Issue 51 Vol III, November 15, 2007

C O M M E N T

Race and Prejudice
Immigrants suffer as they turn England Rich

Immigrants contribute more than the natives, yet they suffer indiscriminate racial prejudices. Even when they are deported, they suffer the worst at the hands of the British guards who assault and racially abuse. This is an unending sad story, documented and reported without much affect for the authorities who daily design new immigration policies and rulers.

Immigration contributed £6bn to Britain's economic growth last year.  Britain is better off with immigration than without it. There is nothing wrong when the immigration minister, Liam Byrne says, "In the long run, our country and exchequer is better off with immigration rather than without it." Immigration might have stretched services in some areas, but the country benefits more than it offers the immigrants. The Home Office figures provide the first full analysis of the impact of increased immigration in the last decade. It said that in 2006, 574,000 migrants came to live in the UK and that they contributed around a sixth of the total growth in the economy that year.

On average, migrants earned more than native workers and paid more tax, suggesting that they are more productive. The report pointed out that migrants made up 9.6% of the population in 2003-04 but contributed 10% of government revenue in taxes while using only 9.1% of government expenditure in the services they consume.

Yet hundreds of failed asylum-seekers deported from the United Kingdom have been beaten and racially abused by British escort teams who are paid to take them back to their home countries. The scale of the alleged abuse was recently revealed in a joint investigation by The Independent and a group coordinating the representation and medical care of failed asylum-seekers.

A dossier of 200 cases, collated by doctors, lawyers, immigration centre visitors and campaign groups over the past two years, has unearthed shocking claims of physical and mental mistreatment of some of the most vulnerable people in our asylum system.

Many of the claims include allegations of physical and sexual assault and racist abuse which took place during the long journey from Britain to their home countries.

The authors of the 200-case dossier accuse the Government of turning a blind eye to the abuse in order to meet arbitrary targets for the forced repatriation of asylum-seekers. Some of the cases they are investigating are worse than the torture and abuse the refugee suffered before making their asylum claim in this country.

Dr Frank Arnold, a volunteer doctor with the Medical Justice Network, who has examined more than 100 detained asylum-seekers accuses injuries suffered during removal are not taken seriously enough by the British immigration authorities. He said: "Some of these injuries have been so bad that police officers who saw them appear to have been genuinely shocked. But it is my experience that medical staff who examine asylum-seekers when they are taken back into detention have greatly underestimated the severity of the injuries, including fractures and nerve damage from forcible traction on handcuffs."

In the past two years government figures show that 1,173 attempts to remove failed asylum-seekers, have failed.

The majority of those are due to the disruptive behaviour of the detainee on board the aircraft or because of an eleventh-hour judicial intervention. But others fail because of injuries suffered or the deterioration in the physical or mental health of the asylum-seeker during the removal process.

The UK lags behind many other European Union countries when it comes to helping migrants integrate into society and participate in politics, a study claims today.

The report, released by the British Council and the Migration Policy Group, found that although the UK has strong anti-discrimination laws and a good record of allowing migrants to stay in the country, it could do more to reunite families and help migrants find work.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which studied 25 EU members and three non-EU countries, also noted that the UK had failed to anticipate the upsurge in immigration caused by EU enlargement.

"This old country of immigration has seen new unprecedented waves of labour migration in the past few years. Larger numbers than predicted arrived from the new EU member states after their accession in May 2004, with inadequate preparation for their integration."

The UK comes ninth overall in the study, three places above France and five above Germany. Sweden was top, followed by Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Canada, Italy and Norway.

While the UK came fifth for legal definitions of discrimination and racism, the study revealed a gap between theory and practice, with the country placed 11th among the original 15 EU nations when it came to enforcement. The report put the UK 15th out of the 28 for political participation, pointing out that neither "migrants [nor] their associations are structurally consulted by government at any level".

It also said more could be done to help migrants break into the labour market. "Although the state helps them to get their skills and qualifications recognised it does not set national policy targets to further integration or allow migrants equal access to training and study grants."

British policies on reuniting families and keeping them together could also be improved. The report urged  "The conditions for a sponsor include proof of income and accommodation; through a long and expensive procedure ... family members have the same rights as their sponsor to education and employment, but not to social assistance and housing."

So much for British high claim of civilizing the world.

