The UN has launched an inquiry into its conduct in Myanmar over the past decade, where it has been accused of ignoring warning signs of escalating violence prior to an alleged genocide of the Rohingya minority. UN sources have confirmed to the Guardian that the initially hesitant UN secretary general, António Guterres, decided to proceed with the investigation after a “build-up in pressure” within the organisation. It will be headed by Gert Rosenthal, a former foreign minister and Guatemalan permanent representative to the UN, who is thought to have begun overseeing meetings in the role. “This review is not directed at any particular individual or agency, but rather at how the United Nations as an institution works on the ground and possible lessons learned for the future,” said Stanislav Saling, a spokesperson for the UN in Myanmar, adding that Rosenthal had no plans to travel to Myanmar for his investigations. A senior UN official in New York, who asked not to be identified, said Rosenthal was chosen because “he’s considered to be a very serious and sober expert on UN workings. He knows the house from many different perspectives and is known to be someone who will speak his mind.” There have been multiple calls for a full inquiry into UN operations in Myanmar in recent years, which were described as “glaringly dysfunctional”in a memo written months before the military-led crackdown on the Rohingya in Rakhine state in August 2017. The violence, described by the UN as ethnic cleansing and possible genocide, included the killing of thousands of people, women and children raped, villages razed and forced more than 700,000 to flee over the border to Bangladesh. Marzuki Darusman, the chair of the UN fact-finding Mission on Myanmar, said late last year there was an “ongoing genocide” in Rakhine. Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said: “It’s good that the UN is planning to engage in some serious soul-searching to understand what went wrong with their handling of the Myanmar crisis. “Quite clearly, they failed to see and warn the world about what was clear to us and many others long before August 2017 – that the Burmese military was looking for an opportunity to launch a massive ethnic cleansing operation to get rid of the Rohingya.” Criticism of the UN’s response has focused on allegations against Renata Lok-Dessallien, a former resident coordinator of Myanmar, who was accused of downplaying concerns about worsening abuses against the Rohingya; discouraging public statements critical of the NLD government, led by the de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi; prioritising development strategies at the expense of human rights; and even suppressing internal reports that she did not like. The UN has denied most of these claims. However, several UN figures and diplomats said the emphasis on Lok-Dessallien was misplaced, and that the UN failings were a reflection of much bigger issues within the UN system and the diplomatic community in Myanmar as a whole. In 2017 the UN described Lok-Dessallien “as a tireless advocate for human rights”. The recent UN fact-finding mission to Myanmar, which concluded that the country’s military generals should be investigated for genocide and crimes against humanity for their actions against the Rohingya and other minorities, also called for a review into UN conduct in Myanmar, echoing a recommendation made months earlier by Yanghee Lee, UN special rapporteur for human rights to the country. “The review needs to be independent from the UN and made available publicly when finished,” Lee told the Guardian. Indeed, there are concerns that the inquiry will be purposefully limited in its scope and impact and it is not clear if the final report will be made public. According to insiders, there is a wariness within the upper levels of the organisation that amid a climate of increasing hostility towards the UN by governments such as the US, a more wide-ranging inquiry report could sow division and damage the organisation’s reputation and ability to continue its peacemaking and humanitarian work. The source in New York said moves to initiate the review were stalled by internal tensions. After a hiatus following the controversy around her leadership in Myanmar, Lok-Dessallien is widely expected to be appointed UN resident coordinator for India. She is likely to take up the post before the completion of the Myanmar inquiry, leading to further doubts over the chances it will prompt any individual accountability. Sources within the UN system said officials at the the organisation’s headquarters in New York did not want a repeat of the damning and internally controversial 2012 Petrie report, authored by the former UN assistant secretary general Charles Petrie. It concluded that during the endgame of the Sri Lankan civil war, where tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed, there had been a “systemic failure” by UN agencies on the ground to speak out for and protect civilians. Individuals and agencies singled out for criticism in the review objected strongly to how their actions were characterised, leading to rifts inside the world body over how to follow up to the investigation. “It’s hard not to say: ‘Here we go again’,” Robertson said. “There were supposed to be lessons learned after the fiasco in Sri Lanka in 2009 but apparently there weren’t.” The review headed by Rosenthal will use Sri Lanka as a reference point against which to judge what lessons have not been learned within the UN system, the Guardian has been told. Comparisons between Sri Lanka and Myanmar were made in a confidential report commissioned by the Office of the UN high commissioner for human rights in Myanmar in 2015. “The situation bears a striking resemblance to the humanitarian community’s systematic failure in the final stages of the war in Sri Lanka, during which hundreds of thousands of Tamils were held against their will in internment camps that were fully paid for and serviced by international humanitarian institutions,” the 2015 report says. Allegations of UN dysfunction in Myanmar have continued since Lok-Dessallien’s departure in 2017. The fact-finding mission report, which was released last August, noted that some UN entities in Myanmar had not cooperated with the investigation. “Things are not as dysfunctional as they were,” said