, economic and social systems. Remember this, because this seems to be the motivation and response of China in its relations with the rest of the world. No one should judge another, let alone interfere, because we do things our way.

Therefore, she added, it is worrying that there are trends toward unilateralism, rising role played by non-state actors and a fragmentation of international law to increasingly reflect national interests. More “intrusive” is the attempts of the international community to arbitrarily intervene based on the protection of human rights, especially in situations where the state has failed. These trends can be attributed to the fundamental premise founded on and as a result of the dominance of western liberalism in the international legal order.

There really wasn’t much about how China is living up to its international obligations. Maybe the fact that there are currently one thousand something Chinese peacekeepers is supposed to tell us something about China’s active role in international affairs. Of course, much importance was put on how China has become a key economic player in the world, and is party to hundreds of bi- and multilateral trade treaties. She was proud of the fact that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights are still in force in Hong Kong and Macau after the colonial regimes left. Silence on the increasing erosion of press freedom and lack of full democratic government in the two territories, and further silence on the prospect of China itself ratifying both human rights instruments.

Just as I was wondering what happened to the advances in the protection of human rights in the international legal order, a member of the audience asked a prominent question: what is more important—recognition by the international community, or the consensus of the people? I gasped, partly because finally someone touched upon a topic that all of us know, despite China’s impressive growth rates and entrance into the WTO, is continuously nagging at the back of our minds. She went on again about the importance of sovereignty and seemed to deliberately skirt around the issue. Political dynamite. Another person asked about Tibet, because throughout the lecture the speaker seemed fascinated with the way the European Union functions in terms of embracing differing national identities while at the same time respecting rights of individual peoples. China has constitutional guarantees to protect the rights of minorities, she assured us.

And time was up. Clap, clap, clap.

stroll in Clingendael

Some nice pictures of Clingendael~
Just love the beautiful mixture of colours that autumn brings...
Click on the links below to access my travelog! : ) Enjoy!

• Clingendael
• Clingendael II
• Clingendael III
• Clingedael IV
• Clingendael V
• Clingendael VI

Illuminada 2006

Please visit my travelog for pictures of Illuminada~ : )

• Illuminada 2006
• Illuminada 2006 II
• Illuminada 2006 III
• Illuminada 2006 IV

What aggression? Whose aggression?

What aggression? Whose aggression?

Went to an interesting lecture last week about on the ‘Crime of Aggression’. Everyone agrees thus that aggression is an evil, and that an end should be put to aggression wherever and whenever it takes place. This is why the recently established International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to decide and punish people who have be involved in the commission of an act of aggression on behalf of a state.

The International Military Tribunal at Nurmberg outlawed any act of aggression in the very clear and strong language:

"To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Individuals can be held accountability for a crime of aggression if they are involved in the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing....". Thus for perhaps the first time in history, it was decided that “individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by individual states."[1]

For ICC today, the major sources of contention surround i) the definition of what a crime of aggression is, and ii) who has the authority to determine when an aggression has taken place. The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court leaves the definition of what aggression is open (Art 5(2)), to be determined in the future. Though there are some debate about the (legal) definition of aggression, some listed here are more or less undisputed (though nonetheless not exhaustive)[2]:

• 
  

invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or military occupation, or annexation of territory by the use of force

bombardment by armed forces of a State against the territory of another State

the blockade of ports or coasts of a State

the use of armed forces of a State which are within the territory of another State in violation of the terms of an agreement between those States

a State allowing its territory to be used by another State for an act of aggression against a third State

a State sending armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries to carry out grave acts of armed force against another State

• 
  

The reason why it’s been impossible to reach a legal definition of aggression is because states and scholars are unable to agree on a definition that is wide enough to cover all sorts of possible future scenarios, but that is strict enough to avoid political abuse.

And it’s the issue of political abuse that the next big controversy is all about. Who gets to decide when an act of aggression has taken place? Looking at the UN Charter, specifically Art 39, it appears that the Security Council is the one to decide, because this body of the UN is the one endowed to ensure international peace and security. But as has been seen so many times before, the SC is often unable to decide unanimously, because the interests of the Big Five get in the way, and the ability to veto often results in a impasse, even when clear acts of aggression have taken place.