BACK

Myanmar: A cry for Democracy!
Mickey Sharma

Myanmar became an independent republic on 4 January 1948, and was named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister. Democracy in the country ended in 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup. In 1988, a major pro-democracy movement was started due to the gross economic mismanagement and the political suppression of the common populace by the government. The movement was known as the ‘8888 Uprising’. India came out openly in support of democracy in Myanmar, but the armed forces ruthlessly crushed the protests, massacred hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators, and the incumbent government became leery of India’s intentions. Subsequently, General Saw Maung formed the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) after acquiring power through a coup. This was followed by widespread protests and the SLORC enforced a martial law in the state on the pretext of maintaining law and order.  In the year 1989, the military regime changed the country’s name from ‘Union of Burma’ to ‘Union of Myanmar’, and in the same year it also announced its plans to hold an Assembly election on 31 May 1989.

In May 1990, free elections were held in the country for the first time in almost 30 years. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) won 392 out of a total 489 seats. But it didn’t matter to the SLORC, as they annulled the election results.

Since then, all major political outfits, including Suu Kyi’s NLD, have been thrown out of the mainstream and no substantial steps have been taken towards bringing democracy back.

After looking at Myanmar through a brief prism of history, one understands that the country has never enjoyed time when it was allowed to flourish. For a county like India, which is trying to expedite its growth process, such anxiety and instability in such close proximity might be more harmful than perceived.

India and Myanmar, ever since the independence of both the nations, worked together towards a stronger south-Asia. But progress was hindered when General Ne Win refused India any help on Nagaland, allegedly under pressure from the Chinese.

Around 1992, after a couple of decades of indifferent relations, the Indian government realised its policy and positioning blunder in context of Myanmar. It is also interesting that China’s growing interest in Myanmar also was one of the major reasons for India to patch-up with the internationally side-lined military regime.

Four east-Indian states share their border with Myanmar; Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram. India actually shares a 1,643 km long border with Myanmar and an equally exaggerated maritime boundary. So, on India’s part, it has to keep the incumbents in Myanmar relatively happy to ensure that any area in their territorial border is not used for anti-India activities.

Myanmar also holds its relations with China right at the top of its priority list. The two countries have signed diplomatically important pacts in the past decade including strategic and defence related treaties. Chinese dignitaries have frequented Myanmar in the past decade including Jiang Zemin in 2001, which caused a state of concern in India.

Pakistan’s growing fondness with Myanmar in the past decade is also a worrying matter. Pakistani presence in such close proximity to India’s north-east border is enough to cause a few raised eyebrows in New Delhi. Pakistan has also been supplying Myanmar with arms and other military hardware. It has also trained Myanmar’s soldiers in operating Chinese tanks and aircrafts.

There is a dire need for India to balance out its role in Myanmar, as this affects the country both internally and externally and is the perfect test of India’s diplomatic maturity. Myanmar is a major exporter of natural gas to India but we have to keep ourselves above petty gains to look at the bigger picture.  Any brashness on the Indian side can harm the economy at this delicate juncture, and any empathy towards the ‘Junta’ will mean a compromise with democracy which is the basis of our nation’s foundation. The government cannot ignore what is happening in a neighbouring country, and has to take a stand that makes the oppressors in Myanmar realise that the will of the people has to reign supreme, under all circumstances. We have to keep an eye on China, but it cannot be at the cost of the freedom of millions of Myanamarese. Myanmar needs democracy, and this might be the chance when India’s own fatigued democracy finds its golden chance of redemption.

BACK

Burma: Gem Trade Bolsters Military Regime, Fuels Atrocities

Human Rights Watch has urged China, Thailand, the United States, and other countries to completely block the purchase of gems from Burma that help finance military abuses there. It called for targeted sanctions on Burma's gem business ahead of the opening of a major gem auction in Rangoon this week.

"Burma's rubies and jade are prized for their beauty but the ugly truth is that the trade in these stones supports human rights abuses," said Arvind Ganesan, director of the Business and Human Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "The sale of these gems gives Burma's military rulers quick cash to stay in power."

Burma's military junta has organized the auction, which is scheduled to run from November 14 to 26 at the Myanmar Convention Center. Large numbers of precious and semi-precious stones will be on offer to the highest bidder.

Burma produces a variety of gems but is most famous for its rubies and jade. More than 90 percent of the world's rubies originate in Burma, according to industry estimates. Burmese rubies are renowned for their dark "pigeon's blood" color. Burma also dominates as the top producer of jadeite, a type of jade that is valued highly for its deep green hue.

The state-run Myanmar Gems Enterprise said it generated sales of nearly US$300 million in fiscal year 2006-2007. This figure represented an increase of nearly 45 percent over the previous year's gem earnings. It qualified the company as the country's third-highest exporter by value, after the state-run petroleum and timber companies, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise, and the Myanmar Timber Enterprise.

Burmese officials have openly stated in the past that they increasingly rely on gem auctions to bring in hard currency. Regular auctions used to be held annually, but since 1992 they have taken place twice yearly.

