Alternatives International Journal

Peoples' Social Forum: Canada

Bradley Castelli — 2014-07-02T02:07:28Z

The 2014 Peoples' Social Forum will take place from August 21 to 24 this summer in Ottawa. The first ever pan-Canadian social forum is expected to draw some 10 000 participants from all over the country, with specific representation from English and French Canadians, as well as First Nations communities. According to its website, the Peoples' Social Forum is a critical public space aimed at fostering activist involvement of individuals and civil society organizations that want to transform Canada as it exists today. It is intended as a space for social movements to meet and converge, for the free expression of alternative ideas and grassroots exchanges and for artistic manifestations reflecting a diversity of demands and aspirations.

Several public consultations were held leading up to the Forum in order to establish themes that will be treated specifically over the four-day event. Of the sixteen themes that have been agreed upon, climate seems to be an issue that links them all together. This is due in part to the fact that as an international community we have crossed the threshold from climate change as a mere possibility or hypothetical endpoint that needs to be addressed in order to be averted, toward a real-time global condition that needs to be managed with growing desperation. With regard to the Canadian context, climate change is an important issue given the Harper Conservatives' aspirations to establish Canada as a global energy superpower through intensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands.

While these aspirations certainly entail environmental and climate-related consequences, they have also enabled shortsighted governance, the erosion of Canadian democracy, economic instability, and in the eyes of many critically thinking Canadians, pose serious risks to human security and rights in Canada. Just because the majority of Canadians have not seen the massive leaky toxic tailings lakes, have not touched the world's dirtiest oil, or are not aware of the various violations of land rights and treaties inherent in bitumen exploitation, does not mean that we are not all adversely affected by the world's biggest energy project.

If the decision-makers whom we have empowered cannot or refuse to serve collective Canadian interests, then it is up to us to protect such interests and hold those who prioritize individual and corporate interests accountable for their misconduct. In this sense, the Peoples' Social Forum provides an inclusive and horizontal political forum that promotes dialogue and encourages progress toward resolving Canadian problems in a manner that benefits Canadians as a collective. Stephen Harper has gone to great lengths to marginalize and silence civil society, climate scientists, environmental groups, and political activists alike, but the Peoples' Social Forum serves as a reminder that these voices have not been silenced altogether and that Canadians themselves are the true agenda-setters, regardless of government intent.

It is important to keep political and social dialogue open and accessible to all Canadians, even if that means asking hard questions and making bold statements that may be brushed off as being radical or controversial. If you have questions about the direction in which Canada is moving, or suggestions for what ought to be done to ensure that we are all on the same page with regard to what progress actually means, come join the dialogue from August 21 to 24.

For more information, please visit http://www.peoplessocialforum.org/

Exhausting Means of Resolution in Syria

Bradley Castelli — 2014-03-01T20:38:50Z

Many were relieved when Western powers relented in their haste to intervene militarily in Syria back in September 2013. It was a chemical attack just outside of Damascus that served as the tipping point that threatened Western intervention, though such action was ultimately averted by Syria agreeing to establish a timetable through which it would eventually surrender its chemical arsenal. Since then the process to rid the country of its chemical weapons has evolved relatively slowly, though at a pace that is seemingly quicker than any progress being made at the conferences dedicated to negotiating a solution to the Syrian conflict.

Any option to resolve conflict by way of Western military intervention is usually met with suspicion of ulterior motives and misrepresented interests. This suspicion goes beyond the context of halting violence through violence; it also considers the post-conflict situation and a subsequent Western approach to state rebuilding that often lacks inclusion of those most affected by a given conflict. In the case of Syria, one of the arguments against intervention has been that Syrian problems demand Syrian solutions, and that the revolution must remain a Syrian revolution or it risks being watered down.

But with a death toll that now exceeds 140 000 people and recent reports warning that Syrians are on the verge of replacing Afghans as the world's largest refugee population, the situation is frustrating, and something that can yield concrete results must be done. One cannot help but wonder if the human security situation in Syria would be better off by now if the West went through with its plans for intervention. Perhaps, but intervening poses many more potential complex consequences than just affecting human security, which is why the West's decision to hold back was probably the right one.

Still, the numbers associated with violent war keep rising and the ability for Syrians to lead a life of dignity continues to decline. Surely there is more in terms of alternatives to military intervention than agreeing on the disposal of chemical weapons. The international community has a ‘responsibility to protect' mechanism that uses various principles to determine when it should intervene in a state that cannot or refuses to protect its citizens. While it is clear that the leadership in Syria refuses to assume responsibility for the well being of its own citizens, one of the principles of the responsibility to protect mechanism is that all other means of resolution must be exhausted before intervention can be considered a legitimate option.