The next problem is one that is even more worrying, and one that seems all too common, and will undoubtedly continue to exist in the future. What if one of the Big Five is the aggressor who commits an act of aggression? The ability to veto basically is an immunity that places all five powers above the law and thereby enable them to get away with even the most heinous acts. Surely it is impossible to fathom the US condemning itself for an act of aggression for the invasion of Iraq. The double crises surrounding Iran and North Korea could be potential for other military campaigns. And what if in the near future up-and-coming rivalry China decides to realise its territorial ambitions and invade Taiwan? The ability of the SC to determine and to silence acts of aggression is arbitrary and only serve to protect ensure international peace and security as far as it confirms and is not in conflicts with any of their, be it individual or, more rarely, united, interests.

Undoubtedly, the determination of an act of aggression will be a political act. The rules as they stand today regarding the determination of aggression are poorly suited a time when new challenges and continuing superpower rivalries and ambitions present themselves. It was suggested that ideally an independent and impartial organisation, perhaps the ICC itself should have the right of reviewing what are essentially political determinations. Or better still, the Court should be empowered with the authority to determine what an act of aggression is in the face of political impasse and threatening vetos.

The UN’s weakness is not in its inability to act, but in the inability for it to act freely because of the presence of it outdated organisation of power premised on the victor’s supremacy and justice established in 1945:

“But in reality, the basic problem facing the UN has not altered since its inception in 1945. […]

The problem is the dominance of the Security Council by the five permanent members -- the US, Britain, Russia, China and France -- which also happen to be the five leading nuclear weapons states (although Israel may have unofficially usurped some of them in the atomic pecking order).

The power afforded by the UN rulebooks to these five countries alone, out of a total 192 members of the General Assembly, means that the UN, which can never ultimately be more than the sum of its parts, is effectively held hostage by the so-called "great powers."

They find it convenient to use the Security Council as a protective shield, diplomatic tool and excuse to promote inaction when inaction most suits their interest.

Alternatively, their pre-eminence allows them to ignore or stymie the UN when they are set on having their own way. Everybody on the council knows the way the game works. And the fact that each of the five exercises veto power means that uncomfortable confrontations, such as that before the Iraq war, are rare.”

…

But the key institutional reform -- enlargement of the Security Council to better reflect the interests and priorities of the whole international community -- has proved unobtainable.

Why so? Because the vested interests of the five permanent members in maintaining the status quo that suits them so well is too powerful.

Until this cartel is broken up, expect more tragic fiascos like North Korea, Lebanon and Sudan. And expect growing, righteous and increasingly violent rage in the developing world against the virtual monopoly of power enjoyed by the new and old empires of east and west.”[3]

A consequence of this SC dominated organisation is deadlock. As much as the idealistic principles enshrined in the UN Charter are to protect international peace and security, there can be no peace or security when the interests of certain powers are able to trump over human rights and justice. Rwanda underscored that the lives of a million civilians can be still be just as easily lost, even after the traumas of the Khmer Rouge. Russia was defiant against so-called ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo. In the face of the Iraqi (ongoing) campaign, the SC was unable to prevent the US and UK acting unilaterally. Vested oil and economic interests in Sudan meant that despite widespread recognition of and appeals to prevent the ongoing genocide the SC remains unwilling to act in unison.

“[…] In all cases, the United Nations has promised to uphold the highest principles of international law and then committed sins of omission which were so grievous it has been close to being an accessory to mass murder.

The result is that any totalitarian regime or movement committing crimes against humanity knows it can get away with treating the UN with […] derision […].”

---

[1] Marjorie Cohn, ‘The Crime of Aggression: What is it and why doesn’t the US want the International Criminal Court to punish it?

[2] General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), < http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement>

[3] Simon Tisdall, ‘The fundamental problem with the UN’, The Observer

Wild conference

I've never been to a more lively conference in my life before.

[...] Got up at around 7ish to get showered and dressed up for this conference entitled "International Law and the Question of Western Sahara". It was one of these events that our lecturer "strongly encouraged" us to attend. But only one other person in my class was there.

