TOP 100 NEWS SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Afghans say Nato 'as bad as the Taliban' | Erica Gaston If the US-led Nato counterinsurgency strategy depends on winning civilian 'hearts and minds', they're losing badlyLast week marked the ninth anniversary of the United States's invasion of Afghanistan, and the beginning of the 10th year of the current international engagement there. In the coming months, the US, Nato and its international allies will take a hard look at the current military counterinsurgency strategy, and the prospects for peaceful reconciliation. Both strategies are likely to be challenged by the absence of key ingredient to their success – Afghan trust in international efforts. My organisation, the Open Society Foundations, recently asked 250 Afghans across Afghanistan who or what they thought was contributing to the escalation of conflict in Afghanistan, and, in particular, whom they blamed for the high civilian casualties and other civilian losses that have been such a flashpoint among the Afghan population. Despite statistics suggesting insurgents are disproportionately responsible for civilian harm, our analysis found that Afghans blamed international forces as much, if not more, than insurgents. Few spoke warmly about the Taliban. But the vast majority described international forces as equally brutal toward civilians, and equally, if not more responsible for civilian casualties, detention abuses and other concerns. They said international forces were often indiscriminate, and that many civilian deaths could have been prevented through better targeting, intelligence or coordination (pdf). "When an accident happens, or there is an attack against Nato troops, then Nato troops react and start firing on people. They never think about those around them as human. They think every person on the street is their enemy," said a man from western Herat province.Most alleged more horrific stories of international forces shooting people point blank in front of their families, of kidnapping women and returning their dead bodies, or of firing on or abusing children. Many also accused international soldiers of giving weapons or supplies directly to the Taliban; transporting insurgents to peaceful areas, of international forces planting bombs or mines or paying suicide bombers and then blaming the Taliban. Many Afghans said the fact that the insurgency was spreading despite the increase in troops made them doubt international intentions (pdf) in Afghanistan. "The international forces are not honestly trying to bring peace. In 2001 and 2002, they could eliminate all the Taliban in a week, but now there's only a handful and they don't seem to be able to get rid of them," a man from southern Kandahar province said.Though many rumours and negative characterisations are intentionally spread by the Taliban, we heard these negative perceptions as much from relatively pro-western and educated urban populations as from those ethnicities and geographic areas least sympathetic to the Taliban movement and its propaganda (pdf). Our analysis also suggested that while propaganda and bias against foreigners play an important role, these negative perceptions have spread so widely because they ring true with legitimate grievances against international forces. Insurgents looking to paint the international community in a bad light need look no further than the last nine years of civilian casualties, incidents of abuse, and harsh detention conditions – acts easily exaggerated due to the general lack of transparency or accountability of international forces to the Afghan public. That these issues are a big obstacle to winning hearts and minds has certainly been recognised by western policymakers, and there have been significant policy reforms to address them – for example, tactical restrictions on airstrikes that risk civilian deaths. Yet, western military and civilian officials have tended to cherrypick the issues they are willing to change, while allowing other problematic behaviours to continue, to the effect that:• Though airstrikes have been reduced, night-time house searches, which result in fewer deaths but often cause greater offence and community terror, have increased. • Despite promises of "population protection", the strategy of pushing troops closer to Afghan villages in contested areas has made these areas much more dangerous for civilians due to increased insurgent suicide bombs and IEDs. • Overall promises to stop abuse and stem corruption seem hypocritical when international forces and intelligence units continue to hire or subcontract out security support to unaccountable Afghan guards often affiliated with insurgents and criminals, and a track record of killing, kidnapping and extorting money from the population. • Greater willingness to recognise civilian deaths in some instances are countered by continued foot-dragging and non-transparent investigations in many other incidents involving civilian harm, particularly where special forces or intelligence units are involved. This deeply inconsistent approach to civilian protection has often contrasted with western rhetoric – which only makes Afghans doubt all the more western promises, and which undermines or negates positive changes of policy. More than any metrics about insurgents captured or roads built, the gulf between Afghans and the international community is perhaps the most concerning red flag for the Nato mission in Afghanistan. For any resolution of the conflict to be sustainable, it must be brokered from a base of trust – something the international military and policy community currently do not have, given the record of the last nine years. Many Afghans see the international community, particularly the international military force, as an entity they