Coming to terms with the Syrian capacity to use chemical weapons on its own people – while important – does not reflect an exhaustion of other means of conflict resolution. Agreeing to set up talks and encourage negotiation is much of the same. Exhausting implies the complete draining of something, approaching something from every possible angle.

The Geneva II peace conference on Syria that began this past January provides a good context for resolving the Syrian conflict, but it still doesn't reflect exhausting all means of resolution. The conference has been looked upon with a great deal of skepticism in terms of the prospective progress it can achieve. This is due to several important reasons that point to why the diplomacy avenue is not being exhausted. Firstly, there is no legitimate representative of the Syrian people within the Geneva II talks; the Syrian opposition does not adequately reflect the views of all Syrians that are opposed to the current regime. Secondly, the Syrian regime has sent diplomats, none of who are in any position to make executive decisions on behalf of the leadership. Thirdly, Iran (who was invited and then disinvited to the Geneva II conference) is not taking part, and should be considering its role in the region and its relationship with Syria.

Making space for a conference which tasks itself with resolution is a step in the right direction, but excluding the very actors that tangible resolution depends on makes the Geneva II talks a step sideways if anything. As many people - including Roger Mac Guinty - have reiterated, you negotiate peace with your enemies and not with your friends. Syrians depend on exhausting all means for resolution, and these words would serve every actor claiming their determination to peace in Syria well. Military intervention remains an unsustainable route to ending the conflict in Syria, but it will continue to be considered until all other means of resolution are genuinely exhausted. If the alternatives are genuinely considered and decisions are inclusive, then a peaceful end to the conflict may be possible, and a standard will have been set with which to approach other difficult conflicts.

Iran: A Lesson in Diplomacy

Bradley Castelli — 2013-12-01T20:54:00Z

It's being hailed as a historic agreement by some and a historic mistake by others. Whatever hindsight may reveal, for now, Iran and a handful of world powers have come to an agreement to limit the country's nuclear program for six months while negotiators work toward something more sustainable.

Those applauding the agreement are claiming that the international community is more secure now, but from which point of view? Iran is not giving up a nuclear arsenal; it is choosing to be more transparent with regard to its nuclear program. The progression toward security lies in the fact that through negotiation, the US must now abandon its discourse that asserts Iran's nuclear potential as a justification for invasion. The rapprochement between the US and Iran can serve to enhance regional stability in the Middle East, and can be used as a shining example of the power of diplomacy within an international context.

However, the agreement between Iran and the five permanent Security Council members (plus Germany) implies regional security more so than it actually guarantees it. Diplomatic ties between the US and Iran can be used to encourage a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria, but can also be a catalyst to Israel taking matters into its own hands, militarily. Fittingly, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is the one calling the agreement a historic mistake, though it remains uncertain who the wolf in sheep's clothing actually is.

From a realist perspective, it makes sense that Israel be up in arms over the agreement since it possesses an unverified nuclear stockpile. If world powers can achieve success with Iran through diplomacy, surely they can talk Israel into a certain level of transparency. Until then, Israel remains the greatest threat to regional security in the Middle East with its weapons of mass destruction. Finding resolution in what seemed like an intractable situation with Iran sets a standard for transparency in the international community, and it is going to be hard to justify continuing to turn a blind eye to Israel.

Again, the agreement with Iran reflects the fact that military force should be kept as a genuine last resort in international relations. It's only been a few months since the US and a handful of its allies were on the verge of plunging into yet another armed intervention in the Middle East after a chemical attack took place in Syria. Had Russia not intervened diplomatically, offering an alternative to intervention, any sort of subsequent diplomacy with Iran would be highly unlikely, and an unchecked nuclear program may have justified an attack on the part of Israel. Violence begets violence, after all.

Despite its dissatisfaction with the agreement involving Iran, Israel would find little international support if it now decides to take matters into its own hands. So while regional security still isn't guaranteed, a framework for a more sustainable security has been established. It seems as though certain states have benefitted from Iran and the US being cold adversaries, and rapprochement between them has ruffled some feathers around the world. This is partly the reason why the agreement can be considered historic and why US president Obama may have established a foundation on which to build a legacy.

The scope of the agreement with Iran remains to be seen, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. One thing that is certain is that a collective peace must be prioritized over individual alliances.

US-Iran Rapprochement: Obama's Lagacy?