I guess a bit of 'background' is necessary to explain what this is all about.
Western Sahara is a piece of terrirtory on the Northeast African coast, currently under Morrocan occupation. The Saharawi (people of the territory) have been claiming their right to self-determination since the seventies, when the colonial power Spain basically (like in many decolonialisation contexts) simply abandoned the territory. Morroco invaded, and has been occupying it since. In 1976, the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion which decided that Morroco and Mauritania have no legal ties to the territory, and that the people of Western Sahara must still realise their right to self-determination. Deportations, grave human rights abuses, intimidation, construction of (Morrocan) settlements and a wall...the situation is somewhat akin to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, with the occupying power illegally annexing territory rightfully belonging to the indigenous people, in contravention to international law.

Well, I turned up and sat down... the first presentations were somewhat slow and made me doze off... then things took a turn. Unsolved issues are often unsolved because they're controversial, and certainly when law and politics are often so closely intertwined, people are going to be personally interested and affected in what is said. A number of people were all too eager to take the microphone and contradict what the speakers said. 'Contradict' is perhaps mild...more like attack, deface, and accuse speakers of lying and spreading propoganda. English, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, French all mingled together like scene from 'Lost in Translation'. Throwing fits, raising their voices and hands. It was an academic exchange out of hand, at some points, with people interrupting and shouting across the room, accusing the organisers of being impartial and biased. Swear words were used... 'f*ck off', said a speaker to an unruly person from the audience. Someone said that the UN "had f*cked my country over"...twice. My friends and I sat there astounded, and were actually getting very afraid someone might just pull out a machine gun and go on a shooting spree. Security guards and police came and stayed around for the rest of the day.

At the end we were all exhausted... not once did I doze off again, and sat in my seat, transfixed to the heated exchanges and remarks. To be fair, the conference overall was delightfully educational, especially presentations by many leading scholars in the field. Of course we're no more closer to a solution, and the people of Western Sahara are probably no more closer to reaching complete independence, but at least it was (for the most bit) constructive dialogue. And it's these kind of dialogue, communcation, mutual understanding that are necessary to avoid misunderstanding and eventually work toward an acceptable, peaceful, and democratic solution acceptable to all. Given that my alma mater, SOAS, is the specialist in Asian/African affairs, no less than three scholars were present there, which made me somewhat proud.

I guess the problem with places like Western Sahara, Palestine, West Papua, or some might even argue Tibet and Chechnya (for a whole list, see Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation), is that we all know and recognise the inherent rights of the people living there to self-determination, and eventual independence. But really, politics, and more specifically real politics and superpower politics trump over people's rights. Blatant violations of international law, horrendous abuses of human rights and absolutely indisputed illegal acts of occupation are viewed with such complacency and indifference, because the interested parties are unwilling to surrender their self-interests. And who suffers most of all, as in all games of power play?

It is the people. The millions of men, women and children subjected to incessant violence, grievous violations and brutal deaths, while a select few bicker, confer and argue.


Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed are entirely my own and are partial and may have been dramatised. In no way should it be taken as an accurate account of the events that occurred and/or opinions expressed at the conference.

Wild conference

I've never been to a more lively conference in my life before.

[...] Got up at around 7ish to get showered and dressed up for this conference entitled "International Law and the Question of Western Sahara". It was one of these events that our lecturer "strongly encouraged" us to attend. But only one other person in my class was there.

I guess a bit of 'background' is necessary to explain what this is all about.
Western Sahara is a piece of terrirtory on the Northeast African coast, currently under Morrocan occupation. The Saharawi (people of the territory) have been claiming their right to self-determination since the seventies, when the colonial power Spain basically (like in many decolonialisation contexts) simply abandoned the territory. Morroco invaded, and has been occupying it since. In 1976, the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion which decided that Morroco and Mauritania have no legal ties to the territory, and that the people of Western Sahara must still realise their right to self-determination. Deportations, grave human rights abuses, intimidation, construction of (Morrocan) settlements and a wall...the situation is somewhat akin to the Palestinian Occupied Territories, with the occupying power illegally annexing territory rightfully belonging to the indigenous people, in contravention to international law.