a UN insider based in Geneva, who asked to remain unnamed. “But the fundamental problems and deep divisions in opinion, response and strategy remain unresolved. Hopefully the Rosenthal review might be the vehicle that enables them to be addressed.” © 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Twenty-five years ago, the Rwandan government launched a meticulously planned genocide against its Tutsi minority. It killed approximately 800 000 people in 100 days. We can’t reflect on the history of the 1994 genocide without considering the critical role the media played in both inciting and prolonging the violence. In the summer of 1993 the government, ruled by the pro-Hutu National Revolutionary Movement for Development, engaged in a peace process with the mostly-Tutsi rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. They negotiated an end to the civil war and the repatriation of Tutsi exiles. At the same time, however, the Movement was also preparing for genocide. The youth wing of the National Revolutionary Movement for Development established the Interahamwe. This paramilitary group would eventually lead attacks on Tutsi civilians. Hardliners from the party also launched Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM — French for “Thousand Hills Free Radio and Television”). It was a radio station that disseminated hate propaganda and prepared its listeners for the coming violence. The broadcaster provided a popular platform for ideas already circulating in Kangura, an extremist magazine founded in 1990. In its early broadcasts, the station used Radio Rwanda’s transmission equipment. The new broadcaster developed lively, informal and accessible programming that targeted ordinary citizens. Unlike Radio Rwanda, it played popular music from neighbouring Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo). This was particularly appealing to younger listeners. In the weeks prior to the April 1994 genocide the station ramped up its anti-Tutsi, pro-Hutu propaganda. Broadcasters used increasingly dehumanising language to speak about the Tutsi minority. This mobilised ordinary Hutu citizens against the Tutsi. Historian Alison Des Forges wrotethat, once the genocide was underway, government leaders used the station to promote violence. It also gave specific directions for carrying out the killings. A quarter of a century on, media scholars, historians and journalists are still debating the precise role of RTLM in the genocide. Did radio broadcasts directly incite violence? Or did they simply amplify the fear and genocidal ideology that was already circulating throughout the Hutu population? Media Effects Most early scholarship about the genocide views RTLM as a lethal influence. In 2001, researcher, war correspondent and diplomat Samantha Power suggested that, 'killers often carried a machete in one hand and a transistor radio in the other.' The refusal of international actors like the US and the UN Security Council to use radio jamming technology to stop RTLM’s broadcasts is another flash-point for discussion. It reflects the general failure of the international community to intervene and stop the genocide. More recent studies question the primacy of radio broadcasts in directly motivating the killers’ actions. These scholars see radio as an extension of years of state propaganda which was disseminated through schools, churches, and other government institutions. In a detailed empirical study published in 2007, social scientist Scott Straus found that only 15% of perpetrators cited radio broadcasts as a key influence in their decision to kill Tutsi. Face-to-face intimidation and communication between peers appeared to have a stronger influence. Radio broadcasts were a secondary factor. Enduring Debate The enduring debate about the role of media was central to a case before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The tribunal was tasked with prosecuting high level perpetrators and the masterminds of the genocide. The defendants in what was known as the Media Case included RTLM co-founder Ferdinand Nahimana, its executive Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Kangura founder and editor, Hassan Ngeze. In 2003, all three were convicted of genocide, incitement to commit genocide, and persecution using radio broadcasts and newspaper articles as a crime against humanity. The conviction for committing genocide was overturned on appeal, but much of the original ruling was retained. The Media Case was precedent-setting. It held media executives accountable for inciting genocide, regardless of other factors that may have influenced the perpetrators. Legal scholars suggest that the judgement will have a significant impact on future cases of incitement to genocide. International response We may never definitively settle the “media effects” debate — that is, did radio and other media directly incite violence, or were they a secondary driver? But the establishment of RTLM in 1993 was undoubtedly a clear warning sign to the world. In a 2000 report, the Organisation of African Unity suggested that silencing RTLM during the genocide would have had limited impact. The international community should have moved to address the hate propaganda before the killing started. It should have recognised the broadcasts as an essential part of the preparation for the genocide. One mechanism for countering RTLM’s hate propaganda could have come from the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda, which was deployed by the Security Council in 1993 to oversee the peace process. However, due to typical delays, the Mission’s radio broadcast equipment was never shipped to Rwanda. The absence of an effective communication tool left the UN without the means to produce counter broadcasts. It could also not provide airtime for the voices of moderate Hutu leaders. Lessons remain Although many years have passed, the Rwandan genocide still has much to teach us about the centrality of media in cases of state violence. An analysis of media opens up important discussions about genocide prevention, the regulation of hate speech, and the appropriate forms of international intervention. Amanda Grzyb, Associate Professor and Faculty Scholar of Media and Information Studies, Western University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. © Mail & Guardian Online.