Bradley Castelli — 2013-11-01T18:08:38Z

Assuming leadership of a military and economic superpower is anything but easy, especially when the only real certainty in the matter is the fact that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Since becoming president of the US, Americans and the international community alike have been collectively hoping for Barack Obama to deliver on his promise of ‘change we can believe in', while the president himself searches for the space and opportunity to establish his own legacy.

Obama has indeed made several concerted attempts at securing his place in history, though to date, nothing has really stuck. Shortly after being elected, the US president tried and failed to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which continues to torture and now even force-feeds hunger-striking prisoners. On the domestic front, Obamacare was at the center of October's US government shutdown and remains the source of debate and outrage, most recently due to the launch of a flawed website. There's also the Nobel Peace Prize Obama was awarded in 2009, but given the continued US invasion of Afghanistan and the intensification of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen under his presidency, that one hardly counts.

Recently, an opportunity to establish an Obama legacy has presented itself in the form of diplomacy and potential rapprochement with Iran, who has entered high-level talks to settle differences over its disputed nuclear program. Iran has always asserted that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful in nature, but has lacked transparency with regard to its nuclear development. Having been grouped with the likes of Iraq and North Korea into the Axis of Evil, and being on the receiving end of a variety of economy crippling sanctions, it serves Iran's interest to open up to the international community if its claims of peaceful nuclear development are indeed genuine. It also seems that facilitating and encouraging resolution with Iran would be an easy win for Obama, certainly worthy of legacy consideration. But like his other well-meaning political endeavors, this one might not be as clear-cut as it seems on the surface and may have greater implications that prove why you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Despite being called out as a wolf in sheep's clothing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran's president Rouhani hopes that the nuclear talks his country is involved in are able to yield tangible results in a short period of time. The talks come amid plans for the US to impose new sanctions on Iran, which up until recently, have been the only alternative to dealing with Iran militarily. Diplomacy seems like the obvious route to verifying rumors of Iran's nuclear aspirations and finding resolution between the two countries, which should also serve Israel's interest, but apparently doesn't. This dynamic contributes to the fact that rapprochement with Iran might prove itself to be more difficult than an easy win on Obama's part.

It seems simple enough: open up a dialogue with Iran, allow Rouhani to prove his country's nuclear program is a peaceful one, and subsequently build a relationship based on facts, not speculation and paranoia. Yet Israel remains certain that the situation boils down to all or nothing, and refuses to see that sanctions can be lifted while simultaneously allowing Iran to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. This is, in the very least, suspect on the part of Israel.

Any talks about Iran's nuclear capacity will inevitably come back to the fact that Israel possesses an unregulated nuclear arsenal, which should be a primary focus when planning for peace in the Middle East. The blatant double standard can no longer be ignored, and could turn out to be the catalyst to Obama's legacy. If the ‘fanatic regime' that Iran is accused of being turns out to be another Non-Proliferation Treaty country using nuclear power peacefully, the international community's focus might just shift to the next most ‘fanatic regime', Israel.

One should keep in mind this paradox: the US has legally prohibited itself from funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but continues to give Israel 2 billion taxpayer dollars in military and other aid to Israel each year. If the US can help persuade one of the Axis of Evil countries into being transparent about its nuclear program, shouldn't it be able to do the same with its closest ally in the Middle East? And if focus were to be put on Israel's weapons of mass destruction, wouldn't it also be fair to take a meaningful look at Israel's habit of sidestepping international law? This is already being done by the EU, who has decided to restrict its European Investment Bank from giving loans to Israeli businesses and public bodies operating inside the illegally occupied Palestinian territory, and is being called the beginning of the era of sanctions against Israel.

US-Iran rapprochement can broaden the horizons of a multitude of dialogues, some of which Israel may not be too eager about. In this sense, better relations with Iran might not be Obama's legacy alone, but may turn out to be a stepping-stone toward a much more meaningful legacy. In the meantime, rapprochement with Iran can serve as a means toward quicker resolution in Syria as well as regional stability, and can show the international community that US foreign policy is not based solely on manufactured threats and hearsay.

Syria, Intervention and the Anti-war Movement

Bradley Castelli — 2013-10-02T00:23:00Z

When Barack Obama first warned Syria that its use of chemical weapons would facilitate the US decision toward military intervention in the Syrian conflict, it almost seemed like the President was implementing the first phase in a plan that would ultimately see the West intervene. To anti-war groups and activists, Obama's red line statement reflected what has become a tradition in US foreign policy pursuits: establish a set of rules, wait until someone breaks them, and intervene to right all wrongs. Though explicit in nature, this mindset does little to encourage the resolution that diplomacy can achieve, and in no way does it address the fundamental and immediate human security concerns that should be raised within the context of a conflict.