Well, I turned up and sat down... the first presentations were somewhat slow and made me doze off... then things took a turn. Unsolved issues are often unsolved because they're controversial, and certainly when law and politics are often so closely intertwined, people are going to be personally interested and affected in what is said. A number of people were all too eager to take the microphone and contradict what the speakers said. 'Contradict' is perhaps mild...more like attack, deface, and accuse speakers of lying and spreading propoganda. English, Arabic, Spanish, Italian, French all mingled together like scene from 'Lost in Translation'. Throwing fits, raising their voices and hands. It was an academic exchange out of hand, at some points, with people interrupting and shouting across the room, accusing the organisers of being impartial and biased. Swear words were used... 'f*ck off', said a speaker to an unruly person from the audience. Someone said that the UN "had f*cked my country over"...twice. My friends and I sat there astounded, and were actually getting very afraid someone might just pull out a machine gun and go on a shooting spree. Security guards and police came and stayed around for the rest of the day.

At the end we were all exhausted... not once did I doze off again, and sat in my seat, transfixed to the heated exchanges and remarks. To be fair, the conference overall was delightfully educational, especially presentations by many leading scholars in the field. Of course we're no more closer to a solution, and the people of Western Sahara are probably no more closer to reaching complete independence, but at least it was (for the most bit) constructive dialogue. And it's these kind of dialogue, communcation, mutual understanding that are necessary to avoid misunderstanding and eventually work toward an acceptable, peaceful, and democratic solution acceptable to all. Given that my alma mater, SOAS, is the specialist in Asian/African affairs, no less than three scholars were present there, which made me somewhat proud.

I guess the problem with places like Western Sahara, Palestine, West Papua, or some might even argue Tibet and Chechnya (for a whole list, see Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation), is that we all know and recognise the inherent rights of the people living there to self-determination, and eventual independence. But really, politics, and more specifically real politics and superpower politics trump over people's rights. Blatant violations of international law, horrendous abuses of human rights and absolutely indisputed illegal acts of occupation are viewed with such complacency and indifference, because the interested parties are unwilling to surrender their self-interests. And who suffers most of all, as in all games of power play?

It is the people. The millions of men, women and children subjected to incessant violence, grievous violations and brutal deaths, while a select few bicker, confer and argue.

Schiphol fire: one year later

In the night of 26 to 27 Ocotber last year, a fire raged at the prison complex at Schiphol Airport.

According to an independent investigation, the government is responsible in many ways for the tragic spread and consequences of the fire, especially in the failure to provide proper safety and plans in the construction and operation of the detention centre.

The fire started in a cell in K Wing. Personnel rush to the cell where the fire started and freed in the one person inside. They forgot to close the door, which resulted in the fire and smoke to spread. Due to the poor fire prevention system the fire department only arrived 15 minutes later. But because of security obstacles, poor coordination and information the firemen only managed to get to work almost 30 minutes after the first started.

11 asylum seekers choked to death. Another dozen or so suffered terrible burns and trauma. As a consolation 39 asylum seekers were given a permanent right to remain in the country.

The prisons were constructed in great haste, primarily to hold rejected asylum seekers before they are deported out of the country. Many construction regulations were bypassed and ignored. The roof windows did not open, causing the smoke and heat to be trapped in the wing. Most people perished because the cell doors were jammed and could not be opened. The security personnel at the prison complex were poorly trained to deal with emergency evacuations. Prisoners were herded aimlessly from one wing to another, and further exposed to unnecessary fear, panic and traumatic near-death experiences.

Here's a film reconstructing the events of that horrible evening...

To those who died so unnecessarily...

Abu Graib conditions in the Netherlands

I received this today from an internet friend who is closely involved with refugees and asylum seekers in the Netherlands. That many of these people are treated badly in detention and during their deportation is not new...but the fact that it is to this extent is simply shocking. Some practices are unthinkably familiar to the stories and pictures floating from the US debacle of Abu Graib...

What followes is a a number of first-person accounts from within deportation centres in the country (From: Zwartboek van het Vluchtelingenkordon Fryslan 2004):

(The acronymn IND stands for Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which is in charge of processing and executing the status and deportation of asylym seekers in the Netherlands):

Deportation centres

In the Netherlands there are two concentration centres for people to be deported.