Beginning in 2004, additional "special" auctions were called to help fill the government's coffers.

The junta controls most mining activity in the country. It has a direct ownership interest in many mines, in some cases through joint ventures with private entrepreneurs. Senior military officers reputedly arrange "private" sales of the finest gems and keep the proceeds.

Official gem sales at auction and private sales of the most valuable gems account for the major portion of Burma's gem trade. In addition, some cross-border smuggling of gems takes place.

Burma's gem mines are ruled with an iron hand by military authorities and mining companies. Conditions are reported to be deplorable. Access to the mining tracks is strictly limited, especially to foreigners, but reports from nongovernmental groups suggest that land confiscation, extortion, forced labor, child labor, environmental pollution, and unsafe working conditions for miners are rampant. The absence of health care and HIV prevention information and services has accelerated the spread of HIV/AIDS and drug resistant malaria and tuberculosis in mining areas.

"It is simply unconscionable for traders to help Burma's generals sell off the country's natural resources for their own benefit while average people are victimized and harassed," said Ganesan. "Trading in Burmese gems bolsters the country's military rulers at a time when they are committing serious human rights abuses, driving their people into further poverty, and rejecting calls for political reconciliation."

The upcoming gem auction is the first in Burma since the military government violently repressed peaceful protests that began in August. It was twice postponed, purportedly due to weather conditions. Ongoing unrest and strong international condemnation of the regime may have raised fears that few traders would attend. Even after delaying the event, the government has set lower expectations for attendance than in the past.

Myanmar Gems Enterprise has said it expects approximately 2,000 foreign buyers to attend the November auction, which would be significantly fewer than attended prior auctions in March and July 2007. The March gem emporium, attended by some 3,000 traders, reportedly generated $185 million in total sales. The company said the July auction, at which 4,000 buyers were present, set a new record for jade earnings but it has not released sales figures.

The vast majority of the gem merchants who attend the Rangoon auctions are from Asian countries, especially China and Thailand. Those two countries also import the bulk of Burma's precious stones. Burmese jade, which is popular in China, reportedly is increasingly sought after for use in products commemorating the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Chinese buyers also purchased Burmese gems at a recent China-ASEAN Expo that took place from October 28-31 in Nanning, in southern China.

According to a report in the Myanmar Times, Burma's gem sales at the four-day event amounted to 200,000 yuan (US$27,000) per day.

Thailand is the main importer of Burmese colored gemstones, which are cut, polished, and re-exported to customers in third countries. Burmese gems typically are sold on to retailers in Europe, Japan, and the United States. India also serves as a cutting and polishing center. A considerable number of the highest-quality and most expensive stones are exported to Switzerland for onward sale to the US or other markets, according to industry sources.

On October 15, the European Union imposed new sanctions to block the import of Burmese precious and semi precious stones, along with other measures.

In the US Congress, pending legislation would ban the purchase of Burmese-mined gemstones, closing a loophole in existing US sanctions that allows gems from Burma to be sold in the US if they have been processed in a third country.

"The governments and companies that have stopped buying Burmese gems deserve credit for not supporting human rights abusers," said Ganesan. "The rest have the blood of Burmese on their hands."

BACK

Rich Indians pollute more: Greenpeace

A new study by Greenpeace suggests that 'rich' Indians, those earning more than Rs 30,000, using cell phones, computers, DVDs and other such gadgets are adding to the pollution far more than the poor ones.

As much as 49 per cent household pollution a rich Indian generates is from gizmos and gadgets like mobiles, DVD players and laptops etc. With more and more electronic goods making their way into Indian markets, there's hardly any awareness about their energy efficiency before buying. The government is aware of the problem but it is still trying to popularise energy efficiency standards for household products like refrigerators, air conditioners and bulbs.

Dr N P Singh, Ministry of Renewable Energy said, ''we are slowly looking at this. There is a move towards giving ratings to products from one star to five stars for energy efficiency so that the customer is informed.''

World governments including India differ on how to respond to the threat of global warming. Various nations of the world are scheduled to meet in December in Bali, Indonesia to discuss the Kyoto Protocol and Carbon emission cuts. India will stick to its stand on common but differentiated responsibility, which means developed nations will have a bigger responsibility than developing nations.

The recent Greenpeace report uses the same argument within India and says that India's rich are hiding the actual emissions behind India's poor. As India's rich will buy more cars, take more flights, buy more gadgets it is only set to increase by 2030. It is expected that the streets will have close to half a billion cars and that without faster trains intra city flights will climb to almost 2000 in number.

It may be a controversial conclusion but the warning is clear for each and every consumer - avoid the mistakes that the west made and for this we also need better government regulations and standards on energy in the country.

BACK