Obama's red line was (officially) crossed a year later when reports of a chemical attack came out of Damascus this past August, and the President was eager to remain true to his warning. With Western intervention in Syria seemingly imminent, the voices of groups and individuals opposed to war became louder and even more relentless. Though Western intervention in Syria remains a possibility (as well as an ambition from certain perspectives), it has at least been temporarily shelved and replaced with a more diplomatic strategy: a Russian proposal that Syrian chemical weapons be placed under international control.

Regardless of whether Russia's diplomatic ambition serves as a starting point to non-violent resolution in Syria, or whether it only stalls an inevitable intervention from the West, the anti-war movement deserves to be recognized for its efforts and ability to urge decision-makers to broaden their perspectives with regard to Syrian conflict.

Firstly, public opinion polls reveal that Americans are generally opposed to a US-led military intervention in Syria, and would prefer a solution that is less confrontational. This sentiment has been reflected by a variety of petitions, rallies and vigils held across the country. While demonstrations opposing military intervention in Syria have attracted comparatively smaller crowds than those gathered to protest the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a much smaller percentage of Americans who believe resolution can come through intervention.

Despite smaller crowds protesting Western intervention in Syria, online forms of activism have been numerous and widespread. Many Facebook groups have been formed opposing military intervention, and numerous Twitter hashtags dedicated to finding a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict have been trending. The extent of online activism reflects the evolution of social media and its use as a political tool that makes space for a broad spectrum of interests. The ability to share knowledge and ideas instantaneously has given groups and activists access to agenda setting, which the media and decision-makers would be hard-pressed to ignore. The accessibility that social media provides has certainly helped the anti-war movement shape public opinion and raise questions that might have otherwise went unasked.

Aside from encouraging an alternative to immediate military intervention, Russia's Vladimir Putin published an op-ed article in the New York Times, entitled, A Plea for Caution from Russia. The Russian president's piece was generally well received, and highlighted the need for diplomacy as a means of resolving the Syrian conflict, as well as strengthening US-Russia relations. Putin's words have helped to strengthen the anti-war sentiment in the West, and may have also facilitated the recent US-Iran meeting in New York, held to discuss Iran's outlook on its own nuclear program. Inclusive diplomacy makes for legitimate attempts at resolution that are sustainable, and hopefully Iran could be a key actor in finding peaceful answers to the Syrian conflict.

Though several anti-war groups and activists are claiming victory for their movement in the US, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Whether intervention has been taken off the list of options for the West, or whether it's an inevitable action that has merely been stalled, the conflict in Syria continues. Taking a stance against war should mean being against all wars, regardless of whom they involve. Refraining from intervention should not be considered the endpoint and answer to the Syrian conflict, but the beginning of a more peaceful and sustainable route toward resolution. While military intervention would most probably worsen the human security situation in Syria, non-intervention does nothing to improve it, and that should be a priority for the West and the international community alike. It is unfortunate to see the wheels of bureaucracy turn so slowly while the number of Syrian casualties continues to rise steadily, but a real victory within the realm of international relations and Syria can set a standard that would see future conflicts resolved more quickly and through diplomacy, not militaries.

Refraining from military intervention is a welcome step in the right direction, but the next steps will reveal whether or not a collective victory for Syrians is a real priority for West.

Syria and Western Intervention

Bradley Castelli — 2013-09-01T20:35:31Z

The alleged August 21 chemical attack near Damascus might very well serve as the tipping point in the debate over Western intervention in Syria. The use of chemical weapons has justified the argument for intervention and has translated into a means of political pressure in the direction of key decision makers in the West. Despite the frenzy the attack has created, and the strong feelings of responsibility to protect it has encouraged, now seems like the right time to take a step back and reflect on the ways in which the West approaches foreign conflicts and the people the West sets out to protect through military intervention.

One can't help but think of Iraq and the allegations of weapons of mass destruction that served as reason enough to intervene on behalf of a people who have not really benefitted from improved human security and political stability since Western intervention. Iraq is the most obvious example, and should serve as a lesson in the pitfalls of a foreign policy that is guided by the ‘shoot first, ask questions later' philosophy.

Shooting first and asking questions later turns conflicts with potential for resolution into invasions that support the idea that things ought to get worse before they can get better. Is more violence and instability really the precedent that needs to be set for self-determination to be a practical option?