One at Rotterdam airport and one at Amsterdam airport. The one at Rotterdam airport is the biggest, the most used one and most horrible one.

After finishing the asylum procedure, people officially can be kept here by force under custody for 8 weeks. The centres are known by refugee-workers as ‘intimidation centres’ because of the methods that are being used to manipulate people to cooperate with deportation. The centre is also used for illegal people, no matter if they were on asylum before or not. If the judge estimates the chance on possible deporta­tion after 8 weeks on more then 50 %, people can be held for another 9 months in one of the numerous detention centres for illegal people all over the Netherlands.

Deportation centre Rotterdam can not be visited by refugee workers. Only a few people ever saw the inside of this centre. After a visit from the departmental investigation committee for health care, the centre health care system was rejected strongly. A television crew from Dutch public broadcasting was denied any future entry after showing a negative impressi­on. Later crew members from a concurrent TV-station were shown windows by staff of the deportation centre but these appeared to be existing of non transparent material covered with curtains.

During 2004, we received the following stories which were confirmed by more witnes­ses. Dutch broadcast stations also spent several television programs recently on this issue. The reaction from the department of foreign affairs was one of anger and denial.

Under custody 1

I was held inside a hall with blind walls for 8 weeks in a cell from 2x2 meter including toilet. There was no window in the cell, so no daylight and there was no fresh air. I was not allowed to use a toothbrush, there was nothing to rub my body with. One visitor smuggled a needle and dread inside the prison which was used to prepare some material to clean our bodies. Every day we were put in a cage for one hour so that we could see the air. I was feeling like an animal. In one other cage, people made noises like if they already became animals.

Under custody 2

Me and my little child were arrested without any reason while stamping our stamping cards. We were brought to Rotterdam and put inside a room with prison personnel. We were forced to undress, kneel down and stand up several times. After some days we were released without any explanation.

Under custody 3

We had to eat white rice with beans for a couple of weeks, day in day out. Till I started to vomit. During my stay one woman was objecting very politely having to enter her cell after 40 instead of 60 minutes.

After that, she didn't get any food for the rest of the day. When she knocked on the door for explanation, some military personnel dragged her out of the cell, pushed her on the floor, bound her wrists together on the back, taped her mouth with wide isolation tape and pulled some kind of cotton bag or sheet around her head. They were dragging her along the hall to some place. Everybody saw this, included children. People started shouting and screaming like hell, we all thought that she was going to be killed because we experienced this before in our own country.

Under custody 4

My lawyer said there was no chance that they were going to deport me because of my health condition. But they still came to get me out of my cell. I was struggling for my life because I knew I was going to be killed in my own country or die without medical treatment. Five armed men came and used a lot of force on my body for a longer period. After 8 hours in isolation, they released me, accidentally having taken the wrong person. Some weeks later they took me again to a separation department for people waiting for the airplane. The prison doctor took my blood-pressure. I was crying all night, thinking about my killed family-members and begging God to take my life that very night. One hour before departure I was taken away to a normal prison thanks to my lawyer and released later because of my health without explanation or means of transport.

Under custody 5

They always came unexpected in the middle of the night to take the people out of there cells. You never knew on which doors they were going to knock. On these nights it was like you could smell death passing along. Afterwards I always experienced a penetrating smell of piss.

Under custody 6

My lawyer sent a medical statement to the IND to get me out of prison because of an apparently life threatening disease. But the IND said that they never received the statement and tried to deport me during many weeks.

Under custody 7

My visitor forgot to take her wallet from the locker. He only got it back when I signed for it. Next day they told me that I signed for some nationali­ty-declaration so they could now bring me to some country. But I didn't come from there. My lawyer asked for a copy from the statement but he never got it.

Under custody 8

I was complaining about my health. The prison doctor said it was only relevant if I could be transported by plane or not. He added that how soon I would die was not important. In the hospital, despite begging, I had to walk with my arms bound on the back. I was very ashamed and it was very painful due to my health. The IND-chosen surgeon didn't want to examine me and decided there was no transportation-problem. After a second opinion I was turn into the streets again.