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has stepped down and consultations are under way to form a transitional council to run the country, government sources and a provincial minister said on Thursday. The minister of production and economic resources in North Darfur, Adel Mahjoub Hussein, told the Dubai-based al-Hadath TV that “there are consultations to form a military council to take over power after President Bashir stepped down”. Sudanese sources confirmed the report and told Reuters Bashir was at the presidential residence under “heavy guard”. “The armed forces will present an important statement shortly. Be ready for it,” the announcement on state television read, without giving further details. The army and security services deployed troops around the defense ministry and on major roads and bridges in the capital as thousands of people flocked to an anti-government protest outside the ministry, a Reuters witness said. Tens of thousands of Sudanese took to the streets in the center of Khartoum in jubilation, dancing and chanting anti-Bashir slogans. Protesters outside the defense ministry chanted: “It has fallen, we won.” State television and radio played patriotic music, reminding older Sudanese of how military takeovers unfolded during previous episodes of civil unrest. Divisive Figure Bashir, a former paratrooper who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1989, has been a divisive figure who has managed his way through one internal crisis after another while withstanding attempts by the West to weaken him. Sudan has suffered prolonged periods of isolation since 1993, when the United States added Bashir’s government to its list of terrorism sponsors for harboring Islamist militants. Washington followed up with sanctions four years later. Bashir has also been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague over allegations of genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region during an insurgency that began in 2003. The latest crisis has escalated since the weekend, when thousands of demonstrators began camping out outside the Defence Ministry compound in central Khartoum, where Bashir’s residence is located. Clashes erupted on Tuesday between soldiers trying to protect the protesters and intelligence and security personnel trying to disperse them. At least 11 people died in the clashes, including six members of the armed forces, the information minister said, citing a police report. Since Dec. 19, Sudan has been rocked by persistent protests sparked by the government’s attempt to raise the price of bread, and an economic crisis that has led to fuel and cash shortages Opposition figures have called for the military to help negotiate an end to Bashir’s nearly three decades in power and a transition to democracy. The demonstrators at the Defence Ministry had said that they wanted to submit a petition for the armed forces to take their side in their attempt to remove Bashir and his Islamist-backed administration. Copyright 2019 Reuters; Reporting by Khalid Abdelaziz and Mohamed El Sherif, writing by Sami Aboudi; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore, Michael Georgy and Giles Elgood

The Adani Group has signed a US$290m commercial deal with a holding company controlled by the Myanmar armed forces, who have been accused by UN investigators of committing genocide and crimes against humanity. The Indian conglomerate behind the controversial Carmichael coal project in north Queensland was granted permission in April to develop a container port in Yangon, on land owned by the Myanmar Economic Corporation. The MEC generates significant revenue for the Myanmar military, known as the Tatmadaw. The Australian human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti is one of three authors of the UN report, which called for senior members of Myanmar’s armed forces to be prosecuted for genocide against the country’s Rohingya Muslim community. The full report, published in 2018, recommended that no business should enter into an economic relationship with Myanmar’s security forces or any enterprise they control. Speaking to the Guardian, Sidoti said: “Through this project, Australian coal will be helping to fund the operations of the Tatmadaw and enriching the generals in Myanmar.” Adani says its deal violates no Australian, US, UN or other international sanctions, and rejected suggestions the investment was unethical or would compromise human rights. The company’s massive proposed Carmichael coalmine has become a central issue in the Australian election on 18 May. Environmentalists have long claimed Adani does not have the social licence to operate in Australia, citing opposition from a faction of Indigenous traditional owners and widespread opposition to the project on climate grounds. Human rights lawyers say revelations about Adani’s relationship with the MEC in Myanmar should raise questions about its suitability to conduct business in Australia. Established in 1997, the MEC remains one of Myanmar’s largest corporations. Controlled by the military’s directorate of defence procurement, its operations are largely shielded from public scrutiny. Dozens of acres of land and a jetty owned by the MEC will be used in the development of Ahlone International Port Terminal 2, which is set to become a high-capacity entry point for container traffic in Myanmar’s commercial capital, Yangon. The site has been leased to Adani for an initial period of 50 years. The nearby Ahlone Port Terminal 1 is also owned by the MEC. The MEC was subject to sanctions by the US Treasury between 2008 and 2016 for its role in supporting human rights violations committed by the Tatmadaw. Rights groups have called on the US to sanction the group once again. In March 2017 the UN human rights council commissioned a fact-finding mission to investigate allegations of human rights abuses in Myanmar. Its 440-page report, published in September 2018, indicated that the Tatmadaw were responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity. The investigators were denied access to Myanmar by the government but interviewed 875 witnesses who had fled the country. They found that the military were “killing indiscriminately, gang-raping women, assaulting children and burning entire villages” in Rakhine, home to the Muslim Rohingya, and in Shan and Kachin. The Tatmadaw also carried out murders, imprisonments, enforced disappearances, torture, rapes and used sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and enslavement – all of which constitute crimes against humanity. Among its recommendations was that businesses should not “enter into an economic or financial relationship” with Myanmar’s security forces, in particular the army, and “any enterprise owned or controlled by them or their individual members”. The authors also called for