Furthermore, using the term civil war does not adequately reflect the conflict in Syria. It is a proxy war, with many actors and at least a handful of interests in question. This makes intervention a lot more complicated, as there is too much uncertainty with regard to which side of the proxy war the West would be intervening on behalf of. Again, attaining peace by means of escalating war sets a bad precedent, and reflects bad parenting (at the very least) on behalf of the West.

It is said that the first casualty of war is truth, which may accurately describe the situation in Syria, even before the chemical attacks. What is more important though, and less debatable, is that civilians are the greatest and most unnecessary casualties of war. Aside from over 100 000 people who have been killed in the Syrian conflict, there are over 2 million refugees and over 4 million internally displaced people. Western intervention will undoubtedly push these numbers higher, which ultimately makes protective intervention seem more like foreign invasion, regardless of any intended outcomes.

There is certainly no rational debate when it comes to the use of chemical weapons; it's wrong any way one looks at it. However, using a chemical attack to sensationalize a conflict in order to manufacture support toward intervention seems like a gamble the West should avoid at all costs. After all, the Syrian conflict is more than a hypothetical situation, and the interests of those most affected by the conflict should remain the priority for the international community.

There have been voices encouraging dialogue and diplomacy since the beginning of the Syrian conflict, and now more than ever, these voices should be given center-stage. Facilitating dialogue and transcending the conflict are means of intervention that would best serve the West and Syrians alike. The impossibility of consensus within the United Nation's Security Council proves that Western military intervention serves an exclusive interest, and that intervention remains a possibility that operates outside the realm of international law.

Dialogue seems to be the most peaceful, inclusive and practical route to resolution, but real dialogue would have to include Iran, which the West might not be too comfortable with. However, if resolving the conflict and protecting Syrians are the primary interests, then every relevant actor has to be given a voice at the negotiation table, or else those excluded will not feel bound to any meaningful resolutions or compromises. Ultimately, there needs to be a Syrian solution to the Syrian problem for a post-conflict situation to be one that promotes sustainability and encourages real self-determination.

Egypt and Democracy

Bradley Castelli — 2013-08-02T01:28:11Z

Democracy is a fully loaded word, open to a broad spectrum of interpretations and used to justify what sometimes amounts to contradictory political realities. Indexes that rank countries by the extent to which they are democratic or not reflect the fact that there is very little in the way of consensus when it comes to defining democracy. Nevertheless, democracy somehow serves as a standard that citizens of supposed undemocratic states often strive for, and is ultimately perceived to be the most functional and inclusive of political ideologies.

When the 2011 Arab Spring took the world by surprise with its revolutionary calls for a shift toward more representative and accountable governance, I couldn't help but think, “Why stop at democracy?” My experience of Western democracy has been tainted by the elite pandering to the elite; trying to turn political power into personal wealth while doing as little as possible in terms of citizen's interests. If the corruption and human rights violations were to be chased out for good along with the autocratic leaders that perpetrated them, then surely democracy wasn't the final destination. It seemed like democracy was the lesser of two evils, and that revolutions should strive for much better situations, not ones that are just less bad.

The desire among Egyptians for real change was stronger than any opposition they met, and their revolutionary spirit seemed to have been rewarded with Egypt's June 2012 presidential elections. While these elections were a landmark achievement for the Egyptian movement, they also served as Egypt's first lesson in the tough love relationship of democracy. A candidate that doesn't keep their promises when elected is business as usual for democracies in the West, but it didn't sit well with the voters of the democratically newborn Egyptian state, who have since refused to accept the gap between the theoretical and practical realities of democracy.

Whether or not Dr. Mohamed Morsi's ousting was a coup, and whether the coup was democratic or not, is of little consequence to a people who have more theoretical knowledge of democracy than they do practical experience. The West can question the extent of Democracy in Egypt all it wants, but recent events in Egypt suggest that there are questions worth exploring about democracy in general. Elections are not enough, and it is hard to expect a people to revolt just so they can compromise the spirit of their revolution later on. Also, the risk of putting power into the Egyptian military's hands is one that has been there since Egyptians first took over Tahrir Square in 2011, and may just be another choice between the lesser of two evils that will serve as stepping stones toward the real democracy they strive for.

The international media's coining of the term, Arab Spring has since proven to be somewhat misleading. Spring implies a quick and natural transition from rebirth toward maturity, while revolutions need time to succeed and become settled. Egypt's situation probably benefits from the fact that it hasn't been guided by outside intervention, and should probably remain that way for the revolution to be considered a success. Thinking that elections equate democracy, and that democracy risks being sabotaged by the unsatisfied population that demanded it in the first place, is a little premature.