Under custody 9

People where imprisoned only with pyjama and slippers and also put on the airplane like that. It seemed that they wanted to deport everybody to Lagos/Nigeria, even French speaking people.

Under custody 10

After 8 weeks in a deportation centre, I was imprisoned in a detention centre for 6 months. I was released on a Friday. Sunday I have been thanking my God on the podium of our ministry.

Next day (Monday) I was visiting a friend staying under church asylum and doing her hair. Suddenly the police broke the door and took all of us out of the apartment and I stayed in prison again for a long time.

Under custody 11

People have been calling me to tell about their experiences in a deportati­on centre and I talked to people who visited a deportati­on centre. I have to express my deepest horror about what I have been hearing. I found out that heavily ill people were not assisted by a doctor because he didn’t want to help people simulating serious diseases to avoid deportation. I am deeply ashamed having to be a member of this so called Christian society lead by a government who is treating people less than animals because these people where so unlucky to be born on the wrong place without peace and food and are therefore condemned to life long expulsion from the so called civilised society.

Under Custody 12

I have been hearing about big amounts of people originally coming from the West-coast of Africa now being transported to Lagos, without any means of life and causing heavy problems in the area, trying by all means to get a way of life or get back home, often becoming the victim of rape and murder.

Treatment of deportees in the Netherlands

Shocking revalations remisnicent of Guantanamo Bay...

The current affairs programme Netwerk recently reported on the medical neglect of asylum seekers, which resulted in the death of a 2 year old boy. He couldn’t go to a regular doctor because he is an asylum seeker, so ended up consulting a medical clinic for asylum seekers (medische opvang asielzoekers). The nurse gave the boy paracetemol, but it didn’t stop the fever or diarrhea. The father went back to the clinic for more help on three separate occasions, but was only referred to a medical specialist four days later. Despite medical intervention, the boy died of a lung infection. This is not an isolated incident. Since 2000, nine asylum seekers have died from, among others illnesses, cancer, internal bleeding, chronic stomach upsets, because they could not go see a doctor.

In another episode, limelight was cast on the inhumane deportation of asylum seekers. Members of the Dutch Royal Constabulary revealed some shocking practices to force asylum seekers with no right to stay in the Netherlands out of the country. An internal report of the constabulary said that deportees must be forced onto the plane and deported through whatever means necessary. There are no guidelines which specify what can and cannot be done, admits a member of the constabulary, so basically they are able to do whatever they want.

Disproportionate levels of verbal intimidation and physical violence seem to be the norm.
A number of NGOs and the National Ombudsman also verified the accounts of asylum seekers exposed to great mental and physical coercion. All are subjected to strip searches, some handcuffed and put in cells for many hours without food or water before they are put on the plane. In a report by the National Ombudsman concluded the treatment as “not humane” (niet menswaardig), and suggested that even heavy criminals are not treated in such a way.

One Bosnian Muslim family was taken away from their home without warning and separated. The mother and children in one detention centre, and the father held somewhere unknown to the family members. One of the daughters was strip searched, while three male wardens stood by and watched. The youngest daughter who is on medication against epileptic attacks could not take the medicine with her. An Afghan was brutal maltreated by his escorts, who covered his face and nose that he almost died from lack of oxygen. One anonymous member of the constabulary reported his colleague engaging in derogatory racist abuse, and resorted to kicking and banging the head of the deportee against the wall. A Guinean deportee said attacks dogs, pepper sprays and fire hoses were used to coerce them onto the plane. The Immigration Service denies the use of violence in this specific case.

Many of those who refuse to be deported resist in whatever ways they can. Spiting, biting, sucide etc. The Constabulary have special means to prevent this, including the use of hand and foot cuffs, helmets, body constrainers. Many attempts to deport asylum seekers had to be cancelled because the scuffle and violence caused too much commotion on the plane.

Upon arrival in the country, it was reported that the escort constabulary often simply try to get rid of the deportee, sometimes by bribing government officials. There were instances of Cameroonian deportees brought to Nigeria and in order to get rid of the deportees were simply handed over to the Nigerian authorities. “People dumping”, the former Ombudsman called it, as long as the objective of removing the deportees from the Netherlands is achieved.