Myanmar to be referred to the international criminal court, naming a group of senior army officials, including the Tatmadaw chief, Min Aung Hlaing, who they believed should be investigated for the ultimate international crime. Marzuki Darusman, chair of the UN mission, has said the alleged genocide is “ongoing”. Sidoti told the Guardian the MEC and its subsidiaries appeared to be “the mechanisms by which the military gets off-budget income to fund its activities and avoids civilian control”. “Money will go straight into the pockets of the military as an institution and its generals as individuals,” he claimed. “One of the key recommendations of the [UN] report was a call for disengagement from the Tatmadaw and its business network. This should include a return to sanctions against the Tatmadaw and its offshoots and those companies that do business with them. We hope that politicians in Australia and Queensland will take this into account where it comes to the proposed mine.” While he acknowledged that none of the six military officials named in the report were on the MEC board, Sidoti claimed: “We know the integrated structure of the military; you don’t have to be sitting on the board to be profiting from what is happening.” Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, claimed to the Guardian that MEC’s profits “go directly into the pockets of active duty military commanders”. “Money earned by the MEC is never seen by the government or the people of Myanmar and there is no accountability for the conglomerate’s operations,” Robertson said. “Adani’s port deal with the MEC increases the Myanmar military’s chokehold over maritime traffic and the export trade in a way that will increase both the wealth and lack of accountability of senior commanders within Myanmar. The MEC needs to be hit with targeted economic sanctions by governments around the world, and investors like Adani should be put on notice that doing business with the MEC will mean they lose business opportunities in other countries like Australia. “Put simply, the military commanders who ultimately control the MEC belong in prison rather than a boardroom cutting deals with foreign investors like Adani. Australia should put Adani on notice that their Myanmar projects going forward will jeopardise their ability to do business in Australia.” Adani released a statement to the Guardian denying that its deal was unethical. “This investment does not breach Australian, US, UN or other international sanctions,” it said. “Adani rejects the insinuation … that this investment is unethical or will compromise human rights. “As with all its international investments, the Adani Group has been guided by the Securities and Exchange Board of India and other key international guidelines and will inform the concerned authorities when we firm up the agreements. “The land where the port is proposed to be built has been leased from MEC following extensive due diligence. This matter does not relate to Adani Mining Pty Ltd or the Carmichael Project. Adani Mining Pty Ltd operates under Australian law and regulations … “It is important to note that many economic sanctions against Myanmar were lifted in recent years following political reforms within the country and the election of a civilian government. While some nations, including Australia, have arms embargoes and travel restrictions on key members of the military in place, this does not preclude investment in the nation or business dealings with corporations such as MEC.” © 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

YANGON (Reuters) - Myanmar has made “minimal” preparations for the return of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslim refugees sheltering in neighboring Bangladesh, according to an Australian think-tank, despite the country saying it is ready to start repatriation. More than 700,000 Rohingya were forced to flee northern Rakhine state in western Myanmar during a 2017 military-led crackdown the United Nations has said included mass killings and gang-rapes executed with “genocidal intent”. Almost 400 Rohingya villages were burned to the ground during the violence. While authorities have promised to resettle the refugees, analysis of satellite imagery shows “no sign of reconstruction” in the overwhelming majority of their former settlements while, in some areas, destruction of residential buildings has continued, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) said in a report released late on Tuesday. “The continued destruction of residential areas across 2018 and 2019 – clearly identifiable through our longitudinal satellite analysis – raises serious questions about the willingness of the Myanmar government to facilitate a safe and dignified repatriation process,” Nathan Ruser, one of the researchers at ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre, said in a statement. Spokesmen for the Myanmar government did not answer calls seeking comment. Kyaw Swar Tun, deputy director of the Rakhine General Administration Department, declined to comment. Myanmar has repeatedly said it is ready to take back refugees, blaming Bangladesh for failed efforts to kick-start returns. A report by the disaster management unit of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) - a 10 nation regional body that includes Myanmar - had praised the country’s efforts to ensure “smooth and orderly” returns. The AHA Centre report, leaked to media in June, predicted that half a million refugees would come back within two years. Human rights groups said the assessment glossed over atrocities and ignored ongoing conflict in the region. The U.N. has said conditions in Rakhine are not yet conducive for returns. Government troops in the northern part of the state are now battling insurgents belonging to the Arakan Army, an ethnic armed group seeking greater autonomy for the region that recruits from the mostly Buddhist majority. ASPI’s report described a pattern of “securitization” in the region since 2017, with six facilities suspected to be military bases built on top of former Rohingya settlements. A Reuters investigation in December 2018 found authorities have built houses for Buddhists in former Rohingya areas. A resettlement map drafted by the government revealed that refugees, rather than returning to their original villages, would be herded into several dozen Rohingya-only settlements. In early July, the Indian government handed over 250 prefabricated houses in several villages in northern Rakhine to Hindu families displaced by the violence. None of the homes were for Rohingya. “Hindus and Rakhine people lost their houses and we also lost ours,” Zuyarman, a Rohingya villager in Maungdaw township, told Reuters at the time. “We Rohingya wish that we would have houses like them.” © July 2019 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.