Egyptians have had their first taste of democracy (albeit, a small one) and it has left a bitter taste in their mouths. Their experience reflects the multitude of ways in which different countries and cultures characterize democracy, and whether or not they accept it for what it may be or demand of it what they believe it to be. The situation in Egypt should serve as a lesson for other emerging democracies and more developed democracies alike. A state isn't democratic just because it claims to be, and a supposed system of democracy cannot be sustained by implementing certain democratic ideals while disregarding others.

In hindsight, maybe I was wrong to assume that the Arab Spring revolutions were movements toward a Western style of democracy, at least in the case of Egypt. What we are seeing there is a population intent on self-determination, and their relentlessness should inspire the rest of us to reflect critically on our own democracies rather than question the Egyptian path. It would be truly revolutionary if they succeed in achieving the real democracy they yearn for, and it would set a strong precedent for the Arab world and beyond.

The Mussalaha International Peace Delegation to Syria

Bradley Castelli — 2013-07-03T03:50:40Z

This past May the Mussalaha International Peace Delegation traveled to Lebanon and Syria to speak with Syrians immediately affected by the ongoing conflict, and to discuss the competing discourses within Syria. While Syria remains the focus of international media attention and political debate, it is difficult to gauge the emerging narratives in terms of whose interest they serve, which ultimately reflects the importance of the delegation's fact-finding mission. Amir Maasoumi was part of the delegation and spoke to Alternatives International Journal about the mission and his experience.

Before recounting the details of the delegation's mission, Maasoumi stressed, “The conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but rather a proxy war.” There are many competing interests within the conflict, and while the usual suspects argue over intervention, there are some 60 000 foreign mercenaries already fighting in Syria with the support of a number of governments. So the question being posed about potential intervention is somewhat misleading, as there are already several intervening forces operating within the country.

The delegation traveled to Syria through Lebanon, where it visited both official and non-official refugee camps, in order to understand the immediate impacts the conflict has had on Syrian society. The refugee situation is often overlooked, and with over 1.5 million refugees, there should be a greater sense of urgency in prioritizing the human security situation. Maasoumi recounted his experience in Lebanon, stating “the refugee camps lack resources, the process of registration is long and the condition of life is unfit for even animals.” Aside from deplorable refugee camp conditions, there have been cases of organ trafficking in Turkish camps and what amounts to sex trafficking in Jordanian refugee camps. Another human security issue deals with internally displaced people, which is numbered at 6 million and has swelled the population of Damascus to 10 million people from its usual 4.5 million. Maasoumi mentioned that most of the internally displaced people “are not in rebel-controlled areas, which indicates where people feel more safe.”

Having met with religious and community leaders, as well as many activists working with a variety of organizations, the delegation went to Damascus to open a dialogue with Syrian government officials. “They certainly met us with what can be considered the official narrative” Maasoumi recounted, “but we also presented them with a list of 76 political prisoners, asking that they be set free as they had not committed any real crime”. The government has since released 40 of the 76 political prisoners in what can be considered a peace offering of sorts. This gesture reflects the sentiment expressed by all Syrians the delegation met with; namely, that the violence has to stop, and that there needs to be some sort of resolution. Despite this, the violence continues, and the government cannot stand on one gesture as if it's a call to ceasefire.

Part of the question regarding foreign intervention deals with the opposition forces in Syria. Speaking to some of the opponents of the regime gave Maasoumi the impression that “their movement has been hijacked” and that “the spirit of the revolution has been lost.” It seems as though Syrians are unhappy with the rebels and compared to their present situation, are starting to see the Assad regime and its paternalistic and authoritarian rule as the better of the two options. Sure there's a strong desire for more political openness, but not at the cost of losing social and religious rights, which just might be the case should some of the rebel factions take control of the country. It's a very complicated situation, and that's why it's hard to take the mainstream media's narratives at face value. An example of this has been the allegations of the government forces use of chemical weapons, which Maasoumi insists is something that no one he spoke to in Syria knew about. It stands out as an excuse for intervention, backed by the Western belief that a victory for Assad is a victory for Iran, which just can't happen.