are forced to interact with, rather than engage with as a trusted partner. This does not engender productive relationship where differences of view can be negotiated, but simply a jockeying for position among groups where the priorities are, first, immediate survival, and then, short-term power grabs.The one positive finding from our research was that despite the negative attitudes towards the international community, most Afghans we spoke to still wanted international involvement in Afghanistan. They still supported the presence of foreign troops and continued international engagement in the country. This suggests that for all the missteps of the last nine years, there is still time to turn the situation around. But only if the international community can take measures to become the consistent and trusted partner Afghans expect them to be.AfghanistanNatoUS militaryUnited StatesWar crimesHuman rightsTalibanErica Gastonguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
China's leader Hu Jintao leads a country in ferment A 'harmonious' era, built on conservatism and too much repression is coming to an endPresident Hu Jintao would like his time since 2002 to be remembered as one of "harmony", the buzzword of the last decade. With a big meeting on in Beijing, with sharp debate about the future direction of the party and of China, "disharmony" now prevails.This is not how things were meant to be. Hu is a consensus builder, and a control freak. He never gives one-to-one interviews to western journalists. His minders ensure the world runs to a tight timetable. But the Nobel award to Liu Xiaobo is only one of several recent irruptions into this orderly world.China is a victim of its own success. When it entered the World Trade Organisation in late 2001 not even the most optimistic would have expected that within 10 years it would be the world's second largest economy, largest exporter and largest holder of foreign reserves. It has left the elite, at the top of which sits Hu, in a place they thought they would not get to for as much as another 10 years.Hu talks constantly of the party's legitimacy being built on its economic performance. But his premier, Wen Jiabao, has been alluding openly to how much more pressing political reforms will now become.China is well on its way to becoming a middle-income country. Like any other society in this transitional phase, all sorts of things start happening. Demands for stronger rule of law, a greater role for civil society,devolution of powers from central to local government, and more participation in decision-making are coming thick and fast. Dealing with the economy was the easy bit. Now things become far more complex.China is in ferment. Some 12m petitions to the central government were made from 2005 to 2009. The courts are often clogged with civil cases. As much is spent on internal security as on international defence. That the government felt so insecure it had to imprison Liu Xiaobo for 11 years is symptomatic of the contradictions.The real worry is that the party elite lack the vision, the experience and the will to start dealing with reform.Like many other systems, that of the Chinese faces pressure to modernise far faster than they ever expected. The past weeks should alert people inside and outside China to the fact that this will not be an easy process. With a leadership change due in 2012, it is not only the issues which are confusing, but also the question of who will deal with them. The signs are clear. Hu's "harmonious" era is coming to a close.ChinaNobel peace prizeLiu XiaoboKerry Brownguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Silence of the dissenters: How south-east Asia keeps web users in line Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines are all moving towards Chinese-style internet censorship• Interactive guide: censorship in AsiaGovernments across south-east Asia are following China's authoritarian censorship of the digital world to keep political dissent in check, the Guardian can reveal.Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines have all moved or are moving towards monitoring internet use, blocking international sites regarded as critical and ruthlessly silencing web dissidents.• In Vietnam, the Communist party wants to be your "friend" on the state-run version of Facebook, provided you are willing to share all personal details.• In Burma, political unrest can be silenced by cutting off the country from the internet.• In Thailand, website moderators can face decades in jail for a posted comment they did not even write, if the government deems it injurious tothe monarchy.While much is made of China's authoritarian attitudetowards internet access, a majority of south-east Asian governments have similar controls and , rather than relaxing restrictions on internet use, many are moving towards tighter regulation.The Guardian has spoken to five leading bloggers across the region about the present restrictions they face and future fears.Raymond Palatino, a Filipino MP and editor with Global Voices, says governments, in addition to crudely blocking websites, are starting to use arguments of morality and decency to censor access to information and quash criticism."There is direct censorship to block political dissent. You have repressive laws in Myanmar [Burma], in Vietnam, in Singapore. In fact I think Vietnam is catching up with China in terms of building strong firewalls to prevent dissidents from accessing critical content on the internet."But we also see governments using the excuse of protecting the public morality in order to censor internet content. Governments use the excuse of censoring pornography as a safe argument to make censorship acceptable to the public."More than a decade ago, George W Bush asked people to "imagine if the internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread". But rather than emerging as a catalyst for democracy, the internet has become another way to to stifle dissent.Palatino sees governments using the internet for their own selfish advantage. "They are learning how to prevent people for using the internet to criticise government. Instead of being a potent tool for empowering the people, the internet will be in the hands of an authoritative, repressive government."With a population of more than 600 million, south-east Asia has about 123 million internet users. But penetration ratesvary from 0.2% in Burma and Timor-Leste to more than 80% in Brunei Darussalam and 77% in Singapore. But south-east Asian use is still dwarfed by China's384 million users.In the Philippines, cybercrime legislation before the parliament would outlaw anything deemed obscene or indecent. Palatino says: "The laws are deliberately broad and vague so they can be used to shut down anything subversive."Cambodia's government is seeking to monitor all internet use inside the country, by appointing the state-owned telephone company to operate the sole internet exchange.Websites will be monitored to filter out pornography, officials say, but opponents say sites critical of the government are also likely to be blocked.In Thailand, century-old lese-majesty legislation is combined with new computer-related crime laws, to mute criticism on the web.Lese-majesty laws – defaming the monarchy - are imposed inconsistently in Thailand, but wielded often enough, and against defendants of sufficient profile, to stifle almost any discussion of the monarchy's role in a country riven by political factionalism. Chiranuch Premchiaporn, the editor of Thailand's English-language news website Prachatai.com, faces up to 70 years in jail for allowing the monarch to be insulted online.The charges relate to five of 200 comments posted about an interview with a Thai man who was charged for refusing to stand for the anthem in a theatre.Premchiaporn, known as Jiew, did not write the comments, and pulled them from the website but, according to police, allowed them to stay up ''longer than the appropriate period'', a period never defined by authorities before or since the charge.Now on bail, the prospect of jail weighs heavily on her. "And it isn't just about 'Oh, how long I will have to spend in the cell', my whole life is uncertain. I cannot plan my life because of this legal charge, it makes everything hard."Thailand's strict laws, and harsh punishments, have had a chilling effect on political discussion on webboards and blogs."I think the biggest problem in Thai media is self-censorship … but we started Prachatai for the ideals of believing in the rights of people to access information … from many sources and not be dominated by just one source," Jiew says.Prachatai is blocked in Thailand, under order of the emergency decree after the red-shirt uprising of May. It is one of more than 100,000 websites blocked in the country. "We want to promote the rights of the people to speak up about their issues, not just only people who have a big name, or who are important in government."In Vietnam, web-users can become "friends" with their communist government, joining the country's own version of Facebook. A trial version of go.vn was launched in May. A full version is expected online by the end of the year.The functions are familiar to those versed in social networking. Users can update their status, post photos and links, and send messages back and forth.There are news links, historical articles on founding father Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionary heroes, and members can also play state-approved network games (in one particularly violent example, players join a band of militants sworn to fight the spread of global capitalism).The site is closely monitored by the government's security services, and while, for many, the attraction of the internet lies in its anonymity, to join go.vn users must submit their full names and state-issued identity numbers to the government.The Vietnamese government says it expects to have 40 million members, half the country, in five years. Perhaps because web dissidents are dealt with so ruthlessly by the communist regime – four bloggers were recently jailed for 16 years for anti-government posts – five months on, take-up of go.vn is a bare few thousand.Burma has one of the poorest records on internet freedom in the region.All .mm sites and email addresses are closely monitored by the ruling military junta, and international sites banned, but the tiny internet cafes that dot the former capital, Yangon, are adept at bypassing the government's firewalls, using proxy servers to evade the censors and access banned sites.Outfoxed on technology, the junta responds during times of stress by simply unplugging the internet, especially to stop unwelcome news getting out of the country.At the height of the monk-led Saffron Revolution in 2007, the junta's generals shut down access completely, later claiming a break in an underwater cable had cut the country off.With Burma heading towards its first elections in a generation early next month, and the anticipated release of political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi a week later, there is an expectation the web blackout may be repeated.InternetCensorshipChinaVietnamThailandCambodiaBurmaPhilippinesSingaporeAung San Suu KyiBen Dohertyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Dream recording device 'possible' Researchers in the US say they plan to electronically record and interpret dreams, using a system capable of recording higher level brain activity. bbc.co.uk |
Do It Yourself - Hágalo Usted Mismo - Video Frugal DIY Projects to Make Life Simpler feedproxy.google.com |