As the coronavirus pandemic has spread across Brazil, indigenous people have been among the worst affected. On the outskirts of the city of Manaus, Parque das Tribos is a settlement of descendants from 35 different tribes. Many homes lack plumbing and electricity, and there is no public health clinic nearby. Nurse Vanderlecia Ortega dos Santos has responded by volunteering to care for her indigenous community of 700 families. "Our people are dying from this disease here and they are not being recognized as indigenous people by the state," she told the Reuters news agency. She has been monitoring some 40 patients suspected of having contracted Covid-19. To treat them, she gives her patients painkillers and other basic medicines, while offering guidance on limiting contagion. She makes house visits wearing protective equipment - sometimes under a traditional Witoto headdress of macaw feathers. Restrictions imposed to slow the outbreak have damaged the local economy - including for women who work as maids and the men who labour on building sites. She has taken part in protests when health officials visited, demanding medical attention for indigenous people. She has also taken to wearing a mask which reads "Indigenous Lives Matter".

KHARTOUM (Reuters) - More than 1,000 anti-government protesters demonstrated in and around Sudan’s capital Khartoum on Thursday, witnesses said, the first rallies since emergency courts were set up nationwide on Tuesday to combat more than two months of unrest. Security forces fired tear gas at about 400 protesters at Omdurman Grand Market, in Khartoum’s twin city across the Nile, witnesses said. The protesters, who are calling for an end to Bashir’s 30-year-rule, chanted “Down, that’s it”. The protests, initially over high bread prices, have taken place nearly every day since Dec. 19 and have developed into the most sustained challenge that Bashir has faced. Security forces have responded with tear gas and sometimes live fire. At least 33 people have been killed, according to official statistics, including three security personnel. Protesters believe the true death toll is significantly higher. Bashir, who came to power in a 1989 Islamist-backed military coup, declared a nationwide state of emergency last Friday and sacked state governors, replacing them with military and security officials. On Monday, he issued a raft of edicts banning unlicensed public gatherings and awarding tough new powers to police. Emergency courts and prosecutors were also established across every Sudanese state on Tuesday. Security forces can now search any building, restrict movement of people and public transport, arrest individuals suspected of a crime related to the state of emergency and seize assets or property during investigations. There was a noticeable increase in the spread of protests across Khartoum on Thursday. Demonstrators were apparently galvanized by a call from the Sudanese Professionals’ Association, which has emerged as the main protests organizer, to challenge the emergency courts’ establishment. About 250 people protested on Sahafa Zalat Street, one of the capital’s main arteries. Police fired tear gas after several demonstrators tried to block off side streets using stones and burning tires to prevent security forces from chasing them. The protesters chanted “Revolution is the people’s choice” and other slogans and some carried Sudanese flags. Women ululated as some passing cars honked at them in support. In the east of the capital, police fired tear gas at some 250 protesters on Sitteen Street, an upscale area, witnesses said. Police also confronted dozens of protesters in Khartoum’s poor area of Al-Daim and the Shambat neighborhood of Khartoum North with tear gas, witnesses said. In Shambat, people stood for a moment of silence for the victims of Wednesday’s train crash in Cairo that killed at least 22. Hundreds of protesters also gathered at several other parts of Khartoum and Omdurman. Bashir has blamed the protests on foreign “agents” and challenged his rivals to seek power through elections. (This story corrects to say first rallies since the establishment of emergency courts, not since emergency powers were announced) Reporting by Khalid Abdelaziz; Writing by Yousef Saba; Editing by Angus MacSwan Copyright 2019 Reuters

Meetings on Tiananmen Square massacre and Hong Kong crisis were taken down because Communist government complained. Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Lee Cheuk-Yan gives the ‘five demands, not one less’ hand sign. Zoom has admitted it disrupted activists’ meetings at the behest of the Chinese government. Photograph: Kin Cheung/AP Zoom has admitted it suspended the accounts of human rights activists at the behest of the Chinese government and suggested it will block any further meetings that Beijing complains are illegal. On Thursday the video conferencing platform was accused of disrupting or shutting down the accounts of three activists who held online events relating to the Tiananmen Square massacre anniversary or discussing the crisis in Hong Kong. None were given an explanation by Zoom. Following media reports, late on Thursday Zoom said it had been contacted by the Chinese government in May and early June about four Zoom meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre that were being publicised on social media. “The Chinese government informed us that this activity is illegal in China and demanded that Zoom terminate the meetings and host accounts,” it said. “We did not provide any user information or meeting content to the Chinese government. We do not have a backdoor that allows someone to enter a meeting without being visible.” The statement raises questions about Zoom bowing to Chinese pressure. Unlike many Western social media platforms, it is not blocked in China. The company did not explain under what law the meetings – which were hosted outside mainland China – were deemed to be illegal. Zoom said it had no ability to block participants from particular countries and so it ended three of the meetings and suspended or terminated the associated host accounts. Zoom said it took no action for one