Having witnessed the Syrian conflict first-hand, Maasoumi believes that “things should be resolved among Syrians, who are tired of the lose-lose situation they find themselves in.” Both sides are looking for a way out of the conflict, but foreign intervention would be more of the top-down style of rule that Syrians are trying to break free from. Maasoumi believes there can be a win-win situation of resolution for Syrians, but fears that foreign intervention is inevitable, which will contribute to an already very intricate situation. The kind of foreign intervention he calls for is mediation and facilitation: pacifying forces. Until then, like the delegation, Maasoumi advises those outside of Syria to “show solidarity with the cause of peace in Syria.”

Learn more about the Delegation's trip to Lebanon and Syria here.

Muslim Minorities in Myanmar and Sri Lanka

Bradley Castelli — 2013-06-02T22:43:33Z

In the past year, tensions between Buddhists and Muslims have been rising in both Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Both states are home to minority Islamic ethnic groups that have forcibly assumed the role of scapegoats in their respective post-conflict contexts, while Buddhist majorities are said to be playing the role of the oppressors. Given the dominant global discourses pertaining to these religious groups, these realities are quite confusing, especially from a Western point of view, which is too often informed by catchwords and phrases such as terrorism, Al-Qaeda, Free Tibet and self-immolation. Looking closer into these conflicts contributes to the confusion, but also raises questions that ultimately challenge discourses to look further than supposed religious intolerance and into the ways in which minorities are treated all around the world.

According to Human Rights Watch, the ethnic Muslim Rohingya of Myanmar are victims of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. These crimes have resulted in the forcible displacement of over 125 000 Rohingya since separate violent attacks in May and October, 2012 have taken place. Along with Myanmar government officials, Buddhist monks are alleged to have taken part in the coordination of the attacks and are now playing a leading role in blocking humanitarian assistance to the displaced Rohingya. More shockingly, it is reported that monks have been urging locals not to associate with the group and calling on the government to send the group “back to their native land”. Commonly referred to as Bengalis by the Buddhist majority in Myanmar, the United Nations has described the Rohingya as one of the world's most persecuted minorities, having been denied citizenship rights since 1982 and presently subject to a two-child policy has been enacted to control their population growth.

Just over a year ago in Dambulla, Sri Lanka, a mob of 2000 Sinhalese (led by Buddhist monks) stormed a mosque during Friday prayer, laying waste to the building and everything inside of it. Since then, mosques have continued to be the target of intimidation while a new Sri Lankan Buddhist group, Bodu Bala Sena, has called for a nation-wide boycott of Muslim businesses, as well as a ban on the Hijab and Halal meat certification. Most recently, a popular Muslim-owned clothing store was broken into and vandalized by a mob, who were filmed cheering on a Buddhist monk as he hurled a stone through one of the store's windows. The police were present during the mob attack and did nothing to stop it, reflecting the ways in which Sri Lankan authorities have been turning a blind eye to similar aggressions aimed at the Muslim minority, who are mostly ethnic Moors.

Reflecting on these tragic situations, the Dalai Lama recently told a University of Maryland audience “Killing people in the name of religion is really very sad, unthinkable.” Adding, “Even Buddhists are now involved, in Burma and Sri Lanka also. Buddhist monks...destroy Muslim mosques or Muslim families. Really very sad.”

Despite the lamentations of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, attributing these conflicts and the suffering of Muslim minorities to religious intolerance seems somewhat inadequate. Of course a line can be drawn by way of differentiating between religious traditions, but the conflicts among Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka also reflect inherent qualities that are characteristic of all societies. Racism as a political tool used to justify different types of violence against minorities is a common global practice. Muang Zarni, a Buddhist and human rights activist from Myanmar, stresses that the conflict is economic in nature and is fueled by racism and the stereotypes it creates. He is certain that “This is not about which god they are worshipping, there is an issue of bread and butter here, a very clear economic dimension." The same can be said of the violence directed at Sri Lankan Muslims, who have been a driving force of Sri Lanka's economic growth over the years.

The persecution that Muslims are facing in these two countries is reminiscent of the way Jews were treated in Europe throughout the inter-war years, but is also not unlike the plight of the Palestinians within the illegally occupied territories of Palestine, or the thousands of marginalized indigenous groups throughout the Americas, or the Roma in present-day Europe. The list can go on and on.

Labeling these conflicts as symptoms of Islamophobia keeps these ‘problems' within their respective borders and relieves the rest of the world of assuming responsibility for acting similarly. One can even argue that the real Islamophobia in the matter is a group using an already internationally suspect religion (albeit, through Western rhetoric) as a means to deny people their dignity and inherent rights. What happened to never again?

