New Fisk

Trump's claim that a general dipped bullets in pigs' blood is fake news – but the US massacre of Moro Muslims isn't

Looking for another dumping ground - again

When their Pacific gulags on Nauru and Manua Island turned toxic, Australia went looking for another dumping ground for refugees. They ended up cutting a deal with Cambodia, one of the poorest countries in the region, and paying them A$55 million to resettle the people Australia didn't want. But that didn't work out, so Australia is looking for a new dumping ground: the Philippines:

Refugees who travelled to Australia by boat could be permanently resettled in the Philippines under a deal being negotiated, but senior government sources fear the premature leaking of the deal to the media could see the proposal scuttled.

The deal, reported to be worth about $150 million, would be similar to the one Australia struck with Cambodia to send refugees processed on Nauru to the impoverished nation. However that deal collapsed with just four refugees opting to resettle there at a cost of $50 million to the Australian taxpayer.

[...]

The deal was first reported by News Corp on Thursday, citing Foreign Minister Julie Bishop as saying: "The governments of Australia and the Philippines have long co-operated on irregular migration, people smuggling and human trafficking.

"These issues are important to both countries, and to the region."

Ms Bishop raised the matter with her Philippine counterpart at the United Nations in New York but no final agreement has been struck or signed.

Again, Australia's target is one of the poorest nations in the region, with widespread poverty and a climate of lawlessness and active insurgencies. It is, in short, the sort of place people flee, rather than a suitable place for resettlement. But Australia doesn't care about that - it just wants to dump its problem on someone else and ensure that poor brown people aren't allowed in Australia. And it will waste however much public money it takes to make that happen.

Climate change: This is our future

Last week, typhoon Haiyan swept over the Philippines, killing an estimated 10,000 people. Haiyan was the strongest storm on record, and the Philippines government has been quite clear: its strength and the devastation it caused are due to climate change:

The Philippines government has firmly connected the super typhoon Haiyan with climate change, and urged governments meeting in Poland on Monday to take emergency action to resolve the deadlocked climate talks.

"We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway," said Yeb Sano, head of the government's delegation to the UN climate talks, in an article for the Guardian, in which he challenged climate sceptics to "get off their ivory towers" to see the impacts of climate change firsthand.

[...]

"What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness," he told delagates from 190 countries, as UN climate negotiations get underway for a fortnight today in Warsaw. "The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw. Typhoons such as Haiyan and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action..

"Science tells us that simply, climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up, that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.".

I'd like to think that this disaster and its pile of corpses will cause the rich countries of the world to change their policies, accept responsibility, and start seriously reducing their emissions. But I doubt it. The American government doesn't care how many Filipinos die. Hell, judging by their response to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy they don't care how many Americans die either. They're elected by and for the rich, and deaths are just an externality (if not an opportunity) to them.

Meanwhile, National Geographic has a dramatic visualisation of the world we're making, with a map of what the world would look like if all the ice melted. It's horrifying, promising disruption on a mass scale. Whole countries would cease to exist, a billion people would be displaced, and vast areas of farmland would be inundated. in New Zealand, it would mean all our major cities would be underwater, along with much of the Waikato, Canterbury Plains, and Manawatu. We're having enough trouble dealing with the Christchurch earthquakes, let alone that.

This is our future, the world our inaction is making. We can change it. But first, we need to change our politicians. People young enough to realise that they will be personally affected would be a start.

Human rights in the Philippines

I was planning to do a post on this topic, but I just can't. Go and read this, and this, and this, and this, and then try telling me that Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo - who has been blamed by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions for abandoning the peace process with her country's rebel groups and letting loose the military to kill with impunity - is someone we should be welcoming, someone who should be shaking our Prime Minister's hand.

The news that Dennis Maga, a Filipino trade unionist who has been speaking in New Zealand to highlight human rights abuses in his country, may face arrest and assassination if he returns home, is just icing on the cake. While not a crime, advocating for human rights in the Philippines now carries a death penalty.

While I think the New Zealand government's offer of human rights assistance is a positive step, it ignores the Philippines government's role in perpetrating these abuses and suppressing its critics. that is something which deserves condemntation and isolation, not praise.

Update: The Philippines government has now given the New Zealand government an assurance that Maga will not be arrested. We should make sure we hold them to it.

The same old game

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, President Arroyo seems to be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of People Power by dispersing protests, intimidating the media, and detaining her critics - all under the guise of putting down a military coup. Over 100 people have been arrested so far, including students, university lecturers, lawyers, and opposition politicians. Some have been charged with "inciting sedition" under the Philippines' notoriously loose sedition law, which effectively outlaws any call to public protest. Others have curiously been charged with coup attempts dating back twenty years. The picture seems to be that of a general roundup of political opponents, rather than dealing with a military rebellion.

So, twenty years after People Power, a corrupt Philippines president who fraudulently stole an election seems to be using the same tricks that Marcos did when he was in power. It really is the same old game...

Sedition in the Philippines II

Two and a half years ago, three hundred Philippine soldiers mutinied and seized control of a Manila shopping complex. They soon surrendered, but a small group recently escaped from jail and went on the run. Now one of them, First Lieutenant Lawrence San Juan, has been recaptured. And in addition to charges relating to his mutiny and escape, he is also reportedly facing charges of incitement to sedition. The reason? He urged people to protest against the president:

He urged the people to not only to come out in the streets but also to wear red armbands to show their disgust for the regime of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

He said the red band would symbolize the true sentiments of the people towards the present leadership.

"From now on, let us wear red arm bands to show her what the real truth is. And through this, open her eyes to the reality that the only way towards genuine and peaceful change would be for her to step down from office," he said.

As pointed out in an earlier piece on sedition in the Philippines, that country's sedition law is incredibly broad, and criminalises practically any call for public protest. Last year, the law was used to punish a whistleblower who revealed that President Arroyo had conspired with electoral officials to manipulate election results, truth apparantly being no defence.

I have no truck with military mutineers, and Lieutenant San Juan should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for his crimes in that area. But the sedition charges are clearly a crock, the result of an overbroad law and a government seeking to punish those who speak out against its corruption.

Arroyo comes clean

President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines has come clean and admitted that the tape of her conversation with an election official, in which she allegedly tried to influence the counting of the vote, is genuine. Previously she had tried to claim that the tapes had been doctored.

So, does this mean that the sedition charges against Samuel Ong, the former intelligence official who leaked the tapes, will be withdrawn?

Sedition in the Philippines

The Philippines government has filed charges in absentia against a former intelligence officer for propagating (allegedly doctored) audiotapes which purport to record President Arroyo conspiring with an election official to fix the vote in the 2004 presidential election. The charge? "Inciting sedition". And in the Philippines, that's even more of a bullshit crime than it is here.

The Philippines' sedition law was originally drafted in 1930, amended multiple times by executive orders from President Marcos, and restored to its original form in 1987. It defines sedition as:

Art. 139. Sedition; How committed. - The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:

1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government (or the Government of the United States), of all its property or any part thereof.

"Inciting sedition" is defined as follows:

Art. 142. Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government (of the United States or the Government of the Commonwealth) of the Philippines, or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices.

Yes, in the Philippines, "stirring up the people" against the government or "disturbing the peace of the community" by circulating "scurrilous libels" (lies - or even worse, truths) which cause them to dislike those in power is punishable by imprisonment. But then, is our own law, which bars bringing into hatred or contempt, or "exciting disaffection" against the government, really that different?

Either way, I think the layman's definition of sedition - "saying things the government doesn't want to hear" - holds in the Philippines.