meeting because metadata showed it had no participants from mainland China, however two of the others had a “significant number of mainland China participants”. It is unclear why the company would shut down the accounts of Zoom users based in the US and in Hong Kong. The account of Zhou Fengsuo, a Chinese activist based in the US, was shut down days after he hosted a memorial for the Tiananmen crackdown. Lee Cheuk-Yan, a pro-democracy campaigner in Hong Kong who organises a yearly Tiananmen vigil, saw his account shut down just before hosting an event on a controversial extradition law that caused mass anti-government protests in the city for the last year. Lee said Zoom’s response was “shameful” and accused it of “political censorship”. “They have restored my account but Zoom continues to kneel before the Communist party,” he said. “My purpose on opening Zoom is to reach out to mainland Chinese, breaking the censorship of the Chinese Communist party. With this policy it defeats my original purpose.” He said he had closed his account and requested a refund. Wang Dan, another activist whose Zoom event on 3 June to commemorate the anniversary of the 4 June Tiananmen crackdown was shut down twice, said: “The Chinese communist party is actively attacking democracy around the world. They have already started to intervene in the social system and way of life in the US. The whole world should be on alert.” Wang said Zoom’s statement did not absolve the company from responsibility for infringing on the “rights and interests” of citizens in the US where the company is based. “We will continue to seek the support of the law and public opinion, and ask zoom to take responsibility for its own wrong behaviour,” he said. Because Zoom is not blocked in China it has been used by some activists who want to reach those on the mainland. Wang and Lee’s events were both hosted outside of mainland China. Zoom said it would no longer allow requests from Beijing to impact anyone outside of mainland China, however it was developing ways to block people from inside the country. The new measure “will enable us to comply with requests from local authorities when they determine activity on our platform is illegal within their borders”, it said. “However we will also be able to protect these conversations for participants outside of those borders where the activity is allowed.” “We hope that one day, governments who build barriers to disconnect their people from the world and each other will recognise that they are acting against their own interests, as well as the rights of their citizens and all humanity.” On Friday, Hua Chunying, spokeswoman for China’s ministry of foreign affairs, told reporters at a regular press briefing that she was not aware of the details of the case. US lawmakers and human rights groups have condemned Zoom. US representatives Greg Walden and Cathy McMorris Rodgers sent a letter to Zoom CEO Eric Yuan calling on him to clarify his company’s practices. US senator Josh Hawley asked Yuan to “pick a side: American principles and free-speech, or short-term global profits and censorship”. Yaqiu Wang, China researcher for Human Rights Watch said: “Laws in China are often abusive and don’t comply with international human rights standards. Yet tech companies have a responsibility to respect human rights.” “Tech companies should stand together to resist Beijing’s censorship demands and uphold the right to freedom of expression. Otherwise, the grovelling will never end,” she said.

Decades after the 1994 genocide, the countries have contested the wording of a UN resolution to remember its victims. As the bodies piled up in the streets of Rwanda 26 years ago, no amount of spin could disguise the crime. There were no sealed camps; the massacres were in broad daylight. Yet in the UN security council the UK and US governments avoided the question of mass killing and saw only a civil war. This bolstered arguments that nothing – they thought – could be done. It was scandalous, the Czech Republic’s ambassador Karel Kovanda told them, not to recognise that a genocide reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust was under way. Kovanda remembers a friendly arm taking him aside as UK diplomats told him such inflammatory language outside the council would be “unhelpful”. At the end of April 1994, with the death toll estimated at 200,000 people the US insisted the UN’s mission in Rwanda be withdrawn, while the UK suggested a token force could remain. Their focus was on former Yugoslavia, where UN troops were recently reinforced and where more peacekeepers served than in the rest of the world. The force commander of the UN mission for Rwanda, lieutenant general Roméo Dallaire, concluded that by their selfish actions in the council, the UK and US had aided and abetted genocide. That the genocide of the Tutsi proceeded unhindered, accompanied by near universal indifference, is a scandal largely ignored. But it is worth recalling today because, all these years later, the US and UK are again at odds over the word genocide and this time with the membership of the general assembly. In a resolution (74/273), adopted by consensus in the general assembly on 20 April, the wording to enshrine an international day to commemorate the victims of the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi was changed. The International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Rwandan Genocide became more specific, and 7 April became a day to commemorate the genocide “against the Tutsi” in Rwanda. Afterwards, the UK and US expressed reservations in letters to the president of the general assembly. The phrase “genocide against the Tutsi”, the US ambassador Kelly Craft complained, failed to capture “the magnitude” of the violence against “other groups” and left “an incomplete picture of this dark part of history”. She wrote: “Many Hutu and others were also killed during the genocide, including those murdered for their opposition to the atrocities that were being committed.” A letter from the UK chargé d’affaires, Jonathan Allen, objected to the “framing of the genocide purely as