Another factor worth looking into with regard to these and other conflicts revolves around the way in which we preach tolerance. Surely we can aspire to more than just tolerating those who are different. Tolerance may be a step in the right direction, but it can't stop there. If anything, it should be a stepping-stone toward acceptance, which would ultimately contribute to positive peace, not just a lack of violence.

Canada and the Human Right to Water and Sanitation

Bradley Castelli — 2013-05-01T22:18:23Z

In considering the growing threats of climate change, and the exploitation and mismanagement of natural resources' impact on the phenomenon, water as a natural resource is often overlooked. While the global community shares a collective interest in preserving sustainable access to fresh water, many governments and corporations continue to take one of our most essential resources for granted in the name of development and profit.

The international community's tendency to take water as a human right for granted is reflected in the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes no mention of water. This important omission was somewhat remedied through a decade-long campaign by the Council of Canadians and its Blue Planet Project to formally establish water and sanitation as a human right. On July 28, 2010 the UN General Assembly explicitly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that these are essential to the realization of all human rights (Resolution 64/292). Elaborating on this recognition, the UN asserts that these rights consist of having a sufficient, safe and acceptable supply of water that is accessible as well as affordable. Though recognizing these rights may be essential to the realization of all human rights, it can also serve to clearly identify those states that may be violating human rights as well.

Meera Karunananthan is a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians and Blue Planet Project, and spoke with Alternatives International Journal about water and sanitation as a human right in the context of Canadian governance. While acknowledging the victory in having the UN recognize the human right to water and sanitation, Karunananthan also asserts that, “we are in a context where we need to push for the implementation of the human right to water and sanitation.” Implementation means that water should be recognized in constitutions around the world and that these rights should be reflected in governance approaches to domestic policy.

Karunananthan also warns against corporations jumping on the water and sanitation bandwagon to protect and further their own interests; “we're in a place where corporations are adopting and co-opting that language in order to redefine the human right to water in a manner that fits with the neoliberal project. Be it privatization of water and sanitation services, or mechanisms to distribute water resources that are market-based so that corporations have greater access to water resources.” Opposing such attempts at redefining the right to water, she stresses that “water is not only a human right, it is a commons. It cannot be privatized, it cannot be sold for profit, nor can it be turned into a commodity. It belongs equally to all as a common resource.”

With the importance of transitioning from recognizing to implementing water and sanitation as a human right in mind, a delegation of Canadian groups, including the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak and the Council of Canadians' Blue Planet Project, traveled to Geneva at the end of April to meet with UN representatives to “draw international attention to Canada's violations of the human right to water”. The delegation's trip coincided with Canada's Universal Periodic Review by the United Nations Human Rights Council on April 26 and hopes to shed light on both the domestic and global impacts of Canada's negligence toward the human right to water and sanitation. Karunananthan pointed out that “Canada has traditionally blocked the recognition of water as a human right and has not supported the recognition of water as human right internationally until very recently. Canada is required to implement a national action plan on the human right to water and has failed to do so.”

One of the points of emphasis the delegation wants to bring to the UN's attention deals with the First Nations of Canada. “The condition in First Nations communities across the country is deplorable, a very high number of First Nations communities are living without access to drinking water and sanitation.” The Harper Conservatives are trying to remedy this by privatizing water services in some First Nations communities, which usually equates to inferior service and public access, as well as higher water rates.

Aside from this immediate violation of human rights toward a traditionally marginalized group of Canadians, Karunananthan also notes that, “Canada is also destroying water resources (undermining environmental regulations both in Canada and abroad) in aggressively promoting trade agreements and investment protection agreements. It is also undermining the capacity of governments abroad to protect their water resources.”

Canada's disregard for the human right to water and sanitation is somewhat blatant when one considers the direction the Harper Conservatives are taking with regard to the Canadian economy. The Alberta Tar Sands require enormous amounts of water for extraction operations and threaten vast supplies of fresh water through tailing ponds and pipeline transportation. Furthermore, the various trade agreements that Canada is party to put it in a position where corporations can sue the Canadian government if they feel environmental regulations are imposing on potential profits, meaning Canadians will have to foot the bill to keep their own fresh water clean. Also, Canadian mining companies have been left to self-regulate, which means that corners are cut abroad when it comes to environmental regulations getting in the way of profits, greatly affecting water supplies around the world. These realities reflect the fact that wealth and abundance, when mismanaged for short-term gain, can impose on and adversely affect the rights and freedoms of present and future generations.

The impact of the delegation that traveled to Geneva to expose Canada's human rights violations remains to be seen. However, acknowledging water and sanitation as a human right and accountability toward international commitments needs a much more immediate response.