A recommendation by the Council of Europe (the pan-European institution which defends and protects human rights) warned that:

“All too often, persons awaiting expulsion are subjected, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to discrimination, racist verbal abuse, dangerous methods of restraint and even violence and inhuman or degrading treatment. All too often, the officials responsible for enforcing expulsion orders resort to an unjustified, improper or even dangerous use of force.”

A lot of the practices that seem to be occurring in the Netherlands (deprivation of food, detention of asylum seekers, prevention of breathing, denial of medical care, “proportionality and respect for safety and human dignity in any other measures taken during the expulsion procedure”) are exactly the ones that the Council has held should be outlawed.

A resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly reminded the Netherlands of it obligations with regards to return of asylum seekers:

Council of Europe member states should promote the voluntary return of failed asylum seekers and that forced return should be considered only as a last resort. Where forced return is inevitable, it should be implemented in a humane and transparent manner in compliance with human rights and with respect for the safety and dignity of the person concerned.” [emphasis mine]

See the two part series “Wrapped up and away” (Inpakken en Wegwezen).

Strange mallard

I'm not dead yet...

Came across this strange 'scientific' reserach into "homosexual necrophilia in the mallard"...conducted by a Dutchperson (who else?)

"On 5 June 1995 an adult male mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) collided with the glass façade of the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam and died. An other drake mallard raped the corpse almost continuously for 75 minutes. Then the author disturbed the scene and secured the dead duck. Dissection showed that the rape-victim indeed was of the male sex. It is concluded that the mallards were engaged in an ‘Attempted Rape Flight’ that resulted in the first described case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard."

Hui free!!!

After three weeks of detention, 8 year old Hui and his mother were suddenly released last week. The Immigration and Naturalisation Service will not give comment as to why, just vaguely said that “new information” has come up in the case. The lawyer of mother and child said:

,,We have not heard of anything like this yet. Strange, but we are happy that Hui and his mother are out of prison. It is going well with Hui, but the detention has made a deep impression on him.’’

Here you can see Hui's festive return to school.

They’ve been in detention for three weeks, and before that put in ‘deportation camps’ for many, many months because, the government says, that Hui’s mother wouldn’t cooperate with the deportation procedures. Locking people who do not have a right to stay in the country is a way to ‘persuade’ them to cooperate. And now suddenly new information is available about their status. Does this not have something to do with the strong consternation in Parliament? Or the fact that thousands of people, including Hui's classmates and their parents, demonstrated on the streets of Amsterdam and outside the high security prison Camp Zeist?

Hui’s case is not isolated, and by no means an exception. Just how serious the effect of imprisonment can have on a child, Inge Bulters, director of a school for children of refugees elaborates

“[…] 6 year old A. from Iran […] was first locked up with his parents in Rotterdam, after that eight months behind lock and latch in Zeist [high security prison]. […] It was a drama for that child, that lock up. Every time the door closed. For him, the worst fear is that he is taken away from his parents. That [became clear] when he saw something on television about Hui. I hoped that he would let that go. [But he did not]. Immediately he got nightmares. He dreamt that the police at the [asylum seeker centre] drove up and came to pick up him and all the other children. Even his parents cannot take away that fear from him.

[…] The asylum law is simply not right. People are locked up due to a sort of desperation. As if people will go if you lock them up. But people don’t do that […] You don’t want to know how many of our pupils get sleeping tablets to get through the night. This child came here after the vacation and does nothing but study, study, and study. She loves to get homework. We give her that too. It is her strategy of survival.

[…] I believe the worst of our asylum policy in the Netherlands is the fact that children are send through the Netherlands like post packages. On average a child of a refugee sees in a short time five schools. The newest record is a child who [went to] nine school in the Netherlands in ten months. That is so bad. Such a child wouldn’t be able to adapt any more, because [it] knows that [it] can be dragged away at any moment. They do not adapt any more as a sort of self protection, but the result is terrible. Children withdraw completely, or [become aggressive], learning achievement declines, they get social emotional problems. Then you haven’t even thought about what happen to these children once they become older. You see these children are becoming mature far too young. Many pupils must, for [the sake of] their parents. They protect the parents. Recently a child here broke a finger from a fall. The first that it said was: ‘Don’t call my mother.’ While such a child must of course be comforted by its mother. But in this case the child knew that the mother wouldn’t be able to completely handle [the situation].”