the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi”, seemingly hinting at two genocides. One sentence avoided the word genocide: “The UK remembers the tragic events in April 1994 and is firmly committed to ensuring that such atrocities never happen again.” An angry response from the Rwandan ambassador to the UN, Valentine Rugwabiza, accused them of distorting historical facts. While both pointed to other victims, these people were not killed in a genocide. Only one group was the target of extermination. This was the case when past genocides in history were commemorated. The UN had officially recognised the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi, she reminded them, and the council had established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to prosecute those responsible. The tribunal’s appeals chamber had affirmed that genocide committed against the Tutsi was “beyond any dispute and not requiring any proof”. As the Rwandan ambassador predicted, and unusually for internal UN correspondence, there was interest in the UK and US letters from outside the secretariat. They circulated among genocide deniers, their supporters and acolytes, who claimed misgivings clearly existed at the highest levels, throwing into doubt the “official narrative”. The Hutu Power movement had for years tried to prove moral equivalence – that all sides were guilty in a bloody civil war, and the killing of Tutsi resulted from a spontaneous uprising of angry Hutu. In their trials at the ICTR, the perpetrators had claimed a second genocide of Hutu happened and was the subject of an international cover-up. One of the oldest claims in the Hutu Power disinformation handbook, it was dismissed by Human Rights Watch in 1994 as a smokescreen to distract foreign attention from the genocide of the Tutsi. Today, the Hutu Power movement still tries to prove that each “side” was as murderous as the other and that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) had slaughtered “hundreds of thousands of Hutu”. No doubts exist that there were thousands of Hutu deaths. At the outset, Hutu Power eliminated the political opposition, killing all those against their racist anti-Tutsi ideology. Hutu were killed in the civil war and no one ever denied retributive killings by soldiers of Paul Kagame’s RPF who defeated the army of the genocidal Hutu Power government. Many RPF soldiers had entered the country to find the bodies of their Tutsi families. For those who liberated their country 26 years ago, the attitudes in the letters were reminiscent of those on display in 1994. The council had fixated on the civil war taking place simultaneously with the genocide of the Tutsi. But continually calling for a ceasefire, ambassador Kovanda told them, was like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews. The 1948 Genocide Convention provides a legal requirement to prevent and punish the crime and enshrines the “never again” promise. After the Holocaust there was a realisation that state-sanctioned racist policies against specific groups inevitably led to mass slaughter, the victims chosen purely because they were members of the target group. No greater example exists of the discrepancy between promise and performance, between abiding by an international treaty and ignoring it. In three terrible months in Rwanda, more than one million people were murdered. That Britain and the United States continue to find it difficult to commemorate a clear case of genocide has inevitably led to speculation they find it difficult to acknowledge their own past error. • Linda Melvern is a British investigative journalist. Her latest book is Intent to Deceive: Denying the Genocide of the Tutsi Originally published by The Guardian on July 7, 2020 © 2020 Guardian Media Group

Call for other African countries to reopen for refugees, after crossings were shut to stem the spread of coronavirus Uganda has temporarily opened its border to thousands of people fleeing deadly ethnic clashes in neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The Ugandan government closed its reception centres at border crossings in March in an attempt to slow the spread of the coronavirus. But last week President Yoweri Museveni instructed the minister of relief, disaster preparedness and refugees to provide asylum to an estimated 10,000 men, women and children who have been stuck in no-man’s land between the two countries since late May, after fleeing violence. Dozens of people are reported to have been killed and thousands displaced by recent clashes in Ituri province in eastern DRC. Gerald Menya, commissioner for refugees at the prime minister’s office, told the Guardian: “In the next three, four or five days they [the refugees] should be arriving in Uganda. Right now, arrangements are being made to receive them. We are not simply bringing them into Uganda. We shall take all the necessary health precautions.” All the refugees will be tested for Covid-19 and quarantined, he said. Duniya Aslam Khan, of the UN refugee agency in Uganda, said it is working with the government, local authorities and aid groups to set up a quarantine facility and testing centre near the border with DRC. Following the mandatory quarantine period of 14 days, the asylum seekers will be relocated to existing refugee settlements, Khan said. To date, 49 refugees have tested positive for Covid-19 out of the 797 confirmed cases in Uganda. Another 304 refugees remain in quarantine across 18 refugee settlements. At least five refugees have recovered from the virus. According to UNHCR statistics, Uganda hosts more than 1.4 million refugees, mainly from neighbouring South Sudan, DRC and Burundi, which has strained already overstretched resources. The coronavirus is an added pressure, said Khan. “While funding for the response in Uganda was already inadequate to address the basic needs of asylum seekers and refugees, the direct and indirect needs triggered by Covid-19 have posed additional financial challenges in providing protection and assistance to the 1.4 million refugees in Uganda,” she said. “International support is urgently needed to help Uganda step up services both for refugees and for local communities – who face an equal risk of contracting and transmitting the virus.” In April, the UN World Food Programme announced a 30% cut in food rations to refugees in Uganda due to a funding shortfall. On Monday, a coalition of 39 international and refugee-led organisations across Africa called on governments to reopen borders for anyone seeking asylum during the pandemic. Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Somalia also closed their borders in March. Dismas Nkunda, executive director of Atrocities Watch Africa, welcomed Uganda’s decision. “They [refugees] are trying to find a safe place to live but the Covid-19 pandemic made Uganda close its borders,” he said. “Covid-19 or no Covid-19, seeking asylum is the most important thing for someone fearing for their lives.” Source: The Guardian