An extremely moving account, and at the same time underlines the consequences of an immigration/asylum policy that applies rules and regulations without regard to the human factor…

Well, in the media frenzy and attention that Hui and his mum have attracted, the Minister for Immigration and Integration gave a reaction, Verdonk. She said there will “soon [be] no child in prison any more”…and puts the blame on the parent for allowing the child to end up in prison.

“It is about illegal [immigrants] or people who, after a careful procedure the independent judge has determined that they have no future here. It is about people who we help to make that return a successful beginning in their country of origin.”

The problem with many of these immigrants with no right to stay is that they have no where to return to. Often, as in the case of Hui and his mother, the country of origin (China) does not want these people back, and does not even recognise that these people are in fact nationals of the country. Which effectively means that they are stateless, and have no country that will accept them. And circumstances in their home countries may be so chaotic and dangerous that it is almost like a death warrant for the parent and child to be sent back where they came from. For the Netherlands to deport them, regardless of their circumstance and status, is tantamount to saying we don’t care where wander off to or where they try to build up a life. The minister goes on to explain, and put the blame on the parents for the fact that children end up behind bars:

“But if the parents do not want to take their responsibility, then it becomes difficult. […] It is more difficult if single parents do not want to cooperate with the return [procedure] and per se want to keep their children with them. For them, there is nothing else than “foreigner confinement” [vreemdelingenbewaring ]. Because that is the alternative to an illegal existence. That is no life for parents with children and we do not tolerate that in the Netherlands.”

Funny…illegal existence, which may mean that the parent and child is at least free, is not tolerated but imprisonment is? The very point of departure dealing with single parents with children should be that detention is NOT an option of policy. There are still currently 12 other children in prison…an improvement perhaps from last year, when a staggering 235 children ended up behind bars, some for as long as six months!

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and fellow Dutchman, Jan Pronk has severely criticised Dutch policies with regard to (illegal) immigrants and asylum seekers in recent years. Earlier this week an MP, at a meeting discussing the fate of 26,000 immigrants who have been refused a right to stay in the Netherlands, bluntly said of the deportations:

“You’re awakened in the morning and the house is empty. That shock that you then get: people have been taken away. That shock, people have felt this earlier in situations in the Second World War […] I know in history of no other point with which I could compare that.

[…] Often between three and four am. Even if this is a very different situation, it sometimes reminds [one to think of] how the Germans came to arrest Jews before.”

Minister Verdonk said she was very hurt by the statement.

UPDATE 23 Oct 2006

A resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly chastised the Netherlands for its plicy of returning some 26,000 asylum seekers deemed unable to stay in the country. Namely, in the application of rules and procedures, the human factor must be considered [emphasis below mine]:

• "[...] that special consideration, through a procedure laid down by law, should be given to those failed asylum seekers who have established strong family, community or other links with the Netherlands, such as children who were born or brought up there, or failed asylum seekers who have lived in the country for a long time and have integrated there."
  
  
• [...] the Netherlands [risks returning] certain people to a situation where they might be at risk of serious human rights violations or where their safety would be in danger because of the circumstances prevailing in the country or region of origin.
  
  
• [...] under the revised policy of the Netherlands, detention, of potentially unlimited duration, could be resorted to as a punitive measure to sanction those who do not co-operate, or who cannot prove that they are co-operating, towards facilitating their own return. It regrets that this policy does not foresee any clear exemptions from detention for specific categories of failed asylum seekers such as children, the elderly, people suffering from trauma or mental illness and people with disabilities.
  
  
• [...] policy of the Netherlands should be modified in so far as it allows, in some cases, for certain persons to be protected from expulsion where it is impossible to return them, whilst simultaneously depriving them of all access to housing, social benefits and health care. This is a particularly worrying development, especially regarding children in the light of the rights laid down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It represents one of a series of measures increasingly used in a number of Council of Europe member states as a means of exerting pressure on failed asylum seekers to return to their countries of origin.