(Reuters) - Facebook has objected to a request from Gambia, which has accused Myanmar at the World Court of genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority, to release posts and communications by members of Myanmar’s military and police. The social media giant urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday to reject the demand, which it said would violate a U.S. law that bars electronic communication services from disclosing users’ communications. Facebook (FB.O) said the request, made in June, for the release of “all documents and communications” by key military officials and police forces was “extraordinarily broad” and would constitute “special and unbounded access” to accounts. Gambia Attorney General Dawda Jallow told Reuters he was being briefed on the issue but could not yet comment. The case before the United Nations’ International Court of Justice in The Hague accuses Myanmar of violating the 1948 U.N. Convention on Genocide. Myanmar authorities say they were battling an insurgency and deny carrying out systematic atrocities. More than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims fled Myanmar’s Rakhine state in August 2017 after a military crackdown that refugees said including mass killings and rape. Rights groups documented killings of civilians and burning of villages. In 2018, U.N. human rights investigators said Facebook had played a key role in spreading hate speech that had fuelled the violence. Facebook has said it is working to block hate speech. On Thursday, a spokesperson said Facebook “stands against hate and violence, including in Myanmar”. “We support action against international crimes and are working with the appropriate authorities as they investigate these issues,” the spokesperson said. The company said it was working with the U.N. Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar, an investigative body that will support any future prosecution in international courts. The ICJ, commonly known as the World Court, accepts cases between states. The suit was brought by Gambia with the backing of a group of Muslim countries. © 2020 Reuters. All Rights Reserved.

Evan Gershkovich in court in Yekaterinburg on 26 June before his trial. Photograph: AP A Russian court has found the American journalist Evan Gershkovich guilty of espionage and sentenced him to 16 years in prison, after a trial widely described as a sham. Earlier on Friday, the prosecution asked for an 18-year jail term for the Wall Street Journal correspondent. Gershkovich, 32, has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty during a closed session of the trial on Friday. The trial has been concluded with unusual haste, raising hopes of a prisoner swap involving the journalist. Gershkovich was arrested while reporting in the Urals city of Yekaterinburg last March, becoming the first US journalist since the cold war to be accused of spying in Russia. He has been held in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo prison, but was returned to Yekaterinburg for trial. Moscow says Gershkovich was collecting secret information about Russia’s military capacities on the orders of the CIA, a claim he, the Wall Street Journal and the US state department have dismissed as ludicrous. He had been granted official accreditation to work as a journalist by the Russian foreign ministry. “Even as Russia orchestrates its shameful sham trial, we continue to do everything we can to push for Evan’s immediate release,” the Wall Street Journal said on Thursday. The US embassy in Moscow said: “Regardless of what Russian authorities claim, Evan is a journalist. He did not commit any illegal actions. Russian authorities have been unable to provide evidence that he committed a crime or justification for Evan’s continued detention.” The trial was held behind closed doors, which is common in espionage cases. Journalists were allowed briefly into the courtroom when the hearings began last month. Gershkovich, with his head shaved under Russian regulations, smiled and nodded from the defendants’ glass box. The media congregate in court in preparation for the verdict on Evan Gershkovich. Photograph: EPA Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claimed on Wednesday that Moscow had “irrefutable evidence” Gershkovich was involved in espionage, but gave no details. Russian authorities have made nothing public that would suggest guilt, and many see the arrest as an attempt to use jailed Americans as bargaining chips in an exchange for Russian intelligence operatives and assassins held in western jails. The speed of the case, with this week’s hearings brought forward by more than a month and the prosecution racing through witness testimony in one afternoon, may indicate that a long-discussed swap deal is close. Russia usually concludes court proceedings in such instances before a swap. Vladimir Putin, in an interview in February with the US broadcaster Tucker Carlson, said discussions on a swap were under way. “The special services are in contact with one another. They are talking … I believe an agreement can be reached,” the president said. He hinted that Russia would like to exchange Gershkovich for Vadim Krasikov, who is serving time in a German jail for assassinating a Chechen exile in Berlin in 2019. © 2024 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.